# Russia completes Crimea annexation



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 21, 2014)

Thank God we have a president like Obama in this  situation.  With his charisma, strong leadership and negotiating  skills, he will have Putin eating out of his hand.  Obama drove the  Russians out of Georgia in 2009 when he cautioned BOTH sides to exercise restraint, he stopped the missile defense plan in  Poland in order to promote peace in Europe.  I am  confident that Obama will not interfere with the affairs between Russia  and Ukraine as well.  If North Korea decides to reunite with the south, I  am also confident that he will work the new government under President  Kim Jong Un to promote peace and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula as  well.  We are fortunate to have a strong leader like B. Hussein Obama during such turbulent times.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-demand...37-44a4-af6d-d2c92e2f1429&_profileOut=comment


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 22, 2014)

You do realize that the people of Crimea actually wanted to become part of Russia, right?


----------



## hoyle21 (Mar 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You do realize that the people of Crimea actually wanted to become part of Russia, right?



Only 98% of Crimea wants to be part of Russia according to the vote.   To hell with democracy, we gotta save face.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2014)

it was our own govt., the CIA who was behind the protests that got rid of the democratically elected president of Ukraine starting a shit storm over there. now it all backfired with Russia taking a part of Ukraine.  it all can be traced back to our foreign policy of interventionism.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You do realize that the people of Crimea actually wanted to become part of Russia, right?



This is the most important part. Almost all Crimean people are ethnic Russians. What's happening is a Civil war / split, and Russian is simply allowing a part to join Russia. 

To have the USA president -- Obama or otherwise -- talk about how Russia shouldn't meddle in a civil war just reeks -- _reeks_ -- of hypocrisy. Don't get me wrong, I love my country and think that, overall, it's the best on the planet, but we're being ragingly hypocritical on this matter.

The truth is that many of the old Soviet countries have done nothing but suffer since the fall of the Soviet Union. Now, many of them are looking back fondly of that era. We're going to see more countries willingly join with Russia.


----------



## charley (Mar 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it was our own govt., the CIA who was behind the protests that got rid of the democratically elected president of Ukraine starting a shit storm over there. now it all backfired with Russia taking a part of Ukraine.  it all can be traced back to our foreign policy of interventionism.




..Our intervention in other countries politics is the root cause, it's ok we invade Iraq, so why can't Russia invade Crimea ???  I wish we would work on rebuilding America, our schools, bridges,highways and let other countries sort it out for themselves, the only people that advantage from our interventions are the corporations & oil companies.


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You do realize that the people of Crimea actually wanted to become part of Russia, right?



The switch to democracy and capitalism in a lot of eastern European country's has been less then ideal.  There is a lot of divide between the generations due to the lack of economic growth.  A lot of the older people feel things were better under communism.

I think the GDP of that country is only like 4B, with a couple million people with most of that of course going to the top.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2014)

charley said:


> ..Our intervention in other countries politics is the root cause, it's ok we invade Iraq, so why can't Russia invade Crimea ???  I wish we would work on rebuilding America, our schools, bridges,highways and let other countries sort it out for themselves, the only people that advantage from our interventions are the corporations & oil companies.



Russia isn't invading anyone.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2014)

LAM said:


> The switch to democracy and capitalism in a lot of eastern European country's has been less then ideal.  There is a lot of divide between the generations due to the lack of economic growth.  A lot of the older people feel things were better under communism.
> 
> I think the GDP of that country is only like 4B, with a couple million people with most of that of course going to the top.




Why the Nostalgia for an Old Communist Economy?

https://mises.org/daily/6697/Why-the-Nostalgia-for-an-Old-Communist-Economy


----------



## charley (Mar 22, 2014)

DOMS said:


> Russia isn't invading anyone.




 I should of wrote 'Russia visits Crimea'..  maybe for a weekend sleepover.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 22, 2014)

This is a tough one. On the one hand, it does look like a land grab with Putin ultimately wanting to rebuild the Russian empire. On the other hand, the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russian and voted to secceed and unite with Russia. The US, EU, and china just don't want to see Russia having the same level of control and influence over Eastern Europe as it did during the Cold War. Therefore, theyre calling the annexation an illegal land grab. It looks like we won't know the true agenda until Russia starts moving further into the eastern part of Ukraine and possibly messing with Georgia or Estonia. 

Anyone know how to say "12 months" in Estonian?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4R0oXjIzOx4


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2014)

charley said:


> I should of wrote 'Russia visits Crimea'..  maybe for a weekend sleepover.



Or...you can go with facts and say, "Crimea chose to join Russia." 

Too obvious?


----------



## charley (Mar 22, 2014)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Anyone know how to say "12 months" in Estonian?
> 
> kaksteist kuud   or    12 kuud


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2014)

Swiper said:


> Why the Nostalgia for an Old Communist Economy?
> 
> https://mises.org/daily/6697/Why-the-Nostalgia-for-an-Old-Communist-Economy



It's not nostalgia just a fact, I've done some traveling there also.  Many Eastern European country's haven't fared very well but their independence also came at a bad time as the western country's in the OECD were just starting to financialize their economy's and they have not the experience to defend themselves from economic exploitation.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm sure we'd be totally cool with upper Michigan joining Canada if they wanted to. No biggie.


----------



## malk (Mar 23, 2014)

Swiper said:


> it was our own govt., the CIA who was behind the protests that got rid of the democratically elected president of Ukraine starting a shit storm over there. now it all backfired with Russia taking a part of Ukraine.  it all can be traced back to our foreign policy of interventionism.



Cia behind protests lol,,more like putins henchhmen,,,all the events leading up to now were
Quick and all pre planned by russia imo.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2014)

GearsMcGilf said:


> This is a tough one. On the one hand, it does look like a land grab with Putin ultimately wanting to rebuild the Russian empire. On the other hand, the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russian and voted to secceed and unite with Russia. The US, EU, and china just don't want to see Russia having the same level of control and influence over Eastern Europe as it did during the Cold War. Therefore, theyre calling the annexation an illegal land grab. It looks like we won't know the true agenda until Russia starts moving further into the eastern part of Ukraine and possibly messing with Georgia or Estonia.
> 
> Anyone know how to say "12 months" in Estonian?
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4R0oXjIzOx4



The eastern Ukrainians want to be part of Russia, as well.  Calling it a land grab or annexation is simply political rhetoric to get the easily panicked people worked up into a lather and ready to send the military over there to keep us in a perpetual state of war.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sure we'd be totally cool with upper Michigan joining Canada if they wanted to. No biggie.



If they wanted to, why not?  Go to war with another country to prevent people from exercising their free will?


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

Originally Posted by *bio-chem* 

 
                 I'm sure we'd be totally cool with upper Michigan joining Canada if they wanted to. No biggie.





Zaphod said:


> If they wanted to, why not?  Go to war with another country to prevent people from exercising their free will?



This issue was decided during the Civil War.
620k+ Americans died.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html

*Civil War Casualties*

*The Cost of War: Killed, Wounded, Captured, and Missing
*

           The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict.  The unprecedented  violence of battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River, and  Gettysburg shocked citizens and international observers alike.  Nearly  as many men died in captivity during the Civil War as were killed in the  whole of the Vietnam War.  Hundreds of thousands died of disease.   Roughly 2% of the population, *an estimated 620,000 men*,  lost their lives in the line of duty.  Taken as a percentage of today's  population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls. 







*The Numbers Illustrated*

  The human cost of the Civil War was beyond anybody's expectations.   The young nation experienced bloodshed of a magnitude that has not been  equaled since by any other American conflict. 
*Military Deaths in American Wars*





  The numbers of Civil War dead were not equaled by the combined toll  of other American conflicts until the War in Vietnam.  Some believe the  number is as high as 850,000.  The Civil War Trust does not agree with this claim.
*Civil War Battle Casualties*





 New military technology combined with old-fashioned tactical doctrine  to produce a scale of battle casualties unprecedented in American  history.
*Civil War Service by Population*





  Even with close to total conscription, the South could not match the  North's numerical strength.  Southerners also stood a significantly  greater chance of being killed, wounded, or captured.
*Confederate Military Deaths by State*





 This chart and the one below are based on research done by Provost  Marshal General James Fry in 1866.  His estimates for Southern states  were based on Confederate muster rolls--many of which were destroyed  before he began his study--and many historians have disputed the  results.  The estimates for Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, South  Carolina, and Arkansas have been updated to reflect more recent  scholarship. 
*Union Military Deaths by State*





 Given the relatively complete preservation of Northern records, Fry's  examination of Union deaths is far more accurate than his work in the  South.  Note the mortal threat that soldiers faced from disease.
*Casualties of War*





    There were an estimated 1.5 million casualties reported during the Civil War.  

 A "casualty" is a military person lost through death, wounds, injury,  sickness, internment, capture, or through being missing in action.   "Casualty" and "fatality" are not interchangeable terms--*death is only one of the ways that a soldier can become a casualty.  *In  practice, officers would usually be responsible for recording  casualties that occured within their commands.  If a soldier was unable  to perform basic duties due to one of the above conditions, the soldier  would be considered a casualty.  This means that one soldier could be  marked as a casualty several times throughout the course of the war.
 Most casualties and deaths in the Civil War were the result of  non-combat-related disease.  For every three soldiers killed in battle,  five more died of disease.  The primitive nature of Civil War medicine,  both in its intellectual underpinnings and in its practice in the  armies, meant that many wounds and illnesses were unnecessarily fatal. 
 Our modern conception of casualties includes those who have been  psychologically damaged by warfare.  This distinction did not exist  during the Civil War.  Soldiers suffering from what we would now  recognize as post-traumatic stress disorder were uncataloged and uncared  for. 
*Consequences*





    The Battle of Gettysburg left approximately 7,000  corpses in the fields around the town.  Family members had to come to  the battlefield to find their loved ones in the carnage.  (Library of  Congress)  

 Approximately one in four soldiers that went to war never returned  home.  At the outset of the war, neither army had mechanisms in place to  handle the amount of death that the nation was about to experience.   There were no national cemeteries, no burial details, and no messengers  of loss.  The largest human catastrophe in American history, the Civil  War forced the young nation to confront death and destruction in a way  that has not been equalled before or since.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2014)

I know how bloody the Civil War was.  My point is that Crimea and Ukraine are not part of the US and if they choose to become part of Russia it's no business of ours to force our will on them simply to spite Russia and keep us in a war.  As far as a US state ceding from the US, same thing, that is the will of that state or part of a state.  Should the Civil War have been fought?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  We know the history but not all of the details that brought on a war.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 23, 2014)

malk said:


> Cia behind protests lol,,more like putins henchhmen,,,all the events leading up to now were
> Quick and all pre planned by russia imo.



do some research on the CIA and you'll come to that convulsion as well.  it's the US who wanted the democratically elected pro Russian president out of office so we can have our own puppet to control in Ukraine.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I know how bloody the Civil War was.  My point is that Crimea and Ukraine are not part of the US and if they choose to become part of Russia it's no business of ours to force our will on them simply to spite Russia and keep us in a war.  As far as a US state ceding from the US, same thing, that is the will of that state or part of a state.  Should the Civil War have been fought?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  We know the history but not all of the details that brought on a war.




I disagree that the situation of Crimea, Ukraine and Russia are the same as the situation of the American Civil War when it comes to the question of succession.

As to Russia, not too long ago there was a Russian empire called the Soviet Union.
We shall see if the recent activity in Crimea is the opening move by Russia to reestablish that empire.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

Swiper said:


> do some research on the CIA and you'll come to that convulsion as well.  it's the US who wanted the democratically elected pro Russian president out of office so we can have our own puppet to control in Ukraine.



It's more complex than that.
It's related to the history of Western Ukraine.
The people in Western Ukraine are not ethnic Russians.
Those were the ones that were protesting in Kiev against Ukrainian stronger ties with Russia.
They do not identify themselves as ethnic Russians and they wanted no part of any agreement that would have created stronger ties between Ukraine and Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ukraine

Unlike the rest of Ukraine, most of Western Ukraine was never part of the Russian empire

During elections voters of Western (and Central Ukrainian) oblasts (provinces) vote mostly for parties (Our Ukraine, Batkivshchyna)[SUP][20][/SUP] and presidential candidates (Viktor Yuschenko, Yulia Tymoshenko) with a pro-Western and state reform platform.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 23, 2014)

[h=2]Putins Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 2005[/h]  I would like to bring those who think this way back to reality, to the facts. To do so, I will recall once more Russia&#146;s most recent history.
*Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.* As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups &#150; possessing absolute control over information channels &#150; served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.But they were mistaken.That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life. In those difficult years, the people of Russia had to both uphold their state sovereignty and make an unerring choice in selecting a new vector of development in the thousand years of their history. They had to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values, not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state.When speaking of justice, I am not of course referring to the notorious "take away and divide by all" formula, but extensive and equal opportunities for everybody to develop. Success for everyone. A better life for all

here's the link with all of the address: http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/04/25/2031_type70029type82912_87086.shtml​


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

This antagonism between Russia and Ukraine goes back much further than recent events.
They once fought a war against each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian–Soviet_War

The *Ukrainian&#150;Soviet War*[SUP][2][/SUP] of 1917&#150;21 (Ukrainian: Українсько-радянська війна) was a civil war between the Ukrainian People's Republic and pro-Bolshevik forces for the control of Ukraine after the dissolution of the Russian Empire, as well as a theater of the ongoing Russian Civil War.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

HFO3 said:


> *Putins Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 2005*
> 
> I would like to bring those who think this way back to reality, to the facts. To do so, I will recall once more Russia&#146;s most recent history.
> *Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.* As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups &#150; possessing absolute control over information channels &#150; served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.But they were mistaken.That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life. In those difficult years, the people of Russia had to both uphold their state sovereignty and make an unerring choice in selecting a new vector of development in the thousand years of their history. They had to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values, not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state.When speaking of justice, I am not of course referring to the notorious "take away and divide by all" formula, but extensive and equal opportunities for everybody to develop. Success for everyone. A better life for all
> ...



Some of the elements of that speech align with some of the speeches by Adolph Hitler and Nazi Party Propaganda to justify the Nazi Germany takeover of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Rhineland prior to WW2.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

George Santayana


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

History repeats its-self

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212881/annex.html

Hitler then marched soldiers into the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland right after hosting the Winter Olympic Games. 
More information on this takeover can be found at the Nazi Olympics page.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 23, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Some of the elements of that speech align with some of the speeches by Adolph Hitler and Nazi Party Propaganda to justify the Nazi Germany takeover of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the Rhineland prior to WW2.




exactly, as do Putins actions. Just like Hitler, he is going to see how far he can push until someone stops him.


----------



## malk (Mar 23, 2014)

Swiper said:


> do some research on the CIA and you'll come to that convulsion as well.  it's the US who wanted the democratically elected pro Russian president out of office so we can have our own puppet to control in Ukraine.



I don't think putin wiil care too much,he will do what he pleases even if it means incursions into Ukraine,,
the west will do nothing.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/o...ussia-without-illusions.html?hpw&rref=opinion

[h=1]Russia Without Illusions[/h]                                            MARCH 22, 2014 






 
                Ross Douthat              

Continue reading the main story 


             SINCE the end of the Cold War, America&#146;s policy toward Russia has been shaped by two dangerous illusions.
The  first was the conceit that with the right incentives, eyes-to-soul  presidential connections and diplomatic reset buttons, Russia could  become what we think of, in our cheerfully solipsistic way, as a &#147;normal  country&#148; &#151; at peace with the basic architecture of an American-led  world order, invested in international norms and institutions, content  with its borders and focused primarily on its G.D.P. Not the old Russian  bear, and not an &#147;Upper Volta with rockets&#148; basket case, but a stable,  solid-enough global citizen &#151; Poland with an Asian hinterland, Italy  with nukes.


The  second illusion was the idea that with the Cold War over, we could  treat Russia&#146;s near abroad as a Western sphere of influence in the  making &#151; with NATO expanding ever eastward, traditional Russian  satellites swinging into our orbit, and Moscow isolated or acquiescent.  As went the Baltic States, in this theory, so eventually would go  Ukraine and Georgia, until everything west and south of Russia was one  military alliance, and its western neighbors were all folded into the  European Union as well.
On  the surface, these ideas were in tension: One was internationalist and  the other neoconservative; one sought partnership with Russia and the  other to effectively encircle it. But there was also a deep congruity,  insofar as both assumed that limitations on Western influence had fallen  away, and a post-Cold War program could advance smoothly whether the  Russians decided to get with it or not. 


Now both ideas should be abandoned. After Crimea, as Anne Applebaum wrote  last week, it&#146;s clear that Putin&#146;s Russia &#147;is not a flawed Western  power,&#148; but &#147;an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of  global politics.&#148; It may not be America&#146;s No. 1 geopolitical problem, as  a certain former candidate for president suggested.  (Don&#146;t sleep on the Chinese.) But it is a geopolitical threat &#151; a  revisionist, norm-violating power &#151; to a greater extent than any recent  administration has been eager to accept.


But  at the same time, after Crimea there should also be fewer illusions  about the West&#146;s ability to dictate outcomes in Russia&#146;s near abroad.  Twice in this era &#151; in Georgia in 2008 and now in Ukraine &#151; Russian  troops have crossed alleged red lines in conflicts with countries that  felt they had some sort of Western protection: Ukraine through the 1994 Budapest Memorandum,  which supposedly guaranteed its territorial integrity, and Georgia  because of our support for its potential entry into NATO. And in both  cases the limits of Western power have been laid bare &#151; the  disorganization and disunity of &#147;European&#148; foreign policy, and the fact  that even the most bellicose U.S. politicians aren&#146;t ready to say that  South Ossetia or Simferopol is worth the bones of a single American  Marine.
What&#146;s  needed, after these illusions, is a more realistic assessment of both  Russian intentions (which are plainly more malign than the Obama  administration wanted to believe) and Western leverage (which is more  limited than Obama&#146;s hawkish critics would like to think).


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 23, 2014)

Bowden, those are staggering numbers for the civil war, good post


----------



## malk (Mar 23, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26704205


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 23, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> If they wanted to, why not?  Go to war with another country to prevent people from exercising their free will?



I fully see that there are and of right should be two sides regarding what the US role in dealing with Putin internationally should be. I think healthy debate is fine and should be sought out. I think it's ridiculous to think that it should be no big deal for Crimea to leave the Ukraine however. With this annexation Ukraine lost it's only sub, and 2 military bases. 

To think the US would easily give up it's territory, resources, and military assets to another country because of a vote by a few people is pretty asinine.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 23, 2014)

malk said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26704205



[h=1]Nato warns of Russian army build-up on Ukraine border[/h]Previous


[*=center]Latest
[*=center]Base stormed
[*=center]UK warning
[*=center]Next Crimea?
[*=center]Sanctions: Targets
[*=center]Timeline
Next






Ukrainian troops are stationed on the border with Russia, in smaller numbers
Continue reading the main story[h=2]Ukraine crisis[/h]

Navy base falls
The sanctions
The next Crimea?
Putin's speech


*Nato's military commander in Europe has issued a warning about the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine's border.*
Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen Philip Breedlove said Nato was in particular concerned about the threat to Moldova's Trans-Dniester region.
Russia said its forces east of Ukraine complied with international agreements.
The build-up has been allied with Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, following the removal of Ukraine's pro-Moscow president.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia warned that the risk of war with Russia was growing.
"The problem is with (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is that he doesn't want to talk to - not only to the Ukrainian government - but also to the Western leaders," Mr Deshchytsia told the BBC.






The Russian ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, has said that Russia did not have any "expansionist views"

"And this is quite a danger for the decision-making process. We could only expect that he might invade."
Meanwhile, US Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken said Washington was reviewing every request Ukraine was making for help.
"When it comes to military assistance, we're looking at it," he told CNN.
But he added: "The facts are these: even if assistance were to go to Ukraine, that is very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent any invasion."
President Barack Obama earlier ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine.
Moscow formally annexed Crimea after the predominantly ethnic-Russian region held a referendum which backed joining Russia.
Kiev and the West have condemned the vote as "illegal".




A war memorial in Tiraspol, Trans-Dniester. Nato fears Russian troops could move there quickly
Russian flags have now been hoisted at 189 Ukrainian military units and facilities in Crimea, the Interfax news agency reports.
Moscow's ambassador to the EU told the BBC the "reunification" had not been pre-planned but was the end of an "abnormality" which had lasted for 60 years.
Vladimir Chizhov also said said Moscow did not have any "expansionist views" and that "nobody should fear Russia".
But he warned the US against sending troops or military aid to Ukraine, saying it would be a "grave mistake".
Also on Sunday, Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council chief Andriy Parubiy told a big rally in Kiev: "The aim of [President Vladimir] Putin is not Crimea, but all of Ukraine... His troops massed at the border are ready to attack at any moment."
*'Adversary'*The comments by Gen Breedlove came at an event held by the German Marshall Fund think-tank in Brussels.





He said: "The [Russian] force that is at the Ukrainian border now to the east is very, very sizeable and very, very ready."
He added: "There is absolutely sufficient force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Trans-Dniester if the decision was made to do that and that is very worrisome.
"Russia is acting much more like an adversary than a partner."
Trans-Dniester is a narrow strip of land between the Dniester river and Ukraine's south-western border and it proclaimed independence from Moldova in 1990.
The international community has not recognised its self-declared statehood.
As Crimea was annexed, the Trans-Dniester Supreme Soviet sent a request asking to join the Russian Federation.
Meanwhile, Russia's Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov told the Itar-Tass agency: "The Russian Defence Ministry is in compliance with all international agreements limiting the number of troops in the border areas with Ukraine."
Continue reading the main story[h=2]&#147;Start Quote[/h]*It was quick, well-organised and over before the Ukrainians could fight back; much like Russia's entire takeover of Crimea&#148;*​



*Mark Lowen*BBC News, Novofedorivka base


Crimea base falls

*Bases stormed*Correspondents say Russian forces appear to be stepping up their efforts to secure full military control of all of Crimea.
The BBC's Ian Pannell, in Belbek, says the few remaining Ukrainian troops on the peninsula feel beleaguered and abandoned by their commanders.
He saw Russian troops use stun grenades and automatic weapons in a raid on the Belbek airbase, near Sevastopol, on Saturday.
The BBC's Mark Lowen also witnessed the takeover of the Novofedorivka base in western Crimea by Russian troops.




A big unity rally is being staged in Ukraine's capital Kiev




Pro-Russian men beat an unknown man during the takeover of the Belbek airbase on Saturday




Ukrainian soldiers in Belbek were given an ultimatum to leave the base on Saturday.
Russian soldiers and pro-Russian protesters stormed the base and forced Ukrainian troops to leave.
Russia annexed Crimea following a referendum on 16 March, which came after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February.
The Kremlin said it had acted to protect its "compatriots" in Crimea from "fascists" moving in from the mainland Ukraine.
The US and EU have responded with a series of sanctions targeting those individuals - including senior officials - involved in Crimea's annexation.





*Are you in the region? Email us haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk adding 'Ukraine' in the subject heading and include your contact details.*
*Or send your thoughts using the form below.*

_Send your pictures and videos to *yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to61124 (UK) or +44 7624 800 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.*_


----------



## malk (Mar 23, 2014)

recon a british sub could slam a tomahawk into one of the black sea fleets boats for a good
old lol,then claim it was an accident.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2014)

Bowden said:


> I disagree that the situation of Crimea, Ukraine and Russia are the same as the situation of the American Civil War when it comes to the question of succession.
> 
> As to Russia, not too long ago there was a Russian empire called the Soviet Union.
> We shall see if the recent activity in Crimea is the opening move by Russia to reestablish that empire.



So over 90% of Crimeans wanting to become part of Russia means nothing?  We should stop that?  It was put to a vote and the result speaks for itself.  Or are we going to try to stop democracy, since it doesn't jibe with what we think the Crimeans should do?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I fully see that there are and of right should be two sides regarding what the US role in dealing with Putin internationally should be. I think healthy debate is fine and should be sought out. I think it's ridiculous to think that it should be no big deal for Crimea to leave the Ukraine however. With this annexation Ukraine lost it's only sub, and 2 military bases.
> 
> To think the US would easily give up it's territory, resources, and military assets to another country because of a vote by a few people is pretty asinine.



Over 90% of the Crimeans want Crimea to become part of Russia.  Why should we try to stop them?  It isn't annexation, by the way.  No more than it would be if a Canadian province wanted to become the 51st state of the US.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 24, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I fully see that there are and of right should be two sides regarding what the US role in dealing with Putin internationally should be. I think healthy debate is fine and should be sought out. I think it's ridiculous to think that it should be no big deal for Crimea to leave the Ukraine however. With this annexation Ukraine lost it's only sub, and 2 military bases.
> 
> To think the US would easily give up it's territory, resources, and military assets to another country because of a vote by a few people is pretty asinine.



Canada can have Michigan if they take Detroit.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 24, 2014)

Nobody wants Detroit


----------



## ALBOB (Mar 24, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> Canada can have Michigan if they take Detroit.



You dumbass.  Give them Detroit but keep the rest of the state.  Aside from the Southeast corner, Michigan is a BEAUTIFUL state.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 24, 2014)

[h=1]Don't leave Dearborn in the good ole USA.

City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law[/h]Posted about 5 months ago | 474 comments



[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]119K​


[*=center]

[*=center][COLOR=#04558B !important]*10*[/COLOR]​in[COLOR=#333333 !important][COLOR=#333333 !important]*Share*[/COLOR][/COLOR]​​[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]Email



<NationalReport>In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.
The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.
Some in town seem to welcome the new legislation while others have denounced the move as &#147;abhorrent&#148;, a threat to freedom and incompatible with the Constitution.  When asked by National Report about the need for such a law, local resident Jeremy Ahmed stated:
&#147;It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all his generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilize them to obtain justice. We hope to see other cities taking this action in the face of the governments inaction of passing such legislation&#148;.​Other local residents have taken to social media sites with comments ranging from &#147;praise be to Allah&#148; and &#147;long live Islam&#148; to &#147;RIP Dearborn&#148; and &#147;Only in Obama&#146;s America would an American city consider Sharia Law&#148;.
The city of Dearborn is a well-known safe haven for Muslims and Muslim sympathizers. With a population of around 98 thousand people, roughly 30% of its residence are Muslims making them the largest concentration of Muslims in the United States.
The dangers of Sharia Law in America were first outlined in a 2010 study produced by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) titled &#147;Sharia: The Threat to America&#147;, a 352-page book based on authoritative sources of Islamic law. While sharia includes strict rules for prayer and fasting, it is also an all-encompassing legal and political code that covers all aspects of life including those that have nothing to do with religion.

- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/#sthash.GGN0F1OB.dpuf


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 24, 2014)

HFO3 said:


> [h=1]Don't leave Dearborn in the good ole USA.
> 
> City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law[/h]Posted about 5 months ago | 474 comments
> 
> ...



I've got enough ammo for a few thousand of those assholes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 25, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> Deal but you have to take bieber as well.



You go too far.


----------



## theCaptn' (Mar 25, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I've got enough ammo for a few thousand of those assholes.



I'll fund you more ammo


----------



## maniclion (Mar 25, 2014)

OfficerFarva said:


> Deal but you have to take bieber as well.



If you take Marshall Mathers, we'll throw Bieber on a USO tour to Afghanistan, something might just "happen" to his plane just as he passes over the Paki-Afghan border...


----------



## Curt James (Mar 25, 2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfu65IEEXYU

Lawmakers in Ukraine have accepted the resignation of the country's defense minister as thousands of troops withdraw from the Crimean Peninsula, now controlled by Russia. (March 25)


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Over 90% of the Crimeans want Crimea to become part of Russia.  Why should we try to stop them?  It isn't annexation, by the way.  No more than it would be if a Canadian province wanted to become the 51st state of the US.



That is an asinine comparison. For one thing, we really have no way of knowing if the vote was legitimate or not. After all, neither Jimmy Carter nor John Kerry were there to give it their blessing. Additionally, any province of another country would give anything to become a 51st US state if they had the opportunity. It would be liberation in such a case. 
Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We went over there and discovered that, deep inside every Arab mooslime, there is an American screaming to get out.  They all wanted to be just like us. That's why we now have two thriving, civilized western style democracies in the region.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Over 90% of the Crimeans want Crimea to become part of Russia.  Why should we try to stop them?  It isn't annexation, by the way.  No more than it would be if a Canadian province wanted to become the 51st state of the US.





LAM said:


> It's not nostalgia just a fact, I've done some traveling there also.  Many Eastern European country's haven't fared very well but their independence also came at a bad time as the western country's in the OECD were just starting to financialize their economy's and they have not the experience to defend themselves from economic exploitation.



So, IOW they still needed mother Russia to protect them from the evil capitalists in the west. That explains why N.Korea has faired so much better than the south since the Russians and Chinese helped liberate them from the western imperialists in 1953.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 30, 2014)

Post #42,

I cannot stand islam nor muzzies, but is this actually true?  The Dearborn, MI sharia vote?

I went to the link.

Is this true or a hoax?


----------



## charley (Mar 30, 2014)

[h=1]Dearborn, Michigan Is Under Sharia Law, Says Satirical Website, But City Is Not Amused[/h] 							 							 								 																										 										                                        *The Huffington Post* 										 |  																				 																						 											                                                By Yasmine Hafiz												 													 		 											 											 											 										                                          									 									 														  									 																		Posted: 10/30/2013  5:42 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/31/2013 10:34 am EDT                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   






 









 															 																	 									 	                	 	   																	 									 								 							  							  																										 								 																		                                      									"City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law,"  declared a National Report headline on Monday, causing an uproar on  social media. Over 88,000 people shared the article, and many took  action by calling city hall employees in Dearborn, Michigan, to voice  their outrage. Dearborn is a suburb of Detroit with a large Muslim  population which some say is the second largest Arab population outside of the Middle East.
  However, their indignation was unfounded, as National Report, which  calls itself "America's #1 Independent News Team," is actually a fake  news site a la The Onion, and had posted the article as satire.


The article claimed:

In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of  Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially  implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go  into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics  and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse,  fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.  The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb  amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or  abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law  imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.​  All of their claims were patently false, and unsubstantiated with source links.
  Many readers were extremely upset, however, clearly not getting the  'joke'. Commenter Thelma resorted to caps lock to voice her displeasure,  writing, "Someone needs to step up and challenge this in the courts!  This is TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" Commenter Laura added, "And BTW, this  is a result of the idiot liberalism gripping our country. Get with it  people! Our founding fathers set up a wonderful system. Don&#146;t abandon  it! DEFEND IT with all your might!"
  The one most annoyed with the article was actually the city of Dearborn, Michigan, itself, which sent out a press release titled, "City of Dearborn Not Amused By Falsehood; Sets Record Straight."


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

GearsMcGilf said:


> That is an asinine comparison. For one thing, we really have no way of knowing if the vote was legitimate or not. After all, neither Jimmy Carter nor John Kerry were there to give it their blessing. Additionally, any province of another country would give anything to become a 51st US state if they had the opportunity. It would be liberation in such a case.
> Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We went over there and discovered that, deep inside every Arab mooslime, there is an American screaming to get out.  They all wanted to be just like us. That's why we now have two thriving, civilized western style democracies in the region.



It isn't asinine at all.  The Crimeans WANT to be part of Russia.  Why should they be stopped?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

GearsMcGilf said:


> So, IOW they still needed mother Russia to protect them from the evil capitalists in the west. That explains why N.Korea has faired so much better than the south since the Russians and Chinese helped liberate them from the western imperialists in 1953.



Crimeans want to be part of the wealth from Russia's natural resources.  Oil and natural gas.  Plus, they have more in common with Russians than Ukrainians.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

Big Smoothy said:


> Post #42,
> 
> I cannot stand islam nor muzzies, but is this actually true?  The Dearborn, MI sharia vote?
> 
> ...



No, too many rednecks that would go over there and make Dearborn have the least Arab population in the US.


----------

