[Quinny]

@6

Modern neocons posit that democracies don't go to war with each other, therefore it's our national security interest to always support democracy abroad. And really history shows this as fact -- it really are the crazy nationalist fascist dictators that go and invade places and try to take the Falklands or Crimea or kidnap innocent Japanese / shell random South Korean islanders for the hell of it. Democracies -- like a Belgium or a Canada or a Holland -- don't do that.

Did you really write this!

LMFAO!

[AgentR11]

Well, remember, it is considered 'bad taste' to openly declare war in the US. Instead, we euphemistically decide to authorize the use of force in....

Not war though. Oh no.

[Quinny]

I appreciate your SOH Agent. Although outside influences have exacerbated the situation, there are in-built tensions between the East and West of the country, which don't need us poking our noses in. I fear that Ukraine is so divided I cannot see how it can stay intact in current form. Even if someone tries to work out some kind of devolved power structure the imbalance between the economies of the different parts could easily tear the country apart.

[Sixstrings]

Did you really write this!

LMFAO!

It's true.

Look at the very few annexation attempts within my lifetime:

Argentina, Falkland islands. Iraq, Kuwait. Russia, Crimea.

ALL THREE had hard right nationalist fascist governments.

Argentina:

In the period leading up to the war – and, in particular, following the transfer of power between the military dictators General Jorge Rafael Videla and General Roberto Eduardo Viola late in March 1981 – Argentina had been in the midst of a devastating economic stagnation and large-scale civil unrest against the military junta that had been governing the country since 1976.

By opting for military action, the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_War#Argentine_invasion

Same thing with Putin and Crimea. Just like hard right nationalist fascists in Argentina, we're hearing Putin talk about "the invincible power of patriotism." Argentine leaders played up and stoked and fabricated feelings of "humiliation" that the UK had the falklands, and Putin plays up feelings of "humiliation" over the end of the cold war and loss of Russian empire and glory.

Do you see?? It's the same thing. Hitler, Argentina, Putin, all the nationalist fascists do the same things, all through history. It's cliche it's so predictable. Just like in Argentina, Putin's expansionism is meant to distract Russians from problems at home. Russia is in recession, Argentina was a mess too, so what's a hard right nationalist dictator to do? You get everyone behind the flag and go invade somewhere.

Lastly, Iraq. The baathists weren't religious. They were more akin to a hard right nationalist thing. And sure enough, they did what hard right nationalists do, they invaded and attempted to annex a neighbor.

(quinn, I'm starting to think you're just not aware of history, no first hand knowledge of it or interest in it -- and that you've just read a few books about how awful America is. This is what I see coming out of the old anti-Iraq war left. They are so oddly silent about Russia.)

[AgentR11]

I appreciate your SOH Agent. Although outside influences have exacerbated the situation, there are in-built tensions between the East and West of the country, which don't need us poking our noses in. I fear that Ukraine is so divided I cannot see how it can stay intact in current form. Even if someone tries to work out some kind of devolved power structure the imbalance between the economies of the different parts could easily tear the country apart.

6 is slavering at the thought of a Russian invasion and great drama; but I'm just not seeing it. Its one thing for a region like the Crimea to fold to Russia, its mostly Ag plus the port facility that services the Russian Navy; swapping currencies and liability/accounting stuff will be a pain, but feasible and worth the trouble. Eastern Ukraine is aging industrial, granted some substantial but replaceable production goes to Russia; however, they're much more likely to be tightly bound to Ukrainian financial obligations and accounting (such as it might be); swapping systems for them may be completely unrealistic. I think whats really on the table is the degree of federalism agreed upon, and guarantee of rights for Russian speakers that got spooked from the immediate aftermath of the maiden coup. Kiev will have to find a way to rein in their stupidity, and the SE will have to figure out how to stand down without going down. Failure on either count is likely to result in a Bosnian style civil war, with no restraint on what Russia can supply the 'rebel' side as they'll share a very long, permeable border.

But to placate the weirdos who insist on a belief in great powers bloodshed, I'll suggest this: If Moscow invades, they are driving/flying straight to Kiev, no stops, no pauses, and they'll break everything when they get there. Kiev will be without power and physical communication within hours. We drew up the battle plan for them with the first US/Iraq war; and they have the advantage of staging their first strike from home airbases. There is zilch Ukraine could do to stop it, and there is nothing NATO would be willing to do to stop it. Russia knows it, we know it, the Ukrainians in Kiev know it. (probably why they've been so shrill in their dialog).