putin is not stupid

this is perfect opportunity for russia to take back crimea

hungary 1956

czechoslovakia 1968

I clearly remember both

it do not stop the invasion then, so what the **** has changed?

Please could you elaborate?

Isn't the whole thing rather like the Sudetenland crisis (Yes, Godwin's Law, I know!) in that you have a sizeable ethnic group, living in another country, and their 'homeland' stating that they have to enter to protect the rights of that group?

Someone up thread suggested letting Russia keep Crimea. Once again, this was how the Sudetenland crisis was initially averted.

Let's hope that this ends a bit better than that one did.

Having a very hypothetical moment here....

... 20 years ago California opted out of the United States and in a very friendly way decided to become an independent country of its own and as part of the agreement the new Californian Government signed an a non aggression pact with the USA so that they could retain large numbers of US warships at the San Diego Naval Base together with 25,000 troops to safeguard them......... now wind forward 20 years ....... new powers within California become more hostile with the USA and want to build a stronger alliance with Mexico to the south (More pot growing opportunities and a lot less rules)...... the US friendly Californian government is overthrown in a coup ...... The USA wants access to its 360 warships based in San Diego and threatens to use force if they are blocked from accessing them.......... What advice from other countries around the world do you think the USA would listen to?

A professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Affairs has been fired after comparing Putin's actions in Crimea to Hitler's annexation of Austria in '38. BBC News

Do you think the USA would intervene to protect its military bases in the UK if the elected UK government was made to flee due to CND protests?

Eh?

Um, so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin.

Yes and would ignore any warnings given by Russia whilst doing so.....

There is no more Soviet Union so the comparison to the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is a poor example because the motivation and the method isn't the same. In Hungary and Czech they brought in Mongolian shock troops on the first planes to kill any soldiers in sight, shut down the governments, withdrew the Mongolians then put in Russian and other Warsaw Pact troops, established curfews and parked tanks at every major intersection within a couple of days. They did exactly the same thing in Afghanistan. A reporter who was present for all 3 invasions confirmed the use of the Mongolians (who had to be kept separate from other Warsaw Pact troops because they would kill some who they have ethnic feuds with or who they just don't like, (the reporter said they'd kill Albanians and some others on sight if they weren't segregated). Their purpose is to terrorize the population and get everyone indoors. That isn't happening in Crimea or the Ukraine. The German annexation of the Sudetenland (because of supposedly ethnic German predominance in the area) was just a land grab and wasn't the same as what's happening in Crimea where Russia definately has an established expat population and a huge naval facility and a lease for another 25 years that allows them to maintain troops there. The elected president of the Ukraine was deposed by mass protests and the army supporting the interim leader are armed insurgents (by Russia's definition) until elections affirm the legitimacy of the government. Even though Putin says Yanukovich is still the legal president, he allows that there is no future for him, (no doubt because the looted treasury and 80+ killed protesters make him unacceptable to Ukrainian voters). Russia has a nuclear-armed fleet and an important pipeline system to protect in a country on the brink of civil war and the western leaders threatening sanctions shouldn't expect Putin to pay any attention unless they can guarantee the safety of Russian people and assets there, which they can't.

My thinking is that in NI during the Troubles, the UK government sent in the army to protect and secure its interests on the basis that there is a large British population there; in the Crimea there is a large Russian population and Russia is intent on preserving its interests and sphere of influence in the same way. That's the parallel I meant.

Obviously there are some fundamental differences in the sovereign status of the two entities - NI being part of Britain and the Crimea/Ukraine not being part of Russia. Nevertheless the use of force is not something Britain can claim the moral high ground on. IMO.

Here's a comparable action and you don't have to go that far back for it either, at least I see quite a few similarities. At the time it was presented as being primarily to guard the oil wells and keep Saudi interests safe, and Kahlifa (sp) got a visit from the head man and was councilled to be more of a people person, get caught doing torture less, crank up infrastructure and keep the general population from revolting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/wo...anted=all&_r=0

The thing is with hypocrites, they tend not have much of a sense of irony.

You've noted the obvious difference being that NI is actual British territory. In addition the request for the Army came from the NI Government as it existed at that time. (Operation Banner)

So did the request for assistance to protect the Russian population come from the elected Ukrainian president and the local executive. The big difference between the areas, is there aren't people butchering innocent civilians on the Skankill Road.