@principians

Whether proof exists or not I have no idea. Whether they chose to send more troops or not is, to me at least, just a matter of military logistics and not particularly interesting. On the balance of probabilities, I reckon they did. If they didn't it doesn't change anything significant in my eyes.

@Octavios
It's somewhat significant whether you openly break law or not.

On the other hand, the reason I don't think it so probable, is that there was already many people ready to fight (maybe some of that people were civil russians), they'd basically just need weapons and mony, and so, why the need to involve yourself directly? and why the risk to give arguments to NATO to get involved directly? Yes, Russia might have been angry for loosing an ally, but they've already won Crimea! plus you seem to think Russia just let itself go by its feelings

@Princips, Russia did not openly break the law, their troops took the Russian flag off their uniforms, and entered crimes to become patriotic Russian separatists - who humiliated the Ukrainian military in Crimes and had them leave without their weapons.

Russia denies sending troops, but in effect that is what happened.

Unfortunately, saying that Crimea was democratically brought back into Russia ignores 1) sending in troops is not democratic. And 2) the history of ethnic cleansing and Russian settlement, which has left Crimes as ethnically Russian.

That history is almost as bad as the genocide of native peoples across north america, and the herding of those same people into waste lands they didn't know.

Very similar stories of oppression, murder and removal of people so an empire could re-settle with 'their' people. There is sadly nothing exceptional about America in this respect.

But that is well off topic. I've re-assessed my position, Russia is saying it will support military action or allow military action (via UN security council resolution) against North Korea; the only reason they would want to take military action is to occupy NK before the US/SK can, and there's very little strategic value in doing so.

The interesting question then becomes, what will China say (as they also have a UN security council veto) and how will NK react (if at all)

China will likely be happy that their no vote and ability to withdraw it now carries a bit more leverage. They may be able to push NK into acting slightly more in line with their wishes.

But in all likelihood it won't change much of anything. The only two nations that can lead an invasion of North Korea are China and the US ( possibly South Korea at a push... a really big push...) and I've not seen any hints that any of them has an appetite for such a venture.

North Korea is as safe as ever

<GASP> The United States AND Russias are putting their military hardware on display around the world to <GASP!!!> sell more product.

Shocking! I was SHOCKED to hear that the US and Russia are the largest arms dealers in the world.


<B-o-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-I-n-g...>

Move along. Move along. Nothing to see here....

You mean this lovely pie chart i made for you? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hkUSTygs0HPlDY6gcuC2KTOqklueRa1g2xszAl4EuW0/edit?usp=sharing

Apart from Germany, five of the six biggest arms dealers in the world are the 5 permanent security council members. The ones who won world war 2. And (including Germany) they account for 82% of global arms sales. (though the UK seems to be falling behind Ukraine, which i guess was one of the victors of the second world war as a part of the then USSR)

DING DING DING!

God BLESS the military industrial complex. If only we could stir up a few more legitimate wars were we gets the little people killing each other with our weapons instead of our soldiers, we could start putting 'merica back to work! Woo hooo!!!

"There's no direct involvement of Turkey on Syria, but there's more than one thing pointing some responsabilities to Turkey."

"But for the most part Turkey is not getting involved in the Syrian conflict."

What are you talking about? The whole reason Daesh exists in Turkey is because of the Turkish-Syrian border and Daesh's ability to sell oil through Turkey. The militants pour in from the border and retreat to Turkey when they get a hiding from the Syrian Arab Army and Russian Air Force. Turkey has also been busy sabotaging the Geneva talks by insisting the YPG not participate. Turkey is up to its neck in Syria and has been from the beginning. The conflict would have been over ages ago if not for Turkey. Militant groups like Jaish al Islam take it orders directly from Turkey. Turkish flags are often found flying side by side with Daesh flags. Turkish borders have been seen repeatedly talking with Daesh militants.

"The Russians have gotten involved despite not having a border with Syria."

*They got involved to help the Syrian government destroy Turkish, Saudi, and American backed terrorists*. That is not in any way shape or form "aggression" against Syria. That is like calling the US bases in Germany American "aggression" against Germany or American base in Djibouti "aggression" against Djibouti. Words have meaning.

"Unfortunately, saying that Crimea was democratically brought back into Russia ignores 1) sending in troops is not democratic. And 2) the history of ethnic cleansing and Russian settlement, which has left Crimes as ethnically Russian. "

The troops were there as part of a treaty signed by the legitimate and elected authorities of Ukraine. They did not send in any additional troops.

"the history of ethnic cleansing and Russian settlement, which has left Crimes as ethnically Russian."

Yes and please also mention the existence of the slave trade, torture and murder of Slavs by all the Turkic Khanates that existed on the border of the Russian empire prior to their takeover in the 1700 and 1800s. Please give full context for once of this history instead of your usual one-sided approach. Crimea has been Russian for two hundred years that's quite a bit longer than certain territories that have been in Anglo-Saxon hands and who nobody would subsequently deny their democratic right to remain so.

Come up with a better argument for why you insist that Kiev has the right to brutalize the people of Crimea like they have the people of Donbass.

"@Princips, Russia did not openly break the law, their troops took the Russian flag off their uniforms, and entered crimes to become patriotic Russian separatists - who humiliated the Ukrainian military in Crimes and had them leave without their weapons.

Russia denies sending troops, but in effect that is what happened."

It happened because you and the Irish press say so? Is it so hard to believe that people in Donbass don't want to be cluster bombed and murdered, their power and electricity sabotaged in the dead of winter with people flying wolfsangels and shouting "kill all the Moskals"?

Crimea that is.

And you fail to mention that Europe openly backed the destabilization and overthrow of the legitimately elected government of Ukraine and its replacement with a rabidly nationalist anti-minority pro-EU puppet government. Talk about violations of the law and interventionism?

I don't get how you in one breath can say it's obvious Russia intervened in Crimea with their fake uniforms and in the next breath claim Turkey isn't really intervening in Syria. It's unreal.

" I've re-assessed my position, Russia is saying it will support military action or allow military action (via UN security council resolution) against North Korea; the only reason they would want to take military action is to occupy NK before the US/SK can, and there's very little strategic value in doing so.

The interesting question then becomes, what will China say (as they also have a UN security council veto) and how will NK react (if at all)"

Again I don't know where you're getting your information from. Russia wants to avoid at all costs the military build up of the Korean peninsula, and wants to especially avoid North Korea being used as a pretext for the US deploying THAAD/missile defense.

A more interesting thing is the fact that India launched ballistic missile tests (Prithvi-II) during the same time (February) have received not a word of condemnation.

@Orathaic

I wanna be clear, I'm not pro-russian. I might not know Russia deeply, but I think its capitalism is not any better than any western capitalism, and there are issues in which it's certainly worse than some european countries.

But...

1) you are biased against Russia.
2) Crimean decision WAS democratic.

I don't subscribe to all Putin33 comments, but he's right at many points.

I just wanna point out that the current ukranian government is a kind of fascism much worse than Trump could ever be..

(not because Trump has not fascism leanings, but because he could not really implement that fascism in the US, not so easily at least)

Well we'll see about trump.

Yes, when you wipe out/deport a population then re-populate the region with your natives, they will vote 'democratically' to become a part of your country. No doubt about that. But it was not 200 years ago as Putin claims, it was in the 40s under Stalin. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars )

"Crimea has been Russian for two hundred years that's quite a bit longer than certain territories that have been in Anglo-Saxon hands and who nobody would subsequently deny their democratic right to remain so. "

I would have you know that there are those who i follow who do infact question much of the occupied anglo-saxon regions of the world. See for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e7-7vWWW6Y

But that is not what we're discussing, so really you're just distracting from a conversation by creating the strawman that i don't criticise other people. (which i do, and i'm fairly sure i posted that video at the time aswell...)

Also, FYI 1942 is less than 200 years ago.

@1) you are biased against Russia. - Yes, i am biased against large powers who abuse that power. Russia is one.

We all know that World War 2 was actually just staged.

"But it was not 200 years ago as Putin claims, it was in the 40s under Stalin. "

In the 1923 census, before the dread Stalin came to power, Russians already outnumbered Tatars by a ratio of 2:1. So the notion that somehow the punitive expulsion of Tatars during WWII for supporting the fascists and murdering Russians led to their losing their majority is not true in the least.

And anyway what on earth do the Crimean Tatars have to do with their being under Ukrainian rule? Talk about changing the subject. Crimea was given to Ukraine as a gift without the vote of anybody whatsoever in the 1950s, because the notion that Ukraine would be a separate country from Russia was ludicrous at the time. It had previously been Russian territory since the 1700s.

And naturally you haven't bothered to look into the wonderful history of the Crimean Khanate prior to the Russian takeover in 1783.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean%E2%80%93Nogai_raids_into_East_Slavic_lands

But yeah let's all talk about Russia "abusing" the poor Tatars. They should have been happy slaves!

Dont cite wikipedia to try to prove things. It makes you look like a scrub.

"Yes, i am biased against large powers who abuse that power. Russia is one."

Russia is saving the world from Daesh while Europe ignores the consequences of their own policies while punishing desperate refugees. I'll take that 'abuse' over sanctimonious neutrality any day of the week.

"i don't criticise other people. "

You don't criticize people actually engaged in aggression against Syria - i.e. Turkey. More and more reports of actual Turkish troops in Syria, btw. No in typical northern European fashion Turkey's behavior is dismissed while Russia is to blame.

I honestly don't understand all the flak Russia gets in regards to Syria. All power to them.

Russia supplying flak guns to Syria? Idgi

The world is not threatened by Daesh/ISIS. The is a ludicrous lie perpetrated by the western media. Who is biased now?

More people die in the US to white people and gun violence, more people die in Russia due to alcohol abuse, more people die in Saudi Arabia due to capital punishment. Than people outside of Iraq-Syria/Libya have been killed by Daesh.

"The world is not threatened by Daesh/ISIS. "

"Than people outside of Iraq-Syria/Libya have been killed by Daesh."

You forgot Nigeria, Mali, Cameroon. How many countries have to be infected with the Daesh disease before you give a damn? How many cities have to be annihilated? How many children enslaved? How many cultural monuments destroyed? How many refugees have to live in unsanitary filthy camps? How many have to die trying to get into Europe?

but putin...
y have you just ordered your troops out of Syria?