Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Shalcker]

Supplying weapons to regimes attacking their populations. The position that sovereignty supersedes human rights / lives. A regimes use of force internally.

I see it in a different way:
Supporting stability, even if it is provided by somewhat repressive regimes (Russia) VS Change at ANY cost (USA)

We simply see cost and risks of change as too high while cost of keeping situation "as is" acceptable; hence our loans and gas price cuts to Yanukovich, our military exports to Assad, and even our deals with North Korea. Evolution rather then revolution.

There are enough examples around of "arab spring" results to see how many would agree with us at this point.

[Cybran]

Supplying weapons to regimes attacking their populations. The position that sovereignty supersedes human rights / lives. A regimes use of force internally.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...tests-20110319

The Associated Press reported that a YouTube video appeared to show several thousand demonstrators in the northwestern port of Baniyas gathering around an old stone building with a Syrian flag fluttering from its roof.

A cluster of men stood on its balcony with a loudspeaker. Amid chants of "Freedom!" and "There is only one God!," one man shouted out a list of demands including freedom for Muslim women attending school to wear veils.

The Syrian conflict has been about islam vs secularism from its start back in 2011. It was about one sect wanting to take the power from the ruling sect and make life hell for everyone else including christians.

Muslim radicals have flooded Syria immediately after the first protests. Syria has never been about deposing dictators or bringing freedom, just like Egypt wasn't.

[Olo]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar...tests-20110319

The Syrian conflict has been about islam vs secularism from its start back in 2011. It was about one sect wanting to take the power from the ruling sect and make life hell for everyone else including christians.

Muslim radicals have flooded Syria immediately after the first protests. Syria has never been about deposing dictators or bringing freedom, just like Egypt wasn't.

Of all the anecdotal evidence you could pull up to support your bullshit, you come up with one man demanding a right of religious expression?

[TooMuch]

Supplying weapons to regimes attacking their populations. The position that sovereignty supersedes human rights / lives. A regimes use of force internally.

Neither were planted. Everyone jumped in after things got rolling.

You conveniently forget that the US has supported the "rebels" in Syria, even before the situation escalated? It's what they do and have done in shitloads of countries to destabilize the situation there. So basically you say if the situation is ok when the US does it? The hypocrisy of people like you

[Cybran]

Of all the anecdotal evidence you could pull up to support your bullshit, you come up with one man demanding a right of religious expression?

Group of men talking on loudspeakers to thousands.

[Ravenblade]

"Dumb as a brick" is an understatement.
Here's a video of him attempting to speak English. His Russian isn't much better. It's really not the languages that are the problem, but his... mental faculties.

I agree, having a PhD in sport science is totally not worthy mentioning at all. I bet if Einstein had been a politician he would have sucked too and probably be called "dumb as a brick" as well. Hell, I don't like our chancellor really as well but I would never go as far as calling her dumb, having a Dr.Sc. in quantum chemistry would quickly make that a fairly ridiculous claim.

[Olo]

You conveniently forget that the US has supported the "rebels" in Syria, even before the situation escalated? It's what they do and have done in shitloads of countries to destabilize the situation there. So basically you say if the situation is ok when the US does it? The hypocrisy of people like you

I'm not ignoring it or defending it. I'm comparing Russia supplying arms to syria early on and the US *possibly* supplying Ukraine. And the US didn't start providing serious arms until recently, that was mostly the gulf states.

[TooMuch]

I'm not ignoring it or defending it. I'm comparing Russia supplying arms to syria early on and the US *possibly* supplying Ukraine. And the US didn't start providing serious arms until recently, that was mostly the gulf states.

Why the *possibly*? You doubt the word of your president when he says he will give 5 million dollars in military goods?
Oh, and now it has to be serious arms...

[Cybran]

Well, the US is going above and beyond when it comes to Ukraine. They are going to station B-52 bombers to help bomb hospitals and civilians more efficiently.

[Olo]

Why the *possibly*? You doubt the word of your president when he says he will give 5 million dollars in military goods?

So far non-lethal military aid is the only thing being talked about.

Well, the US is going above and beyond when it comes to Ukraine. They are going to station B-52 bombers to help bomb hospitals and civilians more efficiently.

Russia places 10s of thousands of soldiers on the Ukrainian border? No bigge
US moves 2 b52s to England for 2 weeks? Doing it "to help bomb hospitals and civilians more efficiently."

Don't ever change cybran

[Charge me Doctor]

It doesn't really matter, again, Syrian conflict is about one religious fanatics wanting to get to power over other religious fanatics. Ukrainian (current one) conflict is about couple of republics regions wanting to leave Ukraine. Don't you see difference? It all escalated from illegal coup in Kiev, people got mad because of it and wanted to leave Ukraine

[Olo]

It doesn't really matter, again, Syrian conflict is about one religious fanatics wanting to get to power over other religious fanatics. Ukrainian (current one) conflict is about couple of republics wanting to leave Ukraine. Don't you see difference? It all escalated from illegal coup in Kiev, people got mad because of it and wanted to leave Ukraine

And the current elected government?

So, now USA plans to sell military stuff to Ukraine? How convenient, every time there is a big conflict in a world, USA sells military supplies and gets profit from it. Is the guy who told me that USA has no reasons to rock the situation in Ukraine?

@Gabriel, how does it "helps" country from falling apart by throwing weapon and means for continuous fight in it? It's literally throwing gas cans into a fire, they should stop escalation of this conflict, they should make Ukraine government to stop bombing civilians and start conversation with people of Donbas

And going back the original point: i assume you hold russia accountable for the escalation of the syrian civil war? After all, they were supplying arms back when it was just government forces gunning down protesters

[Charge me Doctor]

Russia was supplying Syria with arms even before conflict, Syria, bought a lot of arms even from Soviet Union (sic!), i don't know what point you are trying to make and no, i don't think that Russia should drop all deals with Syria because of conflict, it's like, 10% of whole arms sales for Russia it's too big hit to take.
Again, i'll try to highlight important things, Russia sold arms to Syria, even before conflict.

Look at USA and Ukraine (and even Georgia back in their conflict), USA just wants to dump some of their arms in Ukraine because of conflict, they didn't planned this and they didn't had any kind of deals about it in previous time, they just want to get some money from a country that can't afford it. Instead of de-escalation of conflict, they supply Ukrainian army with arms to keep fighting its own regions that doesn't want to be in Ukraine anymore. Why don't they pressure on Ukraine to stop military aggression in Donbass? Why don't they insist on diplomacy talks to reach a consensus? The only answer i can find: USA benefits from instability of Ukraine, and look, a deal to dump (probably outdated) military gear to Ukraine and get easy money from it, why the hell they would want de-escalation, and why the hell USA should even care about lives of people (not only civilians, soldiers of Ukraine)

Also, USA i known for igniting wars between countries and then selling them arms.

[Shalcker]

And going back the original point: i assume you hold russia accountable for the escalation of the syrian civil war? After all, they were supplying arms back when it was just government forces gunning down protesters

In 2011? Which arms are you talking about?
Are you talking about small arms (and was there any lack of them there?) or were they gunned from helicopters?

In case of Ukraine you got to remember that Yanukovich was the only legitimate president, and Poroshenko is still not inaugurated as president (even though he is "elected"). And as he is still not president he still has no legitimate government either...

[Olo]

Russia was supplying Syria with arms even before conflict, Syria, bought a lot of arms even from Soviet Union (sic!), i don't know what point you are trying to make and no, i don't think that Russia should drop all deals with Syria because of conflict, it's like, 10% of whole arms sales for Russia it's too big hit to take.
Again, i'll try to highlight important things, Russia sold arms to Syria, even before conflict.

Look at USA and Ukraine (and even Georgia back in their conflict), USA just wants to dump some of their arms in Ukraine because of conflict, they didn't planned this and they didn't had any kind of deals about it in previous time, they just want to get some money from a country that can't afford it. Instead of de-escalation of conflict, they supply Ukrainian army with arms to keep fighting its own regions that doesn't want to be in Ukraine anymore. Why don't they pressure on Ukraine to stop military aggression in Donbass? Why don't they insist on diplomacy talks to reach a consensus? The only answer i can find: USA benefits from instability of Ukraine, and look, a deal to dump (probably outdated) military gear to Ukraine and get easy money from it, why the hell they would want de-escalation, and why the hell USA should even care about lives of people (not only civilians, soldiers of Ukraine)

Also, USA i known for igniting wars between countries and then selling them arms.

US maybe selling arms is Ukraine is bad because they just want money but russia selling arms to syria is ok because they really need that money. glad we've sorted that out.

[TooMuch]

So far non-lethal military aid is the only thing being talked about.

Russia places 10s of thousands of soldiers on the Ukrainian border? No bigge
US moves 2 b52s to England for 2 weeks? Doing it "to help bomb hospitals and civilians more efficiently."

Don't ever change cybran

So bullet proof vests, night vision goggles etc are non military? Always nice to see how the US twisted words/terms to suite their needs. The whole situation in Guantanamo Bay comes to mind where whole new terms where invented to circumvent the law...

[Olo]

So bullet proof vests, night vision goggles etc are non military? Always nice to see how the US twisted words/terms to suite their needs. The whole situation in Guantanamo Bay comes to mind where whole new terms where invented to circumvent the law...

So far non-lethal military aid is the only thing being talked about.

In case of Ukraine you got to remember that Yanukovich was the only legitimate president, and Poroshenko is still not inaugurated as president (even though he is "elected"). And as he is still not president he still has no legitimate government either...

So when he is inaugurated he'll have the legitimacy to carry out these operations?

[TooMuch]

So when he is inaugurated he'll have the legitimacy to carry out these operations?

"Guns don't kill, people do"... Anything that aids in killing people is lethal, but like I said: twist words until it suits your needs!

[Shalcker]

So when he is inaugurated he'll have the legitimacy to carry out these operations?

Let's check Wikipedia on Legitimacy
legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse.
As it is easy to see, he does not have legitimacy in Eastern Ukraine since he has no popular acceptance there.

He can order Western Ukrainian troops to continue current unconstitutional operation and that will be obvious act of civil war.

[Charge me Doctor]

@Olo, i'm glad that you have nothing to say anymore

And no, USA selling arms to Ukraine is bad because Ukraine is freaking aggressor, Syrian government just wants the rebels to fuck off and stop terror in their country