posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:01 AM
reply to post by DeadSeraph
The way Russia addressed the issue?
You mean when Russia called on its local Crimean forces to seize the military installations and local councils.. without a shot being fired.. right?
I mean, Russia could have put tanks and apc's on the streets of crimea and slaughtered anyone who opposed. But they didnt, they told everyone with a
gun to remain put, stay in the barracks. I even remember families bringing them food items?
Now, Crimea's voted and has gone to Russia, yes im sure there was Russian bias but even before the occupation, crimea was pro Russian.
Why did Russia feel the need to, address this issue?
Because the reliable Kiev Prime minister was chased out of town by anti-Russian Ukrainians. And yes, they probably had a valid reason being the
fleeing pm killed some protestors!
It was obvious Crimea was next, Russia with its fleet and military bases there, its local populace and its strategic position... knew they had to act
fast to secure Crimea from the anti-Russian protestors who sacked Kiev.
they did all this without a gun fight and the local people seem comfortable with it.
So, why exactly should NATO feel the need to beef up its border lines? Why the need for so much saturation in Anti Russia posts, threads and news?
People on here were screaming bloody mary the Russians were massing invasion forces and the 30's was about to repeat.
So, please explain to me what ''issue'' needs addressing?