Russia 'lost 220 troops' in Ukraine - Nemtsov report

There are hundreds of Blackwater ( Xe ) troops in Eastern Ukraine right now, and they have been there for months. They were there when the " revolution " went down.

originally posted by: JHumm
Probably true, but I ask how does the US do things any differently? How many countries is the US occupying? We have all seen the navy commercials the show the navy is all around the world and says "in defense of all we hold dear back home " what are defending against?

One thing we don't do is lose 220 soldiers in 2 small battles.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Greathouse
I think both policies, while the public might feel better about the US one, are horrible for the people that live there. Either live under Russian rule, or be left to sort things out for yourself after the US leaves. Neither scenario ever plays out well.

I have yet to hear any politician explain to me why we the US should even give a crap about Ukraine and Russia. I don't think Putin was doing anything wrong, nothing the US don't do everywhere. Now mind you there could certainly be something I am unaware of involved but I have yet to hear it on TV or other news sources. Russia should certainly be able to defend and police its interests on its own borders.

did they check the bath house?

originally posted by: Noobarino
There are hundreds of Blackwater ( Xe ) troops in Eastern Ukraine right now, and they have been there for months. They were there when the " revolution " went down.

They're all on vacation just like Putin says about the Russian soldiers.

Oh please, every country in the world throughout history has "annexed" land in one form or another. For example, Crimea has been part of the russian empire far longer than say Hawaii a part of the US..which was by the way achieved as part of annexation as well (read about the last queen f Hawaii and tje gunboat diplomacy of the US).

Imposing ones dominion is not just done militarily, but equally permanently with socio-economic means. There are multiple ways to achieve a stranglehold over a people.

originally posted by: MacChiavell1
Oh please, every country in the world throughout history has "annexed" land in one form or another.

What happened in past history does not make it right that a nation can annex sovereign territory in the 21st century. Trying to justify Russian's belligerence is wrong, as is trying to deflect Russian's actions because the US did this, that and the other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

From the OP. The fact is that 220 Russians have died in eastern Ukraine, therefore exposing the lie that Russian are not involved.

a reply to: paraphi
It is amazing that people in Western countries don't know about Morocco annexing Western Sahara and how the US senate is wanting the government to support them. I know not the same as straight out annexing, but a case can be made that if you support it with one, how can you be against it in another case?It isn't super current but it is currentish.
(not the annexation, just the show of support). Link

a reply to: MacChiavell1

The annexation of Hawaii occurred over 100 years ago. Since Putin has come to power he's annexed land from three different countries.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Greathouse
I think both policies, while the public might feel better about the US one, are horrible for the people that live there. Either live under Russian rule, or be left to sort things out for yourself after the US leaves. Neither scenario ever plays out well.

I have yet to hear any politician explain to me why we the US should even give a crap about Ukraine and Russia. I don't think Putin was doing anything wrong, nothing the US don't do everywhere. Now mind you there could certainly be something I am unaware of involved but I have yet to hear it on TV or other news sources. Russia should certainly be able to defend and police its interests on its own borders.

How are they supposed to spin the fact that both countries want the oil and major gas deposits? All each country can do is point the finger at the other. Ukraine is not acting in the best interests of its citizens! Russia is attacking poor Ukraine! I would like to hear any politician explain to me one war (in modern times) that isn't about oil, gas, or minerals. I also can't believe someone in todays day and age would go fight in a war(if other than a paycheck) knowing what every war is about! But that's for another thread.

originally posted by: JHumm
Probably true, but I ask how does the US do things any differently? How many countries is the US occupying? We have all seen the navy commercials the show the navy is all around the world and says "in defense of all we hold dear back home " what are defending against?

Please name any country America has stolen, or claimed as its own, in modern history.

originally posted by: Xeven
I have yet to hear any politician explain to me why we the US should even give a crap about Ukraine and Russia.

They really shouldn't need to, if it needs explaining to you then you need to go back to school and read up on European history.

Here, I'll do it instead...

Europe is a major trading partner of the US. In addition to that, the stability of Europe has a fundamental impact on not only European finances but American too. If Europe was to fall into a considerable war (which any war with Russia and Europe would be), America would likely face massive economic problems almost immediately.

Markets would slide, and your pension would be gone within days.

Russia's invasion and theft of sovereign Ukrainian territory is an almost identical repeat of events leading up to WW2. Putin even used the same excuses for his invasion of another country. Given what we know about WW2, and given that we know what the risks are of an all-out war with Russia, it's absolutely right that appropriate steps be taken to maintain security in Europe, against a clear and obvious threat from Russia.

The invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea was a warning to Europe, whether Russia wants to admit that or not. There is no other option for European leaders to take other than bolstering defenses against that potential threat. As such, NATO and the USA are intrinsically linked to any efforts to defend Europe from that potential threat.

It boils down to this really - Russia cannot complain about Europe and the US increasing military preparedness and defenses after it invaded another country and stole a chunk of land. Simple.

a reply to: paraphi

They'll go all the way back to the founding of America if they have to, they'll find any excuse to back Russia and claim that the USA is an "evil" regime.

When you think about it, it's all they have as a defense. You know you're winning the debate when pro-Russians have to go back 100 years to defend the actions of their own nutty "leader".

a reply to: Rocker2013

russia is protecting its economic intrests. the same way that eu\us protected their economic intrests when the assassinated saddam and ghadaffi and plunged iraq and lybia into chaos. so why is it when russians do it they are nutty and when americans do it they are liberators?

Crimea was not part of the Ukraine untill the 1960s, and the port of Sevastopol is the only warm-water port they have. If Putin wouod not have acted, nato ships would now be moored there.

On a similar note, annexation when done correctly, is not done through moving borders, but expanding blocs. If you see the modern NATO as anything else as an appendix of US global power projection, you are either in denial, or a fool. Originally it was specifically designed to counter the soviet bloc and the Warsaw pact...neither exist anymore, while NATO does, and it is expanding (even though Bush sr. pinky-swore that it wouldnt, and especially not ever try to incorporate the Ukraine). Hypocrisy is not acceptable from serious people, not from Russia who clearly are supporting the DPR/LPR, nor NATO/west, who clearly and blatantly instigated a coup and are funding a weak populist government, who welcome neo-nazi paramilitary formations, outlaw a minoritys right to their culture, and indiscriminately kill dissenters (both political and cultural).

a reply to: Greathouse

russia persuaded yanukovych not to take the eu deal in a totally peaceful manner and the us forced him out and started a civil war. one path saw less human suffering than the other. no war, no sanctions, and no tension. you figure out which is which.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Greathouse
I think both policies, while the public might feel better about the US one, are horrible for the people that live there. Either live under Russian rule, or be left to sort things out for yourself after the US leaves. Neither scenario ever plays out well.

I have yet to hear any politician explain to me why we the US should even give a crap about Ukraine and Russia. I don't think Putin was doing anything wrong, nothing the US don't do everywhere. Now mind you there could certainly be something I am unaware of involved but I have yet to hear it on TV or other news sources. Russia should certainly be able to defend and police its interests on its own borders.

How are they supposed to spin the fact that both countries want the oil and major gas deposits? All each country can do is point the finger at the other. Ukraine is not acting in the best interests of its citizens! Russia is attacking poor Ukraine! I would like to hear any politician explain to me one war (in modern times) that isn't about oil, gas, or minerals. I also can't believe someone in todays day and age would go fight in a war(if other than a paycheck) knowing what every war is about! But that's for another thread.

Russia's annexation of Georgia is a good example. Its not about oil its about land acquisition.Even in Crimea it was about the land the oil rights was just a nice bonus to help pay for the costs. Russian acquisitions is about piecing back together their former glory. Putin is trying to reinstate the Soviet Union its not a secret his said it. Currently hes using Hitlers playbook from creating a false flag to get power to invasion of countries on the grounds of ethnicity. What scares me the most is the similarities between Putin and the Nazis are just to much to ignore. He is even directly supporting Nazis throughout Europe we are watching the birth of at minimum a totalitarian state at worst a new Nazi regime.

a reply to: dragonridr

Hot damn...what meds are you on? You seem to have a disconnect with reality my friend. The ukies are the nazis...banderistas to be precise, part of waffen-ss back in the day.

while putin is certainly a nationalist, he is not a fascist.

a reply to: JHumm

What is the US occupying?

a reply to: MacChiavell1

He is a fascist actually.

Who are the Nazis in Ukraine? The russian government has more Nazis in its Dumas than Ukraine. Putin is trying to spin the Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance as something benign forced onto the USSR by the west.