"Sorry!" -Canada

What happened to Kaliningrad Oblast? And Crimea ofcourse.

Funny you should post this. I heard a theory on the radio this morning, that Putin's ultimate goal is to fracture NATO. Ukraine is lost, but it's game on if Russia makes a move on the Baltic States (who are NATO members).

So, lets say this happens, Russia goes to protect persecuted Russians in [insert Baltic Nation here] and invades. Read NATO charter

Raise your hands, Who wants to pick a fight with Russia?

Anybody?
Anybody?
Bueller?

I guess it's kinda ironic that it's been a 100 years since our last treaty disaster.

Putin 2: NATO 0 ?
:hmmm:

I really hope Putin's interest doesn't go beyond Eastern Ukraine.

Pah, we will let him invade Europe, and then deal with our bureaucrats :O:

B.t.w. is there real hard evidence of russian troops and tanks ?
After all we all get fed via our trusted media, and journalists .. i'd never say that Putin would not do it, i just wonder where his intentions lie.

While there is no rock hard evidence (such as tracing back the serial numbers of captured/destroyed vehicles) one could assume from the current information that there is some degree of support from Russian Federation heavy arms wise as well as volonteers.

How far it goes, how decisive it is - hard to say, as we do not know what proportion of their heavy weapons is from Russia and which is captured from the Kiev loyalists.

However so far I have not seen any conclusive evidence of actual decisive direct intervention, such as been claimed recently in the coastal areas (this is b/c there has been ongoing development in that direction in the recent days, not a surprise crossing of Russian troops in mass as some claim).

:haha: Putin hits Western Europe and needs to buy emission permits for all for the tanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU

Welcome to Germany, can you show me your tank registration papers? Please fill out these forms and attach your check to the front.

I'm sorry, your tanks aren't green enough to operate on German roads, please fill out this paper work and pay the non-green compliant fee.

It makes sense to try for a land corridor from Russia to Crimea, as Skybird suggested earlier, if there is a Russian agenda in the region in regards to territorial gains then it's likely to be something like that...however, something so overt would not fly well in the international community so the best bet is to try to push Ukraine into a position where it has to opt for a two state ceasefire solution after prolonged bloodshed.
Unfortunately, it's a Catch-22 situation, the Donbass Peoples Milita can't prolong the conflict without Russian assistance, however the chances of a negotiated two state ceasefire are greatly reduced everytime Russian involvement is either suspected or displayed.
It's getting close to a period where Putin will either need to put his cards on the table, or back off, because at some point there will be irrefutable proof that Russian forces are involved in Ukraine, and this is going to put pressure on Russia to either go full on or back off.

In regards to the tweet, blame Canada. :03:

Dont worry, we would bring our bureaucrats. And trust me, after they pass through there will be no Germany.

nikimcbee,

I do not think so currently, but I cannot rule out that it is like what your sources assume. It is surprising that it is so often ingored - or just escaqpes people'S attention - that the often quoted article 5, usually interpreted to be an automatism, features a backdoor for escape routes for NATO member not willing to join a NATO operaitojn based on article 5, and that escape option is hidden in the words "such action as it deems necessary".

In the context in which that quote is embedded, it is said then that every member can and will decide individually in what way it wants to react to an attack the alliance found one member being a victim of. Say, Marocco attacks Spain, that would be a case of article 5. But Denmark maybe does not want to cintribute militarily, even when agreeing that article 5 is valid. It then can argue that it does not think military replies are the proper reaction, and while all others can disagree on that, Denmark nevertheless could point to article 5 and say: we do not think that military force is needed or the proper way to deal with this crisis, we instead will start an airlift to secure the constant supply with chocolate bars. Because we think this is the proper reaction and this is what we can contribute.

Lawyers can turn the whole treaty upside down over article 5. And that possibly was the intention why it was formulated the way it had been done. I sometimes wonder whether the treaty ever would have turned into a reality if any such escape option for members would not have been included, nations usually HATE to give up their right for sovereign decision making, and any automatism to have them sliding into a war caused by an attack on somebody else indeed must be perceived as a provocation and putting in question of a state's and government's sovereignity.

I just asked because of 'evidence', because looking at Google with the words "ukraine russian tanks +evidence" brings up not one real case!
Maybe Facebook .... ? :D

One of it being:
"Has Blackwater been deployed to Ukraine? Notorious U.S. mercenaries 'seen on the streets of flashpoint city' as Russia claims 300 hired guns have arrived in country"

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=...ks+%2Bevidence

Shouting "Blackwater!" ? Hmm :03:

Ah, we had them, thanks. And we are still here while they are gone. ;)

We now have the EU bureaucrats. Whether we survive them is in serious doubt, however.

Hasn't Blackwater been renamed years ago...?!

Especially if it is lunch break time!:har:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlwN-Xr6d8

The geopolitical picture (and this is my own private opinion) is both more and less complex.

Ie, the objective of the separatist forces is simple:
- wait for the winter. When winter comes the lack of heating and general economical collapse would make the general population somewhat unhappy. This also would lead to probable collapse of Ukranian Armed forces, as they already have issues with drafting more people as well as the equipment/supply shortages (not to mention shortage of proffesional soldiers and officers).

For that they need to preclude any offensive operations by the Ukranian Armed Forces, such as the ones that happened straight after the well known plane crash. This is so because such operations can (in theory) lead to critical situations, such as the near blockade of the Donetsk and Lugansk cities.

This is why they have conducted several attacks in the direction that was not covered by the Ukranian Armed Forces and thus forced the later to commit their last coherent reserves there. It also had an additional benefit of controling more border crossing sites and thus better conditions for the flow of the volonteers and supplies.

This is true, I've seen the footage:

http://bashny.net/uploads/images/00/...c820855704.jpg