Ukraine Redux

[Agiel]

 

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed.

 

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa.

 

 

Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden?

 

 

Norway was targeted by the Soviets as a secondary theater in the prospective Cold War-gone hot. Using naval bases there they could cut down on the transit times of Northern Fleet submarines from the Murmansk and the airbases could be used to launch maritime bombers against NATO convoys. Though Sweden is not a part of NATO, they were de facto members in the defensive context since the Soviets attacking Norway alone meant wading through a defensive bottleneck from Finnmark all the way down to Trondheim (then there's a fact that there was no way the Soviets would let a huge flank open to the probably sympathetic Swedes when they're fighting the war to end all wars).

Edited March 26, 2014 by Agiel

[obyknven]

 

Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden?

 

   The Norway has been occupied by NATO predecessors during WW2 and have puppet government because this. Sweden not participate in WW2 and avoid this ****.

[obyknven]

Tomorrow begin civil war in Ukraine. Right sector give ultimatum to Kievan government. Info 146 %

[kgambit]

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed.

 

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa.

 

 

My understanding was that Finland and Sweden are capable of joining NATO now - their equipment is up to STANAG requirements, although Finland appeared to have some data technical compatibility issues with NATO systems, that have been solved.   (I could be wrong so if you have up to date info suggesting otherwise please let me know.)

 

In that context, the Finnish armed forces have been standardized to match the material and operational specifications of NATO.  They have been tested and practiced in NATO-led crisis management operations, especially in Afghanistan in the northern part of which Finland has deployed a bit over 100 persons.

 

 

 

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/stockholm/06526.pdf

 

The defense spending requirement (2% is required and Finland is at 1.4%) and the fact that the majority of people in each country are opposed to joining were the real drivers.   The 2% restriction is currently met by only 7 of the existing members so it's not a real issue. 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/1999/4/nato%20daalder/reportch3.pdf

 

I'm not sure about the current defense spending in Sweden but I think the real obstacles to Sweden joining are political.

Edited March 26, 2014 by kgambit

[Elerond]

 

 

Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed.

 

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa.

 

 

My understanding was that Finland and Sweden are capable of joining NATO now - their equipment is up to STANAG requirements, although Finland appeared to have some data technical compatibility issues with NATO systems, that have been solved.   (I could be wrong so if you have up to date info suggesting otherwise please let me know.)

 

In that context, the Finnish armed forces have been standardized to match the material and operational specifications of NATO.  They have been tested and practiced in NATO-led crisis management operations, especially in Afghanistan in the northern part of which Finland has deployed a bit over 100 persons.

 

 

 

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/stockholm/06526.pdf

 

The defense spending requirement (2% is required and Finland is at 1.4%) and the fact that the majority of people in each country are opposed to joining were the real drivers.   The 2% restriction is currently met by only 7 of the existing members so it's not a real issue. 

 

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/1999/4/nato%20daalder/reportch3.pdf

 

I'm not sure about the current defense spending in Sweden but I think the real obstacles to Sweden joining are political.

 

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

EDIT: Finnish defense spending is currently 1.5% of GDP and 5.1% of government spending. 

Edited March 26, 2014 by Elerond

[kgambit]

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible?  I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc).   

[Elerond]

 

 

Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying.  Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible?  I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc).   

 

 

Artillery uses cannons (like 152 K 89, 152 TELAK 91 and 130 K 54), howitzers (like 122 H 63 and 122 PSH 74) and rocket batteries (like 122 RAKH 89) that use non-NATO caliber ammunition, and some air defense also has some BUK-M1s, but it is currently getting rid of those and new soldiers aren't anymore schooled to use them. Infantry has lot of weapons that use non-NATO ammunition. And I think that T-55Ms, that are used in mine-sweeping or clearance operations are also not compatible. And there is still some BMP-2 s in use, and there is also some MT-LBVs and MT-LBs. And there is probably more that I am not aware.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Looks like Puhitler is about to invade Ukraine and may be go further. I think we better send troops into the Baltic states.

[Rostere]

Looks like Puhitler is about to invade Ukraine and may be go further.

 

What makes you say that?

[Wrath of Dagon]

CNN just reported that's what US intelligence thinks.

[Zoraptor]

That would be the same US intelligence that completely missed his plans for liberating Crimea, right?

 

(Oh, I think it probably will happen, and soon. Can't take Crimea only, that just guarantees the western part of Ukraine shifts into ascendency permanently, the Rasputitsa are coming and while it isn't WW2 any more they're still a problem when moving an army, plus Transnistria needs a connection to Mother Russia. But I wouldn't trust US intelligence or CNN if they told me the sky was blue)

[obyknven]

Looks like Puhitler is about to invade Ukraine and may be go further. I think we better send troops into the Baltic states.

Looks like Obama trying save face.

1. Say to everyone about near Russian invasion in Ukraine.

2. Russians obviously don't invade, they just don't have so much  troops for control of  Ukrainian territory. ( They go into Crimea only because Crimeans really do want into Russia, no resistance expected here ).

3. Say to everyone: "Russian don't invade in Ukraine because fear of US. Obama stronk!".

4 ....

5. Profit!

[Mor]

 

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around  geographical hegemony

 

There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces...

 

you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front.

 

So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end.

 

Looks like Puhitler is about to invade Ukraine and may be go further. I think we better send troops into the Baltic states.

You mean this report:

 

 

...

The committee said there was “deep apprehension that Moscow may invade eastern and southern Ukraine, pressing west to Transdniestria and also seek land grabs in the Baltics.”

...

Troops on Russia’s border with eastern Ukraine – which exceed 30,000 - are “significantly more” than what is needed for the “exercises” Russia says it has been conducting, and there is no sign the forces are making any move to return to their home bases.

 

There is additional intelligence that even more Russian forces are “reinforcing” the border region, according to both officials. All of the troops are positioned for potential military action.

 

The troops on the border with Ukraine include large numbers of

“motorized” units that can quickly move. Additional special forces, airborne troops, air transport and other units that would be needed appear to be at a higher state of mobilization in other locations in Russia.

 

Russian troops already on the border region include air defense artillery and wheeled vehicles.

 

The United States believes that Russia might decide to go into eastern Ukraine to establish a land bridge into Crimea.

 

The belief is that Russian forces would move toward three Ukrainian cities: Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk in order to establish land access into Crimea. Russian forces are currently positioned in and around Rostov, Kursk, and Belgorod, according to U.S. intelligence information.

 

 

The Baltic states are part of NATO so any move there will require NATO to respond or pack and go - so I doubt that. But as for Eastern Ukraine, I wouldn't be too surprised if this was the plan from the start. Connecting all their recent "peace keeping" missions in the region.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Mor

[kgambit]

World reacion to Crimean referendum.

 

Eurasian Union (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, other Central Asian countries) - ok.

African Union - ok

BRICS (China, India, Brazil etc) - ok

Latin America (Argentina, Venezuela etc) - ok

Even occupied by NATO Afghanistan support Crimean referendum.

 

Obama's reaction: “Crimea is not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognising the annexation of Crimea”. Ermmm. What about international community Obama talking constantly? He mean US and his bitches satellites?

I understand his actions (by Crimean performance Russian kick asses of Chevron and Shell from rich Crimean Oil (and other resourses) deposits, Obama as ****** of these corporations must make pleasure for his masters), but why he continue talking nonsense instead of truth?

 

LOL  Only in your dreams numbnuts.

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

[Elerond]

 

There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces...

you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front.

 

So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end.

 

 

There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't  worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries.

 

And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example. 

[Valsuelm]

I think it's safe to say that Russia isn't going to be invading Finland in the remotely foreseeable future.

[BruceVC]

 

World reacion to Crimean referendum.

 

Eurasian Union (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, other Central Asian countries) - ok.

African Union - ok

BRICS (China, India, Brazil etc) - ok

Latin America (Argentina, Venezuela etc) - ok

Even occupied by NATO Afghanistan support Crimean referendum.

 

Obama's reaction: “Crimea is not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognising the annexation of Crimea”. Ermmm. What about international community Obama talking constantly? He mean US and his bitches satellites?

I understand his actions (by Crimean performance Russian kick asses of Chevron and Shell from rich Crimean Oil (and other resourses) deposits, Obama as ****** of these corporations must make pleasure for his masters), but why he continue talking nonsense instead of truth?

 

LOL  Only in your dreams numbnuts.

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

 

 

Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain

 

"The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe"

[Valsuelm]

 

 

World reacion to Crimean referendum.

 

Eurasian Union (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, other Central Asian countries) - ok.

African Union - ok

BRICS (China, India, Brazil etc) - ok

Latin America (Argentina, Venezuela etc) - ok

Even occupied by NATO Afghanistan support Crimean referendum.

 

Obama's reaction: “Crimea is not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognising the annexation of Crimea”. Ermmm. What about international community Obama talking constantly? He mean US and his bitches satellites?

I understand his actions (by Crimean performance Russian kick asses of Chevron and Shell from rich Crimean Oil (and other resourses) deposits, Obama as ****** of these corporations must make pleasure for his masters), but why he continue talking nonsense instead of truth?

 

LOL  Only in your dreams numbnuts.

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

 

 

Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain

 

"The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe"

 

 

Resolutions like this mean little to nothing and I'm sure Russia doesn't care that China or the other 57 that abstained, did so, as they were effectively 'no' votes. There were also 24 nations that didn't bother to vote at all.

 

https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/449216773460463617/photo/1/large

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

World reacion to Crimean referendum.

 

Eurasian Union (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, other Central Asian countries) - ok.

African Union - ok

BRICS (China, India, Brazil etc) - ok

Latin America (Argentina, Venezuela etc) - ok

Even occupied by NATO Afghanistan support Crimean referendum.

 

Obama's reaction: “Crimea is not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognising the annexation of Crimea”. Ermmm. What about international community Obama talking constantly? He mean US and his bitches satellites?

I understand his actions (by Crimean performance Russian kick asses of Chevron and Shell from rich Crimean Oil (and other resourses) deposits, Obama as ****** of these corporations must make pleasure for his masters), but why he continue talking nonsense instead of truth?

 

LOL  Only in your dreams numbnuts.

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

 

 

Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain

 

"The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe"

 

 

Resolutions like this mean little to nothing and I'm sure Russia doesn't care that China or the other 57 that abstained, did so, as they were effectively 'no' votes. There were also 24 nations that didn't bother to vote at all.

 

https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/449216773460463617/photo/1/large

 

Thats incorrect, the abstain vote is very important because a "no" vote  is direct support for what Russia did. If you accept that we live in global world where  countries want there allies to support them in political decisions then just the fact that China abstained shows that they don't support what Russia did. If China wanted to vote "no" they would have, they are not influenced by the West and have demonstrated in the past there usage of the "no" vote despite what the West wants, like with military action against Syria. This also tells me that the Russia\China relationship isn't strong as we are led to believe and that is a good thing

[Rostere]

Thats incorrect, the abstain vote is very important because a "no" vote  is direct support for what Russia did. If you accept that we live in global world where  countries want there allies to support them in political decisions then just the fact that China abstained shows that they don't support what Russia did. If China wanted to vote "no" they would have, they are not influenced by the West and have demonstrated in the past there usage of the "no" vote despite what the West wants, like with military action against Syria. This also tells me that the Russia\China relationship isn't strong as we are led to believe and that is a good thing

 

Exactly, an "abstain" vote is not in practice a "no" vote, it's (in this case) a "yes" vote. If it looks like the "yes" side is winning and you vote "abstain" instead of "no", it means you're OK with the outcome anyway, certainly in the case of a "yes" win, maybe also in the case of a "no" win.

 

If they wanted to, they could have voted "no" to protest.

[Valsuelm]

because a "no" vote  is direct support for what Russia did. If you accept that we live in global world where  countries want there allies to support them in political decisions then just the fact that China abstained shows that they don't support what Russia did. If China wanted to vote "no" they would have, they are not influenced by the West and have demonstrated in the past there usage of the "no" vote despite what the West wants, like with military action against Syria. This also tells me that the Russia\China relationship isn't strong as we are led to believe and that is a good thing

 

No it doesn't. A 'no' vote means the nations don't support the resolution on the table. A fluff resolution at that.

 

This issue, like so many other things, is not near as black and white as you think. Nations vote the way they do for a variety of reasons, especially on fluff like this.. Believe it or not, some nations really don't care if Crimea is annexed by Russia or not, in fact, if most nations were smart, they wouldn't. And no doubt a lot of the votes, both yes, no, and neither, were done to stay in the good graces of the main players in all of this. The U.S., U.K., NATO, IMF, Russia, et al. ie: If I'm nation X, and I've got good relations with both Russia and the U.S., or I want to make sure the IMF keeps sending me $$$, I'm likely to abstain or not vote, even if I'm truly for or against what Russia did. Alternatively, if I've got good relations with the U.S. or want them to keep sending me money, and I don't have much relations with Russia at all, I'm likely to vote 'yes' just to keep my lender happy. Money talks quite a lot in votes like these, in fact it probably has the loudest voice.

 

Few if any nations are going to stick their necks out for Ukraine/Crimea and upset their buddies, wannabe buddies, or purse string holders.

[BruceVC]

 

because a "no" vote  is direct support for what Russia did. If you accept that we live in global world where  countries want there allies to support them in political decisions then just the fact that China abstained shows that they don't support what Russia did. If China wanted to vote "no" they would have, they are not influenced by the West and have demonstrated in the past there usage of the "no" vote despite what the West wants, like with military action against Syria. This also tells me that the Russia\China relationship isn't strong as we are led to believe and that is a good thing

 

No it doesn't. A 'no' vote means the nations don't support the resolution on the table. A fluff resolution at that.

 

This issue, like so many other things, is not near as black and white as you think. Nations vote the way they do for a variety of reasons, especially on fluff like this.. Believe it or not, some nations really don't care if Crimea is annexed by Russia or not, in fact, if most nations were smart, they wouldn't. And no doubt a lot of the votes, both yes, no, and neither, were done to stay in the good graces of the main players in all of this. The U.S., U.K., NATO, IMF, Russia, et al. ie: If I'm nation X, and I've got good relations with both Russia and the U.S., or I want to make sure the IMF keeps sending me $$$, I'm likely to abstain or not vote, even if I'm truly for or against what Russia did. Alternatively, if I've got good relations with the U.S. or want them to keep sending me money, and I don't have much relations with Russia at all, I'm likely to vote 'yes' just to keep my lender happy. Money talks quite a lot in votes like these, in fact it probably has the loudest voice.

 

Few if any nations are going to stick their necks out for Ukraine/Crimea and upset their buddies, wannabe buddies, or purse string holders.

 

 

But once again you are missing  the obvious symbolic significance to what the vote means. Are you suggesting China abstained to stay in the good books of the West? This vote is actually an important litmus test of what Russia did and is it acceptable to the main and influential global players . Russia has been desperate to get China to support it based on there justification for annexing Crimea, despite how you try to spin it the fact that China abstained shows Russia doesn't have the real support they wanted from one of there traditional allies in UN votes

[Rostere]

 

Resolutions like this mean little to nothing and I'm sure Russia doesn't care that China or the other 57 that abstained, did so, as they were effectively 'no' votes. There were also 24 nations that didn't bother to vote at all.

 

https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/449216773460463617/photo/1/large

 

By the way, lol @Israel for not bothering to give their "ally" the US their support on this matter.

[Valsuelm]

 

But once again you are missing  the obvious symbolic significance to what the vote means. Are you suggesting China abstained to stay in the good books of the West? This vote is actually an important litmus test of what Russia did and is it acceptable to the main and influential global players . Russia has been desperate to get China to support it based on there justification for annexing Crimea, despite how you try to spin it the fact that China abstained shows Russia doesn't have the real support they wanted from one of there traditional allies in UN votes

 

China doesn't care Bruce. Neither does Russia. And this vote does not indicate much of anything of the Chinese - Russian relationship, which has been lukewarm standoffish for the better part of a hundred years now. Just like Israel not voting at all to support it's #1 ally's wishes doesn't mean all that much.

 

Really, about the only people who do care are the people buying into all the propaganda, or who live in Ukraine and are somehow butthurt Crimea left, or who live in Crimea and would prefer to live in Ukraine vs. Russia. Of course, the former far out numbers the latter, and the latter actually has a legitimate reason to care, unlike the former.

 

Russia has Crimea no matter what anyone votes, end of story. If you were at all even partially well versed in history you'd realize they probably never should have lost Crimea to Ukraine to begin with.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Valsuelm

[obyknven]

 

World reacion to Crimean referendum.

 

Eurasian Union (Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, other Central Asian countries) - ok.

African Union - ok

BRICS (China, India, Brazil etc) - ok

Latin America (Argentina, Venezuela etc) - ok

Even occupied by NATO Afghanistan support Crimean referendum.

 

Obama's reaction: “Crimea is not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognising the annexation of Crimea”. Ermmm. What about international community Obama talking constantly? He mean US and his bitches satellites?

I understand his actions (by Crimean performance Russian kick asses of Chevron and Shell from rich Crimean Oil (and other resourses) deposits, Obama as ****** of these corporations must make pleasure for his masters), but why he continue talking nonsense instead of truth?

 

LOL  Only in your dreams numbnuts.

 

The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal.

 

One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity.

 

Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416

 

Try harder. Only 100 countries from 193 support this antiRussian resolution.  China, Brazil, India, Argentine, South Africa don't support resolution ( it's about 3 billions Earthlings ).  Meanwhile in Russian haters countries as US and EU live only ~ 800 million people. Obviously majority of  world don't support this antiRussian crusade, in this situation talking about international isolation of Russia is foolishness. Just for lulz, after previous war in Georgia UN vote similar resolution, only 6 countries support Russia, but even after this Russia don't fell into isolation.