Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByoiBgQMsfo#t=117s

I see flaws with this idea

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NIGGER DEATH TURBO
Jul 4, 2013

by Lowtax



how i see that discussion going:

"that idea is dumb as gently caress, no"

vains
May 26, 2004



The OOD and area guard are often already armed or can be quickly.

Helldump Immunity.
Aug 2, 2013

Fuck you


No nobles should ever carry anything more than a dull stick.

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007



orange juche
Mar 14, 2012





Bolow posted:

Kill all nobles.

Mike-o
Dec 25, 2004

Now I'm in your room
And I'm in your bed




Grimey Drawer

We can't kill all nobles if they're armed, now can we :eng101:?

Helldump Immunity.
Aug 2, 2013

Fuck you


Kung Fu Fist Fuck
Aug 9, 2009


orange juche posted:

all loving nobles must loving hang

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


Lots of pro-Russian rallies in East Ukraine today. In Dnepropetrovsk, it was apparently a small gathering of 'nostalgic Communists.' In Donetsk it sounds like they seized city hall and may be taking over the airport, and are demanding a referendum immediately to join Russia.

Russia's state press reports the Foreign Ministry has received 'sacks of letters' from East Ukraine asking Putin to come in and protect ethnic Russians.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012





Lol Putin is gonna gobble up Ukraine like Germany did Poland immediately prior to WWII.

Flikken
Oct 22, 2009

10,363 snaps and not a playoff win to show for it


orange juche posted:

Lol Putin is gonna gobble up Ukraine like Germany did Poland immediately prior to WWII.

You mean Czechloslovakia.

Baloogan
Dec 5, 2004


Fun Shoe

Why are there so many people who want russian cock in mouth?

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003



College Slice

Baloogan posted:

Why are there so many people who want russian cock in mouth?

I would not in the least put it past Putin for 3/4 of them to be actual-Russian Russians that were bussed in to stage demonstrations so Putin can claim to be defending the people he sent in there ethnic Russians. Destabilizing former soviet bloc countries is kind of his thing.

NIGGER DEATH TURBO
Jul 4, 2013

by Lowtax


Baloogan posted:

Why are there so many people who want russian cock in mouth?

they didn't watch ur bitchin game stream where you pissed this guy off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

Courthouse
Jul 23, 2013


Pro-Russia demonstrators have clashed with police in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv. All close to the Russian border. Local governmental buildings have been stormed and Russian flags raised. Calls for a "people republic" to break away from Kiev.

quote:

Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov accused President Putin and Mr Yanukovych - who was forced from office in February following months of street protests and is now living in exile in Russia - of "ordering and paying for another wave of separatist turmoil in the country's east".

In a message posted on his Facebook account, he said: "The people who have gathered are not many but they are very aggressive. The situation will be brought under control without bloodshed. But at the same time, a firm approach will be used against all who attack government buildings, law enforcement officers and other citizens."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26910210

Other sources are saying that a lot of the protesters in the east are actually Russian Russians, both civilian and agents/specops, from across the border. Who had been moved into Ukraine as part of a long planned campaign to destabilize the Ukrainian east with the goal of integrating it with Russia as well.

However I can't find any reputable source saying this. Anyone have any handle on how much of this "the political opposition are foreign agents" stuff is to any degree verifiable?

iyaayas01 posted:

That is one hell of an assumption, saying there "isn't any doubt" that we guaranteed their territorial integrity. I know you won't be able to prove it, so I won't ask you to, but I'll just reiterate that it is one hell of an assumption and I think saying there isn't any doubt is much too strong of a statement, seeing as how the lack of any concrete proof by definition means there is doubt.

Basically it comes down to there being 2 possible versions of what the agreement was and meant.

1: Ukraine would take the unprecedented step of giving up it's entire and vast nuclear arsenal, in exchange for being guaranteed it's territorial integrity by the signatory powers.

2: Ukraine would take the unprecedented step of giving up it's entire and vast nuclear arsenal, in exchange for bupkis.


Of course I can't prove poo poo here, I will admit as much. But I will claim that there can be no reasonable doubt that what was promised Ukraine, or at least what Ukraine were led to believe were promised to them, must have been of immense and serious value. Because you don't loving give up the third largest strategic nuclear weapons arsenal in the world for option 2. The very idea is prima facie ludicrous. If that was not what they were being promised then what exactly were they told they were getting?

As to the second part, it may be true that the US has differing levels of commitments and promises. Ranging from some diplomat saying "we take national sovereignty real serious/your country is important to us" over tea and biscuits to full no-poo poo article 5. The problem right now being the perception that America is unwilling and/or incapable of backing up part of that range. The question is where the US draws the line. When, exactly, will american support be forthcoming? Because there has been a lot of stepping over red lines lately with little to no action.

That may all be perception. And a lot of countries may have been stupid for having been lulled into a false sense of safety from the resident world police. But it is how media and politicians around the world are perceiving it.

Courthouse fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 7, 2014

Whip Slagcheek
Sep 21, 2008

Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night




If you're stupid enough to leave the sovereignty of your nation in the hands of someone else, you're probably an idiot. Also, you're making a lot of assumptions about geopolitical dealings with nothing but hyperbole to back it up.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd


I propose a third option: Ukraine gave up its nukes not because it exacted a (verbal, unofficial) promise from the US to protect its sovereignty, but because it perceived that in the post Cold War environment (when they were broke as poo poo and basically teetering on failed state status) it made more sense to give up its nukes in an effort to get increased Western aid because holding onto the nukes would've made them persona non grata as far as the West was concerned (their hanging on to nukes would've been a huge blow to the NPT construct) and Russia was even more of a failed state than they were, it's not like they would ever be a relevant threat again, right?

Just because something is incredibly stupid when you take a long view doesn't mean that a nation's leaders won't do it if they perceive it as being a good move in the short term.

For exhibit A to support my point, I direct you to the entirety of US post-WWII foreign policy.

You do bring up a good point about the perception piece...but unfortunately, unless we have another wikileaks cables dump we're not going to know what foreign governments are actually saying to U.S. diplomats regarding their perception of our lack of action (or not) in Ukraine. We have non-policy makers spouting off in a couple of different countries (e.g., the Japan article someone quoted earlier), but there's often a huge difference between what non-policy makers are saying they "are certain" is going on and what is actually taking place behind those closed doors and in diplomatic cables.

So yeah, you're making a lot of assumptions with nothing to back it up. As for hyperbole, what are all these "red lines" that you are referring to? I know of one, Syrian chemical weapons. That was incredibly stupid, but you're making it sound like the US has been making "red line" commitments willy nilly over the past 12 months and has failed to enforce any of them. Just because something happens in the world that we don't necessarily like and we don't instantly respond with a full blown military response doesn't mean that we failed to "meet our commitments" or whatever.

Whip Slagcheek
Sep 21, 2008

Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night




The Syrian chemical weapons red line was incredibly stupid, but that's been par for the course with Kerry as SecState. It'd have been a horrible move to get militarily involved in Syria and in hindsight, letting the red line go without doing anything was probably the right move. There's no faction in that fight that's worth outright support so the best we can do is funnel money/weapons through Saudi Arabia and Qatar and let them continue to kill each other.

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


That wasn't Kerry, that was Obama. Kerry never said anything about a red line (or at least didn't originate it), Obama did. Kerry isn't a very good secretary of state but you can't really blame everything on him, considering what he has to work with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQKLRGRhPU

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


Whip Slagcheek posted:

If you're stupid enough to leave the sovereignty of your nation in the hands of someone else, you're probably an idiot.

Woah man we've got posters from EU countries in here


iyaayas01 posted:

I propose a third option: Ukraine gave up its nukes not because it exacted a (verbal, unofficial) promise from the US to protect its sovereignty, but because it perceived that in the post Cold War environment (when they were broke as poo poo and basically teetering on failed state status) it made more sense to give up its nukes in an effort to get increased Western aid because holding onto the nukes would've made them persona non grata as far as the West was concerned (their hanging on to nukes would've been a huge blow to the NPT construct) and Russia was even more of a failed state than they were, it's not like they would ever be a relevant threat again, right?

Just because something is incredibly stupid when you take a long view doesn't mean that a nation's leaders won't do it if they perceive it as being a good move in the short term.

For exhibit A to support my point, I direct you to the entirety of US post-WWII foreign policy.

You do bring up a good point about the perception piece...but unfortunately, unless we have another wikileaks cables dump we're not going to know what foreign governments are actually saying to U.S. diplomats regarding their perception of our lack of action (or not) in Ukraine. We have non-policy makers spouting off in a couple of different countries (e.g., the Japan article someone quoted earlier), but there's often a huge difference between what non-policy makers are saying they "are certain" is going on and what is actually taking place behind those closed doors and in diplomatic cables.

So yeah, you're making a lot of assumptions with nothing to back it up. As for hyperbole, what are all these "red lines" that you are referring to? I know of one, Syrian chemical weapons. That was incredibly stupid, but you're making it sound like the US has been making "red line" commitments willy nilly over the past 12 months and has failed to enforce any of them. Just because something happens in the world that we don't necessarily like and we don't instantly respond with a full blown military response doesn't mean that we failed to "meet our commitments" or whatever.

I'm going off memory here but in '94 there were a couple of factors.

For one, after the fall of the Wall and the dissolution of the USSR, everyone was infected with this 'end of history' silliness and thought we were entering an era without military war. This led to a variety of short-sighted moves by governments all over the world - mostly mil budget cutting, but some diplomatic stuff too. Nuclear disarmament, even unilaterally, was very much in vogue.

Two, after the USSR went away, the Western powers politely but firmly told the ex-satellites that they were to give up their weapons or have them taken. I don't remember in what form this was delivered, but I do remember there were a lot of Americans involved (supposedly) in helping secure nukes and related equipment to keep them from just vanishing to the merc market, like a poo poo ton of other military hardware did. You gotta remember that these were textbook failed states, and they had entirely too many internal concerns to be trying to find manpower and funding to secure and maintain H-bombs. Also, Russia retained all the arming codes so the weapons were technically at least temporarily useless lumps. The Lisbon Protocol was signed soon after the USSR fell in May '92, sending almost all of Ukraine's nukes back to Russia; the Budapest Memorandum mostly dealt with the remaining small deterrent force Ukraine was trying to keep.

This gives some idea of the mess at the time: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-144.htm
(emphasis mine)

quote:

President Kravchuk submitted START I and the NPT to the Rada for ratification. On November 18, the parliament ratified START by a vote of 254 to 9, but it attached many significant conditions. The parliament rejected the promise made in the Lisbon protocol that Ukraine would accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as soon as possible. The document also stated that the instruments of ratification would be exchanged with the other signatories only after a number of conditions had been met. Among the conditions was that Ukraine would rid itself of the nuclear weapons on its territory only if sufficient international financial and technical assistance were made available, and only after receiving guarantees concerning the non-use against it of nuclear weapons, of conventional military forces, of threats to resort to force, and of economic pressure. In another provision of the document, the parliament interpreted START I to require that Ukraine eliminate only 36% of the strategic delivery vehicles and 42% of the warheads on its territory. These conditions were unacceptable alterations to the terms of START I and, therefore, the treaty could not enter into force. In particular, the Russian resolution of ratification indicated that the treaty could not enter into force until Ukraine fulfilled all of its obligations under the Lisbon protocol, including the promised accession to the NPT.

The United States and Russia rejected the conditions in the Rada's declaration, but both nations continued to work with Ukraine to develop an acceptable solution. On January 14, 1994, President Kravchuk met with Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton in Moscow to sign a trilateral declaration. According to the terms of the declaration -- some of which still remain undisclosed -- in exchange for U.S. foreign aid, reactor fuel rods, tripartite mutual security guarantees, and compensation for fissile material transferred to Russia, Ukraine promised to remove all former Soviet nuclear weapons from its territory within 7 years and to accede to the NPT. In an annex to the statement, Ukraine promised to deactivate all SS-24s on its territory within ten months by removing the warheads from the missiles. In a major turnaround, the Rada passed a resolution on February 4 recognizing the tripartite declaration and indicating that it and President Kravchuk's actions had met the preconditions for ratification of START I that had been set out on November 18. Apparently, the steps taken by the Rada in February were heavily influenced by the combination of the extremely poor state of the Ukrainian economy, the promise of fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants, promises of U.S. and international aid for privatization and weapons dismantlement, and the tripartite security assurances (in spite of the fact that the assurances would not come in the form of a formal treaty, as many in Ukraine had wanted).

Note that this all technically precedes the formal Memorandum.

Finally it was really unclear who these weapons would ever be usable against, even as deterrent. Ukraine certainly wasn't in love with the Russians at the time, but the Russians were neck-deep in poo poo of their own (Yeltsin shelling his own Parliament was only in Dec '93) so they didn't seem like a short term risk. Security concerns of the future (see that 'end of history' bit) seemed like they were mostly going to come from ethnic terrorists (WTC bombing was in '93, Rus invasion of Chechnya Dec '94) that house atomics were worthless against.

I think these points actually strengthen the argument that Ukraine at least thought it was trading away deterrent nukes for defense agreements against conventional attacks, knowing full well its conventional military was probably going to rot to pieces in a field for the next twenty years, but that's still reading a lot into backroom banter.

E: And again there's a world of difference between 'no full blown military response' and 'preemptively taking even the threat of the merest military response off the table'

Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Apr 7, 2014

Courthouse
Jul 23, 2013


quote:

I propose a third option: Ukraine gave up its nukes not because it exacted a (verbal, unofficial) promise from the US to protect its sovereignty, but because it perceived that in the post Cold War environment (when they were broke as poo poo and basically teetering on failed state status) it made more sense to give up its nukes in an effort to get increased Western aid because holding onto the nukes would've made them persona non grata as far as the West was concerned (their hanging on to nukes would've been a huge blow to the NPT construct) and Russia was even more of a failed state than they were, it's not like they would ever be a relevant threat again, right?

Conceded as part of it. I still maintain that Ukraine, judging from it's actions and statements from their officials past and present, were under the impression that the US would act as a deterrent against aggression. Deterring usually coming in the form of telling someone they can't do X, and then backing that up with a credible intent and capacity of economic/military/political response. The US certainly did not do anything to dissuade them of this notion.

For red lines, see the Arab revolutions and the current administration telling various pre/post governments to do/not do stuff and nothing much coming of it bar in Libya. Also the current situation in Ukraine, where the US went "you can't do that" and nothing much happening after they did.

Not all of these instances were/are termed red lines, but essentially fall in the category of failed US deterrence. And much of the post CW status quo is built on assumptions of and about US deterrence.
For further reading, just look up and US conservative news site's well stocked 'Obama makes US look weak' section.

Whip Slagcheek posted:

If you're stupid enough to leave the sovereignty of your nation in the hands of someone else, you're probably an idiot.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions about geopolitical dealings with nothing but hyperbole to back it up.

Probably. But that would include most of the western world bar a few of the bigger Euros. Most smaller nations have more or less disarmed and relied on the assumption that the era of conquest was over.

My assumptions go no deeper than seeing that more or less important people and media are all upset about the Budapest memorandum, and indicating that their understanding of what it "meant" was different from what the US current understanding of it is. Snowdens links were good reads on this.

Also, "people upset about American foreign policy" is not exactly hyperbole. If anything it's status quo. (By it being a big loving deal, I meant to US allies. I don't think it will have major reprecussion for the US itself. Perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts better)




While there are plenty of examples, the most obvious one is Taiwan. Where the US defense treaty was intentionally left ambiguous, essentially just saying the US will make sure Taiwan has the equipment it needs for self defense and then leaving to Washington to determine how much that means. And Taiwanese sovereignty is very much reliant on US support and containment of overt and overeager Chinese ambition for reunification/absorption. There's a reason Hagel had to go out and publicly promise that the US will honor it's asian defense treaties.

:effort: reading
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/20/china/taiwan-next-crimea
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/taiwan-watching-crimea-nervous-eye-toward-beijing-10047




In related news it looks like the month long student occupation (as well as tens of thousands marching on the presidential office) of the Taiwanese Parliament over a trade treaty with China, that they feared would give the mainlanders economic control over the isle, looks to be coming to and end after the speaker promised to delay the bill and work to add oversight mechanisms.

quote:

Taiwan Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng said a review of a trade pact with China would be delayed until an oversight mechanism for such cross-strait agreements is enacted, a concession to student protesters who barricaded themselves inside the legislature three weeks ago to protest the pact.

The protesters have said the negotiations between Taipei and Beijing for the pact, which was signed last year, weren't transparent. They have demanded that the government set up a legally binding mechanism to oversee all cross-strait deals, including the services trade pact, to ensure proper oversight and public input.

Pressure is mounting on the Taiwan government to resolve an impasse over the trade pact that has moved thousands of students to camp inside and outside the legislature since March 18. More than 100,000 protesters gathered outside Taiwan's Presidential Office Building in downtown Taipei on March 30.

Mr. Wang said ruling and opposition party negotiations on the trade pact—which are crucial for itspassing—would be delayed until legislation for monitoring agreements with China is enacted. Mr. Wang didn't say when the law could be passed.

Student protesters on Sunday called Mr. Wang's announcement "substantial progress" but said they would continue to occupy the legislature as it wasn't clear if Mr. Wang supported their version of the draft oversight bill.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0769173224.html

Courthouse fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 7, 2014

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c79f20a-be6e-11e3-b44a-00144feabdc0.html

quote:

The oil arm of Russia’s state-owned Gazprom is preparing customers to settle contracts in euros rather than dollars as it braces for the possible escalation of US sanctions against Moscow.

Alexander Dyukov, chief executive of Gazprom Neft, told reporters in St Petersburg that the company had discussed shifting contracts to euros with its customers. “Practically all – 95 per cent of our customers – confirmed their willingness to move to settlement in euros,” he said.
...
Andrei Kostin, chief executive of state bank VTB, said over the weekend that Russian exporters should consider payments in roubles rather than dollars. “To a certain degree this would be a guarantee that, if at some point someone decided to impose Iran-style sanctions on us, we would have a level of protection from it,” he told state television.

Mr Kostin, one of the most senior figures in the Russian business community, added that he had spoken to the heads of three of the largest Russian exporters – Gazprom, Rosneft, and Rostec – and that they were “in principle ready to do this”.

“It is somewhat strange that a payment from Kazakhstan to Russia goes through New York,” he said. Gazprom said that it was considering the idea, but Rosneft said that it would “settle payments in the currency of the contract”.

Norilsk Nickel, the world’s largest nickel and palladium miner, earlier told the FT that it was discussing denominating long-term contracts with Chinese consumers in renminbi.

Western sanctions have so far had minimal impact on the Russian commodity sector’s ability to export. But there are worries among some executives that further rounds of sanctions from the US could target the energy sector, which accounts for about half of Moscow’s budget revenues.

Moving away from the dollar incurs a lot of overhead cost and would suggest these guys (who are obviously high up in state-run industry) expect sanctions to get worse and continue for some time. What would give them that idea?

Whip Slagcheek
Sep 21, 2008

Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night




So because much of the western world demilitarized that makes them not idiots? lol. I want to live in this fanciful world where's there's no external threats or destabilizers that could ever appear. I stand by my assertion that if you cede your security to another country you're an idiot.

I don't see Taiwan in this category because they've been developing/buying what military forces they can. Being a small country with a small army is a lot different than being a doormat. Ukraine was a doormat and subsequently Putin rolled in without a shot fired.

ded
Oct 27, 2005

Kooler than Jesus


Lets get back to our roots as Americans in the early 1900s, gently caress europe. :smug:

Sax Offender
Sep 9, 2007



College Slice

ded posted:

Lets get back to our roots as Americans in the early 1900s, gently caress europe everyone. :smug:
FTFY

Hoist the Gadsden flag

Fojar38
Sep 1, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->


Whip Slagcheek posted:

So because much of the western world demilitarized that makes them not idiots? lol. I want to live in this fanciful world where's there's no external threats or destabilizers that could ever appear. I stand by my assertion that if you cede your security to another country you're an idiot.

What if you're Canada?

Flikken
Oct 22, 2009

10,363 snaps and not a playoff win to show for it


Fojar38 posted:

What if you're Canada?

Canada's security IS the USA's security, so they are ok.

Lazy Reservist
Nov 30, 2005

FUBIJAR

Canada needs to understand that the US is the only thing standing between them and Mexico.

orange juche
Mar 14, 2012





Lazy Reservist posted:

Canada needs to understand that the US is the only thing standing between them and Mexico.

gleep gloop
Aug 16, 2005

GROSS SHIT

Lazy Reservist posted:

Canada needs to understand that the US is the only thing standing between them and Mexico.

Baloogan
Dec 5, 2004


Fun Shoe

I'm pretty sure we could gently caress mexico up if it came to it. I mean, comon, mexicans lol.

Kung Fu Fist Fuck
Aug 9, 2009


Baloogan posted:

I'm pretty sure we could gently caress mexico up if it came to it. I mean, comon, mexicans lol.

we should start at the border and move south, stack em up 20 feet high and salt the earth. once we hit guatemala we tell them to behave or theyre next

Randandal
Feb 26, 2009



I think Ukraine was a doormat because it was in a state of nearly complete anarchy when the Russians decided to roll in. Any other time in the past 20 years or any other Eastern European nation, Russia probably doesn't pull this off.

With a coup in Kiev and a breakdown among diplomatic offices and military command, it's really the only time Putin could get away with trying it. The West should embrace this chaos as a reasonable excuse for inaction, because without a Ukranian government to make the formal request, how could anybody even know if Ukraine wants NATO forces intervening? By the time Ukraine had a functioning interim government, it was already done. I say that NATO still won't leave any other allied government hanging in the future, because in this case there was no government to leave hanging.

PookBear
Nov 1, 2008


are treaties tied to the government or the people?

Courthouse
Jul 23, 2013


quote:

So because much of the western world demilitarized that makes them not idiots?

I think you structure your defense to equal the threat. Blowing billions on an idle and goal-less army instead of other vital stuff is also pretty idiotic.

Had you asked some time ago whether Ukraine should redirect billions to counter the growing Russian threat pretty much everyone would have said that would be a retarded move that would needlessly hurt vital economic recovery and antagonize Putin.

Structuring defense to equal the treat is the logical thing to do, and demilitarization is quite sensible when there are no real perceived threats to your sovereignty. The counterargument being that you need to take into account the unforeseen threats that pop up from time to time. But where do you draw the line there? How strong does the [insert EU country here] army need to be before they are not idiots?


quote:

The West should embrace this chaos as a reasonable excuse for inaction, because without a Ukranian government to make the formal request, how could anybody even know if Ukraine wants NATO forces intervening? By the time Ukraine had a functioning interim government, it was already done. I say that NATO still won't leave any other allied government hanging in the future, because in this case there was no government to leave hanging.

Reverand maynard posted:

are treaties tied to the government or the people?

I'd think it would be with the nation as an entity, regardless of who is or isn't in government? It's not like if someone nukes London NATo does nothing because technically there is no government to call for triggering art5.

And also, do you want to set the precedent that treaties are void during times of political upheaval/govt illegitimacy? Since that would kind of sound like an invitation for the Georgia/Ukraine tactic of destabilize -> annex territory in 'self defense' to become a more common sight around the world.

It may be the actual reality of it, but I think you'd want a better official doctrine for who gets help for what when.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?


Baloogan posted:

I'm pretty sure we could gently caress mexico up if it came to it. I mean, comon, mexicans lol.

Yeah, that box is already checked.

Patrocclesiastes
Apr 30, 2009



There is currently some hubbub here over a possible Russian disinformation campaign waged against Finland:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/04/finland-and-russia

Similar things have apparently been going on in the Baltic states.

Times I want to know what the hell is going on with our intelligence people.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?


Ask Congress.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CMYK BLYAT!
Nov 7, 2011

tolko zhaesh, poshli ikh na X
ne umru ya, moi drug, nikogda!



Lazy Reservist posted:

Canada needs to understand that the US is the only thing standing between them and Texas.

  • Locked thread