South Ossetia is a territory which has not really been politically part of Georgia since Georgia became independent. Thanks to the Georgian attack it is currently a failed state heavily dependent on Russia for support. Dependency doesn't mean annexation, nor does presence of foreign military forces. If it did then please start calling Kosovo an American annexation, or northern Cyprus a Turkish annexation.

I would gladly call northern Cyprus a Turkish annexation. And Kosovo, while slightly different, is close enough that I will merit it as a valid comparison.

As far as I know, though, we don't have troops in Kosovo. Am I wrong? Additionally, we don't have a law on our books regarding the incorporation of territories that wish to be a part of the United States. Nor did Kosovo express interest in joining the United States.

The US army has one of its largest European bases in Kosovo, Bondsteel. It houses 7,000 US troops under KFOR command.

So let's be clear. If a territory desires to be part of another state, that still counts as annexation? I was under the impression that annexation meant conquest, not voluntary accession to another country.

Putin33: Yes.

The others: Events in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not the best comparisons to make. Russia did not attempt to annex these miniscule territories in the recent war, but had peacekeepers in them per the ceasefire agreement these polities signed with Georgia two decades ago and intervened accordingly to restore the peace when Georgia invaded South Ossetia during an Olympic truce. And these territories do not want to join the Russian Federation either.

Huh, well I'll be damned. We did pull a Russia in Kosovo.

But yes, Putin. Annexation is the process of incorporating new territory into the state. Doesn't necessarily mean by conquest.

Breaking news. Latvia and Lithuania are convening an extraordinary meeting of NATO, citing security concerns.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news/393234/

As is well known, Latvia and Lithuania have been actively training the ultra-nationalists in Ukraine to spread ethnic hostility and division. Divide et impera proceeds.

Other breaking news, Kiev is bussing in extremists to Kharkhov to instigate violence against pro-Russian population and try to take over administration.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/721633

To my friends in America - please stop John Kerry from speaking.

Some of us have been saying that since 2004.

Bondsteel can house that many troops, but it doesn't. American involvement is minor now. However, we will have to unfuck what Clinton did, that state is the biggest clusterfuck of Europe and the rest of the modern worls, and is not sustainable.

We are witnessing huge game of diplomacy IRL. Lots of talk about freedom, law, order and other usual stuff. None of that really being objective or truth. Why is that? Because if people are protesting for interests of great power A, then they are called freedom fighters, innocent democratic citizens, and protesters (even when they carry guns are are killing police officers). But, if protesters are protesting for something that is in the interest of the power B, then they are called separatist, terrorist and such. In truth they are just pawns. None of those people will live better in any case. If west wins and take Ukraine out of Russian sphere of influence, those people will remain poor, mistreated, and backyard of Europe. If Russia wins, the same will happen. What is the worst is the the way it happened. We are accustomed seeing great power to overthrow governments in Africa, South America or Asia. But to overthrow a government of European nation with million population is warning to us all. What is the next, taking down government in Madrid, Rome if they sign a deal that is not in the interest of some western or eastern power group?

This is not about freedom, democracy, or people. This is about power, resources, money.

Who is involved and what are their interest, is the main question:
Ukraine, Belarus: They are just pawns and victims. Tools for great powers to play with.

Poland: Economically revived Poland see its chance to get in Ukraine. Not long ago Poland ruled western Ukraine and Lvov was considered polish city. Poland wants part of this cake again.

Germany: Not really much to say here, from ancient times German tribes looked for expansion to the east, and today is not much different. Lots of space with little population and lots of resources. Ideal for great power to poses.

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia: All of them have large Russian minority, and rusophob population. They all remember old times when Lithuanian-polish commonwealth was the largest state in Europe, from Baltic to the Black Sea.

Turkey: Is in great expansion. Powerful economy, rising power. It want to expand, and the best way is to take control of the Syria, and weaken Russia to dominate Caucasus.

USA: Russia without Ukraine is paper tiger. All Russian big cities are in near vicinity of Ukraine border. If west controls Ukraine, Belarus will follow and the result, Russia is power no more.

Russia: Wants to control Ukraine in order to have safe heaven in Black Sea, to have block of states between its core and the west (Ukraine and Belarus would be that buffer). Remember the World War One. USA did not liked the idea to see German Empire being friend and ally of Mexico, so USA reacted with interventionh. The same is here. If Russia are to remain a power, it cannot let NATO to control Ukraine. It will react.

Time: Recent studies show that western power is declining and that at the moment it is on its zenith. In 20-30 years center of power would be in the triangle China-India-South East Asia-plus Brazil. USA will not be able to afford money to keep as large army as it have now, and the same goes with Europe, while eastern power will boom. That means that time is working for eastern powers. If west wants to have domination it has to act now, while it has the lead. This is what we are seeing now.

The final note. USA had its own civil war. Terrible thing that ruined many cities, states. USA did not let secession of its states, but recently USA pressed for secession of Kosovo. If I am not mistaken, for example Texas volunteer joined USA, and thus it would be logical to assume that Texas have the right to leave the union. IRL this was not the case. On the other hand, Kosovo was province, autonomous province, never state, or nation, or republic, and still it got right to seceded. Double standards?

"Double standards?"

Well, yes.

At dejan - maybe we are witnessing a huge game of diplomacy. It seems though that Putin is playing a quick fire gunboat game, speaking little and moving quickly and the west are playing a traditional weekly phase game. Talking lots and doing nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if they NMR and Putin wins by default.

As we all know, no Russian player would ever tolerate a German army on Ukrainian territory.

We're not living in a pre-WW1 world Putin.

No, much worse. Russia has had two invasions and decades of hostility towards it since then. The West had originally promised that the anti-Russian NATO alliance would never go east of West Germany. Now it's on the Russian frontier, with the USA pushing to add Georgia into the mix as well.

That agreement was made with the USSR, which doesn't exists anymore. And NATO has long since stopped being an anti-Russian alliance. Or are you arguing that NATO would invade Russia if they get the chance? Because if you are then that's pretty insane IMO.

If NATO isn't anti-Russian then why are they pushing for a missile shield in Czech Republic and Poland? (Oh that's right to 'defend against Iran'). Why were they so eager to get Georgia to join in 2008? Why so eager to get Ukraine to join after the Orange revolution? They're not anti-Russian they just recruit anti-Russian governments to join the alliance in countries that make no sense whatsoever except as forward bases to encircle Russia. They also destroy pro-Russian countries like Yugoslavia with merciless bombing campaigns (and yes NATO was very close to coming to blows with Russia during that war). If NATO isn't anti-Russian why don't they invite Russia to join, as Russian leaders had long requested? Why didn't they replace with a pan-European security alliance which had been proposed?

NATO has no reason for existing other than as a tool to cut out Russia from collective security and encircle it with hostile governments protected with a powerful security blanket that Russia cannot penetrate.

At the time that pan-European security alliance was proposed then yes NATO was mostly an anti-Russian alliance so that's why that didn't happen. NATO is primarily a defensive alliance and at that time the USSR was the biggest threat (or at least that's how they were perceived). NATO has changed a lot since then though. In fact there have been several discussions over the years (admittedly without much serious support) to dismantle the alliance due to the cold war being over.

As to recruiting anti-Russian governments to join NATO. That's a pretty biased explanation of what happened. Another explanation of what happened would be that those nations were forcefully put under the USSR umbrella (with the okay from the West) where they had suffered and wasted away for decennia while their EU neighbors to the West prospered. Then when the chance arose to join the EU and get protection from Russia by joining NATO they all to eagerly went for that opportunity.

Now in reality, both explanations have some merit IMO. The idea that the NATO expansion was merely a case of poor Russia being bullied by the US is rather silly though.

Dejan0707: Are you being sarcastic? I ask because your analysis doesn't hold.

Putin, since a missile shield can only be used for defensive purposes, why should Russia care where we put it? It can't be used to hurt them. All it does is reduce Russia's aggressive abilities, which is the real reason Russia was so vehemently against it.

As for Yugoslavia, it wasn't really pro-Russian. They had been estranged with the Soviets for a long time. Georgia was to, idk, prevent it from being invaded?

goldfinger0303: MAD fails.

Goldfinger, with a missile shield the USA and its NATO allies would be allowed to expand at will, as Russia would no longer have any kind of deterrent. Eliminating deterrence for one side enables them to engage in aggression with impunity. You know this, you're a realist.

"NATO is primarily a defensive alliance"

Which is why they keep bombing and occupying countries which have never threatened any NATO country. Keep spouting your bullshit.

"Then when the chance arose to join the EU and get protection from Russia by joining NATO they all to eagerly went for that opportunity."

And since Russia had withdrawn from Europe and was offering nothing but peace proposal after peace proposal what the hell was the point, except to finish the Russians off? More excuses. The West had every opportunity with Gorbachov to usher in an area of joint security cooperation and instead they chose to cut Russia out because they want Russia weak.

"As for Yugoslavia, it wasn't really pro-Russian. They had been estranged with the Soviets for a long time. "

Soviet-Yugoslav relations were positive throughout the post-Tito period. The Soviet Union was Yugoslavia's largest trading partner. Russia assisted Yugoslavia during the NATO war in the late 1990s, even having a militarily standoff at Prishtina airport.

get a job Putin.

dirge: What a polite contribution!

http://news.yahoo.com/putin-ready-invade-ukraine-kiev-warns-war-011805827--finance.html

Putin, would you care to comment? Doesn't seem as if the Ukrainians are all that pleased to see your namesake--in this man's own words--giving the equivalent of a "declaration of war" against them..........

But it's all for the greater good, right?

tldr The army in Moscow move to Sevastopol

but seriously Russia cant lose this. Too big to sanction, too many nukes to invade.