The Glade 4.0

I disagree. Both Democrats and Republicans, at all levels of government, actively work to implement rule changes that supress any canidate that doesnt have their backing.

Changing signature requirements, changing filing requirements, even up to the shenanigans in Ohio recently.

Third parties are a real threat to establishment candidates, because they eat the margins the two parties are different in. Id say 6% of voters decide the election. 47% are going to stick with the sports team mentality. If a third party takes that margin, then both R and D have to take hard turns to ensure their core turns out in force. That was evident in the last presidential election.

Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- The standoff in Ukraine's Crimea region is a strange one, where soldiers appear to be standing around amid an air of calm. They wear no military insignia, but there's little doubt about who they are.

Russian forces "have complete operational control of the Crimean peninsula," a senior U.S. administration official told CNN, with estimates of 6,000 Russian ground and naval forces in the region. A law is being considered in the Russian parliament that would allow Crimea to be annexed, according to the parliament's website.

Armed men are blocking 10 Ukrainian military and naval bases in Crimea, the newly appointed naval commander of Ukraine, Rear Adm. Serhei Gayduk, told a Ukrainian TV station.

Many ethnic Russians live in Crimea, where support for Russia is strong. Part of Russia's navy -- the Russian Black Sea Fleet -- has a base in Crimea's city of Sevastopol that has been there for 230 years.

In Crimea's capital, Simferopol, soldiers were circling government buildings and patrolling some streets, but their presence did not feel invasive, CNN correspondent Diana Magnay reported Monday.
Crisis escalating in Ukraine
EU Russian Ambassador speaks on Ukraine
Tymoshenko pleads for help to save Crimea

It appears that there is a "war of information" in the region "between those who watch Russian state TV and those who are getting their news from the West, none of them listening to the calls from Kiev for unity in this country," Magnay reported.

It has been, Magnay says, "a very low-key kind of invasion."

Crimea's First Vice-Premier Rustam Temirgaliyev also described the situation as quiet, Russian state news agency ITAR Tass reported on Monday.

"Despite hysteria in Ukraine's central media, the situation on the peninsula remains absolutely calm. No conflicts have flared up in Crimea over the past 24 hours. Crimea has preserved its inter-ethnic peace," Temirgaliyev said, according to ITAR Tass.

The calmness contrasts with reports that Russia has issued an ultimatum to Ukrainian forces in Crimea to clear out by 5 a.m. Tuesday or face a "military storm," according to a report from Russian state-run news agency Interfax, citing a Ukrainian Defense Ministry source.

Additionally, Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov told CNN that Russia's Black Sea fleet commander went aboard a blocked Ukrainian warship in Sevastopol harbor on Monday and issued an ultimatum: Swear allegiance to the new Crimean authorities, surrender, or face an attack. The Russian commander, Aleksandr Vitko, did not mention a deadline, Seleznyov said.

But Russia denies plans to storm the Ukrainian military units in Crimea, Interfax said, citing an unidentified spokesman for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Interfax said the spokesman called these reports "utter rubbish."

"We have gotten used to hearing claims that we are conducting military operations against our Ukrainian colleagues," said the spokesman, adding, "Attempts to set us against each other will fail."

Meanwhile, Seleznyov told CNN that up to 12 trucks full of Russian troops have crossed into the eastern Crimean city of Kerch from Russia.

Additionally, Ukrainian Border Service Assistant Chief Col. Sergei Astakhov described Russian troop movements by ferry from Russia across the Strait of Kerch in a phone conversation.

Astakhov said the first two ferries carrying armed men were navigating toward the ferry dock and border post in Kerch. As the ferries approached the port, 10 heavily armed troops from the Russian Black Sea Fleet attacked the border post from land and used force to overwhelm the Ukrainian border guards, Astakhov said.

The account of the attack contradicts the calm scene that CNN correspondents had observed in Kerch earlier Monday. Close to 100 men in green uniforms, carrying weapons such as AK-47s, lingered outside the main entrance to the ferry port Monday. Soldiers around there were not masked -- they were relaxing, eating and drinking tea, CNN's Ben Wedeman reported.

Half the soldiers were sitting around and waiting, with some standing and others spaced out every 100 meters. They appeared not to be on high alert. One Ukrainian soldier with an insignia remained by the entrance where cars enter the ferry port.

Three six-wheeled military trucks, used for transporting troops, have black license plates indicative of Russian forces based in Crimea, per the agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

An officer who wished to be identified only as Alexander, wearing a hat with the Russian Black Sea Fleet insignia, told CNN he and others from the Sevastopol naval base had been deployed outside the ferry port since Saturday. If they weren't there, he said, "there would be a civil war in Ukraine."

Alexander said the troops are there to protect their Ukrainian brothers from those who seized power locally in Kiev. Ukrainians gave them places to stay and shower, and locals have brought them food, he said.

The troops will stay in Kerch until Crimea decides what it wants to do, Alexander said.

Crimea is the last major stronghold of opposition to the new political leadership in Ukraine. The country's President, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted February 22 after months of anti-government protests reached a bloody climax. Street clashes between demonstrators and security forces left more than 80 dead.

The problem with this argument is Ukraine could defend themselves. They had nuclear weapons (a lot of them), but they were convinced to give them up in the name of nuclear non-proliferation. In return, we promised to help them ensure their security from any invaders. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

So yeah, I think it is our problem. We made it our problem when we signed that treaty. I don't think we should ignore treaties we sign because it would be inconvenient for us and we're tired of intervening in world affairs. Obviously we don't want to start WW3, so I'm sure we'll do whatever we can to settle this diplomatically. But we can't just ignore it and say "not our problem," because it is our problem.

The problem with this argument is Ukraine could defend themselves. They had nuclear weapons (a lot of them), but they were convinced to give them up in the name of nuclear non-proliferation. In return, we promised to help them ensure their security from any invaders. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

Quite a bit of commentary on the Ukraine crisis refers to Western “security guarantees” made in exchange for Kyiv’s de-nuclearization two decades ago. That analysis, alas, is not informed by the facts. While Russia is almost certainly in violation of both the spirit and letter of The Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances of 1994, the other signatories have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about it.

The most applicable provision: “The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” Russia is rather clearly in violation of this, notwithstanding Putin’s claims of self-defense.

Likewise, the parties “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Emphasis mine. So, unless Russia uses nuclear weapons, the other signatories have no obligation to do anything. If Russia were, unfathomably, to threaten or use nukes, then the other parties would be obligated to take the matter to the Security Council—where Russia would promptly veto any proposed action.

To summarize: The only security commitment given to Ukraine by the signatories is to make whole its nuclear deterrent against nuclear attack. The fact that nuclear weapons possession might also deter a conventional attack, while possibly true, is explicitly not addressed. Indeed, since the UN Security Council is going to actually take up the matter—for all the good that’ll do (see above)—the other parties are actually going above and beyond the call of duty.

Would it make any difference at all if Ukraine had a bigger military? Seeing that it is a given that the West is not going to intervene militarily on their behalf regardless, it doesn't really matter if they had spent ten times as much on their military, they still would have had no chance of actually beating a Russian invasion.

Apparently those security guarantees don't actually obligate us to do anything meaningful:

And personally, I like western democracy, and much prefer it to the politics of China, Russia, and India.

Canada has about 33 million people. We're generally regarded as not spending enough on our military (although that was a US request back in the cold war era). We spend 23 billion dollars a year on our military budget.

Compare:

The Ukraine has 44 million people. They spend 5 billion dollars a year on their military budget.

If Canada neighbored the Ukraine, we could annex them as easily as Russia did.

Despite having 133% the population of Canada, the Ukraine has a military approximately 22% the power of Canada's.

If you'd only said China, I'd agree. I'm puzzled at the inclusion of Russia and India, however.

Russia's Presidential Republic has somewhat similar structure to that of the USA, and is a multi-party system. India's government is patterned after Great Britain's, and therefore is almost identical to Canada's, except that instead of a monarch they actually have an elected President.

Things like freedom of speech,

a government beholden to the people,

individualism,

rationalism,

etc. Basically, western philosophy. It's pretty cool and I don't want it to die out.

Freedom of speech doesn't have to be absolute to be a part of our political philosophy.

Anyway, if you want to argue that the US has as much in common with China and Russia than with say, Germany and France, go ahead. But if you just don't like my random examples of what I consider "western philosophy," then you can just assume for my argument that by "western philosophy" I mean everything that we (Canada and the US) have in common with Western Europe.

It's like if Texas invaded Oklahoma.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

^ I am 95% sure that'd be bloody as all hell.

This invasion is definitely strange. Both sides clearly know how quickly things could go to hell, and are too close to one another to really be ready to kill the other.

It's like if Texas invaded Oklahoma.

Yes, they may not be an absolute defense against any invasion, but they make the cost of invasion or aggressive actions like what Russia is doing now a lot greater. Do you really think Russia would be occupying parts of Ukraine right now if they had nuclear weapons? I don't think they would bomb their entire nuclear arsenal just so they can occupy Crimea.

I agree with your assessment of the situation for the most part, in that Ukraine should have focused more on defense in the absence of a nuclear arsenal (although that's easy to say in retrospect). But I think if the US just lets Ukraine get bullied by Russia here, then the nuclear non-proliferation movement will suffer.

Would it make any difference at all if Ukraine had a bigger military? Seeing that it is a given that the West is not going to intervene militarily on their behalf regardless, it doesn't really matter if they had spent ten times as much on their military, they still would have had no chance of actually beating a Russian invasion.

I don't think you can just equate military expenditures and power like that. It's a lot cheaper to maintain a military in Ukraine than in Canada. Just at a quick glance, Ukraine has 1.5x as many active duty military personnel than Canada. Both spend about the same percent of their GDP on the military.

Using your logic, the US could easily annex Russia and China since we outspend them several times over. But I think we know that's not feasible in a conventional sense.

The invasion was a fake and a fraud. The local militia wore Soviet Surplus uniforms that look a lot like Russian uniforms, but no insignia. The Russians may have supplied he uniforms, some training, some old weapons, but they seem to have kept their people out of there.

Why? My guess is that it was a feint to get the west to overreact. Of course the Russians are already on a Naval base in Crimea, and from what I can tell stayed there.

Putin is playing with the West. He seems to be having a good time.