But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on.
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to be put into Poland, right? And Russia was all for it… if they were a part of development or something like that. If they only knew that U.S and Russia would not rush in and help when someone violated their borders…
Another interesting thing is that when Kosovo went independent of Serbia, something Russia was extremely against, on the grounds that it would foster more conflict and would bite the Americans in the ass a bit. Case in point; Georgia, Crimea, Donbas. Kosovo really opened up so many possibilities around the world. Will the Americans support Kurdistan, against ally Turkey? How many other countries can be split by other countries motives?
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to be put into Poland, right? And Russia was all for it… if they were a part of development or something like that. If they only knew that U.S and Russia would not rush in and help when someone violated their borders…
Another interesting thing is that when Kosovo went independent of Serbia, something Russia was extremely against, on the grounds that it would foster more conflict and would bite the Americans in the ass a bit. Case in point; Georgia, Crimea, Donbas. Kosovo really opened up so many possibilities around the world. Will the Americans support Kurdistan, against ally Turkey? How many other countries can be split by other countries motives?
[/quote]
Turkey to some degree would welcome an independent Kurdistan, but probably only Iraqi Kurdistan. They were initially opposed worrying that Turkey Kurdistan might join. What started the new Turkish attitude was oil trade and a track history of stable autonomous government.
Bismark: wasn’t the actual land of Crimea part of that 1993 nuclear arms deal? Kind of a double fuck you to Ukraine to usurp it.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to be put into Poland, right? And Russia was all for it… if they were a part of development or something like that. If they only knew that U.S and Russia would not rush in and help when someone violated their borders…
Another interesting thing is that when Kosovo went independent of Serbia, something Russia was extremely against, on the grounds that it would foster more conflict and would bite the Americans in the ass a bit. Case in point; Georgia, Crimea, Donbas. Kosovo really opened up so many possibilities around the world. Will the Americans support Kurdistan, against ally Turkey? How many other countries can be split by other countries motives?
[/quote]
Turkey to some degree would welcome an independent Kurdistan, but probably only Iraqi Kurdistan. They were initially opposed worrying that Turkey Kurdistan might join. What started the new Turkish attitude was oil trade and a track history of stable autonomous government.
Bismark: wasn’t the actual land of Crimea part of that 1993 nuclear arms deal? Kind of a double fuck you to Ukraine to usurp it.[/quote]
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances explicitly obligated parties to the treaty (Russia among them) to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, so yeah, a real fuck you. I haven’t read the the treaty itself in a while, but I believe it refers to Ukraine more generally. Regardless, Russia is clearly in breach of its treaty obligations and the Ukrainian experience after nuclear disarmament is likely to discourage nuclear weapon states from relinquishing their arsenals in the future.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to be put into Poland, right? And Russia was all for it… if they were a part of development or something like that. If they only knew that U.S and Russia would not rush in and help when someone violated their borders…
Another interesting thing is that when Kosovo went independent of Serbia, something Russia was extremely against, on the grounds that it would foster more conflict and would bite the Americans in the ass a bit. Case in point; Georgia, Crimea, Donbas. Kosovo really opened up so many possibilities around the world. Will the Americans support Kurdistan, against ally Turkey? How many other countries can be split by other countries motives?
[/quote]
Turkey to some degree would welcome an independent Kurdistan, but probably only Iraqi Kurdistan. They were initially opposed worrying that Turkey Kurdistan might join. What started the new Turkish attitude was oil trade and a track history of stable autonomous government.
Bismark: wasn’t the actual land of Crimea part of that 1993 nuclear arms deal? Kind of a double fuck you to Ukraine to usurp it.[/quote]
Interesting
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]edmontonalberta wrote:
But by all means, beat it. Get out of all discussions that you are clueless on. [/quote]
You are a pugnacious one, aren’t you? Russian intentions and motives are more pertinent to the crisis in Ukraine than those held by disaffected Ukrainians.[/quote]
I would have to agree on this one, and a lot of has to do with Russia’s fear of NATO expansion. It is unfortunate, Ukraine, like many times in the past, is used as a pawn between other nations. Personally I want to see Ukraine look westward, but I think Ukraine should have friendly relations with all neighbors. As for the disaffected Ukrainians they are being used as a pawn for Russia’s intentions for Ukraine. Promote instability to weaken the state, till a desirable leader or solution appears.[/quote]
I have to agree. NATO’s expansion eastward presented Russia with an existential security dilemma. So does the prospect of ballistic missile defense systems in central Europe. Certainly Ukraine regrets relinquishing what was then the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in 1993.[/quote]
I think it was supposed to be put into Poland, right? And Russia was all for it… if they were a part of development or something like that. If they only knew that U.S and Russia would not rush in and help when someone violated their borders…
Another interesting thing is that when Kosovo went independent of Serbia, something Russia was extremely against, on the grounds that it would foster more conflict and would bite the Americans in the ass a bit. Case in point; Georgia, Crimea, Donbas. Kosovo really opened up so many possibilities around the world. Will the Americans support Kurdistan, against ally Turkey? How many other countries can be split by other countries motives?
[/quote]
Turkey to some degree would welcome an independent Kurdistan, but probably only Iraqi Kurdistan. They were initially opposed worrying that Turkey Kurdistan might join. What started the new Turkish attitude was oil trade and a track history of stable autonomous government.
Bismark: wasn’t the actual land of Crimea part of that 1993 nuclear arms deal? Kind of a double fuck you to Ukraine to usurp it.[/quote]
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances explicitly obligated parties to the treaty (Russia among them) to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, so yeah, a real fuck you. I haven’t read the the treaty itself in a while, but I believe it refers to Ukraine more generally. Regardless, Russia is clearly in breach of its treaty obligations and the Ukrainian experience after nuclear disarmament is likely to discourage nuclear weapon states from relinquishing their arsenals in the future. [/quote]
I don’t think anyone could have breached an agreement worse then Russia did there, unfortunately America, by the agreement, was supposed to help Ukraine in a situation like this. I don’t blame the Americans though, realistically Ukraine doesn’t have much to offer the US, and the fallout for everyone would be brutal. It could have possibly been worse for Ukraine if US intervened with military force, leading to a way more brutal war in Ukraine then what is going on now.
1000 Russian troops supported by missiles and tanks cross the border into Ukraine. The West & Nato looks weaker than ever.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/28/official-2-tank-columns-from-russia-enter-ukraine/20953841/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D521813
1000 Russian troops supported by missiles and tanks cross the border into Ukraine. The West & Nato looks weaker than ever. [/quote]
Not quite. Weakness is not qualified by being reluctant to go to war with the largest nuclear weapon state in the world over Ukraine.
So, it’s not weak that NATO made Ukraine give up their nukes, promised to aid them if they are attacked, and when shit hits the fan, they forget about the treaty? Yeah, real strong. Shouldn’t Russia be afraid of going to war with NATO? You, yourself, blamed the situation in the Ukraine on Russia fearing for it’s security because Ukraine was getting friendly with the West. It doesn’t seem like they’re to afraid to me.
John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd called it three years ago. Another of his predictions coming true.
Unfortunately, we in Eastern/Central Europe swallowed the false assurances from the NATO bureaucrats - “Nothing can happen once you are in NATO, we’ve got your back covered against the Russians. So don’t worry, kick back, abolish conscription and turn your national army into a glorified mobile brigade for overseas deployment in Afghanistan”
[quote]loppar wrote:
John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd called it three years ago. Another of his predictions coming true.
Unfortunately, we in Eastern/Central Europe swallowed the false assurances from the NATO bureaucrats - “Nothing can happen once you are in NATO, we’ve got your back covered against the Russians. So don’t worry, kick back, abolish conscription and turn your national army into a glorified mobile brigade for overseas deployment in Afghanistan”
[/quote]
Ukraine is not a party to NATO.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, it’s not weak that NATO made Ukraine give up their nukes, promised to aid them if they are attacked, and when shit hits the fan, they forget about the treaty? Yeah, real strong. Shouldn’t Russia be afraid of going to war with NATO? You, yourself, blamed the situation in the Ukraine on Russia fearing for it’s security because Ukraine was getting friendly with the West. It doesn’t seem like they’re to afraid to me.[/quote]
Ukraine unilaterally relinquished its nuclear arsenal in 1994. No state coerced it, though it was encouraged to do so. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a memorandum, not a treaty. It does not obligate NATO or the U.S. to defend Ukraine in the event of aggression against it.
The following is from the memorandum, which you have obviously never studied.
“The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 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.”
Given the Russia is one of the P5 and has veto power, it’s obvious that a UNSC resolution condemning it is impossible.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka War Nerd called it three years ago. Another of his predictions coming true.
Unfortunately, we in Eastern/Central Europe swallowed the false assurances from the NATO bureaucrats - “Nothing can happen once you are in NATO, we’ve got your back covered against the Russians. So don’t worry, kick back, abolish conscription and turn your national army into a glorified mobile brigade for overseas deployment in Afghanistan”
[/quote]
Ukraine is not a party to NATO.[/quote]
Yes. I am very aware of that. I am talking about Eastern European countries that joined NATO/EU in the last 15 years.
Now, the mere signing of a pre-preliminary EU cooperation treaty (Kosovo has one, for f**k sake) by Ukraine has triggered an organized, well funded insurgency followed now by an outright invasion by Russia. This means that Russia reserves the right to attempt to enforce foreign (and in many cases domestic) policy of neighboring countries, regardless of their wishes.
Eurasian Customs Union for Ukraine then.
Since the Western leaders publicly stated that they will not help militarily Ukraine, the question is where is the proverbial red line? Hybrid warfare against a NATO member state?
What if it began incrementally, like in Ukraine? Perhaps the Russian minority in Latvia may once again spontaneously organize demonstrations, demanding parity for Russian language and full citizenship? And of course, this can quickly increase to violent clashes, the sporadic arms clashes to a full blown “insurgency” followed by an “incursion”.
Would US of A or Germany go to war with Russia over Latvia?
And the genius of it is that by using the incremental approach, Putin is always giving the West an easy way to puss out, accustoming the public opinion to a new “base line”. A couple of weeks ago, the question was whether Russia was backing the “insurgents” in Ukraine. Now the question is whether the mysterious reinforcements are regular Russian Army units or - get this - soldiers on leave.
If this Russian offensive in Ukraine reaches it’s stated objective (first land bridge to Crimea, then Odessa and link to Transistria), Russia is (again) practically on Romania’s doorstep. And if Putin is your neighbor, he can be offended easily. And you know what that means.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s ludicrous to believe that a few rust buckets in the hemispheric waters of the world’s lone regional hegemon presents a security dilemma.
[/quote]
Not a few rust buckets, but a Russian Communist ally right on our border. Now tell me why that’s not the same as a pro-western country right on Russia’s border again?
And it’s not a strawman, the existance of those weapons make Russia as formatible a foe as Nazi Germany. If that’s not the case, than why hasn’t Nato and the Ukraine responded and crushed the Russian invasion? If Russia’s not a superpower, then why hasn’t the West responded militarily? What exactly are they afraid of? A few rust bucket tanks? Or several powerful nuclear backed divisions perhaps?[/quote]
A division consists of 10,000-30,000 soldiers, and there is presently one Russian division deployed in Crimea, so I’m not sure where you’re getting several from. What do you mean by nuclear backed? Do you believe that the Russian Federation would respond with tactical, intermediate, or strategic nuclear weapons against the West if it intervened militarily? Assured access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean is not worth risking nuclear annihilation.
[/quote]
We had this discussion.
Back in April you did not believe the Russian federation would respond with nuclear weapons. You said Assured access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean is not worth risking nuclear annihilation.
Did you suddenly change your mind? Because it is all of Ukraine do you now think they would risk it? Because before you said NATO and the European Union being right up on Russia’s borders qualified as a security risk. You said they should be afraid of the vast military alliance on their doorstep. If you don’t believe me, please refer to page 13 of this thread.
Russia certainly does not act like they it are afraid.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/28/official-2-tank-columns-from-russia-enter-ukraine/20953841/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D521813
1000 Russian troops supported by missiles and tanks cross the border into Ukraine. The West & Nato looks weaker than ever. [/quote]
Not quite. Weakness is not qualified by being reluctant to go to war with the largest nuclear weapon state in the world over Ukraine. [/quote]
When I suggested this in April, you said Russia would not risk nuclear annihilation over the Crimean…did you suddenly change your mind?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/28/official-2-tank-columns-from-russia-enter-ukraine/20953841/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D521813
1000 Russian troops supported by missiles and tanks cross the border into Ukraine. The West & Nato looks weaker than ever. [/quote]
Not quite. Weakness is not qualified by being reluctant to go to war with the largest nuclear weapon state in the world over Ukraine. [/quote]
When I suggested this in April, you said Russia would not risk nuclear annihilation over the Crimean…did you suddenly change your mind?
[/quote]
No, what gives you that impression? The Russian Federation maintains the greatest quantitative nuclear arsenal in the world. Is it possible you believed I was referring to the U.S.? NATO should use force against a great power and nuclear weapons state only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the interests at stake are absolutely vital. The Ukraine crisis does not qualify as such.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/28/official-2-tank-columns-from-russia-enter-ukraine/20953841/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D521813
1000 Russian troops supported by missiles and tanks cross the border into Ukraine. The West & Nato looks weaker than ever. [/quote]
Not quite. Weakness is not qualified by being reluctant to go to war with the largest nuclear weapon state in the world over Ukraine. [/quote]
When I suggested this in April, you said Russia would not risk nuclear annihilation over the Crimean…did you suddenly change your mind?
[/quote]
No, what gives you that impression? The Russian Federation maintains the greatest quantitative nuclear arsenal in the world. Is it possible you believed I was referring to the U.S.? NATO should use force against a great power and nuclear weapons state only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the interests at stake are absolutely vital. The Ukraine crisis does not qualify as such.[/quote]
So how should the west deal with Russian irredentism?