• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

As it did in the 1920's for oil, remember ?

No, I don't. Could that be because it didn't happen?

Ya know, you people should REALLY do a quick fact check, before posting historical information.
 
Not a lie. You supported Iraq, and Libya, pushed for action in Syria, you have no problem in violating the sovereignties of other countries. You just don't like it when you THINK that someone else is doing it. The real truth is your jealous that Putin may be emerging as the new power. But when you abuse power it gets wrested from you. Which if Putin does emerge so, and abuses his power outside his borders, he'll find that out as well.

Feel free to quote me. Or, you can admit that you're lying though your teeth, and apologize for smearing my reputation, for lack of any real argument. Thanks in advance.
 
Heya DS :2wave: ......what about the treaty Russia has with the Ukraine and agreements that go back to a very long long time ago. Do you think Putin and his Team knew about the control of Russian assets on Ukrainian soil?


Any Russian military movements in Crimea are in keeping with Moscow's existing arrangement with Ukraine on the deployment of military assets in the former Soviet republic, Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said on Friday.

"We are acting within the framework of that agreement," he told reporters after a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council. He did not give any details or comment on specifics of any Russian military deployments on Ukrainian territory.....snip~

Russia says Crimea deployments based on agreements with Ukraine

Russia has acted preemptively according to its interpretation of the commitments. It's not clear that those assets were at imminent risk.

What is clear is that Russia under President Putin has demonstrated by example a willingness to act decisively when it feels its critical interests are at risk. Moreover, it sees power as a guarantor of those interests. Russia's actions again demonstrate that power truly does matter and that the global balance of power is not, as some idealists argue, an obsolete construct from the 19th or 20th centuries.
 
Hahaha someone could say the same about you! You whine and whine whenever the US violates international law and new you're making excuses for Russia doing it. Can't you at least try to be consistent?

I don't believe Russia is doing it, unless you think that's what we were doing in Libya and Iraq. I would be fine with the Ukrainians working matters out for themselves without any outside intervention. If Russia stabilises things, puts in a structure to their liking and brings their military home they've done nothing that the US hasn't done, if you've a problem with what Russia's doing, then you should have a problem with what the US has made a foreign policy occupation of. At this point, which is key, my opinion could change on that, Russia has physical assets there, this is a country in flames on their border, makes sense they would want to stabilise it, we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to quote me. Or, you can admit that you're lying though your teeth, and apologize for smearing my reputation, for lack of any real argument. Thanks in advance.

It's common knowledge that doesn't need citation.
 
already posted it but I will post it again for you.

Nato-Ukraine Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, 1997. Although it clearly avoids any reference to any mutual defence assurances, its language builds on the Budapest Memorandum by essentially committing all Nato allies to the same kind of declarative support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. The key paragraph here is number 14:

NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity, democratic development, economic prosperity and its status as a non-nuclear weapon state, and the principle of inviolability of frontiers, as key factors of stability and security in Central and Eastern Europe and in the continent as a whole.




Only one way you can interpret that.

There's not only one way for me to interpret that. But before you start pulling out treaties, why would you equate Russia's intervention to bring stability to a bordering country in chaos with attacking a country and its sovereignty? When the UK/US invaded Iraq, on false pretence with your support, we heard every slur one might imagine for protesting it. Don't know why you can't see the hypocrisy.
 
I don't believe Russia is doing it, unless you think that's what we were doing in Libya and Iraq. I would be fine with the Ukrainians working matters out for themselves without any outside intervention. If Russia stabilises things, puts in a structure to their liking and brings their military home they've done nothing that the US hasn't done, if you've a problem with what Russia's doing, then you should have a problem with what the US has made a foreign policy occupation of. At this point, which is key, my opinion could change on that, Russia has physical assets there, this is a country in flames on their border, makes sense they would want to stabilise it, we'll see.

or they just want to cut off bits of it now that the guy they wanted in power is out

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russia mulls new land-grab law
 
If Russia stabilises things, puts in a structure to their liking and brings their military home they've done nothing that the US hasn't done, if you've a problem with what Russia's doing, then you should have a problem with what the US has made a foreign policy occupation of.

Why? I'm not the one that goes around talking about international law. That's you. That's what you do when the US violates it. Now you're suddenly not talking about it anymore. Suddenly it's not important.

I never talk about it, because I never care. I'm consistent. You're not.
 
Howdy Beau! I think that perhaps Obama's red line in Syria was his only mistake there, I mean stating it. But with both China and Russia denying a resolution for use of force in Syria, and the UK backing out, and 70% of Americans being against any action in Syria, Obama can't be blamed.

As usual, I agree with you to a point. That point is that the President of the United States, regardless of who they are or which party they are a member, must lead. Leading means making decisions and taking action in international events, even when it isn't popular back home or with other countries. Our global history is full of well intended non-action by leaders that lead to the deaths of millions.

Syria was and is a quagmire where there are no easy choices or actions. But, isn't that what we elect a President for? To make those types of choices, and take action? We can't just sit back and let the word go to hell while we sigh and say 'Isn't that just awful?' As members of the human race, we have a duty to act to protect the weak and vulnerable of the world when we can.

In Syria, we could, but didn't.

It remains to be seen what we will or will not do in Ukraine.

IMO, Ukraine is only the present step in what has been and will continue to be a long and bloody march by Russia and Putin to regain their empire.
 
I doubt most Brits would agree if their gov shot civilians.

Yay, the Americans are here to reimpose the status quo. Nope.

That's true, but the point is that Russia has vital interests in the Crimea, not unlike the interests of the US in the UK. One of the parties behind this "revolution" is Ukrainian nationalists who want to outlaw the Russian language. Why do you think ethnic Russians are a little upset.

Personally, I'm not one to go in and defend Ukraine's inability to have a functioning democracy. When you lose the election and the guy you don't like takes power, in a functioning democracy you redouble your efforts in the next election. That's what the Democrats did here in 2000 and the Republicans in 2008. You don't have a revolution every 5 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom