Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 187

Thread: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    I wouldn't go anywhere near that far - however, the Neville Chamberlain naivete and appeasement gene is and has been alive and active in the Obama Administration.
    This is comparable to Hitler and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia during the 1930's. The German speaking people in Sudetenland and Chamberlain signed off on allowing Hitler to bring the German speaking people of Austria and the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany.

    What is happening in the Ukraine is about the Russian speaking people in the Ukrain who want to be Russian not Ukrainian.

  2. #52
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    The US and Russia never fought each other or could be aggressors to each other without it going to nuclear war? Korea? Vietnam? Numerous African conflicts?
    Most of which did not pose a direct threat to Russia's interests the way Ukraine does, and did not directly involve many if any Soviet troops.


    Neville Chamberlain gave away parts of other countries that were not his to give away. Revisionist history on your part maybe?
    Which revision of history tells you that Chamberlain was capable of keeping Hitler from taking the Sudetenland?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    It doesn't matter against Russia. The only war with Russia is going to be nuclear. Do you want to die for Ukraine?
    You don't know where I stand on this issue so why do you assume you do when I haven't taken a position ?

  4. #54
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Putin has received permission from the Russian Parliament to mobilize the country's military in the Ukraine. Parliament has also requested that the Russian Ambassador be recalled from the United States in light of President Obama's remarks yesterday.

    I guess we showed him. The President's timing on this one was all wrong.

    Putin gets permission to use military in Ukraine; parliament wants to pull ambassador in DC | Fox News

    Why are we getting involved in this?
    Incredibly dangerous situation unfolding. No one can predict how this affect relations in the future. This is really bad. Putin has drawn a line in the sand.

  5. #55
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    You don't know where I stand on this issue so why do you assume you do when I haven't taken a position ?
    I know where you stand; Obama is wrong no matter what he does.

    You're counting brigades and conventional troops in a nuclear war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #56
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The U.S. has no agreement that requires its intervention in Ukraine. It is one of the parties to a non-aggression agreement, which is different from an alliance.

    Having said this, President Putin's decisions are shaped by factors including:

    1. Russia's interests. Crimea is a critical interest given the Russian Naval base at Sevastopol and majority ethnic Russian population there.
    2. The balance of power. This shapes his calculus when it comes to the feasibility of using force.
    3. His loathing for perceptions of weakness. President Obama should have conveyed his message privately. By doing so publicly, he positioned Putin to be perceived as weak, hence that posturing backfired. I use posturing to refer to warnings that are not backed by credible means to enforce them.
    4. Past precedent. President Putin has long criticized the U.S./NATO's carving away Kosovo from Serbia stating that it had established a precedent. Crimea, especially with a supportive majority ethnic population, falls squarely into that precedent.

    In the end, this is a bad situation. Ukraine likely will lose Crimea. The U.S. can and should resort to non-military punishment, but the reality is that those means likely won't have much impact on Russia. Russia had long-coveted deeper trade relations, but the U.S. dragged its feet and there's no free trade agreement between the two countries. Hence, U.S. cancellation of any consideration of such an agreement is largely symbolic, as it merely prolongs a status quo that Russia has increasingly expected to be permanent.

    Meanwhile, in that context, the U.S. is reducing military manpower. That's not necessarily a wise move, but the lesson that manpower matters from Iraq seems not to have been learned. The balance of power implications of reduced U.S. military capability won't be lost on countries such as Russia where the balance of power remains an overriding consideration in shaping their strategic flexibility.
    You didn't sign an agreement requiring intervention. You signed an agreement that makes it impossible for future non-proliferation treaties to be taken seriously if no action is taken.

  7. #57
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,963

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    People are overlooking that the Crimean leadership asked Russia to intervene, because Crimea along with Karkiv and Donetsk are still heavily pro-Russian and speak Russian. The western media are making it look like Russia just decided to invade when all that's really happening here is that a portion of a heavily divided country has called on an ally who already agreed in the past that if anything went down, it would be there to restore order. Russia also has naval assets in the region, provides a large chunk of resource and economy to the Ukraine, and has support treaties with it in place. It also has a vested interest in making sure that the Ukraine doesn't become part of the western bloc, for obvious reasons. From Russia's perspective, many Ukranians are biting the hand that feeds them.

    For all intents and purposes, Ukraine has an internal civil order problem. The western bloc is getting pissy because it changes the security situation to have Russia present in the Ukraine, but if the U.S. was honoring one of its treaties we would not be seeing the same spin.

    The reality is that the U.S. and Europe will do nothing. The Ukraine never really fully divorced itself from the former USSR which is why Russia is involved now. Half of the Ukraine would still rather continue its close ties with Russia while the other half wants to become closer to the EU.

    It's true that the U.S. stirred the pot. A lot of the protest organization comes from our funding, for a 'free' Ukraine. The U.S. cancelling negotiations for a free trade agreement with Russia in response to is meaningless because we never intended to really go beyond the status quo anyway. We have always been in a sort of cold war with Russia, never really trusting it. Now we are seeing the repercussions. Russia's reason for invading the Ukraine is just as much economic as it is about power politics.

    What I don't get is... why let the protests go on so long? Why let the provisional government even happen? Russia could have stopped this in the beginning. It seems like such a waste to let all that civil progress be made only to quash it later. I mean, there is evidence that Russian soldiers and agents were already there when this all began, wearing masks and bearing no insignias, but they didn't really do anything to quell the violence.

    I support the people of the Ukraine but a looming Russia was always a possibility, and the Ukraine is not important enough for NATO to get involved with UNLESS Russia does more than simply restore Ukraine's polity.
    Last edited by Northern Light; 03-01-14 at 04:03 PM.

  8. #58
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    People are overlooking that the Crimean leadership asked Russia to intervene, because Crimea along with Karkiv and Donetsk are still heavily pro-Russian and speak Russian. The western media are making it look like Russia just decided to invade when all that's really happening here is that a portion of a heavily divided country has called on an ally who already agreed in the past that if anything went down, it would be there to restore order. Russia also has naval assets in the region, provides a large chunk of resource and economy to the Ukraine, and has support treaties with it in place. It also has a vested interest in making sure that the Ukraine doesn't become part of the western bloc, for obvious reasons. From Russia's perspective, many Ukranians are biting the hand that feeds them.

    For all intents and purposes, Ukraine has an internal civil order problem. The western bloc is getting pissy because it changes the security situation to have Russia present in the Ukraine, but if the U.S. was honoring one of its treaties we would not be seeing the same spin.

    The reality is that the U.S. and Europe will do nothing. The Ukraine never really fully divorced itself from the former USSR which is why Russia is involved now. Half of the Ukraine would still rather continue its close ties with Russia while the other half wants to become closer to the EU.

    What I don't get is... why let the protests go on so long? Why let the provisional government even happen? Russia could have stopped this in the beginning. It seems like such a waste to let all that civil progress be made only to quash it later. I mean, there is evidence that Russian soldiers and agents were already there when this all began, wearing masks and bearing no insignias, but they didn't really do anything to quell the violence.

    I support the people of the Ukraine but a looming Russia was always a possibility, and the Ukraine is not important enough for NATO to get involved with UNLESS Russia does more than simply restore Ukraine's polity.
    You're overlooking that Crimea is part of Ukraine which is a sovereign nation despite you buying into the pro-Russian rhetoric. No one is bitching about Russia securing it's military assets in Crimea. The fear is that Russia will impose it's puppet back in Kiev. Russia is the one escalating the situation. Not us, or the gov't in Kiev.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I know where you stand; Obama is wrong no matter what he does.

    You're counting brigades and conventional troops in a nuclear war.
    Russia can fight a conventional war with troops on the ground. I don't think at this time America can. We were able to four years ago.

    Did you see the other day the Army's response on how we would fight future wars ? They had four scenarios, not one included fighting a real conventional war against a real country that had a real army that can fight.

    The current administration believes that all wars in the future will be against rag tag armies armed with only small arms and can be fought with high tech gizmos and special forces. Any general or admiral who saw it differently was purged by the Obama administration.

    There was one additional scenario, if we had to fight a real war against a real military, we wouldn't fight. They didn't mention the word surrender or resorting to nukes but I suppose those are the only two options.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,249

    Re: Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The U.S. has no agreement that requires its intervention in Ukraine. It is one of the parties to a non-aggression agreement, which is different from an alliance.

    Having said this, President Putin's decisions are shaped by factors including:

    1. Russia's interests. Crimea is a critical interest given the Russian Naval base at Sevastopol and majority ethnic Russian population there.
    2. The balance of power. This shapes his calculus when it comes to the feasibility of using force.
    3. His loathing for perceptions of weakness. President Obama should have conveyed his message privately. By doing so publicly, he positioned Putin to be perceived as weak, hence that posturing backfired. I use posturing to refer to warnings that are not backed by credible means to enforce them.
    4. Past precedent. President Putin has long criticized the U.S./NATO's carving away Kosovo from Serbia stating that it had established a precedent. Crimea, especially with a supportive majority ethnic population, falls squarely into that precedent.

    In the end, this is a bad situation. Ukraine likely will lose Crimea. The U.S. can and should resort to non-military punishment, but the reality is that those means likely won't have much impact on Russia. Russia had long-coveted deeper trade relations, but the U.S. dragged its feet and there's no free trade agreement between the two countries. Hence, U.S. cancellation of any consideration of such an agreement is largely symbolic, as it merely prolongs a status quo that Russia has increasingly expected to be permanent.

    Meanwhile, in that context, the U.S. is reducing military manpower. That's not necessarily a wise move, but the lesson that manpower matters from Iraq seems not to have been learned. The balance of power implications of reduced U.S. military capability won't be lost on countries such as Russia where the balance of power remains an overriding consideration in shaping their strategic flexibility.

    I think its depends on how you read the treaty and it is worth pointing out that diplomats are still reading over the treaty as we speak so nothing certain. It's this paticular wording that worries me.

    "The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.


    Clearly Russia have broken this agreement and now the question is how will the West react? If we fail to act on this then what does this mean for all our other treaties worldwide and our overall global position?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •