• 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

Coin said:
Indeed, the 2013 was a really hot year in terms of global relationships.
2014 seems to be so.
Click to expand...

We're off to a great start. I dare say, there hasn't been such a fantastic start to the extinction of the human race in a long time now.


On another, joking but not really note:
"A russian lands in Kyiv airport. The border agent asks:
-Nationality?
-Russian.
-Occupation?
-No.... just visiting".

Ukrainian joke. I've seen it 3x in the past 10min ,decided to sahre it with you all.
 
Rainman05 said:
We're off to a great start. I dare say, there hasn't been such a fantastic start to the extinction of the human race in a long time now.


On another, joking but not really note:
"A russian lands in Kyiv airport. The border agent asks:
-Nationality?
-Russian.
-Occupation?
-No.... just visiting".

Ukrainian joke. I've seen it 3x in the past 10min ,decided to sahre it with you all.
Click to expand...


LOL LOL

Fallen.
 
MaggieD said:
Dayum.
Click to expand...

More than just this treaty with the US and UK, Ukraine has an agreement with NATO as well. Given that they had started the MAP (membership application process), all Ukraine has to do is make a request to NATO for assistance, even though they are not an actual member of NATO.

In 2002 NATO and Ukraine signed and adopted the Ukraine Action Plan. Russia's reaction to this was violent. In 2010, when the recently deposed pro-Russian President of Ukraine was elected, he and the Ukrainian parliament stopped the NATO MAP, but did not withdraw completely, so technically, the MAP is still in place.

Add to this; that Georgia is also involved in a NATO MAP, that the Russians invaded Georgia in 2008 and GW Bush had to send the 6th Fleet to the Black Sea to impose a no-fly zone over Georgia, what Georgia may do regarding requests for protection from potential spill over in this event may lead to NATO forces entering the Black Sea... and, dozens of other players such as Moldova and Romania which also have treaties with the US and UK... And lastly... Turkey which is just across the Black Sea from all this tension, is and has been for decades, a NATO member country.

What worries me are as follows: the White House just made the announcement to reduce our military force to pre-WWII numbers; the White House put a "line" to not be crossed in Syria and did nothing when the line was crossed; the White House has allowed Russia to take over and lead Iranian nuclear negotiation; the White House bowed to Russia in relation to force in Libya and and other Middle East conflicts; the White House has bowed to Russia and removed our missile defense systems from former Soviet block regions; Vladimir Putin has stated numerous times that he wants to reform the Soviet Union and is doing everything he can do to consolidate his power and gain territorial dominance, and; now the White House is attempting to draw another line in regard to Russia which Putin is obviously laughing at in the face of the world.

In essence, I don't feel comfortable at all that the White House has the talent, knowledge, vision or most importantly the respect of other global leaders to control this situation before it grows and gets completely out of control.

This rings close to what those that study history will remember occurred in the Sudetenland and even Austria in the 1930's.

History repeating itself.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
The only thing the UN has been good for is hot air.
Click to expand...

I always feel the reason the UN is kinda worthless is because of the way the Security Council is set up. Whoever came up with those rules for the Security Council either has terrible long-term though processes or is very idealistic.
 
CNN/Wolf Blitzer is doing a nice job right now.
Why did Russia give Crimea over to Ukraine in 1954?
And the Security Council meets at the top of the hour .
Rainman05 said:
We're off to a great start. I dare say, there hasn't been such a fantastic start to the extinction of the human race in a long time now.


On another, joking but not really note:
"A russian lands in Kyiv airport. The border agent asks:
-Nationality?
-Russian.
-Occupation?
-No.... just visiting".

Ukrainian joke. I've seen it 3x in the past 10min ,decided to sahre it with you all.
Click to expand...
 
Map of NATO countries shown in green, with Ukraine shown on orange.

Location_NATO_Ukraine.svg
 
NIMBY said:
CNN/Wolf Blitzer is doing a nice job right now.
Why did Russia give Crimea over to Ukraine in 1954?
And the Security Council meets at the top of the hour .
Click to expand...

Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine for administrative reasons. So that the central administration for that whole region will be in Kyiv, not in Moscow.

Let me put it this way.

Instead of the administration being Simferopol-> Moscow.
It would be Simferopoll-> Kyiv -> Moscow.
Because when Kyiv would report, it would report on all other regions under it's central administration.

EDIT: So nobody ever believed, at least not in 1954, that the USSR would ever collapse... hence the notion of ukraine, or Belarus, or moldavia or anything was irrelevant.

EDIT2: Thank you Fallen for the correction. I did mean simferopol but I was hasty. Still, mistakes like these only cause confusion. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Rainman05 said:
Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine for administrative reasons. So that the central administration for that whole region will be in Kyiv, not in Moscow.

Let me put it this way.

Instead of the administration being Sfimvestopol-> Moscow.
It would be Sfimvestopol-> Kyiv -> Moscow.
Because when Kyiv would report, it would report on all other regions under it's central administration.

EDIT: So nobody ever believed, at least not in 1954, that the USSR would ever collapse... hence the notion of ukraine, or Belarus, or moldavia or anything was irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Cough...cough...

Sevastopol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Simferopol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fallen.
 
Perotista said:
The only thing the UN has been good for is hot air.
Click to expand...

:agree: And when you consider that it is all escaping into the air, probably contributing to global warming, it's a darn shame! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave: Excellent March blog entry!
 
I see the paradigm and my view is that the USA is the aggresser in this matter. Nuland admitted that the USA has spent $5 billion in the Ukraine. Now you know we did not buy Ukrainian bonds. We did not send GMO corn, peas, beans, tomatos, or staples of some nature to feed the PEOPLE. We formed NGOs and staff that could organize and bring together large population groups for protests. Apparently, $5 billion worth and that will buy a lot of protestors, methinks. Meanwhile, Russia became the largest trading partner of Ukraine and still is. Many Ukrainians speak Russian, especially in the South and East. The protestors, perhaps $5 billion worth come from Western Ukraine and don't speak Russian. Wowser, could that be a magnification of the root problem. I'm pretty sure Russia is also signatory to this treaty everyone is referring to and being the closest neighbor is in the most favorable position to react in the most beneficial manner for Ukrainians overall. After all, it is Russia that had bailed out Ukraine. It is Russia that sells gas to Ukraine well below World Market Value, but perhaps not after this contractual quarter. It is Russia that is Ukraines largest trading partner. Give the Western Ukraind to the IMF, part and parcel, and the IMF will strip the assetts for the Corporate NWO and initiate an austerity program and there will be 50% unemployment rate. There will be missile bases in the Ukraine , allegedely to defend the EU from missile attacks from Iran. Actually, they will have Russian targets. Gee, could that be why Putin reacts strongly, decisevly and forcefully to prevent Ukrainian manipulation by Western Corporate interests?
 
MaggieD said:
Dayum.
Click to expand...

The bright side is that in as much as we are bound to protect their boundaries, so is Putin. So if he isn't going to live up to it, I don't see why we'd have to.
 
soccerboy22 said:
I always feel the reason the UN is kinda worthless is because of the way the Security Council is set up. Whoever came up with those rules for the Security Council either has terrible long-term though processes or is very idealistic.
Click to expand...

Think about when it was first set up, Nationalist China was on the Security Council instead of the Peoples Republic of China (Red China). Taiwan or Formosa as it was know then were staunch allies of us. The USSR had been our ally during WWII and a lot of Americans still referred to Stalin as Uncle Joe. France, Britain and us round out the security council. No one had any idea that the cold war was right around the corner.

The feeling was in the beginning it was five friendly allies who would keep tabs on the world and keep any more Hitlers or Tojo's from arising. So much for the good plans of mice and men.
 
polgara said:
:agree: And when you consider that it is all escaping into the air, probably contributing to global warming, it's a darn shame! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave: Excellent March blog entry!
Click to expand...

Thanks Pol. Yeah for the most part the UN has just been a waste of time, energy and money. Although it does give a place for all nations to fill it with their hot air and express their beefs in the hope that perhaps another war may be prevented.
 
rocket88 said:
Because I'm sure they're going to put "Meeting with Joint Chiefs to discuss Top Secret plans and strategy to defend Ukraine" on the public schedule that they post on the internet....:roll:
Click to expand...

A CNN static camera showed, about an hour ago, the entire National Security Council at the White House.

The President wouldn't usually get involved until his staff has recommendations to make, so he can then make a decision.

Now, I said usually. In extremely dangerous situations, POTUS is in the room the entire time. So far, this doesn't seem to rise to that level.
 
rocket88 said:
Because I'm sure they're going to put "Meeting with Joint Chiefs to discuss Top Secret plans and strategy to defend Ukraine" on the public schedule that they post on the internet....:roll:
Click to expand...

Remember, Obama has already purged the top brass from the military and has his yes men already in place.

Well we do have 3 out out 33 combat brigades that are properly trained and equipped that can be deployed.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I see a lot of similarities between Neville Chamberlain and Obama.
Click to expand...

Which sounds really deep if you completely misunderstand the situation in 1938 when Britain was in no shape to go to war. They weren't in much of a position in 1939 or 40 either, which is why they needed the US to get involved.

Chamberlain going to war then could easily have resulted in a German victory that would make any victory ever that much more difficult. Yes, he "appeased" Hitler because going to war in 1938 wasn't really an option for him. Similarly a war between the US and Russia would quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange which would probably end your party really quick. You guys are quick to point out military drawdowns in this situation, but you fail to realize that conventional capabilities mean nothing in a war with Russia.

There's not going to be a conventional war with them ever. The only question is are you willing to turn North America into a nuclear wasteland over the Crimea?
 
APACHERAT said:
Remember, Obama has already purged the top brass from the military and has his yes men already in place.


Well we do have 3 out out 33 combat brigades that are properly trained and equipped that can be deployed.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter against Russia. The only war with Russia is going to be nuclear. Do you want to die for Ukraine?
 
Higgins86 said:
Because you signed one of those pesky treaties.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Which sounds really deep if you completely misunderstand the situation in 1938 when Britain was in no shape to go to war. They weren't in much of a position in 1939 or 40 either, which is why they needed the US to get involved.

Chamberlain going to war then could easily have resulted in a German victory that would make any victory ever that much more difficult. Yes, he "appeased" Hitler because going to war in 1938 wasn't really an option for him. Similarly a war between the US and Russia would quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange which would probably end your party really quick. You guys are quick to point out military drawdowns in this situation, but you fail to realize that conventional capabilities mean nothing in a war with Russia.

There's not going to be a conventional war with them ever. The only question is are you willing to turn North America into a nuclear wasteland over the Crimea?
Click to expand...

Exactly which part of "you guys" am I part of in your opinion?

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?

Maybe you should define better from where this interpretation of what I said comes from.

Neville Chamberlain gave away parts of other countries that were not his to give away. Revisionist history on your part maybe?

Maybe I should have just made one comment in response to your post to me, which would have been simply... WTF are you talking about?
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A narrative of pure 'international power relations' there, Don.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom