Page 10 of 42 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 411

Thread: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

  1. #91
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    No...this is good though. The EU members should be able to see what EU membership really means and what happens to a country when its citizens want closer ties to the EU and when one man wants closer ties to the USSrrrrrrrrrrrRussia. Not only will the Russians help them get what they REALLY want, but others will applaud it and say why it is really just for the best.
    Ukraine aint a member of the EU......
    PeteEU

  2. #92
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Ah yes, the "effective world leader" who is now internationally recognized as far more of a bully than he was before.

    Obama is 20 times the leader Putin is. Putin rules through fear. Obama rules through (horribly ill-advised) compromise.

    You warmongers sicken me.
    First, just so it is clear, I do not want war and opposed previously planned U.S. military intervention in Syria (lack of compelling U.S. interests).

    Second, I do not support Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Had Ukraine moved in some fashion against Crimea's ethnic Russian population or against the Sevastopol naval base, that would be a different story. Then, Russia would have unambiguously legitimate grounds for acting.

    even as some in the 21st century like to argue that notions such as the balance of power are 'quaint' obstructs of the past that lack relevance, the balance of power matters greatly in geopolitics. When critical interests are at stake and one has the power to safeguard those interests, such nations often will act to do so unless they are deterred. Mere warnings not to act dont' provide deterrence. Deterrence is effective when a nation has a capability of responding, will respond if the condition is met (other country acts in a fashion that one is trying to deter), and the other country knows that one has the ability and willingness to act.

    As far as Russia's interests are concerned, the Sevastopol naval base is a strategic base. Crimea also has a majority ethnic Russian population. Therefore, Russia had tangible interests involved in that area that ran deeper than whether a pro-Russian leader was in office in Kiev.

    The balance of power also is overwhelmingly on Russia's side. Ukraine is not a match whatsoever for Russia. At the same time, Russia is one of the world's great powers. It understood that there would be no practical military response to its intervention in Crimea.

    In terms of deterrence, diplomatic warnings should be communicated privately. Doing so publicly, invites a chest-thumping test of strength and President Putin is widely known for detesting weakness and perceptions of weakness. The public TV remarks on what Russia should not do amounted to pouring oil on the proverbial fire. Had the U.S. had a credible enforcement mechanism to make the costs prohibitively high to Russia and willingness to do so, with Russian understanding of that reality, then deterrence would have been effective. However, there was no practical military response given the balance of power. Then, when it comes to non-military remedies, among Russia's major exports are crude oil and natural gas. Russia almost certainly calculated that there would be no boycott of such exports. First, Europe is a big consumer of Russia's natural gas (as is Ukraine). There is no practical way Europe can stop buying Russian natural gas without a large increase in global energy prices on account of its demand shifting elsewhere. Second, Russia has alternative export destinations for its crude oil and natural gas. Third, past precedent argued against such restrictions. After all, despite Iran's general lack of cooperation on the nuclear talks--some recent progress has been made but the results remain far from certain--no global embargo was slapped on Iran's oil exports. Russia is an even bigger energy producer and the price impact would be much greater than if Iran's oil were blocked from export. In the end, President Putin concluded that the costs imposed on Russia would be modest relative to the interests it would be securing. Hence, deterrence failed.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-03-14 at 09:14 AM.

  3. #93
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    So you mean that thousands of Russian troops, tear off their insignias and pour out of their leased bases in Crimea and take over the government buildings and surround the small Ukrainian forces there was all part of a prior agreement between them?
    No, I am saying you cant "invade" a country if you already are there. And it has not been confirmed that they are Russian troops.. you seem to forget that over 90% of the population in the Crimea are Russian speaking and culturally Russian.
    PeteEU

  4. #94
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,917

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    First, just so it is clear, I do not want war and opposed previously planned U.S. military intervention in Syria (lack of compelling U.S. interests).

    Second, I do not support Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Had Ukraine moved in some fashion against Crimea's ethnic Russian population or against the Sevastopol naval base, that would be a different story. Then, Russia would have unambiguously legitimate grounds for acting.

    even as some in the 21st century like to argue that notions such as the balance of power are 'quaint' obstructs of the past that lack relevance, the balance of power matters greatly in geopolitics. When critical interests are at stake and one has the power to safeguard those interests, such nations often will act to do so unless they are deterred. Mere warnings not to act dont' provide deterrence. Deterrence is effective when a nation has a capability of responding, will respond if the condition is met (other country acts in a fashion that one is trying to deter), and the other country knows that one has the ability and willingness to act.

    As far as Russia's interests are concerned, the Sevastopol naval base is a strategic base. Crimea also has a majority ethnic Russian population. Therefore, Russia had tangible interests involved in that area that ran deeper than whether a pro-Russian leader was in office in Kiev.

    The balance of power also is overwhelmingly on Russia's side. Ukraine is not a match whatsoever for Russia. At the same time, Russia is one of the world's great powers. It understood that there would be no practical military response to its intervention in Crimea.

    In terms of deterrence, diplomatic warnings should be communicated privately. Doing so publicly, invites a chest-thumping test of strength and President Putin is widely known for detesting weakness and perceptions of weakness. The public TV remarks on what Russia should not do amounted to pooring oil on the proverbial fire. Had the U.S. had a credible enforcement mechanism to make the costs prohibitively high to Russia and willingness to do so, with Russian understanding of that reality, then deterrence would have been effective. However, there was no practical military response given the balance of power. Then, when it comes to non-military remedies, among Russia's major exports are crude oil and natural gas. Russia almost certainly calculated that there would be no boycott of such exports. First, Europe is a big consumer of Russia's natural gas (as is Ukraine). There is no practical way Europe can stop buying Russian natural gas without a large increase in global energy prices on account of its demand shifting elsewhere. Second, Russia has alternative export destinations for its crude oil and natural gas. Third, past precedent argued against such restrictions. After all, despite Iran's general lack of cooperation on the nuclear talks--some recent progress has been made but the results remain far from certain--no global embargo was slapped on Iran's oil exports. Russia is an even bigger energy producer and the price impact would be much greater than if Iran's oil were blocked from export. In the end, President Putin concluded that the costs imposed on Russia would be modest relative to the interests it would be securing. Hence, deterrence failed.
    That actually is a well thought-out, interesting perspective. Let me sleep on it and I'll revisit it later. It's a welcome change from the usual hackery that goes on here.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

  5. #95
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No, I am saying you cant "invade" a country if you already are there.
    If we spill out of Guantanamo, into Cuba, that's not an invasion, right?

    And it has not been confirmed that they are Russian troops.. you seem to forget that over 90% of the population in the Crimea are Russian speaking and culturally Russian.
    Crimea = Sudetenland?

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    03-07-14 @ 12:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Yes, Russia is using force to solve the issue, but what else it can do? They are desperate.
    The Russians have been feeling betrayed by the West since the end of the cold war, when most Russians wanted to join the West, later only found that the Western politicians, instead of helping and encouraging reconciliation between the West and Russia and between former USSA members, still treat Russian as "No1 foe" and explore the differences between Russians and ethnic groups and incite "new revolutions" to further weaken Russia.
    Russians never blame everything on the West, they know the long historical reasons for the conflict, but when any bias and unfairness from the West on Russia's national interest just remind them of Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia....
    Russians no longer trust the West, so this time they feel the urgency to use force to resolve the issue once for all.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    I have said it before, the Crimea is a semi-autonomous state, technically part of the Ukraine, but also not really. Plus the Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed there and most people there are of Russian ethnicity.

    Although it's a concern (especially for non-Russian's living there), I really don't see a big deal with Russia having troops there...they were there already anyway.

    So long as they stay out of the rest of the Ukraine (unless they are officially invited), I don't see the big problem...especially for the West/EU.


    I think Obama is a lousy POTUS (as I thought G.W. Bush was)...but I do not see him doing anything wrong on this matter so far.

    He is basically just waiting and seeing while warning Russia to stay out of the Ukraine (which the Crimea, in essence, isn't) - okay so far.
    Last edited by DA60; 03-03-14 at 09:29 AM.

  8. #98
    Minister of Love
    PoS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oceania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,974

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No, I am saying you cant "invade" a country if you already are there.
    So what do you call taking over a region's government buildings with foreign troops then? A picnic?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU
    And it has not been confirmed that they are Russian troops.. you seem to forget that over 90% of the population in the Crimea are Russian speaking and culturally Russian.
    Funny cause every defense analyst says they are Russian troops, heck even the Russians themselves admit it.

    Russia admits that it has moved troops in Ukraine - Telegraph

  9. #99
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,722

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Ukraine aint a member of the EU......
    No...but their people were pressing to be. They ahd already charted a path and created economic ties and were working towards EU membership. Yanukovych chose to abandon the will of the people, cut ties to the EU, and move the Ukraine back to Russia. Thats what has triggered this whole mess. Or have you missed that?

  10. #100
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,722

    Re: Kerry condemns Russia's 'incredible act of aggression' in Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Ah, "my guy" that I didn't even vote for the last time he was up for election.

    What sickens me is that the real wingnuts here seem like they're on Putin's side.
    Suuuuuure.

    Yeah. You mad. And I dont blame you. It would suck having to defend that ridiculous ****ing circus clown in the WH.

    Its not about being on Putins side...far from it. As has been expressed countless times...Putin is a douchebag. Obama makes him look like a rokstar.

Page 10 of 42 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •