• 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!

Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

PeteEU said:
The only ones doing harm are people like you, who want to shoot first and never ask questions later.
Click to expand...

Who do you think I want to shoot, Pete?

You are the typical European I mentioned who believes an undemocratic Union, a great bureaucratic morass of buddy-appointed, money-sucking toad-eaters, can solve the problems human beings must face during their lives, and you give these idlers the authority to run your lives from cradle to grave, depending always on their authority, good-will and unexplained expertise all along the way. It has led to the permanent adolescence of entire European nations.
 
Montecresto said:
Just because you didn't get to see the military in full swing again, doesn't mean the Obama administration is setting back with popcorn.
Click to expand...
Nah, he's sitting back on Miami Beach with Pina Colodas.
President Assad is fighting a war on terror and the US is impeding his efforts, because of a long term US foreign policy goal of "regime change" in Syria.
Click to expand...
Assad is fighting a war on terror??? Who initiated this 'regime change idea? Nancy Pelosi??
 
Montecresto said:
Oh really now Mr. Professional, why don't you refute the claims I made of those opposing president Assad and seeking to impose their own form of tyranny in Syria.
Click to expand...

How can one refute nonsense? If you continue to make ridiculous claims you should at least offer up a tea spoon of legitimate evidence for some much needed credibility..
 
Grant said:
Who do you think I want to shoot, Pete?

You are the typical European I mentioned who believes an undemocratic Union, a great bureaucratic morass of buddy-appointed, money-sucking toad-eaters, can solve the problems human beings must face during their lives, and you give these idlers the authority to run your lives from cradle to grave, depending always on their authority, good-will and unexplained expertise all along the way. It has led to the permanent adolescence of entire European nations.
Click to expand...

Another way of looking at the EU is whether the EU, bureaucratic and imperfect as it might be, is a viable mechanism for maximizing prospects for European peace. If so, it has enormous value given the vast harm that had occurred during past European wars (particularly WW I and WW II). Certainly, the post-WW II narrative has been one of greater cooperation and prosperity. That narrative has benefited all of Europe.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Another way of looking at the EU is whether the EU, bureaucratic and imperfect as it might be, is a viable mechanism for maximizing prospects for European peace. If so, it has enormous value given the vast harm that had occurred during past European wars (particularly WW I and WW II). Certainly, the post-WW II narrative has been one of greater cooperation and prosperity. That narrative has benefited all of Europe.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the EU ever maintained peace. Western Europeans haven't had the ability to attack each other since WWII anyway.

Nor did it help the monetary problems which should have been foreseen. In fact the EU and Western Europe were never very aggressive in freeing eastern Europe for the decades following WWII. The many hundreds of thousands of them marched against the USA during the Cold War, not against those who were controlling the Eastern part of the continent.A better name for this group would have been the Western European Union.

Also, while continually critical of US policies during this period they relied on them almost 100% on them for their defense. Now they have little defense from a tired and mis-run America and are dependent on the good will of others to allow them their previously assumed freedoms.

Once again Europe has enemies without and within. And once again they will not only misread their enemies, they will not even acknowledge them.

Interesting article from The Spectator Europe's 'new world order' is letting Vladimir Putin run riot » The Spectator
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
Well Google says it is and it did vote for independence form Russia in 1991.
Click to expand...

They were not part of Russia in 1991, they were part of the SU, and they were never asked if they want to be part of Russian Federation or the Ukraine.

Carjosse said:
The issue with a referendum is that it cannot be legitimate at this point.
Click to expand...

Well, there is nothing legal in the Ukraine any more, because the legal government was replaced by terrorist.
De facto, Ukraine does not exist any more, and there are no laws that can prohibit any referendum.

There is no way back, if the same happened in the USA or any other Western country, the government would have declared the emergency state and would have fought the armed opposition and the parliament would have lost its power.

If the armed opposition would have usurped the power in the USA, there would be no laws any more.

We have a transition period in the Ukraine, the old state and the old laws do not exist any more (due to the usurpation of power by terrorists), and from this chaos will emerge something new.

It is important that the population of the regions can decide about their future status.

They were not permitted to do this in 1954, but they will be able to do this on 16th March 2014.

The approaching referendum in Crimea will restore historical justice and reunite the peninsula with Russia, Crimean Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Konstantinov said.

"We were given away as a gift in 1954 for unclear reasons, as a sack of potatoes, in disregard of rights of Crimean residents," Konstantinov told reporters in Moscow on Friday.

People took Crimea's transfer easier 50 years ago because it was not transferred to a different country, he said.

"It came to no good, the gift turned into something given," Konstantinov stressed. In the words of the Crimean parliament speaker, the "separatist" label was unfairly stuck to the autonomous republic in Ukraine.

"We were labeled as "separatists" no matter what we said. Although we were doing everything to preserve the country and warned that [the Kyiv events] would end up badly," Konstantinov said.

Crimean residents can restore historical justice and decide "where to live and with whom" at the referendum, he said.

...

"Another request - do not give us away as a gift again," the Crimean Supreme Council speaker said.

Voice of Russia, Interfax

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_...a-not-to-give-Crimea-away-as-gift-again-4913/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
[h=1]Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia
if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine[/h]
Obama threatens to

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the time for warnings is over. The article says they are considering what steps to take. Why don't they already KNOW what steps to take? Why are no contingency plans for this in place already? If our intelligence didn't see this coming? Why not?

I blame our intelligence community. We spend billions​ of dollars to get a heads up on this type action. What happened?
Click to expand...

I believe that the international community blew it in the 1930s when Japan was raping Nanking, Italy was invading Ethiopia, and Germany was taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia. Perhaps 55 millions lives would have been saved with some pre-emptive military action or sanctions or some international effort.

Hope that this is not the same situation because we as an international community seem to lack the will to do anything and the US currently seems to lack the stomach.

Intelligence apparently focuses too much on domestic communication or recording communication without any thought. Crimea should not have been a surprise and, yes, we should have had contingency plans in place.
 
Eric7216 said:
I believe that the international community blew it in the 1930s when Japan was raping Nanking, Italy was invading Ethiopia, and Germany was taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia. Perhaps 55 millions lives would have been saved with some pre-emptive military action or sanctions or some international effort.

Hope that this is not the same situation because we as an international community seem to lack the will to do anything and the US currently seems to lack the stomach.

Intelligence apparently focuses too much on domestic communication or recording communication without any thought. Crimea should not have been a surprise and, yes, we should have had contingency plans in place.
Click to expand...

Contingency plans were in place but dropped by the Obama Administration.Europe's 'new world order' is letting Vladimir Putin run riot » The Spectator
 
Grant said:
I don't see how the EU ever maintained peace. Western Europeans haven't had the ability to attack each other since WWII anyway.
Click to expand...

One can't empirically prove that the EU maintained peace. The argument is that the EU focused the European countries' efforts on economic development as opposed to rebuilding war-making capacities. In doing so, a mechanism existed for resolving differences peacefully and focusing efforts on areas of common interests. Later, economic integration evolved into deeper political integration.

Nor did it help the monetary problems which should have been foreseen. In fact the EU and Western Europe were never very aggressive in freeing eastern Europe for the decades following WWII.
Click to expand...

Against a nuclear-armed superpower, there was not much Europe could do outside of its collaboration with the U.S. to free Eastern Europe. Moreover, if conflict broke out, Europe had far more at stake than the U.S., as it would have been the battleground. At least some European leaders were worried that if war broke out on the continent whether the U.S. would pull back in the end from engaging the Soviet Union so as to avoid absorbing nuclear blows to its own cities. I don't accept that hypothesis, but there was some worry about that. In the end, it's easier for those who are less exposed to advocate running bigger risks, but one can't reasonably expect that Europe would tempt chances at a new catastrophe on the continent.

Also, while continually critical of US policies during this period they relied on them almost 100% on them for their defense. Now they have little defense from a tired and mis-run America and are dependent on the good will of others to allow them their previously assumed freedoms.
Click to expand...

NATO still provides a good security guarantee. I am concerned that the U.S. Defense posture is becoming misaligned with the world's evolving balance of power realities. Over time, if that's the case, the credibility of the NATO security guarantee could well erode. The underlying assumptions seem to be that fiscal constraints and adherence to principles of international law should take precedence. At the same time, a neoisolationist movement in the U.S. has gained new vigor, though recent events in Ukraine may drain that movement of some life.

Interesting article from The Spectator Europe's 'new world order' is letting Vladimir Putin run riot » The Spectator
Click to expand...

I agree that this is an interesting piece. I've noted on numerous occasions that the balance of power and Realpolitik remain relevant today. Notions that international law or interconnected economic interests have rendered those concepts obsolete are misguided. Russia is a practioner of Realpolitik. China's rapid military buildup also reflects that country's recognition that power matters. Given human nature, those concepts are not likely to become obsolete anytime soon. Those who discount or ignore them will be caught time and again by nasty surprises, some of which will have been avoidable with attention given to the role of deterrence.
 
donsutherland1 said:
There are vast limits to world organizations such as the UN. Aside from the highly politicized General Assembly, the UN needs the consent of the world's great powers to engage in robust enforcement via the Security Council. That's far easier said than done, given differences in national interest.
Click to expand...

Making it effectively....ineffectual.

If one looks at the UN Chart, excerpts from Article 2 state:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

For an objective outside observer, the operative question is when these principles will become truly operative. They weren't respected during the Balkans conflicts and Kosovo's being extracted from Serbia. They weren't respected when it came to the second Persian Gulf War (the 1st one actually had Security Council support). They were bent when it came to Libya. They were ignored when Russia moved into Crimea. This gap between the principles and practice undermines the integrity of the legal arguments now being put forth with respect to Crimea.
Click to expand...

See previous comment.

The fact is that power calculations and national interest take precedence over those principles when nations are charting their course to safeguard what they perceive to be major interests. Hence, the principles remain ideals, but ones that have not been fulfilled. There is little indication that will change anytime soon.

The nation-state remains the best guardian of its interests (as I believe it properly should). It is uncertain whether an arrangement whereby it would truly subordinate its major interests to any world organization would be viable. The UN Charter's principles are aspirational. The mechanism (of the UN) falls far short of what would be needed to bring them to fruition. Some combination of power, diplomacy, and an effective UN Security Council might create a balance where they might be realized more often than would otherwise be the case. A more effective Security Council would depend on its members transcending parochial interests (as opposed to their major interests, which can't be expected), to make the Council more objective and realistic in its work.
Click to expand...

Which leads us right back to....f the UN. :shrug: In reality, the UN is little more than an excuse.
 
PeteEU said:
Well maybe you should find out more about the UN before coming with such stupid comments about the UN. It is like asking why NATO cant stop the gang violence in LA....
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to enlighten me, Petey.
 
Art_Allm said:
They were not part of Russia in 1991, they were part of the SU, and they were never asked if they want to be part of Russian Federation or the Ukraine.



Well, there is nothing legal in the Ukraine any more, because the legal government was replaced by terrorist.
De facto, Ukraine does not exist any more, and there are no laws that can prohibit any referendum.

There is no way back, if the same happened in the USA or any other Western country, the government would have declared the emergency state and would have fought the armed opposition and the parliament would have lost its power.

If the armed opposition would have usurped the power in the USA, there would be no laws any more.

We have a transition period in the Ukraine, the old state and the old laws do not exist any more (due to the usurpation of power by terrorists), and from this chaos will emerge something new.

It is important that the population of the regions can decide about their future status.

They were not permitted to do this in 1954, but they will be able to do this on 16th March 2014.
Click to expand...

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 Ukraine including the Crimea voted for independence. A majority of Crimeans wanted independence. Ukraine is still a country but is instead being lead by the opposition who command the police and the military, it is not law less, it still has a stable government that will have elections. Ukraine was not taken over by a random armed opposition group, they were overthrown by mostly peaceful protests and is being lead by the former parliamentary opposition.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Making it effectively....ineffectual.



See previous comment.



Which leads us right back to....f the UN. :shrug: In reality, the UN is little more than an excuse.
Click to expand...

My overriding point is that expectations that the UN can or should be able to deal with issues such as what happened in Ukraine are unrealistic. There are vast limits to what it can do. A better role would be serving a mediating capacity and, to the extent nations are willing to allow it, an arbitrating one.

Bilateral and multilateral diplomacy are more effective. Moreover, nations will act to secure their critical interests with or without UN support with the balance of power serving as a constraint on the range of options available to them.

In the end, the UN "failed to act" with respect to Ukraine, because it lacks the capacity to do so. The same holds with regard to Syria's sectarian conflict, as the great powers have different positions and differing interests. As for Syria, I believe it was unwise for the U.S. to set a "red line" where it clearly didn't have the interests at stake to support such a declaration. Hence, the declaration lacked credibility from the start given the gap between what a red line constitutes and the lack of actual interests involved.
 
fmw said:
"Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine"

It is a mighty big place to isolate. Perhaps they should concentrate on isolating our border with Mexico.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he also said the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus. Maybe that's where common core came from...
 
donsutherland1 said:
One can't empirically prove that the EU maintained peace. The argument is that the EU focused the European countries' efforts on economic development as opposed to rebuilding war-making capacities. In doing so, a mechanism existed for resolving differences peacefully and focusing efforts on areas of common interests. Later, economic integration evolved into deeper political integration.
Click to expand...
The EU only kept peace because there was only one threat, that from the USSR, with the other 'Superpower' their main defender. That 'deeper political integration' ignored cultural differences which, in turn, has led to further unhappiness and resentments among most groups of people, just what they were hoping to avoid.
Against a nuclear-armed superpower, there was not much Europe could do outside of its collaboration with the U.S. to free Eastern Europe. Moreover, if conflict broke out, Europe had far more at stake than the U.S., as it would have been the battleground. At least some European leaders were worried that if war broke out on the continent whether the U.S. would pull back in the end from engaging the Soviet Union so as to avoid absorbing nuclear blows to its own cities. I don't accept that hypothesis, but there was some worry about that. In the end, it's easier for those who are less exposed to advocate running bigger risks, but one can't reasonably expect that Europe would tempt chances at a new catastrophe on the continent.
Click to expand...
I can understand their concerns but it was unnecessary at the time to undercut the US at every opportunity, ridiculing both their leadership and the American people themselves. Communists of the day were considered to be their 'intellectuals', which certainly bastardized the word. In addition European Communist leaders boasted that they could get 100,000 people protesting US policies in any major western European city with just a weeks notice. There is a reason all major conflicts have begun in Europe.


NATO still provides a good security guarantee. I am concerned that the U.S. Defense posture is becoming misaligned with the world's evolving balance of power realities. Over time, if that's the case, the credibility of the NATO security guarantee could well erode. The underlying assumptions seem to be that fiscal constraints and adherence to principles of international law should take precedence. At the same time, a neoisolationist movement in the U.S. has gained new vigor, though recent events in Ukraine may drain that movement of some life.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a great uncertainty now that the American people have questioned whether they want to continue being 'the policeman of the world', which allows those have complained on the issue a glimpse of how the world might be without them. I have little confidence in NATO, though hope to be wrong, and of course the UN is of no value at all.

I agree that this is an interesting piece. I've noted on numerous occasions that the balance of power and Realpolitik remain relevant today. Notions that international law or interconnected economic interests have rendered those concepts obsolete are misguided. Russia is a practioner of Realpolitik. China's rapid military buildup also reflects that country's recognition that power matters. Given human nature, those concepts are not likely to become obsolete anytime soon. Those who discount or ignore them will be caught time and again by nasty surprises, some of which will have been avoidable with attention given to the role of deterrence.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite. We should have learned that 'the war to end all wars' was just an unrealistic hope and that the democracies should always be vigilant, strong and united against anyone who works against human rights and freedoms anywhere in the world.
 
Carjosse said:
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 Ukraine including the Crimea voted for independence. A majority of Crimeans wanted independence. Ukraine is still a country but is instead being lead by the opposition who command the police and the military, it is not law less, it still has a stable government that will have elections. Ukraine was not taken over by a random armed opposition group, they were overthrown by mostly peaceful protests and is being lead by the former parliamentary opposition.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why Russia isn't allowing "Independence" to be an option in the Crimean referendum. Because people would choose it. ;)
 
mac said:
I think you should read that, Pete....maintaining international law is mentioned a few times....Now, why don't you explain to me what it is you think you meant to say to me...
Click to expand...

Have you read the whole treaty?

Show me where the enforcement parts are please...show me where the UN has the power, without approval of the UNSC, to enforce international law with their own police units.
 
PeteEU said:
Have you read the whole treaty?

Show me where the enforcement parts are please...show me where the UN has the power, without approval of the UNSC, to enforce international law with their own police units.
Click to expand...

:rofl :lamo

Now we start backtracking....who said anything about doing it "without approval of the UNSC"?
 
mac said:
Why actually, yes, I am a professional. You are aware that there are non AQ/Hizballah/fundamentalist groups active in Syria, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes of course, those are active there too, but pose far less threat to president Assad then the ones I've mentioned, and, Syria will be far worse (probably a complete **** hole) off if president Assad fails to defeat them, then it ever has been during Assad's rule.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes of course, those are active there too, but pose far less threat to president Assad then the ones I've mentioned, and, Syria will be far worse (probably a complete **** hole) off if president Assad fails to defeat them, then it ever has been during Assad's rule.
Click to expand...

That's completely false. The Free Syrian Army is widely (internationally) considered a moderate and secular force. It's the only force in Syria mainly comprised of trained military personnel, and it has been involved in conflicts against many of the more radical rebel elements.

Supplying and supporting the Free Syrian Army, among other actions, is the best way to end the conflict.
 
Grant said:
How can one refute nonsense? If you continue to make ridiculous claims you should at least offer up a tea spoon of legitimate evidence for some much needed credibility..
Click to expand...

Where were you last summer when we were on the brink of war in Syria and this board was full of threads concerning it and mountains of evidence by far more than just myself was posted. You are in complete and total denial, if you think the accusations of the Syrian opposition aren't true. I won't be digging them back up for you. If you think Syria will be better off with those opposing him now then it has been with him in power, you're sadly misguided.
 
Grant said:
Nah, he's sitting back on Miami Beach with Pina Colodas.
Assad is fighting a war on terror??? Who initiated this 'regime change idea? Nancy Pelosi??
Click to expand...

Neo-cons, all though it looks as though Obama is giving it only a half hearted effort. It could be better, but it could be worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom