• 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!

For First Time, Kremlin Signals It Is Prepared to Annex Crimea [W:153]

For First Time, Kremlin Signals It Is Prepared to Annex Crimea

By STEVEN LEE MYERS, DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and RICK GLADSTONEMARCH 7, 2014

MOSCOW — Russia signaled for the first time on Friday that it was prepared to annex Crimea, significantly intensifying its confrontation with the West over the political crisis in Ukraine and threatening to undermine a system of respect for national boundaries that has helped keep the peace in Europe and elsewhere for decades.

Leaders of both houses of Russia’s Parliament said that they would support a vote by Crimeans to break away from Ukraine and become a region of the Russian Federation, ignoring sanctions threats and warnings from the United States and other countries that a vote for secession would violate Ukraine’s constitution and international law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/ukraine.html?ref=davidmherszenhorn
Is anybody really surprised? Seriously?
 
OK. I agree with that. But like you say, there needs to be clear cost benefit analysis done. And if it's not worth it, as in this case, you leave it alone.

Not worth what, though, that's the question. There's literally dozens of various options.
 
...lets recap:
You posted a screen shot from a video which depicts Russian troops in Russia, and claimed that it was taken in Crimea.
You posted a video of Ukrainian nationalist chanting "Moskalilv na noz!" which is equivalent to "Kill the Russians!/ Death to Russians!" and claimed that these were supposedly Russians.
When presented with the fact that the chant is actually a neo-Nazi/neo-Baderovtsy chant, instead of addressing it you came up with the two idiotic statements above.

So, maybe instead of posting one sentence bs statements, you would work on not posting vids and pics with false/made-up "headlines".

Fallen.

The chanting video was my bad, I meant to say Ukrainians, and THAT RUSSIAN MILITARY UNIT IS IN UKRAINE. Recap that.
 
I mean...it's one thing to have his opinions but jeeeeez: he's now arguing that if a nation facilitates or influences things in another nation, it's legitimate for a third nation to invade it.






I wonder if he'd accept the US making that kind of argument lol

It's not an invasion. Working to topple an elected government is a clear violation of a countries sovereignty, and IL.
 
It's not an invasion. Working to topple an elected government is a clear violation of a countries sovereignty, and IL.

No, seriously just stop, it's way past silly.
 
The United States is presently at an usual confluence of events. We have an incompetent bumbling administration combined with the fact that the American people want the rest of the world to screw off. Americans are tired of endless wars for nothing, tired of seeing our young men die in foreign countries for aholes that don't even want us there, tired of giving away money for nothing. We want to bring our people home, the war is over.

If Obama's incompetent bumbling and lack of knowledge keep us out of this, the American people will rightfully cheer the result.

Laughing, you are NOTHING if not CONsistent!

Even when President Obama does the correct thing the CONs have got to call it incompetent... :doh

If only BushII could have been this sort of incompetent instead of the incompetent that filled military cemeteries and hospitals.
 
The more I learn about the situation the more I think we should stay out of it. Much like with Syria, it is not nearly as black and white as it is sometimes portrayed. It appears that much of the conflict was caused by EU ultimatums and the USA's political interference. The people of Crimea are culturally Russian and many on the pro-EU side are anti-semetic nationalist fascists.
 
Much like with Syria, it is not nearly as black and white as it is sometimes portrayed.

It never, ever is. When someone tells you something about geopolitics is simple, you know they're either a liar or an idiot.
 
Like "humanitarian interventionism," which has been used more than once recently as a cover for going to war, "electoral interventionism" has become a tool in Washington's arsenal for overseas manipulation. The instruments of democracy are used selectively to topple particular rulers, and only when a US-friendly successor candidate or regime has been groomed. Countless elections in the post-Soviet space have been distorted by incumbents to a degree that probably reversed the result, usually by unfair use of state television and sometimes by direct ballot rigging. Boris Yeltsin's constitutional referendum in Russia in 1993 and his re-election in 1996 were early cases. Azerbaijan's presidential vote last year was also highly suspicious.

Yet after none of those polls did the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the main international observer body, or the US and other Western governments, make the furious noise they are producing today. The decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered more "pro-Western" or "pro-market." Or, as in Azerbaijan, Washington is happy with the antidemocratic policies maintained by the Aliyev dynasty because it is friendly to US oil companies.

In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the Western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups supporting him. This one-sided intervention is playing with fire. Not only is the country geographically and culturally divided--a recipe for partition or even civil war--it is also an important neighbor to Russia. Putin has been clumsy, but to accuse Russia of imperialism because it shows close interest in adjoining states and the Russian-speaking minorities who live there is a wild exaggeration.

Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic matter not by Moscow but by Washington, which refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic into its orbit. The US campaign against Yanukovich accelerated this summer after outgoing President Leonid Kuchma reversed policy and said he no longer aspired to NATO membership for Ukraine. Yanukovich adopted that line.

Many Ukrainians certainly want a more democratic system. The vast bulk of the demonstrators in Kiev are undoubtedly genuine. Their enthusiasm and determination are palpable. But they do not reflect nationwide sentiment, and the support for Yanukovich in eastern Ukraine is also genuine. Nor are we watching a struggle between freedom and authoritarianism, as is romantically alleged. Yushchenko served as prime minister under Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's post-Soviet privatization. On some issues Yushchenko may be a better potential president than Yanukovich, but to suggest that he would provide a sea change in Ukrainian politics and economic management is naïve. Putin is not inherently against a democratic Ukraine, however authoritarian he is in his own country. What concerns him is instability, the threat of anti-Russian regimes on his borders and American mischief.

The European Union has been weak and divided, missing the chance to exert a strong European line in the face of US strategic meddling. It should give Ukraine the option of future membership rather than the feeble "action plan" of cooperation currently on offer. Adapting its legislation and practice to EU norms would set Ukraine on a surer path to irreversible reform than anything that either Yushchenko or Yanukovich would do. The EU should also make a public statement that it sees no value in NATO membership for Ukraine, and those EU members who belong to NATO will not support it. At a stroke this would calm Russia's legitimate fears and send a signal to Washington not to go on inflaming a purely European issue.
Jonathan Steele December 2, 2004
Ukraine's Untold Story | The Nation
 
Apparently he can. No one, including the US or EU will stop him. We'll threaten, maybe issue sanctions, but little else. Russia knows what they're doing, they picked the right time, and picked the right US president to mess with. He did so with Georgia with no problem. The danger is he may not want to stop and his ego may get the better of him - that is dangerous, as are his reasons, which I have to agree with Hillary, are reminiscent of Germany in the 1930's.

Couple that with the recent plans to downsize our military - we're relegated to being a cheerleader on the sideline unless a coalition allies have the cajones to stand up to him. I don't see that happening. By the way, that ringing in the background is the telephone and it's the 1980's calling Obama. They want to tell him Romney was right.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. But, I think we may rethink our plans to reduce the military, "just in case".
 
I"ll ask again, as it seems that you did not understand my question - Why do you think that that footage was taken in Crimea?

Fallen.

The units removed markings when they crossed into Crimea.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...military-20140304,0,41184.story#axzz2vKYOf1bS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569934/Ukraine-Russian-military-blocking-airport.html

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...complete-nonsense/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Do I really need to hold you hand here?
 
Last edited:
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. But, I think we may rethink our plans to reduce the military, "just in case".

It would be prudent to rethink that move, but I'm concerned that money has already been spent in that 3.9T budget that just came out.
 
There are people who literally don't give a **** what we do anywhere if it advances "US interests" (which rarely if ever equate to your interests or mine) regardless of who gets hurt or killed along the way, or what gets destroyed or stolen. Literally, these people exist.

I have often argued that U.S. foreign policy needs to be grounded in U.S. interests. However, one cannot automatically assume that interests exist everywhere and that those interests are always at a level that justifies the use of force when they are at risk.

As had been noted previously, I did not believe the U.S. should intervene militarily in Libya or Syria, as the U.S. does not have critical interests at stake in either of those conflicts. If threats existed against NATO members, key Asian partners such as Japan and South Korea, etc., I most definitely would favor U.S. military intervention, if needed. Strategic partners are examples of cases where critical interests are involved. I do believe the U.S. should be doing more to shore up the security needs of its NATO partners and East Asian allies than it has been. In Asia, the balance of power is shifting and the nation's key allies face uncertainty. The U.S. can and should do more to alleviate that uncertainty, as it is also a beneficiary of the economic and political successes that have occurred in South Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc.

At the same time, when it conducts foreign policy, the U.S. needs to be cognizant to respect the critical interests of other states, especially other great powers where the consequences of miscalculation can be greatest. Managing differences is where skillful diplomacy can be particularly valuable.
 
Like "humanitarian interventionism," which has been used more than once recently as a cover for going to war, "electoral interventionism" has become a tool in Washington's arsenal for overseas manipulation. The instruments of democracy are used selectively to topple particular rulers, and only when a US-friendly successor candidate or regime has been groomed. Countless elections in the post-Soviet space have been distorted by incumbents to a degree that probably reversed the result, usually by unfair use of state television and sometimes by direct ballot rigging. Boris Yeltsin's constitutional referendum in Russia in 1993 and his re-election in 1996 were early cases. Azerbaijan's presidential vote last year was also highly suspicious.

Yet after none of those polls did the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the main international observer body, or the US and other Western governments, make the furious noise they are producing today. The decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered more "pro-Western" or "pro-market." Or, as in Azerbaijan, Washington is happy with the antidemocratic policies maintained by the Aliyev dynasty because it is friendly to US oil companies.

In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the Western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups supporting him. This one-sided intervention is playing with fire. Not only is the country geographically and culturally divided--a recipe for partition or even civil war--it is also an important neighbor to Russia. Putin has been clumsy, but to accuse Russia of imperialism because it shows close interest in adjoining states and the Russian-speaking minorities who live there is a wild exaggeration.

Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic matter not by Moscow but by Washington, which refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic into its orbit. The US campaign against Yanukovich accelerated this summer after outgoing President Leonid Kuchma reversed policy and said he no longer aspired to NATO membership for Ukraine. Yanukovich adopted that line.

Many Ukrainians certainly want a more democratic system. The vast bulk of the demonstrators in Kiev are undoubtedly genuine. Their enthusiasm and determination are palpable. But they do not reflect nationwide sentiment, and the support for Yanukovich in eastern Ukraine is also genuine. Nor are we watching a struggle between freedom and authoritarianism, as is romantically alleged. Yushchenko served as prime minister under Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's post-Soviet privatization. On some issues Yushchenko may be a better potential president than Yanukovich, but to suggest that he would provide a sea change in Ukrainian politics and economic management is naïve. Putin is not inherently against a democratic Ukraine, however authoritarian he is in his own country. What concerns him is instability, the threat of anti-Russian regimes on his borders and American mischief.

The European Union has been weak and divided, missing the chance to exert a strong European line in the face of US strategic meddling. It should give Ukraine the option of future membership rather than the feeble "action plan" of cooperation currently on offer. Adapting its legislation and practice to EU norms would set Ukraine on a surer path to irreversible reform than anything that either Yushchenko or Yanukovich would do. The EU should also make a public statement that it sees no value in NATO membership for Ukraine, and those EU members who belong to NATO will not support it. At a stroke this would calm Russia's legitimate fears and send a signal to Washington not to go on inflaming a purely European issue.
Jonathan Steele December 2, 2004
Ukraine's Untold Story | The Nation

Very interesting article. Still 10 years later.

And I agree that regarding expansionism, breaking treaties and international law, and geostrategic meddling, Russia is doing nothing fundamentally different than the West has been doing for a while.

However, I am very much in favor of preparing NATO for the worst case. Because for me, as a central European, it boils down to the simple question: In what kind of system do I prefer to live -- our current Western system, or a Russian style system?
 
Last edited:
The units removed markings when they crossed into Crimea.

Huh?

Unfortunately for you, the title of the video states:
"трасса Краснодар-Новороссийск, колонна войск РФ в Крым"
/"road Krasnodar-Novorosiysk, Russian army column into Crimea"

As, I already stated these forces might indeed eventually end up in Crimea, but contrary to what you claimed the footage was taken in Russia.

Fallen.
 
It would be prudent to rethink that move, but I'm concerned that money has already been spent in that 3.9T budget that just came out.

So Obama gets to decide if he takes a hit from shrinking the military in a volatile world, or takes a hit from cuts to his domestic policy.
 
Huh?

Unfortunately for you, the title of the video states:
"трасса Краснодар-Новороссийск, колонна войск РФ в Крым"
/"road Krasnodar-Novorosiysk, Russian army column into Crimea"

As, I already stated these forces might indeed eventually end up in Crimea, but contrary to what you claimed the footage was taken in Russia.

Fallen.

And as I already stated, THE UNITS ARE REMOVING MARKINGS AND IDENTIFYING MARKS ONCE IN CRIMEA. See the links I provided.
 
Very interesting article.

And I agree that regarding expansionism, breaking treaties and international law, and geostrategic meddling, Russia is doing nothing fundamentally different than the West has been doing for a while.

However, I am very much in favor of preparing NATO for the worst case. Because for me, as a central European, it boils down to the simple question: In what kind of system do I prefer to live -- our current Western system, or a Russian style system?


Are you suggesting Russia has designs beyond Crimea?
 
And as I already stated, THE UNITS ARE REMOVING MARKINGS AND IDENTIFYING MARKS ONCE IN CRIMEA. See the links I provided.

I believe Fallenangel's point concerns the video in question. He stated that the video indicates that the footage is from Novorossiysk. Novorossiysk is a Russian city.
 
So Obama gets to decide if he takes a hit from shrinking the military in a volatile world, or takes a hit from cuts to his domestic policy.

That's a no-brainer, cut the military, fix domestic problems. Except he'll probably cut the military and still not fix domestic problems.
 
Back
Top Bottom