• 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]

You haven't got a clue what I am.
As well, you surely haven't a clue of what true conservatism is.
I like how as a liberal, YOU are the arbiter of true conservatism.
 
I like how as a liberal, YOU are the arbiter of true conservatism.

Good. So the NEXT time you say anything about defining liberals, YOU as a conservative should remember the post above and understand that your "definition" is irrelevant.
 
Moderator's Warning:
OK, the personal crap ceases now. Next one who violates this will get infracted, thread banned, or both.
 
So Monte, what was the last foreign policy that you think the US was "right" with? Keeping in mind that your version of right and theirs are very different, as they're interested in furthering US interests and you're interesting in...not that.
 
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

Well, I mean, if the people demand it?
 
Not to draw too much comparison, Japan attacked under such economic pressures.

You're right, they did. When they felt their backs were up against the wall due to oil import restrictions, they responded by aligning themselves with Germany and attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, HI. Could Russia make a similar move and their economy is destabilized due to crippling economic sanctions initiated by the West (U.S.) and significant loses in oil revenue from decreased exports to the EU?

My answer: Y'all better hold on to your butts. This Ukrainian situation could go sideways real fast.
 
Lol. I want our foreign policy to fail, absolutely. It is menacing, it violates human rights, international law, and creates unnecessary enemies. My citizenship is irrelevant to whether or not US foreign policy is legitimate, too funny.

Wow! :shock:

Look, I can accept that you disagree with U.S. intervention around the world because it sometimes leads to a negative impression of the U.S. from some foreign countries, but wanting our foreign policies to fail is so anti-American. You may as well go join Edward Snowden wherever he is.

I'll grant you that at times our government (led by the CIA) does things that in the long run turn on us, i.e., siding w/Saddam in the 70's until he rose to power then we turned on him, arming the Afghan rebels and making a war hero out of UBL only to take him out two decades later, working with the Pakistan government/intelligence only to start killing Pakistani citizens w/drone strikes (some of whom deserved it for siding w/Al-Qaeda and the Taliban). I'll grant you that all of these interventionist acts and more have come back to bite us in the butt, but I'd never want our foreign policies to fail. That's just so unpatriotic. I just want our policy makers to be smarter about the things they do.
 
Hype.

All the Russian parliament said (according to the OP link) is that they would recognize and accept the Crimea as part of Russia IF the latter votes to join the former in it's referendum.

And this nonsense about 'the Crimea leaving the Ukraine without Kiev's say so is against the constitution' is ridiculous.
If a state/province/territory votes to leave a country, they should be able to leave...period. So under this stupid constitution, if 100% of Crimeans voted to leave the Ukraine, they would not be allowed unless Kiev says 'okay'? That is exceedingly repressive.

I have ZERO problem with the Crimea leaving to join Russia so long as the referendum is fair.


This story has been SO hyped...it once again shows just how stupid/ignorant most 'journalists' really are...or how desperate for copy their editors are.
 
You're right, they did. When they felt their backs were up against the wall due to oil import restrictions, they responded by aligning themselves with Germany and attacking the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, HI. Could Russia make a similar move and their economy is destabilized due to crippling economic sanctions initiated by the West (U.S.) and significant loses in oil revenue from decreased exports to the EU?

My answer: Y'all better hold on to your butts. This Ukrainian situation could go sideways real fast.

You better hold yours then too! So, why would we risk such a thing, just to protect the interests of some of the Ukrainians.
 
Wow! :shock:

Look, I can accept that you disagree with U.S. intervention around the world because it sometimes leads to a negative impression of the U.S. from some foreign countries, but wanting our foreign policies to fail is so anti-American. You may as well go join Edward Snowden wherever he is.

I'll grant you that at times our government (led by the CIA) does things that in the long run turn on us, i.e., siding w/Saddam in the 70's until he rose to power then we turned on him, arming the Afghan rebels and making a war hero out of UBL only to take him out two decades later, working with the Pakistan government/intelligence only to start killing Pakistani citizens w/drone strikes (some of whom deserved it for siding w/Al-Qaeda and the Taliban). I'll grant you that all of these interventionist acts and more have come back to bite us in the butt, but I'd never want our foreign policies to fail. That's just so unpatriotic. I just want our policy makers to be smarter about the things they do.

If its bad foreign policy, you wouldn't want it to fail! Ok, we'll I think that's unpatriotic.
 
This might offer up some introspection. Upon the Situation.


Russia sticks to its demands in Ukraine crisis.....

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday the new Ukrainian government should stick to an agreement signed by the ousted president, signaling no change in Moscow's position over the Crimea crisis.

"This document is not being adhered to in terms of the obligations which these people undertook," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow.

Lavrov said Moscow was ready for dialogue but accused the government in Kiev of taking orders from people he described as extremists and denied Moscow had any direct role in the crisis in Ukraine's Crimea peninsula.

"The interim government... is not independent. It depends, unfortunately, on radical nationalists who carried out an armed coup," Lavrov said.....snip~

Russia sticks to its demands in Ukraine crisis

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...t-hasty-actions-ukraine-6.html#post1063010085
 
StringBean said:
This is the first indication that Russia wants to illegally annex part of Ukraine?

Perhaps sending troops into a sovereign nation was really the first...
We've sent troops into many sovereign nations with far FAR less legitimacy then Putin has.

So true...

Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, Kosevo and Iraq just to name a few and perhaps some of the worst global interventionist projects in U.S. history, IMO.

All share a common theme: to stop dictatorship (under the guise of halting the spread of Communism).

Question: Did it work? And is the U.S. better off for it today?

Some would say yes, but sometimes I wonder. I mean, if you stop the dictator from being imposed on a nation's people and replace it with democracy, shouldn't foreign nations allow self-rule assuming the people now have a voice through their vote and, thus, the power to remove a would-be dictator from power? The only time they don't is when democracy breaks down through political corruption. And I suppose that's what the world (NATO) has to figure out where this Ukrainian crisis is concerned.

Just things that make you go, "Hmmmmm.....???"
 
This might offer up some introspection. Upon the Situation.


Russia sticks to its demands in Ukraine crisis.....

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday the new Ukrainian government should stick to an agreement signed by the ousted president, signaling no change in Moscow's position over the Crimea crisis.

"This document is not being adhered to in terms of the obligations which these people undertook," Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow.

Lavrov said Moscow was ready for dialogue but accused the government in Kiev of taking orders from people he described as extremists and denied Moscow had any direct role in the crisis in Ukraine's Crimea peninsula.

"The interim government... is not independent. It depends, unfortunately, on radical nationalists who carried out an armed coup," Lavrov said.....snip~

Russia sticks to its demands in Ukraine crisis

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...t-hasty-actions-ukraine-6.html#post1063010085

Morning buddy. I believe Lavrov is correct in his assessment of the illegitimacy of the new Ukrainian government and yet signaled that Russia even so would engage in dialogue! That's no small thing.
 
I'll never understand the "who are we to _____" crowd. "We" are a nation with global interests, and when you have interests somewhere, you have a stake in what happens there. Whether the US gets involved or not is one thing, but the "who are we to" argument isn't a good one.

'We' are not a nation of global interests. Multinational corporations have global interests.
'We' pay the taxes that fund military involvement around the world.
'We' send our sons and daughters into 'harm's way' to bolster 'dear friends and allies' who more often than not share little interest in freedom, democracy, of human rights.

Howsomever using your definition 'we' don't have a global interest in the Crimean. Our old world order focus on continuing the containment theory of a by gone era is destructive not constructive.

We bristled at South American countries voting to have a socialist president and helped coups overthrow legitimate governments. Now we bristle at Russia acting to protect it's REGIONAL interest in the Black Sea?

We sacrificed thousands of men to attempt and maintain artificial constructs such as South Korea and Vietnam but now demand the Crimea, never part of the Ukraine until 1955 and even then a semi-autonomous region attached like an afterthought, be considered sacred Ukrainian soil and indivisible?

All farce and folly... we lack any true 'global interest' in the Crimea. The recent trend of attempting to pull the former Warsaw Pact into a Western circle of influence rather than allow them to be a buffer and trade as they see fit is creating turmoil and global unrest.
 
Hype.

All the Russian parliament said (according to the OP link) is that they would recognize and accept the Crimea as part of Russia IF the latter votes to join the former in it's referendum.

And this nonsense about 'the Crimea leaving the Ukraine without Kiev's say so is against the constitution' is ridiculous.
If a state/province/territory votes to leave a country, they should be able to leave...period. So under this stupid constitution, if 100% of Crimeans voted to leave the Ukraine, they would not be allowed unless Kiev says 'okay'? That is exceedingly repressive.

I have ZERO problem with the Crimea leaving to join Russia so long as the referendum is fair.


This story has been SO hyped...it once again shows just how stupid/ignorant most 'journalists' really are...or how desperate for copy their editors are.

Or else, they are required to "invent" their copy to fit the guidelines of their "monitors." CIA in the newsrooms.
 
Hype.

All the Russian parliament said (according to the OP link) is that they would recognize and accept the Crimea as part of Russia IF the latter votes to join the former in it's referendum.

And this nonsense about 'the Crimea leaving the Ukraine without Kiev's say so is against the constitution' is ridiculous.
If a state/province/territory votes to leave a country, they should be able to leave...period.

I would not say its all nonsense. As of now, the "referendum" will be supervised by Russian militias and has been "simplified" with guided questions and does not include independence as an option.

As for states leaving, yes I see your point. At the same time, the Russians have not practiced what they preach. Neither have we (civil war). The Chechens tried to leave Russia - the Russian response was a little different. Likewise, if Karelians (Finns) tried to take Karelia to Finland - such a move would probably be supported by ethnic Russians in the area, Moscow would have a "coniption fit" about Karelia being an intrinsic part of Russia.
 
'We' are not a nation of global interests. Multinational corporations have global interests.
'We' pay the taxes that fund military involvement around the world.
'We' send our sons and daughters into 'harm's way' to bolster 'dear friends and allies' who more often than not share little interest in freedom, democracy, of human rights.

Howsomever using your definition 'we' don't have a global interest in the Crimean. Our old world order focus on continuing the containment theory of a by gone era is destructive not constructive.

We bristled at South American countries voting to have a socialist president and helped coups overthrow legitimate governments. Now we bristle at Russia acting to protect it's REGIONAL interest in the Black Sea?

We sacrificed thousands of men to attempt and maintain artificial constructs such as South Korea and Vietnam but now demand the Crimea, never part of the Ukraine until 1955 and even then a semi-autonomous region attached like an afterthought, be considered sacred Ukrainian soil and indivisible?

All farce and folly... we lack any true 'global interest' in the Crimea. The recent trend of attempting to pull the former Warsaw Pact into a Western circle of influence rather than allow them to be a buffer and trade as they see fit is creating turmoil and global unrest.

Actually, histroically, we have installed dictators friendly to USA Corpoorations to manage the Nations we invade. Does "Banana Republics" ring a bell. What's going on is Corporate hegemony and the underlying impetus that got "Citizens United" through the Supreme Court. If this continues, we're screwed. I'll attach an article that refers this to Breinski's Grand Chessboard. Please read.

Brzezinski Directing War Strategies from the Shadows

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”
 
You better hold yours then too! So, why would we risk such a thing, just to protect the interests of some of the Ukrainians.

Frankly, I wouldn't. However, I can understand why NATO would assuming they view Russia's presence in Ukraine as a occupation force rather than a democratic decision made by the Ukrainian government with the consent of its people. That's the point I'm trying to get across here.

The EU, U.S. and NATO are correct to be concerned here. However, I don't believe their motives are pure in that they care about the Ukrainian people as much as they care more about what they stand to gain from Ukraine coming into the EU as opposed to its government via the voice of the Ukrainian people agreeing to be absorbed back into Russian territory.

I make no delusions about what's going on and what's at stake. It's all about OIL w/Western Ukraine being the big prize.
 
Actually, histroically, we have installed dictators friendly to USA Corpoorations to manage the Nations we invade. Does "Banana Republics" ring a bell. What's going on is Corporate hegemony and the underlying impetus that got "Citizens United" through the Supreme Court. If this continues, we're screwed. I'll attach an article that refers this to Breinski's Grand Chessboard. Please read.

Brzezinski Directing War Strategies from the Shadows

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”

Wow! Great article Dave, all of it. This part grabs me though.

But listen to the tone of Brzezinski’s op-ed. In just a few short paragraphs, the author–who many respect as a restrained and brilliant global strategist–refers to Putin as a thug, a Mafia gangster, Mussolini, and Hitler. I imagine if he had another paragraph to work with, he would have added Beelzebub Satan to the list.

While Henry Kissinger tweeted out a couple days ago that all the demonization of Putin as Hitler is not policy, but an alabi, for no policy.
 
I would not say its all nonsense. As of now, the "referendum" will be supervised by Russian militias and has been "simplified" with guided questions and does not include independence as an option.

As for states leaving, yes I see your point. At the same time, the Russians have not practiced what they preach. Neither have we (civil war). The Chechens tried to leave Russia - the Russian response was a little different. Likewise, if Karelians (Finns) tried to take Karelia to Finland - such a move would probably be supported by ethnic Russians in the area, Moscow would have a "coniption fit" about Karelia being an intrinsic part of Russia.
Good points, IMO.

I agree it is not perfect, or even close to perfect. And I do have reservations about the fairness of the referendum.
However, with most Crimeans being of Russian descent and the fact that the Ukraine is a political and financial mess...I have a feeling that Russian troops or no Russian troops, the Crimea would rather be part of Russia then the Ukraine. I certainly would were I an ethnic Russian Crimean.

I said it before, the Russians will not (IMO) cross into Ukraine-proper, en masse, unless a civil war starts there. They know to do so would mean a collapse of exports that their economy depends on, which would mean a collapse of the Russian economy, which would mean Putin would be tossed from power...no chance (IMO) he will risk that; no matter how badly he wants a stronger Russian 'empire'.

This is no new Cold War...this is a mess in the Ukraine which Russia is (semi-skillfully, IMO) using as a way to 'legally' grab the Crimea...which was semi-autonomous/mostly Russian anyway.

America detains innocent people forever without charge, bombs any country they feel like, props up/destroys any regime they like/don't like and gives weapons to any group that strikes her fancy.
To fault the Russians is fine. But for Obama/Congress to freak out about what is going on in the Crimea is STAGGERINGLY hypocritical.
 
Frankly, I wouldn't. However, I can understand why NATO would assuming they view Russia's presence in Ukraine as a occupation force rather than a democratic decision made by the Ukrainian government with the consent of its people. That's the point I'm trying to get across here.

The EU, U.S. and NATO are correct to be concerned here. However, I don't believe their motives are pure in that they care about the Ukrainian people as much as they care more about what they stand to gain from Ukraine coming into the EU as opposed to its government via the voice of the Ukrainian people agreeing to be absorbed back into Russian territory.

I make no delusions about what's going on and what's at stake. It's all about OIL w/Western Ukraine being the big prize.

Please do read the article that Dave just linked. I agree somewhat with all you said, especially about this being for oil while humanitarian concerns are typical US smoke and mirrors.
 
I would not say its all nonsense. As of now, the "referendum" will be supervised by Russian militias and has been "simplified" with guided questions and does not include independence as an option.

As for states leaving, yes I see your point. At the same time, the Russians have not practiced what they preach. Neither have we (civil war). The Chechens tried to leave Russia - the Russian response was a little different. Likewise, if Karelians (Finns) tried to take Karelia to Finland - such a move would probably be supported by ethnic Russians in the area, Moscow would have a "coniption fit" about Karelia being an intrinsic part of Russia.

It all goes back to what I said earlier: If Russia is viewed as an occupying force on top of the so-called "free elections" being viewed as corrupt, then the world (NATO) will hold Russia in contempt. Thus, I ask again where Russia's "regional" (notquiteright's term, post #167) or national security interest are concerned (i.e., protecting their oil pipelines that run through Ukraine or their Black Sea ports they leased to Ukraine), have these assets been threatened by Ukrainian military or militia groups? If not, then IMO Russia has no business sending their military into the Ukraine.
 
Back
Top Bottom