Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 143

Thread: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

  1. #91
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Got a link for that Montecresto?
    Actions of KGB Komrade Putin have consequences and have kicked off Cold war 2.0 .
    What do you mean a link?? Both the West and Russia were vying for Ukraine, in the end, Ukraine went with Russia. It was as simple as that. However, fair ball wasn't acceptable to the West and encouragement and support for the violent overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine followed, with the establishment and immediate recognition of a pro-Western government. And you guys think Russia is suppose to take that setting down.

    Only the non partisan, non patronising see this for what it is.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  2. #92
    Sage

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

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    None of this will happen with a Congress interested more in scoring political points and Europeans who refuse to spend their Euros on defense. A lot of partisan hacks don't seem to realize that part of the reason why the President is stickless is because a sizable number of one party in Congress will not support any action that would result in favorable light for the President. They hark back to Reagan but utterly fail to understand that when push came to shove, Congress had Reagan's back on holding the Soviets, it was a Democrat Congress under Reagan who shared in the near bankrupting of America in the Cold War. We have a Congress that doesn't care about anything but making the other party look bad. Every leader on the planet knows this. It doesn't matter if we spend the money on additional military if our political structure hamstrings any actual action. And let's not forget that coming up on 1.5 decades of foreign adventures the American public is tired. We simply do not have the political will to support the kind of Cold War mentality. It's quite frightening how the US is starting to resemble its depiction in World War Z. What you describe is a superficial fix that does nothing to solve the underlying problems America has in taking the lead. I don't doubt for a second that a sizable number of both Democrats and Republicans would throw obstacle after obstacle in the President's execution of NATO obligations should they come due. America is tripping on its own shoelaces and its politicians keep making the knots tighter and tighter.

    And let's not forget those Europeans. Most of whom are far from their required NATO spending obligations. The Europeans have mooched off the US for decades, relying on us to protect them as they curtail spending after spending on military. And the whole integration and shared equipment makes it worse. When the Dutch and Belgians share artillery, what happens when one gets cold feet and doesn't want to partake in the conflict? As much as it does save money, it hamstrings the Europeans in ways worse than our own Congress.

    I don't doubt that the military post planned cuts could take Russia without trying. It's just that the politics are our biggest problem. Romney was wrong in saying Russia is the biggest threat. We are our biggest threat. I'd never thought this was a sane comment before, but we need to remove gerrymandering in the name of national security.
    IMO, the public is right to be weary of the current war footing. Bad planning led to muddled outcomes in Iraq (which had effectively been contained prior to the war) and Afghanistan. Those conflicts are now being wound down.

    Going forward, the U.S. should better focus its foreign policy and defense resources where it has critical interests at stake and/or strategic allies. Military intervention in the name of abstract ideals e.g., calls to get involved in Syria's sectarian conflict which involves few U.S. interests is one example, are the kind of temptations policy makers should resist.

    Finally, I don't believe the current situation justifies a new Cold War or that it will initiate one. I suspect that in the weeks ahead, tough rhetoric will fade, the kind of sanctions that would be mutually destructive to both parties won't be imposed, and both the U.S. and Russia will make a pragmatic decision to find ways to work together in areas of shared interest, even as both parties maintain profound disagreements concerning Russia's annexation of Crimea.

    A policy approach by one or both parties that essentially puts cooperation on hold where major interests are involved would not benefit either side. If anything, it would be irrational. At the same time, it would not reverse the outcome in Crimea. Both parties will likely be more cautious in how they work with one another and give greater attention to due diligence, but they will begin to work together again. Some ideologues won't like it, but policy making is not solely the dissemination of ideology.

  3. #93
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Keep defending Putin. First death today in his 'peaceful revolution'...
    Yes, well let the West continue to stick a stick in and stir, as they have done in Syria, and your bound to see many more. How many civilians did you guys kill in a decade long war in a country that never attacked you. Seems to me you're the defender of violence.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #94
    Sage

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

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Economic and financial assistance, really the same thing, won't help much at all against the force of the Russian army. There has to be a counter attack, though not necessarily militarily. The Russian economy is weak and they cannot take a sustained hit for very long. Get them where they are vulnerable as well as moving forces into the area, and they will settle with the Crimea. Anything less than that and they will naturally advance.
    In the medium-term, the U.S. has the capability to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy resources. Such a move would give Europe greater strategic flexibility vis-a-vis Russia. Policy aimed at building greater U.S.-Europe energy ties would be constructive and mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Europe.

    Finally, with respect to Russia's capacity to absorb economic shocks, I don't believe one can underestimate it. During the Soviet era, Russians faced much greater economic challenges than they do today and they demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to cope and endure in the face of hardship. Even if Russia slid into a prolonged recession, I doubt that such an outcome would lead it to give up Crimea. Moreover, Russia has commercial openings that were not available to the Soviet Union. China is one big market that is looking for a lot more Russian energy resources. India is another one. In short, it would be far more difficult to isolate Russia economically than it was to isolate the Soviet Union.

  5. #95
    Professor
    Chatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Britain
    Last Seen
    07-14-14 @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,742

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In the medium-term, the U.S. has the capability to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy resources. Such a move would give Europe greater strategic flexibility vis-a-vis Russia. Policy aimed at building greater U.S.-Europe energy ties would be constructive and mutually beneficial for the U.S. and Europe.
    The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.

    Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.

    The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.

    A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.

    If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.

    LNG Carrier

    National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG

    Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas

    What further sanctions could Russia face?



    Last edited by Chatter; 03-19-14 at 01:06 PM.

  6. #96
    Professor
    Chatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Britain
    Last Seen
    07-14-14 @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,742

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine


  7. #97
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Yes, well let the West continue to stick a stick in and stir, as they have done in Syria, and your bound to see many more. How many civilians did you guys kill in a decade long war in a country that never attacked you. Seems to me you're the defender of violence.
    Iraq didnt attack the west or break international laws?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  8. #98
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    From CNN:



    Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine - CNN.com

    This development is not surprising for a number of reasons:

    1. Russia has long viewed Crimea as constituting a crital national interest (naval base, majority ethnic Russian population, history).
    2. The balance of power favored Russia in moving to regain control of Crimea. Ukraine lacked the military power to impose high costs.
    3. Neither the U.S. nor Europe have sufficient interests at stake to consider military options.
    4. A military approach would be impractical under any reasonable circumstances.
    5. The costs of non-military measures are not likely to be so high relative to the gains Russia perceives it will make so as to reverse Russian policy. Russia also has capabilities of retaliating ranging from restricting access to its resources to withdrawing cooperation on major geopolitical matters e.g., Iran's nuclear program. It expects that its ability to complicate U.S. geopolitical goals will constrain the degree of U.S. economic and other non-military sanctions.
    6. Past precedent concerning Kosovo's being separated from Serbia with NATO military force playing a role during what amounted to a civil war.

    In his national address, Russian President Putin has cited a number of those factors. He did disavow intentions to become more broadly involved in Ukraine, but he has shown a willingness to act decisively where he perceives major Russian interests are at stake.

    This development also speaks anew of the need for the U.S. to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy doctrine and relearn how to engage in contingency planning (military and broader foreign policy). It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.

    Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.
    Wow!!!!!!
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #99
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I agree. I would love to know Don's back story. There is always a very diplomatic approach to his posts that's hard to miss. And an underlying understanding of the world stage and how the actors are playing the game.
    Nope, he's just the only real Centrist on this website.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #100
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    It gets all those things from Ukraine. As in, the pipelines and all that come by land from the connection between the crimean peninsula to the territory of Ukraine.
    But Ukraine gets most of it's gas from Russia. Not sure about petrol or electricity.

    But it's not impossible to build new energy pipelines from the territory of Russia to the crimean peninsula. It's not that hard.

    And I don't think Ukraine will cut off utilities to Crimea. It's not just against human rights but also because it'll hurt a lot of ukrainian supporters, around 250k crimean tartars and about 450k ukranian ethnics. So... that's not an option. It's the reason why Crimea was moved to Ukraine's administrative territory in the 1950s under the USSR. Economical and administrative reasons.
    Why should they cut it off, money is money. Just tell them they'll have to pay an export tariff now.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •