• 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!

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

Yep.....they said going back to May.....not the coming Election.

Going back to May of when? No one was elected in May.

The French and the EU support the upcoming elections in the Ukraine on May 25, 2014 but if you can provide a link showing I'm wrong I'll naturally be prepared to accept that.
 
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.

You're not even close on this. Where do you get this silliness?
 
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.

Yes, it would help the US economy tremendously if BHO would open up their energy policies.

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.

That the Russian people have faced and endured hardships for several generations during a totalitarian police state is true but there were really no other options available to them. That is not the Russia of today, and I'm not sure either that they share the Putin's feeling about the loss of empire or what sacrifices they would be prepared to make in order to bring it back. Soviet collapse a 'tragedy,' Putin says - World news | NBC News
 
Going back to May of when? No one was elected in May.

The French and the EU support the upcoming elections in the Ukraine on May 25, 2014 but if you can provide a link showing I'm wrong I'll naturally be prepared to accept that.


Yeah sure thing Grant.....here it is from Reuters.

Sanctions on Russia over Ukraine could come this week: France


French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Tuesday that sanctions against Russia over Ukraine could be imposed as early as this week if Moscow failed to respond positively to a proposition designed to calm the crisis.

Fabius told radio station France Inter that a referendum in the Crimea region on joining Russia set for March 16 was illegitimate and that the annexation of the region by Russia would be illegal.

"We cannot accept something that is illegal and which will also have very serious consequences," Fabius said.

The minister said the "only legitimate vote" was that for the president of Ukraine on May 25.....snip~

Sanctions on Russia over Ukraine could come this week: France

Sanctions on Russia over Ukraine could come this week: France | Reuters
Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:54am EDT <<<<< !
 
That the Russian people have faced and endured hardships for several generations during a totalitarian police state is true but there were really no other options available to them. That is not the Russia of today, and I'm not sure either that they share the Putin's feeling about the loss of empire or what sacrifices they would be prepared to make in order to bring it back.

I fully agree. I believe there are domestic limits on how far President Putin could go, even as his government has demonstrated a willingness to suppress dissent in the past. Crimea, though, is probably a "safe" choice for him. It had been part of Russia until President Kruschnev gifted it to Ukraine and remains a part of the Russian identity. One can't say the same about other neighboring countries or regions. I don't think it's a coincidence that Russia did not annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but annexed Crimea.
 

The minister said the "only legitimate vote" was that for the president of Ukraine on May 25[/B].....snip~


I think it should read "will be" rather than "was". If it was May 25, what year was it?
 
I think it should read "will be" rather than "was". If it was May 25, what year was it?

Last May.....Yanokovich was elected as President. Then he went and took the Russian trade deal. Then he was coupd' out. Now we see what comes from when the West allows a Democracy to be thrown out of power and looks to ignore what was done. Especially with all they preach.

Hence.....Putin on the Ritz.

th

imagesputin-ritz.jpg


So says Puddin!
 
Iraq didnt attack the west or break international laws?

Iraq didn't attack the US or the UK. The US breaks international laws, so does the UK and probably every other country.
 
You're not even close on this. Where do you get this silliness?

Can't understand how you could disagree.

Point by point, the EU/US and Russia all were negotiating with the Ukraine, for several years.


In the end Ukraine felt they were getting a better deal with Russia and went with it.


The EU/US didn't like it and immediate supported a violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government and supported the "new" pro-West government.


Russia isn't going to stand for that, no more than we would have, had Ukraine went with the EU deal and Russia had intervened in and supported the violent overthrow of the government and recognised as the "new" government, one that was pro-Russian.

And you know this to be true.
 
Last May.....Yanokovich was elected as President. Then he went and took the Russian trade deal. Then he was coupd' out. Now we see what comes from when the West allows a Democracy to be thrown out of power and looks to ignore what was done. Especially with all they preach.

Hence.....Putin on the Ritz.

th

imagesputin-ritz.jpg


So says Puddin!

I still don't think so. Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Can't understand how you could disagree. Point by point, the EU/US and Russia all were negotiating with the Ukraine, for several years.
I understand the Ukraine was negotiating to enter the EU but what were the Americans negotiating?
In the end Ukraine felt they were getting a better deal with Russia and went with it.
You must mean the Crimea here, not the Ukraine. And of course the vote, when being coerced by a foreign country, cannot be taken seriously.

The EU/US didn't like it and immediate supported a violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government and supported the "new" pro-West government.
Who in the EU and who in the US were behind this "violent overthrow"? It seems the Ukrainian Parliament is doing alright and have elections planned for May 25.

Russia isn't going to stand for that, no more than we would have, had Ukraine went with the EU deal and Russia had intervened in and supported the violent overthrow of the government and recognised as the "new" government, one that was pro-Russian.
Why wouldn't Russia |stand for that"? What concern s it of theirs if the Ukraine joins the EU?
And you know this to be true.
Now you're being silly again.
 


From Wiki itself. ;)

Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Ukrainian: Ві́ктор Фе́дорович Януко́вич, About this sound listen (help·info); Russian: Виктор Фёдорович Янукович; born 9 July 1950) is a Ukrainian politician who was the President of Ukraine from February 2010 until February 2014 when he fled Kiev, and the Ukrainian parliament voted on 22 February to remove him from his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[1] The legislative removal lacked the required votes according to the constitution in effect at the time....snip


That part about them not having the required votes.....did make the news.


Only Briefly!
 
From Wiki itself. ;)

Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Ukrainian: Ві́ктор Фе́дорович Януко́вич, About this sound listen (help·info); Russian: Виктор Фёдорович Янукович; born 9 July 1950) is a Ukrainian politician who was the President of Ukraine from February 2010 until February 2014 when he fled Kiev, and the Ukrainian parliament voted on 22 February to remove him from his post on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties.[1] The legislative removal lacked the required votes according to the constitution in effect at the time....snip


That part about them not having the required votes.....did make the news.


Only Briefly!

Yes, and you can see that nowhere does it mention May 25 of last year. The French were referring to the upcoming elections on May 25, 2014.
 
Yes, and you can see that nowhere does it mention May 25 of last year. The French were referring to the upcoming elections on May 25, 2014.

Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?


That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.
 
Defense spending has two components:

1) Annual appropriations
2) Supplemental appropriations that have been adopted to fund war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provide for other special needs.

The large cuts I cited are cuts in the annual appropriations. Annual appropriations came to nearly $600 billion in FY2013. I favor reduced cuts in that spending.

Supplemental appropriations can and should be reduced as the war efforts and related activities are wound down in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

My point is that in order to match deeds to the words of making it clear that NATO members will be safeguarded, even with the use of military force, requires money for equipment and men. My understanding is that some NATO countries are in dire need of basic equipment like armoured personnel carriers. They don't have money to spend, so the money will have to come from somewhere. And if you are really going to be serious about it, you need to station some troops in critical places as a display of resolve. It would seem to me that the money that went into Iraq and Afghanistan would now be diverted to those areas, so TOTAL defense expenditures would likely have to stay at current levels, if you really want to convince people that you mean business in that regard.
 
Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?


That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.

What the French actually said then is that they will respect the election of May 25, 2014, right? That would make sense.

The Ukrainian Parliament seems to have things well in hand, if they are not invaded again by the Russians.
 
The neoconservative foreign policy advocates using power as an instrument to expand democracy, liberal values, etc. Calls for U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict reflected neoconservative goals.

I'm not advocating anything like that. In fact, I repeatedly opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria and Libya, as no meaningful U.S. interests were involved.

My focus is not expanding U.S. military guarantees to non-NATO members and I don't support expansion of NATO. Instead, I believe there should be greater security cooperation and integration among existing NATO members. Moreover, I'm suggesting that it would be better for U.S. military strength to be maintained near current levels rathern than slashed to pre-WW II levels in some areas. I am not calling for any kind of new arms race, though I believe the ongoing managed retreat from space-related R&D is short-sighted.

Finally, I favor medium-term fiscal consolidation. That effort cannot fall mainly or wholly on the Defense budget. Mandatory spending programs will need to be reformed to become fiscally sustainable. Some degree of tax hikes will likely also be needed to bridge financing gaps.

Well, I respect the restraint you showed in your response...kudos.


As for your points, I have no problem with more co-operation with other allies but I am TOTALLY opposed to more militarism and higher deficits for military spending.

America has troops in over 150 countries, props up corrupt regimes, bombs other countries at will (which is a technical act-of-war), gives away tens of billions in arms to whomever it wishes and has caused tremendous death and misery (directly and indirectly) to many countries that it decided to ram democracy down their throats/change governments they don't like.

Not only is it wrong, hypocritical (Obama freaks out about a referendum in Crimea but embraces an illegal coup in Ukraine) and causing much hatred against Americans (for drone strikes, supporting horrible regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Gitmo, etc.)...it is (partly) bankrupting the United States.

The stock market is being indirectly supported by the Fed 'printing' money out of thin air and 'artificially' suppressing interest rates (the latter also 'artificially' propping up the real estate market). Unemployment is stuck on 'lousy' (and if you take the participation rate into account, it's stuck on 'awful'). The deficit is over $500 billion and (according to the CBO) is due to rise again in a few years - and that is at present interest rates.
Just today, the Fed is talking about raising the prime rate again sooner rather then later...and when they do that, the deficit will skyrocket. For every 1% the prime rises, apparently the interest on the national debt goes up $200 billion per year. So if the prime returns to what it was a few years ago (say, 6.25%), that would (apparently) mean $600 billion more added to the deficit on interest payments alone. That would put it back over $1 trillion per year again.
Plus, what will happen to the real estate/auto industries once these incredibly low mortgage/financing rates are gone?

And even though with the proposed defense cuts, America will still dwarf both China and Russia's military budgets combined...you are suggesting spending more on national defense?
No offense, but this is fiscal irresponsibility...not that your 'group' is alone in this.
The Keynesians want huge deficits for economic stimulus, the liberals want huge deficits are enormous social programs and the conservatives/Neo-cons want huge deficits for increases in the already gigantic military budget.

DOES ANYONE EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AMERICA ANY LONGER - other then a few Austrian schoolers?


IMO, what goes on in other countries is NONE of America's business other then wars between countries (not inside them) and major acts of genocide/human suffering.
If America spent 1/2 what it does now on her military, she would still have a military that towers over any other and would be completely capable of defending her shores with EASE (which is all a military should be funded to do in peace time, IMO).

But if Neo-cons want a strong military for decades to come, then the economy/budget must be the primary focus - a war against unemployment and fiscal irresponsibility...not hypothetical/potential adversaries.

Finally, if conservatives want a gigantic military so America can police the world...then - with respect - the least they could do is come up with a way to pay for it without bankrupting America.
And, IMO, 'just take it from other programs' is not going to do it. America no longer has the economic strength to do that.
Reagan's America did, 2014 America does not.
 
Last edited:
What the French actually said then is that they will respect the election of May 25, 2014, right? That would make sense.

The Ukrainian Parliament seems to have things well in hand, if they are not invaded again by the Russians.


Yeah he pretty much said Right here.....the Only Legitimate vote was that. He was clear on ONLY.


Fabius told radio station France Inter that a referendum in the Crimea region on joining Russia set for March 16 was illegitimate and that the annexation of the region by Russia would be illegal.

"We cannot accept something that is illegal and which will also have very serious consequences," Fabius said.

The minister said the "only legitimate vote" was that for the president of Ukraine on May 25.....snip~
 
My point is that in order to match deeds to the words of making it clear that NATO members will be safeguarded, even with the use of military force, requires money for equipment and men. My understanding is that some NATO countries are in dire need of basic equipment like armoured personnel carriers. They don't have money to spend, so the money will have to come from somewhere. And if you are really going to be serious about it, you need to station some troops in critical places as a display of resolve. It would seem to me that the money that went into Iraq and Afghanistan would now be diverted to those areas, so TOTAL defense expenditures would likely have to stay at current levels, if you really want to convince people that you mean business in that regard.

That may well be the case. Even then, it is very unlikely that the figure would approach $1 trillion per year.
 
As for your points, I have no problem with more co-operation with other allies but I am TOTALLY opposed to more militarism and higher deficits for military spending.

Anchoring foreign policy to the nation's critical interests and focusing on those interests and strategic allies should reduce the risk of "militarism." Such a policy would largely exclude the use of military force for events that fall outside of those parameters. It would also encourage the more robust use of soft power (diplomacy, economic/technical/financial assistance, etc.) in the other cases where military options are not pursued and interests that fall short of critical ones are involved.

In the longer-run, deterrence should result in lower costs than would otherwise be the case. Where deterrence fails, conflicts can erupt and conflicts are far costlier than deterrence. Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime. Moreover, the human costs were also vastly higher. Furthermore, following the war, one found that the containment regime had worked remarkably well as Iraq had been deterred from relaunching its WMD activities.

America has troops in over 150 countries, props up corrupt regimes, bombs other countries at will (which is a technical act-of-war), gives away tens of billions in arms to whomever it wishes and has caused tremendous death and misery (directly and indirectly) to many countries that it decided to ram democracy down their throats/change governments they don't like.

Not only is it wrong, hypocritical (Obama freaks out about a referendum in Crimea but embraces an illegal coup in Ukraine) and causing much hatred against Americans (for drone strikes, supporting horrible regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Gitmo, etc.)...it is (partly) bankrupting the United States.

Democratic movements have largely internal origins. The fallacy that has influenced American foreign policy since at least the time of President Woodrow Wilson is the idea that all peoples everywhere want democracy. The quest for individual freedom has been a strong one throughout history, but that quest is not exactly the same thing as desiring democracy. Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East. The peoples see things as a zero-sum game where one faction can only gain at the expense of the other (no "win-win" conceptions) and that strong rule is required to prevent societal fragmentation along sectarian lines. Western idealism assumes that authoritarian rule is largely an accident and that "regime change" can, therefore, quickly allow for democratic forces to take hold. The evidence has not been kind to that assumption.

There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves. Hence, the sectarian uprising that followed what had been protests for democracy was quickly lumped in as a democratic revolution in the tradition of the American revolution, democratic yearning in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, etc. The reality is that a repressed majority was simply seeking to gain control over a brutal minority-led regime. Consistent with ethnic conflicts, brutality was in abundance and liberal ideals concerning humanitarian protections were discarded to the greatest extent possible.
Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.

The focus on national interests and strategic allies would preclude the use of force in such situations. Diplomacy and other non-military programs could "test" possible democratic aspirations, give support to genuine movements, and limit the risks should those movements prove less than democratic.

In terms of Saudi Arabia, among other non-democratic states, the U.S. has to deal with the world as it is. The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake. To do so would simply be the other side of the coin of military interventions in the name of ideals. In this case, the U.S. would refuse to engage in relationships in the name of ideals. Both approaches are extreme polar opposites. Constructive relationships are often necessary in advancing the nation's interests and promoting stability. Of course, the U.S. can and should use its soft power to encourage improved human rights, etc., and influence the factors that might lead to a more favorable climate for democracy. The latter would require a lot of time and patience, as societal structures evolve slowly.
 
Continued...

The stock market is being indirectly supported by the Fed 'printing' money out of thin air and 'artificially' suppressing interest rates (the latter also 'artificially' propping up the real estate market). Unemployment is stuck on 'lousy' (and if you take the participation rate into account, it's stuck on 'awful'). The deficit is over $500 billion and (according to the CBO) is due to rise again in a few years - and that is at present interest rates.

Just today, the Fed is talking about raising the prime rate again sooner rather then later...and when they do that, the deficit will skyrocket. For every 1% the prime rises, apparently the interest on the national debt goes up $200 billion per year. So if the prime returns to what it was a few years ago (say, 6.25%), that would (apparently) mean $600 billion more added to the deficit on interest payments alone. That would put it back over $1 trillion per year again.

Plus, what will happen to the real estate/auto industries once these incredibly low mortgage/financing rates are gone?

There's little question that QE has impacted asset prices (equties and real estate) and that U.S. interest rates are historically low for now. Even if the Fed had not hinted at possible rate hikes down the road, one should not assume that the anomalous low rates would continue indefinitely. Individuals, businesses, and policy makers should all have reasonable ideas as to how they would cope in an environment where interest rates returned to at least the long-run historical average. Policy makers will need to consider the whole budget, not just discretionary spending, in their analysis and that will mean trying to find ways to rein in the rapid growth of health expenditures and consideration of mandatory spending reforms. It will likely require some degree of tax hikes to bridge the gap between spending-related savings and policy needs. Increasing the nation's long-run economic growth rate can help, but doing so is not simply a matter of corporate tax rates as some politicians suggest. The complex interaction of an educated workforce, investments in research and development and more broadly innovation/improvement, global macroeconomic developments, changing demographics, etc., all have an impact. Arguably, the issue of current corporate tax rates could be fairly inconsequential in that larger scheme. In other words, even if the corporate rates were reduced to 0%, the impact on long-run growth would be fairly modest, because the marginal returns from the current level would be small unlike if one were reducing rates from a much higher level. Having said this, the U.S. still has a foundation and opportunity for economic strength. The choices it makes going forward (private and public sectors) will determine how much of that opportunity is leveraged and whether that foundation is strengthened or eroded.

Finally, if conservatives want a gigantic military so America can police the world...then - with respect - the least they could do is come up with a way to pay for it without bankrupting America.

I don't favor "policing the world." The goal for me would be a narrower one: a capacity to safeguard the nation's critical interests and strategic allies and perhaps deal with genuine cases of genocide (as defined under the Convention on Genocide; neither Syria nor Libya would fit that definition). Those allies would also make a reasonable contribution, of course. Whether one is dealing with the neoconservative proposition of using military power to advance the sphere of democracy or the recent liberal notion of a "responsibility to protect," both approaches would overextend the nation if adopted literally. A degree of balance is needed and I believe the focus I suggested would strike a balance albeit an imperfect one. Power (military and economic) is a scarce resource and it should be used wisely. Overextension can only erode that power.
 
I understand the Ukraine was negotiating to enter the EU but what were the Americans negotiating?
You must mean the Crimea here, not the Ukraine. And of course the vote, when being coerced by a foreign country, cannot be taken seriously.

Who in the EU and who in the US were behind this "violent overthrow"? It seems the Ukrainian Parliament is doing alright and have elections planned for May 25.

Why wouldn't Russia |stand for that"? What concern s it of theirs if the Ukraine joins the EU?
Now you're being silly again.

Your ignorance of US involvement and intrigue in Ukraine is astonishing.


Although Nuland's profanity got all the attention, her arrogance during the conversation was far more telling and dangerous. Like an imperial commissaire from a past era, she assigned roles in the future government, and made it clear who would and who wouldn't join, dismissing Vitali Klitchko and anointing Arseniy Yasenyuk - who did become the present prime minister, all the while casually referring to them as "Klitsch" and "Yats". She insisted, "Yats is the guy" to lead. The same Yats who’s in Washington this week to discuss the future of Ukraine.


http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/op...iev-neocons-putin-ukr-201431053846277945.html
 
By openly supporting insurrection by a militant faction in order to subject the Ukranian government to a level of stress that it, and particularly its apparently incapable pres, Yanukovich, were incapable of handling, I think the US crossed something of a Rubicon. It openly and enthusiastically backed a violent putsch against a democratically-elected government it didn’t happen to like. Neo-liberal enthusiasts, it should be noted, splashed across this boundary without even getting their feet wet…except from the dull-witted drooling of Western correspondents apparently besotted by the contrived tire-burning, Molotov-cocktail tossing freedom-fighter narrative layered over the political struggle.

http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2014/02/looks-like-us-played-hardball-in.html
 
Back
Top Bottom