• 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!

US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

our Bonobo cousins are laughing at us and having sex while we meet and discuss new ways to **** up the world over bull****.

That is sad. Part of the problem is that we get caught up and trapped by dangerous rhetoric and propaganda. Then no side can back down because no one can look weak. But, that's the way we do it.
 
Engineering the fall of a government in response to it's accepting a counter offer from Russia, right on a vulnerable Russia border, was over aggressive behavior on the part of the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Victoria Nuland.

It sounds like we should be afraid of Russia, according to you.
 
It sounds like we should be afraid of Russia, according to you.

No, what is to be feared is dangerous distorted propaganda that is created to compensate for strategic blunders. The US made big strategic blunder in the Ukraine and it is trying to compensate for it by demonizing Putin. It's not good.
 
No, what is to be feared is dangerous distorted propaganda that is created to compensate for strategic blunders. The US made big strategic blunder in the Ukraine and it is trying to compensate for it by demonizing Putin. It's not good.

I'd suggest the blunders were made before Ukraine - specifically years before with the "reset" of Russia, and letting Russia be the keystone to Syria and Iran. Ukraine uncovered those other blunders and showed how cornered the US became. Now all we can do is shout bad language from the sidelines since we've been marginalized internationally.
 
I'd suggest the blunders were made before Ukraine - specifically years before with the "reset" of Russia, and letting Russia be the keystone to Syria and Iran. Ukraine uncovered those other blunders and showed how cornered the US became. Now all we can do is shout bad language from the sidelines since we've been marginalized internationally.

Now that's interesting. There may be some truth to that, but I'm not sure. Could you please elaborate more so I know exactly what you are talking about?
 
Now that's interesting. There may be some truth to that, but I'm not sure. Could you please elaborate more so I know exactly what you are talking about?

In the past 5 years or so, Obama and the State Department have gone out of their way to try and "reset" the American relationship with Medvedev and later with Putin himself. In the past 18 months or so, the US has had two specific international incidents in which the WH felt America needs to be involved. First, the Syrian civil war on the pretext that Syria was using chemical weapons on their own people and the various video reports of dying women and children from what was thought to have been Sarin Gas. US intervention wasn't welcomed and Russia has had an interest in keeping Syria intact. Russia took the lead on negotiations backed by the US. Next we had the escalation with Iran and their alleged nuclear weapons program. Russian ties to Iran are fairly well known, and the US and Israel have a stake at not letting Iran create nuclear weapons as they already have a delivery system with their Safir rocket. Russia again was the lead mediator with Iran on talks..

Then we get Ukraine and Crimea occurring right after (or during the Sochi Olympics). The WH was caught flat footed, with no real answer to a move by Russia to intercede in Crimea. The reset was over, and now Syria and Iran are held in the balance while Putin does what he wants to do. I can only conclude Putin dangled two things he knew the WH wanted (Syria and Iran) then sends forces to Crimea and now is using both of those situations to their advantage. The reset was a ruse. Now the US and Russia are disagreeing on how to move forward with Syria, and the Iran negotiations are now being used as a pressure point with the US.

It's clear the US was rope-a-doped by Russia and this was planned out well before any troops were moved onto the border of Ukraine.
 
In the past 5 years or so, Obama and the State Department have gone out of their way to try and "reset" the American relationship with Medvedev and later with Putin himself. In the past 18 months or so, the US has had two specific international incidents in which the WH felt America needs to be involved. First, the Syrian civil war on the pretext that Syria was using chemical weapons on their own people and the various video reports of dying women and children from what was thought to have been Sarin Gas. US intervention wasn't welcomed and Russia has had an interest in keeping Syria intact. Russia took the lead on negotiations backed by the US. Next we had the escalation with Iran and their alleged nuclear weapons program. Russian ties to Iran are fairly well known, and the US and Israel have a stake at not letting Iran create nuclear weapons as they already have a delivery system with their Safir rocket. Russia again was the lead mediator with Iran on talks..

Then we get Ukraine and Crimea occurring right after (or during the Sochi Olympics). The WH was caught flat footed, with no real answer to a move by Russia to intercede in Crimea. The reset was over, and now Syria and Iran are held in the balance while Putin does what he wants to do. I can only conclude Putin dangled two things he knew the WH wanted (Syria and Iran) then sends forces to Crimea and now is using both of those situations to their advantage. The reset was a ruse. Now the US and Russia are disagreeing on how to move forward with Syria, and the Iran negotiations are now being used as a pressure point with the US.

It's clear the US was rope-a-doped by Russia and this was planned out well before any troops were moved onto the border of Ukraine.

That's very interesting. However I really don't think Putin anticipated what would happen in Ukraine with the fall of the government. That's what I think is weak about your theory. If you could provide evidence to back that up however, that would be very very interesting and it would significantly change the calculus of the situation.
 
That's very interesting. However I really don't think Putin anticipated what would happen in Ukraine with the fall of the government. That's what I think is weak about your theory. If you could provide evidence to back that up however, that would be very very interesting and it would significantly change the calculus of the situation.

Why not? He works a deal with the Crimea PM. Putin gathers his military forces still while Sochi is going on. As soon as it's done, Crimea cries to mother russia for help. Putin, ready to go, sends his troops in. He knows he has two trump cards to hold the US at bay and maybe even knows that the US won't do anything. He walks in to Crimea, puts a noose around the country, a gun in their back and says to his new buddies --- you're going to vote to secede from Ukraine and be honest (while they push the gun in their backs) and vote with your best interest at heart. :lol:

What way do you think they'd vote with Russian military all over the place?

If you want evidence you go look for it. I'm just telling you how I see it happening - my job isn't to "sell" you on my views... you make up your own mind.
 
What doesn't fit about this whole thing is that anybody with any sense and knows something about it knows that Russia cannot afford to lose that naval base at Sevastopol. Knowing this, why would the Obama administration make such a hard move on Ukraine at this point, knowing full well that if Russia decided to make this move, little could be done about it. It just doesn't make any sense.
 
What doesn't fit about this whole thing is that anybody with any sense and knows something about it knows that Russia cannot afford to lose that naval base at Sevastopol. Knowing this, why would the Obama administration make such a hard move on Ukraine at this point, knowing full well that if Russia decided to make this move, little could be done about it. It just doesn't make any sense.

Obama's not making a hard move.
 
Why not? He works a deal with the Crimea PM. Putin gathers his military forces still while Sochi is going on. As soon as it's done, Crimea cries to mother russia for help. Putin, ready to go, sends his troops in. He knows he has two trump cards to hold the US at bay and maybe even knows that the US won't do anything. He walks in to Crimea, puts a noose around the country, a gun in their back and says to his new buddies --- you're going to vote to secede from Ukraine and be honest (while they push the gun in their backs) and vote with your best interest at heart. :lol:

What way do you think they'd vote with Russian military all over the place?

If you want evidence you go look for it. I'm just telling you how I see it happening - my job isn't to "sell" you on my views... you make up your own mind.

Hold on. Don't get all mad and stuff. I'm really trying to understand what you are saying. I don't doubt that Russia already had some sort of contingency plans in place in case they needed to protect their base at Sevastopol. But it appeared to me that you are suggesting that Putin deliberately worked with the US on Iran and Syria knowing full well that the US would make a move in Ukraine and that he would then take advantage of the situation. I don't see how he could have anticipated these events so far in advance. The stuff in Syria was way back in the summer before things in the Ukraine came to a head. If however, he was that far ahead of the game then damn, he is very smart.
 
Hold on. Don't get all mad and stuff. I'm really trying to understand what you are saying. I don't doubt that Russia already had some sort of contingency plans in place in case they needed to protect their base at Sevastopol. But it appeared to me that you are suggesting that Putin deliberately worked with the US on Iran and Syria knowing full well that the US would make a move in Ukraine and that he would then take advantage of the situation. I don't see how he could have anticipated these events so far in advance. The stuff in Syria was way back in the summer before things in the Ukraine came to a head. If however, he was that far ahead of the game then damn, he is very smart.

No I'm not mad, I'm just not going to try and convince you my view is the right view. It maybe that they didn't know that far in advance but it makes sense. Look how quickly Putin got troops into Crimea - without Russian patches or identification. That takes a little while to plan out and execute, as well as assemble and get everyone ready. I don't think he planned the end (Crimea) before the Syria and Iran issues dropped in his lap but I wouldn't think it would take too long after for him to figure out how to use both Syria and Iran to his advantage and hold it over the US. Then he looked for something he wanted and Crimea / Ukraine was right on his doorstep. Warm water port, work out a deal, secede then annex. This would be a good test to see if there is any solid move against him - his pretext was "Russian's in Crimea need protecting" and oldie but still good excuse.

Once he knew Russia had the lead with Syria and Iran everything just came together.
 
No I'm not mad, I'm just not going to try and convince you my view is the right view. It maybe that they didn't know that far in advance but it makes sense. Look how quickly Putin got troops into Crimea - without Russian patches or identification. That takes a little while to plan out and execute, as well as assemble and get everyone ready. I don't think he planned the end (Crimea) before the Syria and Iran issues dropped in his lap but I wouldn't think it would take too long after for him to figure out how to use both Syria and Iran to his advantage and hold it over the US. Then he looked for something he wanted and Crimea / Ukraine was right on his doorstep. Warm water port, work out a deal, secede then annex. This would be a good test to see if there is any solid move against him - his pretext was "Russian's in Crimea need protecting" and oldie but still good excuse.

Once he knew Russia had the lead with Syria and Iran everything just came together.

I really don't think Putin would have made this move if the government of Yanukovych HAD NOT fell. But if you are saying that once he saw how things were panning out then he started thinking about how Syria and Iran could be used to his advantage, then yes I would agree with that. But I don't think it became clear where things where going until December at the earliest. And again, the Russians have probably planned what they would do in case they needed to secure Crimea years ago.
 
I really don't think Putin would have made this move if the government of Yanukovych HAD NOT fell. But if you are saying that once he saw how things were panning out then he started thinking about how Syria and Iran could be used to his advantage, then yes I would agree with that. But I don't think it became clear where things where going until December at the earliest. And again, the Russians have probably planned what they would do in case they needed to secure Crimea years ago.

Quite possible. I didn't work out the Yanukovych portion and yes, it may have been more difficult with Yanukovych still there but even if he was, and lets just say for the sake of the discussion his government didn't fall. How much pressure from the Russian bear would it take to undermine him or have him removed if they really wanted it? It would have delayed things possibly - maybe the leverage with Iran and Syria would not have been as good -- the risk of a Russian failure may have risen, but Putin is so full of himself he may still have done it anyway, just later.

Hard to say - too many variables to see that one clearly.
 
No, what is to be feared is dangerous distorted propaganda that is created to compensate for strategic blunders. The US made big strategic blunder in the Ukraine and it is trying to compensate for it by demonizing Putin. It's not good.

Which blunder would that be?
 
I'm sick of the calls for the USA to run with its tail between its legs to talk of WWIII.

Putin understands the USA is in the coward's mode, so can act as if Russia does not fear war with the USA, while the USA is terrified of war with Russia.

When did the USA become such cowards? We pricked with Russia and they pricked with us the entire Cold War and Russia was vastly more powerful and influential then.

The escalation Russia threatens otherwise in diplomatic matters is real, but it is an escalation that we match it we win it. We hold most the cards, not Russia.

Really? So tell us when during the cold war we engaged Russian troops in Eastern Europe? You are dreaming, the USSR jerked us around far more than Putin. Remember the Berlin blockade when they forced us to airlift all the supplys for West Berlin? Why do you think we were such wimps then? Why didn't we just come marching thru East Berlin like you think we should in the Ukraine?
 
First of all, I agree on the paranoia and fearing mongering stuff. I think you are also correct that WWIII is unlikely as a DIRECT result of this. However, if tensions are not allowed to ease, this could be the trigger that results in the two sides implementing highly adversarial foreign policy that further deteriorates trust and increases paranoia and false apprehension with regards to intent. Thus the favorable conditions that lead finally to war would be created.
Without question I do believe this to be the case. If Ukraine plunges into a civil war in the near-term I can see both sides intervening as "peacekeepers" in their respective spheres of influence and essentially locking in a Solomon solution. At that point it moves into the active phase of building two competing power camps and more direct efforts to obstruct each side's advances.
We hardly 'engineered' the fall of Yanukovych. People are willing to go down extraordinarily deep rabbit holes on the basis of a single leaked phone call. We did however seek to exploit a developing situation as best we could and put ourselves on the best possible footing. But we did not 'dismantle' the Yanukovych government--his opposition did that for him. His own actions and palpable weakness in the face of the street movement caused the desertion of political alliances which were only ever tenuous and self-interested.
America has had its fingers in the Ukrainian pie since the collapse. The name of the game in these countries for America has always been to identify the dissidents, who exist in every country, and then devote as many resources as possible to help them fundraise, organize, and campaign. I don't doubt for a moment that there are people being moved into these organizations as soon as possible who are either CIA operatives or CIA assets to manage perceptions and monitors loyalties. Outside of the covert agency power you have proxies in private NGOs and business using their networks and connections to aid in these causes. Such groups inevitably are looping in the Agency as is the case with the Shell corporation parallel state in Nigeria. His actions are another interesting question. There has been an odd frequency to see glimmers of peaceful shifts away from conflict in Ukraine suddenly ending as snipers end up shooting at both sides for no apparent reason. Perhaps Russia would engage in such false flag actions, though it seems the U.S. had more to gain. After all, what happened in Kiev on February 20th assured Yanukovich's downfall.
Secondly of course it would do that, it is the ideal. Our goal is to limit Russian power and box in a dangerous autocracy. Why do you think we extended NATO protections to the Baltics and engaged in MAP talks with Georgia? This isn't about equity, it's about winning which is something that Moscow unfortunately understands.
You make the U.S. seem so noble. Except, an aggressive foreign policy towards Russia begin in the midst of the collapse. That makes it seem less like what you say and more like a power/resource grab, which is ultimately what it is more like. As the Soviet Union collapsed we set up a banking unit through a spook bank that was essentially just about letting Russian officials and future oligarchs empty state coffers overseas into a slush fund for later use. Many of those same mafia-linked oligarchs then moved in to take over Russian industry flush with cash and made various powerful Western financiers their silent partners. Russia's crackdown on oligarchs, portrayed in Western media as a politically-motivated consolidation of power, was more directly understood as their effort to expunge a cancer of foreign corruption introduced by the proxies of Western industry and replace it with good old-fashioned domestic corruption subservient to Mother Russia. Putin's victory over the robber barons of Russia was about restoring the authority of the Russian nation over its own borders. His aggressive efforts to stamp out the Islamist insurgencies in the North Caucasus, which were also a product of covert Western machinations, was the culmination of Putin's efforts at restoring national unity. Since then he has sought to re-assert Russian authority overseas because while he was focused on the internal consolidation of power, the U.S. had pressed its gains right up to Russia's doorstep.
In the past 5 years or so, Obama and the State Department have gone out of their way to try and "reset" the American relationship with Medvedev and later with Putin himself. In the past 18 months or so, the US has had two specific international incidents in which the WH felt America needs to be involved. First, the Syrian civil war on the pretext that Syria was using chemical weapons on their own people and the various video reports of dying women and children from what was thought to have been Sarin Gas. US intervention wasn't welcomed and Russia has had an interest in keeping Syria intact. Russia took the lead on negotiations backed by the US. Next we had the escalation with Iran and their alleged nuclear weapons program. Russian ties to Iran are fairly well known, and the US and Israel have a stake at not letting Iran create nuclear weapons as they already have a delivery system with their Safir rocket. Russia again was the lead mediator with Iran on talks.. Then we get Ukraine and Crimea occurring right after (or during the Sochi Olympics). The WH was caught flat footed, with no real answer to a move by Russia to intercede in Crimea. The reset was over, and now Syria and Iran are held in the balance while Putin does what he wants to do. I can only conclude Putin dangled two things he knew the WH wanted (Syria and Iran) then sends forces to Crimea and now is using both of those situations to their advantage. The reset was a ruse. Now the US and Russia are disagreeing on how to move forward with Syria, and the Iran negotiations are now being used as a pressure point with the US. It's clear the US was rope-a-doped by Russia and this was planned out well before any troops were moved onto the border of Ukraine.
That is rather silly. He was not plotting some action in Ukraine before there was even a reason to plot some action in Ukraine. I do imagine he was hoping that making his involvement crucial in various issues important to the U.S. would give him some cover in the event of incidents such as this one. No doubt Russian planners have also spent years developing contingency plans depending on various outcomes in Ukraine.
Leaving nukes out of it, that would be a short war. The US alone would destroy Russias conventional military. Although Russia could form an axis with Islamic countries and China. Without China, World vs Russian Axis would be one sided. Hopefully we would not actually try to invade russia, just pummel them into retreat.
The war will be over by Christmas!!!
 
A likely future conflict area is Kazakhstan. It is a massive collection of natural resources on Russia's Southern border worth trillions to Russia. Uzbekistan also likely of very high conquest interests of Russia.

Kazakhastan is part of the Eurasian Economic Community and Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia isn't gonna touch Kazakhstan. Their relationship is just as close as Russia and Belrus is. So fear monger elsewhere.
 
Leaving nukes out of it, that would be a short war. The US alone would destroy Russias conventional military. Although Russia could form an axis with Islamic countries and China. Without China, World vs Russian Axis would be one sided. Hopefully we would not actually try to invade russia, just pummel them into retreat.

Although President Obama has stated there will be no US military intervention in Russia, please share with us how we would destroy the conventional Russian military forces, and where this would take place. Interested readers want to know. Let's remember, we have not fought a modern military force equal, or near to being equal since World War 2, and the last few have given us incredible problems against what some would consider rag-tag 2nd and 3rd rate armies. Please indulge us.
 
Kazakhastan is part of the Eurasian Economic Community and Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia isn't gonna touch Kazakhstan. Their relationship is just as close as Russia and Belrus is. So fear monger elsewhere.

I doubt Putin would interfere in Kazakhstan even though one quarter of its population is ethnic Russians who feel their status/role has been diminished since the collapse of the USSR. Although fellow members in Putin's Customs Union, both Kazakhstan and Belarus had stated they preferred a diplomatic solution in Crimea rather than militarism. Unlike Russia, Belarus has recognized the new government in Kyiv. Lukashenko must be a bit nervous because the eastern portion of Belarus used to be in Russia proper. Far more likely targets of Putin colonialism would be eastern Ukraine and/or Transnistria (part of Moldova). Russia is actively encouraging secessionist movements in those regions. All of the former Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR's) are understandably very concerned with the overt Russian colonialism in the former Crimean region of Ukraine.
 
Simpleχity;1063057390 said:
I doubt Putin would interfere in Kazakhstan even though one quarter of its population is ethnic Russians who feel their status/role has been diminished since the collapse of the USSR. Although fellow members in Putin's Customs Union, both Kazakhstan and Belarus had stated they preferred a diplomatic solution in Crimea rather than militarism. Unlike Russia, Belarus has recognized the new government in Kyiv. Lukashenko must be a bit nervous because the eastern portion of Belarus used to be in Russia proper. Far more likely targets of Putin colonialism would be eastern Ukraine and/or Transnistria (part of Moldova). Russia is actively encouraging secessionist movements in those regions. All of the former Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR's) are understandably very concerned with the overt Russian colonialism in the former Crimean region of Ukraine.

Russia had a deal with many ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan in 2008 to move them out of there if they wanted it.. They told Putin, no.. So he wouldn't have support in Kazakhstan as they aren't "oppressed".
 
Russia had a deal with many ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan in 2008 to move them out of there if they wanted it.. They told Putin, no.. So he wouldn't have support in Kazakhstan as they aren't "oppressed".
I've been to Crimea many times and I never witnessed nor heard of any "oppression". What you did have was a constant agitation by pro-Russian political parties. Even so, the current pro-Russian Crimean Prime Minister (installed by Moscow) received only 4% of the vote in the last Crimean election. With the turmoil in Kyiv, Putin saw an opportunity and pounced. Truth be told, Ukraine is better off without Crimea. It is a sinkhole economically that is now Russia's problem. As the Crimeans are about to discover, life under Russian law is very different than living in an autonomous republic. About the only population segment that will benefit are pensioners (~500,000) who will see their pension checks double in size. Tourism - which supports the peninsula - is about to take the toilet plunge that befell Egypt. There are no flights and all booked Ukrainian and foreign tour groups have cancelled. The service sector (hotels, spas, car rental agencies, souvenir shops, tour guide agencies, etc) is about to take a very significant and painful hit.
 
Quite possible. I didn't work out the Yanukovych portion and yes, it may have been more difficult with Yanukovych still there but even if he was, and lets just say for the sake of the discussion his government didn't fall. How much pressure from the Russian bear would it take to undermine him or have him removed if they really wanted it? It would have delayed things possibly - maybe the leverage with Iran and Syria would not have been as good -- the risk of a Russian failure may have risen, but Putin is so full of himself he may still have done it anyway, just later.

Hard to say - too many variables to see that one clearly.

From the Russian point of view there was no need to remove Yanukovych because he was accepting their deal. Not only that, but it's more likely Putin would have preferred not to get into a struggle like this at a time when he wants a positive view of Russia and at a time when he is trying to rebuild Russia. No, Putin's response here with regards to the seizure of Crimea is the type of thing that's done when someone doesn't have any good choices left.

This issue was forced by the US. Likely it was the result of being frustrated after being outmaneuvered by Putin when he offered Yanukovych a better deal that was accepted. So the US then calculated that it would pressure Yanukovych through protests, threat of financial sanctions, and by applying pressure to Akhmetov. The opportunity presented itself to remove him and the US took that opportunity knowing full well that it would be of grave concern to Putin to have been cut out by force in this way. Now this is where the BIG mistake was made. What they likely calculated was that they could do this as long as they offered Putin some sort of deal that would allow Russia to have some influence in the government they were planning to form. Over and above that, Putin was likely offered some assurances with regards to Sevastopol and possibly some no NATO guarantees. They thought this would be enough to placate him. And that was the big mistake, because, as Putin indicated in his speech, they have lied and engaged in backbiting on the Russians in the past. So there was simply not enough trust on Putin's part in the US. And he had very good reason to calculate in that way. Then Putin, being a Russian nationalist, calculated that he was not going to take a risk having Russia suffocated by trusting the US. So he enacted plans, that had likely been formulated long ago to seize Crimea.

That's the most likely explanation, IMHO.
 
Which blunder would that be?

The blunder was thinking they could derail Russia's better offer to Yanukovych by removing him from office, not realizing the consequence would be Russia's seizing Crimea. The blame for this VERY BIG blunder lies the the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

No doubt about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom