• 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!

Outraging Russia, Ukraine takes big step toward NATO

No one claimed that. However that doesn't give Russia the right to invade another country.

No but what you did do is frame the issue such that if Putin gets some of what he wants, it means that the US, NATO, and Ukraine are weak. And that is foolish way of viewing the situation.

No Putin is trying to rebuild the soviet empire and annex lands from neighboring countries.

That is simply not true. Putin is not trying to rebuild the soviet empire nor annex lands from neighboring countries. What he was trying to do is form a Eurasian Economic Union that would rival the economic power of the US and the EU. That is for certain. But that is very different from rebuilding the Soviet Union. That is a fairy tale that has been created for political purposes. As far as annexing land goes, what happened in Crimea was predictable because it is well known it's history, that is was given to Ukraine by Russia, and that it is a vital security interest of Russia.

That is Putin wanting everything his way or threatening and actually invading when he doesn't get what he wants.

That is another political statement that is in no way reflected in reality. Putin knows well he cannot get everything that he wants because he is in a weak position relative to the US. He is merely doing his best to play a weak hand. Putin knows that, and Obama knows this as well.

Never said the USA had the right to intervene in another countries foreign policy. So you can drop that failed strawman.

Whether you said it or not, the US does indeed intervene in the foreign policy of other countries. Russia does it as well. That is is way the world has worked for quite some time, regardless of whether there is a right to do it or not.

If Ukraine wants to Join NATO, it is their NATO's decision. NOT the USA's decision nor does it mean the USA is interfering with their foreign policy. Now if the USA said join NATO or we will invade (you know, the diplomatic tactics Putin is using) That would be interfering.

If Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO accepts that decision will likely have very grave consequences for everyone on this planet. To see how this is so, let's suppose that NATO decided it needed to put nuclear missiles aimed at Russia in Ukraine. Let's suppose that Russia said we will not permit it and will do everything in our power, including using our nuclear arsenal to prevent it. What would the US do then? That is the danger.
 
You mean that Russia is a big threat to it? I think they might have properly grasped that perspective.

You can look at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say Russia is a threat to Ukraine, you could say the US is a threat to Ukraine. It depends on how you look at it. You could say Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place.
 
I think, as long as the relationship with Russia is so unstable, it might be smarter to have a friendship agreement with Ukraine instead. In this friendship agreement we can guarantee several things like protection during an invasion, military aid and the right of Ukrainian soldiers to train with Nato forces etc. etc. without them being actual members of Nato.

And there can not be nuclear missiles in Ukraine, a country with such a level of instability is not a country that should be given nuclear weapons IMHO. Nuclear proliferation should be avoided IMHO.

I think that what is going on in eastern Ukraine makes it too unstable to give any type of military guarantee. But I agree on the nuclear stuff.
 
You can look at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say Russia is a threat to Ukraine, you could say the US is a threat to Ukraine. It depends on how you look at it. You could say Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place.

Except it is not the US that has invaded Ukraine.
 
Except it is not the US that has invaded Ukraine.

That is correct. However, the US can be viewed as a threat to Ukraine. Like I say, it depends on how you look at it.
 
Except it is not the US that has invaded Ukraine.

Would CIA assets count? If our CIA today and yesterday is as active in Ukraine in fomenting political unrest as it was active in Iran in 1958 or Chile in fomenting dissent, could that be interpreted by the Russians as hostile actions? Guatemala in 1954? Argentina or Indonesia back in the old days?

Can we establish a certain pattern of behavior for our favorite federal agency, the one that operates completely in the dark?
 
That is correct. However, the US can be viewed as a threat to Ukraine. Like I say, it depends on how you look at it.

I suppose, given our military power, the US could be viewed as a threat to anyone. The current threat to the Ukraine, however, is Russia.
 
I suppose, given our military power, the US could be viewed as a threat to anyone. The current threat to the Ukraine, however, is Russia.

Honestly I can't disagree with you because in my opinion what you have said is correct. But the US can be viewed as a threat to Ukraine as well. Not everyone in Ukraine wants to move closer to Europe and away from Russia. That is the problem.
 
Honestly I can't disagree with you because in my opinion what you have said is correct. But the US can be viewed as a threat to Ukraine as well. Not everyone in Ukraine wants to move closer to Europe and away from Russia. That is the problem.

No, they don't.

So, why not let them decide? Have a referendum: Go with Russia, go with NATO, or go their own way.

Maybe one day we'll figure out how to settle issues that way. Meanwhile, the economic war currently being waged against Russia is at least a major step ahead of the shooting wars of the past.
 
No, they don't.

So, why not let them decide? Have a referendum: Go with Russia, go with NATO, or go their own way.

Maybe one day we'll figure out how to settle issues that way. Meanwhile, the economic war currently being waged against Russia is at least a major step ahead of the shooting wars of the past.

Or, the predicate cause of a shooting war in our near future....
 
I hope it is as remote as you imagine.

It is.
The Russians have no death wish, nor do we.

Luckily for us, the truly insane enemies, the ones who do have a death wish (ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban) don't have the same level of power as the Russians do.
 
You can look at the glass as half empty or half full. You could say Russia is a threat to Ukraine, you could say the US is a threat to Ukraine. It depends on how you look at it. You could say Ukraine is between a rock and a hard place.

Actually, it was Title 2, Article 7 of the "trade treaty" with the EU that started this thing going. It is wrong to allege that the US was the provocateur here. Unless you have a hidden agenda, anyway.
 
I think that what is going on in eastern Ukraine makes it too unstable to give any type of military guarantee. But I agree on the nuclear stuff.

Just think of Svoboda party in Ukraine. They are the kind of people who think that before the revolution, Ukraine was run by the Muscovite Jewish mafia. The deputy leader of that party described Ukrainian born Mila Kunis as a "dirty jewess". In Svoboda's eyes gays are perverts and according to this party it would be unthinkable to send a black person to the Eurovision song contest for Ukraine because they would not want European viewers to get the impression that Ukraine is somewhere besides Uganda :roll:

With that being one of the important parties of Ukraine, nuclear weapons are a definite no no IMHO.

And I have just reconsidered even sending troops to the Ukraine. Because let us not forget that Ukraine is the home of the Azov battalion. A paramilitary force of extreme right wing origin that reports Ministry of Internal affairs in the Ukraine. They use a frigging Wolfsangel as a symbol (a symbol that was used by the Nazi's during the Hitler period and also very popular with neo-nazi's). A German news program showed that one of the volunteers of this Azov battalion had a nazi swastika on his helmet.

I do not think that Ukraine is a potential EU or Nato member until they are a decent democracy with respect for all human rights.
 
No but what you did do is frame the issue such that if Putin gets some of what he wants, it means that the US, NATO, and Ukraine are weak. And that is foolish way of viewing the situation.
Not my fault if you read stuff into my posts that aren't there.

That is simply not true. Putin is not trying to rebuild the soviet empire nor annex lands from neighboring countries. What he was trying to do is form a Eurasian Economic Union that would rival the economic power of the US and the EU. That is for certain. But that is very different from rebuilding the Soviet Union. That is a fairy tale that has been created for political purposes. As far as annexing land goes, what happened in Crimea was predictable because it is well known it's history, that is was given to Ukraine by Russia, and that it is a vital security interest of Russia.
I'm sure the Crimea and eastern Ukraine are just misunderstandings.
:shrug:


That is another political statement that is in no way reflected in reality. Putin knows well he cannot get everything that he wants because he is in a weak position relative to the US. He is merely doing his best to play a weak hand. Putin knows that, and Obama knows this as well.
I agree he doesn't expect to get everything just as much as he can by threat or force.


Whether you said it or not, the US does indeed intervene in the foreign policy of other countries. Russia does it as well. That is is way the world has worked for quite some time, regardless of whether there is a right to do it or not.
So Putin is excused because others do it. BTW when was the last time the USA annexed part of another country?


If Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO accepts that decision will likely have very grave consequences for everyone on this planet. To see how this is so, let's suppose that NATO decided it needed to put nuclear missiles aimed at Russia in Ukraine. Let's suppose that Russia said we will not permit it and will do everything in our power, including using our nuclear arsenal to prevent it. What would the US do then? That is the danger.

Who is talking about nukes in Ukraine? Does Estonia have NATO nukes pointed at Russia? Does Romania? Lithuania? Latvia? etc. etc...
Joining NATO does not mean nukes on Russia's front door pointed at them. Heck the USA is trying to reduce its nuclear arsenal not expand it.
 
I have said why it is not fine elsewhere in the thread.

You haven't said anything remotely intelligent on the subject so I am asking for an actual reason not some moronic Putin propaganda machine made up reason.
 
That is true. It is also what the US and the rest of the world needs as well.

On that I will agree with you however Putin and his aggressive expansionistic policies are pretty much the largest threat to world peace that exist ATM.
 
It is.
The Russians have no death wish, nor do we.

Luckily for us, the truly insane enemies, the ones who do have a death wish (ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban) don't have the same level of power as the Russians do.

You forgot N Korea. they're pretty nuts as well.
 
Putin has become mostly a laughing stock, although an extremely RICH clown with $40,000,000,000.00.

When Putin started hinting that he's so unstable me might go to nuclear war is when no leaders took him seriously anymore, just another wacked out nut case world leader going nowhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom