• 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

MildSteel said:
And the demographics indicate that there are a significant number of people in parts of Ukraine like the east and Crimea who identify themselves as ethnic Russians who prefer to be more closely connected to Russia than to Europe.
Click to expand...

Then maybe they should move to Russia instead of starting a war.
 
Simpleχity;1064160639 said:
The US has military bases and naval ports in ~130 countries worldwide. Are you telling us that it would be okay by you for the US to invade and annex foreign territory to preserve any military base/port closures?
Click to expand...

No. What I would say is that if the US had a base that was vital security interests that it would not sit by idly and let it happen. What would likely happen in such a scenario is that the US would overthrow the government by covert means and install someone who was willing to come to terms favorable to US military interests.

Simpleχity;1064160639 said:
No one knows what the true story is in eastern Ukraine because the rebels forbade the nationwide elections in regions under their military control.
Click to expand...

I would not say no one knows. What we do know for certain is that there are ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who are willing to fight and give up their lives for the sake of opposing the current government in Kiev. That is fact. What is also a fact is that there is a certain segment of Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to ethnic Russians in Ukraine. That is a fact. Therefore it would not be surprising that the population of eastern Ukraine would prefer to be more aligned with Russia than Europe.
 
MildSteel said:
No. What I would say is that if the US had a base that was vital security interests that it would not sit by idly and let it happen. What would likely happen in such a scenario is that the US would overthrow the government by covert means and install someone who was willing to come to terms favorable to US military interests.



I would not say no one knows. What we do know for certain is that there are ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who are willing to fight and give up their lives for the sake of opposing the current government in Kiev. That is fact. What is also a fact is that there is a certain segment of Ukrainian nationalists that are hostile to ethnic Russians in Ukraine. That is a fact. Therefore it would not be surprising that the population of eastern Ukraine would prefer to be more aligned with Russia than Europe.
Click to expand...

There are Americans who are ethnic to North America, living in France and England. Is it cool if we just overthrow their governments because they don't want to conform to the laws of the land?

Oh wait no, that's illegal.
 
11Bravo said:
There are Americans who are ethnic to North America, living in France and England. Is it cool if we just overthrow their governments because they don't want to conform to the laws of the land?

Oh wait no, that's illegal.
Click to expand...

That's a very poor comparison. Was France ever a part of the United States?
 
MildSteel said:
That's a very poor comparison. Was France ever a part of the United States?
Click to expand...

Ok there are craploads of Mexicans living in the US, should they be able to do that?
Fact is it is the same argument Hitler used to take over Austria, the Sudetenland and western Poland and it has as much validity now as it did back then
 
Simpleχity;1064160639 said:
Wrong. The nationwide electoral demographic information does not include the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, Crimea, and the majority of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. The nationwide elections could not be held in these areas.
Click to expand...

No what I said is not wrong because I am referring to the entire country, and the demographics in those areas are indeed as I said.

Simpleχity;1064160639 said:
Please. Ukraine has everything a country needs to offer boundless election information. Over-the-air/cable/satellite television. Print media. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter. YouTube. 24/7 digital news for desktops, tablets, and mobile phones. Billboards. Town hall meetings. Televised debates. The country was in conflict and this election was by far the most important since independence. It effected every facet of their lives and livelihoods. And you somehow believe they hadn't a clue about the stakes involved?
Click to expand...

Just because information is out there, that does not necessarily mean that people can/will take the trouble to find it, read it carefully, sort through it, comprehend it, think about the ramifications, and formulate clear well thought out conclusions from it. And if you think that most people do that, then you are living in a fantasy world, and that is the problem. Over and above that there is the problem of complete and accurate information being there in the first place. Major powers like the US and Russia do not disclose openly and completely EVERYTHING that they do and the actual reasons for doing it. It simply is not practical because their foreign policy would fail because their adversaries would know everything about them. So what you are putting forward is weak at best.

See part of the problem as I see it is that people who advocate this very hardline towards Russia with regards to Ukraine live in this fantasy world where they think that the US can solve all the worlds problems. It is rather amazing how right wing militarist neoconservative fantasies blend well with liberal fantasies in this regard. This is one reason why people like Ariel Cohen and Victoria Nuland get along well with people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with regards to this issue. They all have this common fantasy that the US can solve all the world's problems. It is a fantasy only. It is not reality.

Simpleχity;1064160639 said:
After living in the Czarist and Soviet Empires, the Ukrainians have firsthand knowledge of the ball-and-chain strings that come with Russian "benevolence". They've been there and done that. They wanted a whole new approach and Yanukovych reneged on his promise to align with the European Union.
Click to expand...

You are right that ball and chain strings do indeed come with Russian benevolence. But again, that is just reality, because guess what, ball and chain strings exist for Ukraine to align itself with the EU and the US. Very, very bitter strings are attached to EU benevolence. Ask the people of Greece about EU benevolence and see what they think,.
 
Roadvirus said:
Then maybe they should move to Russia instead of starting a war.
Click to expand...

That's similar to what the ultra nationalist Ukrainians think. That's why they have problems with the ethnic Russians and is a major reason why there is fighting in eastern Ukraine to this day.
 
MildSteel said:
No he's not dumb at all. What would have been dumb, at least from the point of view of Russian national interests, is for him to have sit back and do nothing while Russia is pushed into a strategic corner from which they would not be able to exit.



Indeed, if this does not result in a military conflict between Russia and the US, then certainly Obama has come out clearly the winner in this struggle. That is one reason why I reject attempts by some to paint Obama as weak, because he does play a rather shrewd game. However, it has come at the sacrifice of some larger principles that may have grave consequences in the future, which is why I feel it was not wise relative to the larger scheme of things.
Click to expand...
A shooting war between US and Russia is about as likely as me winning the lottery two days in a row. No, this is an economic war, and we're winning.
 
Cardinal said:
I wonder if the annexation of Crimea had anything to do with Ukraine's move to join Nato.
Click to expand...

You wonder? Of course it does. That's actually Putin's stated excuse, that if Russia didn't act, their Sevastopol Black Sea fleet would be jeopardized by Ukraine eventually joining NATO.

Sure, the Ukrainians are free to vote for not being non-aligned, and are free to petition NATO for membership.

Now, this doesn't force NATO to accept them. If NATO does, this would be a COLOSSAL geopolitical mistake, for numerous reasons.

1. Ukraine considered joining in 2008. NATO rightly considered them unattractive at the time.
2. Ever since, Ukraine became even more of a basket case: political instability, unclear real percentage of support for the current government, territorial dispute, extreme right wing players in bed with the government, and military disarray. So, if NATO didn't want them then, why would it want them now?
3. Russia does have a legitimate claim that eastward NATO expansion destabilizes Europe. It is not surprising that Russia became all paranoid about this.

Now, in economic terms, NATO is not an economical block but rather a military club. However, naturally, if Ukraine were to be accepted into NATO, there would be a political push to also get Ukraine into the European Union. This would be another COLOSSAL mistake.

1. Economic disarray. The EU would have a lot more to spend in Ukraine than to profit from them joining the union and trading more freely with the union.
2. Unemployed and displaced population. Given free access to life and work in any of the 28 existing EU countries (even after the usual quarantine time), there would be massive migration from Ukraine into the EU countries, aggravating social problems and putting pressure in the employment markets there.
3. Ideological problems with questionable commitment to democracy
4. Cultural problems with much of Ukraine being more culturally identified with Russia

What exactly is there to gain from Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU or both?

For the people and the economy in the EU and the other NATO countries, nothing; just a big headache.

For individual businessmen with some sectoral interests in parts of the Ukraine economy, sure, short term profits, but then, nobody profits from wars and instability, so if this throws Europe in turmoil, these businessmen are being very short-sighted and might end up losing a lot more than profiting, in the mid and long run.

For strategic interests, Ukraine does sit in a tempting strategic geography, and does possess a belic industry that supplies Russia with parts for nuclear weapons and the such. However the price to pay for acquiring these strategic assets might be too steep, exactly in strategic terms, by pushing Russia into more extreme and desperate actions. I mean, Russia is a big nuclear weapons state. Is it really good strategy to go poke them in the ribs?

So, these moves are DANGEROUS and are taking the world into a very bad path.

(continued in subsequent posts)
 
Last edited:
What would be my recipe for dealing with this? I fully realize it's likely too late for it and we're already down a disastrous path, but if I had a time machine and could influence these major geopolitical decisions, here is what I'd do:

------------

When Ukraine became divided in craving either more involvement with Western Europe or with Russia, including aid packages and energy packages, the West should have issued a strong, unequivocal, unambiguous NO!!!! The West should have clearly signaled to Ukraine that they were NOT welcome in NATO, NOT welcome in the European Union, should abandon all hope of ever joining, and only two paths were open to them: either continue neutrality and trade with both partners, or accept Russian's offer and enter an economic and military alliance with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (soon to also have Armenia and Kyrgystan; I wouldn't be surprised if Serbia turned down the EU and joined, in the future). Ukraine should have been told that culturally and historically they were in Russia's backyard and NOT WESTERN EUROPE'S PROBLEM. If they ever wanted to drop from non-aligned status, then the only alignment open to them would be with Russia.

Now, this might have been sufficient to defuse the whole situation. If it didn't, and in spite of this clear message the events that we've seen still happened (such as the annexation of Crimea), the response of the West, as politically incorrect as it might sound, should have been the following:

"Mr. Putin, we don't approve of what you are doing, practically redrawing borders by force. However, this is a regional conflict, in your backyard; it's your problem, the Pottery Barn rule applies - you break it, you own it - and if you want to get more closely involved with this basket case of a country, we will feel disgusted by your callous disregard for the Budapest Memorandum but we won't interfere, because IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM. If you unilaterally violated that memorandum, well, we won't feel obliged to enforce it either. For us, do realize that it might be even a relief and a "good riddance" situation. Oh, by the way, there will be no economic sanctions; that's bull, and only causes difficulties for both sides' economies. We actually would value the new status we've been working on, of Russia as a commercial partner, and a partner in other ways such as the International Space Station, etc. We'd like to continue to trade and prosper on both sides of this equation. Cold war stuff will hurt both you and us.

Now, one thing you must understand in a crystal clear way. We will NOT further expand NATO eastward, that's a firm and definitive promise; on the other hand we don't want any expansion of your Eurasian Union into NATO or EU territory either, and won't allow it. TRY IT, AND IT WILL BE MET WITH OVERWHELMING MILITARY RESPONSE. Stick a tiny little dirty finger into NATO territory (and no unmarked vehicles and unmarked uniforms shenanigans either - don't take us for fools) , and you'll rapidly see that we carry a MUCH BIGGER STICK THAN YOURS. By the way, your Crimea incursion, although like we said we won't do anything about it directly, WILL result is us waking up and beefing up DRAMATICALLY the military and strategic capacities of NATO. We dwarf you in military budget and equipment except in nuclear weapons for which we are even, but don't forget that we *are* even on that, by the way. What happened is that we've been complacent and disorganized; thank you Mister Putin for waking us up and giving us a reason to be fierce and organized. Now, with us being fierce and organized, YOU DON'T STAND A CHANCE, so don't even try. The consequences will be catastrophic for you and will be a humiliating military defeat that is likely to turn your own people against you; you'll be expelled from power at the very least - might as well end up dead, betrayed by someone from your own entourage. So we repeat, do as you wish in your backyard, BUT HANDS OFF NATO AND EU TERRITORY, OR ELSE! CLEAR?"

And then, this talk would have to be IMMEDIATELY matched by all 28 countries moving up to the 2% of military investment required by the NATO treaty, construction of new military bases, allocation of significant military assets in personnel and equipment to NATO countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, and creation of an overwhelmingly strong rapid response force.

--------

This attitude (as long as firmly backed by political and military will and action) would have aborted the whole mess we're in now. It would have set clear expectations for both sides and for Ukraine. It would actually diminish tensions (it's the deterrence effect), and contribute to European stability, trade, and prosperity.
 
I'm posting this in three parts given the limit in number of words.

---------


Of course, to have done that, we'd have needed real leaders, real statesmen and stateswomen in power in our governments, political unity both in domestic and regional/international affairs, clarity of vision, harmony and consistency in coordinated action, and so on and so for.


We have nothing of the above. We have timid, ambivalent, scared leaders who are fumbling this whole thing more and more, and we don't speak of one voice. There are cracks and selfish interests all over the place.


Therefore, Putin will continue to exploit our weaknesses, and the world will continue to go down this VERY DANGEROUS path. It's a shame, actually.
 
Dittohead not! said:
A shooting war between US and Russia is about as likely as me winning the lottery two days in a row. No, this is an economic war, and we're winning.
Click to expand...

If Putin gets backed to far into a corner he may try to start a shooting war, to take as many people with him when he goes just out of spite.
Never underestimate the extremes to which a megalomaniac will go.
 
Henry David said:
Analytically? That would require an analysis of the relationship between government and the mainstream media. That would require reading alternative news sources. Which I do.

America is no angel, and neither is Russia.

I suspect YOUR prejudice is that America is Saintly, or something like that. Perhaps exceptional. Any of the self-adulating terms employed by MSM.

In reality, America kills many innocent people every month. We invade foreign countries under fraud. We invade the privacy by electronic means of nearly every person in the world.
Click to expand...

You have me all wrong. I don't believe America is saintly and our government has blood on its hands going all the way back to the genocide of the Native Americans. But we apparently agree Putin and Russia are not saints either.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
A shooting war between US and Russia is about as likely as me winning the lottery two days in a row. No, this is an economic war, and we're winning.
Click to expand...

We may apparently be winning it now (although the low oil prices might have more to do with it than our sanctions), but it could easily backfire on us. A desperate Russia (and other blocs watching this situation develop, and unhappy about how it makes the West even more powerful) might move to further integration inside the BRICS, an alternative currency/trade system, the end of the Petrodollars monopoly, the end of the IMF monopoly, an arms race, and a more radical separation between these blocs than we've ever seen in the whole Cold War - this, if some mistake doesn't light the fuse and then all hell breaks lose.

The main problem with this, is that people are thinking too short term. This situation is NOT GOOD. In the mid and long term, it is likely to actually become catastrophic for our interests.
 
GreatNews2night said:
We may apparently be winning it now (although the low oil prices might have more to do with it than our sanctions), but it could easily backfire on us. A desperate Russia (and other blocs watching this situation develop, and unhappy about how it makes the West even more powerful) might move to further integration inside the BRICS, an alternative currency/trade system, the end of the Petrodollars monopoly, the end of the IMF monopoly, an arms race, and a more radical separation between these blocs than we've ever seen in the whole Cold War - this, if some mistake doesn't light the fuse and then all hell breaks lose.

The main problem with this, is that people are thinking too short term. This situation is NOT GOOD. In the mid and long term, it is likely to actually become catastrophic for our interests.
Click to expand...

and this prediction of gloom and doom is based on what, exactly?
 
MildSteel said:
No. What I would say is that if the US had a base that was vital security interests that it would not sit by idly and let it happen. What would likely happen in such a scenario is that the US would overthrow the government by covert means and install someone who was willing to come to terms favorable to US military interests.
Click to expand...
Baloney. The US gave up its huge naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. The US didn't invade and annex or overthrow the Philippine government.
 
joG said:
(1) Of course the US "involved" in the Ukraine. It is in every country in the world, as is every other major nation and very many NGOs and companies in the various countries are as well. There are many reasons for this and it is good and proper.
Click to expand...

It is good and proper as long as it does not stretch US resources too thin and does not provoke UNNECESSARY quarrel with others. The problem is that too frequently we violate either one or both of those principles.

joG said:
The main supporters of the demonstrators were, as far as I have been informed, not US but European. One supposedly major supporter was the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
Click to expand...

The US went way too far in it's support of the protesters. We had people like the Assistant Secretary of State fomenting street protests. We even had John McCain posing for pictures with people that are known to be radical right wing extremists that have Nazi like views.

joG said:
That NGOs help people and movements to formulate their positions and organize their striving for freedom and better living conditions in autocracies does not surprise me much and I am albeit knowing the problems and implications I am not sure I would want to be stopped.
Click to expand...

It's ok to help people formulate opinions, but when the support rises to the level of supporting people who want to violently overthrow a democratically elected government, as was done in Venezuela, then that support goes too far.

joG said:
That in a violent situation on the brink of war and with the primary Ukrainian ally the EU in disarray, which the EU certainly was, the US should discuss and support half way competent and less corrupt politicians than an albeit intelligent boxer and desolately corrupt old timers, seems recommendable, if not as it turned out intrusive enough to completely prevent civil war and invasion.
Click to expand...

The problem is that US interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine was a major factor in bringing the situation to violent point. Without the US fomenting protests and threatening people like Akhmetov, none of that would have ever gotten off the ground.

joG said:
(2) Had Ukraine been accepted in Nato, when they requested it, Russia could have done nothing then and hardly have sent in troops now. Crimea would be part of Ukraine still. Europe and the US have done a considerable amount to ally the Russians over the last 20 years and they have been a very negative force and often destructive.
Click to expand...

The position that there is nothing that Russia can do about Ukraine being accepted into NATO is a fantasy. Of course Ukraine can apply for membership and of course NATO can approve it. But the cold fact of the matter is that Russia has military capabilities that can destroy the US and quite frankly, it is a big fools fantasy to think that they will not use them if they think that their vital interests are being challenged. And in the case of Ukraine, there is simply too much at stake for Russia for them to rule out that possibility. Russia could still, at the point that Ukraine was admitted into NATO say that we will not lose Crimea and simply take it over. Then what would the US do? It could either fight Russia over Crimea or let Russia keep it. If the US chose to fight Russia, Russia would then be in a position where it would have to use it's nuclear arsenal because they simply cannot win a conventional war with the US. Strategically speaking in a military sense Russia's control of Crimea gives them great leverage over Ukraine because everything that goes in and out of Ukraine has to pass by Crimea. However, Turkey is situated right at the opening to the Black Sea, and everything that goes in and out of the Black Sea must first pass by Turkey. From this position the US, with it's superior firepower, destroy Russia. Russia would then be in a position where they would have to retaliate with nuclear weapons. That is most assuredly how the whole thing would play out.

This is one reason I say that what Obama did here, although he got the best of Putin, came at a great cost. Because now what will happen is that nations with nuclear weapons are now forced to think about how they will use them, not just to retaliate in case of a first strike, but for defensive purposes in cases where vital security interests are at stake. The fantasy is over. The reality has set in.

joG said:
Their pursuit of a multi-polar structure of international security is an overriding element of their strategy, which goes far to explain their behavior.
Click to expand...

That is very true, and it also goes far to explain why the US has acted the way it did with regards to Ukraine because it has, temporarily at least, put up a substantial obstacle to those plans.
 
joG said:
PS: You really do not see the parallels between Chechenia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I see very little parallel between Ukraine and Syria. Georgia perhaps, but not Syria.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You have me all wrong. I don't believe America is saintly and our government has blood on its hands going all the way back to the genocide of the Native Americans. But we apparently agree Putin and Russia are not saints either.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying that. :)
 
Dittohead not! said:
A shooting war between US and Russia is about as likely as me winning the lottery two days in a row. No, this is an economic war, and we're winning.
Click to expand...

Perhaps at this point. That might not be so in the not too distant future. Let us hope the odds get no better than they are at present.
 
Simpleχity;1064162310 said:
Baloney. The US gave up its huge naval base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. The US didn't invade and annex or overthrow the Philippine government.
Click to expand...

The base that Russia has in Crimea is the only decent naval base they have. Very different cases.
 
MildSteel said:
The ship has been rendered a bit ragged, but it is not down.
Click to expand...

I did not say it's down. I said he is taking it down. As in a the Captain of a ship making bad decisions.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I did not say it's down. I said he is taking it down. As in a the Captain of a ship making bad decisions.
Click to expand...

He didn't have anything buy bad choices in front of him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom