• 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

It will be interesting to see the effect this will have on the situation in eastern Ukraine. I suspect the Russians will become more aggressive there as a result. Of course it will mean Russians will play very hard ball with respect to energy supplies and Ukrainian exports to Russia. Here we go. Will Victoria Nuland go down in history as having instigated the events that led to a nuclear conflict between the US and Russia?

Outraging Russia, Ukraine takes big step toward NATO

I can't tell if Putin is forcing you to post this, or if you're just trolling us. I think it's adorable you think it's wrong that Ukraine do what Ukraine wants without Russian say. It's called "Freedom". Right now, Putin is violating that freedom. The entire world knows it....
 
No, they don't.

Sorry, you are wrong. There is a substantial number of people in eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and elsewhere in Ukraine who identify themselves as being Russian and who those prefer to be more closely connected to Russia than Europe. That is what quite of bit of the fighting is about in eastern Ukraine.
 
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 disagree with you. Although the US does not bear the sole responsibility, it does bear a substantial portion of the blame for the situation that currently exists in Ukraine. There is no hidden agenda. I am stating openly what I believe to be the truth.
 
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.

There are indeed troubling elements that have influence in Ukrainian politics. That type of sentiment appears to run deep in Ukraine as was witnessed by the leaked phone call of Tymoshenko and a Ukrainian parliament member in which she appears to advocate violence against ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Very troubling indeed.
 
Not my fault if you read stuff into my posts that aren't there.

Well forgive me if I put words in your mouth, but it appeared that you wanted to put forward the notion that Putin's disapproval of what goes on in Ukraine is something that should be lightly brushed aside by the US.

I agree he doesn't expect to get everything just as much as he can by threat or force.

Although he does use threat and force, he also uses legitimate diplomatic and political means to achieve his ends. And again, that is something that not only Putin does, but the US as well.

So Putin is excused because others do it.

Did I say that? I am merely pointing out the reality that both Russia and the US interfere in the foreign policy of other nations.

BTW when was the last time the USA annexed part of another country?

BTW, when was the last time there was an attempt to have either Mexico or Canada to join a military alliance that was formed to contain the US?

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.

Joining NATO COULD mean that nukes could be indeed placed on Russia's front door.
 
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.

Fair enough. So shut up and don't respond.
 
I can't tell if Putin is forcing you to post this, or if you're just trolling us. I think it's adorable you think it's wrong that Ukraine do what Ukraine wants without Russian say. It's called "Freedom". Right now, Putin is violating that freedom. The entire world knows it....

Yeah right. You have added much insight into the matter. Hip hip hurray for you.
 
Fair enough. So shut up and don't respond.

Why should I shut up you are the one making stupid statements about nukes in Ukraine. You would be the one to stop spewing posting as there is nothing but nonsense coming from you.
 
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.

Do you suppose he is a bigger laughing stock than Barack?

Judging from how things have played out over the last 2 years, it appears to me that Vlad was raised playing chess, whilst Barack was raised playing checkers, if you get my drift. ;)
 
Well forgive me if I put words in your mouth, but it appeared that you wanted to put forward the notion that Putin's disapproval of what goes on in Ukraine is something that should be lightly brushed aside by the US.
Never said it should be lightly brushed aside by the US or Ukraine. Only that Putin is acting like a bully.

Although he does use threat and force, he also uses legitimate diplomatic and political means to achieve his ends. And again, that is something that not only Putin does, but the US as well.
Again 2 wrongs don't make a right and the USA does not act like Putin they don't annex parts of other countries.
Sorry moral equivalence doesn't exist and if it did it doesn't excuse Putin.

Did I say that? I am merely pointing out the reality that both Russia and the US interfere in the foreign policy of other nations.
You seem to indicate that Putin is justified because the USA doesn't always do things super nice, though they don't annex parts of other countries so the comparison is false.


BTW, when was the last time there was an attempt to have either Mexico or Canada to join a military alliance that was formed to contain the US?
1867. Canada was created largely to defend against the USA. Learn history before you post nonsense.


Joining NATO COULD mean that nukes could be indeed placed on Russia's front door.
Yeah just like the nukes NATO put in Romania? Lithuania? Latvia? The idea is absurd. I guess Putin should invade and annex those countries as well.....
 
Sorry, you are wrong. There is a substantial number of people in eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and elsewhere in Ukraine who identify themselves as being Russian and who those prefer to be more closely connected to Russia than Europe. That is what quite of bit of the fighting is about in eastern Ukraine.

To your post:

Not everyone in Ukraine wants to move closer to Europe and away from Russia
.

I replied "no, they don't."

What we have here, Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate.
 
To your post:

I replied "no, they don't."

What we have here, Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate.

Sorry. My bad! I stand corrected sir!

I was wondering why you said that. I just misunderstood.
 
OK. Don't shut up. Talk until you are blue in the face.

Continue to ignore the posts relevant to the discussion and focus in on the banter.
That will convince people of the validity of your position
 
I disagree with you. Although the US does not bear the sole responsibility, it does bear a substantial portion of the blame for the situation that currently exists in Ukraine. There is no hidden agenda. I am stating openly what I believe to be the truth.

You mean the US should have prevented the European Union from forcing the issue on the the trade treaty with its slippery military clause? Or we should not support groups that want more freedom and less corruption? Or you find we should not have helped the allies, when the population stood up? Or do you mean, we should have gotten involved earlier to prevent the incompetent EU people from driving the situation into chaos with their untimely power grab?
 
You mean the US should have prevented the European Union from forcing the issue on the the trade treaty with its slippery military clause? Or we should not support groups that want more freedom and less corruption? Or you find we should not have helped the allies, when the population stood up? Or do you mean, we should have gotten involved earlier to prevent the incompetent EU people from driving the situation into chaos with their untimely power grab?

What I mean is that in response to Yanukovich accepting an offer from the Russians, it was wrong for the Assistant Secretary of State to directly foment protests in the streets and threaten people with political power in Ukraine to make them withdraw their support of Yanukovich. What we should have done is to make a better offer.
 
Might be a smart move. Russia's financial situation may keep Putin preoccupied and also not leave him the resources to retaliate.
 
Unlikely. NATO wants to defuse the situation...not make it worse.

You are right it is unlikely because there will not be any NATO membership for Ukraine in the short term. And that is a result, as you have indicated, of NATO, in reality and wisely I might add, not wanting to make the situation worse than it is. But that is not to say that there very well be NATO membership for Ukraine in not the far too distant future. Which means that one cannot rule out the scenario that I mentioned.
 
What I mean is that in response to Yanukovich accepting an offer from the Russians, it was wrong for the Assistant Secretary of State to directly foment protests in the streets and threaten people with political power in Ukraine to make them withdraw their support of Yanukovich. What we should have done is to make a better offer.

That was not our call. It was the EU's offer and their show. The US only assisted until internal European bickering threatened to recreate a Syria situation. Circumstances had deteriorated so far, however, that the demonstrations were turning into a battlefield. It is more or less a Yugoslavian rerun. The EU acts an causes a mess and the US gets involved, when the weapons are already in use. If you want to point at American failure here, it is in the fact that the US did not overcome German foot dragging a decade ago and bring Ukraine into Nato. That was a mistake. But it was the mistake of believing that the European theatre should and could be handled by the Europeans. It was the bane of non-involvement.
 
Unlikely. NATO wants to defuse the situation...not make it worse.

That is debatable for sure. Seems to me that NATO & Friends are provoking things.
 
That was not our call. It was the EU's offer and their show.

No, it was our call to have the Assistant Secretary of State foment street protest and threaten the very influential Ukrainian oligarch Akhmetov. And while you are right, it was the EU's offer it was not entirely an EU show. Not only that but it was possible for the US to use it's considerable influence to get the EU to sweeten the offer and/or augment the offer themselves. The fact is that the US was and is very much involved in the economic and political affairs of Ukraine. Here's the Assistant Secretary of State in her own words regarding the extent of US involvement in Ukrainian efforts with regards to it's economic and political relationship with Europe:



The US only assisted until internal European bickering threatened to recreate a Syria situation.

I think this is a gross distortion because the situation in Ukraine does not resemble Syria to any significant extent to make such a claim. Syria is not situated right on Russia's border. Syria does not have a significant population of ethnic Russians who identify with Russia. Syria does not have pipelines that carry Russian energy to customers in Europe. Syria does not manufacture parts for Russian ballistic missiles and other Russian military equipment. Therefore you cannot say that a Syria situation would have been created in Ukraine because Ukraine is very, very different from Syria in very, very substantial ways.

Circumstances had deteriorated so far, however, that the demonstrations were turning into a battlefield.

That is one reason why it was wrong for the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States to be actively fomenting protest in the streets in Ukraine in the first place. At the very least, it gives the appearance that the US is willing to support violent protests meant to overthrow a democratically elected regime that does not go along with it's policies. Such instability was not something that Ukraine needed, and the people of Ukraine are suffering significantly because of it.

It is more or less a Yugoslavian rerun. The EU acts an causes a mess and the US gets involved, when the weapons are already in use. If you want to point at American failure here, it is in the fact that the US did not overcome German foot dragging a decade ago and bring Ukraine into Nato. That was a mistake. But it was the mistake of believing that the European theatre should and could be handled by the Europeans. It was the bane of non-involvement.

Bringing Ukraine into NATO back when the Bush administration would have been a catastrophic mistake. Here's what Jack Matlock, former ambassador to Russia under Ronald Reagan thinks about the idea:

And I think we have to understand that when we start directly interfering, particularly our government officials, in the internal makeup of other governments, we’re really asking for trouble.

And, you know, we were pretty careful not to do that in my day. And I recall, for example, when I was being consulted by the newly elected leaders of what was still Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. They were still in the Soviet Union, and they would come to us. We were, of course, sympathetic to their independence; we had never even recognized that they were legally part of the Soviet Union. But I had to tell them, "Keep it peaceful. If you are suppressed, there’s nothing we can do about it. We cannot come and help you. We’re not going to start a nuclear war." Well, they kept it peaceful, despite provocations.

Now, what have we been telling the Ukrainians, the Georgians—at least some of us, officials? "Just hold on. You can join NATO, and that will solve your problems for you." You know, and yet, it is that very prospect, that the United States and its European allies were trying to surround Russia with hostile bases, that has raised the emotional temperature of all these things. And that was a huge mistake. As George Kennan wrote back in the ’90s when this question came up, the decision to expand NATO the way it was done was one of the most fateful and bad decisions of the late 20th century.

I agree with George Kennan in the strongest terms, and I hope for the sake of the human race, that such ideas will be relegated to the trash can of ridiculous ideas that should never see the light of day.
 
NATO & Friends weren't the ones who started this mess.

Well it boils down to some kind of arrangement made back in the day where NATO promised the soviet union that it would go east of germany. I believe its nato's current contention that that arrangement was with the now defunct soviet union and not russia. A lot of little kinks here to iron out.
 
Back
Top Bottom