• 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

Ukraine, like the United States and every other independent nation, has the sovereign right to join economic alliances and sign diplomatic/military treaties that are in its best interests. The current government of Ukraine, elected by the people of Ukraine in nationwide elections, is recognized as legal and legitimate by every nation in the world including Russia. The people of Ukraine overwhelmingly elected executive and legislative officials who would fulfill the broken promise of former president Viktor Yanukovych to turn the country westward and integrate with the European community. The people of Ukraine voted this path with clear knowledge of the hardships involved and in the midst of significant economic and military pressures applied by the Russian Federation.

Ukraine. Presidential Election 2014 [English]
Ukraine. Legislative Election 2014 [English]

Regarding Yanukovych, an investigation published (January 3, 2015) by the New York Times reveals that he could no longer continue as president because his security forces, his cabinet, his political party, and his majority parliament all deserted him between the night of February 20 and the morning of February 22. The Maidan opposition and the European Prime Ministers present in Kyiv were all astonished at the news that Yanukovych had fled the city. Yanukovych could not even find succor in the eastern Ukraine Russian-speaking city of Kharkiv and hurriedly fled across the border into the Russian Federation where he remains to this day. It is also worth noting that Yanukovych has not been invited by rebels to visit the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine Leader Was Defeated Even Before He Was Ousted
 
Simpleχity;1064156129 said:
The people of Ukraine overwhelmingly elected executive and legislative officials who would fulfill the broken promise of former president Viktor Yanukovych to turn the country westward and integrate with the European community.
Click to expand...

There are all types of people in Ukraine. Some, ethnic Russians to be exact, do not want to turn the country westward. Some, ultra-nationalist, right wing Ukrainians are also not interested in integrating with Europe. So your statement is not accurate, although there is some truth to it.

Simpleχity;1064156129 said:
The people of Ukraine voted this path with clear knowledge of the hardships involved
Click to expand...

Oh please. Most people voting everywhere do no have clear knowledge about anything they are voting about.
 
MildSteel said:
There are all types of people in Ukraine. Some, ethnic Russians to be exact, do not want to turn the country westward. Some, ultra-nationalist, right wing Ukrainians are also not interested in integrating with Europe. So your statement is not accurate, although there is some truth to it.
Click to expand...
In a democracy, the majority vote is the ultimate arbiter. The maps in the electoral links I provided visibly demonstrate the overwhelming scale of sentiment.

MildSteel said:
Oh please. Most people voting everywhere do no have clear knowledge about anything they are voting about.
Click to expand...
The Ukraine presidential/legislative electoral results are far too consistent and persuasive to be attributed to blanket ignorance and confusion.

The Ukraine presidential election was monitored by 3,600+ official international observers. The Ukraine legislative elections were monitored by 2,321 accredited foreign observers, 304 of them on behalf of 21 states and 2,017 from 20 international organisations. Every nation in the world, including Russia, has recognized that these elections were valid and legitimate.
 
Simpleχity;1064156273 said:
In a democracy, the majority vote is the ultimate arbiter.
Click to expand...

No that is not true. The US has overthrown democratically elected leaders in many countries that it was not satisfied with. So you are wrong.

Simpleχity;1064156273 said:
The maps in the electoral links I provided visibly demonstrate the overwhelming scale of sentiment.
Click to expand...

Maps don't demonstrate anything. It's people with power who tell people what to think that determine the scale of sentiment in political contests.

Simpleχity;1064156273 said:
The Ukraine presidential/legislative electoral results are far too consistent and persuasive to be attributed to blanket ignorance and confusion.
Click to expand...

The point is this, most people everywhere, in any substantial political contest, have a very poor grasp on the issues at stake. That is true of the leaders, what to speak of the people who elect them.

Simpleχity;1064156273 said:
The Ukraine presidential election was monitored by 3,600+ official international observers. The Ukraine legislative elections were monitored by 2,321 accredited foreign observers, 304 of them on behalf of 21 states and 2,017 from 20 international organisations. Every nation in the world, including Russia, has recognized that these elections were valid and legitimate.
Click to expand...

Yanukovich was elected democratically. I didn't mean diddly squat at the end of the day.
 
Henry David said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah the ecomomy is rebounding big time in the US and the stock market is at record high levels while Putin's economy's going in the toilet, due to a one comodity Russian economy and the sanctions. I think we know full well who was playing checkers and who is the laughing stock of the world and it's not Obama.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yeah the ecomomy is rebounding big time in the US and the stock market is at record high levels while Putin's economy's going in the toilet, due to a one comodity Russian economy and the sanctions. I think we know full well who was playing checkers and who is the laughing stock of the world and it's not Obama.
Click to expand...

You are right. Obama did get the best of Putin with regards to Ukraine, IF THIS DOESN'T LEAD TO A MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE US. In that case no one wins. But it was not much Putin could do. He is just in a weak position relative to the US. He has done a rather good job playing a poor hand.
 
Lursa said:
Might be a smart move. Russia's financial situation may keep Putin preoccupied and also not leave him the resources to retaliate.
Click to expand...

Smart in a very restricted sense. It has come at far too great a price for what was accomplished. That being the case, it was not a smart move at all, at least not in the grand scheme of things.
 
Roadvirus said:
NATO & Friends weren't the ones who started this mess.
Click to expand...

So you say.

Trouble is, others say that the agreement signed between Gorbachev and Reagan contained language regarding expansion into Ukraine, and that the agreement has been broken.

Knowing my government the way I do, if that were the case I would not be surprised in the least.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yeah the ecomomy is rebounding big time in the US and the stock market is at record high levels while Putin's economy's going in the toilet, due to a one comodity Russian economy and the sanctions. I think we know full well who was playing checkers and who is the laughing stock of the world and it's not Obama.
Click to expand...

I suppose the depends upon the company one keeps, eh? Though I'm not sure whether Obama is perceived more as a clown, or more as a criminal hypocrite who happens to be a Nobel recipient. :confused:
 
Henry David said:
So you say.

Trouble is, others say that the agreement signed between Gorbachev and Reagan contained language regarding expansion into Ukraine, and that the agreement has been broken.

Knowing my government the way I do, if that were the case I would not be surprised in the least.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the US shares quite a bit of the blame for what has transpired in Ukraine.
 
MildSteel said:
There is no doubt that the US shares quite a bit of the blame for what has transpired in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Putin is 100% responsible for what has transpired in the Ukraine.
 
MildSteel said:
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
Click to expand...

If Putin didn't want Ukraine to move towards NATO, he shouldn't have

1. Violated Ukraine's territorial integrity by seizing Crimea
2. Undermined Ukraine's internal stability by backing secessionist rebels in Ukraine
3. Supported Yanukovych, who was so corrupt that even pro-Russian Ukrainians despised him.

Russia behaving aggressively towards Ukraine is a surefire way to make Ukraine (as your link says, a previously nonaligned nation) attempt to ally itself with NATO.

Any direct conflict between the United States and Russia is highly unlikely, since there is no way that Putin can win (even in a nuclear conflict) unless he somehow allies with China against the US. NATO would smash Russia in any conventional war, and nuclear war would lead to the wholesale slaughter of both countries and isn't really in anyone's interest. The West had been infinitely more bold in attempting to undermine the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and nuclear conflict never occurred; it's unlikely that handing out cookies at a protest will cause a non-superpower to decide to go to war in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
If Putin didn't want Ukraine to move towards NATO, he shouldn't have

1. Violated Ukraine's territorial integrity by seizing Crimea
2. Undermined Ukraine's internal stability by backing secessionist rebels in Ukraine
3. Supported Yanukovych, who was so corrupt that even pro-Russian Ukrainians despised him.
Click to expand...

Wrong. NATO membership for Ukraine was supported by the Bush administration and has been supported by prominent people in the US foreign policy establishment for well before the three things ever happened.

MadLib said:
Russia behaving aggressively towards Ukraine is a surefire way to make Ukraine (as your link says, a previously nonaligned nation) attempt to ally itself with NATO.
Click to expand...

Russia is forced to be aggressive towards Ukraine because it is right on their border, because of the military significance of Crimea to Russian defense, and because it is a crucial point of transit for Russian energy supplies to Europe. It is a vital interest for Russia.

MadLib said:
Any direct conflict between the United States and Russia is highly unlikely, since there is no way that Putin can win (even in a nuclear conflict) unless he somehow allies with China against the US. NATO would smash Russia in any conventional war, and nuclear war would lead to the wholesale slaughter of both countries and isn't really in anyone's interest. The West had been infinitely more bold in attempting to undermine the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and nuclear conflict never occurred; it's unlikely that handing out cookies at a protest will cause a non-superpower to decide to go to war in this day and age.
Click to expand...

The problem with your position is that it brushes aside the fact that Russia has the ability to destroy the United States, and that if pushed far enough, it is likely that they would consider using their nuclear weapons, because, as you have said, they cannot win a conventional war with the United States.
 
MildSteel said:
Wrong. NATO membership for Ukraine was supported by the Bush administration and has been supported by prominent people in the US foreign policy establishment for well before the three things ever happened.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that caused Ukraine's move towards NATO. Russian acts of aggression are far more significant than internal US policy maneuverings and Nuland handing out cookies.

Russia is forced to be aggressive towards Ukraine because it is right on their border, because of the military significance of Crimea to Russian defense, and because it is a crucial point of transit for Russian energy supplies to Europe. It is a vital interest for Russia.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that this was the only way Moscow could have handled it? They couldn't have just fortified their base in Sevastopol? They couldn't have offered Ukraine a better economic option to compete with the EU?

If that's how the Russians (incorrectly) feel about it, then they shouldn't be shocked and upset when Ukraine moves towards an anti-Russian defensive alliance as a natural consequence of their behavior.

The problem with your position is that it brushes aside the fact that Russia has the ability to destroy the United States, and that if pushed far enough, it is likely that they would consider using their nuclear weapons, because, as you have said, they cannot win a conventional war with the United States.
Click to expand...

The US also has the same ability to destroy the United States, as well as (if I recall correctly) anti-ballistic missiles. I highly dislike Putin, but I know that he's far too rational to think that a nuclear conflict will produce good results for anyone. If some crazy hardliner came into power, that would be a different story.
 
MildSteel said:
No that is not true. The US has overthrown democratically elected leaders in many countries that it was not satisfied with. So you are wrong.
Click to expand...
No one has overthrown the newly elected government.

MildSteel said:
Maps don't demonstrate anything. It's people with power who tell people what to think that determine the scale of sentiment in political contests.
Click to expand...
The demographics are indisputable.

MildSteel said:
The point is this, most people everywhere, in any substantial political contest, have a very poor grasp on the issues at stake. That is true of the leaders, what to speak of the people who elect them.
Click to expand...
Not in this election. Russia had already taken Crimea and conflict in the east was at its zenith with thousands dead.

MildSteel said:
Yanukovich was elected democratically. I didn't mean diddly squat at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Yanukovych is a Slavic Benedict Arnold. He betrayed his people and decided to abdicate when he realized his Russia gambit had failed.
 
MildSteel said:
You are right. Obama did get the best of Putin with regards to Ukraine, IF THIS DOESN'T LEAD TO A MILITARY CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE US. In that case no one wins. But it was not much Putin could do. He is just in a weak position relative to the US. He has done a rather good job playing a poor hand.
Click to expand...

Good job? The guy is a hood.
 
Henry David said:
I suppose the depends upon the company one keeps, eh? Though I'm not sure whether Obama is perceived more as a clown, or more as a criminal hypocrite who happens to be a Nobel recipient. :confused:
Click to expand...

You need to put your prejudices aside and look at the situation analyitically. If you do that Putin and Russia are in deep doo doo and Putin is the clown to the west.
 
MildSteel said:
Smart in a very restricted sense. It has come at far too great a price for what was accomplished. That being the case, it was not a smart move at all, at least not in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Putin has been playing macho and hasn't been using his brains. He's the dumb one.

In the end it's the leader that plays the long game and thinks many moves ahead that wins. That's Obama.
 
MadLib said:
That doesn't mean that caused Ukraine's move towards NATO.
Click to expand...

You need to keep track of the conversation because that was not the point. The point is that there were attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO long before the three things that you listed happened.

MadLib said:
Russian acts of aggression are far more significant than internal US policy maneuverings and Nuland handing out cookies.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to mean? Again the acts of aggression that you cited took place long after attempts were made to bring Ukraine into NATO.

MadLib said:
Are you saying that this was the only way Moscow could have handled it?
Click to expand...

Didn't say that. Russia could have done nothing. As far as what could be done, they could offer to become a protectorate of the US. What you have posted makes no sense.

MadLib said:
They couldn't have just fortified their base in Sevastopol?
Click to expand...

Russia has been in danger of losing their base at Sevastopol for quite some time. Losing it would be a very major blow to their ability to project naval power. No Russian leader worth his salt would simply sit back and do nothing while the risks of Russia losing it's base their increased.

MadLib said:
They couldn't have offered Ukraine a better economic option to compete with the EU?
Click to expand...

The fact that you have asked that question indicates that you have not been following the events that have transpired in Ukraine since the fall of 2013. In fact, Russia did just that, and Yanukovich accepted Russia's better offer which had some very sweet terms for Ukraine relative to the EU offer. That's what triggered Nuland fomenting protests and threatening Akhmetov, which in turn led to the overthrow of Yanukovich.

MadLib said:
If that's how the Russians (incorrectly) feel about it, then they shouldn't be shocked and upset when Ukraine moves towards an anti-Russian defensive alliance as a natural consequence of their behavior.
Click to expand...

Again, that is something that has been attempted long before the aggression that you cited. Therefore your point is very weak at best.

MadLib said:
The US also has the same ability to destroy the United States, as well as (if I recall correctly) anti-ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

You mean the US has the capability to destroy Russia. That is true, however we should be very careful about trampling on the vital interests of a country that does indeed in truth, have the capability to destroy the US. That is the point.

MadLib said:
I highly dislike Putin, but I know that he's far too rational to think that a nuclear conflict will produce good results for anyone. If some crazy hardliner came into power, that would be a different story.
Click to expand...

Putin, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and any other leader of a country will do anything in their power, included using nuclear weapons, to protect the essential vital interests of their country. For the Russian nation, Ukraine falls into that category. Therefore the US should be very careful with how it executes it's policy there because the consequences of mistakes could be very catastrophic.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Putin has been playing macho and hasn't been using his brains. He's the dumb one.
Click to expand...

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.

EnigmaO01 said:
In the end it's the leader that plays the long game and thinks many moves ahead that wins. That's Obama.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Simpleχity;1064158806 said:
No one has overthrown the newly elected government.
Click to expand...

At least not in Kiev. In the eastern parts of Ukraine, the story is different.

Simpleχity;1064158806 said:
The demographics are indisputable.
Click to expand...

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.

Simpleχity;1064158806 said:
Not in this election. Russia had already taken Crimea and conflict in the east was at its zenith with thousands dead.
Click to expand...

That proves nothing. It is a fact that most people voting in large national elections have a poor grasp on the issues and are merely moved by emotional propaganda that has been devised by elites to get them to vote a certain way.

Simpleχity;1064158806 said:
Yanukovych is a Slavic Benedict Arnold. He betrayed his people and decided to abdicate when he realized his Russia gambit had failed.
Click to expand...

Actually Yanukovich took a better offer by the Russians that included a generous loan guarantee and reduced energy prices, in contrast the EU offer contained all types of bitter economic requirements for Ukraine. My opinion is that he really wanted to play both sides against each other, but he got burned badly.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You need to put your prejudices aside and look at the situation analyitically. If you do that Putin and Russia are in deep doo doo and Putin is the clown to the west.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MildSteel said:
(1)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:





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.



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.



(2)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:

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.
Click to expand...


(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.
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. 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.
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.

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


PS: You really do not see the parallels between Chechenia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria?
 
MildSteel said:
Russia has been in danger of losing their base at Sevastopol for quite some time. Losing it would be a very major blow to their ability to project naval power. No Russian leader worth his salt would simply sit back and do nothing while the risks of Russia losing it's base their increased.
Click to expand...
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?

MildSteel said:
At least not in Kiev. In the eastern parts of Ukraine, the story is different.
Click to expand...
No one knows what the true story is in eastern Ukraine because the rebels forbade the nationwide elections in regions under their military control.

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...
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.

MildSteel said:
That proves nothing. It is a fact that most people voting in large national elections have a poor grasp on the issues and are merely moved by emotional propaganda that has been devised by elites to get them to vote a certain way.
Click to expand...
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?

MildSteel said:
Actually Yanukovich took a better offer by the Russians that included a generous loan guarantee and reduced energy prices, in contrast the EU offer contained all types of bitter economic requirements for Ukraine. My opinion is that he really wanted to play both sides against each other, but he got burned badly.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom