• 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!

Ceasefire agreed for eastern Ukraine after Minsk summit

What a loser. Even Mr. Will had the temerity to acknowledge Mearsheimer isn't an armature. Kudha hafez.

No but I had the temerity to state that you most certainly are in wake of multiple rebuttals of his opinion. I can (as I earlier alluded) provide more rebuttals of Meirsheimers opinion piece on top of those already provided should you require them. Not as if that will make the slightest difference to your increasingly desperate anti US crusade and I can claim that as a non American
 
Actually, you have no credentials[

:shrug: I have more credentials than you do.

I've shown you the logical position of somebody who actually has them.

Mearsheimer is a major voice for tragic realism. However, he doesn't support your claims.

And, here's the thing that I believe rubs a rash on your ass, and a couple others around here

:lol: dude, we're not here because we are so upset that you in your basement have figured out this grand conspiracy theory. We're here to make fun of you for promulgating something hilariously disconnected from reality. If you had an avatar of you wearing a foil hat, it would merely be the cherry on top. :)

It's been busted. Putin doesn't need your acknowledgment of what actually happened in Kiev the Fall of 2013. Interference, has backfired this time.

:shrug: we didn't cause any coup, and Putin used military force, invading a neighboring country to redraw the map in a way that hasn't been done in Europe since WWII. Your continued defense of him doing so is only worth noting because you refuse to grant the US the right to pursue its interests that you grant to Russia. That's where you and Mearsheimer split. He backs tragic realism because he wants to inform policymakers and help his nation to best pursue it's self interests. You back tragic realism (in this case) because it's convenient to your desire to blame America rather than the actual aggressor.
 
No but I had the temerity to state that you most certainly are in wake of multiple rebuttals of his opinion. I can (as I earlier alluded) provide more rebuttals of Meirsheimers opinion piece on top of those already provided should you require them. Not as if that will make the slightest difference to your increasingly desperate anti US crusade and I can claim that as a non American

You don't even know what time it is.
 
:shrug: I have more credentials than you do.



Mearsheimer is a major voice for tragic realism. However, he doesn't support your claims.



:lol: dude, we're not here because we are so upset that you in your basement have figured out this grand conspiracy theory. We're here to make fun of you for promulgating something hilariously disconnected from reality. If you had an avatar of you wearing a foil hat, it would merely be the cherry on top. :)



:shrug: we didn't cause any coup, and Putin used military force, invading a neighboring country to redraw the map in a way that hasn't been done in Europe since WWII. Your continued defense of him doing so is only worth noting because you refuse to grant the US the right to pursue its interests that you grant to Russia. That's where you and Mearsheimer split. He backs tragic realism because he wants to inform policymakers and help his nation to best pursue it's self interests. You back tragic realism (in this case) because it's convenient to your desire to blame America rather than the actual aggressor.

What are your credentials Mr. Big man?
 
Putin used military force, invading a neighboring country to redraw the map in a way that hasn't been done in Europe since WWII.
Some people are just too dense to realize that by justifying/supporting this, they are also tacitly justifying/supporting adventurism by the US or anyone else. The only thing which could possibly ameliorate this is perhaps a UN resolution.

To maintain consistency, it has to be one way or the other. Using military force to coerce a sovereign state is either permitted to no one, or it is sanctioned for everyone.

Which is it Montecresto?
 
:shrug: I have more credentials than you do.



Mearsheimer is a major voice for tragic realism. However, he doesn't support your claims.



:lol: dude, we're not here because we are so upset that you in your basement have figured out this grand conspiracy theory. We're here to make fun of you for promulgating something hilariously disconnected from reality. If you had an avatar of you wearing a foil hat, it would merely be the cherry on top. :)



:shrug: we didn't cause any coup, and Putin used military force, invading a neighboring country to redraw the map in a way that hasn't been done in Europe since WWII. Your continued defense of him doing so is only worth noting because you refuse to grant the US the right to pursue its interests that you grant to Russia. That's where you and Mearsheimer split. He backs tragic realism because he wants to inform policymakers and help his nation to best pursue it's self interests. You back tragic realism (in this case) because it's convenient to your desire to blame America rather than the actual aggressor.

Mr. Will...................you may claim as you wish, and post here any such grandiose tales about yourself that you may think elevates you to some lofty position, and it won't matter. You're an unknown, nobody, hear? Mr. Mearsheimer on the other hand, is a well known, respected, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who's credentials are in fact indisputable. So we will establish that fact first. He is a voice for "realism" as opposed to, well, the opposite. Never mind that in your infantile opinion, its short.

What Mr. Mearsheimer points out is that while the US was playing "realpolitik" in Ukraine, Mr. Putin too is a man of political realism. And as such, the US is now recuperating from its bruises and abrasions over its failed attempts in Kiev. Mr. Putin, as pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, is under no delusion about US/EU ambitions with regards to Ukraine. And because of that, has drawn his own, non-symbolic red line. In fact, Mr. Putin has been making speeches for years now about the failure of the US/NATO obligation to agreements made during the Bush 41 administration, not to expand NATO any farther east, and has in fact violated that aggreement 11 or 13 times, depending.

Putin moved, as pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, quickly, and deliberately, absent the cumbersome bureaucracy of the EU, leaving the EU reeling in the wake, and wondering what their response should be. As pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, Angela Merkel has a long time relationship with Mr. Putin, since his days as a KGB agent in East Germany, and she has no delusions about the man, and as such is the most deliberate actor in the EU right now with regard to the Ukraine "crisis". So............

When you make fun of me, you're making fun of Mr. Mearsheimer, who is far more in control of the facts about Ukraine, then you might ever be. And your steadfast denial of a US backed coup, hasn't even come to Mr. Putin's attention, let alone concern. And, you are in the camp with the rest of the nut balls who are making the ridiculous comparisons of Mr. Putins response to US/EU intrigue, to events of WW2 and implications to Hitler. Quite laughable, that.
 
Last edited:
Simpleχity;1064342683 said:
Some people are just too dense to realize that by justifying/supporting this, they are also tacitly justifying/supporting adventurism by the US or anyone else. The only thing which could possibly ameliorate this is perhaps a UN resolution.

To maintain consistency, it has to be one way or the other. Using military force to coerce a sovereign state is either permitted to no one, or it is sanctioned for everyone.

Which is it Montecresto?

Sorry man, I only just now noticed that post ended in a question for me. Being addressed to Mr. Will, I had skimmed over it before. I disagree with your premise that the Russians are the aggressors.
 
When you make fun of me, you're making fun of Mr. Mearsheimer, who is far more in control of the facts about Ukraine, then you might ever be.

Really ? However did he manage to do that given his opinion piece contains not a single shred of verifiable evidence ? :lol:

So he is better qualified than Alexander Motyl Professor of political science at Rutgers University Newark (and perhaps the leading expert in Ukrainian affairs in the Western world) who rebutted every single one of his assertions ?

Alexander J. Motyl (Ph.D., Columbia University, 1984) is professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. He served as associate director of the Harriman Institute at Columbia University in 1992-1998. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia, and the USSR, he is the author of six academic books and the editor or co-editor of over fifteen volumes, including The Encyclopedia of Nationalism and The Holodomor Reader: A Sourcebook on the Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine.

The Ukraine crisis according to John J. Mearsheimer: Impeccable Logic, Wrong Facts

Endlessly clutching at this straw seems to be all you've got. Enough opinion now where is your evidence ?
 
Last edited:
Simpleχity;1064342683 said:
Some people are just too dense to realize that by justifying/supporting this, they are also tacitly justifying/supporting adventurism by the US or anyone else. The only thing which could possibly ameliorate this is perhaps a UN resolution.

To maintain consistency, it has to be one way or the other. Using military force to coerce a sovereign state is either permitted to no one, or it is sanctioned for everyone.

Which is it Montecresto?

I've pointed this out to him in the past. You have to remember, it's not that he thinks that Putins' actions are justifiable because of natural Great Power concerns, or that the US is wrong because it was pursuing its Great power concerns. It's that he thinks that the US is wrong. The relevant particulars are whatever will lend itself to that conclusion.
 
Mr. Will...................you may claim as you wish, and post here any such grandiose tales about yourself that you may think elevates you to some lofty position, and it won't matter. You're an unknown, nobody, hear? Mr. Mearsheimer on the other hand, is a well known, respected, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who's credentials are in fact indisputable. So we will establish that fact first. He is a voice for "realism" as opposed to, well, the opposite. Never mind that in your infantile opinion, its short.

What Mr. Mearsheimer points out is that while the US was playing "realpolitik" in Ukraine, Mr. Putin too is a man of political realism. And as such, the US is now recuperating from its bruises and abrasions over its failed attempts in Kiev. Mr. Putin, as pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, is under no delusion about US/EU ambitions with regards to Ukraine. And because of that, has drawn his own, non-symbolic red line. In fact, Mr. Putin has been making speeches for years now about the failure of the US/NATO obligation to agreements made during the Bush 41 administration, not to expand NATO any farther east, and has in fact violated that aggreement 11 or 13 times, depending.

Putin moved, as pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, quickly, and deliberately, absent the cumbersome bureaucracy of the EU, leaving the EU reeling in the wake, and wondering what their response should be. As pointed out by Mr. Mearsheimer, Angela Merkel has a long time relationship with Mr. Putin, since his days as a KGB agent in East Germany, and she has no delusions about the man, and as such is the most deliberate actor in the EU right now with regard to the Ukraine "crisis". So............

When you make fun of me, you're making fun of Mr. Mearsheimer, who is far more in control of the facts about Ukraine, then you might ever be. And your steadfast denial of a US backed coup, hasn't even come to Mr. Putin's attention, let alone concern. And, you are in the camp with the rest of the nut balls who are making the ridiculous comparisons of Mr. Putins response to US/EU intrigue, to events of WW2 and implications to Hitler. Quite laughable, that.

:yawn: Ad Hominem combined with misdirection and Putin worship.

No one is making fun of Mearsheimer, because he's not saying the ridiculous things you are. :)

Though its' entertaining that you don't even know where he sits in IR theory, or, for that matter, the debate, but you claim him in defense of your conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
Sorry man, I only just now noticed that post ended in a question for me. Being addressed to Mr. Will, I had skimmed over it before. I disagree with your premise that the Russians are the aggressors.
The question is applicable to all nations. Stop dodging and state your answer. Yes or No.

Simpleχity;1064342683 said:
Using military force to coerce a sovereign state is either permitted to no one, or it is sanctioned for everyone.

Which is it Montecresto?
 
New Violence Belies Talk of Peace in Ukraine

23UKRAINE1-articleLarge.jpg

One of the dead in deadly Kharkiv bombing (2/22/2015)

A bomb went off at a pro-government rally in Kharkiv, killing 3 civilians and wounding 15. Four rebel suspects were captured and police report that statements by the suspects indicate they were trained in Belgorod, Russia. Another bomb in Kharkiv was discovered and defused. The terrorists were later captured as they unsuccessfully attempted to attack a shopping mall with a Russian made portable missile launcher.

original_big.jpg

Missile launcher recovered in attempted attack on a shopping mall in Kharkiv, Ukraine (2/22/2015)
 
Report to Allege Direct Kremlin Link to Ukraine Invasion

February 22, 2015

The editor of a leading independent Russian newspaper says he plans this week to publish what purports to be an official Kremlin strategy document outlining Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Novaya Gazeta editor Dmitri Muratov said the document appears to have been prepared weeks before Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was driven from office in February 2014, following weeks of anti-government protests in Kyiv. Muratov's disclosure came in an interview with Moscow's Ekho Moskvy radio. He did not reveal how the document was obtained, but said he is confident it is authentic.

Muratov quotes the 2014 document as saying Moscow was obliged to intervene in Ukraine to protect against the possible loss of the Ukrainian market for Russia's natural gas. He said the document also noted the risks to the Russian economy and to western European consumers, if Moscow were to lose control of pipelines carrying natural gas through Ukraine to Western markets. The editor also said evidence shows the strategy document was prepared between February 4 and February 15, 2014. Yanukovych did not abandon the presidency and flee to Russia until February 22.
Novaya Gazeta was founded by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev. This could be the "smoking gun" document that proves Russia planned the Crimea invasion while Yanukovych was still in office. In other words, an invasion planned before Yanukovych fell from power.
 
Back
Top Bottom