• 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!

US, NATO Troops Parade Near Russian Border in Estonia

Helix said:
we will be in a proxy war with Russia, as we are now. neither side will take it farther than that, hopefully.
Click to expand...

We have been largely standing aside, while the Russians are all in. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke
 
Threegoofs said:
You posted it once.

Its initial premise is that all the facts are wrong because Mearsheimer got the location of the Napoleonic invasions wrong.
His second premise is that NATO is 'not an impressive military alliance'.

And I pointed out it was a bit silly, and I'm sure you'd trumpet a Ukrainian peasant woman as 'knowing more about all things Ukrainian' if she agreed with your view.

Here's the meat of the Mearsheimer argument:

“Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend,” writes Mearsheimer. Ukraine is a “huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself.” Since Ukraine serves as a “buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia … no Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine.” By the same token, no “Russian leader [would] stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.” After all, “great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory.”
Click to expand...

Well this is the guy you are trashing

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. Motyl’s weekly blog on “Ukraine’s Orange Blues” appears on World News Headlines, Essays and Opinion -- World Affairs Journal.

But what would he know right ? :roll:

Meirsheimers is an opinion piece that makes unsustainable assertions and misrepresents facts as Professor Motyl has highlighted in considerable detail. Few academics would share Meirsheimers appraisals
 
flogger said:
Well this is the guy you are trashing

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. Motyl’s weekly blog on “Ukraine’s Orange Blues” appears on World News Headlines, Essays and Opinion -- World Affairs Journal.

But what would he know right ? :roll:

Meirsheimers is an opinion piece that makes unsustainable assertions and misrepresents facts as Professor Motyl has highlighted in considerable detail
Click to expand...

...and you found it by googling "Mearsheimer and wrong". And it's also an opinion piece, albeit a wishful one.

The guy is a Ukrainian-American with close ties to Ukraine. I'm not surprised he'd like the Ukraine under the umbrella of the West.

As Mearsheimer points out correctly, however, Russia will never allow that to happen, much like the UKs response would be if Russia, or Iran, were to bring Ireland into its orbit.
 
flogger said:
Well this is the guy you are trashing

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. Motyl’s weekly blog on “Ukraine’s Orange Blues” appears on World News Headlines, Essays and Opinion -- World Affairs Journal.

But what would he know right ? :roll:

Meirsheimers is an opinion piece that makes unsustainable assertions and misrepresents facts as Professor Motyl has highlighted in considerable detail. Few academics would share Meirsheimers appraisals
Click to expand...

A crushing rebuttal.:bravo:
 
Threegoofs said:
You posted it once.

Its initial premise is that all the facts are wrong because Mearsheimer got the location of the Napoleonic invasions wrong.
His second premise is that NATO is 'not an impressive military alliance'.

And I pointed out it was a bit silly, and I'm sure you'd trumpet a Ukrainian peasant woman as 'knowing more about all things Ukrainian' if she agreed with your view.

Here's the meat of the Mearsheimer argument:

“Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend,” writes Mearsheimer. Ukraine is a “huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself.” Since Ukraine serves as a “buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia … no Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine.” By the same token, no “Russian leader [would] stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.” After all, “great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory.”
Click to expand...

Actually, Napoleon's invasion barely touched Ukraine, and in the two German invasions (WW1 and WW2) Ukraine was either a sideshow or a debilitating strategic diversion. It is laughable to call Ukraine a strategic buffer for Russia. Ukraine is a rich agricultural area; that is and always has been its primary value. Soviet-era industrialization in the east brought in considerable Russian immigration.
 
Threegoofs said:
...and you found it by googling "Mearsheimer and wrong". And it's also an opinion piece, albeit a wishful one.
Click to expand...

Wishful ? If you can find anyone better qualified to comment than Prof Motyl then I'm all ears

The guy is a Ukrainian-American with close ties to Ukraine. I'm not surprised he'd like the Ukraine under the umbrella of the West.
Click to expand...

Thats the whole point isn't it ? The great bulk of Ukrainians would want this too especially in light of current events

As Mearsheimer points out correctly, however, Russia will never allow that to happen, much like the UKs response would be if Russia, or Iran, were to bring Ireland into its orbit.
Click to expand...

Its not Russia's remit to decide the internal affair of its neighbours and hasn't been with Ukraine since its independence in 1991 She is also in breach of treaties she signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and integrity of European states

According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act which established the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right "to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." All the OSCE member states, including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles.

In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty of alliance, including NATO's founding treaty.

Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".

Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated agreement, no right to dictate that choice.

Helsinki Final Act | OSCE

Russia is also in breach of article 2 the UN charter too

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf
 
flogger said:
Wishful ? If you can find anyone better qualified to comment then I'm all ears



Thats the whole point isn't it ? The great bulk of Ukrainians would want this too especially in light of current events



Its not Russia's remit to decide the internal affair of its neighbours and hasn't been with Ukraine since its independence in 1991 She is also in breach of treaties she signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and integrity of European states

According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act which established the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right "to belong or not to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." All the OSCE member states, including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles.

In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty of alliance, including NATO's founding treaty.

Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".

Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated agreement, no right to dictate that choice.

Helsinki Final Act | OSCE

Russia is also in breach of article 2 the UN charter too

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf
Click to expand...

Mearscheimer is better qualified to comment. Look up his credentials. Not sure if you know the difference between the University of Chicago and University of Rutgers- Newark, but let me assure you that there is a slight difference.

And yes, Ukraine has the right to do that. And we should have the smarts to recognize it will be either a buffer state or occupied by the Russians, and not in the EU.
 
Threegoofs said:
Mearscheimer is better qualified to comment.
Click to expand...

I doubt he is better qualified on Russian and Ukrainian history /current affairs than Professor Motyl who has authored major works on the subject and is a specialist in this area

And yes, Ukraine has the right to do that. And we should have the smarts to recognize it will be either a buffer state or occupied by the Russians, and not in the EU
Click to expand...

So might means right then ? Why bother signing treaties or having a UN at all because you sound like you are condoning this sort of behaviour. NATO forces in Europe are half the size they were in 1990 with those reductions set to continue so why does he need a buffer zone ? . Putin is simply using this phantom threat as an excuse for a spot of empire rebuilding nothing more

What about what Ukraine wants or do they not count ? :(
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
I doubt he is better qualified on Russian and Ukrainian history and current affairs than Professor Motyl who has authored major works on the subject and is a specialist in this area



So might means right then ? Why bother signing treaties or having a UN at all ? You sound like you are condoning this sort of behaviour. NATO forces in Europe are half the size they were in 1990 with those reductions set to continue so why does he need a buffer zone ? . Putin is simply using this phantom threat as an excuse for a spot of empire rebuilding nothing more

What about what Ukraine wants or do they not count ? :(
Click to expand...

Yet you seem to have no idea who Mearsheimer is....

Ukraine is within its rights to do whatever it wants. We in the West can only control what we do, and the best thing to do is recognize that Russia will never allow Ukraine to join the EU or NATO, and we should not encourage or allow that path.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet you seem to have no idea who Mearsheimer is....
Click to expand...

I do know who he is and he is not a specialist in the area of Russia and Ukraine whereas Motyl is

Ukraine is within its rights to do whatever it wants. We in the West can only control what we do, and the best thing to do is recognize that Russia will never allow Ukraine to join the EU or NATO, and we should not encourage or allow that path.
Click to expand...

On the one hand you acknowledge Ukraine has the right to do what it wants but then say on the other that it doesn't ??

Do you believe nations should abide by the stipulations of the international treaties they sign or not ?
 
flogger said:
I do know who he is and he is not a specialist in the area of Russia and Ukraine whereas Motyl is



On the one hand you acknowledge Ukraine has the right to do what it wants but then say on the other that it doesn't ??

Do you believe nations should abide by the stipulations of the international treaties they sign or not ?
Click to expand...

Mearsheimer is an international expert, who, unlike Motyl, has no personal stake in the Ukrainians being victorious in the conflict.

Ukraine should do what Ukraine needs to do. The West should not be involved and recognize her as a neutral state. Just because the Ukraine wants to join the EU does not mean it should be allowed, or even entertained.

I think nations should abide by treaties. Russia is wrong. But that doesnt mean that they wont control Ukraine, because they are willing to put everything into it to defend their borders. The West does not need to do that, and wont ever do it. The line in the sand is best drawn West of the Ukraine.
 
Jack Hays said:
We have been largely standing aside, while the Russians are all in. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke
Click to expand...

we haven't been standing aside. we have been engaging in a dick measuring contest with Russia when we should be concentrating on nation building at home.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. A wikipedia link and pointing out that an op-ed is 'opinion'.

You have a low bar for 'crushing'.
Click to expand...

To defend Russian actions your man advances historical claims that are laughably inaccurate. Wikipedia suffices to dismiss such twaddle.
 
Helix said:
we haven't been standing aside. we have been engaging in a dick measuring contest with Russia when we should be concentrating on nation building at home.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. We have done nothing impactful, and nothing we have done has impeded in the slightest on "nation building at home."
 
Threegoofs said:
Mearsheimer is an international expert, who, unlike Motyl, has no personal stake in the Ukrainians being victorious in the conflict.
Click to expand...

You'll be able to cite the papers or books he has published in the past on Ukraine and Russia then ? I wonder if he has in fact ever even visited either country

Ukraine should do what Ukraine needs to do. The West should not be involved and recognize her as a neutral state. Just because the Ukraine wants to join the EU does not mean it should be allowed, or even entertained.
Click to expand...

Why should Ukraine be barred from joining an economic trading partnership if she wants to ?

I think nations should abide by treaties. Russia is wrong. But that doesnt mean that they wont control Ukraine, because they are willing to put everything into it to defend their borders. The West does not need to do that, and wont ever do it. The line in the sand is best drawn West of the Ukraine
Click to expand...

Defend their borders from what exactly ? NATO is a paper tiger and a shadow of what it was 25 years ago. Putin is well aware that given the continuing and swingeing defence cuts within the EU that its not going to be storming Moscow any day soon. For example the US forces presence in Europe is only a fifth of what it was in 1990 so don't blindly buy into the 'big NATO threat' propaganda from the Kremlin
 
flogger said:
You'll be able to cite the papers or books he has published in the past on Ukraine and Russia then ? I wonder if he has in fact ever even visited either country



Why should Ukraine be barred from joining an economic trading partnership if she wants to ?



Defend their borders from what exactly ? NATO is a paper tiger and a shadow of what it was 25 years ago. Putin is well aware that given the continuing and swingeing defence cuts within the EU that its not going to be storming Moscow any day soon. For example the US forces presence in Europe is only a fifth of what it was in 1990 so don't blindly buy into the 'big NATO threat' propaganda from the Kremlin
Click to expand...

Yes, Ukraine should not be considered by the EU as a potential partner. Thats completely reasonable for the EU to do.

NATO is a shadow of what it was. Im not sure you're aware of this, but thats because the USSR doesnt exist anymore. However, the potential forces behind NATO are more powerful than Russia is.. and Russia is completely aware of this. Thats why they see a buffer state as imperative. We may disagree that it is, but Mearsheimers argument is that Russia doesnt agree, and recognizes it as a matter of utmost national security. Its kinda like Cuba and the US back in the 60s.

I can guarantee there would be an issue if Russia attacked a NATO ally, and Russia would quickly lose (unless we all lost and triggered nuclear reaction). Russia knows this.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, Ukraine should not be considered by the EU as a potential partner. Thats completely reasonable for the EU to do.
Click to expand...

Why not ? What is it you think is so reasonable about it ?

NATO is a shadow of what it was. Im not sure you're aware of this, but thats because the USSR doesnt exist anymore. However, the potential forces behind NATO are more powerful than Russia is.. and Russia is completely aware of this. Thats why they see a buffer state as imperative. We may disagree that it is, but Mearsheimers argument is that Russia doesnt agree, and recognizes it as a matter of utmost national security. Its kinda like Cuba and the US back in the 60s. I can guarantee there would be an issue if Russia attacked a NATO ally, and Russia would quickly lose (unless we all lost and triggered nuclear reaction). Russia knows this.
Click to expand...

We hear a lot about Russia's needs and wants. Perhaps its time that NATO get to put the record straight on some of the mythology coming from the Kremlin about it. I hope you find its responses to Kremlin accusations interesting.

http://www.nato.int/cps/eu/natohq/topics_111767.htm
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, Ukraine should not be considered by the EU as a potential partner. Thats completely reasonable for the EU to do.

NATO is a shadow of what it was. Im not sure you're aware of this, but thats because the USSR doesnt exist anymore. However, the potential forces behind NATO are more powerful than Russia is.. and Russia is completely aware of this. Thats why they see a buffer state as imperative. We may disagree that it is, but Mearsheimers argument is that Russia doesnt agree, and recognizes it as a matter of utmost national security. Its kinda like Cuba and the US back in the 60s.

I can guarantee there would be an issue if Russia attacked a NATO ally, and Russia would quickly lose (unless we all lost and triggered nuclear reaction). Russia knows this.
Click to expand...

It is a falsehood to claim that Russia sees (or ever saw) Ukraine as a buffer state. Ukraine has always been an economic prize.

1. Napoleon ignored Ukraine when he invaded Russia.
2. In WW1 the Germans never fought for Ukraine. Ukraine was on the front of Germany's Austro-Hungarian allies, and they retreated more than they advanced. At the time of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) Ukraine was already in full rebellion against the Soviet government in Moscow, so the Bolsheviks simply ceded all Ukraine to the Germans.
3. In WW2 General Guderian considered it a terrible mistake for the German army to temporarily turn away from Moscow in the summer of 1941 in order to assault Kiev. His warning was prophetic. Ukraine was not a buffer but rather a diversion; it is not on the road to Moscow.
 
flogger said:
Why not ? What is it you think is so reasonable about it ?
Click to expand...

LOL. That was the primary subject of the articles by Mearscheimer that I posted. I see in your haste to google someone who opposed his viewpoint, you didnt even bother to READ his viewpoint!

flogger said:
We hear a lot about Russia's needs and wants. Perhaps its time that NATO get to put the record straight on some of the mythology coming from the Kremlin about it. I hope you find its responses to Kremlin accusations interesting.

http://www.nato.int/cps/eu/natohq/topics_111767.htm
Click to expand...

That misses the whole point.
Its totally within the right of NATO to pour short range and long range nuclear missles into Estonia, and line men shoulder to shouder pointing rifles at Russia 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, but its not real smart. Neither is courting the Ukraine to join the EU.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is a falsehood to claim that Russia sees (or ever saw) Ukraine as a buffer state. Ukraine has always been an economic prize.

1. Napoleon ignored Ukraine when he invaded Russia.
2. In WW1 the Germans never fought for Ukraine. Ukraine was on the front of Germany's Austro-Hungarian allies, and they retreated more than they advanced. At the time of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) Ukraine was already in full rebellion against the Soviet government in Moscow, so the Bolsheviks simply ceded all Ukraine to the Germans.
3. In WW2 General Guderian considered it a terrible mistake for the German army to temporarily turn away from Moscow in the summer of 1941 in order to assault Kiev. His warning was prophetic. Ukraine was not a buffer but rather a diversion; it is not on the road to Moscow.
Click to expand...

That and going into Yugoslavia slowed them by approx 6 weeks. They arrived at Moscow's doorstep a tad to late.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. That was the primary subject of the articles by Mearscheimer that I posted. I see in your haste to google someone who opposed his viewpoint, you didnt even bother to READ his viewpoint!
Click to expand...

Thats one mans viewpoint. Why does that negate the wishes of the great majority Ukrainians ?

That misses the whole point.
Click to expand...

No that is the whole point, as the responses illuminate

Its totally within the right of NATO to pour short range and long range nuclear missles into Estonia, and line men shoulder to shouder pointing rifles at Russia 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, but its not real smart. Neither is courting the Ukraine to join the EU.
Click to expand...

If you had actually read my link you would know that no NATO action can ever be initiated without the agreement of all members. NATO is a defensive alliance it has nothing to do with the EU
 
JANFU said:
That and going into Yugoslavia slowed them by approx 6 weeks. They arrived at Moscow's doorstep a tad to late.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and Greece, but that's a separate problem. Guderian always maintained he still would have had enough time if the army weren't diverted by the Kiev sideshow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom