• 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!

Does the situation in Ukraine worry you?

You worried?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 49.4%
  • No

    Votes: 36 44.4%
  • I'm buying my marshmallows

    Votes: 5 6.2%

  • Total voters
    81
Post 189:

So yeah, in fact, I did.
No, in fact, you didn't. You're now trying to cover up your mistake by faking the evidence and not using the same quote you used earlier. In the earlier quote you included my House of Lords link as well as that one sentence.

Yes, you included a book review and I quoted that book review. You didn't.



Te difference of course, being that we do not have a legally binding treaty obligating us to do so.
We have no treaty in reference to cyber terrorism or cyber attacks? I'm pretty sure both are against international law, which we theoretically uphold.



...yes, it does. I don't know how to make that more blatant than block-quoting it for you, unless you want me to break up my discussion in chunks and block-quote the book below each claim?

Of course they did. The hackers were an instrument of foreign policy.
I don't agree with your rules of rumor and innuendo and that's all you have.


Did you read that part about necessary ambiguity when discussing Intelligence Community Assessments?
That's as good an excuse as any for not producing evidence when you want to make some money, as Mr Buy-My-Book is trying to do.


Richard Clarke spent years trying to convince Administrations of both parties that Al Qaeda was coming, and found himself beating up against a similar wall with the Bush Administration on Cyber. It's not a surprise to me he went public - in his shoes, I would be tempted to do so as well.

But you deny that he even said what I am pointing out to you that he did.
I used your exact quotes as I made comments on them. There was NOTHING THERE showing the Russia government was responsible for the Estonia attack.

The only thing I left off and didn't comment on was the - also unsupported - suppositions about the Russia mafia and the Russian government. One could accuse us of collusion with our underworld, too, since our government does on occasion hire former criminals as consultants.


You deny that states use cyber attacks and then go to great length to defend a position that would make it almost irresistibly tempting for them to do so.
I "denied" your assertion that the Russians attacked Estonia because there was no proof of that happening and in all these posts you have failed to produce any.


I didn't deny that some countries carry on cyber warfare. I said if they did it it was on a small scale (with the exceptions also noted in that same post). If you believe otherwise then produce the evidence of these other not-so-small-scale attacks.
The fact is, we have more proof of Anonymous carrying out attacks against our government than we do another country attacking us.



You skip over or dismiss the testimony of those who know the subject far better than you, and to what purpose? Because you don't want to admit that NATO is basically useless for much of 21st Century Warfare?
I dismissed "testimony" - point by point - of supposition and rumor, which is all you supplied.


I asked for proof of your claim that,

"Russia's response was to launch a cyber attack that basically shut down the country",

which referred to the Estonia incident in 2007. All these posts later you still have provided no proof of that claim. You've supplied a whole slew or rumor, suspicion, and innuendo but absolutely no proof at all. Now you're starting to accuse me of things I've never said.
 
You may find this interesting.

How Should The West Respond? « The Dish

The argument that Russia is showing its weakness is based upon the fact that they cant influence a nation on its own border with strong ethnic ties by anything but a show of force. Thats weakness.

invasion is a tool of the desperate, used only when other cost effective methods are no longer available.

Not necessarily.

To a bully country this is the way one shows influence. It has always been. To a bully country not showing force and the army is considered weakness.

There may be cultural specific perspectives here that may provide vacuum between us and them that Putin may use to his advantage. I mean he grabs Crimea and we cannot really say "we are winning for he is weak" here, can we?
 
Not necessarily.

To a bully country this is the way one shows influence. It has always been. To a bully country not showing force and the army is considered weakness.

There may be cultural specific perspectives here that may provide vacuum between us and them that Putin may use to his advantage. I mean he grabs Crimea and we cannot really say "we are winning for he is weak" here, can we?

But can Russia maintain control in the Ukraine and crimea
 
But can Russia maintain control in the Ukraine and crimea

The more Ukraine is isolated and exposed to Russian terror and iron grip, corrupt, mafia, regime, the more Russian can control Ukrainian Crimea. The more Ukraine can fight (and I hear they are full of weapons) and receives some help the less the above can happen.
 
The more Ukraine is isolated and exposed to Russian terror and iron grip, corrupt, mafia, regime, the more Russian can control Ukrainian Crimea. The more Ukraine can fight (and I hear they are full of weapons) and receives some help the less the above can happen.

I don't think Russia can maintain control of the Crimea and Ukraine if the situation devolves into another Chechnya.
 
So we're not all dead yet, then? No?

Good.
 
Worried? No...I am (selfishly) loving it.

All this concern is sending my precious metals and other commodities up.


Besides, I think the whole thing is over-rated.

Sure, the Russian-dominated Crimea is being occupied by Russia...but the rest of the Ukraine should (imo) stay Russian army-free so long as the eastern Ukraine does not try to separate from the Western Ukraine. imo.


And even if it does...my precious metals will probably go way up.
 
Worried? No...I am (selfishly) loving it.

All this concern is sending my precious metals and other commodities up.


Besides, I think the whole thing is over-rated.

Sure, the Russian-dominated Crimea is being occupied by Russia...but the rest of the Ukraine should (imo) stay Russian army-free so long as the eastern Ukraine does not try to separate from the Western Ukraine. imo.


And even if it does...my precious metals will probably go way up.
Ah, the Gordon Gekko school of morality. :lol:
 
Worried? No...I am (selfishly) loving it.

All this concern is sending my precious metals and other commodities up.


Besides, I think the whole thing is over-rated.

Sure, the Russian-dominated Crimea is being occupied by Russia...but the rest of the Ukraine should (imo) stay Russian army-free so long as the eastern Ukraine does not try to separate from the Western Ukraine. imo.


And even if it does...my precious metals will probably go way up.

Because precious metals are key to this region.

Here's a clue....if people are dumb enough to drive the price up because of this, it's your signal to sell.
 
The Ukraine is not going to give up it's seaports over this. Odessa is as much (or more) of a commercial port than Sevastopol.

Indeed, Ukraine would not appreciate that big of a nerf to their shoreline. But Russia may not give them a choice about this. Ukraine looks more and more like they're forced to either give up a sure field goal or a possible touchdown. Without help from the West, there's a significant risk that standing firm would lead to that touchdown--or rather, breakdown.

The Crimea was barely included in the Ukraine as it was. It has a special designation compared to other regions and is relatively independent of the Ukrainian government.

Yup. Hell, the Crimeans practically welcomed the Russian invaders. When's the last time anyone has responded like that? It's been awhile...
 
Yes, I see a likelihood of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction proliferation to other countries. Ukraine gave up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world upon promises of assurances of the integrity of their borders. They now have paid the price of not being a nuclear power.

No nuclear power has been invaded or attacked. Dozens of non-nuclear powers have. Easy enough lesson for any country to understand. There is no deal, negotiation or treaty for any country to not obtain nuclear weapons or give them up that should be seen as trickery.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Russia can maintain control of the Crimea and Ukraine if the situation devolves into another Chechnya.

Yes.

Russia has many troops that I heard topple up to 150 thousand. So they may take Kiev, but maintaining an occupied Ukraine would require more and would exhaust Russia out of its resources making it even weaker than before. Eventually it will have to let go but now in a crumbling state. It is then that I think that countries that are under Russian oppression as of now may then want to become independent also.

Hence Russia better keep away from Ukraine for its own sake. Ukraine is armed and can fight and resist. Especially if kept under the light of media (i.e., not alone) and aided with some help.
 
Yes, I see a likelihood of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction proliferation to other countries. Ukraine gave up the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world upon promises of assurances of the integrity of their borders. They now have paid the price of not being a nuclear power.

No nuclear power has been invaded or attacked. Dozens of non-nuclear powers have. Easy enough lesson for any country to understand. There is no deal, negotiation or treaty for any country to not obtain nuclear weapons or give them up that should be seen as trickery.

This is only valid unless the treaty does not gets honored. If it gets honored then it can set a prelude to remaining nuclear countries.

But even this much is damage enough.
 
Yup. Hell, the Crimeans practically welcomed the Russian invaders. When's the last time anyone has responded like that? It's been awhile...

The Russians in Crimea are a minority of Ukraine. They can benefit special privileges as a minority in Ukraine. Perhaps the Russian army is there to make sure that they do.
 
Yes.

Russia has many troops that I heard topple up to 150 thousand. So they may take Kiev, but maintaining an occupied Ukraine would require more and would exhaust Russia out of its resources making it even weaker than before. Eventually it will have to let go but now in a crumbling state. It is then that I think that countries that are under Russian oppression as of now may then want to become independent also.

Hence Russia better keep away from Ukraine for its own sake. Ukraine is armed and can fight and resist. Especially if kept under the light of media (i.e., not alone) and aided with some help.

Also, the impending sanctions will speed up the financial stresses of maintaining an occupied Ukraine. One can only hope Putin is wise enough to avoid collapsing Russia completely.
 
Ah, the Gordon Gekko school of morality. :lol:

Lol.

I wish I was that good.

Actually, Gekko sold NASA stock short after the Challenger blew up (in the movie, if I recall).

I owned my gold/silver years before this...besides, after the rough ride precious metals had last year, I need all the help I can get.
 
Also, the impending sanctions will speed up the financial stresses of maintaining an occupied Ukraine. One can only hope Putin is wise enough to avoid collapsing Russia completely.

After supporting mass murderers such as Assad and Milosevic, I hope he is not!
 
I don't know why we're not talking more about the situation in Ukraine on this site.
I don't have much to say on the topic. Sure I watch the news like anyone else but there's nothing for me to about it.
 
What worries me is how few people remember how many times the USA has sent the U.S. military into countries all over this planet to protect and rescue American citizens without asking permission from anyone.


If it's OK for the USA to do that, why isn't OK for Russia to do it?

Is there one set of rules for the USA and another set of rules for Russia?

If so-Fill me in, Because this is news to me.
 
Last edited:
What worries me is how few people remember how many times the USA has sent the U.S. military into countries all over this planet to protect and rescue American citizens without asking permission from anyone.

If it's OK for the USA to do that, why isn't OK for Russia to do it?

Is there one set of rules for the USA and another set of rules for Russia?

If so-Fill me in, Because this is news to me.

No, nothing abnormal here. Countries, just as with individuals, do what they can get away with. We do so when and where we can get away with it, Russia is doing the same here. Other countries and societies have done so in the past.

The empty high-minded rhetoric is amusing, though.
 
What worries me is how few people remember how many times the USA has sent the U.S. military into countries all over this planet to protect and rescue American citizens without asking permission from anyone.


If it's OK for the USA to do that, why isn't OK for Russia to do it?

Is there one set of rules for the USA and another set of rules for Russia?

If so-Fill me in, Because this is news to me.
It's like sports. You cheer when your team scores an interception and curse when the other team intercepts. There's no hypocrisy, we're just cheering for our own teams.

TeamAmerica ftw :)
 
Back
Top Bottom