• 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!

Who should send troops in Ukraine?

Who should send troops in Ukraine?

  • NATO

    Votes: 9 17.0%
  • UN

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • EU

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • USA

    Votes: 5 9.4%
  • Russia

    Votes: 8 15.1%
  • Ukraine

    Votes: 7 13.2%
  • Nobody

    Votes: 25 47.2%
  • Santa / Ded Moroz

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • None of my business

    Votes: 11 20.8%

  • Total voters
    53
We need to leave those people alone. If Russia wants to help suppress the illegal coup d'état, with the agreement of the legitimate leader of the Ukraine, there actions are justified and they should not be obstructed.

Legitimate leader? are you aware at ALL the events that took place before this whole thing spiraled out of control?

the guy in charge was legally elected. then he did a bunch of bad stuff like shooting protesters in the street with weapons that the police were not supposed to have.
THEN the parliament impeached him, and he was removed because he was found guilty. According to how their constitution works he is not a member of the official government any more. He is now on trial in abstencia for crimes against humanity which includes mass murder and treason and armed rebellion against the legitimate government in kiev.
 
The fact that russia has not left South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and has for all intents and purposes annexed the two small sections of land that by all rights belongs to Georgia, shows their expansionist tendencies. Not to mention the brutal way that the campaign was handled by Russian generals in the first place. It is rumored that rape and murder of civilians was tolerated if not encouraged by the upper echelons of the russian military to teach the Georgians a lesson. The whole dam thing happened because the Georgians wanted to build an oil pipeline into the rest of Europe and challenge russia. the whole "Georgians are opressing the ossetia and Abkhazia people" was just the excuse.

Believe me the russians want their territories back and they will get it if not stopped. this will turn into another pre ww2 if the world doesn't do something about it.

Please advise us on what steps the world should be taking?
 
Because America and Europe have never infringed on anyone's sovereignty. Ever.

Anyone who disagrees is a Communist. And they hate America. And they're fat.
what exactly are you referring to here? i would like to know. because going to war against a tyrant, who murdered his own people, and going after the people who killed thousands of american non combatants is not legitimate? huh...
Oh.. you must be referring to older.. more historic abuses... i get it. But you have to understand, we don't live a hundred years ago. we are talking about right now, and past mistakes or indiscretions have no bearing on how we should move forward. realize mistakes, learn from them, move on.... dwelling on them, or allowing them to paralyze our international policy is dangerous. besides when has america in the last hundred years, taken actual land from people? this is what russia is trying to do.
 
what exactly are you referring to here? i would like to know. because going to war against a tyrant, who murdered his own people, and going after the people who killed thousands of american non combatants is not legitimate? huh...
Oh.. you must be referring to older.. more historic abuses... i get it. But you have to understand, we don't live a hundred years ago. we are talking about right now, and past mistakes or indiscretions have no bearing on how we should move forward. realize mistakes, learn from them, move on.... dwelling on them, or allowing them to paralyze our international policy is dangerous. besides when has america in the last hundred years, taken actual land from people? this is what russia is trying to do.

Again, please share with us your plan on what the world, or selected parties that are able, supposed to do. Please provide some specifics if possible, particularly if the proposals involve military action.
 
Again, please share with us your plan on what the world, or selected parties that are able, supposed to do. Please provide some specifics if possible, particularly if the proposals involve military action.

I honestly dont know if anything could be done at this point. The only thing that we could have reasonably relied upon was MAD to stop another super power provoking and attacking its smaller neighbors, but with the way our leadership currently is in the USA, i don't think Putin is really afraid of them. I think HE doesn't think that our leaders have the gumption to actually back up any threats.

it will take another president to take control, if the USA were to get involved. as it is now, i think maybe NATO as a whole, or the EU might be able to threaten something that will get russia to back off.... i dont know what... but maybe.
 
Legitimate leader? are you aware at ALL the events that took place before this whole thing spiraled out of control?

the guy in charge was legally elected. then he did a bunch of bad stuff like shooting protesters in the street with weapons that the police were not supposed to have.
THEN the parliament impeached him, and he was removed because he was found guilty. According to how their constitution works he is not a member of the official government any more. He is now on trial in abstencia for crimes against humanity which includes mass murder and treason and armed rebellion against the legitimate government in kiev.

Their Constitution requires an impeachment be approved by the Constitutional Court. This has not happened, so he remains the legitimate leader of the country. We shouldn't support a blatant violation of the seperation of powers, it's un-democratic.

what exactly are you referring to here? i would like to know. because going to war against a tyrant, who murdered his own people, and going after the people who killed thousands of american non combatants is not legitimate? huh...
Oh.. you must be referring to older.. more historic abuses... i get it. But you have to understand, we don't live a hundred years ago. we are talking about right now, and past mistakes or indiscretions have no bearing on how we should move forward. realize mistakes, learn from them, move on.... dwelling on them, or allowing them to paralyze our international policy is dangerous. besides when has america in the last hundred years, taken actual land from people? this is what russia is trying to do.

1) Failure to extradite is not legitimate grounds for invading another country, unless you think the central powers were justified in WWI.

2) If the morality of a government is a measure of whether or not an invasion is justified, we lose on account of our murder of 5000 unborn people every day.

3) How is Russia trying to annex land?
 
I honestly dont know if anything could be done at this point. The only thing that we could have reasonably relied upon was MAD to stop another super power provoking and attacking its smaller neighbors, but with the way our leadership currently is in the USA, i don't think Putin is really afraid of them. I think HE doesn't think that our leaders have the gumption to actually back up any threats.

it will take another president to take control, if the USA were to get involved. as it is now, i think maybe NATO as a whole, or the EU might be able to threaten something that will get russia to back off.... i dont know what... but maybe.

That I think is the REAL damage being done to the US here (my emphasis above). Putin by doing this, marginalizes the US and he knew he could do this because he probably guessed right as to what our WH is capable of and has gauged correctly that the US population has war fatigue and has no stomach for any type of military engagement especially not with Russia and for a kicker, especially not over Ukraine or Crimea. The worst thing that can happen is a united EU / US / G-8 economic sanction which will take a while and could be dissuaded via political channels and relationships within the EU countries.
 
I would LOVE to see the UN engage.
 
Their Constitution requires an impeachment be approved by the Constitutional Court. This has not happened, so he remains the legitimate leader of the country. We shouldn't support a blatant violation of the seperation of powers, it's un-democratic.



1) Failure to extradite is not legitimate grounds for invading another country, unless you think the central powers were justified in WWI.

2) If the morality of a government is a measure of whether or not an invasion is justified, we lose on account of our murder of 5000 unborn people every day.

3) How is Russia trying to annex land?

I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).

As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.
 
I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).

As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.

Who would have the authority to authorize foreign troops? (seriously who)? He has not resigned.

He is not guilty of mass murder, although even if he was, the Ukrainian Comstitution doesn't recognize violation of vague "democratic and liberal standards" as automatic removal. BTW, you're profile says you're a Conservative.

I don't agree with their actions in Georgia, but that doesn't make it an annexation

What possible basis is their for early removal pending a decision. There's no more basis for that then their is for the US House being able to remove a Presdient pending the decision of the Senate.
 
I honestly dont know if anything could be done at this point. The only thing that we could have reasonably relied upon was MAD to stop another super power provoking and attacking its smaller neighbors, but with the way our leadership currently is in the USA, i don't think Putin is really afraid of them. I think HE doesn't think that our leaders have the gumption to actually back up any threats.

it will take another president to take control, if the USA were to get involved. as it is now, i think maybe NATO as a whole, or the EU might be able to threaten something that will get russia to back off.... i dont know what... but maybe.

Fair enough and deeply felt. This is why I would ask that we wait. Showing alarm is not going to play our hand well. We have many options, and regardless my political affiliations and leanings, the President is being advised. The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be. The United States has mastered the international stage of political stealth and intrigue. We have so many cards in our hands, and if we share a little of the spoils here and there, raising a fuss for the roar of this or that crowd, it is for our own nations benefit. We must be patient, knowing we can not intervene with the force of armies ready to lock horns in in titanic struggle on another Eastern Front with the Russians. It would destroy our nation as we know it, and thus the reason why our leaders would never contemplate this move. The new reductions in force are actually movements to different arenas of concern where consultations have been made with the Council of Foreign Relations and many others. We too are learning to think for a longer term, and the future is not an archaic struggle of men in a common trench, but in space, outer or cyber, special forces, and finance. We must guard these strengths closely and use them as the valuable tools that they are to contain future aggression, never letting others dictate how and where we will meet them on the battlefield. We must invite all to be patient, trust in our leaders that are advising the President, and show no fear.

We must assume the most dangerous of defensive positions, "Wind." As Sensei Stephen K. Hayes would write in his book of 1980, "Ninja: Spirit of the Shadow Warrior."
 
Last edited:
The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be.

I'm not at all attacking you, so if I come off that way, it's just a matter communication and not intent: but the idea that top policy-makers in most countries are ignorant is such a dumb, populist view. I understand you're not espousing that view and are in fact fighting against, but in my opinion it needs to be hammered home. That a bunch of people on an internet forum could call (or insinuate) policy-makers dumb is just so laughable.

A group of people mostly with bachelor degrees at best (mostly not in any pertinent major anyway) and mostly with no professional experience in anything like this sitting around critiquing the knowledge and judgment of people with master's and doctorates in international relations/national security/et al, most with at least a decade plus of professional experience...it just boggles the mind. If not here at DP, somewhere out there there's a plumber with a GED bemoaning how "stupid" the Obama or Bush Administrations are/were on the international stage and it makes milk shoot out of my nose.

/end rant
 
Who would have the authority to authorize foreign troops? (seriously who)? He has not resigned.

He is not guilty of mass murder, although even if he was, the Ukrainian Comstitution doesn't recognize violation of vague "democratic and liberal standards" as automatic removal. BTW, you're profile says you're a Conservative.

I don't agree with their actions in Georgia, but that doesn't make it an annexation

What possible basis is their for early removal pending a decision. There's no more basis for that then their is for the US House being able to remove a Presdient pending the decision of the Senate.

.... realy? do you not know that a conservative on the international stage is called a "Classical Liberal"? generally the term is associated with the United States in general, while Socialist Democracy is associated with Europe. Just a short Political Science lesson for you...

A constitutional rule in their country and in almost every democracy around the world, is that someone in a high seat of power can not maintain two political offices. For instance a president of the USA cant also be the Prime Minister of Great Britain.... he has accepted a position as the Prime Minister of the new Autonomous Republic of Crosia last i read, and is now trying to take power from the Ukrainian parliament.

Besides if you know anything about how parliamentary systems work, parliament is sovereign. they can do what ever the hell they want including amending the constitution. parliament is the embodiment of the peoples will and can change how the government is set up however they dam well please. Constitutions are generally seen as guidelines in a Unitary Parliamentary system when it comes to operation of government, which is i believe what Ukraine has. Constitutions however are seen as very strict when it comes to individual rights. its a tricky balancing act that that type of government messes with, but its what they do.

LEts say the USA goes into mexico and decides all of the california peninsula is now a new country, the USA controls its leaders, its politics, and everything else about it... it is DE FACTO annexed by the USA, but it is not actually annexed.

Do you know what De Facto means? it means in reality, rather then in theory. in theory those two georgian regions are now either their own states, or part of georgia still. De Facto however they are part of russia.
 
Fair enough and deeply felt. This is why I would ask that we wait. Showing alarm is not going to play our hand well. We have many options, and regardless my political affiliations and leanings, the President is being advised. The men at the top, no matter what we want to think of them personally, are not as ignorant as we would like to paint them out to be. The United States has mastered the international stage of political stealth and intrigue. We have so many cards in our hands, and if we share a little of the spoils here and there, raising a fuss for the roar of this or that crowd, it is for our own nations benefit. We must be patient, knowing we can not intervene with the force of armies ready to lock horns in in titanic struggle on another Eastern Front with the Russians. It would destroy our nation as we know it, and thus the reason why our leaders would never contemplate this move. The new reductions in force are actually movements to different arenas of concern where consultations have been made with the Council of Foreign Relations and many others. We too are learning to think for a longer term, and the future is not an archaic struggle of men in a common trench, but in space, outer or cyber, special forces, and finance. We must guard these strengths closely and use them as the valuable tools that they are to contain future aggression, never letting others dictate how and where we will meet them on the battlefield. We must invite all to be patient, trust in our leaders that are advising the President, and show no fear.

We must assume the most dangerous of defensive positions, "Wind." As Sensei Stephen K. Hayes would write in his book of 1980, "Ninja: Spirit of the Shadow Warrior."


I have to admit.. never read that book though it sounds very interesting. I have read a few books on eastern combat and political/ military strategy, just not that one. However one thing i think you miss about American politics in general, and this is not a criticism of you but in general people from other nations, is that we are very loud, and very very very suspicious of government. But when it comes to a crisis as long as their is strong, open leadership on the issue we tend to come together. that is when we do our best. Unfortunately most americans, my self included feel we would be better served with a Clinton in office then Obama. I don't believe he has the "backbone" or "thick skin" needed to win this kind of cloak and dagger, game of thrones kind of stuff.

we also like our metaphors.... sorry about that.
 
Sorry just finished reading your profile... if i understand it correct you are former US military? or former Swedish military?
 
I am actually really glad you brought all of this up.

Lets say your right and that he would still by their constitution, be considered their president. the president does not have the power via their constitution to invite foreign powers military into their boarders, so he is guilty of treason. Also he has basically stepped down from his position in favor of being a member of an illegitimate government set up by a foreign power. So of his own volition he is no longer a member of their formal government, regardless of weather the parliament can remove him without the constitutional court.

Second he is guilty of mass murder... this action by its self makes him an illegitimate leader by Democratic and Liberal standards.


Third, russia has annexed land from GEORGIA... or did you miss that? its a de facto annexation, so its not official... but it is there. Then there is russia's actions in regards to the Ukraine... sending additional troops, flying helicopter patrols over unapproved( Via the lease agreement they have) land, and by sending unmarked fully armed and trained russian troops onto a foreign national and sovereign soil in an attempt to set up a puppet government because they didn't like how the parliament had removed their former puppet from power, pending a constitutional court decision(This whole PENDING part is the constitutional question).As for the constitutional power that the parliament has in Ukraine, it is highly debated weather the parliament can temporarily remove someone who is charged with these crimes from power until a constitutional court decision. its about a 5050 split in the countries rather short constitutional history.

Re Georgia

Georgia decideded to attack South Ossetia which has been in effect an autonomus region from the early 1990s. A was was fought by Georgian and South Ossetian forces back then, South Ossetia won. When Georgia decided to attack South Ossetia, Russia stepped in, stopped the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, and then destroyed a significant amount of Georgian military equipment. Then it pulled back to the boarders of South Ossetia and the other autonomus region (perhaps a 100 meters further out in some cases.


Had Georgia not decided to attack South Ossetia, the Russian counter attack would never have occurred. Overall Georgia did not lose any territory that it did not lose back in the 1990's
 
.... realy? do you not know that a conservative on the international stage is called a "Classical Liberal"? generally the term is associated with the United States in general, while Socialist Democracy is associated with Europe. Just a short Political Science lesson for you...

A constitutional rule in their country and in almost every democracy around the world, is that someone in a high seat of power can not maintain two political offices. For instance a president of the USA cant also be the Prime Minister of Great Britain.... he has accepted a position as the Prime Minister of the new Autonomous Republic of Crosia last i read, and is now trying to take power from the Ukrainian parliament.

Besides if you know anything about how parliamentary systems work, parliament is sovereign. they can do what ever the hell they want including amending the constitution. parliament is the embodiment of the peoples will and can change how the government is set up however they dam well please. Constitutions are generally seen as guidelines in a Unitary Parliamentary system when it comes to operation of government, which is i believe what Ukraine has. Constitutions however are seen as very strict when it comes to individual rights. its a tricky balancing act that that type of government messes with, but its what they do.

LEts say the USA goes into mexico and decides all of the california peninsula is now a new country, the USA controls its leaders, its politics, and everything else about it... it is DE FACTO annexed by the USA, but it is not actually annexed.

Do you know what De Facto means? it means in reality, rather then in theory. in theory those two georgian regions are now either their own states, or part of georgia still. De Facto however they are part of russia.

Do you not know that real Conservatism means opposition to modernist ideologies like liberalism? If you're really a liberal at heart, tharen just call yourself that or some equivalent term like libertarian.

What on Earth is the Autonomous Republic of Crosia?

Ukraine has a written Constitution, it's not like Britain where there is an informal Constitution.

I know what de facto means.
 
I'm not at all attacking you, so if I come off that way, it's just a matter communication and not intent: but the idea that top policy-makers in most countries are ignorant is such a dumb, populist view. I understand you're not espousing that view and are in fact fighting against, but in my opinion it needs to be hammered home. That a bunch of people on an internet forum could call (or insinuate) policy-makers dumb is just so laughable.

A group of people mostly with bachelor degrees at best (mostly not in any pertinent major anyway) and mostly with no professional experience in anything like this sitting around critiquing the knowledge and judgment of people with master's and doctorates in international relations/national security/et al, most with at least a decade plus of professional experience...it just boggles the mind. If not here at DP, somewhere out there there's a plumber with a GED bemoaning how "stupid" the Obama or Bush Administrations are/were on the international stage and it makes milk shoot out of my nose.

/end rant

I don't take it that way at all. Thank you for emphasizing your thoughts on this matter. You make some very good points.
 
I have to admit.. never read that book though it sounds very interesting. I have read a few books on eastern combat and political/ military strategy, just not that one. However one thing i think you miss about American politics in general, and this is not a criticism of you but in general people from other nations, is that we are very loud, and very very very suspicious of government. But when it comes to a crisis as long as their is strong, open leadership on the issue we tend to come together. that is when we do our best. Unfortunately most americans, my self included feel we would be better served with a Clinton in office then Obama. I don't believe he has the "backbone" or "thick skin" needed to win this kind of cloak and dagger, game of thrones kind of stuff.

we also like our metaphors.... sorry about that.

Never, ever be sorry. You can always say the most poignant and powerful of things, a very influential mentor once told me, so long as you do it respectfully.
 
Last edited:
Re Georgia

Georgia decideded to attack South Ossetia which has been in effect an autonomus region from the early 1990s. A was was fought by Georgian and South Ossetian forces back then, South Ossetia won. When Georgia decided to attack South Ossetia, Russia stepped in, stopped the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia, and then destroyed a significant amount of Georgian military equipment. Then it pulled back to the boarders of South Ossetia and the other autonomus region (perhaps a 100 meters further out in some cases.


Had Georgia not decided to attack South Ossetia, the Russian counter attack would never have occurred. Overall Georgia did not lose any territory that it did not lose back in the 1990's
South Ossetia was granted limited autonomy via the process of Devolution to sooth ethnic tensions between the ossetian population there and the Central Unitary Government. Russia was not involved in this process except to bully georgia politically and militarily and provide backing for Ossetia. It was always part of georgia.... it was never its own country, but rather its own autonomous region. look up the process of devolution and you will find it in countries like spain, the United Kingdoms. It is a legitimate process that Unitary States tend to use to ease issues with regional majorities. i am actually presenting a paper here at UVU on the subject in the next few weeks.

The new events however have led to Ossetia to fully leave georgian control. this is a break from how things were done in the past, and is caused by Russian intervention. Russia is not allowing much information besides official statements to come from the region and has kept strong control over the "autonomous" areas politics. this is De Facto control.
 
No one. Ukraine is Ukraine's business. Not NATO's, not the EU's, not Russia's, not the USA's.
 
Back
Top Bottom