• 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!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

It doesn't matter if this part of Ukraine is more Russian etc. It's the principle of the matter we just can't have Russia annexing countries based on the presumption they are wanted there. What's stopping them taking Kazakhstan next or any other of the former Soviet satellite states and before we know it we are peering from behind another iron curtain.
 
It doesn't matter if this part of Ukraine is more Russian etc. It's the principle of the matter we just can't have Russia annexing countries based on the presumption they are wanted there. What's stopping them taking Kazakhstan next or any other of the former Soviet satellite states and before we know it we are peering from behind another iron curtain.

Slippery slope arguments rarely work.
 
Why are we aligned with a government which came to power through coup d'etat?
 
Part of Ukraine wants to be with Russia.

And parts of Austria and Czechoslovakia wanted to be with Germany in the first half of the 20th century. That doesn't mean that we should allow those countries to be invaded.
 
Slippery slope arguments rarely work.

Why is that? If we learned anything from the 20th century its that you have to hold an aggressive line against tyrants otherwise they will keep pushing you.
 
Why is that? If we learned anything from the 20th century its that you have to hold an aggressive line against tyrants otherwise they will keep pushing you.

Well then whose to say the tyrants aren't the EU in this case?
 
Because we don't want major regional powers invading their neighbors at will, especially when we promised those neighbors protection in return for disarmament.

Russia didn't wanted US to invade/attack Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well. But it did happen.
 
Well then whose to say the tyrants aren't the EU in this case?

Not unless the EU who make up 26 members of Nato are sending tanks, men and planes into Kiev to protect their interests.
 
Well then whose to say the tyrants aren't the EU in this case?

Perhaps not tyrants, but much worse. Diabolical. For to lead astray one with promises of protection and prosperity, only that when they bite, and you don't deliver, you swiftly pull the rug out from under them, knowing you never planned to deliver in the first place. It was just part of one game to keep the competition a little restive and unstable. Thus, ensuring that your own state of affairs appears more delightful when compared to those in dire straits.
 
Well then whose to say the tyrants aren't the EU in this case?

Because America says they aren't. And America is always right about everything, even if there's no evidence. Like when Saddam had WMDs, they may not have existed but he still had them.

You're just a Communist. And you hate America. And you're fat. And (insert other childish insult here).
 
Not unless the EU who make up 26 members of Nato are sending tanks, men and planes into Kiev to protect their interests.

So they're cowardly tyrants.
 
Because America says they aren't. And America is always right about everything, even if there's no evidence. Like when Saddam had WMDs, they may not have existed but he still had them.

You're just a Communist. And you hate America. And you're fat. And (insert other childish insult here).

:lol: I know. We usually learn the truth 10 to 20 years after the fact.
 
Well then whose to say the tyrants aren't the EU in this case?

Anyone who understands that advocating closer ties to a country diplomatically isn't anything close to tyranny.

Military invasions though? I think those count.

Russia didn't wanted US to invade/attack Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan as well. But it did happen.

What exactly is your point here? Russia was certainly in no position to do anything about those invasions. Are you saying that we hurt Russia's feelings so they have a right to hurt ours too, that we should just accept? An odd way of looking at geopolitics, that.
 
Here's a very thought-provoking article that gives another way of thinking about this crisis. There's a lot of sense in it. I'm trying to work out whether I agree with its conclusions.

The Ukraine crisis: John Kerry and Nato must calm down and back off | Jonathan Steele | Comment is free | The Guardian
Kerry's rush to punish Russia and Nato's decision to respond to Kiev's call by holding a meeting of member states' ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia's fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato's undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called "post-Soviet space", led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.
 
Not unless the EU who make up 26 members of Nato are sending tanks, men and planes into Kiev to protect their interests.

Which they won't. Although, there once was hope for such a mighty unity representing the best in mankind, it is now less than a paper tiger, whose members love playing soldier, but can not perform. Even if they could muster a defense and show up in Ukraine, which again, they won't, I do not think they are prepared for a return to the horrible land war conditions as existed on the Eastern Front during WW2. The Russians are, as Germans still remember.
 
Not unless the EU who make up 26 members of Nato are sending tanks, men and planes into Kiev to protect their interests.

Not all 26 members have tanks & planes to send to Kiev.
NATO is weak since a long time.
 
Anyone who understands that advocating closer ties to a country diplomatically isn't anything close to tyranny.

Military invasions though? I think those count.



What exactly is your point here? Russia was certainly in no position to do anything about those invasions. Are you saying that we hurt Russia's feelings so they have a right to hurt ours too, that we should just accept? An odd way of looking at geopolitics, that.

Taking control through coups is really similar to force in my book.
 
Anyone who understands that advocating closer ties to a country diplomatically isn't anything close to tyranny.

Military invasions though? I think those count.



What exactly is your point here? Russia was certainly in no position to do anything about those invasions. Are you saying that we hurt Russia's feelings so they have a right to hurt ours too, that we should just accept? An odd way of looking at geopolitics, that.

So America was being tyrannical to England during WWII?

The point is the that we're being flaming hypocrites.
 
Which they won't. Although, there once was hope for such a mighty unity representing the best in mankind, it is now less than a paper tiger, whose members love playing soldier, but can not perform. Even if they could muster a defense and show up in Ukraine, which again, they won't, I do not think they are prepared for a return to the horrible land war conditions as existed on the Eastern Front during WW2. The Russians are, as Germans still remember.

I don't think many countries have the stomach to fight the Russians and Putin knows it.
 
So America was being tyrannical to England during WWII?

The point is the that we're being flaming hypocrites.


No because America didn't invade England they were invited and used England as a forward operating base for the invasion of Nazi Europe...Awful analogy
 
or democratic, law abiding, NATO members?

Which law authorizes one branch of a government to conduct a coup d'etat against the others?
 
Back
Top Bottom