• 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!

Russian Parliament Wants Ambassador Recalled

I wouldn't go anywhere near that far - however, the Neville Chamberlain naivete and appeasement gene is and has been alive and active in the Obama Administration.

This is comparable to Hitler and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia during the 1930's. The German speaking people in Sudetenland and Chamberlain signed off on allowing Hitler to bring the German speaking people of Austria and the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany.

What is happening in the Ukraine is about the Russian speaking people in the Ukrain who want to be Russian not Ukrainian.
 
The US and Russia never fought each other or could be aggressors to each other without it going to nuclear war? Korea? Vietnam? Numerous African conflicts?

Most of which did not pose a direct threat to Russia's interests the way Ukraine does, and did not directly involve many if any Soviet troops.


Neville Chamberlain gave away parts of other countries that were not his to give away. Revisionist history on your part maybe?

Which revision of history tells you that Chamberlain was capable of keeping Hitler from taking the Sudetenland?
 
It doesn't matter against Russia. The only war with Russia is going to be nuclear. Do you want to die for Ukraine?

You don't know where I stand on this issue so why do you assume you do when I haven't taken a position ?
 
Putin has received permission from the Russian Parliament to mobilize the country's military in the Ukraine. Parliament has also requested that the Russian Ambassador be recalled from the United States in light of President Obama's remarks yesterday.

I guess we showed him. The President's timing on this one was all wrong.

Putin gets permission to use military in Ukraine; parliament wants to pull ambassador in DC | Fox News

Why are we getting involved in this?

Incredibly dangerous situation unfolding. No one can predict how this affect relations in the future. This is really bad. Putin has drawn a line in the sand.
 
You don't know where I stand on this issue so why do you assume you do when I haven't taken a position ?

I know where you stand; Obama is wrong no matter what he does.

You're counting brigades and conventional troops in a nuclear war.
 
The U.S. has no agreement that requires its intervention in Ukraine. It is one of the parties to a non-aggression agreement, which is different from an alliance.

Having said this, President Putin's decisions are shaped by factors including:

1. Russia's interests. Crimea is a critical interest given the Russian Naval base at Sevastopol and majority ethnic Russian population there.
2. The balance of power. This shapes his calculus when it comes to the feasibility of using force.
3. His loathing for perceptions of weakness. President Obama should have conveyed his message privately. By doing so publicly, he positioned Putin to be perceived as weak, hence that posturing backfired. I use posturing to refer to warnings that are not backed by credible means to enforce them.
4. Past precedent. President Putin has long criticized the U.S./NATO's carving away Kosovo from Serbia stating that it had established a precedent. Crimea, especially with a supportive majority ethnic population, falls squarely into that precedent.

In the end, this is a bad situation. Ukraine likely will lose Crimea. The U.S. can and should resort to non-military punishment, but the reality is that those means likely won't have much impact on Russia. Russia had long-coveted deeper trade relations, but the U.S. dragged its feet and there's no free trade agreement between the two countries. Hence, U.S. cancellation of any consideration of such an agreement is largely symbolic, as it merely prolongs a status quo that Russia has increasingly expected to be permanent.

Meanwhile, in that context, the U.S. is reducing military manpower. That's not necessarily a wise move, but the lesson that manpower matters from Iraq seems not to have been learned. The balance of power implications of reduced U.S. military capability won't be lost on countries such as Russia where the balance of power remains an overriding consideration in shaping their strategic flexibility.

You didn't sign an agreement requiring intervention. You signed an agreement that makes it impossible for future non-proliferation treaties to be taken seriously if no action is taken.
 
People are overlooking that the Crimean leadership asked Russia to intervene, because Crimea along with Karkiv and Donetsk are still heavily pro-Russian and speak Russian. The western media are making it look like Russia just decided to invade when all that's really happening here is that a portion of a heavily divided country has called on an ally who already agreed in the past that if anything went down, it would be there to restore order. Russia also has naval assets in the region, provides a large chunk of resource and economy to the Ukraine, and has support treaties with it in place. It also has a vested interest in making sure that the Ukraine doesn't become part of the western bloc, for obvious reasons. From Russia's perspective, many Ukranians are biting the hand that feeds them.

For all intents and purposes, Ukraine has an internal civil order problem. The western bloc is getting pissy because it changes the security situation to have Russia present in the Ukraine, but if the U.S. was honoring one of its treaties we would not be seeing the same spin.

The reality is that the U.S. and Europe will do nothing. The Ukraine never really fully divorced itself from the former USSR which is why Russia is involved now. Half of the Ukraine would still rather continue its close ties with Russia while the other half wants to become closer to the EU.

It's true that the U.S. stirred the pot. A lot of the protest organization comes from our funding, for a 'free' Ukraine. The U.S. cancelling negotiations for a free trade agreement with Russia in response to is meaningless because we never intended to really go beyond the status quo anyway. We have always been in a sort of cold war with Russia, never really trusting it. Now we are seeing the repercussions. Russia's reason for invading the Ukraine is just as much economic as it is about power politics.

What I don't get is... why let the protests go on so long? Why let the provisional government even happen? Russia could have stopped this in the beginning. It seems like such a waste to let all that civil progress be made only to quash it later. I mean, there is evidence that Russian soldiers and agents were already there when this all began, wearing masks and bearing no insignias, but they didn't really do anything to quell the violence.

I support the people of the Ukraine but a looming Russia was always a possibility, and the Ukraine is not important enough for NATO to get involved with UNLESS Russia does more than simply restore Ukraine's polity.
 
Last edited:
People are overlooking that the Crimean leadership asked Russia to intervene, because Crimea along with Karkiv and Donetsk are still heavily pro-Russian and speak Russian. The western media are making it look like Russia just decided to invade when all that's really happening here is that a portion of a heavily divided country has called on an ally who already agreed in the past that if anything went down, it would be there to restore order. Russia also has naval assets in the region, provides a large chunk of resource and economy to the Ukraine, and has support treaties with it in place. It also has a vested interest in making sure that the Ukraine doesn't become part of the western bloc, for obvious reasons. From Russia's perspective, many Ukranians are biting the hand that feeds them.

For all intents and purposes, Ukraine has an internal civil order problem. The western bloc is getting pissy because it changes the security situation to have Russia present in the Ukraine, but if the U.S. was honoring one of its treaties we would not be seeing the same spin.

The reality is that the U.S. and Europe will do nothing. The Ukraine never really fully divorced itself from the former USSR which is why Russia is involved now. Half of the Ukraine would still rather continue its close ties with Russia while the other half wants to become closer to the EU.

What I don't get is... why let the protests go on so long? Why let the provisional government even happen? Russia could have stopped this in the beginning. It seems like such a waste to let all that civil progress be made only to quash it later. I mean, there is evidence that Russian soldiers and agents were already there when this all began, wearing masks and bearing no insignias, but they didn't really do anything to quell the violence.

I support the people of the Ukraine but a looming Russia was always a possibility, and the Ukraine is not important enough for NATO to get involved with UNLESS Russia does more than simply restore Ukraine's polity.

You're overlooking that Crimea is part of Ukraine which is a sovereign nation despite you buying into the pro-Russian rhetoric. No one is bitching about Russia securing it's military assets in Crimea. The fear is that Russia will impose it's puppet back in Kiev. Russia is the one escalating the situation. Not us, or the gov't in Kiev.
 
I know where you stand; Obama is wrong no matter what he does.

You're counting brigades and conventional troops in a nuclear war.

Russia can fight a conventional war with troops on the ground. I don't think at this time America can. We were able to four years ago.

Did you see the other day the Army's response on how we would fight future wars ? They had four scenarios, not one included fighting a real conventional war against a real country that had a real army that can fight.

The current administration believes that all wars in the future will be against rag tag armies armed with only small arms and can be fought with high tech gizmos and special forces. Any general or admiral who saw it differently was purged by the Obama administration.

There was one additional scenario, if we had to fight a real war against a real military, we wouldn't fight. They didn't mention the word surrender or resorting to nukes but I suppose those are the only two options.
 
The U.S. has no agreement that requires its intervention in Ukraine. It is one of the parties to a non-aggression agreement, which is different from an alliance.

Having said this, President Putin's decisions are shaped by factors including:

1. Russia's interests. Crimea is a critical interest given the Russian Naval base at Sevastopol and majority ethnic Russian population there.
2. The balance of power. This shapes his calculus when it comes to the feasibility of using force.
3. His loathing for perceptions of weakness. President Obama should have conveyed his message privately. By doing so publicly, he positioned Putin to be perceived as weak, hence that posturing backfired. I use posturing to refer to warnings that are not backed by credible means to enforce them.
4. Past precedent. President Putin has long criticized the U.S./NATO's carving away Kosovo from Serbia stating that it had established a precedent. Crimea, especially with a supportive majority ethnic population, falls squarely into that precedent.

In the end, this is a bad situation. Ukraine likely will lose Crimea. The U.S. can and should resort to non-military punishment, but the reality is that those means likely won't have much impact on Russia. Russia had long-coveted deeper trade relations, but the U.S. dragged its feet and there's no free trade agreement between the two countries. Hence, U.S. cancellation of any consideration of such an agreement is largely symbolic, as it merely prolongs a status quo that Russia has increasingly expected to be permanent.

Meanwhile, in that context, the U.S. is reducing military manpower. That's not necessarily a wise move, but the lesson that manpower matters from Iraq seems not to have been learned. The balance of power implications of reduced U.S. military capability won't be lost on countries such as Russia where the balance of power remains an overriding consideration in shaping their strategic flexibility.


I think its depends on how you read the treaty and it is worth pointing out that diplomats are still reading over the treaty as we speak so nothing certain. It's this paticular wording that worries me.

"The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.


Clearly Russia have broken this agreement and now the question is how will the West react? If we fail to act on this then what does this mean for all our other treaties worldwide and our overall global position?
 
I think its depends on how you read the treaty and it is worth pointing out that diplomats are still reading over the treaty as we speak so nothing certain. It's this paticular wording that worries me.

"The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.


Clearly Russia have broken this agreement and now the question is how will the West react? If we fail to act on this then what does this mean for all our other treaties worldwide and our overall global position?

What are our friends the Brits saying about it over there?
 
I think its depends on how you read the treaty and it is worth pointing out that diplomats are still reading over the treaty as we speak so nothing certain. It's this paticular wording that worries me.

"The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.

Clearly Russia have broken this agreement and now the question is how will the West react? If we fail to act on this then what does this mean for all our other treaties worldwide and our overall global position?

What you've quoted of the treaty here doesn't indicate that force would be used or that any of the signatories promised to protect the Ukraine...?

-----------------

There's some interesting insight on this thread. Thank to all.
 
Putin has received permission from the Russian Parliament to mobilize the country's military in the Ukraine. Parliament has also requested that the Russian Ambassador be recalled from the United States in light of President Obama's remarks yesterday.

I guess we showed him. The President's timing on this one was all wrong.

Putin gets permission to use military in Ukraine; parliament wants to pull ambassador in DC | Fox News

Why are we getting involved in this?

A few months ago the nation made it pretty clear to President Obama that they did NOT want anything to do with a war in Syria and he backed away. We need to do the same thing with this situation.

We do NOT need to get involved in this in any way shape or form.
 
You're overlooking that Crimea is part of Ukraine which is a sovereign nation despite you buying into the pro-Russian rhetoric. No one is bitching about Russia securing it's military assets in Crimea. The fear is that Russia will impose it's puppet back in Kiev. Russia is the one escalating the situation. Not us, or the gov't in Kiev.

Oversimplified.

Crimea is autonomous and can ask for Russian intervention, which it did. The realpolitik of this situation is that the Ukraine is heavily divided over its loyalties to Russia vs. the EU and it's not as simple as 'poor Ukraine got oppressed by the USSR oops I mean Russia'. I'm merely balancing out the spin that I'm reading in places like CNN and the BBC. As soon as the headline "Russian military invades..." hits the airwaves, people lose their **** and once emotions take hold people are no longer rational.

Yes, it's possible that Russia will use this as an opportunity to install a puppet back into Kiev. Everyone knows that already. I'm hoping they won't, but it's a realistic possibility. Russia could do that without invading though, as could the CIA and MI5, but having a physical presence ensures that Russia will have greater control over the security situation. Russia saw the gong show in Egypt and Syria. It's not going to let the Ukraine become the next casualty in the western bloc's intervention politics. I believe that, combined with securing an economic partner and treaty obligations, is why Russia is there right now.

What I foresee is that Russia will somehow claim that the Kiev provisional government has lost control of the situation, its assets are in danger, and half of pro-Russian Ukraine (mainly the east) will be leveraged via propaganda to re-take Kiev and install a pro-Russian government. NATO will sit by and twiddle its thumbs, making idle threats, because no one wants to poke this sleeping tiger, not over something like the Ukraine. The EU won't do anything because they don't jump until the U.S. jumps, and the U.S. won't jump because it's already stretched to thin and the risk of protracted conflict with Russia is not an option right now. Putin knows it. I just think it's really sad that the protesters achieved such a great victory in deposing the former leadership only to have a much greater power come in and sweep that all away.

I'm not pro-anything. I'm into politics and studying situations as they unfold. Keep your snarky, personal attacks to yourself.
 
Oversimplified.

Crimea is autonomous and can ask for Russian intervention, which it did. The realpolitik of this situation is that the Ukraine is heavily divided over its loyalties to Russia vs. the EU and it's not as simple as 'poor Ukraine got oppressed by the USSR oops I mean Russia'. I'm merely balancing out the spin that I'm reading in places like CNN and the BBC. As soon as the headline "Russian military invades..." hits the airwaves, people lose their **** and once emotions take hold people are no longer rational.

Yes, it's possible that Russia will use this as an opportunity to install a puppet back into Kiev. Everyone knows that already. I'm hoping they won't, but it's a realistic possibility. Russia could do that without invading though, as could the CIA and MI5, but having a physical presence ensures that Russia will have greater control over the security situation. Russia saw the gong show in Egypt and Syria. It's not going to let the Ukraine become the next casualty in the western bloc's intervention politics. I believe that, combined with securing an economic partner and treaty obligations, is why Russia is there right now.

What I foresee is that Russia will somehow claim that the Kiev provisional government has lost control of the situation, its assets are in danger, and half of pro-Russian Ukraine (mainly the east) will be leveraged via propaganda to re-take Kiev and install a pro-Russian government. NATO will sit by and twiddle its thumbs, making idle threats, because no one wants to poke this sleeping tiger, not over something like the Ukraine. The EU won't do anything because they don't jump until the U.S. jumps, and the U.S. won't jump because it's already stretched to thin and the risk of protracted conflict with Russia is not an option right now. Putin knows it. I just think it's really sad that the protesters achieved such a great victory in deposing the former leadership only to have a much greater power come in and sweep that all away.

I'm not pro-anything. I'm into politics and studying situations as they unfold. Keep your snarky, personal attacks to yourself.

It isn't oversimplified. It is a fact that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Also fact is that Crimea is part of Ukraine. Russia has no right to militarily intervene just because it doesn't like the new government in Kiev. It does have a right to secure its military assets. I'm unaware that seizing an airport (2 of them from what I've seen), surrounding Ukrainian boarder guard stations, and deploying warships in the black sea are legitimate moves to secure military assets. Assertions to the contrary are based on pro-Russian rhetoric, which you seem to have bought in to. That is not a personal attack (don't be so sensitive), that appears to be reality because it is your position.

Lastly, it is Crimea and Russia that are escalating the situation. I haven't heard reports of Ukrainian military seizing places in Crimea, I haven't heard of Kiev instituting anti-ethnic Russian legislation against Crimea, I haven't heard of masked armed Ukrainian gunmen taking over a government building in Crimea. These are all things that Crimea and Russia have done. Everyone should take a step back, take a breath, and give the new government a shot before escalating things to the degree they are becoming.
 
Welcome to the world without American leadership, folks.
 
The news out of/about Ukraine have gotten too depressing for me to read.

I am quite tied up in the whole affair. For me, personally, seeing the Ukrainian people win in deposing their corrupt govt was more than just a "hip hip hooray" thing, it touches me on a more personal level as an eastern european. I can heavily, and do heavily relate to every word those protesters spoke when they wanted to end corruption and a govt for them, and a new start. That sentiment is heavily resounding in all former communist countries. heck, even in Poland, which is like, the best former communist country (I'm not counting the eastern germany because that doesn't exist as a separate entity anymore), is still cleansing itself of the filth leftover by communism.

And now it's all going to ****.

So basically russian armed forced will enter Crimea and they'll take it. Maybe they'll enter some of Ukraine's eastern territories. Do a bit of surprise-anschluss because why not.

You can't do anything. Nobody can. You can counter the russian invasion. Not the USA. Not the EU. Nobody. Why? Because it's Russia and you don't want this cold war 2.0 to become a really, really hot war.

So if the russians will want Crimea, they'll take Crimea. if they'll want to take Kharkiv Oblast, Luhasnka Oblast and/or Donestk Oblast... they'll tkae them all. They can take even Zaporishnya which is a very beautiful city and a lot of the East and SE regions which are Russian speaking predominantly...

Russian Parliament approved invasion of Ukraine
UN security council in emergency meeting after Russian parliament approves use of military against Ukraine- live updates | World news | theguardian.com

It's over.

You know, for me, this is quite defeating, spiritually. It reminds me of why the Republic of Moldavia exists and why transnistria exists. If you don't know what those are, google them. It's crushing. Ofc, for me, its' crushing spiritually... for the ukrainians it will be crushing for real.

Are you concerned of what might happen next?

CrimeaGrab-19.jpg
 
Are you in the least concerned of what might happen next?

Yes, I am concerned, but not because of that BS map you posted. that's, you know... crazy talk. Russia isn't going to go rampage. It's going to take Crimea, maybe 2-3 of the eastern Oblasts like Khargiv or Donetsk because those are with majority ethnic russian population who have made mass demonstrations in the streets pro-Russia and they entered public buildings and put up russian flags on top... much like what happened in Crimea.
 
Everyone should take a step back, take a breath, and give the new government a shot before escalating things to the degree they are becoming.

I can respond to the rest of what you said but I think we're just going to talk past each other.

Just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with this point. But it's going to be hard for the provisional government to have a chance while surrounded by so much Russian intervention.
 
Exactly what is your proposal?

I posted this from a friend on another thread.

1) Immediately have the US and the EU confer with Ukraine and tell them to NOT attack the Russian troops in the Crimea. Have them immediately mobilize their forces to their borders and take up positions and prepare and make any further Russian aggression have to come through their prepared positions. Right now the Crimea is lost, and attacking them there will only invite a much larger invasion and the potential loss of all of the Ukraine.

2) The US should immediately start flying C-17s into Kiev (the Ukraine Capitol) loaded with advisors, provisions, trainers, and a a security force for those people. We cannot get enough people there to stop Putin at this point, but we can show him that the price for taking the Ukraine has now gone up and would be too steep for him.

3) Have the NATO and Euopean countries (Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain) do the same thing (Number 2) at other critical points throughout the Ukraine.

4) Immediately move to make the rest of the Ukraine a part of NATO.

5) Hasten the Ukraine's entry into the EU.

Not sure if any of this could or will be done.
 
What you've quoted of the treaty here doesn't indicate that force would be used or that any of the signatories promised to protect the Ukraine...?

-----------------

There's some interesting insight on this thread. Thank to all.


Yep which leaves us some wiggle room in regards how we act on any Russian occupation, but like I said before if we allow Russia to break this treaty and don't act on it where will that leave us in future potential flashpoints and how do we reassure our allies that we will be able to defend them from other agressors? It's a very slippery slope right now and I can't help but think of the 1920'2/30's when the Leauge of Nations allowed Japan and Germany to break numerous treaties which emboldened them down the line.
 
What are our friends the Brits saying about it over there?

Same thing as America! Wagging our finger and telling Russia what naughty boys they are.
 
This is comparable to Hitler and the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia during the 1930's. The German speaking people in Sudetenland and Chamberlain signed off on allowing Hitler to bring the German speaking people of Austria and the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany.

What is happening in the Ukraine is about the Russian speaking people in the Ukrain who want to be Russian not Ukrainian.

Look at my post (#28) in this thread...
 
Back
Top Bottom