• 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!

Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

Many of us are quite well educated actually. And many of us don't give a damn about the Ukraine. All we want is to go back to isolation and let the Europeans with their "symbolic" armies solve their own problems...but we also know geopolitics is a bitch and if we don't pretend to be concerned...we might offend the sensitive little hearts of people everywhere. Maybe if we posture like we give a crap...don't do ****...maybe the terrorists will go after Putin and his people like they all did to us after all our CIA bull****. I don't know? Maybe I'm dreaming?

And many of us are concerned about the US keeping it's word. We are treaty bound to defend the Ukraine....and we're violating that.
 
And many of us are concerned about the US keeping it's word. We are treaty bound to defend the Ukraine....and we're violating that.

Uh huh. So tell me. What exactly do you think we are going to do to stop a nation that is also a nuclear power, has a leader who has shown he isn't really concerned with how he is represented (you know former KGB acting like he is...well...KGB), and a nation that is certainly capable of making any hundreds of back door deals to circumvent any BS we pull in terms of "economic sanctions."

Do you know what happened with all the interventionist BS we pulled from the 40s to basically now? Do you know what we got? Diddly squat. It pissed people off. But it didn't matter cause we were out to screw the soviets. Maybe if we took a lesson from that...and said..."we condemn Russia" and make sure they look like the bad guys...this little dust up will solve itself. Like it is going to anyway. We don't have to DO squat. All we have to do, and all we will do, is finger point at Russia.

Treaties like "oh we will protect you" are outdated in a world of nuclear arms. This isn't 1907 Europe with the Triple Entente needing to be signed to counter balance the powerful Triple Alliance...because mass conventional warfare is never going to happen between 2 nuclear capable nations.

The TLDR version (borrowed that from another poster) is that what the hell are we going to do? Fight a war against a nuclear nation? Or just impose worthless economic sanctions?

Ps

Sorry if the whole entente and alliance thing seemed pompous. I have to put my worthless degree to use some time lol.
 
Well, you have illustrated a complete lack of understanding. I'd say that equates to "lost".

Said only because you disagree and promote US propaganda and apologize for US hegemony.
 
And many of us are concerned about the US keeping it's word. We are treaty bound to defend the Ukraine....and we're violating that.

Why do people keep repeating this bull ****. We have no such treaty to protect the Ukraine. But besides that, why would you want to risk war with Russia for a country you couldn't even pick out on a map. Why don't you write a check, then put on a uniform and go defend it.
 
It doesn't hurt my feelings, and as Kerry said: "In America, you have a right to be stupid."

Quoting Kerry! Lmao. Ok so 70% of Americans are stupid. I can live with that.
 
Uh huh. So tell me. What exactly do you think we are going to do to stop a nation that is also a nuclear power, has a leader who has shown he isn't really concerned with how he is represented (you know former KGB acting like he is...well...KGB), and a nation that is certainly capable of making any hundreds of back door deals to circumvent any BS we pull in terms of "economic sanctions."

Do you know what happened with all the interventionist BS we pulled from the 40s to basically now? Do you know what we got? Diddly squat. It pissed people off. But it didn't matter cause we were out to screw the soviets. Maybe if we took a lesson from that...and said..."we condemn Russia" and make sure they look like the bad guys...this little dust up will solve itself. Like it is going to anyway. We don't have to DO squat. All we have to do, and all we will do, is finger point at Russia.

Treaties like "oh we will protect you" are outdated in a world of nuclear arms. This isn't 1907 Europe with the Triple Entente needing to be signed to counter balance the powerful Triple Alliance...because mass conventional warfare is never going to happen between 2 nuclear capable nations.

The TLDR version (borrowed that from another poster) is that what the hell are we going to do? Fight a war against a nuclear nation? Or just impose worthless economic sanctions?

Ps

Sorry if the whole entente and alliance thing seemed pompous. I have to put my worthless degree to use some time lol.

Ask Kennedy, ask Reagan.

Anyways, I suppose you'd have us renege on our alliances?
 
Said only because you disagree and promote US propaganda and apologize for US hegemony.

No, because your analysis of the situation is amatuerish, even childish. And whatever you want to call it, we're treaty bound to defend Ukraine.

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Why do people keep repeating this bull ****. We have no such treaty to protect the Ukraine. But besides that, why would you want to risk war with Russia for a country you couldn't even pick out on a map. Why don't you write a check, then put on a uniform and go defend it.

Yes, we do have...two specifically. One in 1994 as part of the effort to de-nuke them, and as a member of the UN. Again, we're back to your amateurish understanding of the situation.
 
Ask Kennedy, ask Reagan.

Anyways, I suppose you'd have us renege on our alliances?

1) Being out to screw the soviets was a different ball game. We were in a Cold War and everyone knew it. It is hardly that simple now.

2) Our actions DURING the Cold War as interventionist did us no good in the "hearts and minds" arena anyway.

3) Can you please give me a link to this treaty?

4) Would you have us risk war with Russia? Even economic war? Do you seriously think the Ukraine is worth it?

As I stated before...treaties are worthless. If Russia wants to invade the Ukraine with all their conventional forces they will. We won't do anything. Do you know what an ICBM is? That is why. It isn't just about MAD anymore. It also gives a nation the freedom to operate with impunity as long as it isn't invading a nuclear capable nation.
 
1) Being out to screw the soviets was a different ball game. We were in a Cold War and everyone knew it. It is hardly that simple now.

Russia, under Putin, has clearly displayed the same intentions that put as at odds with the Soviet Union. The ball game is no more different than softball is from baseball.

2) Our actions DURING the Cold War as interventionist did us no good in the "hearts and minds" arena anyway.

Not entirely accurate. No good in some, much good in others.

3) Can you please give me a link to this treaty?

Did. A treaty that we, and Russia, are a party too. One which Russia has violated and we have failed to act on.

4) Would you have us risk war with Russia? Even economic war? Do you seriously think the Ukraine is worth it?

Putin is clearly not concerned with the risk of war, and if left un-checked by the supposed world super power, do you really think he'll stop with the Crimea?

As I stated before...treaties are worthless. If Russia wants to invade the Ukraine with all their conventional forces they will. We won't do anything. Do you know what an ICBM is? That is why. It isn't just about MAD anymore. It also gives a nation the freedom to operate with impunity as long as it isn't invading a nuclear capable nation.

Treaties are certainly worthless under this administration, I'll agree to that.
 

Ok so a few things to take into account. First, this is not a treaty, it's a UN Security Council Memorandum in connection with the treaty. It's not part of the treaty.

General Assembly said:
Upon instructions from our Governments, we have the honour to transmit herewith the text of the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed on 5 December 1994 by the Presidents of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (annex I), and the text of the Joint Declaration issued on 5 December 1994 by the leaders of our States (annex II)


Actual UN Document Link


The only place the memorandum states the US is bound to defend the Ukraine is at the UN.

General Assembly said:
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

In that, I agree we have not upheld the spirit of that memorandum, and should as one of the UN Security Council's main members, petition the UN for assistance to Ukraine once they have been "a victim of an act of aggression..."
 
Ok so a few things to take into account. First, this is not a treaty, it's a UN Security Council Memorandum in connection with the treaty. It's not part of the treaty.

It's an agreement between nations in which we pledged certain actions. Whether that is a "treaty" or not is irrlevant. The end result of this "other than a treaty" was that the Ukraine upheld it's end of the bargain and disarmed the worlds third largest (at the time) nuclear weapons stockpile.


Actual UN Document Link


The only place the memorandum states the US is bound to defend the Ukraine is at the UN.



In that, I agree we have not upheld the spirit of that memorandum, and should as one of the UN Security Council's main members, petition the UN for assistance to Ukraine once they have been "a victim of an act of aggression..."

How many places, and times, need it be stated? :shrug:

And by the way, violation of territory, in keeping with the terms of memorandum, is all that is necessary. They need not be "a victim of an act of aggression".
 
It's an agreement between nations in which we pledged certain actions. Whether that is a "treaty" or not is irrlevant. The end result of this "other than a treaty" was that the Ukraine upheld it's end of the bargain and disarmed the worlds third largest (at the time) nuclear weapons stockpile.
You yourself identified by saying "We are treaty bound to defend the Ukraine" - that's false, so it is relevant to the prior statement you made. It is an agreement and a pledge... but we're not duty bound to an agreement or a pledge, at least not duty bound by international law or US Law. The Ukraine did in good faith uphold their end of the bargain that is true. However, the agreement and the pledge through the UN Security Council specifically states the nature of action and when that action should take place.

At this point, the Ukraine has not IMO, "become a victim of an act of aggression". I would hope the US does fulfill our pledge if / when that occurs.


How many places, and times, need it be stated? :shrug:
It only needs to be stated once but accurately. The agreement made was not part of a treaty, it does not specify US involvement beyond UN Security Council petitions for aid, and should not occur until the Ukraine is a victim of aggression.
 
You yourself identified by saying "We are treaty bound to defend the Ukraine" - that's false, so it is relevant to the prior statement you made. It is an agreement and a pledge... but we're not duty bound to an agreement or a pledge, at least not duty bound by international law or US Law. The Ukraine did in good faith uphold their end of the bargain that is true. However, the agreement and the pledge through the UN Security Council specifically states the nature of action and when that action should take place.

Perhaps an overstatement, but nevertheless I feel we are obliged to fulfill our agreements.

At this point, the Ukraine has not IMO, "become a victim of an act of aggression". I would hope the US does fulfill our pledge if / when that occurs.

Again, in keeping with the Memorandum, this is not required. Russia has clearly violated Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, and this is all that is necessary under the agreement.

It only needs to be stated once but accurately. The agreement made was not part of a treaty, it does not specify US involvement beyond UN Security Council petitions for aid, and should not occur until the Ukraine is a victim of aggression.

The Ukraine has been invaded...that's enough. Further, beyond the Budapest memorandum, Ukraine is a UN member nation, and this constitutes the first instance of a UN member nation invading another UN member nation. Both democracies. Allowing this to go unchecked will not only completely eliminate the credibility of the US and the UN it will embolden Putin to continue his expansion.
 
Perhaps an overstatement, but nevertheless I feel we are obliged to fulfill our agreements.
Agreed.

Again, in keeping with the Memorandum, this is not required. Russia has clearly violated Ukraine's territorial sovereignty, and this is all that is necessary under the agreement.
It's not so black and white as Crimea requested Russian forces. Putin created that loophole I'm sure.

The Ukraine has been invaded...that's enough. Further, beyond the Budapest memorandum, Ukraine is a UN member nation, and this constitutes the first instance of a UN member nation invading another UN member nation. Both democracies. Allowing this to go unchecked will not only completely eliminate the credibility of the US and the UN it will embolden Putin to continue his expansion.

I tend to agree, though again Crimea's invitation gives argument to the claim of invasion. I'm wondering why the State Dept. and WH aren't petitioning the UN per the agreement, or maybe they are waiting for a clearer aggression into Ukraine itself. I'm sure they are fully aware of the agreement - or perhaps they don't see the UN Security Council as an option since Russia is also part of the agreement and are the one's doing the aggression.
 
Agreed.

It's not so black and white as Crimea requested Russian forces. Putin created that loophole I'm sure.

Crimea did not have the authority under it's constitution to do so, nor did Crimea as a whole do so.

I tend to agree, though again Crimea's invitation gives argument to the claim of invasion. I'm wondering why the State Dept. and WH aren't petitioning the UN per the agreement, or maybe they are waiting for a clearer aggression into Ukraine itself. I'm sure they are fully aware of the agreement - or perhaps they don't see the UN Security Council as an option since Russia is also part of the agreement and are the one's doing the aggression.

Again, Crimea asking for Russian assistance is no different than Texas asking for Mexican assistance. It simply did not have the constitutional authority to make such a request.
 
Crimea did not have the authority under it's constitution to do so, nor did Crimea as a whole do so.



Again, Crimea asking for Russian assistance is no different than Texas asking for Mexican assistance. It simply did not have the constitutional authority to make such a request.

They may not have had the authority but they did it anyway and it worked to the Russian's advantage.
 
They may not have had the authority but they did it anyway and it worked to the Russian's advantage.

It worked in the sense that they are there...not in the sense that they have a legitimate excuse.
 
Crimea did not have the authority under it's constitution to do so, nor did Crimea as a whole do so.


The Ukrainian Constitution was abolished by the terrorists.

The Constitutional Court of the Ukraine was also dismissed by these terrorists who threatened the judges.

If the Ukrainian Constitution was still in force, then the terrorists would have been arrested and persecuted, but this was not the case.

The terrorists were the one who abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, and now the old constitutional order does not exist any more, and the Russian population of the Russian Crimean peninsula (that was sold to the Soviet Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev) does not have to stick to any constitution.

If the terrorists have already violated the existing constitution, how on earth can the others stick to this constitution?

Are you kidding?

:D


Again, Crimea asking for Russian assistance is no different than Texas asking for Mexican assistance. It simply did not have the constitutional authority to make such a request.


Well, American constitution still exists, there was no Putsch in the USA yet, was there?

What would Obama do if armed terrorists overthrew the constitutional order in the USA?

The answer is obvious.

If some armed terrorists abolished the constitutional order in the USA, and then China, India and Russia recognised the terrorists as representatives of the USA, then the vote of the population of Texas would be perfectly acceptable and understandable.

:D

BTW, that happened in Kosovo, nobody cared about the constitution of Serbia or Yugoslavia any more.

And the USA supported this process.

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

The hypocrisy of American elite is tooooooo right in your face, only fools and liars can deny that.

:D
 
Last edited:
The thing to remember in international relations is that there is no higher authority than the nation state. If make and I make a legally binding agreement and one of us doesn't follow through on their end, there exists the room for legal recourse to be exercised. A judgement would be made and it would be likely be financial reparation enforced under the threat of imprisonment. That threat of imprisonment is itself enforced via the legalization of violence that states, in our modern system, have a monopoly on: if you refuse to be pay, you'll be imprisoned; if you refuse to be imprisoned, we'll forcibly imprison you and continue to escalate the violence until that's accomplished. That's how a nation-state is hierarchical in nature.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, none of that exists in the international system. There's no legalization of violence because there is no power large enough to be the arbiter of what's legal and what's not (the UN isn't even close to being there and probably will never). You can take your "case" to the UN, but it's up to the member states if they want to enforce what the UN finds, and the UN might- because of political considerations- not "find" anything, anyway. So treaties, agreements, memorandums, etc...they're only "good" if they're encompassing the spirit of what they meant anyway. What other good could one possibly have? There's no judge to take the treaty before and administer some sort of "justice" regarding anyway.

This isn't to say the US should become involved. Nor is it to say the US should do absolutely nothing (already beyond that point anyway). Only to say that if you're not going to honor the spirit of an agreement, you may as well be violating it in letter, because there's nothing else (in the international realm, mind you, I understand there are legal considerations internal to nations) to look at anyway.

So if many of you on different sides are agreeing that the spirit of the agreement was broached...there's no point in arguing about the letter. The West needs to privately convince Ukraine (yes, that means the posters of debatepolitics- experts in international relations, all- won't know about it and will argue ad nauseum in ignorance of it) that while fighting a war over Crimea is not in the best interests of the West, it's definitely not in the best interests of Ukraine, which would become a smoldering wasteland. Meanwhile it needs to continue to hold a firm line with Russia so that when it does eventually secure some more codified hold on Crimea it can look like a sufficient victory of sorts in their eyes.

Since it's so reminiscent of the Cold War, something along the lines of secretly removing the missiles from Turkey in exchange for removing the missiles in Cuba. A quid pro quo that was kept secret for some time.
 
The Ukrainian Constitution was abolished by the terrorists.

The Constitutional Court of the Ukraine was also dismissed by these terrorists who threatened the judges.

If the Ukrainian Constitution was still in force, then the terrorists would have been arrested and persecuted, but this was not the case.

The terrorists were the one who abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, and now the old constitutional order does not exist any more, and the Russian population of the Russian Crimean peninsula (that was sold to the Soviet Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev) does not have to stick to any constitution.

If the terrorists have already violated the existing constitution, how on earth can the others stick to this constitution?

Are you kidding?

:D





Well, American constitution still exists, there was no Putsch in the USA yet, was there?

What would Obama do if armed terrorists overthrew the constitutional order in the USA?

The answer is obvious.

If some armed terrorists abolished the constitutional order in the USA, and then China, India and Russia recognised the terrorists as representatives of the USA, then the vote of the population of Texas would be perfectly acceptable and understandable.

:D

BTW, that happened in Kosovo, nobody cared about the constitution of Serbia or Yugoslavia any more.

And the USA supported this process.

You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

The hypocrisy of American elite is tooooooo right in your face, only fools and liars can deny that.

:D

I'm sorry....are you being serious, here?
 
Back
Top Bottom