• 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 launching invasion

Seems are worst concerns are materializing. Would bring Russia doom in the long run but for now the rest of Ukraine continues to be invaded following Ukrainian Crimea.

This all could have been avoided.
 
So who is Saudi Arabia invading and annexing? Apples to Oranges much?

Saudis are supporting terrorist groups trying to overthrow president Assad.
 
Romney saw this coming....Obama mocked him.
I bet Obama isn't laughing anymore.
 
Not according to international law and the global community, by your standards California and Texas are part of Mexico and Ireland is part of the U.K.. :roll:

Considering the US kicked Mexico's ass and forced them to sign it over, would make that a good argument.
 
I have no love for the House of Saud but they are still the sovereign government within the KOS.



lol these referendums were conducted only after the Russian terrorists turned these cities into armed camps ruled by fear and murder.

As sovereign as Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad!


Similar to what the US has done in Latin America.
 
Putin is attending to Russian interests much as the US/UK attends to theirs.

The U.S. doesn't annex territory in order to attend to its interests.
 
The U.S. doesn't annex territory in order to attend to its interests.

Lower Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California.
 
I think it is important to recognize the need, from a propaganda perspective, for Kiev and D.C. to declare this a "Russian-directed counter-offensive" and claim direct involvement of Russian military units. The reason is simple enough given Obama's comments today where he says the rebellion is not a "homegrown, indigenous uprising" as that is key to shaping the narrative. Most independent evidence strongly suggests significant representation of locals among the rebels. Natch, there are foreign volunteers in the mix as well, but except for a brief period for a few weeks, the leadership has consisted of people who are native to Ukraine and from the beginning most fighters have been locals. For the West and Kiev, it is important to de-legtimize the rebels by claiming they are just Russian soldiers pretending to be locals.

Another key part of this narrative of a Russian invasion is the narrative Kiev has been pushing for the past few weeks. They have been insisting constantly that they were crushing the rebels and were going to take everything back. Some significant defeats were effectively denied, such as what happened in the south of Luhansk where Kiev's forces had to pull out with a large contingent even fleeing across the Russian border to escape a rebel encirclement. Despite it having happened weeks ago, their maps repeatedly showed the territory as being under their control. Additionally, in the past week or so there has been evidence of modest gains by the rebels with not even a slight accusation of direct Russian involvement. Before we started hearing these claims of Russian invasion, rebels said they had encircled a very large group of pro-Kiev forces. We now have independent evidence suggesting this was indeed happening.

Everything I just described conflicts strongly with the recurring narrative from Kiev that they were on the cusp of absolute victory. It has to be understood this is at least partly for domestic consumption as there has been a lot of hostility regarding the war. Since security forces from the east and south were routinely defecting to the rebels or just refusing to fight them, Kiev started bringing in people from the west and north who had fewer connections to the region. Part of this involved calling up reserves and introducing the draft. They also started arming far-right and ultranationalist partisan groups to help fill the void. Until that point they were simply unable to do anything about the rebels.

Yet, this strategy also had consequences. They are now dependent on groups like Right Sector and other radicals who have used the threat of pulling out to pressure the government into ignoring their member's deeds elsewhere. Right Sector actually threatened to pulls its troops, march on Kiev, and remove the government nearly two weeks ago because members of their group were being arrested. Kiev buckled immediately and released all Right Sector prisoners. Another problem is that it has stirred up a lot of enmity within the north and west. Relatives and others in the region have been protesting off and on regarding their loved ones being sent to the east. Part of the problem is because forces in the region have been poorly supplied and the military is threadbare. Desertions are relatively common.

Back when there was first talk of a rebel counter-offensive and people were dismissing some of the more radical claims of advances, I did suggest the poor state of the pro-Kiev forces and the opposition back home made a successful counter-offensive a distinct possibility. I have no doubt that many military units, facing a significant counter-offensive of any kind, would be more prone to a hasty retreat than a determined last stand. Such retreats often leave room for massive advances. See what happened when the rebels fled Slovyansk for an example. A large amount of the territory they were able to gain was due to that singular act.

Does this mean no Russian troops are involved? No. However, I think people should not be quick to believe what they are told by various people who need Russian troops to be involved so they can maintain a certain desirable narrative regarding the conflict.
 
When 70% of Crime is Russian people who speak Russian, it's Russian.

Sorry but by your logic so would certain parts of California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. be a part of Mexico, because certain areas within those states mostly speak Mexican, the assertion is absurd, the Crimea is not Russia in law or in fact, the Crimea was sovereign Ukrainian territory and its annexation was a war crime.

This has been a war of aggression on the part of Russia from the beginning, first with economic warfare in order to prevent the Ukraine's right to self determination which prompted peaceful protests supported by the majority of Ukrainians which resulted in a Russian puppet at the direct behest of Putin, sending in his jack booted thugs to attack and murder the protesters which resulted in his impeachment followed by his treasonous self imposed exile to Russian occupied territory, then what happened next is Russia invaded, occupied, installed an occupation government with Spec Ops holding AKs and rocket launchers in the Crimean parliamentary building during the swearing in of a new Crimean "prime minister" and this was followed by the outright illegal annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory by the Russian Federation through a fraudulent and illegal referendum in which only two options were offered cessation or annexation rather than maintaining the status quo and which did not allow for the majority of Ukrainians to participate, and which violated both the Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions which mandated that all Ukrainians be allowed to participate in any referendum regarding changes of sovereign Ukrainian territory.
 
Considering the US kicked Mexico's ass and forced them to sign it over, would make that a good argument.

The U.S. didn't fire the first shots and this was before the Geneva Conventions prohibition against territorial acquisition through military conquest.
 
The U.S. didn't fire the first shots and this was before the Geneva Conventions prohibition against territorial acquisition through military conquest.

The dispute started when US troops crossed the border, the Rio Neuces and set up a camp. Seen as an intruding force by Mexico, they were attacked by an overwhelming force. The Rio Grande became the border in a treaty many years latter. So it was indeed US provocation that led to the war. But then Polk, campaigned in part on a platform of advancing manifest destiny and the annexation of lands to the pacific coast. And there were many at the time that wanted to push the US border to Mexico City.
 
Old history.

So, the claim was made that the US doesn't annex territory to advance its interests. That wasn't the only time it's been done either.
 
The dispute started when US troops crossed the border, the Rio Neuces and set up a camp. Seen as an intruding force by Mexico, they were attacked by an overwhelming force. The Rio Grande became the border in a treaty many years latter. So it was indeed US provocation that led to the war. But then Polk, campaigned in part on a platform of advancing manifest destiny and the annexation of lands to the pacific coast. And there were many at the time that wanted to push the US border to Mexico City.

Except that it was Mexico that violated the Treaty of Velasaco, Rio Neuces was not the border, the border was the Rio Grande. And once again this was long prior to the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on territorial conquest through military force.
 
Unnecessary US involvement and support for the violent overthrow of the Ukraine government.

Debunked nonsense, the claim that the U.S. funded the protests against Yanukovych is a proven lie despite how much RT and various other Russian State Owned Propaganda mills repeat it:

US Did Not Spend $5 Billion to Destabilize Yanukovich

This has been a war of aggression on the part of Russia from the beginning, first with economic warfare in order to prevent the Ukraine's right to self determination which prompted peaceful protests supported by the majority of Ukrainians which resulted in a Russian puppet at the direct behest of Putin, sending in his jack booted thugs to attack and murder the protesters which resulted in his impeachment followed by his treasonous self imposed exile to Russian occupied territory, then what happened next is Russia invaded, occupied, installed an occupation government with Spec Ops holding AKs and rocket launchers in the Crimean parliamentary building during the swearing in of a new Crimean "prime minister" and this was followed by the outright illegal annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory by the Russian Federation through a fraudulent and illegal referendum in which only two options were offered cessation or annexation rather than maintaining the status quo and which did not allow for the majority of Ukrainians to participate, and which violated both the Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions which mandated that all Ukrainians be allowed to participate in any referendum regarding changes of sovereign Ukrainian territory.
 
It was a gift from Soviet Union. A gift can be taken back. ;)

However you put it it was an Invasion of a foreign country's territory.

Russian support goes so far. Stalling out and the death of 1 million Russian to take western Ukraine would be a line that would lead to "revolution". So there is no point for Putin or Russian Government to push past the Dnieper.

It may be a revolution all the way to Dnieper also.
 
Back
Top Bottom