• 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!

Putin: West wants to put Russian bear 'on a chain'

Fallenangel said:
Sometimes I think that you really have absolute no relation to Russia or Ukraine whatsoever, as your knowledge of these countries history, interests, and motivation is simply nonexistent.
Click to expand...
I oftentimes think likewise. You have a vague knowledge of Ukraine, but that's about all.
 
Simpleχity;1064116660 said:
I oftentimes think likewise. You have a vague knowledge of Ukraine, but that's about all.
Click to expand...

Really, I wonder based on which information you came to that conclusion.

I can list a few of yours just off the top of my head... lets see:
Gruz 200 (twice)
Televizor
Vasilieva
Tank "recognition" pic
... do I need to continue?

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
b. Putin (according to what I know) never had plans to turn Ukraine into Russian "protectorate" (whatever this means in your context). This asinine "understanding" of the conflict is unfortunately shared by multiple so-called experts in the West, which in turn promote it to the levels gov. and the general population.
Click to expand...

Giving a foreign nation (in this case, Russia) veto power over: Defense decisions, decisions involving international relations, and decisions involving foreign trade means becoming a protectorate of that nation.

Please note "protectorate" does not always equal Stalin or Nazi styled repression. In the case of Putin's plans for Ukraine, most of the Ukrainians would barely know day by day that they were Russian protectorate. Ukrainian flags would fly, national laws be passed by the national assembly, and the existing Russian style klepto capitalism would continue. So long as the Russian veto on foreign policy was not challenged, things would exist as before.

The maidan coup was probably not a good idea as no coup against a democratically elected government, no matter how corrupt is. On the other hand, maidan, no maidan, or an Iron Maiden concert, the first time a Ukrainian president:

A Took a course of action in those areas that Putin did not like and
B. Defied Putin's veto of that decision,

The same mix of mysterious "Little Green Men", local malcontents (some of whom may have legitiamte concerns), Russian volunteers, mercenaries and "vacationing" paratroopers was going to appear in eastern Ukraine and move steadily westward.
 
Cryptic said:
Giving a foreign nation (in this case, Russia) veto power over: Defense decisions, decisions involving international relations, and decisions involving foreign trade means becoming a protectorate of that nation.

Please note "protectorate" does not always equal Stalin or Nazi styled repression. In the case of Putin's plans for Ukraine, most of the Ukrainians would barely know day by day that they were Russian protectorate. Ukrainian flags would fly, national laws be passed by the national assembly, and the existing Russian style klepto capitalism would continue. So long as the Russian veto on foreign policy was not challenged, things would exist as before.
Click to expand...

The situation you described is a natural state of affairs where more powerful nations, if needed influence the actions of smaller nations according to their own interests. The thing is that you then go on and inject things like "Russian style klepto capitalism, etc." failing to realize that Ukraine already had that system since the collapse of the Soviet Union, long before Putin, Yanukovich or Poroshenko actually came to power.

Russia made a crucial mistake over the past few decades - the mistake was to treat Ukraine as granted, believing that Ukraine would always remain in its sphere of influence simply because of a shared history, culture and economy. Due to the sheer incompetence of Russian officials which have missed the so-called "Ukrainization" that has been going on in the past few decades, Russia started to lose its influence in Ukraine and hence its interests got under direct threat.

Cryptic said:
The maidan coup was probably not a good idea as no coup against a democratically elected government, no matter how corrupt is. On the other hand, maidan, no maidan, or an Iron Maiden concert, the first time a Ukrainian president:

A Took a course of action in those areas that Putin did not like and
B. Defied Putin's veto of that decision,
Click to expand...
What Putin's veto?

Cryptic said:
The same mix of mysterious "Little Green Men", local malcontents (some of whom may have legitiamte concerns), Russian volunteers, mercenaries and "vacationing" paratroopers was going to appear in eastern Ukraine and move steadily westward.
Click to expand...
Here you again produce something that has absolutely no connection with reality or the chronology of the events in Eastern Ukraine.

Once Crimea was secured, "official Russia" hesitated on whether to support the anti-Kiev uprising in Eastern Ukraine and to what extent, it took a long time until Russia actually acted in a decisive manner. In August it got clear that unless Russia is going to intervene directly the anti-Kiev fighters would be defeated by Ukrainian ATO forces.

This understanding hastened the change in anti-Kiev fighters' command structure where people like Strelkov were gradually replaced by ones that can cooperate with Russia's political elites. Increased "Voentorg" supplies and what is known in Russia as the "Northern Wind" started flowing into Donbas, this lead to the appearance of BTR-82A, T-72B3...etc and their operators.
In a set of offensive maneuvers that no one anticipated in the West/Ukraine, Ukrainian forces were crushed on some key directions, yet despite the pleads of anti-Kiev commanders "Northern Wind" stopped blowing, and the offensive stopped.

If Russia wanted to get to get to Harkov, Dnepropetrovsk or even Kiev it would've done that by now, and unless something is going to change on the ground nobody is going to attempt that in the near future.


Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Fallenangel said:
If Russia wanted to get to get to Harkov, Dnepropetrovsk or even Kiev it would've done that by now, and unless something is going to change on the ground nobody is going to attempt that in the near future.
Click to expand...
Russia can't afford harsher sanctions nor can Russia afford to occupy and financially subsidize additional regions of Ukraine.

Putin has already obtained his core objectives... the annexation Crimea and a "frozen conflict" in the east to obstruct any petition of Ukraine to join the NATO alliance.
 
Simpleχity;1064126873 said:
Russia can't afford harsher sanctions nor can Russia afford to occupy and financially subsidize additional regions of Ukraine.

Putin has already obtained his core objectives... the annexation Crimea and a "frozen conflict" in the east to obstruct any petition of Ukraine to join the NATO alliance.
Click to expand...

All true... and how it has any connection with Russia not wanting to get Donbas (or anything else) in August/September or even earlier despite being able to do so?

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
All true... and how it has any connection with Russia not wanting to get Donbas (or anything else) in August/September or even earlier despite being able to do so?
Click to expand...
Unlike Crimea, Putin never wanted to annex Donbas. All he requires there is a territorial dispute which can be either internal or external to obstruct NATO membership.

Study on NATO Enlargement

6. States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.
Click to expand...
 
Simpleχity;1064126984 said:
Unlike Crimea, Putin never wanted to annex Donbas. All he requires there is a territorial dispute which can be either internal or external to obstruct NATO membership.
Click to expand...

Yeah...one problem is that these pieces of paper are simply what they are, pieces of paper. If NATO would want Ukraine in, it would get it in.

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
Yeah...one problem is that these pieces of paper are simply what they are, pieces of paper. If NATO would want Ukraine in, it would get it in.
Click to expand...
They tend to adhere to the policy. Despite joining the NATO Membership Action Plan in 1999, Macedonia has been denied entry until a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia" is resolved.
 
Simpleχity;1064126998 said:
They tend to adhere to the policy. Despite joining the NATO Membership Action Plan in 1999, Macedonia has been denied entry until a dispute with Greece over the name "Macedonia" is resolved.
Click to expand...

Everyone tends to adhere to a policy as long as it suits ones needs, but things change.
Both NATO countries and Russia would act to protect their interests and influence, does this mean that Ukraine would be granted a NATO membership tomorrow? No it doesn't.

Fallen.
 
Besides the "frozen conflict" conundrum, Ukraine is far from meeting NATO membership requirements.

Possible future membership merely serves as a potential bargaining chip at this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom