• 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!

U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan' [W:479]

Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

I know the history of Guantanamo and it changes nothing, the twisted logic used by those who support Putin`s aggresion could easily be applied to the USA invading and annexing Cuba, there is no difference.

Cuba WAS forced during an occupation to "lease" Gitmo, period. I am not twisting logic here. What was good for the goose should be good for the gander, right? If not.. US should be closing a **** ton of bases overseas. You know bases in countries the US fights some war. You know the bases in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany.. US never annexes land my ass.

Btw, don't confuse understanding a position with support of an action. I understand why Russia needed to annex Crimea. Just as I understand why EU and NATO need to keep enlarging. I find both actions to be deplorable but again I find both sides to be a bunch of ass hats who want to stay in control in the 21st century instead of letting their "empires" decline or want to unseat the old guard just as the US kicked the UK of it's perch a little under a century ago.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Two wrongs do not make a right!
How far do we stop going back in deciding national borders? 1945? 1939? 1918? 1914? those would be good times for Europe how about 117 AD when half of Europe was part of the Roman empire?
As to Russian intrerests the Black sea fleet was never in any danger but if national intersets are all that count, your previous post about Guantanamo which was very weak and off point just got destroyed by this post.
You cant argue 2 sides at the same time and expect anyone except Kool-ade drinkers to take you seriously.

And I am not justifying any thing. All I am saying is if the position of the west is Ukraine is off limits to Russia, then the West should stop sticking it's hands in other countries as well. Can't preach Ukraine has a right, then muck about in some other nation like NATO countries and the West as a whole has been doing since Colonialism.

Well considering EU borders are pretty much (minus the expansion into what is now the old Warsaw Pact countries) are pretty much the same as the were during the Holy Roman Empire, I'd call that already done.

Really? So where did you destroy the US's own claim that Gitmo is in it's National Interests? Gitmo has been used by the US Government to dump people at so the American public doesn't ask too many questions.. be it Cuban and Haitian refugees, those refugees and asylum seekers who had/have HIV were put together at Camp Bulkeley and for over a decade after US courts ruled it illegal and hen you know Camp Delta. Reality is Gitmo for US Government is that legal gray area people love... since the US don't consider it "US soil" and not subject to the courts oversight the issues quickly died after some fake promises.

So can you guarantee Ukraine was gonna honor the 2042 lease date to Russia? No you can't. Hence Russia's position.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

But the Ukraine wasn't joining NATO but the EU trading group as has been explained multiple times

You are absolutely in denial of actual events. Ukraine already SOUGHT NATO membership once before and their app is still officially on file with NATO. All it takes is a NATO vote.

You do realize Ukraine did seek membership after the Orange Revolution, right?
That it was Germany and France that nixed it but the US, UK and Poland were gung ho over it. That even NATO Sec General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.. "Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members"

That membership wasn't taken off board but rather postpone..

I seriously doubt that EU membership would have had any effect whatsoever on the Status of Russias Black Sea base. As the earlier linked Kharkiv accords illustrated she had the lease till at least 2042 and beyond

You deal realize only 5 countries in the EU are not NATO members right? Of which 4 of them are neutral countries. They are Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland. In the Euromaidan Revolution Ukraine threw neutrality out the window. There was no way for Ukraine to move towards the EU with out NATO membership. To think otherwise is playing chess blindfolded.

This is a load of conspiracy theory baloney that bears little relation fact

Ah, yes it's some grand conspiracy to think Ukraine moving towards the EU and future membership wouldn't include NATO membership which they already have applied for and hasn't been rejected but postponed. Go stuff your face with some tea and biscuits.. Uncle Sam is always there protect you.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

So can you guarantee Ukraine was gonna honor the 2042 lease date to Russia? No you can't. Hence Russia's position.

It already guaranteed it since 1997 without quibble when Russia was in a far weaker position militarily than today to respond to any default

Under Putin Russia has more than quadrupled its defence spending since 2000. Given that Russia now spends three times the EU average of its GDP on defence, who is the one now doing all the threatening ?

NATO is a paper tiger due to its greatly reduced defence infrastructure over the years and I'm sure Putin is well aware of that fact. Thats what really scares me because any future conflict would have to go nuclear sooner rather than later due to the great disparity in conventional forces :(
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

You are absolutely in denial of actual events

On the contrary I've updated you on events. NATO membership was a long way off if ever for Ukraine

That it was Germany and France that nixed it but the US, UK and Poland were gung ho over it. That even NATO Sec General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.. "Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members"

You do understand I hope that all members would have to agree to Ukraines membership in order for it to happen. It doesn't matter what one or two members would like to see happen. That agreement was going to be impossible due to article 5 of the NATO charter

You deal realize only 5 countries in the EU are not NATO members right? Of which 4 of them are neutral countries.

NATO is a paper tiger thats in great danger of being burnt should the US renege on its future committment to it which I view as highly possible

In the Euromaidan Revolution Ukraine threw neutrality out the window. There was no way for Ukraine to move towards the EU with out NATO membership. To think otherwise is playing chess blindfolded.

Absolute nonsense . The EU and NATO are not inextricably linked in any way shape or form

Ah, yes it's some grand conspiracy to think Ukraine moving towards the EU and future membership wouldn't include NATO membership which they already have applied for and hasn't been rejected but postponed. Go stuff your face with some tea and biscuits.. Uncle Sam is always there protect you.

I think naked aggression should be faced down and appeasement of it avoided at all costs. I make no apologies for that stand based on historical precedent.

Ultimately what about what Ukraine wants or doesn't that count ? :(
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Really ? This is part of the EUCOM Humanitarian assistance programme and involves all arms of the federal government

Past projects have included:

Flood relief in Poland, Serbia, Albania and Moldova
Water pumps in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Romania
44 school renovations
28 hospital/clinic renovations and equipment upgrades
33 emergency services/water related upgrades

Oh, look at the countries listed.. Romania, Poland, and Albania are NATO countries. Moldova, Serbia and Bosnia are all members of the Individual Partnership Action Plan which is the first step in joining NATO. Only one of those 3 that seem less likely to join is Serbia but that can change.

I said from the start, US military budget spending isn't done from the "goodness" of it's heart. These spending programs are always the first step in getting them NATO ready.




But Ukraine wasn't just about to do that and had abandoned all pretense of joining in 2010 and 2 years after your long redundant article. Putin certainly knew this too so you can't somehow use it as an excuse for Russian aggression today. Perhaps you should get yourself up to date

Ukraine drops 'unrealistic' plans for Nato membership | World news | The Guardian

Under Yanukovych they passed non-aligned position in the Rada.. They were already approved for membership at the 2008 Bucharest summit but not at that time. Basically, you're in.. but you gotta wait a few more years. Yanukovych was elected and that changed the time line NATO was shooting for..




And with hindsight its a great pity for them that they didn't because 5000+ Ukrainians would still be alive today

Not really, Russia would have done it in 2008 like they did in Georgia. ;)
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

These arm chair politicians have a better understanding then the senior fellow at the CFR. They're not going to have it. They are however going to continue to spit and sputter over Putin's response to the West in Ukraine, because, it's obvious, this should have been anticipated, and the WH failed to properly read the Russian mood on NATO expansion. Oh, and one more thing, they deny that it even was an attempt at NATO expansion.
:attn1:
I've articulated it ad nauseam, you just fancy your opinion to it, so no, no more repetition. I'll leave you with your consternation and bewilderment at the brazenness of Putin to look after his countries interests.
Obviously they are not arguing about the truth or the "FACTS" because the truth and the facts are against them.

They are just trying to win win win, and to feed their egos about American superiority, and they can not face up to their very real shame.

Link = John McCain: ‘I’m Ashamed Of My Country, I’m Ashamed Of My President, I’m Ashamed Of Myself’.

So we are arguing against emotional immaturity which can never admit when they are wrong.

Our USA and Europe are protected from our own stupidity because Russia and President Putin are acting like the mature adults standing against the stoiled children of the USA.


============================================


Russian tanks and troops currently occupy the Eastern Ukraine.

In exchange for giving up nuclear arms the US promised the Ukraine that it would help protect the Ukraine's sovereignty. The Ukranian government is angry that the US hasn't done more.
So calculate that as being two (2) idiots, the USA as idiot number 1 and the Ukraine as idiot number 2.

1) The USA made promises which it can not deliver.

2) The Ukraine is expecting things which it will never get.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

54.7 times .90 times .60 equals 29%. Fudge for the missing voters and you'll come up with 18%

I know of a lot of transformations for numbers (e.g., add, multiple, etc.), but "fudge" is a new one for me. Regardless, your math is wrong even in theory.

You don't have to "fudge" anything because by multiplying by .91 you actually have already accounted for the missing voters in the parts of the country unable to vote. Therefore, that ~29.8% would represent the percent of people in the country who physically and literally voted for Poroshenko.

Now, let me try my hand at this "fudge" thing.

.39 (the conservative estimate of the percent of non-voters in areas of the country able to vote)
x
.91 (the percent of the country in areas able to vote)
x
.547 (the percent of voters who voted for Poro)
=
.194 = 19.4% (assuming an equal variance in voting preferences between voters and non-voters in areas able to vote, this is the additional percent of people who would vote for Poro)

.09 (% of people in areas unable to vote)
x
.547 (% of voters who voted for Poro)
=
.049 (estimate of the % of population in the areas unable to vote who would have voted for Poro)

Therefore:

19.4% (estimate of the percent of people who would vote for Poro in areas able to vote that didn't)
+
4.9% (estimate of the percent of population in the areas unable to vote who probably would have voted for Poro)
+
29.8% (actual percent of population who physically and literally voted for Poro)
=
54.1% (this number estimates the percent of the population of the entire country that would have voted for Poro had they 100% voter participation.)

Is this what you mean when you say "fudge?"
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Oh, look at the countries listed.. Romania, Poland, and Albania are NATO countries. Moldova, Serbia and Bosnia are all members of the Individual Partnership Action Plan which is the first step in joining NATO. Only one of those 3 that seem less likely to join is Serbia but that can change.

I said from the start, US military budget spending isn't done from the "goodness" of it's heart. These spending programs are always the first step in getting them NATO ready.

You condemn aid programmes yet would appease armed aggressors. You couldn't make this stuff up ! :shock:

Under Yanukovych they passed non-aligned position in the Rada.. They were already approved for membership at the 2008 Bucharest summit but not at that time. Basically, you're in.. but you gotta wait a few more years. Yanukovych was elected and that changed the time line NATO was shooting for..

There was never any chance for Ukrainian membership. Too many NATO members would have denied it

Not really, Russia would have done it in 2008 like they did in Georgia. ;)
I think you really need to sort out your moral compass here :(
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

It already guaranteed it since 1997 without quibble when Russia was in a far weaker position militarily than today to respond to any default

No, nothing was guaranteed. The first agreement was until 2017ish. Then the Kharkiv Pact went until 2042 and that was signed under Yanukovych and that pact barely passed. If Russia gave Ukraine's new government enough time to vote on it.. it would have ended the deal. To think other wise is foolish.

Under Putin Russia has more than quadrupled its defence spending since 2000. Given that Russia now spends three times the EU average of its GDP on defence, who is the one now doing all the threatening ?

Huh? Russia spends about $100b on defense. UK, Germany, France combined (just 3 EU countries) spend $160 billion. Russia has lower GDP then EU so it's $100 billion is a bigger % of GDP. But EU's 1.5% spending is almost double what Russia spends. Measuring GDP ratios one has to account for size of economy. EU's economy is $17 trillion. Russia's $4 trillion.

NATO is a paper tiger due to its greatly reduced defence infrastructure over the years and I'm sure Putin is well aware of that fact. Thats what really scares me because any future conflict would have to go nuclear sooner rather than later due to the great disparity in conventional forces :(

LOL, this has to be a joke. US does the work for NATO. US spending is in the $600 billion plus range per year.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

No, nothing was guaranteed. The first agreement was until 2017ish. Then the Kharkiv Pact went until 2042 and that was signed under Yanukovych and that pact barely passed. If Russia gave Ukraine's new government enough time to vote on it.. it would have ended the deal. To think other wise is foolish.

The Ukraine did nothing to warrant this attack .Why bother making agreements at all then if you were going to use armed force all along. Let me draw your attention to another agreement Russia reneged upon.

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So much for Russian guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty and integrity after handing Russia back its nukes in 1994. And one also has to say so much for US assurances to it in wake of what has happened

Huh? Russia spends about $100b on defense. UK, Germany, France combined (just 3 EU countries) spend $160 billion. Russia has lower GDP then EU so it's $100 billion is a bigger % of GDP. But EU's 1.5% spending is almost double what Russia spends. Measuring GDP ratios one has to account for size of economy. EU's economy is $17 trillion. Russia's $4 trillion.

The EUs defence spending is but a fraction of what it was 25 years ago. Militarily it would be hard pushed to defend itself much less threaten hostilities. UK is one of the highest spenders yet military personnel numbers are the lowest seen in over 100 years. Wheres the threat ?

Military-numbers.gif

Why then has Russias quadrupled since just 2000 ?
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

You condemn aid programmes yet would appease armed aggressors. You couldn't make this stuff up ! :shock:

No, I only point out the fact you know nothing about how aid programs are done by the US. They aren't charity out of the goodness of the heart and never will be when it comes from Government. It's called the carrot and stick approach.

And I never said anything about appeasing anybody. That's only for the English chaps.

There was never any chance for Ukrainian membership. Too many NATO members would have denied it

They all approved of it..just to delay it for a bit. You should read section 23. Or to help you out..

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.


I think you really need to sort out your moral compass here :(

My moral compass is just fine. I am just stating a reality you are avoiding.. Ukraine joining in 2008, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 or whenever would have resulted in the same thing.. Russia taking over Crimea as Crimea means the world to Russia and has since Catherine the Great.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

On the contrary I've updated you on events. NATO membership was a long way off if ever for Ukraine

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.


From Bucharest Summit 2008.


Sorry, you can't update me.. when you ignore NATO's own joint statement on the issue.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

My moral compass is just fine. I am just stating a reality you are avoiding.. Ukraine joining in 2008, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 or whenever would have resulted in the same thing.. Russia taking over Crimea as Crimea means the world to Russia and has since Catherine the Great.

No it wouldn't. As no agreement including all member states would ever have been reached, especially I suspect with France and Germany.

Again though what about what Ukraine wants ?
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.




From Bucharest Summit 2008.


Sorry, you can't update me.. when you ignore NATO's own joint statement on the issue.

Do you think repetition of a long defunct statement will somehow make it still valid ? I've already responded to this. The UK France and Germany rejected admission in 2008 and Ukraine withdrew from any further participation in this two years later yet you are still trying to use it to excuse Russian aggression today

As far as current US forces in Europe are concerned

Years of prior cuts and reshufflings have left the Army with about 28,000 soldiers stationed in Europe concentrated in seven major garrisons. At its Cold War height, the service had some 213,000 soldiers assigned to more than 850 garrisons, according to U.S. European Command.

So again where is this threat to Russia ?

http://www.stripes.com/news/already-lean-army-sees-few-cuts-in-last-europe-drawdown-1.323124
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

The Ukraine did nothing to warrant this attack .Why bother making agreements at all then if you were going to use armed force all along. Let me draw your attention to another agreement Russia reneged upon.

Euromaidan overthrew a democratically elected Government.



So much for Russian guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty and integrity after handing Russia back its nukes in 1994. And one also has to say so much for US assurances to it in wake of what has happened

Memorandums aren't treaties, it's a note of record (political agreement), and that is all. EU even defines a political agreement expressed in principle, not as binding until vote. US could have pushed for a treaty and didn't because it wouldn't have passed the US Senate and US never gives explicit help (military) to anybody outside of NATO. That's what the word assurances are used and not guarantee.


The EUs defence spending is but a fraction of what it was 25 years ago. Militarily it would be hard pushed to defend itself much less threaten hostilities. UK is one of the highest spenders yet military personnel numbers are the lowest seen in over 100 years. Wheres the threat ?

In 100 years? Pretty sure WW2 was less then 100 years ago.

Cause the mechanism in which the UK's military is used? Western militaries have moved more and more away from "traditional" combat to asymmetric warfare and dynamic warfare where smaller is better in theory. For example.. today with the use of an Air Force that didn't really exist in WW2, the outcome of a battle can be decided with a squad size force. A battalion can do what it would take a division to do in WW2 with a few Apaches.

Welcome to modernized forces.


Why then has Russias quadrupled since just 2000 ?

Because Russia is going through a modernization process? From 1991-1997 Russian spending fell by 8 fold and it's equipment became outdated and broken down. It's launched two programs to reequip it's military and modernize it. The programs started in 2007 and 2011 and will end in 2020. New tank such Armata and increase use of BMD-4 as part of that. Russia is reducing the size of it's personal, right now it's down to 850,000 in all branches.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

I know of a lot of transformations for numbers (e.g., add, multiple, etc.), but "fudge" is a new one for me. Regardless, your math is wrong even in theory.

You don't have to "fudge" anything because by multiplying by .91 you actually have already accounted for the missing voters in the parts of the country unable to vote. Therefore, that ~29.8% would represent the percent of people in the country who physically and literally voted for Poroshenko.

Now, let me try my hand at this "fudge" thing.

.39 (the conservative estimate of the percent of non-voters in areas of the country able to vote)
x
.91 (the percent of the country in areas able to vote)
x
.547 (the percent of voters who voted for Poro)
=
.194 = 19.4% (assuming an equal variance in voting preferences between voters and non-voters in areas able to vote, this is the additional percent of people who would vote for Poro)

.09 (% of people in areas unable to vote)
x
.547 (% of voters who voted for Poro)
=
.049 (estimate of the % of population in the areas unable to vote who would have voted for Poro)

Therefore:

19.4% (estimate of the percent of people who would vote for Poro in areas able to vote that didn't)
+
4.9% (estimate of the percent of population in the areas unable to vote who probably would have voted for Poro)
+
29.8% (actual percent of population who physically and literally voted for Poro)
=
54.1% (this number estimates the percent of the population of the entire country that would have voted for Poro had they 100% voter participation.)

Is this what you mean when you say "fudge?"



Must be that new Math, don't ya' know. Poroshenko is in with 18% of eligible voters of Ukraine. Pretty simple.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'


Euromaidan overthrew a democratically elected Government.
A government who clearly only had themselves to blame. Even Yanukovych's own cabinet abandoned him at the end due to his corruption.

Memorandums aren't treaties, it's a note of record (political agreement), and that is all. EU even defines a political agreement expressed in principle, not as binding until vote. US could have pushed for a treaty and didn't because it wouldn't have passed the US Senate and US never gives explicit help (military) to anybody outside of NATO. That's what the word assurances are used and not guarantee.

That will be really reassuring for its allies given the current circumstances and the major draw down of US forces :(

In 100 years? Pretty sure WW2 was less then 100 years ago.

I said they were the lowest military personnel numbers in over 100 years. The British army of the Rhine was disbanded just last year after maintaining a permanent garrison in Germany since WW2

Cause the mechanism in which the UK's military is used? Western militaries have moved more and more away from "traditional" combat to asymmetric warfare and dynamic warfare where smaller is better in theory. For example.. today with the use of an Air Force that didn't really exist in WW2, the outcome of a battle can be decided with a squad size
force. A battalion can do what it would take a division to do in WW2 with a few Apaches. Welcome to modernized forces.

Far easier for the Russians to do with the same sort of modernized forces coupled their 850,000 men under arms. The US currently has only 28,000 personnel currently stationed in Europe

The Russians are talking up the NATO threat simply as an excuse to try and re constitute the old USSR. If we ignore this we only have ourselves to blame for what happens next given some of Putins threatening public statements and actions
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Cuba WAS forced during an occupation to "lease" Gitmo, period. I am not twisting logic here. What was good for the goose should be good for the gander, right? If not.. US should be closing a **** ton of bases overseas. You know bases in countries the US fights some war. You know the bases in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany.. US never annexes land my ass.

Btw, don't confuse understanding a position with support of an action. I understand why Russia needed to annex Crimea. Just as I understand why EU and NATO need to keep enlarging. I find both actions to be deplorable but again I find both sides to be a bunch of ass hats who want to stay in control in the 21st century instead of letting their "empires" decline or want to unseat the old guard just as the US kicked the UK of it's perch a little under a century ago.

What part of any US military base is annexed to the USA?
Not even Guantanamo is annexed so that's a fail right off the bat.
However how does anything the US did justify Putin's invasion and annexation of part of the Ukraine?
You have yet to even address the question just posting the US is bad does not Justify Putin's actions.
Since you refuse to answer the question asked then perhaps you will answer this. Why did Putin need to annex Crimea? Why do NATO and Europe NEED to keep enlarging while your at it.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

And I am not justifying any thing. All I am saying is if the position of the west is Ukraine is off limits to Russia, then the West should stop sticking it's hands in other countries as well. Can't preach Ukraine has a right, then muck about in some other nation like NATO countries and the West as a whole has been doing since Colonialism.
No problems with that but you have been talking as if Putin HAD the right to do what he did.

Well considering EU borders are pretty much (minus the expansion into what is now the old Warsaw Pact countries) are pretty much the same as the were during the Holy Roman Empire, I'd call that already done.
Not really Scandinavia was never part of the Roman Empire and France/Spain/Great Britain weren't part of the Holy Roman Empire (totally different entity).

Really? So where did you destroy the US's own claim that Gitmo is in it's National Interests? Gitmo has been used by the US Government to dump people at so the American public doesn't ask too many questions.. be it Cuban and Haitian refugees, those refugees and asylum seekers who had/have HIV were put together at Camp Bulkeley and for over a decade after US courts ruled it illegal and hen you know Camp Delta. Reality is Gitmo for US Government is that legal gray area people love... since the US don't consider it "US soil" and not subject to the courts oversight the issues quickly died after some fake promises.
??????
That has nothing to do with what I said apparently you totally misread it, go back and try again.

So can you guarantee Ukraine was gonna honor the 2042 lease date to Russia? No you can't. Hence Russia's position.
Are you nuts?
How would Ukraine have not honored it? Would they have stopped Russia militarily? Obviously that is out. Economically? Yeah they have the economic power to bring Russia down :roll:
So you are now saying that since it is possibly one side may not honor its obligations decades into the future it is OK to invade and annex part of that country?
Sorry your fist paragraph in this post was OK then you went into crazy land.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Must be that new Math, don't ya' know. Poroshenko is in with 18% of eligible voters of Ukraine. Pretty simple.

You already admitted you fudged the numbers to come up with the 18% and now you are pretending they are real and have meaning?
Why are all the pro Putin posters completely detached from reality?
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

The US has no interests in peace. It pays it lip service, and some are gullible enough to believe the cheap talk. Actions speak louder than words.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

Must be that new Math, don't ya' know. Poroshenko is in with 18% of eligible voters of Ukraine. Pretty simple.

I don't think you understand the concept of math. You've already accounted for the 9% of people outside of able voting areas by starting with .91. Multiply by .60 as the percentof eligible voters who voted, and multiply by .547 as the percent of votes cast for Poro. Any additional fudging to lower that number more (such as subtracting a rather random value of .11) isn't "new math," it's "bull****."
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

I don't think you understand the concept of math. You've already accounted for the 9% of people outside of able voting areas by starting with .91. Multiply by .60 as the percentof eligible voters who voted, and multiply by .547 as the percent of votes cast for Poro. Any additional fudging to lower that number more (such as subtracting a rather random value of .11) isn't "new math," it's "bull****."

Take all eligible voters and divide into Poroshenko's total votes. End of story.
 
Re: U.S.: Putin's Peace Proposal for Ukraine is Nothing But 'Occupation Plan'

I don't think you understand the concept of math. You've already accounted for the 9% of people outside of able voting areas by starting with .91. Multiply by .60 as the percentof eligible voters who voted, and multiply by .547 as the percent of votes cast for Poro. Any additional fudging to lower that number more (such as subtracting a rather random value of .11) isn't "new math," it's "bull****."

Divide the total number of votes cast for Poroshenko by the total number of eligible voters. End of story.
 
Back
Top Bottom