• 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!

US, NATO Troops Parade Near Russian Border in Estonia

Helix said:
then it looks like the EU needs to address that. meanwhile, we have a country that needs to be upgraded to meet the competitive demands of the 21st century.

for too long, neoconservatives have dictated our foreign policy. while citing the founding fathers incessantly, they seem to completely ignore the warnings Washington gave us as he left office. how do you feel about that, Jack? was Washington incorrect? if so, what else was he incorrect about?
Click to expand...

Times change. Washington was a slave owner too. We can revere the man without mindlessly aping everything he said or did. The world would be a far more dangerous place for the US if we did as you advocate.
 
Jack Hays said:
Times change. Washington was a slave owner too. We can revere the man without mindlessly aping everything he said or did. The world would be a far more dangerous place for the US if we did as you advocate.
Click to expand...

so, basically, whatever the founders said that fits your political worldview is relevant, while the inconvenient parts are not.

you should think about that one for a while. could it be that endless interventionism might not be the panacea that you are promoting it as?
 
Helix said:
so, basically, whatever the founders said that fits your political worldview is relevant, while the inconvenient parts are not.

you should think about that one for a while. could it be that endless interventionism might not be the panacea that you are promoting it as?
Click to expand...

I haven't cited any of the founders except for one rhetorical flourish. As I posted earlier: hard money, strong defense, individual liberty.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Does Russia provide oil and gas to the EU countries?
Click to expand...

For now, but new lines of gas supply are opening, including from Israel.
 
Helix said:
hi, polgara. hope that you are well. here is what i found regarding your question :

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Greetings, Helix. :2wave:

I am well - totally sick of Winter, but well :lol: and I hope you and yours are as well.

Thanks for the link, which confirms a hunch I had. It appears that Russia may have another card in their deck that can be used, if necessary, to get access to a "land bridge" through the Ukraine to get to their seaport in the Crimea. I have no idea what can be done about it, since Gazprom is the supplier of fuel to most of the EU countries, but some agreement might have to be reached, IMO. I don't think Putin is ready to play nasty hardball - yet - and I think Merkel and company understand that, but what's the benefit to having a seaport to ship things from if he can't get to it?
 
JANFU said:
For now, but new lines of gas supply are opening, including from Israel.
Click to expand...

Greetings, JANFU. :2wave:

It appears that Israel is becoming very important to a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons! :shock:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, JANFU. :2wave:

It appears that Israel is becoming very important to a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons! :shock:
Click to expand...
Huge gas fields, then the Stans want an out route for oil and gas.
Russia signed a really bad deal with China.
Russia now plans a pipeline to Turkey.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Helix. :2wave:

I am well - totally sick of Winter, but well :lol: and I hope you and yours are as well.

Thanks for the link, which confirms a hunch I had. It appears that Russia may have another card in their deck that can be used, if necessary, to get access to a "land bridge" through the Ukraine to get to their seaport in the Crimea. I have no idea what can be done about it, since Gazprom is the supplier of fuel to most of the EU countries, but some agreement might have to be reached, IMO. I don't think Putin is ready to play nasty hardball - yet - and I think Merkel and company understand that, but what's the benefit to having a seaport to ship things from if he can't get to it?
Click to expand...

my guess is that Crimea will be part of Russia.

as for the weather, i spent a lot of time today shoveling out. at least it earned me a guilt free burger and fries.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Helix. :2wave:

I am well - totally sick of Winter, but well :lol: and I hope you and yours are as well.

Thanks for the link, which confirms a hunch I had. It appears that Russia may have another card in their deck that can be used, if necessary, to get access to a "land bridge" through the Ukraine to get to their seaport in the Crimea. I have no idea what can be done about it, since Gazprom is the supplier of fuel to most of the EU countries, but some agreement might have to be reached, IMO. I don't think Putin is ready to play nasty hardball - yet - and I think Merkel and company understand that, but what's the benefit to having a seaport to ship things from if he can't get to it?
Click to expand...

Hi Polgara, I don't think Sevastopol is so much a shipping port as a warm water, and indispensable naval port for Russia. And as such, it will take complete war with Russia to wrest it. And it would appear that we've no shortage of neocons more than willing to pursue such nonsense.
 
Montecresto said:
Hi Polgara, I don't think Sevastopol is so much a shipping port as a warm water, and indispensable naval port for Russia. And as such, it will take complete war with Russia to wrest it. And it would appear that we've no shortage of neocons more than willing to pursue such nonsense.
Click to expand...

In the time of the Czars it was under direct imperial rule because of its strategic importance. It did not become part of Ukraine until the 1950's when Krushchev, himself a Ukrainian, presented it as a gift. It's thus not surprising or altogether unreasonable that Russia should want it back, and will probably keep it. If that were the end of it then Crimea would be the price of Ukrainian freedom and everyone would move on. Unfortunately, Putin's goals go far beyond Crimea.
 
Montecresto said:
Hi Polgara, I don't think Sevastopol is so much a shipping port as a warm water, and indispensable naval port for Russia. And as such, it will take complete war with Russia to wrest it. And it would appear that we've no shortage of neocons more than willing to pursue such nonsense.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

Who knows? I think the EU countries will take a stand, since they are much closer to the problem than we are, and would be directly affected, one way or another. Plus, Putin will not want to look bad before the world, since it's not the Ukraine's fault that their land lies in the way. Think, Monte. What would you do if you were Putin? :shock:
 
The ruling and pro-Western Reform Party won the overall general election in Estonia yesterday. The Moscow friendly Centre Party (25% of Estonians are ethnic Russian) placed second, but it will remain a minority bloc. Five of the six political parties who met the 5% vote threshold (weighted membership in parliament) are pro-EU and pro-NATO.

The war in Ukraine will end where it began ... in Crimea. Putin has no intention of either financially subsidizing or annexing the Ukrainian Donbass rust belt oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk which have been devastated by war. He applies pressure there for three reasons; 1) NATO will not consider for membership any nation that has internal/external border disputes. 2) It is possible that a political settlement (Constitutional changes envisioned the Minsk II Accord) will result in a federalization of Ukraine. As Putin envisions it, such a federalization would grant Donetsk and Luhansk a high degree of regional autonomy, yet retain veto power over any Kyiv pro-Western initiatives. In short, the tail would be wagging the dog. 3) Depriving Ukraine of the Donbass guts Ukraine's industrial base. This in turn significantly degrades Ukraine's ability to internally re-arm its military to combat Russian aggression.

Putin's main strategic objective remains a "land bridge" from Russia proper to Crimea. As it is now, Crimea can only be supplied via air or via barges and ferry boats at the Kerch isthmus. Militarily speaking, Crimea is analogous to a giant aircraft carrier almost centrally located in the Black Sea. From this vantage point, Russia can blanket the entire Black Sea (including Turkey's Bosporus Straits choke-point) with anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. Economically speaking, stealing Crimea from Ukraine provides Russia with the maritime rights to significant offshore natural gas deposits ... a huge plus for Putin and a huge minus for a Ukraine already deprived of its industrial base in the Donbass.

Putin has a decision to make. Acquiring his land-bridge to Crimea necessitates taking the Ukrainian city of Mariupol (500,000) on the Sea of Azov. At the time of the Minsk II ceasefire agreement on 14 February 2015, rebel forces were less than 30 miles east of Mariupol. But Mariupol is clearly on the government side of the ceasefire line. Western nations have collectively and publicly identified Mariupol as a red-line. To take Mariupol, Putin would have to indisputably break the Minsk II Accord which he himself negotiated and agreed to honor. The blow-back if he should decide to renege on this agreement is significant. Much harsher economic sanctions would be imposed on Russia and many Western nations would begin to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons.

This is where the situation stands at this time. How this plays out mostly depends on what Putin is willing to gamble and sacrifice.
 
Threegoofs said:
Never said it's justified.

I just said it's expected.

And if you don't want it to happen, don't tease Ukraine with a possibility of joining the EU or NATO.
Click to expand...

Who's teasing ? A country has first to request membership of these organisations they don't get it forced upon them . And anyway how does Ukrainian EU membership (which was the only thing under negotiation) threaten anyone ?
 
Last edited:
austrianecon said:
SAS doesn't complain about their tools.



LOL.. you really are ignorant on how the system works. Here are 3 basic reasons why..

1) Was a CIA op.

2) CIA gives these types of missions in house (means US units only).

3) JSOC was ran by William H. McRaven at the time. McRaven is a Navy SEAL. So it obviously went to ST6 over Delta.

Now if CIA had decided to toss it to SAS. There wouldn't be that many loose lips about the operations and so many books by guys who claimed to have had the kill shot.
Click to expand...

The mission being overseen by the CIA means nothing, at the end of the day, the SEALS were the ones who carried out the entire mission, and they did so successfully.

You really are ignorant as to how to judge a unit.
 
Jack Hays said:
In the time of the Czars it was under direct imperial rule because of its strategic importance. It did not become part of Ukraine until the 1950's when Krushchev, himself a Ukrainian, presented it as a gift. It's thus not surprising or altogether unreasonable that Russia should want it back, and will probably keep it. If that were the end of it then Crimea would be the price of Ukrainian freedom and everyone would move on. Unfortunately, Putin's goals go far beyond Crimea.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for that is? Putin moved on Crimea AFTER Western interference in Kiev produced a situation that Russia perceived as a potential threat to its assets in Crimea. As to the following events on Ukraine's eastern border, it makes as much sense that Putin would support those seeking self determination and autonomy as it does that Israel and Jordan would be supporting separatists fighting Assad in Syria. You have no evidence that Putin is on a Hitleresque campaign to take Europe (not that you have used that language, but many here have) or that his goals go "far beyond Crimea" whatever that means. I do think its apparent that Putin has drawn his red line, and that we won't see any further eastward expansion of NATO, not without a big fight at any rate.
 
flogger said:
Who's teasing ? A country has first to request membership of these organisations they don't get it forced upon them . And anyway how does Ukrainian EU membership (which was the only thing under negotiation) threaten anyone ?
Click to expand...

Maybe if you actually READ the Mearschiemer piece you would understand.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:

Who knows? I think the EU countries will take a stand, since they are much closer to the problem than we are, and would be directly affected, one way or another. Plus, Putin will not want to look bad before the world, since it's not the Ukraine's fault that their land lies in the way. Think, Monte. What would you do if you were Putin? :shock:
Click to expand...

You mean to say that you think EU countries will drive Putin out of Crimea!!!!!!????? If I were Putin lol. I support Putin's long standing opposition to NATO expansion. He has laid down his line. It's laughable that people think Putin is on some crusade, that Europe is threatened, the foolish comparisons to him and hitler, current events and the late 1930's, all bs. Putin has been giving speeches about his position on NATO expansion for years now. When do Westerners listen to what other leaders want? Those that have, like the senior fellow at CFR, John J. Mearsheimer have, and understand this quite well. But in ignorance and belligerence, most will advance a false narrative that could lead to unintended consequences.
 
Montecresto said:
And your evidence for that is? Putin moved on Crimea AFTER Western interference in Kiev produced a situation that Russia perceived as a potential threat to its assets in Crimea. As to the following events on Ukraine's eastern border, it makes as much sense that Putin would support those seeking self determination and autonomy as it does that Israel and Jordan would be supporting separatists fighting Assad in Syria. You have no evidence that Putin is on a Hitleresque campaign to take Europe (not that you have used that language, but many here have) or that his goals go "far beyond Crimea" whatever that means. I do think its apparent that Putin has drawn his red line, and that we won't see any further eastward expansion of NATO, not without a big fight at any rate.
Click to expand...

Well you have a number of problems there

a) Providing any evidence that the West armed or financed the Maidan revolt
b) That the majority of Ukrainians living in Donetsk and Luhansk are not ethnic Russian
c) That the Ukraine was not just about to join NATO but was negotiating EU membership

But don't let these inconvenient facts get in the way of your usual tedious anti Western/US rant
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Thats one mans opinion and it really flies in the face of events and of those who know better
Click to expand...

How would you know? You obviously haven't read it, since you repeatedly ask me questions that are clearly answered in the piece.
 
Threegoofs said:
How would you know? You obviously haven't read it, since you repeatedly ask me questions that are clearly answered in the piece.
Click to expand...

Its been posted multiple times by Putinistas on other threads for months as have my multiple rebuttals of it by multiple sources multiple times. Outwith Russian propaganda Meirsheimers is a lone voice
 
Montecresto said:
Putin has been giving speeches about his position on NATO expansion for years now.
Click to expand...
It's not up to Putin to decide what is best for another nation. If he wants that power, then let him run for political office in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc.
 
Montecresto said:
And your evidence for that is? Putin moved on Crimea AFTER Western interference in Kiev produced a situation that Russia perceived as a potential threat to its assets in Crimea. As to the following events on Ukraine's eastern border, it makes as much sense that Putin would support those seeking self determination and autonomy as it does that Israel and Jordan would be supporting separatists fighting Assad in Syria. You have no evidence that Putin is on a Hitleresque campaign to take Europe (not that you have used that language, but many here have) or that his goals go "far beyond Crimea" whatever that means. I do think its apparent that Putin has drawn his red line, and that we won't see any further eastward expansion of NATO, not without a big fight at any rate.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that Putin's move on Crimea was a response to Ukraine's westward turn. That turn was not the product of Western interference, but reflected the aspirations of Ukrainians. Putin's objectives are to break the Ukrainian government, cow the EU and destroy NATO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom