• 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 To Restrict Russian ‘Open Skies’ Flights As Treaty Grows Strained

braindrain said:
So in your mind if the people of California decide to join Russia then it is then OK for Russia to bring over troops and annex the state. The federal gov should not get involved.
Click to expand...

You're right -- our government (US) should never have gotten involved in the ouster of a duly elected Ukrainian president. But we did, which set the stage for Crimea seceding and voting to join Russia.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That's just funny. There is no insignia on those uniforms that would identify them as Russian. You're just hoping. And -- as you were already informed -- even if they were Russian, they were there at the request of the Crimeans who were taking a lot of heat from the new Ukrainian faction that was determined not to let them do as they chose.

The whole thing backfired badly on the US and the EU. That's what comes of meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Click to expand...

You don't need insignia to identify what uniforms are from what countries smart one; most nations have their own distinct camouflage patterns (especially nations with distinct military histories like Russia) which can be used to identify them as such. If you actually used some common sense here you could see that quite clearly that these men were carrying Russian equipment and wearing Russian uniforms.
 
HowardBThiname said:
When you have to resort to saying things like "Kremlin propaganda" instead of debating the actual facts, everyone knows you've already lost.
Click to expand...

The Kremlin propaganda came directly from YOUR pie-hole, and others commented on it as well.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Isn't the Ukrainian Army's equipment mostly Russian though?
Click to expand...

The Russians know the weaknesses of their military equipment better than anyone and can exploit that knowledge. Ukraine realized this very early on (2014).

Today Ukraine's military equipment is mostly Ukrainian/Western and NATO compliant. They still have Russian combat jets though.
 
Earlier this year Ukraine's Antonov aircraft corporation launched the largest plane ever built - the An-225 Mriya (Dream). It can be configured for either civilian passenger or military troop/cargo applications. After touring the world's airports, there are now enough orders to start up the production lines.

artleo.com-13578.jpg

An-225 Mriya (Dream) jet airliner
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Russians know the weaknesses of their military equipment better than anyone and can exploit that knowledge. Ukraine realized this very early on (2014).

Today Ukraine's military equipment is mostly Ukrainian/Western and NATO compliant. They still have Russian combat jets though.
Click to expand...

Ahh I see. Interesting.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Isn't the Ukrainian Army's equipment mostly Russian though?
Click to expand...

The Ukranian Army is largely based on Soviet surplus but since 2008 the Russians have began serious diversion from Soviet style equipment and practice. The camo patterns worn on the Little Green Men were ERM pattern used by the Russian military. Furthermore, their helmets and combat vests were both types available only to Russian VDV.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You're right -- our government (US) should never have gotten involved in the ouster of a duly elected Ukrainian president. But we did, which set the stage for Crimea seceding and voting to join Russia.
Click to expand...
So you don't have the integrity to answer the question. I think we both know the reason is because doing so would force you to admit just how ridiculous your silly little claims are.
 
braindrain said:
So you don't have the integrity to answer the question. I think we both know the reason is because doing so would force you to admit just how ridiculous your silly little claims are.
Click to expand...

Your question was nonsensical. Obama meddled. The world lost.

That was pretty much par for the course for all of Obama's foreign policies. Look how he screwed up the Middle East. Why pretend that his meddling in the Ukraine didn't lead to the Crimea seceding?

You simply refuse to put the blame where it belongs. Crimea would still be a part of the Ukraine had Obama (and the EU) not meddled in what was not their business. They handed the Crimea to Russia on a silver platter. And, you're blaming Putin for taking advantage of that opportunity.

Think boy.

Think.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Your question was nonsensical. Obama meddled. The world lost.

That was pretty much par for the course for all of Obama's foreign policies. Look how he screwed up the Middle East. Why pretend that his meddling in the Ukraine didn't lead to the Crimea seceding?

You simply refuse to put the blame where it belongs. Crimea would still be a part of the Ukraine had Obama (and the EU) not meddled in what was not their business. They handed the Crimea to Russia on a silver platter. And, you're blaming Putin for taking advantage of that opportunity.

Think boy.

Think.
Click to expand...

In general, it is probably right on. Obama was not at all good at foreign policy. He just didn't have the expetience or even the training.
Actually, I believe that he could have prevented the debacle in Ukraine and certainly should have forced the issue more vigorously. But the real problem was with the EU and the prime culprit was Germany that blocked Ukraine jouning Nato. This meant there were no international defence forces in place, when the EU forced the issue of their trade pact that contained a threat to Putin in Title 2, Article 7, if I recall, by promising ever closer military alignment with the Europeans.
So yes, Obama could have prevented losing the Krim, but he was way out of his depths in a game long in play.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You're right -- our government (US) should never have gotten involved in the ouster of a duly elected Ukrainian president. But we did, which set the stage for Crimea seceding and voting to join Russia.
Click to expand...

You are right. The Ukraine had been turned down by NATO, which had set the ground for the later desaster. But I do not believe that Obama was a driving force in losing Crimea. He could have prevented it, but he was so far out of his league that it is not surprising that he fumbled it.

The trigger was pulled by the EU with that idiotic trade compact they force the issue over without taking the necessary precautions first. That almost forced Putin's hand.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Your question was nonsensical. Obama meddled. The world lost.

That was pretty much par for the course for all of Obama's foreign policies. Look how he screwed up the Middle East. Why pretend that his meddling in the Ukraine didn't lead to the Crimea seceding?

You simply refuse to put the blame where it belongs. Crimea would still be a part of the Ukraine had Obama (and the EU) not meddled in what was not their business. They handed the Crimea to Russia on a silver platter. And, you're blaming Putin for taking advantage of that opportunity.

Think boy.

Think.
Click to expand...
The only reason you think it is nonsense is because it shows the stupidity of your position. It's why you refuse to answer and instead are trying your hardest to deflect.

It is rather obvious that you are the boy that needs to do some more thinking.
 
braindrain said:
The only reason you think it is nonsense is because it shows the stupidity of your position. It's why you refuse to answer and instead are trying your hardest to deflect.

It is rather obvious that you are the boy that needs to do some more thinking.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I have to spell this out for you. You asked:

"So in your mind if the people of California decide to join Russia then it is then OK for Russia to bring over troops and annex the state. The federal gov should not get involved."
Click to expand...

On a personal note, I'd love nothing more than to see California secede -- and then put up a wall. LOL

On a realistic note -- California has never been associated in any way with Russia, whereas the Crimea was once a part of the same union as Russia - the Soviet Union. Extended families live in both of those nations, but not so between California and Russia. That's why your question is nonsensical. It has nothing in common with the Russia/Crimea situation.

If, however, California elected a governor and the President of the US paid someone to run that governor out of tow and propped up a new governor that was unfriendly to Californians, we very well might see California try to secede, and, if the US govt. sent troops into California to keep the natives in line, Mexico (if it was stronger than it now is) might decide to protect the Californians from the US Govt. And, because a high percentage of Californians are from Mexico, perhaps they'd vote to join Mexico.

But, that's unlikely due to the strength and integrity of the parties involved.

If Mexico did that, based on the attacks of the US Govt., I'd say they were justified, just as Russia was justified to go in and protect the Crimeans from the Ukrainian rogue govt.

If Russia tried to annex California, however, I would not support it, as bad as I'd like to see California be a part of a different nation. I could not support it because Russia has no territorial interest in California. Not now and not in the past.

Now, can you see the silliness of your question?

Hopefully so, because I don't have any Crayons handy to spell it out in big colorful letters for you.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Crimea would still be a part of the Ukraine had Obama (and the EU) not meddled in what was not their business.
Click to expand...

On 22–23 February, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an all-night meeting with security services chiefs to discuss extrication of the deposed Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, and at the end of that meeting Putin had remarked that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia."[34] On 23 February 2014, pro-Russian demonstrations [organized by the GRU/Russian military intelligence] were held in the Crimean city of Sevastopol. On 27 February masked Russian troops without insignia[2] [Russian Spetsnaz/GRU troops] took over the Supreme Council (parliament) of Crimea,[35][36] and captured strategic sites across Crimea, which led to the installation of the pro-Russian Aksyonov government in Crimea.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia | Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Bolded emphasis above is mine.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Moscow's invasion/annexation of Crimea is illegal....

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 - Reaffirming the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)

v2-Russian-troops-guard-Crimean-parliament.jpg

Armed and masked Russian soldiers blockading the Crimean Parliament building. February 28, 2014
Click to expand...

you do realise the Invasion of Iraq by america and it's allies was illegal by the UN and American troops are still in Iraq, you overstepped your UN mandate in Libya
 
and America is also in Syria illegally the UN recognises Bashar Assad as president of Syria and only the forces of the Russian Federation and Iran are in Syria legally as they were invited in by Syria
 
Godric1970 said:
you do realise the Invasion of Iraq by america and it's allies was illegal by the UN and American troops are still in Iraq, you overstepped your UN mandate in Libya
Click to expand...

You are engaging in 'whataboutism'. Changing the subject. Deflecting.

Washington has restricted Russian overflights of US territory because Russia is not allowing US observers to fly over parts of Kaliningrad....

Russian Military Flights Over America Under Review After Moscow Limits Open Skies Treaty Access
 
Rogue Valley said:
You are engaging in 'whataboutism'. Changing the subject. Deflecting.

Washington has restricted Russian overflights of US territory because Russia is not allowing US observers to fly over parts of Kaliningrad....

Russian Military Flights Over America Under Review After Moscow Limits Open Skies Treaty Access
Click to expand...

not whataboutism America flaunts and disregards international law when it pleases ... you are a rogue state

https://www.rt.com/news/405459-russian-consulate-san-francisco-blacksmith/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom