• 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!

Does the situation in Ukraine worry you?

You worried?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 49.4%
  • No

    Votes: 36 44.4%
  • I'm buying my marshmallows

    Votes: 5 6.2%

  • Total voters
    81
From what I know of the Ukraine, its a mistake to assume just because someone speaks Russian they are more allied with Russia than with an independent Ukraine. The nation really isnt a typical one divided by language and ethnic identification... Ukrainians identify as Ukranians despite the fact they may primarily speak Russian. Ukranian and Russian are similar languages, and I would guess that most Ukrainian speakers understand Russian quite well. (not sure about the reverse, as Russian is much more common than Ukrainian in all sorts of areas).

I agree that mere cultural or language division should not be grounds for splitting a country. If we were to follow that logic to its natural conclusion, the the whole world would be reduced to independent tribes--until, of course, another conqueror came along and gobbled them up.

But the situation is much more dire than that. Western Ukrainians apparently feel that they have just ousted a corrupt ruler and given themselves a better chance at allying with the West, whereas Eastern Ukrainians seem to be highly dissatisfied with this move. Plus, it appears to me that the main parts that Russia wants to control lie in Eastern Ukraine anyway.

In crises such as these, dividing a country into two separate parts can significantly relieve the growing instability.
 
15 percent means there's an 85 percent chance it won't happen.
So I agree, it's not the most likely scenario but it is still possible.





I agree that it's possible, but let's hope that it doesn't happen. This is just another place where the USA could waste a lot of lives and money and achieve nothing.

The Ukrainians created this mess, let them clean it up
 
Russia already took Crimea which is a part of Ukraine. Ukraine's integrity has been broken and ensurers that it would not come to this were USA, UK, and Russia in a treaty to lay of atomic bombs.

So to answer your question: This already is war. It also challenges the ensurers of that treaty. Should they back down it would go down history that there can be no gain in treaties with UK and USA for future countries.

Hopefully some start crunching some teeth and and push Putin back to your "cowardness." If nothing gets done it would appear that we are cowards instead.

I was just reading about this.

The treaty that withdrew all nukes from the Ukraine had a stipulation in it that Ukraine would never be attacked by the signers - the West and Russia. That treaty is broken- or on the verge of it.

This is concerning because of future treaties that could be devised with nuclear disarmament.
 
I agree that mere cultural or language division should not be grounds for splitting a country. If we were to follow that logic to its natural conclusion, the the whole world would be reduced to independent tribes--until, of course, another conqueror came along and gobbled them up.

But the situation is much more dire than that. Western Ukrainians apparently feel that they have just ousted a corrupt ruler and given themselves a better chance at allying with the West, whereas Eastern Ukrainians seem to be highly dissatisfied with this move. Plus, it appears to me that the main parts that Russia wants to control lie in Eastern Ukraine anyway.

In crises such as these, dividing a country into two separate parts can significantly relieve the growing instability.

Yeah that's what the Germans said about Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then of course they needed their corridor to connect to Danzig. and before that they had to reunite with their fellow German speaking friends, the Austrians. Course what the people thought who were living there was not important. Those who spoke out faced armed men who told them to shut up and go home (hmm kinda like the Crimea right now)
Dividing Ukraine will only wet Putin's appetite. Back in the 1930's the term was "appeasement" as if somehow giving a megalomaniac corrupt dictator what he wants will satisfy his appetite for more.
Didn't work then and I seriously doubt it will work now.
 
I agree that it's possible, but let's hope that it doesn't happen. This is just another place where the USA could waste a lot of lives and money and achieve nothing.

The Ukrainians created this mess, let them clean it up

I do think it is a bit one sided to lay the fault at the feet of Ukraine. Putin alone is responsible for raising the stakes to include military. This is a situation that Russia could have handled politically and diplomatically over time if it wanted to resolve it peacefully. It is pretty clear that peace is not first and foremost in Putin's mind.
 
I agree that it's possible, but let's hope that it doesn't happen. This is just another place where the USA could waste a lot of lives and money and achieve nothing.

The Ukrainians created this mess, let them clean it up

I respectfully disagree. The balance of power with the Russians is too important for us to not get involved in some capacity. Let's hope (and that is all we have at this point) that our diplomatic efforts are enough to avoid the myriad of violent scenarios which might play out.
 
I'm not playing down the gravity of the situation (as far as it goes), but don't expect any countdown to global annihilation. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis. The only time WW3 looks set to kick off is where superpowers face off directly. That won't happen over bum**** Ukraine. Nobody's 'ending the world' over this nappy BS. You need a little perspective. I'm guessing you probably succumbed to the hysteria over Iran and North Korea, too. Look what happened. Not one thing. We're all still breathing. Imagine that.

Don't waste your time sweating bullets about silly Armageddon scenarios. Worry about the fiscal deficit. Education, health care, the environment and trade. Stuff like that. Leave the placard-carrying doomsayers to their own devices. They like that ****. You don't have to follow suit. It's one small step from unfounded, reactionary hysteria to believing Kris Kristofferson drinks blood and shape shifts into a 7' lizard. Tread lightly, dude.


I actually agree with this guy. Russia's going to swallow up bits of Ukraine, like it swallowed up bits of Georgia -- it's just what Russia does. Did anyone really think Russia would just fade into history after 1991? They've had bigger shocks than that, and recovered from it -- World War I and 1812 come to mind. Russia is doing exactly what everyone expected it to do after a couple decades of sorting itself out.

Now, you can start worrying about Armageddon when China invades Japan, or Russia invades the EU.

That will be bad.
 
Yeah that's what the Germans said about Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then of course they needed their corridor to connect to Danzig. and before that they had to reunite with their fellow German speaking friends, the Austrians. Course what the people thought who were living there was not important. Those who spoke out faced armed men who told them to shut up and go home (hmm kinda like the Crimea right now)
Dividing Ukraine will only wet Putin's appetite. Back in the 1930's the term was "appeasement" as if somehow giving a megalomaniac corrupt dictator what he wants will satisfy his appetite for more.
Didn't work then and I seriously doubt it will work now.

Czechoslovakia separated after the fall of Communism in one of the most peaceful splits in human history.

It may not. Only time will tell. But consider that there's one important variable here: The will of the people. Note that Eastern Ukraineans typically favor pro-Russia relations. So it's not as if they would be conquered against their consent, or something to that effect. And this goes double for the particularly strong pro-Russia sentiment in Crimea. Yeah that may sound harsh, but hey--I'm not a Ukrainean.
 
I do think it is a bit one sided to lay the fault at the feet of Ukraine. Putin alone is responsible for raising the stakes to include military. This is a situation that Russia could have handled politically and diplomatically over time if it wanted to resolve it peacefully. It is pretty clear that peace is not first and foremost in Putin's mind.




Putin is not the only guy on this planet who sees military force as an answer, he's also not the first to use it.

Take a look at the USA's history of using its military to solve 'problems' all over this planet.


BTW: There are a lot more Russian-speaking people in Crimea than there are Ukrainian speakers. that is a fact.

In that light, Putin's actions are not totally unreasonable.


But I definitely don't approve of his actions.
 
Last edited:
Another thing. As Americans, we need to be very careful as to what kind of measures we advocate. No, I don't want to see Russia take over all of Eastern Europe again. But our own recent past is littered with failed invasions and regime changes. We don't exactly have a good moral standing on this issue.
 
Czechoslovakia separated after the fall of Communism in one of the most peaceful splits in human history.

It may not. Only time will tell. But consider that there's one important variable here: The will of the people. Note that Eastern Ukraineans typically favor pro-Russia relations. So it's not as if they would be conquered against their consent, or something to that effect. And this goes double for the particularly strong pro-Russia sentiment in Crimea. Yeah that may sound harsh, but hey--I'm not a Ukrainean.

I was talking about Czechoslovakia in 1938 where with support from Germany the Germans in Czechoslovakia started causing trouble and eventually Germany went in to "protect" the Germans living there. Pretty much exactly what is happening in the Ukraine. The separation of the Czechs and the Slovakians was without any real external impetus and done peacefully. That is not the case we are looking at here.
As to the pro-Russian sentiment in the Crimea I believe there is quite strong opposition to it and until the "non identified military personnel" showed up the pro Russians were the smaller group.
 
Putin is not the only guy on this planet who sees military force as an answer, he's also not the first to use it.

Take a look at the USA's history of using its military to solve 'problems' all over this planet.


BTW: There are a lot more Russian-speaking people in Crimea than there are Ukrainian speakers. that is a fact.

In that light, Putin's actions are not totally unreasonable.

I'm unaware that Ukraine is in violation of any UN resolutions or has attacked anyone. So no, military intervention is not justified.

There are far more Spanish speakers along the border of the US and Mexico. Is that justification for Mexico to annex parts of the US? Clearly this is not a justification for any kind of military annexation. It is a justification based on emotion and nationalism instead of international law.
 
I was talking about Czechoslovakia in 1938 where with support from Germany the Germans in Czechoslovakia started causing trouble and eventually Germany went in to "protect" the Germans living there. Pretty much exactly what is happening in the Ukraine. The separation of the Czechs and the Slovakians was without any real external impetus and done peacefully. That is not the case we are looking at here.
As to the pro-Russian sentiment in the Crimea I believe there is quite strong opposition to it and until the "non identified military personnel" showed up the pro Russians were the smaller group.

I am not familiar with the particular events surrounding Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. But I do now know about the deep divisions within Ukraine:

_73094671_ukraine_divide_2.gif

Crimea is the peninsula that looks like an island to the southeast.

Thankfully it appears that the pro-West/pro-Russia divide is a pretty clean one, unlike the complete cluster**** in Syria.
 

Actually he does. I would direct you to pages 15 and 16, where he states that either A) the state did it or B) hackers that are trained and supported by the state in organized crime did it, and points out that C) it doesn't really matter which one it is, since both are instruments of Russian Foreign Policy. To translate that into American terms, the hackers were either employees of the NSA, or employees of Lockheed Martin, working on contract for the NSA, and either way, it was the US.

because he has no proof, nor does anyone else. And Mr Buy-My-Book wasn't employed by the government after 2003. However, sensationalism has a solid history of selling newspapers and books. You go, dude! Make that money!! Cha-ching!!! :lol:

Richard Clarke was the guy who spent years trying to convince both the Clinton and Bush Administrations that this oddball group called "Al-Qaeda" was going to try to launch attacks inside of the Continental United States. He was the Cyber Czar for the Bush Administration. I realize that mockery is the last resort of those who have no argument, but it falls flat here.

We'd be laughed out of the UN and off the world stage by even mentioning this incident in more than passing. Thanks God even Bush wasn't stupid enough to try anything on that kind of fuel.

The UN? I could give a fig about the UN, that worthless, useless body in which Russia enjoys a veto anyway. What we should have done is what we pledged to do for NATO countries - offer them our tools to defend themselves if they come under attack.

"The same tactics" as in a cyber attack? LOL!

:) No, the same tactics as in utilizing DDOS attacks to neutralize financial servers while impersonating those servers and sending thousands of fraudulent claims to Central and Western European Financial Centers, triggering automatic lockdowns ensuring that, even as the host nation loses the ability to serve it's deposit holders, it also loses the ability to borrow from outside sources in order to replace its temporarily frozen capital.

You don't even have proof it was the same program that was used in the attack, let alone evidence the Russian government was responsible in any way for Estonia.

Russia is a police state that exercises control over its' hacking community, and is extremely skilled at cyber operations. The likelihood that this was random "patriotic Russians" (which is what - laughably - Putin's spokesman tried to insist that it must be) pulled this off without state support, awareness, and approval is about as likely as someone in the United States compiling a division of tanks and using them to invade Mexico without the government's knowledge. It is a ridiculous claim on it's face.

Yeah, coincidence and suspicion is a damn good reason to go to war or invoke trade sanctions - but after what Bush pulled in Iraq II I guess I can believe anything from the Conservative camp.

Should we have invoked trade sanctions with the UK after Anonymous hit us?

One F-35: $100,000,000
Top notch laptop: $3000
Top notch desktop: $1500

Anyone can get their hands on a computer and start hacking almost anything in the world at this point

....you really have no idea how difficult and costly it is to develop, build, employ, and then attempt to reattribute complex cyber weapons, do you?

...You really do think it's like in the movies, where the cool music plays, and the guy looks at 5 different screens at one time, and some one's and zero's flash by in a montage, or you see a little "loading" bar, and then he's hacked the CIA or something.

No, dude. Cyber introduces asymmetries, to be sure, but nothing as extreme as the alternative you are positing - else our systems would be constantly going down from attacks by Al Qaeda or some similarly disapproving group, and Anonymous would be extremely successful instead of a nuisance. You still require pretty hefty resources to have these kinds of effects. There is a reason why Live Free or Die Hard is a hollywood movie rather than our reality - it's not like there aren't plenty of actors out there who would do it, if all it took was a $1500 laptop.

If we're going to go to war I'd just as soon have real proof that an act of war has been committed instead of just a hunch or coincidence. We've already managed to start a war for no good reason this century. I'd hate to see us do it again.

If Cyber isn't a war, then what's your worry? We aren't "going to war". :)

You have no proof at all that Russia did anything except tell Estonia to take a hike when Estonia asked for their help in the incident.

On the contrary - we know that it was Russia that did this, and Russia did everything but admit it - jokingly claiming that maybe it was just patriots and refusing to allow any investigation into the points of origin. An attack was launched on a NATO ally and we did... nothing. I imagine it was fairly instructive for Putin.
 
I disagree. I think that they too just like any other country can take care of themselves if not bullied from Russia and Russian promoted bully culture and corruption.

That's nice. :) Any country can take care of itself. Hooray. Civilization and order are natural, instead of fragile, artificial creations.
 
I'm unaware that Ukraine is in violation of any UN resolutions or has attacked anyone. So no, military intervention is not justified.

There are far more Spanish speakers along the border of the US and Mexico. Is that justification for Mexico to annex parts of the US? Clearly this is not a justification for any kind of military annexation.
It is a justification based on emotion and nationalism instead of international law.




Correct.

It isn't a legal justification, but it helps people to understand why this is happening.

Most of the people in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea have no problem with the Russian military because they are Russian themselves.




I predict that Russia will have troops there for a long time.

Who is going to make them leave?

Not the Ukraine, not NATO, and not the USA.

It's a waste of time talking about this. It is what it is and it's not going to change.
 
Last edited:
Russia has militarily conquered and taken Crimea. That's the bottomline.
 
Correct.

It isn't a legal justification, but it helps people to understand why this is happening.

Most of the people in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea have no problem with the Russian military because they are Russian themselves.




I predict that Russia will have troops there for a long time.

Who is going to make them leave?

Not the Ukraine, not NATO, and not the USA.

It's a waste of time talking about this. It is what it is and it's not going to change.

I agree that not much can happen to change it. Ukraine understands that Crimea is lost. The question now is how far is Putin designing to go. Is that it, or does he have designs on other parts of Ukraine. I don't think Ukraine would passively allow Russia to annex parts of the Ukrainian mainland, but I could be wrong.
 
I am not familiar with the particular events surrounding Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. But I do now know about the deep divisions within Ukraine:

_73094671_ukraine_divide_2.gif

Crimea is the peninsula that looks like an island to the southeast.

Thankfully it appears that the pro-West/pro-Russia divide is a pretty clean one, unlike the complete cluster**** in Syria.

Look up what happened in 1938 it echoes what is happening now. As to the divide I don't think it will be so clear cut and cannot imagine that Russia will be content with just the Crimea, they will want to have a land route to them as well. So look up the Danzig corridor while you look up what happened in 1938.
Perhaps this will all end peacefully (I hope so) perhaps it will remain a localized problem (again I hope so) but it has the potential to go much bigger (Sincerely hope not)
 
I agree that not much can happen to change it. Ukraine understands that Crimea is lost. The question now is how far is Putin designing to go. Is that it, or does he have designs on other parts of Ukraine. I
don't think Ukraine would passively allow Russia to annex parts of the Ukrainian mainland, but I could be wrong.




Russia may occupy other Russian-speaking parts of the Ukraine. Who is going to stop them?
 
I agree that not much can happen to change it. Ukraine understands that Crimea is lost. The question now is how far is Putin designing to go. Is that it, or does he have designs on other parts of Ukraine. I don't think Ukraine would passively allow Russia to annex parts of the Ukrainian mainland, but I could be wrong.

If Putin succeeds without any trouble at all, it will just increase the chances he does it again and again and again..... See my above post do you really think Putin will accept the Crimea alone without any land link to the rest of Russia?
 
If Putin succeeds without any trouble at all, it will just increase the chances he does it again and again and again..... See my above post do you really think Putin will accept the Crimea alone without any land link to the rest of Russia?

So what's the EU going to do about it then?

It's not the US's problem.
 
So what's the EU going to do about it then?

It's not the US's problem.

I honestly have no clue. That is part of the reason why I am worried
 
Back
Top Bottom