• 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!

What is the War in Ukraine about?

What is the War in Ukraine about?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
1. You forget that there is not one shred of evidence of CIA involvement in Ukraine.

2. You forget that a leader doesn't need to actually be convicted in a court of law to be driven out of office.

3. You forget that nothing that occurs in Ukrainian internal politics serves as justification for the de facto conquest of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory.

4. You forget that actual coup governments tend to be overthrown by the regional hegemon, a la Grenada. If this was actually a coup rather than a revolution, Russia would most likely have intervened directly rather than forcibly annexing Crimea and funding insurgents in Donbass.



Oh really...?

OK that tape the world heard about with a senior State Department official rambling about how "we glue this thing together" was from a movie?
,m
And where the **** do YOU get to decide who s guilty of what? Neither you nor even the CIA, according to you, was anywhere near Kyiv so how in any sane world would it be possible to determine guilt or innocence?

Oh wait, "regime change"...the United States gets to determine who has what government based on say so, regardless of such things as "due process" and "rights" and so forth.

If it's so OK to "drive a leader from office" how come the US has a constitution forbidding that? Or is that only for "Americans", the rest of the world has to do what it says regardless of the native constitution?

You need some work on your basic civics and human rights, saying a someone is a bad guy is NOT how the rest of the world thinks
 
Oh really...?

OK that tape the world heard about with a senior State Department official rambling about how "we glue this thing together" was from a movie?
,m
And where the **** do YOU get to decide who s guilty of what? Neither you nor even the CIA, according to you, was anywhere near Kyiv so how in any sane world would it be possible to determine guilt or innocence?

Oh wait, "regime change"...the United States gets to determine who has what government based on say so, regardless of such things as "due process" and "rights" and so forth.

If it's so OK to "drive a leader from office" how come the US has a constitution forbidding that? Or is that only for "Americans", the rest of the world has to do what it says regardless of the native constitution?

You need some work on your basic civics and human rights, saying a someone is a bad guy is NOT how the rest of the world thinks

The State Department phone conversation was pertaining to the US government being friendly with those who will come into power after the revolution. Which is how diplomacy works. It's not proof of anything; it's circumstantial at best.

I'm not saying that the CIA should have had a role in overthrowing Yanukovych. However, if Ukrainians have to be a little extralegal in order to overthrow an increasingly despotic kleptocrat who aligned with Russia against the wishes of at least half of Ukrainians, then by all means let them do so.
 
The State Department phone conversation was pertaining to the US government being friendly with those who will come into power after the revolution. Which is how diplomacy works. It's not proof of anything; it's circumstantial at best.

I'm not saying that the CIA should have had a role in overthrowing Yanukovych. However, if Ukrainians have to be a little extralegal in order to overthrow an increasingly despotic kleptocrat who aligned with Russia against the wishes of at least half of Ukrainians, then by all means let them do so.



OK, we're done here.

I heard that tape....

And you have no argument for "regime change" and where you or anyone elsae gets to determine anything. The United States is wrong, wrong, wrong on Ukraine and central Europe.
 
"....Beginning with the Clinton administration, and supported by every subsequent Republican and Democratic president and Congress, the US-led West has unrelentingly moved its military, political and economic power ever closer to post-Soviet Russia. Spearheaded by NATO’s eastward expansion, already encamped in the three former Soviet Baltic republics on Russia’s border—and now augmented by missile defense installations in neighboring states—this bipartisan, winner-take-all approach has come in various forms.

They include US-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs more deeply involved in Russia’s internal politics than foreign ones are permitted to be in our country; the 1999 bombing of Moscow’s Slav ally Serbia, forcibly detaching its historic province of Kosovo; a US military outpost in former Soviet Georgia (which, along with Ukraine, was one of Putin’s previously declared “red lines”), contributing to a brief proxy war in 2008; and, throughout, one-sided negotiations, called “selective cooperation,” which took concessions from the Kremlin without meaningful White House reciprocity and followed by broken American promises.

All of this has unfolded, sincerely on the part of some of its proponents, in the name of “democracy” and “sovereign choice” for the many smaller countries involved, but the underlying geopolitical agenda has been clear. During the first East-West conflict over Ukraine, occasioned by its 2004 “Orange Revolution,” an influential Republican columnist, Charles Krauthammer, acknowledged, “This is about Russia first, democracy only second.… The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east.… The great prize is Ukraine.” The late Richard Holbrooke, an aspiring Democratic secretary of state, concurred, hoping even then for Ukraine’s “final break with Moscow” and to “accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO.

That Russia’s political elite has long held this same menacing view of US intentions makes it no less true—or any less consequential. Formally announcing the annexation of Crimea on March 18, Putin vented (not for the first time) Moscow’s longstanding resentments. Several of his assertions were untrue and alarming, but others were reasonable, or at least understandable, not “delusional.” Referring to Western (primarily American) policy-makers since the 1990s, he complained bitterly that they were “trying to drive us into some kind of corner,” “have lied to us many times” and in Ukraine “have crossed the line,” warning: “Everything has its limits.”

We are left, then, with profoundly conflicting Russian-Western narratives and a political discourse of the uncomprehending, itself often the prelude to war. Putin has been demonized for years, so little he says on Moscow’s behalf receives serious consideration in Washington. His annexation speech, for example, was dismissed as a “package of fictions” by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Nothing in Washington’s replies diminishes Putin’s reasonable belief that the EU trade agreement rejected by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in November, and Yanukovych’s overthrow in February by violent street protests, leading to the current "illegitimate" government, were intended to sever Ukraine’s centuries-long ties with Russia and bind it to NATO. (Today’s crisis was triggered by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, despite Putin’s offer of a “tripartite” agreement, which compelled an elected president of a deeply divided country to choose economically between the West and Russia, an approach since criticized by former German chancellors Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schröder. The EU’s proffered “partnership” also included little-noticed “security” provisions requiring Ukraine’s “convergence” with NATO policies, without mentioning the military alliance.)....
Cold War Again: Who’s Responsible?
Stephen F. Cohen April 1, 2014
Cold War Again: Who
 
Alright, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Let's say that the current President of Mexico was extremely corrupt. He had been voted into office on order to integrate economically with Venezuela and Cuba, but he reneged on his promises due to American bribes and instead expanded NAFTA. When almost half of the country opposes this policy, and hundreds of thousands of Mexicans protest peacefully in the capital, he deploys snipers and militarized police to quell the protests, and institutes laws restricting free speech and association. The situation becomes so bad that even his own party abandons him and he's removed by the Mexican Congress with less than the required vote. After granting this man asylum, the US then invades Yucatan (using a BS referendum to justify it) and funds cartels and militias to destabilize Ukraine.

Would you consider the US' actions to be aggressive?

All things as you described, certainly. Now then, let me ask you a hypothetical.

Suppose that Yanukovych had discontinued negotiations with Russia, deciding that Ukraine would get a better deal from the EU, and forged an agreement with them, resulting in a large portion of Ukrainian population protesting with Russian support, that morphed into a coup that resulted in the removal of Yanukovych, replacing him with a pro-Russian government that would now sign deals with Russia that favored Russian business interests. And the EU/US responded by moving into Western Ukraine and annexing it. Would you support that.
 
Last edited:
All things as you described, certainly.

Which is basically what happened in Ukraine. Even if government snipers didn't kill protestors, Yanukovych instituted policies that restricted people's basic civil liberties. Russia did invade Ukraine and does fund rebels to destabilize the country, yet you support them in something that you'd oppose if the US was doing it.

Also, sorry how I said that the US would be funding cartels and militias "in Ukraine." Should have said Mexico :doh
 
Which is basically what happened in Ukraine. Even if government snipers didn't kill protestors, Yanukovych instituted policies that restricted people's basic civil liberties. Russia did invade Ukraine and does fund rebels to destabilize the country, yet you support them in something that you'd oppose if the US was doing it.

Also, sorry how I said that the US would be funding cartels and militias "in Ukraine." Should have said Mexico :doh

Yeah, I knew what you meant. And I don't agree with you that that is what happened in Ukraine. For one, if Russia's negotiations and offers to Ukraine are to be depicted as bribes, then the EU/US negotiations with Ukraine must be described as bribery as well. As to the snipers, there are people who have claimed that they were not Yanukovych's people. It's also well known that NATO wished to deny Russia their Black Sea ports. So Crimea's annexation, BY REFERENDUM, was much more understandable then the hypothetical you proposed.
 
"....Beginning with the Clinton administration, and supported by every subsequent Republican and Democratic president and Congress, the US-led West has unrelentingly moved its military, political and economic power ever closer to post-Soviet Russia. Spearheaded by NATO’s eastward expansion, already encamped in the three former Soviet Baltic republics on Russia’s border—and now augmented by missile defense installations in neighboring states—this bipartisan, winner-take-all approach has come in various forms.

They include US-funded “democracy promotion” NGOs more deeply involved in Russia’s internal politics than foreign ones are permitted to be in our country; the 1999 bombing of Moscow’s Slav ally Serbia, forcibly detaching its historic province of Kosovo; a US military outpost in former Soviet Georgia (which, along with Ukraine, was one of Putin’s previously declared “red lines”), contributing to a brief proxy war in 2008; and, throughout, one-sided negotiations, called “selective cooperation,” which took concessions from the Kremlin without meaningful White House reciprocity and followed by broken American promises.

All of this has unfolded, sincerely on the part of some of its proponents, in the name of “democracy” and “sovereign choice” for the many smaller countries involved, but the underlying geopolitical agenda has been clear. During the first East-West conflict over Ukraine, occasioned by its 2004 “Orange Revolution,” an influential Republican columnist, Charles Krauthammer, acknowledged, “This is about Russia first, democracy only second.… The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the east.… The great prize is Ukraine.” The late Richard Holbrooke, an aspiring Democratic secretary of state, concurred, hoping even then for Ukraine’s “final break with Moscow” and to “accelerate” Kiev’s membership in NATO.

That Russia’s political elite has long held this same menacing view of US intentions makes it no less true—or any less consequential. Formally announcing the annexation of Crimea on March 18, Putin vented (not for the first time) Moscow’s longstanding resentments. Several of his assertions were untrue and alarming, but others were reasonable, or at least understandable, not “delusional.” Referring to Western (primarily American) policy-makers since the 1990s, he complained bitterly that they were “trying to drive us into some kind of corner,” “have lied to us many times” and in Ukraine “have crossed the line,” warning: “Everything has its limits.”

We are left, then, with profoundly conflicting Russian-Western narratives and a political discourse of the uncomprehending, itself often the prelude to war. Putin has been demonized for years, so little he says on Moscow’s behalf receives serious consideration in Washington. His annexation speech, for example, was dismissed as a “package of fictions” by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Nothing in Washington’s replies diminishes Putin’s reasonable belief that the EU trade agreement rejected by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in November, and Yanukovych’s overthrow in February by violent street protests, leading to the current "illegitimate" government, were intended to sever Ukraine’s centuries-long ties with Russia and bind it to NATO. (Today’s crisis was triggered by the EU’s reckless ultimatum, despite Putin’s offer of a “tripartite” agreement, which compelled an elected president of a deeply divided country to choose economically between the West and Russia, an approach since criticized by former German chancellors Helmut Kohl and Gerhard Schröder. The EU’s proffered “partnership” also included little-noticed “security” provisions requiring Ukraine’s “convergence” with NATO policies, without mentioning the military alliance.)....
Cold War Again: Who’s Responsible?
Stephen F. Cohen April 1, 2014
Cold War Again: Who

Great post HT!
 
"..If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle ISIS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane’s case, they will make more vague demands, such as for “offensive” air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region.

But what you won’t learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry...."
Who
 
"..If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle ISIS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane’s case, they will make more vague demands, such as for “offensive” air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region.

But what you won’t learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry...."
Who

Yep, not the kind of thing very many people here will acknowledge.
 
So Crimea's annexation, BY REFERENDUM, was much more understandable then the hypothetical you proposed.
The Crimea referendum was clearly illegal according to the constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea. In both documents, any change in the status of Crimea could only occur with the approval of the Ukrainian parliament. This is one of the reasons why the snap-referendum and subsequent annexation by the Russian Federation was declared illegal by a vote of the UN General Assembly on 27 March 2014.
 
Simpleχity;1063757725 said:
The Crimea referendum was clearly illegal according to the constitutions of Ukraine and Crimea. In both documents, any change in the status of Crimea could only occur with the approval of the Ukrainian parliament. This is one of the reasons why the snap-referendum and subsequent annexation by the Russian Federation was declared illegal by a vote of the UN General Assembly on 27 March 2014.

And the Western backed coup, and installation of a pro-Western government was legal. Btw, there's something like 90 chapter six UN resolutions (more than any other country) against Israel, including on war crimes, and they keep trudging right along with not a skip in their step, or a formal criticism from the US/West. When that's pointed out, we basically hear, **** the UN.
 
And the Western backed coup, and installation of a pro-Western government was legal.
You are the one who brought up the Crimea referendum. I explained to you why the snap-referendum was illegitimate and illegal.

Btw, there's something like 90 chapter six UN resolutions (more than any other country) against Israel, including on war crimes, and they keep trudging right along with not a skip in their step, or a formal criticism from the US/West. When that's pointed out, we basically hear, **** the UN.
Israel is not germane to Ukraine.
 
Simpleχity;1063759420 said:
You are the one who brought up the Crimea referendum. I explained to you why the snap-referendum was illegitimate and illegal.


Israel is not germane to Ukraine.

Yes, the same UN that has passed 90 odd chapter six resolutions on Israel, declared Russia's action in Ukraine to be illegal, I got that.

And of course Israel isn't germane to Ukraine, but the UN!
 
I mentioned "All NATO members are going to walk away from the United Nations after the collapse of the U.S. empire."

I would like to add ....

The only incident which I feel might speed up NATO members abandoning the United Nations is if Israel is found to be guilty of war crimes in Gaza.

If the United Nations finds that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes, that is game over for the United Nations.

Hamas will not be too embarrassed across the universe because it has already been branded a terrorist organization. Hamas is just a "Terrorist Organization" and Israel is said to be a "State" with a conscience which dates back to the holocaust at least.

Israel will live with this War Crime Branding forever .... If an overwhelming majority of the world population has them being found guilty of war crimes, even though it may suffer a U.S. veto at the Security Council, is one of those "Never Forget" things. The world shame will be totally immense.

If Israel is found guilty of war crimes, and it will be if the case is reviewed by the United Nations, Israel will not want to remain as a U.N. member after calling the ambassadors representing 90 percent of the world population anti-semites.

NATO will follow and support Israel's decision.

However; Israel may very well agree to lift the embargo against Palestine and completely pay for reconstruction if they can find somebody within the Palestinian leadership to agree not to bring the War Crime charges to the United Nations for consideration. There is about a 2 year window of opportunity to circumvent the process before an actual UN General Assembly member vote.

Calm

While individual Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes the same as any army ever the state of Israel has not committed war crimes as a matter of government policy, the UNGA has no legal authority to find anyone guilty of anything.
 
All things as you described, certainly. Now then, let me ask you a hypothetical.

Suppose that Yanukovych had discontinued negotiations with Russia, deciding that Ukraine would get a better deal from the EU, and forged an agreement with them, resulting in a large portion of Ukrainian population protesting with Russian support, that morphed into a coup that resulted in the removal of Yanukovych, replacing him with a pro-Russian government that would now sign deals with Russia that favored Russian business interests. And the EU/US responded by moving into Western Ukraine and annexing it. Would you support that.

Except the only reason why Yanukovych didn't join the EU agreement in the first place is because Putin began waging economic war against the Ukraine by imposing an embargo against Ukrainian goods. This entire situation is a direct result of Russian interventionism and nothing else, anyone who says differently is either a liar, a payed propagandist, or both.
 
Except the only reason why Yanukovych didn't join the EU agreement in the first place is because Putin began waging economic war against the Ukraine by imposing an embargo against Ukrainian goods. This entire situation is a direct result of Russian interventionism and nothing else, anyone who says differently is either a liar, a payed propagandist, or both.

Do you always accuse everyone that disagrees with you of being a paid propagandist and a liar? You haven't a clue what your talking about. Get your head out of the sand and read something besides US propaganda.
 
While individual Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes the same as any army ever the state of Israel has not committed war crimes as a matter of government policy, the UNGA has no legal authority to find anyone guilty of anything.

Wow, you really don't know how things work. They don't have any authority to hold Israel accountable, but they most certainly are charged with and have a mechanism for which to file resolutions as such and indeed have now around 90 chapter six resolutions on Israel. You're far too patronizing to be taken serious.
 
Do you always accuse everyone that disagrees with you of being a paid propagandist and a liar?

It's a fact jack:

Web brigades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia's Online-Comment Propaganda Army - The Atlantic
Putin Paying People To Post Pro-Russia Propaganda In Comments - Business Insider
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america#bsk7he

You haven't a clue what your talking about. Get your head out of the sand and read something besides US propaganda.

Unlike the authoritarian quasi-Fascist state of Russia the US has a free press.
 
Wow, you really don't know how things work. They don't have any authority to hold Israel accountable, but they most certainly are charged with and have a mechanism for which to file resolutions as such and indeed have now around 90 chapter six resolutions on Israel. You're far too patronizing to be taken serious.

UNGA resolutions do not have the force of international law and with good reason, they are dominated by the OIC which is an organization which would love to see Israel wiped off the map and the Jews pushed into the sea.
 
UNGA resolutions do not have the force of international law and with good reason, they are dominated by the OIC which is an organization which would love to see Israel wiped off the map and the Jews pushed into the sea.

What is happening in Ukraine is the result of five years of Barack Obama's weakness. Putin has watched him show it, again and again in different situations, and taken his measure. He probably sees Obama as a prissy fool. The danger now is that continued weakness by President Limpwrist may tempt Russia's leaders to believe they can get away with moves on the Baltic states. A failure to respond to that with military force would destroy NATO's credibility for good, but I'm far from certain Obama would not let that happen. He wants to see this country humbled.
 

Lol, how old are you? You're quite naive.

Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

The secretive GCHQ and JTRIG training manual which was leaked via Glenn Greenwald and Ed Snowden show an even dirtier side to our governments’ new ‘digital Stasi’. Their report means that the public can finally put an ugly face on this disease which is ruining the internet. First Look explains:

“Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.”
 
Last edited:
UNGA resolutions do not have the force of international law and with good reason, they are dominated by the OIC which is an organization which would love to see Israel wiped off the map and the Jews pushed into the sea.

No UNGA resolutions have any force, unless and until a country decides to go enforce them (as we did in Iraq in 2003). Otherwise, they are just resolutions.
 
Lol, how old are you? You're quite naive.

Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

Operation Mockingbird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This dealt with foreign media and was discontinued in 1976.

The secretive GCHQ and JTRIG training manual which was leaked via Glenn Greenwald and Ed Snowden show an even dirtier side to our governments’ new ‘digital Stasi’. Their report means that the public can finally put an ugly face on this disease which is ruining the internet. First Look explains:

“Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.”


I notice you provide no link for your second source, shocking. :roll: Ed Snowden is a proven liar. Provide first hand accounts of those actually in the employ of any service in the US government to troll internet forums and post propaganda the way my sources have done. You can't because they don't exist, however, the evidence regarding the authoritarian Russian regime paying propagandists to troll internet forums by the post has been presented and you have nothing as a rebuttal save for pointing to anti-Soviet propaganda efforts during the cold war ended in the mid-70s and nonsense from a questionable source with absolutely no substantiating evidence to back the claims therein.
 
No UNGA resolutions have any force, unless and until a country decides to go enforce them (as we did in Iraq in 2003). Otherwise, they are just resolutions.

You can't enforce UNGA resolutions period, they are not international law, they're strongly worded letters, do you even know the difference between a UNSC Resolution and a UNGA Resolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom