Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

mcmoustache

SamHarris wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered finding out, but whats the bets the same people did not believe the "green men" in Crimea pre "referendum" were not Russian soldiers at all but spontaneously spawning self defence forces?

I had a read over the early stages of this thread recently as well as the old one in A+A. It's well worth skimming over it for the egg-on-face.

Icepick

Speaking of fascists

Far-right and nationalist parties from across Europe convened in St Petersburg on Sunday, condemning the pro-Ukrainian government in Kiev and calling for an end to the sanctions imposed on Russia by the west.

The event, called the International Russian Conservative Forum, was organised by pro-Kremlin party Rodina and involved 400 participants from 15 countries, according to the conference website, although the BBC reported that 150 representatives attended. Speakers included members of Greece’s Golden Dawn party and Udo Voigt, former leader of the Germany’s National Democratic Party (NPD) who has praised Adolf Hitler in the past.

Gringo180

The Russians are only looking out for there national interests in Crimea just like the Brits did and still do in the likes of the Falklands and Gibraltar for example. The hypocrisy of western governments astounds me at times. It seems okay for Israel to steal land but not for the Russians.

InTheTrees

Gringo180 wrote: »

It seems okay for Israel to steal land but not for the Russians.

So...

you're okay with the russians stealing land?

because israel does??

o.k....

Gringo180

InTheTrees wrote: »

So...

you're okay with the russians stealing land?

because israel does??

o.k....

No I am not okay with it. But why the double standards from the U.S and the E.U? Why no sanctions against the Israelis? Why was Kosovo allowed to declare themselves independent from Serbia and not Crimea from Ukraine?

Gatling

Gringo180 wrote: »

Why was Kosovo allowed to declare themselves independent from Serbia and not Crimea from Ukraine?

Because Crimea didnt become independent from Ukraine ,
Russian military forces insisted on a referendum under armed suggestions for a better word .
Russia only wanted the port of Sevastopol because they knew a free democratic Ukraine wanted russian ships and troops out of the Crimea permanently

Fiery mutant

Gringo180 wrote: »

No I am not okay with it. But why the double standards from the U.S and the E.U? Why no sanctions against the Israelis? Why was Kosovo allowed to declare themselves independent from Serbia and not Crimea from Ukraine?

Yes, and if Crimea is allowed, then surely Chechnya is too, right?

SamHarris

Gringo180 wrote: »

No I am not okay with it. But why the double standards from the U.S and the E.U? Why no sanctions against the Israelis? Why was Kosovo allowed to declare themselves independent from Serbia and not Crimea from Ukraine?

And your hypocrisy in condemning Israel and supporting Russia, an exact mirror of what you just said is hypocrisy, is less evident, how? Or do you suddenly see how the situations may be different, and therefore a different opinion is valid?

The inability of some to even think through a strongly held political belief to erase even the most obvious contradictions baffles me.

You're not aware of the history of Kosovo and Serbia? Or is this another special case? Again, rank hypocrisy. Most people can see why a government consisting of hundreds of people and thousands of interests may take a different approach to different situations that are decades apart in time and only vaguely similar in substance. That you, an individual, can not keep a coherent policy through a few lines in a post is... less forgivable.


What governments, exactly, are you comparing Western governments to that you believe makes the West "hypocritical" in how it deals with foreign policy? If any government took the same approach to every single situation that is vaguely similar they would not be winning some kind of moral high ground, they would be stupid and childish.

Seems like the only coherent idea that people who support Russias actions have on this thread is "we oppose what the West says in whatever situation". Perhaps they still think it is edgy and counter cultural to "stand up" to the dominant power, who knows. But I'd love to hear how they reached these conclusions with a defined set of criteria beyond the one stated above. Or maybe parroting what they heard on that one media outlet that's not "propaganda" like the hundreds of others that disagree with it - RT (funded by the Kremlin, but then that's not propaganda, you see, because they want to agree with it, the new definition of propaganda being that it is anything that challenges their politics).

Icepick

Gringo180 wrote: »

The Russians are only looking out for there national interests in Crimea just like the Brits did and still do in the likes of the Falklands and Gibraltar for example. The hypocrisy of western governments astounds me at times. It seems okay for Israel to steal land but not for the Russians.

there are no similarities between these examples and what Russia did

WakeUp

robindch wrote: »

I think that the Russian-backed warlords operating in East Ukraine should stop shelling the Ukrainian army from residential areas.I think it's reprehensible that Russia has invaded Ukraine, twice, and caused the deaths of thousands. If Ukraine had been able to call on the help of other nations for its security, then there's at least a sporting chance that Russia might not have invaded, and the dead might not have been killed.

But perhaps you disagree and believe, therefore, that Russia can invade whomever it likes, steal what it wants, and kill whoever stands up to them and their criminal behavior.

WakeUp wrote: »

do you believe other nations should fight and die for Ukraine?? and whats your position on Crimea?? as far as the Russians are concerned its gone forever its part of Russia now. should Ukraine go to war or forcibly attempt to take it back from Russia?..also the situation in the east...should these regions be allowed more autonomy or once again should Ukraine go to war there and forcibly attempt to take back control?? do you believe the west should arm Ukraine?...

I addressed your post though left that part out in the above part of mine that Ive quoted. If you have a read back you shall see that. I would appreciate it if you could address the questions Ive raised above.

gandalf wrote: »

So again WakeUp a lot of words amounting to the fact that you believe that Russia should be allowed get away with what it wants because it has the biggest guns and uses them.

So again what. why dont you address the points I raised in my post as opposed to making assumptions on my behalf. I dont believe Russia or any other country for that matter should be allowed get away with whatever they want. I am however a realist. because thats the world we live in and must operate in. Who do you think makes the "rules"? who do you think comes up with the institutions and ideas of "sovereignty" "human rights" "freedom" stuff like that and enforces them. who decides what is "order" on the planet. it certainly isnt the smaller less powerful countries who call the shots. nope its the big boys that call the shots. and whether people like to think or are willing to admit it or not Russia is part of that club. youve mentioned the "real" world a number of times sometimes I do wonder about the universe that some think they operate in with regard to international relations anyways. what do you know about realism??? considering its part and parcel as to how the planet is governed and power administered...tell me what you know of it.....I support the Minsk agreement . I support German efforts to try and find a diplomatic way out of this. all of which Ive stated a number of times.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

He'll claim otherwise of course.

However one doesn't expend hundreds of hours in defence of something you don't passionately endorse.

have you been consulting your tea leaves again Bojack? you must be quite the seer at this stage. "defence" and "passionate". really. if I really press you on those claims you wont have the answers. but continue to attempt to place me in a box by all means do that if thats what you like doing.

SamHarris wrote: »

It's always the same people that believe the "alternative" news sources - at least when it aligns with their politics. If the story is critical of the West or portrays the "right" side as the bad guys, well then there clearly is no need! It boggles my mind how little they seem to look for confirmation bias in their opinions, I'd be embarrassed to so obviously be pulled this way and that by any rumour or Kremlin mouth piece.

I couldn't be bothered finding out, but whats the bets the same people did not believe the "green men" in Crimea pre "referendum" were not Russian soldiers at all but spontaneously spawning self defence forces?

They keep asking for evidence but that is clearly the last thing they want - any evidence is just dismissed as propaganda no matter how compelling. As is the same with every story even remotely politically charged the only thing they want to see is their own view of the world reflected back at them. Anything that interferes with that must be dismissed. Anything short of a full on declaration of war from Russia will not suffice. Even then the line will just shift to justifications.

https://news.vice.com/video/russias-ghost-army-in-ukraine-part-3 I wonder how many more divisions will holiday in a warzone if things heat up again?

is the above post directed at me Sam? perhaps you could clear that up for me so as that I know whether its up to me or not to take it apart.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I had a read over the early stages of this thread recently as well as the old one in A+A. It's well worth skimming over it for the egg-on-face.

who has egg on their face? whos post history have you been trawling through...

Gringo180

SamHarris wrote: »

And your hypocrisy in condemning Israel and supporting Russia, an exact mirror of what you just said is hypocrisy,

But i don't and never have supported Russia. I am merely highlighting the disgusting hypocrisy of western governments foreign policy. They slate and sanction Russia and on the other hand fund and support Israel in there annexation of another peoples land.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

But i don't and never have supported Russia. I am merely highlighting the disgusting hypocrisy of western governments foreign policy. They slate and sanction Russia and on the other hand fund and support Israel in there annexation of another peoples land.

Who in the west supports that?

(Reminding you that "the west" is about 70 separate nations & not some level hive mind.)

WakeUp

SamHarris wrote: »

Seems like the only coherent idea that people who support Russias actions have on this thread is "we oppose what the West says in whatever situation". Perhaps they still think it is edgy and counter cultural to "stand up" to the dominant power, who knows.

who is "supporting" Russian actions? who...is that supposed to be a coherent retort/argument of some description. because it isnt. ignoring Western policy (US) vis a vis Russia / Ukraine, a policy that people qualified in such matters pointed out a long time ago would eventually lead to a situation we are in today if pursued, and ignoring this argument as somehow being non sequitur is plain as day ignoring reality. Ukraine and Georgia red lines for Russia. US/Nato dont be involved there nor get involved there. just how it is. and because they are or did we are now on the brink and on the road to war. point this out and youre a Putin apologist or you support Russia or a bot or some other simplistic anecdote like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWzHhW_qNiM

Gatling

So in essence leave putin to do what he wants with Georgia and Ukraine then eventually the Baltics I'm sure they will be considered red lines too

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

So in essence leave putin to do what he wants with Georgia and Ukraine then eventually the Baltics I'm sure they will be considered red lines too

theres another option. Both Georgia and Ukraine sign declarations that they will never seek Nato membership and from Natos side a declaration neither will ever be permitted, ever. then raitfy at a UN level. the declarations would have to be in writing and ratified oral "promises" of this and that wont work. if the Baltics were red lines for the Russians then they wouldnt have allowed the Americans via Nato to extend their sphere of influence right up to the Russian border by absorbing them into Nato. Georgia and Ukraine however are clearly red lines for the Russians. and they are not going to back down over them as things stand.

Gatling

WakeUp wrote: »

theres another option. Both Georgia and Ukraine sign declarations that they will never seek Nato membership and from Natos side a declaration neither will ever be permitted, ever. then raitfy at a UN level. the declarations would have to be in writing and ratified oral "promises" of this and that wont work. if the Baltics were red lines for the Russians then they wouldnt have allowed the Americans via Nato to extend their sphere of influence right up to the Russian border by absorbing them into Nato. Georgia and Ukraine however are clearly red lines for the Russians. and they are not going to back down over them as things stand.

Why russia won't respect it .
You cannot have a situation where russia is dictating to the world who gets to join the EU or Nato it's an absolutely Rediculous to even to suggest it .
As for UN ratification of any plans like russia respects the UN wonder who will block any plans for a UN mission to Ukraine

AbusesToilets

Or alternatively, Russia could recognise that the countries that share its border have a right to self determination and that talk of red lines is a sham pretense used to excuse a belligerent and aggressive effort to expand their territories.

Funny how you criticise the US/ Nato for their claimed efforts at expanding their sphere of influence, yet you feel that Russia is perfectly justified at doing the same towards the rest of Europe. Why should Russia be allowed to push for a greater military presence right up to the borders of Nato members? Are these intermediary countries to exist solely to server as a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe, and should thus be denied the right to choose who the align with and what agencies they join?

Nice double standard there.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are these intermediary countries to exist solely to server as a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe, and should thus be denied the right to choose who the align with and what agencies they join?

That appears to be the mindset.

Self determination be damned!
Czar Paranoia's gots to have his 'sphere of influence' (or as normal folk call them, "vassal states")

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

Why russia won't respect it .
You cannot have a situation where russia is dictating to the world who gets to join the EU or Nato it's an absolutely Rediculous to even to suggest it .
As for UN ratification of any plans like russia respects the UN wonder who will block any plans for a UN mission to Ukraine

I see two possible outcomes to what is happening in Ukraine which are these...

Crimea is gone whether I agree with it or not its gone. unless some believe nuclear annihilation is a price worth paying to forcibly take it back. phuck that. so that leaves the remainder of Ukraine then.

some sort of federal structure with the country remaining "unified" minus Crimea. perhaps sometime in the future Russia might pay repatriations or offer some money from resources found in Crimea though right now that appears unlikely. things can always change.

Ukraine declares its intention along with Nato to never seek membership. ratify in writing at UN level.

Ukraine also gets in writing and also ratified that its free to trade with who it wants - West or East.

or....

Ukraine eventually gets armed and gos on the offensive in the east. Once Russians start getting dead at the hands of western weapons they will be all but compelled to fully invade the east and they will. from there they will have a little choice but to go all the way to Kiev and finish the job. after that the sh1t hits the fan and its all out war across the continent and beyond.

whichever pans out one thing is certain. Ukraine will never be not now not ever a member of Nato. time for a reality check I think.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Or alternatively, Russia could recognise that the countries that share its border have a right to self determination and that talk of red lines is a sham pretense used to excuse a belligerent and aggressive effort to expand their territories.

Funny how you criticise the US/ Nato for their claimed efforts at expanding their sphere of influence, yet you feel that Russia is perfectly justified at doing the same towards the rest of Europe. Why should Russia be allowed to push for a greater military presence right up to the borders of Nato members? Are these intermediary countries to exist solely to server as a buffer between Russia and the rest of Europe, and should thus be denied the right to choose who the align with and what agencies they join?

Nice double standard there.

yeah. Im doing some back flips making things up again and fabricating stuff ya know "standards" and all. its how I roll.

Playboy

Gatling wrote: »

Why russia won't respect it .
You cannot have a situation where russia is dictating to the world who gets to join the EU or Nato it's an absolutely Rediculous to even to suggest it .
As for UN ratification of any plans like russia respects the UN wonder who will block any plans for a UN mission to Ukraine

What a naive view lol. Do you think the US would allow Mexico and Canada import some Russian Nukes and sign an alliance with them? Remember the Cuban missile crisis? The US have been engaging in proxy wars all across central and south america for the last 5 decades to ensure the 'communists' don't get a foothold.

mcmoustache

WakeUp wrote: »

who has egg on their face? whos post history have you been trawling through...

Why do you ask? I hadn't been paying any particular attention to your posts but if you were among those who denied russian involvement in Crimea before Putin's medal ceremony and the release of his documentary, then you might be among them.

gandalf

WakeUp wrote: »

theres another option. Both Georgia and Ukraine sign declarations that they will never seek Nato membership and from Natos side a declaration neither will ever be permitted, ever. then raitfy at a UN level. the declarations would have to be in writing and ratified oral "promises" of this and that wont work. if the Baltics were red lines for the Russians then they wouldnt have allowed the Americans via Nato to extend their sphere of influence right up to the Russian border by absorbing them into Nato. Georgia and Ukraine however are clearly red lines for the Russians. and they are not going to back down over them as things stand.

Russia also signed up to commitments in 1994 with regard to Ukrainian territorial integrity, which it has not lived up to. Specifically points 1 - 3 have all been breached.

According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.[13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Remember the Cuban missile crisis?

I don't seem to recall any nuclear-armed NATO members mentioning anything about deploying nukes to the Ukraine. Ever.

Ukraine != Cuba. Further, Ukraine is also a signatory to the NPT so in order to ever see nukes would have to be in violation of said treaty. straw.

Playboy

Lemming wrote: »

I don't seem to recall any nuclear-armed NATO members mentioning anything about deploying nukes to the Ukraine. Ever.

Ukraine != Cuba. Further, Ukraine is also a signatory to the NPT so in order to ever see nukes would have to be in violation of said treaty. straw.

The point isn't whether there are nukes or not, it is about having a potential hostile military capability on the doorstep of your border. The United States wouldn't put up with it so why should Russia? Promises have been broken by the West on this issue already so why should Putin trust the US or NATO?

I'm not a Putin apologist, I think he is a dangerous psychopath but I do understand the stance that Russia are taking here. The means I do not agree with but the West has played a part in creating this current crisis. As another poster has said the only way I can see Ukraine regaining its territorial integrity (minus Crimea) is by agreeing to never become a NATO member. I still think we wont see Eastern Ukraine back in the hands of the Ukrainian government anytime soon if ever. The Russians will seek to use the region as a buffer zone as it currently does with Georgia and Belarus.

Playboy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Or alternatively, Russia could recognise that the countries that share its border have a right to self determination and that talk of red lines is a sham pretense used to excuse a belligerent and aggressive effort to expand their territories.

The Russians are not doing anything different than the US has done in countries a damn sight further away than its own border. I dont excuse what the Russians or the US has done over the years, it is absolutely morally and ethically wrong to try and prevent a peoples self determination but lets be realistic here. Major powers will always try and control nations that are vital to its strategic or security interests. Why do you think we have had so many nations with puppet government propped up by the US or Russia over the years. The US know that the Ukraine is a red line for Russia but they still want to force the issue... why? This was a miscalculation on the part of the US and now they find themselves in a position where its difficult for them politically to back down. Innocent people as usual dying to serve the political purpose of corrupt governments. The whole thing is a farce of the highest order.

InTheTrees

Playboy wrote: »

The US know that the Ukraine is a red line for Russia but they still want to force the issue... why?

You dont seem to have any compassion for the Ukrainian people at all which is curious.

Playboy

InTheTrees wrote: »

You dont seem to have any compassion for the Ukrainian people at all which is curious.

Eh did you miss this part of my post?

"Innocent people as usual dying to serve the political purpose of corrupt governments. The whole thing is a farce of the highest order."

gandalf

I love the argument the US has done bad things therefore Russia should be allowed! It's mentality is taken straight from a primary school playground.

InTheTrees

Playboy wrote: »

Eh did you miss this part of my post?

"Innocent people as usual dying to serve the political purpose of corrupt governments. The whole thing is a farce of the highest order."

And do you also believe that russia should have some say in how Ukraine conducts its foreign policy?

InTheTrees

gandalf wrote: »

I love the argument the US has done bad things therefore Russia should be allowed! It's mentality is taken straight from a primary school playground.

The thought that theres some hypocrisy in defending Ukraine against Russian aggression just because the usa may have acted unethically in the past is such utter nonsense.