Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.
Options
Comments
-
"I concur with robindch though. The Russian state, Russia Today, and its supporters are engaged in a level of untruth that is quite frankly impressive in its scope. At the risk of Godwin, the level of complete contempt for truth in their position is up there with the "Big lie" advocated by Goebbels."
which I responded to point out the flaws in that logic as it is not even close to the western worlds media at all.
Russian scale is quite low and pathetic, who believes that there are no soldiers in Russia.
That Putin is there to protect jews...
NOBODY.
that is what you said not... "My objective statement that Putin is on record as laughably denying the Russian troops occupying Ukraine actually exist is an invitation"
which is something different, how is it the Putin who would have gotten the invite by corrupt politicians to stay in power as being false.
Not even saying the invitation is valid in anyways or the Putin SHOULD be there.
But it is the situation of the pot calling the kettle black...0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I didn't realise I was arguing in favour of anything in my post? I think you're well aware of my position on Northern Ireland.
Well aware, hence the irony.Putin declared war on Ukraine when he invaded Crimea, a NATO response would not be an initial attack.
Why would NATO get involved? You seriously think it's a good idea to threaten Russia with military action? Seriously like?Can easily become,
" Let the Ulster Scots decide their own future and let them have their referendum, what's so wrong about that? Let the EU monitor it but just get it done, if they vote to remain within the UK then Ireland have no other option but to leave them to it."
Exactly, I'm not opposed to a referendum in the North and happy enough to live happily with the result when it comes, hardly that controversial like.Do you see the hypocrisy latent in those who hold simultaneously hold favourable notions towards uniting Ireland against the wishes of a planted minority while advocating the partition of Ukraine based on the wishes of a planted minority? But I don't mean to drag this off topic so perhaps we should discuss it some other time.
Aye, you're still not quite grasping it yet, I sense that.Although I have been starting to think lately a lot of posters here are not so much pro-Russian as culturally anti-Anglosphere and everything it represents to the point of perhaps irrationality. Which I would attribute to quite a significant degree to historical bitterness as a result of Ireland's mistreatment at the hands of Britain.
Well to be frank, the West per se should get it's own house in order, we are the pinnacle of hypocritical bastards in the West.0 -
Hi bob, well not just hitler but the USSR also managed to occupy the Baltic states over a period at that time without needing to fire a shot. I think only to give Putin credit for any not violent occupation of the crimea puts him in bad company.riffmongous I have no idea what your talking about.
comparing Puting to Hitler (not saying your wrong just not sure of your direction).
which part is the same?
For anyone who is in favour of the self-determination of the crimea, would you be opposed to the russian actions in chechnya? I personally would be for self determination, just not under occupation as we appear to have at the moment in the Crimea.0 -
I said would, hypothetical tense. You said you don't believe it's worth starting a war over Crimea. I pointed out that since Russia already declared war on Ukraine a NATO response would not be an initial attack. NATO would not be starting a war. I didn't advocate an attack, I proved your preposition wrong by contradiction.Why would NATO get involved? You seriously think it's a good idea to threaten Russia with military action? Seriously like?
We don't have to be perfect to condemn Putin. The moral validity of his actions are independently constant and are not conditional on historical precedent set by the west.Well to be frank, the West per se should get it's own house in order, we are the pinnacle of hypocritical bastards in the West.0 -
But the US....:rolleyes:Iwasfrozen wrote: »
We don't have to be perfect to condemn Putin. The moral validity of his actions are independently constant and are not conditional on historical precedent set by the west.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I said would, hypothetical tense. You said you don't believe it's worth starting a war over Crimea. I pointed out that since Russia already declared war on Ukraine a NATO response would not be an initial attack. NATO would not be starting a war. I didn't advocate an attack, I proved your preposition wrong by contradiction.
We don't have to be perfect to condemn Putin. The moral validity of his actions are independently constant and are not conditional on historical precedent set by the west.
They didn't declare war on Ukraine. They are occupying Crimea, no one has been killed due to that occupation. You aren't even being clear, are you saying NATO would be justified in deploying against Russia now because of, as you say this 'Declaration of war' on Ukraine. I'm going to go ahead and assume you do mean that as you have previously stated that the EU should deploy to the Ukrainian border.
Great idea you have, lets ramp up tensions and open the door to a potential nuclear war, not to mention your bizarre posts about 'the greater good and stability'.
We surely don't have to be perfect to criticise Putin, he deserves all of it but let's be sane at least.0 -
it would be so easy to show the difference between putin's wars georgia and ukraine and the NATO/US/UK.
war p0rn of shock and awe is a great example of western world media's influence.
but still, old and new government, I still believe they are the same, just different head at the table.
here is a lovely piece on how EU and US corruption effects Ukraine0 -
What about Chechnya though?it would be so easy to show the difference between putin's wars georgia and ukraine and the NATO/US/UK.
war p0rn of shock and awe is a great example of western world media's influence.
but still, old and new government, I still believe they are the same, just different head at the table.
here is a lovely piece on how EU and US corruption effects Ukraine0 -
Oh really? The UN would disagree.They didn't declare war on Ukraine. They are occupying Crimea, no one has been killed due to that occupation. You aren't even being clear,
Source: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Article 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif](g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.[/FONT]
Russia is guilty of a) c) e) and g) in that list and by doing so have declared a state of war against Ukraine. Whether they admit to it or not.
They would be justified in declaring war on Russia yes. Though no one wants that to happen hence we see only economic sanctions from the west. Now before you go off on a tangent I said NATO would be "justified" to intervene it would not be "desirable".are you saying NATO would be justified in deploying against Russia now because of, as you say this 'Declaration of war' on Ukraine. I'm going to go ahead and assume you do mean that as you have previously stated that the EU should deploy to the Ukrainian border.[
I did say the EU should have an army yes, it's a pity we have to rely on the US to protect out interests when our interests may not always be the same.
Proxy wars have been fought in third party countries before and have never turned nuclear. Why would a war in Ukraine turn nuclear when a war in Vietnam or Korea didn't?Great idea you have, lets ramp up tensions and open the door to a potential nuclear war, not to mention your bizarre posts about 'the greater good and stability'.
If we don't have to be perfect to criticise Putin then why do we need to " our own house in order, we are the pinnacle of hypocritical bastards in the West."?We surely don't have to be perfect to criticise Putin, he deserves all of it but let's be sane at least.0 -
What are you actually talking about?it would be so easy to show the difference between putin's wars georgia and ukraine and the NATO/US/UK.
war p0rn of shock and awe is a great example of western world media's influence.
but still, old and new government, I still believe they are the same, just different head at the table.
here is a lovely piece on how EU and US corruption effects Ukraine0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »We don't have to be perfect to condemn Putin. The moral validity of his actions are independently constant and are not conditional on historical precedent set by the west.
The thing is, its hard for the US and the west in general to portray that they are outraged and for us to take that seriously.
This is the benefit of not invading other countries....When Putin does it, you really can condemn and have moral strength with the people.
Anyway, comparing the Crimea thing where no one has died and Russia were actually allowed to station some troops to Iraq where 1 million Iraqis died...Really?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Oh really? The UN would disagree.
Source: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html
Russia is guilty of a) c) e) and g) in that list and by doing so have declared a state of war against Ukraine. Whether they admit to it or not.
They would be justified in declaring war on Russia yes. Though no one wants that to happen hence we see only economic sanctions from the west. Now before you go off on a tangent I said NATO would be "justified" to intervene it would not be "desirable".
I did say the EU should have an army yes, it's a pity we have to rely on the US to protect out interests when our interests may not always be the same.
Proxy wars have been fought in third party countries before and have never turned nuclear. Why would a war in Ukraine turn nuclear when a war in Vietnam or Korea didn't?
If we don't have to be perfect to criticise Putin then why do we need to " our own house in order, we are the pinnacle of hypocritical bastards in the West."?
So your big idea, you're massive contribution to this debate is for the Western powers to arm and supply Ukraine and let them fight a proxy-war against Russia? Is that it?
That war would be over in days and be disastrous for Ukraine and for Western relations with Russia.
And yes we should get our house in order, the Crimea is not our problem, if it was part of the EU it would be, but it's not.0 -
"I concur with robindch though. The Russian state, Russia Today, and its supporters are engaged in a level of untruth that is quite frankly impressive in its scope. At the risk of Godwin, the level of complete contempt for truth in their position is up there with the "Big lie" advocated by Goebbels."
which I responded to point out the flaws in that logic as it is not even close to the western worlds media at all.
That's not a flaw. It is quite possible to discuss an issue on its own merits without reference to an unrelated topic. What you are engaged in is whataboutery. Not even very good whataboutery as it was western media journalists who have become disgusted with the level of untruth on stations like Russia Today and quit, live on air. Even the products of the lying western media are bothered by the untruth on stations like Russia Today. Like I said, I'm sure its a fascinating topic you can contribute a lot to so start a thread about it so it gets the proper attention.Russian scale is quite low and pathetic, who believes that there are no soldiers in Russia.
That Putin is there to protect jews...
NOBODY.
Putin believes it according to the media in Russia. That is the level of untruth I referred to - Putin being interviewed, being taken seriously when he tells a lie that as you say yourself nobody believes. And he isn't challenged on it. Everyone mutely goes along with a story that as you say yourself nobody believes. Indeed many have convinced themselves that lie is true, or that armed mobs of Ukrainians are descending on Crimea to carry out an anti-Russian pogrom. That's the level of a "Big Lie" Russia is engaged in. Its sad Russian media considers this credible, even sadder that others do.that is what you said not... "My objective statement that Putin is on record as laughably denying the Russian troops occupying Ukraine actually exist is an invitation"
which is something different, how is it the Putin who would have gotten the invite by corrupt politicians to stay in power as being false.
Not even saying the invitation is valid in anyways or the Putin SHOULD be there.
But it is the situation of the pot calling the kettle black...
Yes, yes - the west is terrible, you really ought to start a thread about it.0 -
This seem's to be the "link" between the EU and the Ukraine: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUkraine%25E2%2580%2593European_Union_relations&ei=fQIbU4zjOI7g7Qat9oGADg&usg=AFQjCNERsoBUiewwsmMec8iEtHnueJNbBA&sig2=CW2eQ9UMm5GMjJIcNcnS9g&bvm=bv.62578216,d.ZGU
Important excerpts....
1. Relations between Ukraine and the European Union (EU) are currently shaped via the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), a foreign policy instrument of the EU designed for the countries it borders. The EU is seeking an increasingly close relationship with Ukraine, going beyond cooperation, to gradual economic integration and deepening of political cooperation. Ukraine is said to be a priority partner within the ENP.[1] In 2012, the EU signed deals on free trade and political association with Ukraine; however EU leaders have stated that these agreements will not be ratified unless Ukraine addresses concerns over a "stark deterioration of democracy and the rule of law".
2. Early relations[edit]
Ukraine has long been seen as an important but difficult political partner of the European Union. According to observers,[who?] this is due to such factors as unwillingness of the EU to expand to the post-Soviet space, poor performance of the Ukrainian economy, lack of democracy (during the 1990s) or internal instability (following the Orange revolution). Also, some experts[who?] notice the importance of the Russian factor in Ukraine-EU relations. Ukraine's desire to join the European institutions dates back to 1994 when the government declared that integration to the EU is the main foreign policy objective. In reality, little was done since Kiev had to take into account Russia, which remained its major trade partner and natural gas and fossil energy supplier. The political dialogue between the EU and Ukraine started in 1994 when the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was signed.
There doesn't seem to be any connection between Ireland and Self-Defence Agreements between single states within the EU. However Ireland is party to an EU Defence Agreement and is an operative part of the Nordic Battlegroup. It also has a mission-office in NATO HQ.
With regard to Defence Pacts, they are similar to the mutual defence pact between Britain and France in 1939. The similarity between the Ukraine and the Sudetenland is striking, or even the Serbian War so recently, as they involve ethnic minorities. The US isn't blameless in regard to colonialism. Putin would have been slated in the USSR as a foreign-adventurist (should he have failed in what he's currently doing).0 -
So your big idea, you're massive contribution to this debate is for the Western powers to arm and supply Ukraine and let them fight a proxy-war against Russia? Is that it?
That war would be over in days and be disastrous for Ukraine and for Western relations with Russia.
And yes we should get our house in order, the Crimea is not our problem, if it was part of the EU it would be, but it's not.
I didn't say that. I said NATO or the EU if they had an army would be justified to counterattack Russian forces in Crimea. Justified but that action is not desirable.
A conventional war constrained to the Crimean peninsula would not turn nuclear. Russia knows the consequence of that and Putin I'm sure on a human level does not want to be the man who obliterates two continents.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I didn't say that. I said NATO or the EU if they had an army would be justified to counterattack Russian forces in Crimea. Justified but that action is not desirable.
A conventional war constrained to the Crimean peninsula would not turn nuclear. Russia knows the consequence of that and Putin I'm sure on a human level does not want to be the man who obliterates two continents.
So you are in fact saying the west should fund some kind of proxy-war in the Ukraine against Russia?0 -
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Yes, frankly. It's a sad state of affairs when an aggressive foreign state can violate the territorial integrity of a potential member state of the EU while we sit back and watch.
And who do we arm? Who do we trust to not be worse than what's gone before? How would the introduction of more weapons to the Ukraine be anything but detrimental to the Ukrainian people as a whole?0 -
The thing is, its hard for the US and the west in general to portray that they are outraged and for us to take that seriously.
This is the benefit of not invading other countries....When Putin does it, you really can condemn and have moral strength with the people.
Anyway, comparing the Crimea thing where no one has died and Russia were actually allowed to station some troops to Iraq where 1 million Iraqis died...Really?
It is really weird to turn on the TV and see on all the news stations about Russia's illegal intervention in the Crimea and then come on here and read how somehow it is all the fault of the US/West.0 -
We don't arm anyone I'm talking about NATO. If the EU had an army they would be preferable quite frankly I don't believe the American led NATO always has our best interests at heart.Rojomcdojo wrote: »And who do we arm? Who do we trust to not be worse than what's gone before? How would the introduction of more weapons to the Ukraine be anything but detrimental to the Ukrainian people as a whole?0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Yes, frankly. It's a sad state of affairs when an aggressive foreign state can violate the territorial integrity of a potential member state of the EU while we sit back and watch.
Finally you spit it out.
Who do you think would win that war? I know who would win. That wouldn't be any kind of ham-fisted affair like Syria, Russia are a superpower and it's right there in their backyard.
I also know who would lose that war. The ordinary five-eighth Ukrainian.
Go back to reading your Janes weekly and compare your top-trumps or something. If you had your way we would all freeze again with never ending Cold War.
And by the way, yours is a totally hypocritical stance given your posting history about Northern Ireland, hard to believe you had the gall to bring that nugget up in defence of your own argument, pretty hilarious so thanks for the laugh... I guess the answer to 'When is violence acceptable?' is when Iwasfrozen says it is.0 -
I don't particularly know what you'te talking about I've already pointed out the blanket hypocrisy of many republicans here who support the partition of Ukraine due to the wishes of its planted population while simultaneously arguing Ireland should be united against the wishes of its planted population. I then expanded on that to say I'm now considering the possibility many people here who say they are pro Russian are actually just anti anglosphere. It doesn't matter what the conflict is or who is to blame, Ukraine, Syria, Falklands and Iraq its automatically the fault of the Anglo Saxons because these people are still bitter about what Britain did to Ireland and can't imagine a scenario where Britain might actually be on the "right" side. Now this is getting way OTT so let's leave it there.Finally you spit it out.
Who do you think would win that war? I know who would win. That wouldn't be any kind of ham-fisted affair like Syria, Russia are a superpower and it's right there in their backyard.
I also know who would lose that war. The ordinary five-eighth Ukrainian.
Go back to reading your Janes weekly and compare your top-trumps or something. If you had your way we would all freeze again with never ending Cold War.
And by the way, yours is a totally hypocritical stance given your posting history about Northern Ireland, hard to believe you had the gall to bring that nugget up in defence of your own argument, pretty hilarious so thanks for the laugh... I guess the answer to 'When is violence acceptable?' is when Iwasfrozen says it is.
As for Ukraine, Putin is no fool he knows Russia is not the USER, their military capabilities are much reduced and he won't throw soldiers into a war he knows he can't win. Especially when it is made clear to him that no attacks on Russia proper are to be considered. Provided the operation was planned meticulously NATO should win and a referendum can be organised overseen by the EU on Crimea's future.0 -
Who do you think would win that war? I know who would win. That wouldn't be any kind of ham-fisted affair like Syria, Russia are a superpower and it's right there in their backyard.
Russia is not a superpower. It spends a relatively large (4.4%) of its GDP on military spending, and is still heavily outspent by Europe which mainly spend about 1 to 1.5%. And that's even without considering the US which outspends pretty much everyone else combined.
Military power ultimately rests on economic power - Europe has much greater economic power than Russia in the long term, and NATO has greater military power than Russia in the short term. It is Russia that should dread any military conflict. It isn't 1980 anymore.0 -
Add to that the quality of soldier in terms of training, equipment & leadership puts the west & Europe well ahead of the vast bulk of Russian forces.0
-
Take it to the Walter Mitty forum boys.
I can't take seriously that anyone could justify any kind of NATO action in Crimea or the endorsement of proxy-wars whilst at the same time waxing lyrical about aggressive foreign powers.0 -
No one wants war Karma, it's never desirable but if you think it's never necessary then you don't really understand history.Take it to the Walter Mitty forum boys.
I can't take seriously that anyone could justify any kind of NATO action in Crimea or the endorsement of proxy-wars whilst at the same time waxing lyrical about aggressive foreign powers.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »No one wants war Karma, it's never desirable but if you believe it's never necessary then you don't really understand history.
Au contraire, I'm a keen student of history. And whilst I am a pacifist I could be swayed that defensive actions are entirely justifiable but I draw the line exactly there, at defence only. You on the other hand endorse violence by proxy from some kind of imagined high ground. Your entire premise is completely daft and hypocritical in the extreme and your bias is blinding you to it.0 -
By letting Putin invade a potential member state? If the EU can't protect Ukraine then then why should any other country trust us.Au contraire, I'm a keen student of history. And whilst I am a pacifist I could be swayed that defensive actions are entirely justifiable but I draw the line exactly there, at defence only. You on the other hand endorse violence by proxy from some kind of imagined high ground. Your entire premise is completely daft and hypocritical in the extreme and your bias is blinding you to it.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »By letting Putin invade a potential member state? If the EU can't protect Ukraine then then why should any other country trust us.
You insist on harping on about the 'potentiality' of EU membership as if that equated to membership.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »By letting Putin invade a potential member state? If the EU can't protect Ukraine then then why should any other country trust us.
Define a "potential member state"? Any country with territory west of the Ural river is considered geographically in Europe for the purposes of the EU, do you suggest that we intervene in their internal affairs too?Well Russians are not native to Crimea. The peninsula was annexed in the mid 18th century, before that it was a Turkish protectorate with a majority Crimean Tatar population. However Stalin condemned the entire Crimean Tatar people to exile in Siberia because of their collaboration with the Nazis. The Russians who live in Crimea now are settlers.
Now that's massively oversimplifying the situation. By that logic we should take North Carolina off the Americans and give it back to the Cherokee....even then, the Tatars, despite what some people have been saying, are not native to Crimea themselves. They are part of the genetic legacy of Mongol invaders of Russia. The peninsula is part of a region that was populated by Russians over a thousand years ago before the Mongols came in and supplanted the Tatars and others.
It is a region which is integral to the cultural and social history of the Russians. Crimea is more Russian than Tatar, that's for sure (don't construe my statements as supporting Putin's intervention in the region, because they're not. They're simple historical facts). Even before the area was populated by Russians, Greeks occupied the area. Perhaps we should take Crimea from the Tatars and Russians and give it back to Greece. After all, they were the original inhabitants....
The Tatars are even more settlers than the Russians are.Take it to the Walter Mitty forum boys.
Indeed. Too many people on here saying that Russian military is a pushover. The Russian military is far more organised than the EU "military" (an institution which doesn't exist, at least in a solid form), so it doesn't matter if EU states spend more on their armies than the Russians. If they can't mount an effective operation then the Russians would make fools out of them.
Regarding the Americans, they excel in fast, sexy warfare. That sort of warfare (if we are to apply historical experiences) wouldn't affect Russia as much as it would the poorly trained and armed (not to mention small and disorganised) Iraqi army. The Russian army is not a third rate force. Many intelligent generals have made the mistake of assuming this in the past and have paid in rivers of their troops' blood.
That isn't to say that the Russian army has no weaknesses. It relies too much on conscripts (which are useful during large long-term wars but not so much wars like Chechnya which require organisation and discipline to win) and has only begun converting to a volunteer force recently. Russia has a lot of tanks and aircraft, sure, but many of these units are rusting in storage. Even then, the number of tanks and aircraft it can effectively field is scary.
The Russian navy, in contrast, is in dire need of investment, even despite the recent military modernisations.
In short, the Russian army is nothing near the Soviet army. Russia has half of the USSR's manpower and something like a quarter of it's economy. It's a great power, like the UK or France, but against NATO it hasn't a prospect. But the posters on here trying to suggest that Russia is a third rate military power are, as karma said, a bunch of Walter Mitty's.
And, I would like to clarify, this is all on paper. Wars are never fought on paper. Even then, a war is unlikely to result out of this. Even if it did, there would be nuclear exchanges and I would finally get the suntan I've always wanted, this time in March.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement