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

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

All Ukraine then allow the Ukrainian people decide a referendum on Crimea and the the use of the port for the black sea fleet that should have happened 10 years ago

and Ive no problem with any of that. but sanctions will not achieve that outcome. and the Russians will never give up that port. they just wont.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

why dont you explain to me first of all why it is up to the EU and Nato to take Russia to task? why dont you explain that to me..why?...

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how a strategy of doing nothing whatsoever isn't a strategy of doing nothing whatsoever.

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

Exactly what it means block acces to ports and sieze ships currently docked in ports ,

seize ships? youre joking right.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how a strategy of doing nothing whatsoever isn't a strategy of doing nothing whatsoever.

actually no Im sry. you explain to me first why the EU and Nato should be tasked with handing out consequences to the Russians...considering Ukraine isnt a member of either...why?..

BoJack Horseman

WakeUp wrote: »

actually no Im sry. you explain to me first why the EU and Nato should be tasked with handing out consequences to the Russians...considering Ukraine isnt a member of either...why?..

Because that's what good people do.
Stand up to bullies.

If you have the means to help your neighbour you don't cower.

Gatling

WakeUp wrote: »

seize ships? youre joking right.

Absolutely not you deny them access to the skys ,access to cross continental train networks ,
Access to ports and yes sieze ships ,

Then ask russia what would they like to negotiate

WakeUp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Because that's what good people do.
Stand up to bullies.

If you have the means to help your neighbour you don't cower.

so this is moral reasons then? pull the phuckin other one will you it has bells on it.

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

Absolutely not you deny them access to the skys ,access to cross continental train networks ,
Access to ports and yes sieze ships ,

Then ask russia what would they like to negotiate

because that is going to work isnt it. seize Russian ships? and the Russians will be cool with this you think...

gandalf

WakeUp wrote: »

actually no Im sry. you explain to me first why the EU and Nato should be tasked with handing out consequences to the Russians...considering Ukraine isnt a member of either...why?..

Because of lessons from history. If you don't stand up to tyrants bad things tend to happen down the line.

WakeUp

gandalf wrote: »

Because of lessons from history. If you don't stand up to tyrants bad things tend to happen down the line.

so Gandalf do you believe then that Russians are suicidal? and are going to attack an EU or Nato country. because if the ever did that it is war you and I both know that...

WakeUp

here I need a break from this screen and a beer. I shall talk to you all tomorrow, later.

gandalf

WakeUp wrote: »

so Gandalf do you believe then that Russians are suicidal? and are going to attack an EU or Nato country. because if the ever did that it is war you and I both know that...

12 months ago Wakeup if someone told me that the Russians would be sponsoring a destablisation like the one that is occurring now I would have laughed. Yet here we are.

If they are stupid enough to pull a stunt like that then it is a possibility that they may try it again. They might look at one of the smaller nations like Estonia and calculate that Europe and Nato mightened give a fig about them as well. Then you're right we could have a shooting war.

Better to nip this in the bud now rather than let it fester.

Gatling

WakeUp wrote: »

because that is going to work isnt it. seize Russian ships? and the Russians will be cool with this you think...

And what exactly could they do about it ,


Call the UN

mmmcake

Is it innocence or pure ignorance of how the world works on display here by some posters?
Nations do not have friends, only interests.
Politicians do not do what is morally right, they do what ever gets them elected.

As soon as winter comes and if the gas is not flowing , the people of Europe won't be happy in their cold homes.
These cold people are are also know as voters.
If the politicians allow there potential voters to freeze, they will not get reelected.
Its that simple, the EU is pretending to care about the Ukraine, but push come to shove they will stab them in the back.
To say otherwise is foolish.

gandalf

mmmcake from what I have read I don't believe Russia can afford to shut the gas lines down for any concerted period of time without serious consequences for its economy. We're not talking about going cold consequences, we are talking about mass job losses, company defaults and problems for the Russian exchequer consequences.

When push comes to shove will Putin's Oligarch backers stand by their man when they see their empires threatened?

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

actually no Im sry. you explain to me first why the EU and Nato should be tasked with handing out consequences to the Russians...considering Ukraine isnt a member of either...why?..

Because the alternative - the strategy you are advocating while simultaneously denying that you are advocating it - is to send a clear message to Russia that there are no consequences to annexing its neighbours.

You claim that it would be suicidal for Russia to invade a NATO or EU country - why? If we apply your logic and defend such a country, it would have negative consequences for the rest of us; therefore we shouldn't do it.

mmmcake wrote: »

Nations do not have friends, only interests.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it's in the EU's interest to give Russia carte blanche to annex neighbouring states.

Gatling

Looks like we're not going to see any sanctions this week more dittering from eu ambassadors who ars afraid implement more sanctions after already issuing sanctions in july ,
Now we have to wait till Friday to see if any are published in the eu journal ,
Eu member's want to hold off because the cease fire is holding .


Such shame to see the eu now a total bunch of coward's

Morpheus

Russian and EU economies are intrinsically linked.

Whats wrong is this Eastern European (some countries, not all) concept of oligarchs and defacto dictatorship governments with a quasi communist mindset. A lot of these countries are incredibly newly seperated from the old USSR, it hasnt REALLY been that long since all of their orders came from Moscow.

Russia needs to progress its democratic instruments, the EU needs to better understand and readjust its thinking of the Eastern EU way of doing things.

Russia is happy to do business but remains distant and distrustful of the EU countries due to NATO memberships. At the same time we in the EU are distrustful of the Russian bear. Crimea most definitely did not help relations and i reckon weve gone backwards a few years at this stage.

The worst thing about the EU is while its actually an incredibly powerful bloc both economically and militarily, its still too diverse and splintered to be a real threat to Russia. Putin and Russia by extension and history , is very good at playing countries against each other and this is what I foresee as a tactic in the future.

WakeUp

gandalf wrote: »

12 months ago Wakeup if someone told me that the Russians would be sponsoring a destablisation like the one that is occurring now I would have laughed. Yet here we are.

If they are stupid enough to pull a stunt like that then it is a possibility that they may try it again. They might look at one of the smaller nations like Estonia and calculate that Europe and Nato mightened give a fig about them as well. Then you're right we could have a shooting war.

Better to nip this in the bud now rather than let it fester.

but if they were to calculate something like that they would be misreading the situation. and Im not sure how they could base such a calculation on Ukraine as Ukraine is not a member of either the EU or Nato. Russia is the largest country in the world with the largest mineral and resources on the planet. the dont need either land or resources. why would they potentially trigger a massive war to invade or attack EU or Nato countries why would they do that?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because the alternative - the strategy you are advocating while simultaneously denying that you are advocating it - is to send a clear message to Russia that there are no consequences to annexing its neighbours.

Smarter people than you have advocated talking to the Russians as opposed to trying to beat them over the head to bring them around. strategy you say. six times since the end of world war 2 the west have imposed sanctions upon the Russians. and each time they had a similiar outcome. they didnt work. and they wont work now. see sanctions in Russia have the opposite affect , it makes them dig in. when people like yourself claim its “weak” or some bullsh1t like that to not take a direct “strong” visible and in this instance a tough economic actions against them youre missing the point. over your head and far away. bullying tactics wont work with Russia. behind the door, tough, diplomacy is the correct approach. and if something on the military side should be done its bolstering Nato members close to Russia and increasing Nato spending. as unpalatable as it might be to sit down and talk to the Russians as opposed to trying to beat them into position, its the right play. its the only play. because the possible alternative could be disastrous. the west needs to look for cleverer ways to try and bring the Russians around. the current “strategy” isnt a strategy because it isnt going to work. there are many ways to send a message.

You claim that it would be suicidal for Russia to invade a NATO or EU country - why? If we apply your logic and defend such a country, it would have negative consequences for the rest of us; therefore we shouldn't do it.

Why do you think..Ukraine isnt a member of the EU or Nato is it though. so your logic doesnt stand up does it.

Gatling wrote: »

And what exactly could they do about it ,

Call the UN

how about sinking the ships or whatever is trying to seize their ships.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

when people like yourself claim its “weak” or some bullsh1t like that to not take a direct “strong” visible and in this instance a tough economic actions against them youre missing the point. over your head and far away. bullying tactics wont work with Russia. behind the door, tough, diplomacy is the correct approach.

So your answer to my oft-repeated question about what we should do in response to Russia's annexation of its neighbours is that we should give them a stern talking to?

And if that doesn't work, we should follow up with a stern threat to talk to them more sternly next time?

Why do you think..

OK, I'll walk you carefully through the logic you've espoused. I'm not sure why I'm having to explain your own arguments to you, but I'm good like that.

You are arguing that Europe shouldn't do anything about Russia's adventures in Ukraine, because to do anything would have negative consequences for Europe.

I'm pointing out that if Europe engaged in military action as a result of a similar encroachment on (say) Estonia, that military action would inevitably have negative consequences for Europe. Therefore, by the logic you've been espousing, we shouldn't do it.

Now, you can either explain to me why we should be prepared to suffer untold hardship for Estonia while telling Ukraine to get knotted, or you can tell me to ask your bollox again - it depends on whether or not you're actually here for a conversation, or just to rant about how stupid everyone who disagrees with you is.

Ukraine isnt a member of the EU or Nato is it though. so your logic doesnt stand up does it.

So if Ukraine were to join the EU in the morning, you'd suddenly be in favour of going to war on its behalf?

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your answer to my oft-repeated question about what we should do in response to Russia's annexation of its neighbours is that we should give them a stern talking to?

And if that doesn't work, we should follow up with a stern threat to talk to them more sternly next time?

If youre lacking in comprehension skills that isnt my problem. you figure it out. can you read. tough behind the doors diplomacy and bolstering of Nato members close to Russia along with an increase it Nato spending. keeping in mind Ukraine is neither a member of Nato nor of the European union. Neither have been attacked

OK, I'll walk you carefully through the logic you've espoused. I'm not sure why I'm having to explain your own arguments to you, but I'm good like that.

You are arguing that Europe shouldn't do anything about Russia's adventures in Ukraine, because to do anything would have negative consequences for Europe.

I'm pointing out that if Europe engaged in military action as a result of a similar encroachment on (say) Estonia, that military action would inevitably have negative consequences for Europe. Therefore, by the logic you've been espousing, we shouldn't do it.

Youre all over the place here. Im arguing that Ukraine is neither a member of the EU or Nato and it isnt up to either to get involved. thats why your logic doesnt add up. doing so has the potential to have negative consequences whether Im prepared to suffer them or not. pretty straight forward dont you think.

Now, you can either explain to me why we should be prepared to suffer untold hardship for Estonia while telling Ukraine to get knotted, or you can tell me to ask your bollox again - it depends on whether or not you're actually here for a conversation, or just to rant about how stupid everyone who disagrees with you is. So if Ukraine were to join the EU in the morning, you'd suddenly be in favour of going to war on its behalf?

Its funny that you accuse me of ranting as Im not to sure that you have much more than that yourself in your locker on this particular subject. Ive never once called anyone here directly “stupid” for not agreeing with me. sanctioning Russian energy companies thats stupid. and I explained why I told you to ask my boll0x have a read back if its still unclear to you. yep if Ukraine was a member of the EU it would be different. If Ukraine was to join the EU tomorrow it would be different. but you see they wont be joining in the morning. and they arent a member of the EU. Its quite simple really. once you stop making assumptions on my behalf.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

If youre lacking in comprehension skills that isnt my problem.

So much for not calling anyone stupid.

tough behind the doors diplomacy...

OK. Maybe I am stupid, but I've been asking and asking and asking you to explain to me how you carry out "tough diplomacy" with someone to whom you've made it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no intentions of taking any actual action whatsoever.

So please: do as you've been doing, and assume I'm an idiot. Explain to this idiot how "tough diplomacy" works when one side has made it clear that they have absolutely no intentions of implementing any punitive measures whatsoever.

keeping in mind Ukraine is neither a member of Nato nor of the European union. Neither have been attacked

Which goes back to my point that if Russia annexes Belarus, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, we shouldn't care because they're not our problem.

I made that point before, and you responded with a fit of arm-waving, so once again: if Russia annexed all of its neighbours that aren't EU or NATO members, would you still believe that we should do nothing whatsoever about it?

yep if Ukraine was a member of the EU it would be different. If Ukraine was to join the EU tomorrow it would be different.

Why? What makes an EU citizen deserving of protection from an imperialist neighbour that a non-EU citizen isn't?

I'm not suggesting we bomb Russia; I'm pointing out that the "tough diplomacy" you're so fond of is a transparent bluff without at a minimum the expressed willingness to follow it through with some form of action. If there's a form of "tough diplomacy" that isn't backed up with a concrete threat, can you explain how it works?

Try to use small words: remember, like the European heads of state who have the temerity to disagree with you, I'm an idiot.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

So much for not calling anyone stupid. OK. Maybe I am stupid, but I've been asking and asking and asking you to explain to me how you carry out "tough diplomacy" with someone to whom you've made it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no intentions of taking any actual action whatsoever.

but I didnt call you or anyone else stupid did I. seriously is that the best you can do? resort to that. you asked me a question and I answered it. then you asked me the same thing again. I dunno you figure it out.

So please: do as you've been doing, and assume I'm an idiot. Explain to this idiot how "tough diplomacy" works when one side has made it clear that they have absolutely no intentions of implementing any punitive measures whatsoever. Which goes back to my point that if Russia annexes Belarus, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, we shouldn't care because they're not our problem.

I dont give a sh1t about Belarus, Kazakhstan or Mongolia. you might which is fair enough but I dont. and who is calling you an idiot I certainly am not calling you that nor have I called you that.

I made that point before, and you responded with a:D so once again: if Russia annexed all of its neighbours that aren't EU or NATO members, would you still believe that we should do nothing whatsoever about it? Why? What makes an EU citizen deserving of protection from an imperialist neighbour that a non-EU citizen isn't?

fit of arm waving. really. what do you mean do nothing? why is it up to the EU or Nato to be involved on behalf of non members. because freedom? or its morally right? gimme a break please.

I'm not suggesting we bomb Russia; I'm pointing out that the "tough diplomacy" you're so fond of is a transparent bluff without at a minimum the expressed willingness to follow it through with some form of action. If there's a form of "tough diplomacy" that isn't backed up with a concrete threat, can you explain how it works?

Try to use small words: remember, like the European heads of state who have the temerity to disagree with you, I'm an idiot.

what are you suggesting then? sanctions? but they arent going to work.

InTheTrees

News today is that the EU has apparently grown a pair and will be announcing new sanctions tomorrow.

WakeUp

InTheTrees wrote: »

News today is that the EU has apparently grown a pair and will be announcing new sanctions tomorrow.

because thinking with your dik is always the right play isnt it. take the gloves off and you dont know where it could end up.

Poland Says Russian Gas Deliveries Tumble By 45%; Europe To Launch Sanctions On Friday, Russia Will Retaliate:

Yesterday, when Gazprom was supposedly "troubleshooting its systems", we reported that in what was the first salvo of Europe's latest cold (quite literally, with winter just around the corner) war, Poland complained that up to 25% of its usual gas deliveries from Russia had been cut. Russia indirectly hinted that this was also a result of Ukraine using "reverse flow" to meet its demands, with Europe allowing Kiev to syphon off whatever gas it needs without paying Gazprome for it. It also led Poland to promptly admit it would halt reverse flow to the civil-war ridden country. Fast forward to today when Polish financial website Biznes reports that things are going from bad to worse in Russia's energy retaliation war, after Poland claimed a 45% shortfall in Russian natgas imports as of Wednesday.

Not surprisingly, Gazprom has said that is not the case, which leaves two options: either someone is lying, or the Ukraine is quietly, and illegally syphoning off gas destined for Europe.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-11/poland-says-russian-gas-deliveries-tumble-45-europe-threatens-new-sanctions-be-enact?

Morpheus

Because allowing your gas supply to come from a tyrannical country and to pass through non EU member states with the capability to siphon it on the way is idiotic.

the EU needs to become resource independent and f**king fast and they shouldnt be kowtowing to putin and allowing Russia to act like the playground bully.

Take the gloves off and give him a bloody nose I say.

InTheTrees

WakeUp wrote: »

because thinking with your dik is always the right play isnt it. take the gloves off and you dont know where it could end up.

Wh??

I realise you are against military support but you're even against the sanctions?

Isnt this the non-violent response? This is very far from "taking the gloves off". Its a type of boycott, which can be very effective. And non-violent.

You're passionately committed to letting Russia do whatver it wants and you really do think we should do nothing at all?

Can I ask what business you're involved with? I'm sorry but at this point I assume you have some major monetary interest in this dispute, because there isnt any other rational explanation.

mmmcake

The hypocrisy of some posters here is something to behold.
"Ukraine is a sovereign country, Russia attack it and must be punished with sanctions so it won't interfere in other countries"

The USA said it will defeat ISIS and it won't need any permission to bomb Syria to achieve this goal.
Syria is a sovereign country and its going to get bombed by the USA, why no cry for EU sanctions against the USA?

The USA has stirred up lots of trouble around the world, why no call for sanctions against them?
It sure looks like a serious case of Russophobia led by american interests.
The EU and Russia have a mutually beneficial relationship, Russia gets money for its Fuel, the EU gets a reliable source of Fuel.
Both economies benefit and prosper, the big loser in a good relationship between the EU and Russia is the USA,who from day one has been stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

but I didnt call you or anyone else stupid did I. seriously is that the best you can do? resort to that. you asked me a question and I answered it. then you asked me the same thing again. I dunno you figure it out.



I dont give a sh1t about Belarus, Kazakhstan or Mongolia. you might which is fair enough but I dont. and who is calling you an idiot I certainly am not calling you that nor have I called you that.



fit of arm waving. really. what do you mean do nothing? why is it up to the EU or Nato to be involved on behalf of non members. because freedom? or its morally right? gimme a break please.



what are you suggesting then? sanctions? but they arent going to work.

Oh look, you didn't answer the question. Shocked, I tells ya.

I'll ask it again: how does "tough diplomacy" work with no punitive measures to back it up?

mmmcake

Gatling wrote: »

A bit ott.

Which part?