NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[Ford]

Putin has no intention of taking Ukraine unless we provoke him into it.

Way to shift blame, Bill. Putin has no designs on Ukraine but if he invades it is because "the West" "made him do it."


For a manly man who makes his own decisions Putin seems to be a guy who can be made to do things against his will pretty damned easily.


When he wades into Poland I suppose that will be NATO's fault, too?

 

[boneyard bill]

Putin has no intention of taking Ukraine unless we provoke him into it.

Way to shift blame, Bill. Putin has no designs on Ukraine but if he invades it is because "the West" "made him do it."


For a manly man who makes his own decisions Putin seems to be a guy who can be made to do things against his will pretty damned easily.


When he wades into Poland I suppose that will be NATO's fault, too?

You are not engaged in serious discussion here. The record of what has happened in Ukraine is clear enough, and it does not support your absurd claims. Putin has had plenty of opportunities to take Ukraine if he chose to do so. If we would accept a non-aligned Ukraine, there would be no problem whatsoever.

 

[Ford]

The record of what has happened in Ukraine is clear enough, and it does not support your absurd claims.

My absurd claims?


Bill, you claimed that Putin invaded Ukraine because "the West" made him do it! That 'ole Vlad was sitting there in Moscow fat dumb and happy (well perhaps fit dumb and happy) and had no intentions of doing anything west of his borders but a Western coup in Ukraine caused him to leap down off his horse and very, very reluctantly send humanitarian supplies (which just happened to be carried by tanks) into Eastern Ukraine.


Really?

 

[Daioh]

He's perfectly willing to live with a non-aligned Ukraine as he has done since the Soviet Union broke up. We're the ones who don't want a neutral Ukraine.

What if the Ukraine doesn't want to be neutral?

Shouldn't the Ukraine be free to decide the course of their own country free of threats of invasion and nuclear bombardment from Russia?

 

[laughing dog]

No, it did not.
Your conclusion is based on counterfactual claims.

The US didn't simply invade Afghanistan. We used it as a pretext to establish bases in the near-by central Asian republics. Now bin Laden, the object of our Afghanistan effort is dead and (sort of) buried, but we are still in Afghanistan and we are still in most of those central Asian republics. (I think Uzbekistan kicked us out. Not sure.)

Why are we still in any of those countries? I can't think of any legitimate foreign policy reason. One reason is to encircle Russia. The other reason is to assure control of the Afghan drug trade.

We are still in Afghanistan to help prop up the nascent Afghani "democracy" and to keep it from falling back into the hands of the Taliban. Whether or not you think that is a legitimate reason, it certainly makes more sense than trying to encircle Russia or control of the Afghan drug trade.

I see no evidence that Russia is falling apart. They have a balanced budget. They have no external debt. They're building a pipeline to China to sell gas to the Chinese. They have large gold reserves and large reserves of US dollars. The fundamentals of the Russian economy are much stronger than the fundamentals of the US economy.

You are misinformed. Russia has external debt (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/external-debt), GDP growth is minimal (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual)), and the rouble is falling in value (http://ieconomics.com/currency-russia-us). Sanctions are making it more difficult for firms in Russia to finance their externally held debt.

Your view that Russian fundamentals are better than the US's is not shared by most serious analysts.

You're always asking for links. Why don't you provide some to back up what you say? You provide no evidence except in the final paragraph.

Unlike you, I substantiated my claims with actual data. All you've done in this thread is post counterfactual claims and tinfoil conspiracies.

I'm tired of this "yes it is, no it isn't" type of argument that you always create.

Try basing your arguments on fact instead of fiction. It will make them more realistic which may translate into more convincing.

 

[dystopian]

Yes, they might eventually be able to muster a large enough force to push the Russians out in a conventional operation, but if they did that the conflict would not remain conventional and their nukes are no match for Russia's.

Nonsense, Europe has more than enough nukes to destroy Russia several times over. It doesn't matter that Russia has enough nukes to destroy us a few times more than we can destroy them.

And *of course* the conflict would remain conventional. Russia isn't going to commit that level of suicide over Ukraine. Russia knows that the moment it uses nukes, it ceases to exist.

But this has been my point all along. It really doesn't matter who violated this or who has a right to do that. Our policy runs the risk of provoking a nuclear war. And the NATO troops in Ukraine is really, really, risky. 1300 NATO troops couldn't stop Putin, but they do serve as a trip-wire if they get in the way of Russian forces.

You keep crying about how we're risking a nuclear war. You make it very clear that you think it's *Russia* that'd launch the nukes first. You're afraid of Russia, but at every point you defend their actions. That makes you look like you've got stockholm syndrome. You're like the battered housewife who keeps defending her abuser. "Yes officer, he hit me twenty times in the face and dislocated my jaw... But I was asking for it, it's not his fault!"

We have no significant interests in Ukraine. Our actions there are provocative toward Russia. We're risking EVERYTHING for no significant gain. That's why the policy is absolutely insane.

Nonsense, we most certainly *do* have significant interests in Ukraine, whether you're talking about just Europe or NATO. Furthermore, it really shouldn't matter whether or not we have significant interests there or not. This whole mess started because Europe offered Ukraine a peaceful trade deal; nothing more. Russia didn't like this, and started pressuring their puppet president into rejecting the deal even though he was elected in large part because he promised to bring Ukraine closer to Europe. That is the sole reason why the Ukrainians rose up against him, not because we sponsored some coup but because a corrupt president broke his campaign promises.

Under absolutely no circumstances was it at all justified for Russia to respond the way it did; nor should we, meaning the rest of the world, stand by and let a country be beaten up by an autocratic neighbor for the sole crime of wanting to make a trade deal with someone else. Even if our only interest was international law and order, we'd have a more than *significant* interest in the situation in Ukraine.

But you, battered and afraid housewife that you appear to be, would rather run away screaming because Russia might hit you again.

 

[barbos]

He's perfectly willing to live with a non-aligned Ukraine as he has done since the Soviet Union broke up. We're the ones who don't want a neutral Ukraine.

What if the Ukraine doesn't want to be neutral?

What if the Ukraine want to be neutral?
Another Maidan?

 

[Togo]

Mind you, I also believe that the UK has had an independent nuclear deterrant since 1957, which apparently is controvertial in some way?

They may have an independent force but what is the delivery system? It's been a very long time ago now, but as I remember it, McMillan agreed to buy Trident missile submarines for their nukes when the US abandoned the skybolt missile program that Britain was going to use. As I recall that included in the deal was that the US would retain control over the missiles.

Some confusion here. Trident ICBMs rely on a joint targeting system, much of it UK based, and have the option of joint control - it makes more sense for a intercontinental strike to have the option of launching from closer to the target, and the US has control of sensing/radar stations in the UK for that purpose. But, unlike the US, most of our deterrent is submarine based, and they're not 'controlled' by anyone - that's kind of the point. We also have air-launched nukes, low-altitude missiles with nuclear capability, and a few other options that people don't like to talk about.

There's two scenarios. In an all-out strategic nuclear exchange, the UK itself is pretty much toast - one missile with multiple warheads could take out most of the country. The military has enough deep bunkers to carry on, but that's about it. So the plan is to launch first, and then have the US share control of the missiles, so that when we get nuked someone can still control them in flight. In any reasonable model of the war, the US gets nuked last - it's furthest away, so they are the logical party to coordinate the long range missile plan. Our subs then check in at scheduled points, see that the UK has been wiped out, and nuke whoever did it - ideally from short range.

Then there's the tactical scenario, where NATO actually engages Russia forces, in which case we're using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Those aren't controlled by the US either. They're mostly engaging targets from a range of two or so countries away.

In short, we have a much greater emphasis on shorter range systems, while for the US nukes are largely about hitting targets on the other side of the planet.

 

[Togo]

Have you for a moment considered that Ukraine is valuable to Ukrainians?

I get it...you want to sacrifice an entire country to appease Putin. Hand over everything between Moscow and Kiev if need be, right?

But why are you so desperate to kneel before Putin?

I'm not desperate to kneel before Putin. I'm desperate to avoid nuclear war. Who appointed us to handle these problems?

We did. We signed an agreement with Ukraine to maintain Ukrainian territorial sovereignty (i.e. stop anyone breaking off pieces) in return for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear missiles. So did Russia. Now Putin is trying to break off pieces. He's already moved Russian troops in, so it only makes sense for NATO to do the same. Abandoning Ukraine is about the strongest argument for nuclear proliferation that you can give.

I think the differences in perspective maybe down to the usual US vagueness about geography. For you, Eastern Europe is far away, unimportant and sort of vaguely full of communists. For us, it's more like Mexico - very close, and most people know someone with family there. You keep saying that Ukraine is vital to Russia's security, but it's a lot more vital to Hungary, Romania and Poland.

And I think you also overestimate the role of the US here. European forces can resist a Russia invasion very easily - they just draw a line and nuke everything that goes past it. They don't need the US for that.

Iran and Iraq fought a war for 10 years. We stayed out of it. (mostly)

Well, apart from supplying one side with weapons, intelligence, supplies, secure trade routes, and diplomatic cover when they started using chemical weapons.

But in this situation we don't face any dilemma at all. Putin has no intention of taking Ukraine unless we provoke him into it. He's perfectly willing to live with a non-aligned Ukraine as he has done since the Soviet Union broke up. We're the ones who don't want a neutral Ukraine.

No, it's the Ukrainians who don't want a neutral Ukraine. That's why they elected a president who promised to align with the west, got rid of him when he tried to deal with Moscow instead, and have now voted in a pro-western coalition, supporting pro-western parties at the expense of the far left and far right. The main driver isn't the US stirring up trouble, it's Poland, a neighbour with a similar history to Ukraine of being conquered or controlled by other countries, who are now doing noticeably better than their eastern neighbours while keeping most of their social safety net, strong trade unions, and traditional industries.

 

[barbos]

I'm not desperate to kneel before Putin. I'm desperate to avoid nuclear war. Who appointed us to handle these problems?

We did. We signed an agreement with Ukraine to maintain Ukrainian territorial sovereignty (i.e. stop anyone breaking off pieces) in return for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear missiles. So did Russia.

No, We did not. It was not an agreement, it was a memorandum which was eventually forgotten by everyone including Ukraine. Also, such an agreement would indirectly imply Ukraine's neutrality, I mean US protection is assumed by NATO membership which makes that agreement pointless.
Also, that agreement does not prevent Ukraine from falling apart via internal forces, which is what happened with Crimea and still happening with East part of Ukraine. Don't blame utter stupidity of maidan people on Russia.
Had they choose to throw a bone or two to Crimea and East none of this mess would have happened.
Instead they choose to ukraininize everyone on day one.

 

[Togo]

We did. We signed an agreement with Ukraine to maintain Ukrainian territorial sovereignty (i.e. stop anyone breaking off pieces) in return for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear missiles. So did Russia.

No, We did not. It was not an agreement, it was a memorandum

Which is an agreement. Seriously, you're into 'Evolution is just a theory' territory here. Read the darned thing if you don't believe me. It's not long, and easy to find.

Don't blame utter stupidity of maidan people on Russia.

I don't need to - I can blame the splitting off and annexing part of Ukraine into Russia on Russia. It's much easier, undeniable, and a direct violation of the treaty.

 

[barbos]

No, We did not. It was not an agreement, it was a memorandum

Which is an agreement. Seriously, you're into 'Evolution is just a theory' territory here. Read the darned thing if you don't believe me. It's not long, and easy to find.

mem·o·ran·dum
ˌmeməˈrandəm/
noun
noun: memorandum; plural noun: memoranda; plural noun: memorandums

a note or record made for future use.
"the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on economic cooperation"
synonyms: message, communication, note, email, letter, missive, directive; More
reminder, aide-mémoire;
informalmemo
"a memorandum from the general"
a written message, especially in business or diplomacy.
"he told them of his decision in a memorandum"
synonyms: message, communication, note, email, letter, missive, directive; More

Don't blame utter stupidity of maidan people on Russia.

I don't need to - I can blame the splitting off and annexing part of Ukraine into Russia on Russia. It's much easier, undeniable, and a direct violation of the treaty.

Nope, it's Maidan stupidity.

 

[Jayjay]

Way to shift blame, Bill. Putin has no designs on Ukraine but if he invades it is because "the West" "made him do it."


For a manly man who makes his own decisions Putin seems to be a guy who can be made to do things against his will pretty damned easily.


When he wades into Poland I suppose that will be NATO's fault, too?

You are not engaged in serious discussion here. The record of what has happened in Ukraine is clear enough, and it does not support your absurd claims. Putin has had plenty of opportunities to take Ukraine if he chose to do so. If we would accept a non-aligned Ukraine, there would be no problem whatsoever.

If Ukraine wants closer economic ties with EU, why do you think America is in any position to accept or reject it?

As for military alignment, Ukraine wasn't very keen to join NATO until Russia started annexing parts of it. And even then it's not as if NATO will admit a member that is in active war with its neighbours huge unresolved border issues, and that's partially what Putin is banking on... as long as Putin keeps a frozen conflict in Eastern Ukraine NATO's doors will be shut.

 

[Togo]

Which is an agreement. Seriously, you're into 'Evolution is just a theory' territory here. Read the darned thing if you don't believe me. It's not long, and easy to find.

mem·o·ran·dum
ˌmeməˈrandəm/
noun

Read the document.

Don't blame utter stupidity of maidan people on Russia.

I don't need to - I can blame the splitting off and annexing part of Ukraine into Russia on Russia. It's much easier, undeniable, and a direct violation of the treaty.

Nope, it's Maidan stupidity.

.... ?!

I guess we're done here.

 

[dystopian]

No, We did not. It was not an agreement, it was a memorandum

Which is an agreement. Seriously, you're into 'Evolution is just a theory' territory here. Read the darned thing if you don't believe me. It's not long, and easy to find.

It's ironic how the pro-russian position now is desperately trying to define said memorandum as something other than an agreement, while they've previously hammered on the idea that NATO wasn't allowed to take in former eastbloc nations, even though nothing was ever put into writing suggesting that it wasn't allowed (unlike with this memorandum).

Funny how quick the rhetoric can turn.

 

[barbos]

mem·o·ran·dum
ˌmeməˈrandəm/
noun

Read the document.

Nothing to read, It was not voted and signed into agreement.

Don't blame utter stupidity of maidan people on Russia.

I don't need to - I can blame the splitting off and annexing part of Ukraine into Russia on Russia. It's much easier, undeniable, and a direct violation of the treaty.

Nope, it's Maidan stupidity.

.... ?!

I guess we're done here.

Yes, you're done.

 

[barbos]

--

 

[barbos]

Which is an agreement. Seriously, you're into 'Evolution is just a theory' territory here. Read the darned thing if you don't believe me. It's not long, and easy to find.

It's ironic how the pro-russian position now is desperately trying to define said memorandum as something other than an agreement, while they've previously hammered on the idea that NATO wasn't allowed to take in former eastbloc nations, even though nothing was ever put into writing suggesting that it wasn't allowed (unlike with this memorandum).

Funny how quick the rhetoric can turn.

You need to read definition of "irony"
Irony is on you, because it was you who said there was no promise not to expand NATO and who then broke that promise. So now you point this memorandum and look ridiculously ironic.

 

[dystopian]

You need to read definition of "irony"
Irony is on you, because it was you who said there was no promise not to expand NATO and who then broke that promise. So now you point this memorandum and look ridiculously ironic.

First of all, *I* didn't point to the memorandum.

Second of all, the only reason I've ever stated there was no such promise is because your camp claimed there was; which way back when you guys first made that claim, I showed to be factually wrong. However, you guys have consistently been crying about how NATO's violated this (non-existent) agreement and how that somehow justifies Russia's stance and actions. Therefore, it is hugely ironic (and no, I'm not the one who needs to understand the definition of the word) that you would cry foul about a memorandum (which IS in fact a written and signed agreement) that shows that it is Russia, and not NATO, who has violated its own agreements.

NATO never promised not to expand eastwards; this is misinformation based on perpetuation of a historical misunderstanding. If I thought you were receptive to understanding, I'd offer to explain it in detail... again. But I don't think you are.

"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents."

The whole thing is even more ironic because it was *Russia* that claimed that it was the west that violated the memorandum because of the claim that the US sponsored the coup (something for which we STILL have zero evidence that holds up, by the way). So it's somehow perfectly okay for Russia to make a vague claim that the west violated a *written agreement it is party to* without the evidence to back it up... but when we point out that they themselves violated the memorandum they signed with actual evidence to back up the claim, somehow that's not okay.

That... is irony.

 

[lpetrich]

Ukraine news, from Google News:

Ukraine parliament votes in new government, fresh ceasefire hopes fade | Reuters

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Donetsk shelling dashes ceasefire hopes

Ukraine Conflict: Government Troops, Russian-Backed Rebels Agree To New Cease-Fire


Given how enthusiastically certain people take Russia's side in this conflict, I can't help but think that they would like to kneel before a big picture of Vladimir Putin and say:

President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin,
You who lives in heaven,
May your name stay holy.
May your kingdom come.
May your will be done,
As in heaven, so on earth.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive our offenses,
As we have forgiven the offenses of others.
Do not lead us into temptation,
But instead protect us from the Evil One.
For yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever.
Amen.