• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

aupmanyav said:
bilby said:
Russia was also never going to attack Ukraine. That didn't work out so well, did it?
Click to expand...
I do not think it had any intention to attack till the removal of Yanukovich.

"Yanukovych said, "Ukraine's integration with the EU remains our strategic aim", with a "balanced policy, which will protect our national interests both on our eastern border – I mean with Russia – and of course with the European Union". According to Yanukovych, Ukraine must be a "neutral state" which should be part of a "collective defense system which the European Union, NATO and Russia will take part in." Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to "neither join NATO nor the CSTO".
en.wikipedia.org

Viktor Yanukovych - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

But that was not the way US/NATO wanted it. So they created a revolution. Yanukovich was a safe bet for Ukraine.
Click to expand...
No, Yanukovich was a safe bet for Russia.
 
barbos said:
bilby said:
aupmanyav said:
I do not think Warsaw pact and the Scandinavian countries did themselves any good by joining NATO. They have now become registered enemies of Russia. There was no need for that. Russia was not going to attack them.
Click to expand...
Russia was also never going to attack Ukraine. That didn't work out so well, did it?
Click to expand...
Actually Russia was pretty clear that we will attack them if they insist on joining NATO.
Click to expand...
I already called bs on this ridiculous claim which you conveniently refused to address. If Russia had made it clear that they would attack then you would have evidence of that extortion. They didn't communicate their extortion. Instead, they staged a surprise attack under the duplicitous guise of "military exercises."

The Mafia knows how to do extortion. When the mafia extorts you they make it clear what they want you to do, when the deadline is, and what the consequences of non-compliance will be. "If you don't have the money ready for Tony by Saturday you'll be needing crutches on Sunday."

Where is the communication from russia warning Ukraine of this extortion? Why would Russia lie about their impending attack if they had already warned Ukraine about the attack and the reasons for the attack? Your claim makes no sense. And you can't support your claim with evidence because you know that your claim is false.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
I didn't say you were the one doing the abuse. I'm saying you're justifying the abuser.
Click to expand...
Who is the abuser? We have a difference of opinion. I say the Ukrainian rebellion was created and supported by US/NATO. Same for break-up of Yugoslavia.
These things happen. We did that in Sikkim and Bangladesh. Now Pakistan and China have done it in Bangladesh.
 
Some one mentioned Russian influencers in the forum, there are many more NATO influencers too (Henry-Finland, unknowingly). :D
I am the only neutral around here.
 
Last edited:
zorq said:
I already called bs on this ridiculous claim which you conveniently refused to address.
Click to expand...
BS is what you post here.
Putin made perfectly clear that Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable in two thousand fucking eight.
It's your governments conveniently refused to notice it.
They thought that Putin was bluffing and would not dare to resist mighty NATO.
 
Last edited:
Tigers! said:
barbos said:
aupmanyav said:
TomC said:
That was kinda the first thing that popped into my head. Why would anyone with her history and knowledge think that going to Russia is a good idea?
Click to expand...
I have heard that muggings are common in Moscow. Of course, they are common in New York too if one is in a wrong area at a wrong time.
Click to expand...
You were misinformed. Muggings are extremely rare in Moscow and even in Russia in general.
Click to expand...
So that explains where Russia's is getting its Ukraine conscripts
Click to expand...
What?
 
aupmanyav said:
Loren Pechtel said:
But those are NATO bases. If we attacked Russia they wouldn't participate. They are only a threat if Russia attacks.
Click to expand...
Who knows if NATO cooks up some pretext to attack Russia? In that case, the bases would be dangerous for Russia.
Click to expand...
NATO cannot attack anyone; It is a defensive alliance. It has no weapons, those belong to the individual member states, who have all agreed to defend any one of their number, if that country is attacked; And have agreed not to attack anyone, while they are a current member of NATO, without UN authorisation to do so.

In the very unlikely event that a NATO member state were to attack Russia, the rest of NATO would be under no obligation to support them; NATO is not structurally capable of aggression. It isn't the kind of thing that can attack Russia, nor anyone else.

If an individual NATO member attacked Russia, it would not be doing so in its role as a NATO member. Indeed, such an action would, unless explicitly authorised by the United Nations, be a breach of that nation's treaty obligations to NATO.

If your home is burned down by an off-duty fireman, it isn't the fire department that attacked you. And the fire department would not be supportive of the arsonist, but would instead do their best to assist you - because that's what they are set up to do.

If your country were attacked by a NATO member, NATO would not support the invasion, but would instead censure that country for her breach of the North Atlantic Treaty to which she was a signatory.

A NATO country is bound by treaty to use force against other nations ONLY in self defence, as defined in Article 51 of the UN charter. Being in NATO literally means taking a pledge not to attack anyone.
 
Last edited:
aupmanyav said:
Some one mentioned Russian influencers in the forum, there are many more NATO influencers too (Henry-Finland, unknowingly). :D
I am the only neutral around here.
Click to expand...
It's a strange "neutral" who takes the side of Russia, in contradiction of reality.

Russia claims that NATO is a threat. You agree. NATO policy is a matter of public record, and yet you believe Russia's lies, and not NATO's own publicly available charter that sets out its membership terms and conditions.

That's not "neutral", it's just "gullible".
 
aupmanyav said:
steve_bank said:
Moldova is having a referendum on joining the EU.
Click to expand...
I do not think joining EU will be a problem for Russia. Joining NATO will be.
Yanukovich too was not against joining EU.
One is an economic grouping, the other is a military grouping.
Click to expand...
You continue to show your ignorance of what the EU and NATO are about. Democracy and human rights.

I posted the general requirements for NATO membership, Russia does not and will never be qualified under Putin or anyone like him.

Same with the EU.

en.wikipedia.org

Copenhagen criteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The Copenhagen criteria are the rules that define whether a country is eligible to join the European Union. The criteria require that a state has the institutions to preserve democratic governance and human rights, has a functioning market economy, and accepts the obligations and intent of the European Union.[1]

These membership criteria were laid down at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, Denmark, from which they take their name. Excerpt from the Copenhagen Presidency conclusions:[2]

Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Most of these elements have been clarified over the last decade by legislation and other decisions of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as by the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. However, there are sometimes conflicting interpretations in current member states, especially regarding what is meant by "the rule of law".[3]
Click to expand...
 
bilby said:
NATO cannot attack anyone
Click to expand...
Yugoslavia!
And it's BS problem anyway. There are number of ways to start a war. After all, we all know that it was Vietnam who attacked US, don't we?

With respect to Russia, the only thing that has been preventing US attack on USSR and now Russia has been nukes.
Hence proxy wars are employed.
 
aupmanyav said:
Some one mentioned Russian influencers in the forum, there are many more NATO influencers too (Henry-Finland, unknowingly). :D
I am the only neutral around here.
Click to expand...
You are a fence sitter apologizing for Russia and China.

What to does human rights, rule of law, and democracy mean? Does China and Russia represent those ideals?

I would not say we are influencers, IOW agents acting on the behalf of a government.

We are ordinary citizens who oppose Russia and its invasion. Most Americans would not care how oppressive it is to live in Russia if Putin stayed within his borders.

If anything Putin can make us a little more grateful to be liiving in the west and not Russia or China.

You were shown the naval conflict beaten China and Philippines. China has arbitrarily declared inernational fishing waters to be theirs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom