NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[dystopian]

Dual citizenship is absolutely legal, wikipedia said so.

No, it didn't. As I already pointed out, lack of active criminalization does not make it legal.

Also you claimed "distributing" passports in Eastern Ukraine but provided "evidence" for Crimea instead.

How very clever of you, until recently, Crimea was part of Eastern Ukraine.

Had you said Crimea I would not question you because I heard about that, not that I agree with your qualification, but I heard that people in Sevastopol were legally taking dual citizenship.

Heard where? Russia Today? They were subjects of a country that did not recognize duel citizenship; there's nothing legal about it. If my country doesn't allow duel citizenship, then while there would probably still be ways to acquire duel citizenship, doing so would not be legally sanctioned.

Anyway, it's mute now, because Putin have not used "pasportization" as an argument.

Except that he has, since from the very beginning Russia's justification for everything has been to 'protect its citizens'. To Russia, of course, it doesn't matter if it artificially created these citizens for the sole purpose of justifying a landgrab.

And again, whatever the law (if any) was installed it was done because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they basically could not go abroad because they were not recognized by anyone besides Russia, so they took russian passports to travel abroad.

Which is of course nonsense, since they had *Georgian* passports in their possession which WERE recognized and which did allow them to travel.

It had nothing to do with Ukraine and it was not used as pretext for anything anywhere.

Sigh, of course you'd deny the blatantly obvious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

Appeasement? You think that taking over all of Eastern Europe, waging war against Russia's only ally there, Serbia, putting missile bases in these East European countries, and sponsoring a putsch in Ukraine is some kind of appeasement? We've done nothing but provoke Russia. Now we're proposing to provoke Russia even more. The closer we move to Russia's borders the more provocative we are. Where has Russia moved closer to our borders? If there is any appeasement going on here, it is Putin who's doing it, and he's getting lots of criticism back in Russia for it.

For God's sake, be realistic! All of the objective evidence here shows that NATO is the expansionist force in Europe. It is overwhelming. How can you deny it?

Appeasement: Sitting back and accepting their annexations.

You continue to act as if their former possessions belong to Russia.

 

[dystopian]

Countries being taken over in a coup supported by outsiders is expansionism.

Despite the constant claims made here, no credible evidence has been presented to show that the coup was instigated or supported by non-ukrainians. Vague conspiracy theories based on out of context quote bites does not evidence make.

A country annexing another region that requested to be annexed is not expansionism.

A "request" made by an impossible majority (we've already established voter turnout in some places, like sevastopol, exceeded the actual voting population there), made while guns were pointed at them by an invasion force, is not an actual request; nor is it one that anyone should recognize.

Furthermore, even if everything you said was true, the claim that a foreign-sponsored coup is expansionism but an *annexation* (democratic or otherwise) is not, is nothing short of deranged. Expansionism is defined as the *expansion* of a state's territory by *any* means, conquest or otherwise. Sponsoring a coup does NOT qualify as expansionism under any definition of the word; annexing a territory ALWAYS qualifies as expansion, under *every* definition of the word.

 

[barbos]

No, it didn't. As I already pointed out, lack of active criminalization does not make it legal.

Yes it is perfectly legal.

Also you claimed "distributing" passports in Eastern Ukraine but provided "evidence" for Crimea instead.

How very clever of you, until recently, Crimea was part of Eastern Ukraine.

Nope

Had you said Crimea I would not question you because I heard about that, not that I agree with your qualification, but I heard that people in Sevastopol were legally taking dual citizenship.

Heard where? Russia Today?

In 2008.

They were subjects of a country that did not recognize duel citizenship; there's nothing legal about it. If my country doesn't allow duel citizenship, then while there would probably still be ways to acquire duel citizenship, doing so would not be legally sanctioned.

Dual citizenship is still perfectly legal. Ask Kolomoyski.

Anyway, it's mute now, because Putin have not used "pasportization" as an argument.

Except that he has, since from the very beginning Russia's justification for everything has been to 'protect its citizens'. To Russia, of course, it doesn't matter if it artificially created these citizens for the sole purpose of justifying a landgrab.

Nope

And again, whatever the law (if any) was installed it was done because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they basically could not go abroad because they were not recognized by anyone besides Russia, so they took russian passports to travel abroad.

Which is of course nonsense, since they had *Georgian* passports in their possession which WERE recognized and which did allow them to travel.

Nope, they don't have them. Georgian offered them to use their passports but they refused.
They have never been part of Georgia.

It had nothing to do with Ukraine and it was not used as pretext for anything anywhere.

Sigh, of course you'd deny the blatantly obvious.

You are so dutch.

 

[dystopian]

The president of Ukraine cannot be constitutionally removed from office by majority vote of the parliament. That is how you remove a premier, not a president. So the removal was illegitimate.

I have addressed and refuted this argument repeatedly in previous threads. At this point it seems the pro-russian playbook is to repeat falsified claims so many times that people just give up on correcting them, resulting in a 'victory' by default. I will, however, continue to object. The president of Ukraine could most *certainly* be constitutionally removed from office by a majority vote from parliament. In fact, not even the pro-russian camp has claimed that a Ukrainian president can't be constitutionally removed through a majority vote, because that is simply absurd. Their whole objection has been based on the fact that a president can not be *impeached* without a minimum number of votes (more than the usual required for parliamentary measures) that was not reached; however, this objection is entirely irrelevant, since he was not in fact impeached but was removed from office through a valid majority vote on the basis that he was no longer *capable* of performing his duties (which obviously, having *fled the country* he couldn't do).

But it was further illegitimate when you consider that the parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazis at the time.

Yet somehow, the Crimean secession referendum is perfectly valid... despite the thousands of armed Russian soldiers occupying regional government centers and polling stations.

Russians were giving passports to Russian speaking Ukrainians. Holy Cow! This is outrageous! Bring on the nukes!

Actually, yes, it's quite outrageous as a blatantly transparent attempt to fabricate a cassus belli for intervention. What reason is there to give passports to these people other than to justify exactly what has happened? Why couldn't the Ukrainians who want to become Russian citizens simply apply for citizenship and emigrate? Why did Russia have to proactively approach them if not to provide itself with a convenient excuse to expand its borders? Why exactly do you think people make the comparison to the Sudetenland exactly?

Look, Putin could be in Kiev right now if he wanted Ukraine. One of the first things the European parliament did when this crisis broke out was to vote NOT to intervene militarily in the Ukrainian situation.

Please, not even the Russians are stupid enough to take everything at once; especially not the western parts of Ukraine. They simply do not have the manpower and resources to maintain stability over such a large conquest while also having to deal with the inevitable response of the world. And as a matter of fact, the EU did *not* vote not to intervene militarily; it simply rejected the idea of a military intervention at the time and chose to adopt a resolution of condemnation. If Russia decided to try and invade Ukraine fully and tried to take it entirely, you can be certain the EU would reconsider its stance. This is the whole nature of Putin's game; try to take as much as he can, without forcing the EU or NATO to respond with force.

 

[laughing dog]

You think the US does not "tolerate" Great Britain, France, Israel or India?

You forgot China, no?

I did not forget China or Pakistan or North Korea.

As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.

Neither can Israel, North Korea, Pakistan or Russia. It seems you tacitly admit the US can tolerate other countries with nukes.

 

[dystopian]

Yes it is perfectly legal.

Repeating a claim that's demonstrably false doesn't impress anyone.

Nope

Oh? I suppose you're going to tell me that Crimea was part of western Ukraine instead? That'd be quite impressive.

Dual citizenship is still perfectly legal. Ask Kolomoyski.

How about you instead try to actually understand what's been said to you?

Nope

Brilliant logic.

Nope, they don't have them. Georgian offered them to use their passports but they refused.

...so, the problem is that they didn't have passports... even though they were offered passports.

They have never been part of Georgia.

Oh good, that whole declaring independence from Georgia thing must be some sort of collective hallucination then.

You are so dutch.

Thanks. I'm also fourth or fifth generation Indo; the family tree is a bit fuzzy on that one.

 

[dystopian]

Except it HASN'T happened. Russia HASN'T used the excuse of Russian citizens in the Ukraine being attacked as a pretext for intervention.

...are you simply suffering from Alzheimers, or are you seriously expecting anyone to believe this *now*. We have *transcripts* of Putin using it in his speeches as justification.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2a1e60-ae99-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Nor did he need such an excuse since Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian speaking people in the former Soviet territories even since the Soviet Union broke up. So there goes your whole argument right down the toilet.

...

Your argument is that Putin didn't need an excuse to invade Ukraine on the basis of protecting Russian citizens, because he already had that excuse? Really? That's what you want to go with? Really? Okay then.

 

[barbos]

You forgot China, no?

I did not forget China or Pakistan or North Korea.

As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.

Neither can Israel, North Korea, Pakistan or Russia. It seems you tacitly admit the US can tolerate other countries with nukes.

Russia can, Russia is the only country which has technical ability to actually hit US with nukes. The whole freaking Cold War was and it appears still is about it.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not forget China or Pakistan or North Korea.

As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.

Neither can Israel, North Korea, Pakistan or Russia. It seems you tacitly admit the US can tolerate other countries with nukes.

Russia can, Russia is the only country which has technical ability to actually hit US with nukes. The whole freaking Cold War was and it appears still is about it.

That is false. Both Great Britain and France can deliver nukes to the US.

 

[dystopian]

Russia is the only country which has technical ability to actually hit US with nukes.

The UK begs to differ, so does France, also China, would like a word

 

[barbos]

I did not forget China or Pakistan or North Korea.

As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.

Neither can Israel, North Korea, Pakistan or Russia. It seems you tacitly admit the US can tolerate other countries with nukes.

Russia can, Russia is the only country which has technical ability to actually hit US with nukes. The whole freaking Cold War was and it appears still is about it.

That is false. Both Great Britain and France can deliver nukes to the US.

I don't think GB even have their own nukes to be honest.
Their nukes are US built and I can be not entirely correct here are directly controlled by US or something like that. And GB is in NATO.
France is in NATO too. Basically US controls their nukes indirectly as well.

So stop being difficult. Russia is the only other real nuclear power. Cause China is still not there and I don't think they plan to.

 

[dystopian]

I don't think GB even have their own nukes to be honest.
Their nukes are US built and I can be not entirely correct here are directly controlled by US or something like that. And GB is in NATO.
France is in NATO too. Basically US controls their nukes indirectly as well.

This is absurd. UK nukes are NOT built by the US, nor are they controlled by the US. The same is true for France. You may be confused because the UK uses the same missiles as the Americans; but they are independently controlled. France similarly built and designed its own nukes, and uses missiles built by the space & defense arm of the Airbus Group (a pan-European company headquartered in the Netherlands and France. Being part of NATO does not imply the US controls them; if being part of NATO meant nations controlled each others nuclear stockpiles, it'd be more plausible to think the US nuclear arsenal is controlled by Europe, since NATO was started by Europe and is headquartered in Brussels, not Washington. But of course, we no more control their nukes than they control ours.

 

[boneyard bill]

Appeasement? You think that taking over all of Eastern Europe, waging war against Russia's only ally there, Serbia, putting missile bases in these East European countries, and sponsoring a putsch in Ukraine is some kind of appeasement? We've done nothing but provoke Russia. Now we're proposing to provoke Russia even more. The closer we move to Russia's borders the more provocative we are. Where has Russia moved closer to our borders? If there is any appeasement going on here, it is Putin who's doing it, and he's getting lots of criticism back in Russia for it.

For God's sake, be realistic! All of the objective evidence here shows that NATO is the expansionist force in Europe. It is overwhelming. How can you deny it?

Appeasement: Sitting back and accepting their annexations.

You continue to act as if their former possessions belong to Russia.

What annexations? Crimea is the only case. That came only after Kiev was taken over by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. Of course Crimea, which is 60% Russian would turn to Russia for protection against these ultra-nationalistic hooligans. How many countries has NATO annexed since the end of the Cold War? There is no comparison. This doesn't even count the US efforts to encircle Russia by establishing bases in Afghanistan and in the central Asian republics. Have you ever given one second of thought to how Russia might interpret our actions?

 

[laughing dog]

Appeasement: Sitting back and accepting their annexations.

You continue to act as if their former possessions belong to Russia.

What annexations? Crimea is the only case. That came only after Kiev was taken over by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. Of course Crimea, which is 60% Russian would turn to Russia for protection against these ultra-nationalistic hooligans. How many countries has NATO annexed since the end of the Cold War? There is no comparison.

You are correct - there is no comparison because NATO annexes no one. NATO is not a government - it annexes nothing. Countries petition to join NATO. No NATO forces are used to forcibly wrest a country into NATO. Perhaps you are just using a rhetorical device to make some sort of point, that kind of counterfactual exaggeration undercuts the credibility of your argument.

This doesn't even count the US efforts to encircle Russia by establishing bases in Afghanistan and in the central Asian republics. Have you ever given one second of thought to how Russia might interpret our actions?

One might be able to see how someone might misinterpret our establishing bases in Afghanistan and leasing bases in other central Asian republics in order to fight our misguided Afghan war. But that doesn't mean that misinterpretation is correct.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not forget China or Pakistan or North Korea.

As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.

Neither can Israel, North Korea, Pakistan or Russia. It seems you tacitly admit the US can tolerate other countries with nukes.

Russia can, Russia is the only country which has technical ability to actually hit US with nukes. The whole freaking Cold War was and it appears still is about it.

That is false. Both Great Britain and France can deliver nukes to the US.

I don't think GB even have their own nukes to be honest.
Their nukes are US built and I can be not entirely correct here are directly controlled by US or something like that. And GB is in NATO.
France is in NATO too. Basically US controls their nukes indirectly as well.

So stop being difficult. Russia is the only other real nuclear power. Cause China is still not there and I don't think they plan to.

Either you are misinformed or simply ignorant: France and Great Britain make their own nuclear weapons and have the capability to deliver them at the USA. It is simply delusional to think that Russia is the only nuclear power in the world besides the USA.

 

[boneyard bill]

Despite the constant claims made here, no credible evidence has been presented to show that the coup was instigated or supported by non-ukrainians. Vague conspiracy theories based on out of context quote bites does not evidence make.

A country annexing another region that requested to be annexed is not expansionism.

A "request" made by an impossible majority (we've already established voter turnout in some places, like sevastopol, exceeded the actual voting population there), made while guns were pointed at them by an invasion force, is not an actual request; nor is it one that anyone should recognize.

Furthermore, even if everything you said was true, the claim that a foreign-sponsored coup is expansionism but an *annexation* (democratic or otherwise) is not, is nothing short of deranged. Expansionism is defined as the *expansion* of a state's territory by *any* means, conquest or otherwise. Sponsoring a coup does NOT qualify as expansionism under any definition of the word; annexing a territory ALWAYS qualifies as expansion, under *every* definition of the word.

We've been over this many times before. The Crimean parliament voted for secession by referendum but could have seceded without it. The same is true of annexation. Crimea is 60% Russian. 40% of the population is Ukrainian, Tatar, and other minorities. It's hardly a surprise that they voted to secede from a government run by unelected thugs who hate them. The election produced a 93% majority in favor of annexation to Russia compared with an 87% majority registered by pre-election polls.

Whatever its deficiencies, this election was far more democratic than the election of Poroshenko where Eastern Ukrainians were not allowed to vote, and the coup leaders decided who could and could not be put on the ballot. Yet the US State Department has the cojones to claim that this was a "democratic" election.

The term "expansionism" refers to a policy not to an action. Hence the "ism" at the end. Expanding and expansionism are not synonyms.

 

[boneyard bill]

I have addressed and refuted this argument repeatedly in previous threads. At this point it seems the pro-russian playbook is to repeat falsified claims so many times that people just give up on correcting them, resulting in a 'victory' by default. I will, however, continue to object. The president of Ukraine could most *certainly* be constitutionally removed from office by a majority vote from parliament. In fact, not even the pro-russian camp has claimed that a Ukrainian president can't be constitutionally removed through a majority vote, because that is simply absurd. Their whole objection has been based on the fact that a president can not be *impeached* without a minimum number of votes (more than the usual required for parliamentary measures) that was not reached; however, this objection is entirely irrelevant, since he was not in fact impeached but was removed from office through a valid majority vote on the basis that he was no longer *capable* of performing his duties (which obviously, having *fled the country* he couldn't do).

Wow! This is a real knee-slapper. Ha, ha, ha! It's hard to imagine that you would really put forth such a ridiculous argument. The president was unable to perform his duties because he had fled the country because he feared for his life. Therefore, he was "legitimately and democratically" removed by members of parliament who were voting under the same threat.

Wow! Give a few minutes here while I quit laughing.

Ahem. OK. Seriously.

We've been over this before. Your arguments seem to get more laughable as re-state them. It keeps coming of course, because your "refutations" simply don't refute.

But it was further illegitimate when you consider that the parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazis at the time.

Yet somehow, the Crimean secession referendum is perfectly valid... despite the thousands of armed Russian soldiers occupying regional government centers and polling stations.

That is irrelevant to your claims regarding the legitimacy of the removal of Yanukovich.

Russians were giving passports to Russian speaking Ukrainians. Holy Cow! This is outrageous! Bring on the nukes!

Actually, yes, it's quite outrageous as a blatantly transparent attempt to fabricate a cassus belli for intervention. What reason is there to give passports to these people other than to justify exactly what has happened? Why couldn't the Ukrainians who want to become Russian citizens simply apply for citizenship and emigrate? Why did Russia have to proactively approach them if not to provide itself with a convenient excuse to expand its borders? Why exactly do you think people make the comparison to the Sudetenland exactly?

Why they did so is a question that would have to be addressed to Russia. Our state department is quite capable of doing that without intervening in Ukrainian affairs.

Look, Putin could be in Kiev right now if he wanted Ukraine. One of the first things the European parliament did when this crisis broke out was to vote NOT to intervene militarily in the Ukrainian situation.

Please, not even the Russians are stupid enough to take everything at once; especially not the western parts of Ukraine. They simply do not have the manpower and resources to maintain stability over such a large conquest while also having to deal with the inevitable response of the world. And as a matter of fact, the EU did *not* vote not to intervene militarily; it simply rejected the idea of a military intervention at the time and chose to adopt a resolution of condemnation. If Russia decided to try and invade Ukraine fully and tried to take it entirely, you can be certain the EU would reconsider its stance. This is the whole nature of Putin's game; try to take as much as he can, without forcing the EU or NATO to respond with force.

Not even the Russians could be stupid enough? It seems to me that so far you've been claiming that they've been fiendishly clever. If they're so stupid, what have we got to worry about? It appears that your views are colored by a particular dislike for Russians that, in turn, seems to be coloring your whole interpretation of the situation.

The Russians have far more resources available to them than Kiev does. They aren't pleading for money from the IMF. I see no reason why the Russians couldn't handle these matters better than the Kiev government especially since that wouldn't have to worry about a war in east Ukraine.

The EU didn't put a time frame on their proclamation of non-intervention, and they wouldn't have had time to stop Putin. Now NATO HAS troops in Ukraine. (Oh, but it has nothing to do with NATO expansionism, I'm sure). They're on a "training" mission.

But Putin had a further opportunity with Kiev regimes defeat in Donetsk. As the separatist leader said when asked if they help from Russian troops. "If the Russians were with us, we wouldn't be here. We'd be in Kiev." Ukrainian forces were holed up in Mariupol. Separatist forces were north of there and had a straight shot at Kiev. At that point Putin did not intervene militarily, he called for a cease-fire which Poroshenko immediately accepted because he was basically defenseless.

 

[boneyard bill]

...are you simply suffering from Alzheimers, or are you seriously expecting anyone to believe this *now*. We have *transcripts* of Putin using it in his speeches as justification.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2a1e60-ae99-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Nor did he need such an excuse since Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian speaking people in the former Soviet territories even since the Soviet Union broke up. So there goes your whole argument right down the toilet.

...

Your argument is that Putin didn't need an excuse to invade Ukraine on the basis of protecting Russian citizens, because he already had that excuse? Really? That's what you want to go with? Really? Okay then.

If you're going to use some principle as a justification for invasion, you have to invade. Since Putin hasn't invaded anyone the claim in unsupportable and presumably false.

 

[boneyard bill]

laughing dog writes:

What annexations? Crimea is the only case. That came only after Kiev was taken over by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalist Ukrainians. Of course Crimea, which is 60% Russian would turn to Russia for protection against these ultra-nationalistic hooligans. How many countries has NATO annexed since the end of the Cold War? There is no comparison.

You are correct - there is no comparison because NATO annexes no one. NATO is not a government - it annexes nothing. Countries petition to join NATO. No NATO forces are used to forcibly wrest a country into NATO. Perhaps you are just using a rhetorical device to make some sort of point, that kind of counterfactual exaggeration undercuts the credibility of your argument.

Then please explain to me which countries Russia has annexed.

This doesn't even count the US efforts to encircle Russia by establishing bases in Afghanistan and in the central Asian republics. Have you ever given one second of thought to how Russia might interpret our actions?

One might be able to see how someone might misinterpret our establishing bases in Afghanistan and leasing bases in other central Asian republics in order to fight our misguided Afghan war. But that doesn't mean that misinterpretation is correct.

And it isn't possible, I suppose, that YOU are the one who misinterprets our intentions in the region. It isn't at all possible that you are being misled by the mainstream media spin on this subject. It isn't possible that you are being lied to by the same government that assured us of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or promised to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, etc.