NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[barbos]

lpetrich,
What should Russia do? return Crimea to Ukraine?

 

[laughing dog]

lpetrich,
What should Russia do? return Crimea to Ukraine?

Yes.

 

[Jayjay]

I think Russia should offer to buy Crimea from Ukraine.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

I agree. Until the American-sponsored coup, Ukrainians had no great desire to join NATO. That is not true of the US, however. The US sponsored membership for both Georgia and Ukraine shortly after the "Orange Revolution," (also almost certainly US sponsored), when, after winning the election, Yanukovich was prevented from taking office. Fortunately calmer heads prevailed. NATO then voted to admit Ukraine and Georgia at some unspecified time in the future. So we've been hankering to admit Ukraine to NATO for a long time.

 

[Ford]

lpetrich,
What should Russia do? return Crimea to Ukraine?

Yes.

Trick question. Remember that the Putin Cheer Squad believes Crimea was never part of Ukraine, and as such cannot be "returned." Not only that, but Ukraine isn't even Ukraine anymore. It is a US territory much like Puerto Rico, but with (now) fewer beaches.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

First of all, Putin did not invade Ukraine. He is maintaining troops in Crimea, but not in Ukraine. Suggesting that the coup d'état in the Maidan was somehow an expression of democracy is to fall hook, line, and sinker for US propaganda. There was absolutely nothing democratic about it. Nor can the election of Poroshenko be considered legitimate. Yanukovich was elected under internationally supervised elections. Poroshenko was elected by Western Ukrainians under occupation by armed neo-Nazi's, Right Sector ultra-nationalists and Ukrainian troops.

But those issues are secondary. The goal of taking Ukraine is just a stepping stone to overthrowing Putin and taking control of Russia itself. Putin knows this, if for no other reason, because his advisers have certainly read Zbigniew Brezhinsk's books, and he spells that out as the ultimate US goal.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree. Until the American-sponsored coup, Ukrainians had no great desire to join NATO. That is not true of the US, however. The US sponsored membership for both Georgia and Ukraine shortly after the "Orange Revolution," (also almost certainly US sponsored), when, after winning the election, Yanukovich was prevented from taking office. Fortunately calmer heads prevailed. NATO then voted to admit Ukraine and Georgia at some unspecified time in the future. So we've been hankering to admit Ukraine to NATO for a long time.

Link??

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

I'm not going to deal with your repetition of State Department propaganda. We've been over that many times before. You're story just doesn't hold up. An agreement with the protestors had been reached prior to the coup, a point which you consistently ignore.

I seriously doubt that Britain and France have enough nukes to devastate Russia, but aside from that, I do not contend that Russia would be the first to launch nuclear weapons. If a conventional war breaks out between NATO and Russia, the party that is losing would have the incentive to go nuclear rather than lose. I would expect that in the short run at least, Russia has a decided tactical advantage in any war involving Ukraine.

If you think we have any vital interests in Ukraine, please state what you think those interests are.

 

[Ford]

I agree. Until the American-sponsored coup, Ukrainians had no great desire to join NATO. That is not true of the US, however. The US sponsored membership for both Georgia and Ukraine shortly after the "Orange Revolution," (also almost certainly US sponsored), when, after winning the election, Yanukovich was prevented from taking office. Fortunately calmer heads prevailed. NATO then voted to admit Ukraine and Georgia at some unspecified time in the future. So we've been hankering to admit Ukraine to NATO for a long time.

Link??

You're not going to get one.

In addition to the idea that Crimea is now and has always been part of Russia, the Putin-bots here will claim over and over again that the US sponsored the "coup" in Ukraine, that Russian troops have never set foot in Ukraine, and that anything which contradicts this narrative is Western/NATO/US propaganda.

 

[Togo]

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.

First of all, Putin did not invade Ukraine. He is maintaining troops in Crimea, but not in Ukraine.

And any movement of those troops in Crimea outside of the terms of maintainace agreement, such as attacking the Ukrainian army, is still an invasion.

Yanukovich was elected under internationally supervised elections.

All the elections have been internationally supervised, both Parliamentary and presidential. The only exception is the 'referendum' Russian troops ran in Crimea.

Poroshenko was elected by Western Ukrainians under occupation by armed neo-Nazi's, Right Sector ultra-nationalists and Ukrainian troops.

How can you treat this claim as a reason to ignore the result, when the Crimean election you're hoilding up as legitmate was organised by the Russia army?

But those issues are secondary.

No, actually, invading another country and annexing parts of it is about as primary as you can get.

 

[Jayjay]

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.



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.

I'm not going to deal with your repetition of State Department propaganda. We've been over that many times before. You're story just doesn't hold up. An agreement with the protestors had been reached prior to the coup, a point which you consistently ignore.

An agreement with the opposition leaders wasn't reached until people started dying on the streets, and at that point things were too far along to appease the protestors. What dystopian was referring to was what got the ball rolling in the first place, which was Yanukovich refusing to sign the EU association agreement despite his campaign promises.

If a president gets elected on a platform that he'll bring the country closer to EU, and then being ousted by public protest because he breaks that promise, isn't as undemocratic as you make it out to be.

 

[boneyard bill]

First of all, Putin did not invade Ukraine. He is maintaining troops in Crimea, but not in Ukraine.

And any movement of those troops in Crimea outside of the terms of maintainace agreement, such as attacking the Ukrainian army, is still an invasion.

Yanukovich was elected under internationally supervised elections.

All the elections have been internationally supervised, both Parliamentary and presidential. The only exception is the 'referendum' Russian troops ran in Crimea.

Poroshenko was elected by Western Ukrainians under occupation by armed neo-Nazi's, Right Sector ultra-nationalists and Ukrainian troops.

How can you treat this claim as a reason to ignore the result, when the Crimean election you're hoilding up as legitmate was organised by the Russia army?

But those issues are secondary.

No, actually, invading another country and annexing parts of it is about as primary as you can get.

Putin did not attack Ukrainian troops. Elections were not internationally supervised at the time of the Orange Revolution although there were foreign observers. I haven't claimed that the Crimean election was proper. I don't know. I have no basis for judging that. I would say that nuclear war is a lot more serious issue. That's why Ike didn't go into Hungary. That's why LBJ didn't go into Czechoslovakia. For all their faults, they were of sound mind. I don't have such confidence in our current policy makers.

 

[boneyard bill]

I agree. Until the American-sponsored coup, Ukrainians had no great desire to join NATO. That is not true of the US, however. The US sponsored membership for both Georgia and Ukraine shortly after the "Orange Revolution," (also almost certainly US sponsored), when, after winning the election, Yanukovich was prevented from taking office. Fortunately calmer heads prevailed. NATO then voted to admit Ukraine and Georgia at some unspecified time in the future. So we've been hankering to admit Ukraine to NATO for a long time.

Link??

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Orange_Revolution?o=2800&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/

You could easily have looked these up yourself. If you want to discuss the issue, you should inform yourself beforehand.

 

[boneyard bill]

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.



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.

I'm not going to deal with your repetition of State Department propaganda. We've been over that many times before. You're story just doesn't hold up. An agreement with the protestors had been reached prior to the coup, a point which you consistently ignore.

An agreement with the opposition leaders wasn't reached until people started dying on the streets, and at that point things were too far along to appease the protestors. What dystopian was referring to was what got the ball rolling in the first place, which was Yanukovich refusing to sign the EU association agreement despite his campaign promises.

If a president gets elected on a platform that he'll bring the country closer to EU, and then being ousted by public protest because he breaks that promise, isn't as undemocratic as you make it out to be.

Certainly it's not a democratic process. If it were, Obama would have been run out of town on a rail. "If you like your health care plan you can keep it." "I'll withdraw our troops from Iraq in 16 months. You can take that to the bank." "All US troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014." Not that Obama is alone in failing to keep campaign promises. Since when did that ever justify an armed insurrection? You, yourself, can only claim that it's not "as undemocratic as you make it out to be." Which means, of course, that it IS undemocratic by your own admission.

 

[Ford]

You could easily have looked these up yourself. If you want to discuss the issue, you should inform yourself beforehand.

If you're going to assert that America was responsible for the "coup," perhaps you should provide sources that actually say this, instead of sources that merely indicate that NATO was favorable to a more friendly Ukrainian government.


If that is your standard for what constitutes a "coup," then Russia is certainly guilty of sponsoring a coup in Crimea.

 

[Jayjay]

And any movement of those troops in Crimea outside of the terms of maintainace agreement, such as attacking the Ukrainian army, is still an invasion.

Yanukovich was elected under internationally supervised elections.

All the elections have been internationally supervised, both Parliamentary and presidential. The only exception is the 'referendum' Russian troops ran in Crimea.

Poroshenko was elected by Western Ukrainians under occupation by armed neo-Nazi's, Right Sector ultra-nationalists and Ukrainian troops.

How can you treat this claim as a reason to ignore the result, when the Crimean election you're hoilding up as legitmate was organised by the Russia army?

But those issues are secondary.

No, actually, invading another country and annexing parts of it is about as primary as you can get.

Putin did not attack Ukrainian troops. Elections were not internationally supervised at the time of the Orange Revolution although there were foreign observers. I haven't claimed that the Crimean election was proper. I don't know. I have no basis for judging that. I would say that nuclear war is a lot more serious issue. That's why Ike didn't go into Hungary. That's why LBJ didn't go into Czechoslovakia. For all their faults, they were of sound mind. I don't have such confidence in our current policy makers.

I think that's unwarranted paranoia. Russia is not the Soviet Union (for now anyway), and Ukraine's approaching EU or even NATO doesn't pose an existential threat to it. And there isn't any indication that USA or NATO is going to intervene militarily in Ukraine at all.

 

[boneyard bill]

You could easily have looked these up yourself. If you want to discuss the issue, you should inform yourself beforehand.

If you're going to assert that America was responsible for the "coup," perhaps you should provide sources that actually say this, instead of sources that merely indicate that NATO was favorable to a more friendly Ukrainian government.


If that is your standard for what constitutes a "coup," then Russia is certainly guilty of sponsoring a coup in Crimea.

We discussed this to death on a previous thread. For starters, look up Victoria Nuland and "fuck the EU" where she conspires with our ambassador in Ukraine to install Yatsenyuk as premier. Then look up Victoria Nuland and Chevron where she gives a speech in which she claims that the US had invested $5 billion in the democracy movement in Ukraine. What "democracy movement" could she mean for a country that already had a democratically elected government. Oh yeah, that's what we called those armed neo-Nazi protestors.

Victoria Nuland, by the way, is married to Robert Kagan a well-known neo-con whose brother, Frederick came up with the "surge" plan for Iraq. So those neo-cons who got Bush to lie us into war in Iraq and still busy running the show under Obama.

 

[Ford]

Putin did not attack Ukrainian troops.

Help me out with something here, Bill...


You and the other members of the Putin Official Fan Club seem to be making the case that if there is no solid evidence of Russian troops entering Ukraine, then Russia is not involved in Ukraine.

That's the bar you've set. No Russian soldiers = no Russian involvement.


Yet on the other end, you accuse the West/NATO/the US of being not just involved in Ukraine, but of orchestrating the "coup."



So if your standard of evidence is consistent, then it is incumbent upon you to show the proof of NATO/US soldiers carrying out the coup.

 

[Ford]

Victoria Nuland, by the way, is married to Robert Kagan a well-known neo-con whose brother, Frederick came up with the "surge" plan for Iraq. So those neo-cons who got Bush to lie us into war in Iraq and still busy running the show under Obama.

Looks like we've cross-posted. So if I read you right, a woman who was married to a neo-con who had his hands in Iraq is enough evidence of a "coup," but reports of Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine are to be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Jayjay]

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.



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.

I'm not going to deal with your repetition of State Department propaganda. We've been over that many times before. You're story just doesn't hold up. An agreement with the protestors had been reached prior to the coup, a point which you consistently ignore.

An agreement with the opposition leaders wasn't reached until people started dying on the streets, and at that point things were too far along to appease the protestors. What dystopian was referring to was what got the ball rolling in the first place, which was Yanukovich refusing to sign the EU association agreement despite his campaign promises.

If a president gets elected on a platform that he'll bring the country closer to EU, and then being ousted by public protest because he breaks that promise, isn't as undemocratic as you make it out to be.

Certainly it's not a democratic process. If it were, Obama would have been run out of town on a rail. "If you like your health care plan you can keep it." "I'll withdraw our troops from Iraq in 16 months. You can take that to the bank." "All US troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014." Not that Obama is alone in failing to keep campaign promises. Since when did that ever justify an armed insurrection? You, yourself, can only claim that it's not "as undemocratic as you make it out to be." Which means, of course, that it IS undemocratic by your own admission.

The point is not whether Yanukovich was overthrown with via normal democratic process. It's that the protests weren't some conspiracy orchestrated by the US, but a movement that was sparked by Yanukovich kowtowing to Russia by betraying his campaign promises. If Yanukovich had run on an anti-EU, pro-secessionist platform, do you think that he would ever have been elected in the first place?

If a similar thing happened in US, and Obama was removed from office after he orders national guard to fire at protestors, that wouldn't be a democratic process either, but it'd be clear that it's Obama's fault for fucking it up.