Sweden, Finland, and Ukraine joining NATO?

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that there are well over 10 million ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. The city of Sevastopol for example is up to 80% Russian populated. What is Russia to do about these significant minorities that want to remain Russian?

Russia relocated population there. They can relocate them back.

 

[Daioh]

Yes, it's clear.
Russia (SU) lost territory since Cold War ended. And NATO gained. it's clear who aggressor is.

So am I getting this right?

Defensive Treaty= Aggression
Invasion/Annexation of part of a neighbouring country= NOT Aggression

Is that right?

 

[Ford]

Yes, it's clear.
Russia (SU) lost territory since Cold War ended. And NATO gained. it's clear who aggressor is.

So am I getting this right?

Defensive Treaty= Aggression
Invasion/Annexation of part of a neighbouring country= NOT Aggression

Is that right?

From my reading, the (SU) is Soviet Union, so not only is invasion/annexation of a neighboring country not aggression, but the collapse of the Soviet Union was due to NATO aggression, and had nothing to do with the failure of the Moscow-based government.

Furthermore, the implication is that any territory lost by Russia in the collapse of the Soviet Union was a terrible wrong that must be righted...bringing all the breakaway republics back into the fold.


But remember, barbos considers Russia equally guilty and is not at all shilling for the Kremlin.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that there are well over 10 million ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. The city of Sevastopol for example is up to 80% Russian populated. What is Russia to do about these significant minorities that want to remain Russian?

Russia relocated population there. They can relocate them back.

They are, in many cases, the greatⁿ-grandchildren of Russians who were relocated there by various Tsars. Some of the more 'recent' ones are only third or second generation, having been relocated there under Soviet Communism. In either case, you are talking about relocating people from their birthplace, 'back' to a place they have never lived, and possibly never even visited. This is not the simple solution you appear to imagine it to be.

 

[tupac chopra]

Nowhere near as much as the USA and in the case of Crimea they did what America did in Kosovo.

The International Court of Justice disagrees with you:

“The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”

They did not disagree with me. You mentioned "norms", though you then went and switched it to "laws".
But anyway my point is that Russia did the same thing as the USA did in Kosovo. The USA definitely went against international "norms" because it's not "normal" to do what they did in Kosovo. Now it has come back to bite them, as Russia followed their lead.

greatly contributed to bitter conflict,

No they have not greatly contributed to regional conflict. They have done everything they could to keep the Ukrainian situation more peaceful and lessen deaths.

The unrest in Eastern Ukraine has cost more than 5000 lives so far and displaced close to a million people. It's hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

If Russia had sent their army in it would have been a lot worse.
And remember it is the American puppets in Kiev that attacked and started killing those in the East. Those in the East, the so called "pro Russians" have merely been defending themselves.
Poroshenko avoided a ceasefire and kept attacking, all the while being advised by the USA.
Also, remember how this started. There was a racist coup government in Kiev and those in the east said "you are not our elected leaders" and they began to attack and kill them. When Poroshenko came to power he continued the killing.
We can't blame the Russians for that.
western press keeps repeating "Russian aggression...Russian agression"...but the agression started with the racist coup government that the USA sponsored,and afterwards with their puppet, Poroshenko.

upset the regional order,

No. The USA upset the regional order in Ukraine.

united Ukraine strongly against Russia

Ukraine is not united. Are you insane? Even the western parts of Ukraine are a chaotic mess. Have you any idea what is going on there?

Based on the recent election results, Ukraine (minus Crimea and the separatist-controller regions) is qute unanimously behind the pro-Western parties.

If you look into it a bit more you will see that there is now a lot of division as people are realising that they are being sold out. As "austerity' begins to bite this will increase

and disturbed his European neighbors?

America is the one who interfered by sponsoring the violent racist coup in Kiev.

America didn't "sponsor" the coup. In fact America was looking for a negotiated solution that would have left Yanukovich in power.

America did sponsor the "regime change" as they have been doing all over the globe for years.

I don't give a fuck if you think US has done any of these in the past (or worse).

Exactly, and that is the problem. Too many Americans just don't give a fuck how many people their tax money kills.

It's about as relevant as bringing up Stalinist Russia.

No it's relevant because America has been actively doing it up until the present day

 

[Jayjay]

The International Court of Justice disagrees with you:

“The Court has concluded above that the adoption of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law, Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) or the Constitutional Framework. Consequently the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”

They did not disagree with me. You mentioned "norms", though you then went and switched it to "laws".
But anyway my point is that Russia did the same thing as the USA did in Kosovo. The USA definitely went against international "norms" because it's not "normal" to do what they did in Kosovo. Now it has come back to bite them, as Russia followed their lead.

It wasn't the same situation at all. Crimea was recognized by all parties, including Russia, to be part of Ukraine. Kosovo's final status on the other hand was to be negotiated as per Security Council resolution 1244. The negotiations failed after almost a decade, so Kosovo declared independence out of its own volition. Also, Kosovo was not annexed by USA or anyone else, and gained broad international recognition.

Besides Russia has not recognized Kosovo's independence so your point about Kosovo being a precedent for Crimea is moot.

greatly contributed to bitter conflict,

No they have not greatly contributed to regional conflict. They have done everything they could to keep the Ukrainian situation more peaceful and lessen deaths.

The unrest in Eastern Ukraine has cost more than 5000 lives so far and displaced close to a million people. It's hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

If Russia had sent their army in it would have been a lot worse.

What alternative universe do you live in? Russia did send its army in Eastern Ukraine.

And remmeber it is the American puppets in Kiev that attacked and started killing those in the East. Those in the East, the so called "pro Russians" have merely been defending themselves.

Youv'e got your timeline mixed up. The separatists began taking over government buildings first, and then the interim president and prime minister started their "counter-terrorist" operation. As for first blood, the separatists drew that first also by attacking a navy base in Mariupol.

Poroshenko avoided a ceasefire and kept attacking, all the while being advised by the USA.

Had it not been for separatists organized by Moscow, there would not have been any need to attack in the first place. And had the separatists not been actively supported by Russian army, the rebellion would have ended sooner and with much less bloodshed.

Also, remmeber how this started. There was a racist coup government in Kiev and those in the east said "you are not our elected leaders" and they began to attack and kill them. When Poroshenko came to power he continued the killing.
We can't blame the Russians for that.

western press keeps repeating "Russian aggression...Russian agression"...but the agression started with the racist coup government that the USA sponsored,and afterwards with their puppet, Poroshenko.

It was the Russian puppet Yanukovich who opened fire at protestors. And it was Yanukovich's refusal to sign the EU cooperation treaty at Russia's behest that started those protests in 2013. And don't forget, that Russia used Yanukovich even after he was deposed to call for eastern Ukraine to organize referendums and rebel... it's Russian provocation and propaganda, the very same that you uncritically lap up, that is to be blamed for much of the violence that ensued.

upset the regional order,

No. The USA upset the regional order in Ukraine.

united Ukraine strongly against Russia

Ukraine is not united. Are you insane? Even the western parts of Ukraine are a chaotic mess. Have you any idea what is going on there?

Based on the recent election results, Ukraine (minus Crimea and the separatist-controller regions) is qute unanimously behind the pro-Western parties.

If you look into it a bit more you will see that there is now a lot of division as people are realising that they are being sold out. As "austerity' begins to bite this will increase

Sure, it might at some future date. That's what Russia is banking on... destabilize Ukraine until the pendulum swings back. But like someone pointed out, right now over 90 percent of Ukrainians and 70 of ethnic Russians are against Russia.

and disturbed his European neighbors?

America is the one who interfered by sponsoring the violent racist coup in Kiev.

America didn't "sponsor" the coup. In fact America was looking for a negotiated solution that would have left Yanukovich in power.

America did sponsor the "regime change" as they have been doing all over the globe for years.

I don't give a fuck if you think US has done any of these in the past (or worse).

Exactly, and that is the problem. Too many Americans just don't give a fuck how many people their tax money kills.

It's about as relevant as bringing up Stalinist Russia.

No it's relevant because America has been actively doing it up until the present day

If that were the case, then you could use present day examples instead of having to dig down dirt from over 30 years ago.

 

[barbos]

The problem is that there are well over 10 million ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. The city of Sevastopol for example is up to 80% Russian populated. What is Russia to do about these significant minorities that want to remain Russian?

Russia relocated population there. They can relocate them back.

Prepare for relocation to Europe then.
And nobody relocated anybody there. Most of the eastern Ukraine was originally part of Russia

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia relocated population there. They can relocate them back.

They are, in many cases, the greatⁿ-grandchildren of Russians who were relocated there by various Tsars. Some of the more 'recent' ones are only third or second generation, having been relocated there under Soviet Communism. In either case, you are talking about relocating people from their birthplace, 'back' to a place they have never lived, and possibly never even visited. This is not the simple solution you appear to imagine it to be.

I'm not saying the need to move, just that if they can't accept living in a non-Russian country then Russia should move them back as the reason they're there originally was Russia moving them.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, it's clear.
Russia (SU) lost territory since Cold War ended. And NATO gained. it's clear who aggressor is.

So am I getting this right?

Defensive Treaty= Aggression

The USA and NATO countries have been involved in aggressive wars for many years.

Invasion/Annexation of part of a neighboring country= NOT Aggression

NATO/US sponsored a violent coup and installed a racist illegitimate government after ousting a democratically elected leader. In view of NATO and the USA's poor record and habit of lying and aggressive wars, Putin secured Crimea with troops who were already stationed there under the existing agreement.
The people overwhelmingly decided to go with Russia, which was not surprising considering what had happened in Kiev and the violence going on.
The result is peace in Crimea, where Russia got involved and chaos in the Ukraine where the USA and NATO got involved.

 

[bilby]

They are, in many cases, the greatⁿ-grandchildren of Russians who were relocated there by various Tsars. Some of the more 'recent' ones are only third or second generation, having been relocated there under Soviet Communism. In either case, you are talking about relocating people from their birthplace, 'back' to a place they have never lived, and possibly never even visited. This is not the simple solution you appear to imagine it to be.

I'm not saying the need to move, just that if they can't accept living in a non-Russian country then Russia should move them back as the reason they're there originally was Russia moving them.

And I'm saying that you are wrong. The reason they're there was that that's where they were born. Russia may have moved their ancestors, but the people in question haven't been moved by anyone.

 

[barbos]

The propaganda coming out of Russia during the theft of Crimea was unrelenting, similar to the crap being spewed in the USA after 9/11. Russian-speaking Crimeans were getting calls from their relatives in Russia, asking if they were all right. They had heard that Russian-speakers were being rounded up by Kiev and hauled off to camps, or killed outright.

Where did you get this bullshit? I have never heard any such thing during that time.

And they believed it. just like the FOX news worshipers believe every word that drips from Bill O'Reilly's lips.

Maybe we're not so different after all.

I think it's pretty clear who is a victim of propaganda is.

 

[tupac chopra]

What alternative universe do you live in? Russia did send its army in Eastern Ukraine.

I know that Fox news made that claim but it's wrong unless you have evidence.

Had it not been for separatists organized by Moscow, there would not have been any need to attack in the first place. And had the separatists not been actively supported by Russian army, the rebellion would have ended sooner and with much less bloodshed.

The separatists initially resisted a racist illegitimate government installed in a violent coup backed by the USA. For some reason you are a fan of these racist thugs.

It was the Russian puppet Yanukovich who opened fire at protestors.

Evidence?

And it was Yanukovich's refusal to sign the EU cooperation treaty at Russia's behest that started those protests in 2013.

He did not refuse to sign he. He delayed it to make some changes.

And don't forget, that Russia used Yanukovich even after he was deposed to call for eastern Ukraine to organize referendums and rebel

He was the democratically elected leader. Unlike the thgs that came to power

... it's Russian provocation and propaganda, the very same that you uncritically lap up, that is to be blamed for much of the violence that ensued.

Those in the east were defending their homeland from a racists thugs who ousted a democratically elected leader.

Sure, it might at some future date. That's what Russia is banking on... destabilize Ukraine until the pendulum swings back.

Russia doesn't need Ukraine. they just don't want NATO putting missile bases on the doorstep.

But like someone pointed out, right now over 90 percent of Ukrainians and 70 of ethnic Russians are against Russia.

Laughable. Do have a reliable source for that.

If that were the case, then you could use present day examples instead of having to dig down dirt from over 30 years ago.

What example did I use from 30 years ago. Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?

 

[barbos]

upset the regional order,

No. The USA upset the regional order in Ukraine.

united Ukraine strongly against Russia

Ukraine is not united. Are you insane? Even the western parts of Ukraine are a chaotic mess. Have you any idea what is going on there?

Based on the recent election results, Ukraine (minus Crimea and the separatist-controller regions) is qute unanimously behind the pro-Western parties.

Considering that pro-russian people were not allowed to elections that's not surprising.
Truth is, Poroshenko was least anti-russian candidate allowed to run and he and his party won.
Now, he is a hostage to most radical part of the electorate.
And if you go further then pro-EU maidan people were not in any way majority, they were merely most loud and obnoxious, that's all.

 

[Jayjay]

So am I getting this right?

Defensive Treaty= Aggression

The USA and NATO countries have been involved in aggressive wars for many years.

Invasion/Annexation of part of a neighboring country= NOT Aggression

NATO/US sponsored a violent coup and installed a racist illegitimate government after ousting a democratically elected leader. In view of NATO and the USA's poor record and habit of lying and aggressive wars, Putin secured Crimea with troops who were already stationed there under the existing agreement.
The people overwhelmingly decided to go with Russia, which was not surprising considering what had happened in Kiev and the violence going on.
The result is peace in Crimea, where Russia got involved and chaos in the Ukraine where the USA and NATO got involved.

Actually, both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are Russia's involvement. IN both cases there were "little green men" who in Crimea turned out to be Russian soldiers. In both cass there have been hastily arranged, unsupervised "referendums" to build a thin veneer of legitimacy. It's from the same playbook, and NATO and USA had absolutely nothing to do with either. This is 100% on Russia.

The reason why Crimea is peaceful, while Eastern Ukraine is a clusterfuck is because of Crimea's demographics, and the fact that Russia had more troops available there whereas in Eastern Ukraine they had to employ local thugs.

You can't talk about the apparent peacefulness in Crimea in isolation from the destabilization of Eastern Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

They are, in many cases, the greatⁿ-grandchildren of Russians who were relocated there by various Tsars. Some of the more 'recent' ones are only third or second generation, having been relocated there under Soviet Communism. In either case, you are talking about relocating people from their birthplace, 'back' to a place they have never lived, and possibly never even visited. This is not the simple solution you appear to imagine it to be.

I'm not saying the need to move, just that if they can't accept living in a non-Russian country then Russia should move them back as the reason they're there originally was Russia moving them.

Nobody was moving anybody there.
Eastern Ukraine is a former part of Russia which was formally attached to the Ukraine after it joined Russia.
It was usual practice in Russian Empire. For example half of the Chechen republic is actually Russia too. The logic for that was to encourage chechens to move from highland to planes were they can get "civilized" But the fact remains, half of the Chechen republic are planes which were originally russian land. Now it's chechen republic with mostly russuan toponyms.

If you still want to move somebody then it's ukrainians should move into their borders before joining Russian Empire.
Want to separate from Russia then here are your old maps, enjoy!
Don't like that? than stop pissing off russian population with your Ukraine uber alles shit!

 

[barbos]

The USA and NATO countries have been involved in aggressive wars for many years.

Invasion/Annexation of part of a neighboring country= NOT Aggression

NATO/US sponsored a violent coup and installed a racist illegitimate government after ousting a democratically elected leader. In view of NATO and the USA's poor record and habit of lying and aggressive wars, Putin secured Crimea with troops who were already stationed there under the existing agreement.
The people overwhelmingly decided to go with Russia, which was not surprising considering what had happened in Kiev and the violence going on.
The result is peace in Crimea, where Russia got involved and chaos in the Ukraine where the USA and NATO got involved.

Actually, both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are Russia's involvement. IN both cases there were "little green men" who in Crimea turned out to be Russian soldiers. In both cass there have been hastily arranged, unsupervised "referendums" to build a thin veneer of legitimacy. It's from the same playbook, and NATO and USA had absolutely nothing to do with either. This is 100% on Russia.

The reason why Crimea is peaceful, while Eastern Ukraine is a clusterfuck is because of Crimea's demographics, and the fact that Russia had more troops available there whereas in Eastern Ukraine they had to employ local thugs.

You can't talk about the apparent peacefulness in Crimea in isolation from the destabilization of Eastern Ukraine.

Yes you are right, the reason why Crimea is peaceful is because there is no ukrainian "army" there.

 

[barbos]

--

 

[Jayjay]

I know that Fox news made that claim but it's wrong unless you have evidence.

Had it not been for separatists organized by Moscow, there would not have been any need to attack in the first place. And had the separatists not been actively supported by Russian army, the rebellion would have ended sooner and with much less bloodshed.

The separatists initially resisted a racist illegitimate government installed in a violent coup backed by the USA. For some reason you are a fan of these racist thugs.

No doubt some of them have nationalist leanings, thanks to decades of Russian oppression and meddling. I wouldn't vote for these guys if they were running for office in my country, but I do have sympathy for the underdog, the Ukrainian people... Russia has been fucking with Ukraine for most of the 20th century, and is now destaibilizing the coutnry and providing weapons and troops to the rebels. Just because some of the Ukrainian leaders might be "racists thugs" in your opinion, doesn't give Russia a permission to just waltz in and kick off an armed rebellion.

It was the Russian puppet Yanukovich who opened fire at protestors.

Evidence?

And it was Yanukovich's refusal to sign the EU cooperation treaty at Russia's behest that started those protests in 2013.

He did not refuse to sign he. He delayed it to make some changes.

And don't forget, that Russia used Yanukovich even after he was deposed to call for eastern Ukraine to organize referendums and rebel

He was the democratically elected leader. Unlike the thgs that came to power

Yanukovich was deposed by an equally democratically elected parliament, and if Yanukovich is democratically elected then so is Poroshenko. Keep in midn that Yanukovich ran with a pro-EU campaign, so is it unreasonable for his voters to want to kick him out when renegs on his promises?

... it's Russian provocation and propaganda, the very same that you uncritically lap up, that is to be blamed for much of the violence that ensued.

Those in the east were defending their homeland from a racists thugs who ousted a democratically elected leader.

See above. Yanukovich was ousted by the parliament after his escaped the country and was unable to do his job, and new elections were scheduled after a few months. If they wanted to have another democratically elected leader, all they had to do was vote.

Sure, it might at some future date. That's what Russia is banking on... destabilize Ukraine until the pendulum swings back.

Russia doesn't need Ukraine. they just don't want NATO putting missile bases on the doorstep.

Ukraine only started seeking NATO membership as reaction to Russian aggression. Before this crisis began, Ukraine was not seeking membership and majority of Ukrainians were against it anyway.

The incident didn't start with NATO, it started with the EU association agreement which would have hampered Russia's plans for customs union. Russia clearly wanted Ukraine enough to start this whole mess over it.

But like someone pointed out, right now over 90 percent of Ukrainians and 70 of ethnic Russians are against Russia.

Laughable. Do have a reliable source for that.

If that were the case, then you could use present day examples instead of having to dig down dirt from over 30 years ago.

What example did I use from 30 years ago. Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?

Yes, I am. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the CIA death squads.

But the point made by Axulus was that it's a tu quoue fallacy to bring up what USA might have done in the past or is doing now. Russian aggression is still wrong.

 

[Axulus]

We have sattelite photos for christ's sake showing the russian combat troops in Ukraine in the past. We don't need a "propaganda" source to tell us, you can look with your own eyes:

http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx

 

[barbos]

We have sattelite photos for christ's sake showing the russian combat troops in Ukraine in the past. We don't need a "propaganda" source to tell us, you can look with your own eyes:

http://aco.nato.int/new-satellite-imagery-exposes-russian-combat-troops-inside-ukraine.aspx

No, you don't.