Russia gets Crimea

[cubby1223]

And for fucks sake, Russia was never willing to use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan in the 80's even when it was clear prolonging this war was having devastating effects on the strength of the U.S.S.R. to maintain itself.

The notion that Ukraine can never make large decisions on their own because Russia could nuke them, is a ludicrous position.

Those individuals who control the nukes are not bat-shit crazy.

 

[senseamp]

NATO will not sacrifice thousands of its soldiers to die for Ukraine at a risk of WWIII, NATO does not give a fuck about Ukraine. Instead, it will likely help Ukraine arm itself, train it, and then let it fight Russia, directly or by terror. They already have a good pretext: "returning" Crimea. In NATO's mind, the more Ukraine and Russia hate/kill each other, the better.

Exactly. We saw this movie in Georgia.
NATO armed and trained Georgia to return Abkhazia, and suckered them to believing that NATO got their backs. Then when Russians kicked their ass to Tbilisi, and Saakashvili was eating his tie, NATO was nowhere to be found.

 

[cubby1223]

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/he...umble-into-war-in-ukraine/Content?oid=3102485

Good article, that sums up pretty well what I think of the situation. I guess you are going to call these former US diplomats Russia apologists too, but it's worth reading.



You can just ignore this guy since he has a Russian first name, but let me quote him anyways:


Former US ambassador to Russia, obviously a Putin lover:


All Putin apologists, I am sure, but they do make some interesting points.

It took you all that research to make the point that the U.S. does not want to start a war with Russia?

I bet you feel smart for figuring that all out!

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. We saw this movie in Georgia.
NATO armed and trained Georgia to return Abkhazia, and suckered them to believing that NATO got their backs. Then when Russians kicked their ass to Tbilisi, and Saakashvili was eating his tie, NATO was nowhere to be found.

It's interesting to watch you get more and more invested in promoting Russia as your position becomes more and more untenable. At this point you're basically rooting for Russia, which is gross.

My offer from before stands about ukranian NATO membership, btw.

 

[senseamp]

It's interesting to watch you get more and more invested in promoting as your position becomes more and more untenable. At this point you're basically rooting for Russia, which is gross.

My offer from before stands about ukranian NATO membership, btw.

It's interesting to watch you devolve more and more into space of personal attacks as a substitute for reasoning. Expected but still interesting. Good day to you sir.

 

[norseamd]

It's interesting to watch you devolve more and more into space of personal attacks as a substitute for reasoning. Expected but still interesting. Good day to you sir.

your constant uncontemplative support fot the muscovites as well as your general disrespect for nonmuscovites is clear to all

 

[Jaskalas]

I've got reasonable for this situation: Redeploy the THAAD unit on Guam to Poland and ship PAC3 batteries to the Baltics along with enough handheld anti-tank and shoulder fired anti-air missiles to remove all doubt that invading isn't a good idea.

Submitting to Putin's aggression is not a viable long term strategy.

You skipped the part where I called for military mobilization and deployment in eastern Europe? It's not submitting to Putin's aggression, it's putting our cards on the table and then negotiating with a partner to forge a peace agreement that both East and West can live with.

We cannot ignore Russia's interests and only promote our own. There is no diplomacy if all we do is issue orders and only address our own interests.

 

[K1052]

You skipped the part where I called for military mobilization and deployment in eastern Europe? It's not submitting to Putin's aggression, it's putting our cards on the table and then negotiating with a partner to forge a peace agreement that both East and West can live with.

We cannot ignore Russia's interests and only promote our own. There is no diplomacy if all we do is issue orders and only address our own interests.

I have little faith in Putin's trustworthiness as a negotiating partner, I doubt that sentiment is unusual within pretty much all the governments in eastern Europe. I see no particular need on our part to serve up other nations on a silver platter to him by drawing back NATO.

 

[fskimospy]

It's interesting to watch you devolve more and more into space of personal attacks as a substitute for reasoning. Expected but still interesting. Good day to you sir.

You may view it as a personal attack, but that doesn't change it's accuracy. As I've said repeatedly I am quote confident in my analysis. Your reasoning has been self contradictory.

We will see I guess, but don't be at all surprised when this is all over whatever remains of Ukraine becomes part of NATO.

 

[Pocatello]

Russia strong arm tactics with its neighbors are driving those countries toward the West, not closer to Moscow.

 

[cubby1223]

It's interesting to watch you get more and more invested in promoting Russia as your position becomes more and more untenable. At this point you're basically rooting for Russia, which is gross.

My offer from before stands about ukranian NATO membership, btw.

Well, he's more or less proving a point - that there often are no consequences for bad behavior. And there will never be consequences for Russia's ruling class until the U.S. decides to engage them directly in war.

 

[cubby1223]

Russia strong arm tactics with its neighbors are driving those countries toward the West, not closer to Moscow.

The question is, who's going to do something about it?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, he's more or less proving a point - that there often are no consequences for bad behavior. And there will never be consequences for Russia's ruling class until the U.S. decides to engage them directly in war.

I don't know about that. Russia's economy is currently reeling from massive capital flight since the beginning of this. They are being forced to raise interest rates to combat this, which is contributing to sending their economy into recession. Crimea and especially eastern Ukraine will/would require enormous resources to occupy, etc, etc.

I think a movement into Ukraine proper will spark a considerably more significant sanction response which will cause further damage to their economy. It's true that the plutocrats that run Russia won't be begging in the streets any time soon, but Russia's recent prosperity is built on sand. They are more vulnerable than you might think.

Additionally, putin's power is built on managing the kleptocracy. If he can't keep looting his country for his friends, he runs into trouble.

 

[cubby1223]

Additionally, putin's power is built on managing the kleptocracy. If he can't keep looting his country for his friends, he runs into trouble.

That's pretty much the understanding I've developed watching this play out. Russia's economy during the cold war was probably dependent on stealing from their satellites, and since the fall of U.S.S.R. they have been unable to maintain a sensible economy, and must go back to the old days of plundering.

But the sense of invincibility they instill in their ethnic relatives is quite remarkable, look at senseamp, he believes the west will fold yet again when faced with the real aggression of the Russian empire. And that sense of invincibility does give them power, it creates the civilian uprisings in the neighboring countries.

 

[shady28]

That's pretty much the understanding I've developed watching this play out. Russia's economy during the cold war was probably dependent on stealing from their satellites, and since the fall of U.S.S.R. they have been unable to maintain a sensible economy and must go back to the old days of plundering.

Do you have any factual information to back that up, or are you just spewing ignorant guesswork?

Let me save you some time. You're spewing ignorant guesswork.


Here are some FACTS, with REFERENCES about what you call a country that :
"since the fall of U.S.S.R. they have been unable to maintain a sensible economy, and must go back to the old days of plundering"

This is a 2009 article US Congressional research paper :

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34512.pdf

pg 5 :

"Beginning in 1999 and through mid-2008, Russia’s economic fortunes reversed on many accounts. The radical improvement was arguably a factor in the wide popularity that Putin enjoyed during his term. At the same time, improved economic conditions brought a significant degree of economic stability to Russia. "

", Russia experienced strong economic growth over the last 10 years
(1999-2008), during which time its real GDP has increased 6.9% on average per year"

"Russia foreign trade has increased sharply in the last ten years (1999-2008). During that period Russian exports grew close to 525%, from $75.5 billion to $471.6 billion and Russian imports rose close to 640%, from $39.5 billion to $291.6 billion"

"the Russian government had consistently earned budget surpluses, at least until recently, and had a surplus of 4.1% which equaled GDP in 2008.26"

"The Russian political leadership headed by former President, now Prime Minister, Putin had enjoyed unprecedented popularity since 2000 in part because of the economic stability and growth that many Russians have attributed to him over the last ten years. The economic success also likely contributed to confidence that Putin and now President Medvedev had shown in projecting Russia’s national interests beyond its borders, for example, in Georgia and other neighboring states."

The above was *5* years ago.

This is an article from Forbes in 2012 titled "Russia's Economy is Still Growing Faster than Every EU Country"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markado...s-still-growing-faster-than-every-eu-country/


This is not some broke-ass 2nd world country.

Broke countries do not make brand new, 21st century ballistic missile submarines :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine

It's possible for *one* of these submarines to "nuke" as many as 160 different targets. 16 missiles, with as many as 10 warheads each.

 

[senseamp]

your constant uncontemplative support fot the muscovites as well as your general disrespect for nonmuscovites is clear to all

Repeated use of the word "muscovite" does not make you an expert on Russia.

 

[senseamp]

You may view it as a personal attack, but that doesn't change it's accuracy. As I've said repeatedly I am quote confident in my analysis. Your reasoning has been self contradictory.

We will see I guess, but don't be at all surprised when this is all over whatever remains of Ukraine becomes part of NATO.

It's an ad-hominem. About me, not the substance of the situation.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[cubby1223]

It's an ad-hominem. About me, not the substance of the situation.

One cannot respond to the substance of your posts because you never post any substance. All you ever do is describe situations on a superficial level, often contradicting yourself along the way, and changing up your stance a bit each time your last stance was thoroughly disproved.

What is going on in Europe is not a game, it is not a schoolyard bully fight. It's much bigger than that and you are extremely disrespectful.

Provide some substance.

"Ukraine cannot join NATO."

Yes, you said that a hundred times. Try describing why you think Russia takes that stance, and why we should respect Russia for it. Others in this thread have shared the substance behind their stances, and it has been great taking in different perspectives. Ethnic cleansing jokes are not substance.

 

[senseamp]

One cannot respond to the substance of your posts because you never post any substance. All you ever do is describe situations on a superficial level, often contradicting yourself along the way, and changing up your stance a bit each time your last stance was thoroughly disproved.

What is going on in Europe is not a game, it is not a schoolyard bully fight. It's much bigger than that and you are extremely disrespectful. You better get used to being disrespected back.

Or else actually provide some substance.

"Ukraine cannot join NATO."

Yes, you said that a hundred times. Try describing why you think Russia takes that stance, and why we should respect Russia for it.

Another ad-hominem. "You this, you that." It's about me for some reason, not the subject at hand, and since I already know about myself, it's not very interesting.

 

[shady28]

One cannot respond to the substance of your posts because you never post any substance. All you ever do is describe situations on a superficial level, often contradicting yourself along the way, and changing up your stance a bit each time your last stance was thoroughly disproved.

What is going on in Europe is not a game, it is not a schoolyard bully fight. It's much bigger than that and you are extremely disrespectful.

Provide some substance.

"Ukraine cannot join NATO."

Yes, you said that a hundred times. Try describing why you think Russia takes that stance, and why we should respect Russia for it. Others in this thread have shared the substance behind their stances, and it has been great taking in different perspectives. Ethnic cleansing jokes are not substance.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...a-and-the-consequences-of-nato-policy/5371928

"Russia had vital security concerns that could only be met by assurances that NATO would not move into the Warsaw Pact states, where so much Soviet blood had been shed in World War II. President George H. W. Bush (#41) made assurances that if the Soviets were to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, Russia must be assured that the NATO would not fill the vacuum. But his successor, Bill Clinton, broke this promise by quickly taking the former Warsaw Pact states into NATO, and then moved into territory formerly occupied and incorporated into the USSR with the Baltics."

"Most Russians never forgave Gorbachev for the deal he made with NATO. Russian diplomats have stated clearly that Ukraine is a line that cannot be crossed regarding potential NATO expansion. It is as if foreign agents worked in Texas to mobilize a violent ethnic minority to rejoin Mexico and then place a hostile military alliance on the US border."


The historical "Why" NATO should not be on Russia's border - very well explained in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6rSljTwdU


Your question itself shows an inability to see the needs of the other side though, which are not so different from our own.

Consider: Why shouldn't Russia set up ICBMs in Cuba?

 

[norseamd]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrain...a-and-the-consequences-of-nato-policy/5371928

"Russia had vital security concerns that could only be met by assurances that NATO would not move into the Warsaw Pact states, where so much Soviet blood had been shed in World War II. President George H. W. Bush (#41) made assurances that if the Soviets were to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, Russia must be assured that the NATO would not fill the vacuum. But his successor, Bill Clinton, broke this promise by quickly taking the former Warsaw Pact states into NATO, and then moved into territory formerly occupied and incorporated into the USSR with the Baltics."

"Most Russians never forgave Gorbachev for the deal he made with NATO. Russian diplomats have stated clearly that Ukraine is a line that cannot be crossed regarding potential NATO expansion. It is as if foreign agents worked in Texas to mobilize a violent ethnic minority to rejoin Mexico and then place a hostile military alliance on the US border."


The historical "Why" NATO should not be on Russia's border - very well explained in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6rSljTwdU


Your question itself shows an inability to see the needs of the other side though, which are not so different from our own.

Consider: Why shouldn't Russia set up ICBMs in Cuba?

whatever

you can say what you want about ukraine and bellarus and georgia but the baltics and finland are de facto nordics. they do not belong to russia in any way. if the nordic countries were to set up a stronger nordic defense union as an alternative to nato and eu membership that would work

 

[norseamd]

here are links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltoscandia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_defence_union

 

[fskimospy]

In think its funny that Russia thinks it still owns those states.

 

[norseamd]

An important element in Estonia's post-independence reorientation has been closer ties with the Nordic countries, especially Finland and Sweden. Indeed, Estonians consider themselves a Nordic people rather than Balts,[116][117] based on their historical ties with Sweden, Denmark and particularly Finland. In December 1999, then Estonian foreign minister (and since 2006, president of Estonia) Toomas Hendrik Ilves delivered a speech entitled "Estonia as a Nordic Country" to the Swedish Institute for International Affairs.[118] In 2003, the foreign ministry also hosted an exhibit called "Estonia: Nordic with a Twist".[119] In 2005, Estonia joined the European Union's Nordic Battle Group. It has also shown continued interest in joining the Nordic Council. Whereas in 1992 Russia accounted for 92% of Estonia's international trade,[120] today there is extensive economic interdependence between Estonia and its Nordic neighbours: three quarters of foreign investment in Estonia originates in the Nordic countries (principally Finland and Sweden), to which Estonia sends 42% of its exports (as compared to 6.5% going to Russia, 8.8% to Latvia, and 4.7% to Lithuania). On the other hand, the Estonian political system, its flat rate of income tax, and its non-welfare-state model distinguish it from the Nordic countries and their Nordic model, and indeed from many other European countries.[121]
The European Union Agency for large-scale IT systems will be based in Tallinn, which is due to start operations at the end of 2012.[122] Estonia will hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2018.