Military Crisis in Ukraine

[Shmoopy]

 

 

and you think this nation has the best interests of Ukraine and her economy at heart?

I think that its better for Ukraine to stay under the wing of Russia

 

Good for you. Opinions are so much more important than actual, logical arguments, aren't they.

 

Here's a question: why?

 

1.Ukraine's dept to Russia

2.Benefits of the CIS partnership

3.The cultural similarities between the two countries

4.They both were part of the Soviet Union along with Belarus, and they both inherited its legacy

5. Some of the Ukrainian conflicts were resolved by Russia

6. Free natural gas/oil supply

7. The CISFTA trade benefits (no import/export fees)

 

Now you tell me why should Ukraine join the EU (except for the free travel)

Edited March 23, 2014 by Manfred Von Karma

[Dingdongs]

 

2.Benefits of the CIS partnership

 

lol'd

[Shmoopy]

 

I don't know what the Ukrainian opposition was expecting from joining Europe

They weren't. The point was never to join Europe. Ukraine's interest is independence.

 

Hmmmmmm ?!? Are you talking about the Crimea ?

[sivispacem]

1) What debt? Russia is almost solely responsible for Ukraine being almost entirely annihilated by Nazi Germany. I think in terms of debts that's the overriding one.

2) What benefits does CIS membership get you that EU membership doesn't?

3) I think a significant number of Eastern Ukrainians plus the ethnic Tartars would disagree here.

4) By that logic, shouldn't the UK re-assume control of most of the world? I mean, it's all part of the British legacy.

5) No conflict in modern history had ever been resolved by Russia.

6) Which they didn't get previously and wouldn't get now. What an utterly bizarre statement.

7) There are no trade tariffs at all in the EU, so I'm not sure this is a reasonable point

[Raavi]

1. Dept, huh? Tell me more, how deep are they.

 

2. Conveniently for Russia, CIS is structured to make for economic dependency on Russia. Russia will always do what is best for Russia, so there is no basis for as much as a semblance of mutual beneficial cooperation, let alone a union. Just one fascist bully state doing whatever the hell they please, regardless of consequence, dragging down their fellow "members" in the process.

 

3. There are more cultural differences than similarities. Besides, cultural similarities are negligible in light of the benefits of joining the EU.

 

4. A legacy of sh*t cars, rust barrels that are to pass a ships, sh*t planes, horrible infrastructure, environmental destruction and generic depressing grey apartment blocks. Fantastic. So they should join to wallow in misery in unison?

 

5. Going by that logic, Europe should join the US, because you know they did (help) liberate us!

 

6. Wut?

 

7. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

Why they should join the EU?

 

• EU dwarves Russia in terms of GDP.

• No land grabbing

• No Putin

• EU is among Ukraine's largest trading partners (potential to grow).

• Unfettered trade access

• International outlook and investors/business this attracts.

• No flagrant disdain for Human Rights

• Not Russia

• Sheer potential, take a look at Poland, former Soviet puppet state now one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

 

These are just off the top of my head.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Raavi

[Spider-Vice]

The Guardian: Russian troops may be massing to invade Ukraine, says White House

CBC: Russia says 'no expansionist views' despite warning Ukraine territory grab not the last

 

Source: Reddit real-time conflict feed

[Shmoopy]

1) What debt? Russia is almost solely responsible for Ukraine being almost entirely annihilated by Nazi Germany. I think in terms of debts that's the overriding one.

2) What benefits does CIS membership get you that EU membership doesn't?

3) I think a significant number of Eastern Ukrainians plus the ethnic Tartars would disagree here.

4) By that logic, shouldn't the UK re-assume control of most of the world? I mean, it's all part of the British legacy.

5) No conflict in modern history had ever been resolved by Russia.

6) Which they didn't get previously and wouldn't get now. What an utterly bizarre statement.

7) There are no trade tariffs at all in the EU, so I'm not sure this is a reasonable point

 

Well then ... pleased to have a debate (sort of) with you , i wanted to summon you to see how it feels like to start a debate with the famous sivispacem and see how long i can stand

 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Manfred Von Karma

[Frank Brown]

I think that's a record.

[IM_YOUR_GOD]

There is absolutely no proof of the British accusation that's listed in 4th.

[Dingdongs]

There is absolutely no proof of the British accusation that's listed in 4th.

How? Much of those areas still maintain strong cultural ties to the UK, use the same legal system, even share the same monarch in a few cases. Why should Britain not use the same logic? India was part of the empire and inherited part of the British legacy, so Britain should take it back over.

[Svip]

Well, he had a point. Revolution tends to be rather bloody. Think of all the lives wasted in the French Revolution. Why did they not just accept the King's supreme power? Same for the British Americans. I don't mind civil rights, just as long as we can get them without a fight. Otherwise we should just wait until our leaders grant them to us.

[WBaker]

 

Well then ... pleased to have a debate (sort of) with you , i wanted to summon you to see how it feels like to start a debate with the famous sivispacem and see how long i can stand

 

There once was a god but sivispacem convinced him he didn't exist.

[Raavi]

Obviously Crimea was just the beginning, question is what is their endgame.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Raavi

[Mr. House]

Well, he had a point. Revolution tends to be rather bloody. Think of all the lives wasted in the French Revolution. Why did they not just accept the King's supreme power? Same for the British Americans. I don't mind civil rights, just as long as we can get them without a fight. Otherwise we should just wait until our leaders grant them to us.

I hope this is a joke post.

[K^2]

 

Well, he had a point. Revolution tends to be rather bloody. Think of all the lives wasted in the French Revolution. Why did they not just accept the King's supreme power? Same for the British Americans. I don't mind civil rights, just as long as we can get them without a fight. Otherwise we should just wait until our leaders grant them to us.

I hope this is a joke post.

 

Sarcasm, most certainly.

 

 

Obviously Crimea was just the beginning, question is what is their endgame.

I don't think anyone in Kremlin knows that. They seem to be making it up as they go. It's very unlikely that all these troops amassed at Russia's Western border are just going to pack up and go home. But at the same time, invasion of Eastern Ukraine is just to obvious.

[GTA_stu]

Tbh I think this will be the end of it now. Putin has got what he wants, this together with the Sochi olympics has boosted his image within Russia massively. I think the large amount Russian troops near the border are/were designed as a powerful threat to Ukraine telling them to basically not interfere with the Crimean annexation, and as a symbol and reminder of what Russia and he is capable of. Crimea was won without spilling blood, well I suppose that's not 100% true, but it was in essence done that way. It would be a massive escalation and change in tactics to actually then go and fully invade Ukraine. I think all this talk of him wanting to aggressively expand Russia's borders is just hyperbole. Maybe not the wanting part, but certainly the idea that he would put it into practice.

Edited March 24, 2014 by stu

[Clem Fandango]

Tbh I think this will be the end of it now. Putin has got what he wants, this together with the Sochi olympics has boosted his image within Russia massively. I think the large amount Russian troops near the border are/were designed as a powerful threat to Ukraine telling them to basically not interfere with the Crimean annexation, and as a symbol and reminder of what Russia and he is capable of. Crimea was won without spilling blood, well I suppose that's not 100% true, but it was in essence done that way. It would be a massive escalation and change in tactics to actually then go and fully invade Ukraine. I think all this talk of him wanting to aggressively expand Russia's borders is just hyperbole. Maybe not the wanting part, but certainly the idea that he would put it into practice.

Well, at any rate the Russian people are under the impression that the government is pursuing a policy of expansion. I don't think he's about to go sending tanks to the capital of every former Soviet state, but we may see things like more de jure links between Russia and the countries it enjoys hegemony over and a more aggressive foreign policy in general.

[Frank Brown]

I think we should put into play Operation Unthinkable. That's still valid, right?

[Moth]

I think we should put into play Operation Unthinkable. That's still valid, right?

Was that the one where the Western Allies would nuke Moscow? Would have worked no problem back then, but they have nukes now.

 

If you think about it, I'm quite surprised that nukes weren't used after Japan. Only the US had them for a few years, yet they didn't use them. MAD wouldn't have been a problem back then.

[Misbegotten cad]

Russia could not win a war with europe, because it has no allies on it's side.

-So it's hardly going to try. But you never know, of course.

 

Still, good news is that China would definitely side with Europe and USA on such conflict, and would then pressure Russia from the south.

 

Only real ally Russia has now is North Korea.

[sivispacem]

Even then they're nothing more than an ally of convenience.

 

There are plenty of nations that enjoy friendly relations with Russia largely to counteract the influence of NATO states, but I think you're right- if push came to shove I doubt anyone would offer Russia direct military support.

[Svip]

I don't think China would participate unless its interests were directly at risk (such as its own borders). China would probably abstain from such a war, which would be problematic enough for Russia. One might think that Russia and China are often in agreement in the UN security council, but more often than not, China has different interests than Russia, that just happens to yield the same no and/or veto against the same resolution as Russia.

 

Moreover, North Korea is more an ally of China anyway, North Korea is unlikely to side in any war where they would be against China.

[Davo the Assassin]

Even then they're nothing more than an ally of convenience.

 

There are plenty of nations that enjoy friendly relations with Russia largely to counteract the influence of NATO states, but I think you're right- if push came to shove I doubt anyone would offer Russia direct military support.

I can't think of anyone who would benefit from helping Russia in such a war.

[HeLennon]

 

Even then they're nothing more than an ally of convenience.

 

There are plenty of nations that enjoy friendly relations with Russia largely to counteract the influence of NATO states, but I think you're right- if push came to shove I doubt anyone would offer Russia direct military support.

I can't think of anyone who would benefit from helping Russia in such a war.

 

China or the kamikaze country like North Korea...

Edited March 24, 2014 by IAmTheGamer_

[Max]

China wouldn't benefit from siding with Russia in a conventional war, China has a far bigger market outside of Russia. A country like Venezuela may side with Russia, but let's be honest, they have their own problems and would be of absolutely no use to anyone.

[sivispacem]

China wouldn't benefit. DPRK are an insignificant blot with no real offensive military capability who could barely step beyond the 38th parallel without being annihilated.

[naive]

It doesnt matter who would benefit, China and India both support Russias actions and have condemned sanctions against them.

 

Talk about the "International community".. if we are talking based on population,pretty much most of it supports Russia. Indias kinda pissed off about all those drone strikes and violation of you know, their sovereignty(edit: cant forget the arbitrary strip searching of one of their diplomats on US soil, an attractive female one at that.. total humiliation). Im guessing all the other countries like Somalia and Yemen and Syria and Iran etc. are also with Russia.

 

So you want to talk about who would benefit, who would benefit and at what point does total war become a benefit for the west when youre talking about not trading with India or China or Russia and all the other small countries leaning towards them. BRICS kinda thing.

 

It doesnt until youve lost germany pretty much so stop talking about war because youd lose.

 

 

Edit: Cant forget North Korea, they have already came out in absolute support of Russia and you know they will invade South Korea and turn Seoul into dust from the safety of their own borders artillery due to its positioning right on the border.. the minute US gets engaged anywhere lol.

 

You want to talk about NK's military ability and getting only a tiny bit beyond the border, they arguably could take the entire peninsula before the US has a chance to respond. Do some research, there are detailed scenarios that have been written on how it could go and they all predict the wiping out of Seoul and millions of deaths in minutes.

 

While youre at it, do some research on the Korean war and find out that China kicked the sh*t out of the US and thats the only reason there is a North Korea today. NK took SK, US took all of Korea but the border, China pushed US to the middle... they clobbered the US, made fools of the general who was supposed to be having his final war to seal his name in the record books, Mccarthur If I recall.

 

Also, the war was provoked by South Koreas leader saying he would unite Korea and making threats of war. Pre-emptive defense based on threats of war from the other side.

Edited March 24, 2014 by naive

[sivispacem]

Your username is very apt.

 

Drone strikes in India? I think you mean Pakistan. I really wouldn't want to confuse those two. They may be neighbours but they're absolutely nothing alike.

[Clem Fandango]

Iran has softened quite a bit and is involved in dialogue with the West. Yemen is basically a Western client state and Somalia has very little in the way of centralised government.

[naive]

http://news.sky.com/story/1183629/india-us-embassy-barriers-removed-over-spat

 

India doesnt like the US.

 

 

 

India supports Russia.

 

 

India orders the return of ID cards for US consular officials as the row over the arrest of one of its top diplomats escalates

 

Import clearances for the US embassy will also be stopped, while New Delhi police used two trucks and bulldozers to remove concrete security barricades from in front of the US embassy.

 

Politicians in India, including the leaders of the two main political parties and the national security adviser, refused to meet a delegation of US politicians earlier this week.

 

 

Devyani Khobragade, India's deputy consul general in New York was arrested while dropping her daughter at school last week, for allegedly underpaying her nanny and committing visa fraud to get her into the US.

She was also allegedly handcuffed during her arrest, strip-searched and "confined with drug addicts" before being released on $250,000 bail and surrendering her passport. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

 

National security adviser Shivshankar Menon branded the treatment "barbaric"

 

 

You dun goofed, Murrica.

 

 

Thats her btw, how dignified she must feel.

Edited March 24, 2014 by naive