EPTI mean we can protest, we can posture, we can impose some sanctions, we can stop giving Russia the Olympics and the World Cup, but we cannot counter-intervene militarily. Ukraine will by no means benefit from becoming some proxy-war spot, and directly intervening was never an option even in USA's heyday, and Crimea is very much in the russian sphere of influence. It's a fucked situation, but I think the best we can do is well, protest, posture, impose some sanctions and showcase our disapproval..
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 914
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28702 Posts
I mean we can protest, we can posture, we can impose some sanctions, we can stop giving Russia the Olympics and the World Cup, but we cannot counter-intervene militarily. Ukraine will by no means benefit from becoming some proxy-war spot, and directly intervening was never an option even in USA's heyday, and Crimea is very much in the russian sphere of influence. It's a fucked situation, but I think the best we can do is well, protest, posture, impose some sanctions and showcase our disapproval.. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On March 02 2014 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote: The fact of the matter is that just like how the world just kinda had to accept US invading Iraq, no matter how wrong we thought it was, there's nothing we can actually do to stop Russia from sending troops to Crimea either. I mean we can protest, we can posture, we can impose some sanctions, we can stop giving Russia the Olympics and the World Cup, but we cannot counter-intervene militarily. Ukraine will by no means benefit from becoming some proxy-war spot, and directly intervening was never an option even in USA's heyday, and Crimea is very much in the russian sphere of influence. It's a fucked situation, but I think the best we can do is well, protest, posture, impose some sanctions and showcase our disapproval.. You sound very much like Neville Chamberlain here. Remember March 1939. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28702 Posts
| ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
Russia's actions constitute an 'armed attack' and a coalition of interests converge against Russia's unilateral action here. They are the ones who are bluffing, because they cannot stand against a coalition military force unless it acquiesces diplomatically. Well, assuming they don't go full Cold War (is it over yet?) and use nuclear weapons. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 02 2014 01:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: Ok. So the US should go to war against Russia. Great gameplan. Some times people need killing. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
Only if the people calling for the killing are the first on the front lines. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
Platitudes are fun, aren't they? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dats not how cold war works i'm all for bringing liberalism and freedom to china russia iran etc, but clearly it is impossible to force regime change by force over thar | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2014 02:01 Adila wrote: Only if the people calling for the killing are the first on the front lines. no problem we got drones for that. the master plan is basically to get these countries rich enough so they can afford to hire humanists like sam to teach their kids on how to be nice and respectful to each other. then in like 300 years hopefully all the rightwingers in the world are eradicated | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21934 Posts
On March 02 2014 01:51 itsjustatank wrote: NATO is already on its way there. Article four was invoked today. Russia's actions constitute an 'armed attack' and a coalition of interests converge against Russia's unilateral action here. They are the ones who are bluffing, because they cannot stand against a coalition military force unless it acquiesces diplomatically. Well, assuming they don't go full Cold War (is it over yet?) and use nuclear weapons. Wow slow down there. Got any sources for that or are you just saying that because of general treaty law stuff. Because NATO actually stating as an entity that they act or some rule being broken are 2 very different things. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On March 02 2014 02:35 Gorsameth wrote: Wow slow down there. Got any sources for that or are you just saying that because of general treaty law stuff. Because NATO actually stating as an entity that they act or some rule being broken are 2 very different things. Yes, I do. Article four because Ukraine isn't a NATO state, but Lithuania is (and so is Turkey). Any state on the border of Russia right now has legitimate cause for concern and an interest in Russia being punished for unilateral action. Note that article four is not five, however. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm Russia's actions constitute an 'armed attack' against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and the UN Charter permits self-defense (and collective self-defense) in response. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Additionally, Russia's action flies in the face of its agreements with Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States over the lawful use of force in that state, making it very clearly an 'armed attack.' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21934 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:01 itsjustatank wrote: Yes, I do. Article four because Ukraine isn't a NATO state, but Lithuania is (and so is Turkey). Any state on the border of Russia right now has legitimate cause for concern and an interest in Russia being punished for unilateral action. https://twitter.com/LinkeviciusL/status/439789354727534592 Russia's actions constitute an 'armed attack' against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and the UN Charter permits self-defense (and collective self-defense) in response. Additionally, Russia's action flies in the face of its agreements with Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States over the lawful use of force in that state, making it very clearly an 'armed attack.' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances So no official NATO action has been announced. They just have a legit reason to do so as I wondered. Imo NATO is an utterly powerless institution if there facing anything bigger then a small time African dictator. I expect no action from it. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
| ||
|
Twoflowers
Germany241 Posts
On March 02 2014 01:51 itsjustatank wrote: NATO is already on its way there. Article four was invoked today. Russia's actions constitute an 'armed attack' and a coalition of interests converge against Russia's unilateral action here. They are the ones who are bluffing, because they cannot stand against a coalition military force unless it acquiesces diplomatically. Well, assuming they don't go full Cold War (is it over yet?) and use nuclear weapons. Article 4 emans any member state can convene a meeting of NATO members to "consult" when it feels its independence or security are threatened. It's a realtively strong reaction, but does not mean that NATO is "on its way". Article 4 was last invoked 2012 during the Syria-crisis. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21934 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:06 itsjustatank wrote: NATO was built exactly for this, not for taking down small-time African dictators. I know it was and yet I return that it is about as effective as the League of Nations was post WW1. It was made for situations like this and now it will sit back and watch. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9157 Posts
At any rate, for all of Putin's anti-fascist rhetoric, he seems to love the Nazi playbook. Anschluss 2.0 anybody? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21934 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:12 itsjustatank wrote: We shall see. At any rate, for all of Putin's anti-fascist rhetoric, he seems to love the Nazi playbook. Anschluss 2.0 anybody? I don't like drawing comparisons to nazi germany but yes... it does start to look a little that doesn't it. Esp with the rest of the world standing around and watching it happen. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:07 Twoflowers wrote: Article 4 emans any member state can convene a meeting of NATO members to "consult" when it feels its independence or security are threatened. It's a realtively strong reaction, but does not mean that NATO is "on its way". Article 4 was last invoked 2012 during the Syria-crisis. Wouldn't the most recent invoking of article 4 be today by Lithuania? I honestly don't know what counts as an official invocation. | ||
|
Twoflowers
Germany241 Posts
On March 02 2014 03:23 Saryph wrote: Wouldn't the most recent invoking of article 4 be today by Lithuania? I honestly don't know what counts as an official invocation. With last invoked I meant: "last invoked before today." | ||
|
Kamille
Monaco1035 Posts
| ||
| ||
