|
|
That should be pretty obvious: If Putin accepts that the treaty is valid, they would be clearly threspassing even if they do not recognize any official from Kiev. They cannot risk that in the propaganda-war he is waging.
The important part is in the snippet here:
source.
On March 04 2014 21:19 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
And btw do you know that Budapest Memorandum basically wasn't accepted by UK, US and Russian governments?
So basically they can't use them because noone accepted it.
It was signed december 5th 1994 and it is still in effect. Claiming that noone accepted it seems mostly like historic revisionism to avoid invalidating Putins right to "protect Crimea".
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 05 2014 01:21 radiatoren wrote:That should be pretty obvious: If Putin accepts that the treaty is valid, they would be clearly threspassing even if they do not recognize any official from Kiev. They cannot risk that in the propaganda-war he is waging. The important part is in the snippet here: source. Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 21:19 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
And btw do you know that Budapest Memorandum basically wasn't accepted by UK, US and Russian governments?
So basically they can't use them because noone accepted it.
It was signed december 5th 1994 and it is still in effect. Claiming that noone accepted it seems mostly like historic revisionism to avoid invalidating Putins right to "protect Crimea".
It wasn't ratified by parlaments so it doesn't have any power.
|
On March 05 2014 01:22 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:21 radiatoren wrote:That should be pretty obvious: If Putin accepts that the treaty is valid, they would be clearly threspassing even if they do not recognize any official from Kiev. They cannot risk that in the propaganda-war he is waging. The important part is in the snippet here: source. On March 04 2014 21:19 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
And btw do you know that Budapest Memorandum basically wasn't accepted by UK, US and Russian governments?
So basically they can't use them because noone accepted it.
It was signed december 5th 1994 and it is still in effect. Claiming that noone accepted it seems mostly like historic revisionism to avoid invalidating Putins right to "protect Crimea". It wasn't ratified by parlaments so it doesn't have any power.
It is not a law. It is a treaty. It doesn't need ratification. You are trying to argue a purely legal argument, which is true. However, it is still a breach of the treaty and should have consequences accordingly.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 05 2014 01:27 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:22 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 05 2014 01:21 radiatoren wrote:That should be pretty obvious: If Putin accepts that the treaty is valid, they would be clearly threspassing even if they do not recognize any official from Kiev. They cannot risk that in the propaganda-war he is waging. The important part is in the snippet here: source. On March 04 2014 21:19 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:
And btw do you know that Budapest Memorandum basically wasn't accepted by UK, US and Russian governments?
So basically they can't use them because noone accepted it.
It was signed december 5th 1994 and it is still in effect. Claiming that noone accepted it seems mostly like historic revisionism to avoid invalidating Putins right to "protect Crimea". It wasn't ratified by parlaments so it doesn't have any power. It is not a law. It is a treaty. It doesn't need ratification. You are trying to argue a purely legal argument, which is true. However, it is still a breach of the treaty and should have consequences accordingly.
International treaties to have power have to be ratified by parlaments of countries who signed treaty.
At least, as far as i know.
|
On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters.
Where are you getting that from? Are you one of these people who genuinely believe Putin is a crazy dictator who wishes nothing but death upon the capitalist swines of the west, or something?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 05 2014 01:37 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Where are you getting that from? Are you one of these people who genuinely believe Putin is a crazy dictator who wishes nothing but death upon the capitalist swines of the west, or something?
Some people still think that there are bears on the streets lol, why do you ask those questions.
|
On March 05 2014 01:37 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Where are you getting that from? Are you one of these people who genuinely believe Putin is a crazy dictator who wishes nothing but death upon the capitalist swines of the west, or something?
He just said that Putin considers the West rivals, and that is true. No need to stretch his words into something you can more easily rail against.
|
|
|
On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner
You know that the issues you attributed Russia can be easily attributed to Western powers, so I am assuming that is not your actual grievance with Russia. It more seems like you just fall back on typical tribal thinking of - I dislike them and thus we will apply double standards and punish them as much as we can instead of doing anything that actually helps.
USSR during Cold War was not really phased by your proposition and happily crushed rebellions and invaded countries, mostly indirectly. Pressure will achieve nothing, because it is too late. The only way is to convince Russia to leave Crimea peacefully, by giving them something they want, without giving them too much. If you corner them, they will act accordingly and nothing good will come of it. Maybe it is not possible, hard to know without knowing what exactly are Russian plans. But annexation of Crimea does not seem to be necessarily it. Maybe they could be placated with promise of referenda and promise of not extending NATO, which was always Russia's biggest fear. But escalating the situation will probably cause more suffering to people of Ukraine than not. You act like Ukraine's only problem is Russia on Crimea. But there are rather strong sentiments inside Ukraine that escalation that you propose might just inflame (and Russia would probably help with that) and cause major violence and deaths. As of now nobody died. I understand that for the some it is hard to ignore the urge to just go into the us-vs-them mindset, but I would suggest that minimizing deaths should be a priority and not playing with half-empty concepts of territorial integrity, that West throws hypocritically around, but honoring them only when useful.
I am not saying that territorial integrity is not a useful idea, but unfortunately the ones invoking it are not actually upholding it, unless useful. Plus this concept should always be subordinate to minimizing suffering. And needs to include possibility of regions leaving countries they do not want to belong to, the whole self-determination stuff.
If you can show that without escalation Russia will attack someone in the future, please go ahead and do so. Just note that you have basically no historical precedent to draw on as Georgia War was caused at best by both sides (or just Georgian side). Except the last, all your examples are standard procedure for any great power, even EU ones. Are you going to apply the same punishments to them ? As for Russia actually invading anyone I think you will find it hard to find an example of them just invading anyone, except Ukraine of course and they still not even shot anyone and neither do they continue to Ukraine proper. So on what are you basing your prediction that they are going to continue with invading anyone they like.
I agree that they should be forced from Crimea if possible, but I see absolutely no reason to value Ukraine's territorial integrity over self-determination of Crimea and definitely not over possibility of actual war, civil or otherwise.
|
On March 05 2014 01:37 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Where are you getting that from? Are you one of these people who genuinely believe Putin is a crazy dictator who wishes nothing but death upon the capitalist swines of the west, or something?
Your own Chancellor thinks hes completely unreasonable. Hes already stated his intention to build a Eurasian Union. Hes already invaded his neighbours. We have been cooperating with Russia for 20 years, it hasn't got us anywhere.
|
“the parties will consult whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.”
Sice when is Ukraine member of nato?
|
On March 05 2014 01:55 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote + “the parties will consult whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.” Sice when is Ukraine member of nato?
it's poland who asked for it, because they feel threatened, it's even stated in the article
|
On March 05 2014 01:52 mcc wrote:
USSR during Cold War was not really phased by your proposition and happily crushed rebellions and invaded countries, mostly indirectly. Pressure will achieve nothing, because it is too late. The only way is to convince Russia to leave Crimea peacefully, by giving them something they want, without giving them too much. If you corner them, they will act accordingly and nothing good will come of it. Maybe it is not possible, hard to know without knowing what exactly are Russian plans. But annexation of Crimea does not seem to be necessarily it. Maybe they could be placated with promise of referenda and promise of not extending NATO, which was always Russia's biggest fear. But escalating the situation will probably cause more suffering to people of Ukraine than not. You act like Ukraine's only problem is Russia on Crimea. But there are rather strong sentiments inside Ukraine that escalation that you propose might just inflame (and Russia would probably help with that) and cause major violence and deaths. As of now nobody died. I understand that for the some it is hard to ignore the urge to just go into the us-vs-them mindset, but I would suggest that minimizing deaths should be a priority and not playing with half-empty concepts of territorial integrity, that West throws hypocritically around, but honoring them only when useful.
I am not saying that territorial integrity is not a useful idea, but unfortunately the ones invoking it are not actually upholding it, unless useful. Plus this concept should always be subordinate to minimizing suffering. And needs to include possibility of regions leaving countries they do not want to belong to, the whole self-determination stuff.
If you can show that without escalation Russia will attack someone in the future, please go ahead and do so. Just note that you have basically no historical precedent to draw on as Georgia War was caused at best by both sides (or just Georgian side). Except the last, all your examples are standard procedure for any great power, even EU ones. Are you going to apply the same punishments to them ? As for Russia actually invading anyone I think you will find it hard to find an example of them just invading anyone, except Ukraine of course and they still not even shot anyone and neither do they continue to Ukraine proper. So on what are you basing your prediction that they are going to continue with invading anyone they like.
I agree that they should be forced from Crimea if possible, but I see absolutely no reason to value Ukraine's territorial integrity over self-determination of Crimea and definitely not over possibility of actual war, civil or otherwise.
I think you might of missed the part where the Berlin Wall fell and Soviet Union collapsed precisely because the West massively outspent them military and backed them into a corner.
You can't seriously be telling me Reagan and Thatcher appeased the Soviet Union more than out current leaders are willing to do with Russia?
|
On March 05 2014 01:55 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote + “the parties will consult whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened.” Sice when is Ukraine member of nato?
The eastern NATO member states (e.g. Poland, Lithuania or Estonia) are the ones who have a genuine interest of figuring out what their buddies plan to do if this escalates. Art. 4 in general is purposefully vague and loose just to establish early talks which isn't exactly a bad thing.
|
On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters.
Nobody thinks he shares our interests, but Putin is not immortal and by allowing prosperous Russia, maybe one day they will actually become a democracy. While playing childish geopolitical games will achieve absolutely nothing on that front and leave Russia perpetually a powder keg. Many Russians will view that exactly as Putin's propaganda would put it, as imperialist West doing everything to keep them down. How that panned out in Germany after first world war ?
|
On March 05 2014 01:54 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:37 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Where are you getting that from? Are you one of these people who genuinely believe Putin is a crazy dictator who wishes nothing but death upon the capitalist swines of the west, or something? Your own Chancellor thinks hes completely unreasonable. Hes already stated his intention to build a Eurasian Union. Hes already invaded his neighbours. We have been cooperating with Russia for 20 years, it hasn't got us anywhere.
And how are plans to build an Eurasian Union anything that must be opposed? There are quite a tons of economical unions (hey,,, guess what the EU is?), why on earth should Russia not be allowed trying to forge their own one?
Hey, if Kazachstan thinks, that Russia is the best deal for them.. have fun. If the Ukraine thinks, they can gain more from Russia then from the EU, why stop them? Since 2004 the EU has followed an aggressive anti-Russian course in the Ukraine... And when you corner the Russian bear, it was a matter of time, until it snaps... And while the Maiden protests surely have their justification,with the way things were done, it was obvious, that when paying no respect at all to Russian (and Eastern Ukrainian) interests, not much good will come from it.
This should in no way defend, what Russia is doing right now... But then again, it comes as no surprise, considering the western behavior pretty much provoked it.
And not sure, where you are getting your information from but... The US thinks, that Merkel thinks, that Putin is nuts... The statement has been denied by all German sources, and Germany is continuing to look for a peaceful solution, trying to negotiate, before trading facts with sanctions etc.
|
On March 05 2014 02:07 mahrgell wrote:
And how are plans to build an Eurasian Union anything that must be opposed? There are quite a tons of economical unions (hey,,, guess what the EU is?), why on earth should Russia not be allowed trying to forge their own one?
Hey, if Kazachstan thinks, that Russia is the best deal for them.. have fun. If the Ukraine thinks, they can gain more from Russia then from the EU, why stop them? Since 2004 the EU has followed an aggressive anti-Russian course in the Ukraine... And when you corner the Russian bear, it was a matter of time, until it snaps... And while the Maiden protests surely have their justification,with the way things were done, it was obvious, that when paying no respect at all to Russian (and Eastern Ukrainian) interests, not much good will come from it.
This should in no way defend, what Russia is doing right now... But then again, it comes as no surprise, considering the western behavior pretty much provoked it.
And not sure, where you are getting your information from but... The US thinks, that Merkel thinks, that Putin is nuts... The statement has been denied by all German sources, and Germany is continuing to look for a peaceful solution, trying to negotiate, before trading facts with sanctions etc.
Because we should actively oppose a dictator trying to re-establish an eastern hegemony empire on our doorstep that has no respect for other nations sovereignty?
I'm sorry if that is to black and white for you.
|
On March 05 2014 01:57 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:52 mcc wrote:
USSR during Cold War was not really phased by your proposition and happily crushed rebellions and invaded countries, mostly indirectly. Pressure will achieve nothing, because it is too late. The only way is to convince Russia to leave Crimea peacefully, by giving them something they want, without giving them too much. If you corner them, they will act accordingly and nothing good will come of it. Maybe it is not possible, hard to know without knowing what exactly are Russian plans. But annexation of Crimea does not seem to be necessarily it. Maybe they could be placated with promise of referenda and promise of not extending NATO, which was always Russia's biggest fear. But escalating the situation will probably cause more suffering to people of Ukraine than not. You act like Ukraine's only problem is Russia on Crimea. But there are rather strong sentiments inside Ukraine that escalation that you propose might just inflame (and Russia would probably help with that) and cause major violence and deaths. As of now nobody died. I understand that for the some it is hard to ignore the urge to just go into the us-vs-them mindset, but I would suggest that minimizing deaths should be a priority and not playing with half-empty concepts of territorial integrity, that West throws hypocritically around, but honoring them only when useful.
I am not saying that territorial integrity is not a useful idea, but unfortunately the ones invoking it are not actually upholding it, unless useful. Plus this concept should always be subordinate to minimizing suffering. And needs to include possibility of regions leaving countries they do not want to belong to, the whole self-determination stuff.
If you can show that without escalation Russia will attack someone in the future, please go ahead and do so. Just note that you have basically no historical precedent to draw on as Georgia War was caused at best by both sides (or just Georgian side). Except the last, all your examples are standard procedure for any great power, even EU ones. Are you going to apply the same punishments to them ? As for Russia actually invading anyone I think you will find it hard to find an example of them just invading anyone, except Ukraine of course and they still not even shot anyone and neither do they continue to Ukraine proper. So on what are you basing your prediction that they are going to continue with invading anyone they like.
I agree that they should be forced from Crimea if possible, but I see absolutely no reason to value Ukraine's territorial integrity over self-determination of Crimea and definitely not over possibility of actual war, civil or otherwise. I think you might of missed the part where the Berlin Wall fell and Soviet Union collapsed precisely because the West massively outspent them military and backed them into a corner. You can't seriously be telling me Reagan and Thatcher appeased the Soviet Union more than out current leaders are willing to do with Russia?
Soviet Union empire would collapse no matter what. It was long term impossible to maintain without going full North Korea route, which is not possible on such a scale.I am not saying that they appease USSR, I said their tactic did not prevent USSR from doing exactly what you are claiming it will prevent Russia from doing.
And I still see no examples of Russia invading some other country ?
|
On March 05 2014 02:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2014 01:07 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 01:02 Salazarz wrote:On March 05 2014 00:45 Asymmetric wrote:On March 05 2014 00:26 mcc wrote:On March 05 2014 00:15 Asymmetric wrote:On March 04 2014 23:57 radiatoren wrote:On March 04 2014 23:43 Asymmetric wrote:
Pretty disgusted that the UK is trying to safeguard the city of london from economic sanctions against Russia. Its short sighted and flouts our treaty obligations.
Hardly surprising though from current westminister establishment. Facts are that Putin has invaded Crimea after a request by their questionably elected Unity Russia prime minister. That Putin even denies that is extremely worrying. But nobody has been killed by the russian troops yet and so far it has only been confirmed that Crimea has been occupied. Going full sanctions yet is a bit early and it could be a bargaining chip if the occupation lasts. Slow into it and give Russia a constant open door for deescalations (international "peace-keepers", fact-finding missions, retreat etc.) before a new wave of sanctions hit. That is a modern diplomatic way of never making a leader desperate, but constantly increasing pressure on him. The document that was leaked suggested the UK would avoid all financial sanctions that would harm the city of London. The lack of casualties is irrelevant, in this case the only reason there hasn't been any is the utter restraint of the Ukrainian Armed forces. A European country has been invaded and its territory is being prepped for annexation. Deescalation cannot occur with Russian Troops in the Crimea. There can no be reconciliation with Russia if it only takes a chunk out of country rather than all of it. Pressure must be kept on Russia and intensified. That assumes that escalation is going to force them to leave. How would that work ? Deescalation might actually achieve something. Achieve something? What, a return to the status que but with the Crimea having been annexed from the Ukraine? The West's been trying for decades to include Russia in the decision making processes, making them members of the G8, the WTO and numerous other bilateral agreements between European countries. The concept that Russia could be more easily dealt with by being inclusive with them has been a myth, It has achieved nothing. Russia is as authoritarian and belligerent has it has ever been. We give them an inch and they take a mile. They still brutally murdered Alexander Litvenko in London, they still launched cyber attacks on Estonian in 2007, they still actively fund and arm the Syrian state and are still blatantly willing to enter any neighbors borders with military force. West should revert to treating Russia exactly the same way it treated Russia in the 1980's, which actually did work. There a rival, not a partner Russia has its own interests, that WOULD align much better with interests of the EU, but only IF EU would actually open up to the idea of cooperating with its eastern neighbours more. To write off Russia as a 'rival' is pretty retarded; this isn't a game of Starcraft, there are no victory conditions to be achieved by fighting between countries, be it through military or economic means. Naive. What is retarded is cuddling up to a dictator and thinking they share your interests at heart. Putin does view us as rivals. That is all that matters. Nobody thinks he shares our interests, but Putin is not immortal and by allowing prosperous Russia, maybe one day they will actually become a democracy. While playing childish geopolitical games will achieve absolutely nothing on that front and leave Russia perpetually a powder keg. Many Russians will view that exactly as Putin's propaganda would put it, as imperialist West doing everything to keep them down. How that panned out in Germany after first world war ?
If it acts like the Soviet Union, behaves diplomatically like the Soviet Union and wants to actively reclaim the landmass of the Soviet Union then it should be treated exactly like the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
