EPTnow we're fucked, e-EU.
Ukraine Crisis - Page 434
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
now we're fucked, e-EU. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6273 Posts
(Reuters) - In September 2001, as the U.S. reeled from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Vladimir Putin supported Washington's imminent invasion of Afghanistan in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. He agreed that U.S. planes carrying humanitarian aid could fly through Russian air space. He said the U.S. military could use airbases in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. And he ordered his generals to brief their U.S. counterparts on their own ill-fated 1980s occupation of Afghanistan. During Putin's visit to President George W. Bush's Texas ranch two months later, the U.S. leader, speaking at a local high school, declared his Russian counterpart "a new style of leader, a reformer…, a man who's going to make a huge difference in making the world more peaceful, by working closely with the United States." For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading. Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack. In a nationally televised address, Putin warned that the move would undermine arms control and nonproliferation efforts. "This step has not come as a surprise to us," Putin said. "But we believe this decision to be mistaken." The sequence of events early in Washington's relationship with Putin reflects a dynamic that has persisted through the ensuing 14 years and the current crisis in Ukraine: U.S. actions, some intentional and some not, sparking an overreaction from an aggrieved Putin. As Russia masses tens of thousands of troops along the Russian-Ukrainian border, Putin is thwarting what the Kremlin says is an American plot to surround Russia with hostile neighbors. Experts said he is also promoting "Putinism" - a conservative, ultra-nationalist form of state capitalism - as a global alternative to Western democracy. source Interesting article on Reuters about how the US mishandled their relationship with Russia and Putin. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2014 17:49 sgtnoobkilla wrote: About bloody time that NATO gets it's lousy arse into gear: I'm also surprised that Canada is taking a more proactive role this time around, especially considering their lack of enthusiasm from previous conflicts. Why is completely symbolic and useless gesture in any way changing the situation in Ukraine. Or did anyone actually think that Russia would attack a NATO member ? | ||
|
sgtnoobkilla
Australia249 Posts
On April 19 2014 20:26 mcc wrote: Why is completely symbolic and useless gesture in any way changing the situation in Ukraine. Or did anyone actually think that Russia would attack a NATO member ? Symbolic gesture? Yes it is. As it's supposed to be. I'm quite sure neither side wants to involve themselves in a full scale war, not over Ukraine in any case. But useless? I beg to differ. Sanctions will probably (probably, not absolutely) hurt Russia's economy over time down the road, but it will not force Putin to reconsider his shenanigans immediately. Something needs to be done that will cause the Kremlin to tread more lightly now, not in the next six months, not the next year, and certainly not in five or ten years time, which by then it would be rendered meaningless. NATO needs to demonstrate it's resolve (even if it's uncoordinated) and actually do something to show that they mean business. You are not going to convince the Kremlin to suddenly back down with sanction games and empty words. | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
it will give boost to our industry and finally Putin will force our oligarch to invest in Russia itself instead of other countries | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On April 19 2014 21:16 sgtnoobkilla wrote: Symbolic gesture? Yes it is. As it's supposed to be. I'm quite sure neither side wants to involve themselves in a full scale war, not over Ukraine in any case. But useless? I beg to differ. Sanctions will probably (probably, not absolutely) hurt Russia's economy over time down the road, but it will not force Putin to reconsider his shenanigans immediately. Something needs to be done that will cause the Kremlin to tread more lightly now, not in the next six months, not the next year, and certainly not in five or ten years time, which by then it would be rendered meaningless. NATO needs to demonstrate it's resolve (even if it's uncoordinated) and actually do something to show that they mean business. You are not going to convince the Kremlin to suddenly back down with sanction games and empty words. ukraine needs de-escalation, normalization and re-election, not misguided foreigners beating the war drums over them. the west needs to take a proper stance on the militant fascists in euromaidan movement, now also in govt and national guard. that's step one and has been step one since the start of the conflict. | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
You dismiss every single thing Russia has done to destabilize Ukraine so ofc you can't understand that sanctions need to be taken. If neither NATO nor the UN had imposed sanctions and made threats, the Eastern Ukraine would already be Russian or Yanukovitch would still be in power (because the repression against maidan would have been harsher) without the possibility of adopting the EU treaty. And I think you haven't really understood the situation. Since the beginning it isn't about de-escalation, that word is just stupid. It's about preventing Putin from meddling more with Ukraine, from annexing more part of the country without causing WW3. It's simple: more actions, more sanctions and that's the position of "the West". On the contrary Putin is searching a compromise, he has created a situation in Eastern Ukraine he can't control anymore and he's getting punished economically for it. Personally I'm for more sanctions and demonstrations of power because it seems that it's the only thing that can go through the ugly head of Putin. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2014 21:16 sgtnoobkilla wrote: Symbolic gesture? Yes it is. As it's supposed to be. I'm quite sure neither side wants to involve themselves in a full scale war, not over Ukraine in any case. But useless? I beg to differ. Sanctions will probably (probably, not absolutely) hurt Russia's economy over time down the road, but it will not force Putin to reconsider his shenanigans immediately. Something needs to be done that will cause the Kremlin to tread more lightly now, not in the next six months, not the next year, and certainly not in five or ten years time, which by then it would be rendered meaningless. NATO needs to demonstrate it's resolve (even if it's uncoordinated) and actually do something to show that they mean business. You are not going to convince the Kremlin to suddenly back down with sanction games and empty words. You are not also going to convince them of anything by completely transparently empty gesture. Because we all know that they do not mean business. I understand why are they doing it. It is because international relations are honor-based nonsense. It is the same thing as one guy offending another one in honor-based cultures requiring some response, because in those cultures honor and face are important currency. Does not mean we cannot diagnose it for what it really is. | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On April 19 2014 21:25 PaleMan wrote: i so want some real sanctions it's not even funny it will give boost to our industry and finally Putin will force our oligarch to invest in Russia itself instead of other countries Think of what would happen if EU implemented instant ban on food export to Russia. Be sure to tell your oligarchs to invest in agriculture, since no human can drink oil, inhale gas and eat metals to survive. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
i'm not as concerned with russia, i'm not a russian (you chastise putin enough for the both of us anyway). more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made. It didn't devolve into violence because the west did something. Even if EuroMaidan was "created/sponsored" by the west, the democratic change part went down the drain when berkut started firing live ammunition at the protesters. It didn't devolve into violence because someone "picked the wrong bedfellows", it devolved because the very government you're trying to defend was out to kill said people. Oh, and just to emphasize that, yanukovich doesn't get tired to tell the world that they should've used more violence. But clearly, the west failed again. Feel free to explain how the west could've prevented the outbreak of violence. While keeping in mind that you always have chaots/stonethrowers in demonstrations against a government. Good example would be taksim, where it was students protesting until the police went haywire without reason - it ended in streetwars between police and chaots, resulting in 11 deaths. | ||
|
sgtnoobkilla
Australia249 Posts
On April 19 2014 21:49 nunez wrote: ukraine needs de-escalation, normalization and re-election, not misguided foreigners beating the war drums over them. the west needs to take a proper stance on the militant fascists in euromaidan movement, now also in govt and national guard. Those reinforcements aren't being sent to Ukraine to back the current government; I'm quite sure that both articles made that quite clear, so how that translates to beating the war drums on Ukrainian soil in your view is questionable. Elections and referendums won't work when separatists in the east won't accept whatever result is presented to them, and nor will those in the west of the country. If anything, a completely divided Ukraine at this rate is inevitable considering how deep the tensions run. You are however right about incompetence and radicalism being rife in the current Ukrainian government, but it's only one half of the reason why this whole issue has been so convoluted ever since the whole flashpoint began in Crimea. On April 19 2014 22:39 mcc wrote: You are not also going to convince them of anything by completely transparently empty gesture. Because we all know that they do not mean business. The inaction in the past few weeks have only emboldened Russia in being able to get away with things. Deploying reinforcements is more than enough of a clear signal to the Kremlin that NATO can assemble a significant footprint throughout Eastern Europe in a short time, something that Russia seems to have forgotten in the past two decades of détente and especially with fiascos like Afghanistan. Don't forget that in normal circumstances, Russia would be throwing a hissyfit tantrum right now if a stream of NATO air power and manpower was being deployed in Poland and throughout the Baltics (ABM shield a few months back ring any bells?). Hoping for the best and planning for the worst is important. NATO repositioning its forces to secure its more vulnerable eastern flanks is something that should have been done many years back and not months after a crisis like this happens. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On April 19 2014 22:54 nunez wrote: @acertos i'm not as concerned with russia, i'm not a russian (you chastise putin enough for the both of us anyway). more interesting to look at how the west again has failed at capitalizing on protests that could have led to democratic change, but instead devolved into violence because of the strange bedfellows they made. If the west has failed to nurture something that could lead to democracy, it must mean that there was another way to do it. Disregarding unconfirmable theories about how the west supported the most radical of rebels, I have a hard time identifying the specific path for outsiders to walk before and during the rebellion. I mean, you could try and force a deal similar to EUs proposal down the throat of Ukraine by sending in a peace-keeping mission, but that deal wasn't accepted by Russia (It was post-facto, which doesn't help). | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 19 2014 21:25 PaleMan wrote: i so want some real sanctions it's not even funny it will give boost to our industry and finally Putin will force our oligarch to invest in Russia itself instead of other countries http://www.news.nom.co/russian-economy-shrinks-0-5-in-9072587-news/ http://news.investors.com/040414-696066-russian-economy-shrinks.htm Maybe if you guys keep that braggadocio up you can strengthen your economy by having it shrink several percent this year. Not-real sanctions and fear has already got that well started. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 20 2014 00:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: http://www.news.nom.co/russian-economy-shrinks-0-5-in-9072587-news/ http://news.investors.com/040414-696066-russian-economy-shrinks.htm Maybe if you guys keep that braggadocio up you can strengthen your economy by having it shrink several percent this year. Not-real sanctions and fear has already got that well started. In the short term, that is the obvious result. In the long term, strong trade barriers do force you to develop your own economy. This has happened with both the US and Russia in the past. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 19 2014 23:41 sgtnoobkilla wrote: The inaction in the past few weeks have only emboldened Russia in being able to get away with things. Deploying reinforcements is more than enough of a clear signal to the Kremlin that NATO can assemble a significant footprint throughout Eastern Europe in a short time, something that Russia seems to have forgotten in the past two decades of détente and especially with fiascos like Afghanistan. Don't forget that in normal circumstances, Russia would be throwing a hissyfit tantrum right now if a stream of NATO air power and manpower was being deployed in Poland and throughout the Baltics (ABM shield a few months back ring any bells?). Hoping for the best and planning for the worst is important. NATO repositioning its forces to secure its more vulnerable eastern flanks is something that should have been done many years back and not months after a crisis like this happens. Russia can get away with it with or without those troop deployments. You can argue about economic sanctions having some effect on Russia's actions. The troop movements have no influence whatsoever unless NATO is actually willing to enter Ukraine. Russian hissyfit would be about as meaningful as the current NATO actions. Both are purely monkeys trying to intimidate other monkeys. Both actions are exactly face-saving games played by both sides that I described in my previous post. Russia perfectly knows, even without NATO doing anything that NATO can "assemble a significant footprint throughout Eastern Europe in a short time", it is not some great revelation. Russia is not planning to attack NATO countries so NATO repositioning forces is empty PR and nothing else. At best it will force Russia to reposition their forces as well. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Unfortunately the article did not have link to the actual poll, but according to them it was done by International sociological institute in Kiev. Found Guardian article that mentions it at the bottom : poll | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 20 2014 00:52 LegalLord wrote: In the short term, that is the obvious result. In the long term, strong trade barriers do force you to develop your own economy. This has happened with both the US and Russia in the past. Russia mis-developed its own economy for 70 years (with a brief period of almost not-mis-development in the 1950s) and didn't stop when they traded the hammer-and-sickle for the old tri-color. They don't have a chance long-term, and it isn't the sanctions, it's the capital flight. Gazprom can't prop up the creaking Russian economy almost all on its own forever if tens of billions of dollars are leaving the country every quarter. Eventually that will slow down because foreign investors will run out of money to pull out. But Russia simply can't develop it's own economy in a successful fashion without the foreign investment spigot that is being shut off. Russians can imagine they can by going to Beijing maybe, but cozying up to China isn't going to replace the US and EU by any means. Long-term Russia's economic outlook was already pretty bad after years of a negative fertility rate that they've just recently and just barely managed to turn around, incrementally being squeezed out of the vampire global financial/investment system is going to make it that much harder. | ||
|
sgtnoobkilla
Australia249 Posts
On April 20 2014 01:16 mcc wrote: Russia can get away with it with or without those troop deployments. You can argue about economic sanctions having some effect on Russia's actions. The troop movements have no influence whatsoever unless NATO is actually willing to enter Ukraine. And have they? Have those sanctions had any visible effect on the Kremlin's stance as of today? I'm sure Putin is absolutely soiling his undies at the thought of those terrifying sanctions that "might" hurt Russia in two, three, five, seven...or ten or maybe twenty years time. On April 20 2014 01:16 mcc wrote: Russian hissyfit would be about as meaningful as the current NATO actions. Both are purely monkeys trying to intimidate other monkeys. Both actions are exactly face-saving games played by both sides that I described in my previous post. What do you think was happening back in Brussels during the start of all this? The monkeys (I think we can both agree on that) leading NATO were sitting on their arses all day debating about whether Russia's actions were legal or not! In the meantime Germany, afraid of losing its cheap gas supplies, immediately caves in to Russian "offers" while on the western side of the continent the other NATO members were nodding tacit approval to them bending over backwards. Kerry in particular uttering some laughable words that Russia was "...on the wrong side of history" further highlighted how ridiculous this situation had become. It is exactly due to this deadlocking and inaction from NATO that Russia was able to quickly annex Crimea in the span of a less than a month. Had they mobilised immediately but not move into Ukraine, the Kremlin would have been discouraged from their ambitions or otherwise would have been forced to make a lot more compromises instead of the free joyride they got. If this crisis has proved anything, the Russians at the very least can get something done without caving in to foreign threats of sanctions. On April 20 2014 01:16 mcc wrote: Russia perfectly knows, even without NATO doing anything that NATO can "assemble a significant footprint throughout Eastern Europe in a short time", it is not some great revelation. Do they? From what I've seen so far it's been the complete opposite; that NATO is divided and cannot possibly assemble a force large enough to dissuade Russia from treating non-NATO European nations as its personal playground. It took one month and three weeks to this day for NATO to even start considering a task force of this size (mind you this is nowhere near close to REFORGER levels), so I'd say that it's quite a revelation that they can even do this any more with how dispirited and bloated NATO has become. The Kremlin definitely did not miss this chance and simply took advantage of it. On April 20 2014 01:16 mcc wrote: Russia is not planning to attack NATO countries so NATO repositioning forces is empty PR and nothing else. At best it will force Russia to reposition their forces as well. I don't ever recall mentioning that I backed the equally ridiculous theory that Russia had plans to invade any NATO country (I've always stated in previous posts that such domino theories are paranoia), but I did say that this would make Russia think twice about continuing to carve up Ukraine. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 20 2014 01:16 mcc wrote: Russia can get away with it with or without those troop deployments. You can argue about economic sanctions having some effect on Russia's actions. The troop movements have no influence whatsoever unless NATO is actually willing to enter Ukraine. Russian hissyfit would be about as meaningful as the current NATO actions. Both are purely monkeys trying to intimidate other monkeys. Both actions are exactly face-saving games played by both sides that I described in my previous post. Russia perfectly knows, even without NATO doing anything that NATO can "assemble a significant footprint throughout Eastern Europe in a short time", it is not some great revelation. Russia is not planning to attack NATO countries so NATO repositioning forces is empty PR and nothing else. At best it will force Russia to reposition their forces as well. Trip-wire forces serve a strategic purpose, and always have. During most of the cold war a brigade of US troop was stationed in Berlin, and the US still maintains a trip-wire force in South Korea, to assure that if a wider conflict were to break out, allies will not (and cannot) back out of their treaty obligations. The deployments aren't for Ukraine, they're for poland and the baltic states. They also don't have to be significant deployments: station 200 US troops on an allied NATO base and you pretty much guarantee that if that base is attacked the US enters a potential conflict, and with it the rest of NATO. | ||
| ||
