|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
Not to mention "germany surrendering territory of a smaller, weaker territory", did you even read the article or are you just being polemic? They're talking about something that has to be ratified by the UN as well as the ukraine. Merkel isn't "deciding" anything, she's offering.
If your opening position is:
You surrender your land, agree to not ask for hep the next time we invade you, and be cemented in your gas dependence on Russia then where do you go from here? Whats the compromise?
But, since now i'm interested and you seem to have figured it out Sub40, let's hear your proposal. What do you think is the best way out of this crisis for the ukraine? Obviously, we're talking realisticly, so "well russia gives back crimea and stops the rebels and then everything is brilliant" doesn't work.
Let's hear it, champ.
Treat Russia like the Soviet Union, dont recognize the annexation. Dont build joint-venture factories in Russia. Seek alternative energy supplies. Dont sell them weapons. Dont knee cap Ukrainian moderates with agreements that engender anti-European feelings. Pretending that once you give in enough to Putin he will be satisfied just sets up a future after which Putin dies and the right wing elements he is nurturing come to the conclusion that anytime there is a crisis just invade a neighbor while buying of Germans. Its a recipe for further instability.
|
On August 01 2014 02:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
Not to mention "germany surrendering territory of a smaller, weaker territory", did you even read the article or are you just being polemic? They're talking about something that has to be ratified by the UN as well as the ukraine. Merkel isn't "deciding" anything, she's offering.
If your opening position is: You surrender your land, agree to not ask for hep the next time we invade you, and be cemented in your gas dependence on Russia then where do you go from here? Whats the compromise?
While it's not much of a compromise, winter's coming. Wanna bet that deal (which already was stated as a hoax by the german government speaker) will look alot sweeter if the people in ukraine freeze to death?
It's ridiculously dumb to say "well no, we're fighting for our land" - good luck with that. The NATO/UN won't interfere, wanna bet? The deal (that doesn't exist) is obviously not ukraines dream, but it would at least be something to build upon. Especially with winter knocking on the door. Clock's ticking.
PS: nowhere it said "you can't ask for help". What it said is "don't join the NATO". Wanna have the ukraine in the NATO? Who you gonna send to protect the new berlin-wall then? We just "ended" (lol) a cold war, you're already advertising the next, with leaders much less reasonable than back in the day?
Sounds good.
Treat Russia like the Soviet Union, dont recognize the annexation. Dont build joint-venture factories in Russia. Seek alternative energy supplies. Dont sell them weapons. Dont knee cap Ukrainian moderates with agreements that engender anti-European feelings. Pretending that once you give in enough to Putin he will be satisfied just sets up a future after which Putin dies and the right wing elements he is nurturing come to the conclusion that anytime there is a crisis just invade a neighbor while buying of Germans. Its a recipe for further instability.
Ah, okay. Yeah, sounds reasonable, literally throw the EU (/their economy) 50 years back, just for, uhm, .. What exactly? Another world war? The important feeling of "yeah, that'll show him!" - shortly after which he will march into ukraine, taking the rest while the EU still tries to get their hands on new energy sources? How does your "proposal" change anything for the ukraine? Not to mention, "buying of germans", why do i get the idea that you're a dailymail-poster, let me ask you again: did you read the article, or did you just see a polemic headline and jumped on it?
You dodged the question btw nicely. How does the ukraine get crimea back, in your opinion? Interesting though, you saying "recipe for further instability" while in the same paragraph literally calling to tell russia "come at me bro".
|
On August 01 2014 09:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2014 02:00 Sub40APM wrote:On July 31 2014 20:04 m4ini wrote:
Not to mention "germany surrendering territory of a smaller, weaker territory", did you even read the article or are you just being polemic? They're talking about something that has to be ratified by the UN as well as the ukraine. Merkel isn't "deciding" anything, she's offering.
If your opening position is:
You surrender your land, agree to not ask for hep the next time we invade you, and be cemented in your gas dependence on Russia then where do you go from here? Whats the compromise?
While it's not much of a compromise, winter's coming. Wanna bet that deal (which already was stated as a hoax by the german government speaker) will look alot sweeter if the people in ukraine freeze to death? It's ridiculously dumb to say "well no, we're fighting for our land" - good luck with that. The NATO/UN won't interfere, wanna bet? The deal (that doesn't exist) is obviously not ukraines dream, but it would at least be something to build upon. Especially with winter knocking on the door. Clock's ticking.
Abject surrender to the Germans didnt save the Czechs.
PS: nowhere it said "you can't ask for help". What it said is "don't join the NATO". Wanna have the ukraine in the NATO?
Yes, Ukraine didnt join NATO, and has been invaded. So whats the deterence for further invasions? Maybe the Germans can sell Ukrainian land to Russia one province at a time every 3 years
Ah, okay. Yeah, sounds reasonable, literally throw the EU (/their economy) 50 years back, just for, uhm, .. What exactly?
What are you talking about, the total turnover of Germanies trade with Russia is below its trade with Poland and only 10% higher than with the Czech Republic. This fantasy that without Russia the EU will collapse is a nice fantasy for pro-Russian policies, its not grounded in reality.
Another world war? The important feeling of "yeah, that'll show him!" - shortly after which he will march into ukraine, taking the rest while the EU still tries to get their hands on new energy sources?
He isnt marching anywhere, the fear of war isnt one directional. No one is fighting anyone. But there is a difference between German business leaders kowtowing to Putin to generate a few extra percent of profit.
How does your "proposal" change anything for the ukraine? Not to mention, "buying of germans", why do i get the idea that you're a dailymail-poster, let me ask you again: did you read the article, or did you just see a polemic headline and jumped on it?
I read the article, the proposal was polemic enough.
You dodged the question btw nicely. How does the ukraine get crimea back, in your opinion?
The same way the Baltics became free. You wait for the Russian state's natural corruption to seep it of power. Yes, this isnt an instant success, its probably a 30-40 year project.
Interesting though, you saying "recipe for further instability" while in the same paragraph literally calling to tell russia "come at me bro".
Its a recipe for further instability because it means that any point one state can invade another and then offer some modicum of money to make it all even, its a recipie for instability because populists in Ukraine are going to use this as an excuse to vilify EU, creating a giant black hole in Ukraine of crime and corruption. Russia is already 'coming at Ukraine'
|
Looks like now that Ukrainian troops control the area of the MH17 crash, international teams are working steadily.
A small U.S. military team has arrived in Kiev to help investigate the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, the United States said on Tuesday, with more direct training support for Ukraine also possible. The team of about 10 people - which includes special operations, logistics, communications and air planning personnel - will operate from the capital of Kiev and will not visit the crash site in the conflict area of eastern Ukraine. Last week, the Pentagon announced it would notify Congress of plans to mount a $19 million (11.26 million pounds) programme to train several units of Ukraine's National Guard in "internal defence". The request has not yet been approved by legislators. Washington has a long-running military training relationship with Ukraine but has not sent service personnel to the country aside from its regular embassy presence since the annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region by Russia in March. U.S. European Command spokesman U.S. Navy Captain Gregory Hicks said the survey and assessment team would advise the U.S. Embassy in Kiev over possible U.S. support to the Netherlands, Malaysia and Australia in the MH17 investigation and recovery. "The team would work in coordination with and support the FBI team already on the ground," he said. "They will not participate in actual recovery operations. The team will be in Kiev for as long as required in support of the overall U.S. contribution to the investigation." Source.
|
The crisis in the Ukraine is going to escalate.
The west is playing a very dangerous game. The sanctions are undermining president putins position and putin has no other option then to proceed with his current policy.
There is a lot of justified criticism against putin but he did the most important thing,keeping rusia stable.
Despite everything putin has been a blessing for the west in the past 20 years.
To now undermine his position is very dangerous I think,there is nothing to gain from rusia falling into chaos.
The whole situation will start to get slowly worse in the next couple of months-years.
The west is to greedy and it will backfire,
Once again.
|
On August 07 2014 05:32 Rassy wrote:
The crisis in the Ukraine is going to escalate.
The west is playing a very dangerous game. The sanctions are undermining president putins position and putin has no other option then to proceed with his current policy.
There is a lot of justified criticism against putin but he did the most important thing,keeping rusia stable.
Despite everything putin has been a blessing for the west in the past 20 years.
To now undermine his position is very dangerous I think,there is nothing to gain from rusia falling into chaos.
The whole situation will start to get slowly worse in the next couple of months-years.
The west is to greedy and it will backfire,
Once again.
So the west is too greedy for punishing Russian agression? I don't get it, what should the western countries do then? Let Putin make all of eastern ukraine another puppet state without any sanctions or punishment?
|
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them.
Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU?
In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them.
And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich.
EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure.
Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it.
On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine.
One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution.
|
On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution.
Besides Iraq and Afghanistan, who are these many countries that the US and EU have sent troops into to subdue?
|
On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution.
Why would the EU care where its bases are, NATO already borders Russia and nuclear missiles dont need borders. And why would the EU want to 'expand' to Ukraine, its a poor country, the only reason they care for further association is to encourage reforms so they dont have an African-like country right next door. EU is a union of democracies that are mostly concerned about money of their citizens and not fighting each other. Any country is free to leave, but even the loudest anti-EU countries like Hungary or Greece wont because its too valuable to be a member.
But you are right, Russia had nothing to gain from interfering in Ukraine, and will lose even more rubles before this is over. And the population of Ukraine's support for Russia too. But your President has made many choices were well being of Russians is less important than nationalism and pride.
|
It's as if MikeMM literally has no idea what sort of trade agreements his country pushes on former Soviet states.
|
On August 07 2014 23:02 farvacola wrote:
It's as if MikeMM literally has no idea what sort of trade agreements his country pushes on former Soviet states.
To his defence, I am not sure Putin is either. The process is so rushed that it holds no comparability to EU even though it is what it is mimicking.
|
On August 07 2014 05:56 BeaSteR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 05:32 Rassy wrote:
The crisis in the Ukraine is going to escalate.
The west is playing a very dangerous game. The sanctions are undermining president putins position and putin has no other option then to proceed with his current policy.
There is a lot of justified criticism against putin but he did the most important thing,keeping rusia stable.
Despite everything putin has been a blessing for the west in the past 20 years.
To now undermine his position is very dangerous I think,there is nothing to gain from rusia falling into chaos.
The whole situation will start to get slowly worse in the next couple of months-years.
The west is to greedy and it will backfire,
Once again.
So the west is too greedy for punishing Russian agression? I don't get it, what should the western countries do then? Let Putin make all of eastern ukraine another puppet state without any sanctions or punishment?
Who is greedy in the west in regards to Russia? Most other European countries seem to be perfectly fine with Russia right now, and the few doing anything are doing it because the US is begging them to. No one in the rest of Europe is really "greedy" in regards to Russia lol. In fact, they seem to enjoy Russian business and relations, much to Obama's dismay.
IMO, if 238 years of history says anything, I don't think the interest is necessarily in punishing Russian aggression. It's punishing Russia for being Russia, as in, existing in the state it is as a large and influential nation not under US dominion. That's a big no-no. Otherwise, we could gives negative fucks about a place like Ukraine. Aside from matters regarding Russia, I'd say it has zero strategic interest for us of any kind. Same goes for Baltics and other places for that matter.
But response? Personally, I say there should be action against the Kremlin and I agree.
If we're talking about fairness, it would at least be the same response the world gives us (the USA) whenever we do things magnitudes worse than what even Putin's conscience would allow him to do, and that response is... nothing. But if we are in fact talking about fairness, then I'll shut the fuck up and rejoice that karma is in reality nonexistent outside of Hindu beliefs, because we'd be fucked.
In other news, Ukraine has scrapped the cease-fire around the MH-17 crash site, which is just going to delay things more...
KIEV: Ukraine on Thursday (Aug 7) scrapped a ceasefire around the crash site of downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, a day after international experts announced they were halting investigations there over continued fighting.
Ukraine's government said in a statement that the Dutch-led probe team was told that the ceasefire around the rebel-held site had been ditched until experts decide to return to resume their search for clues and remains.
International experts suspended their search for body parts at the MH17 crash site on Wednesday because of deteriorating security in eastern Ukraine, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said.
"It doesn't make sense to continue with the repatriation in this manner," the Dutch leader told a press conference in The Hague. Rutte said increasing tension between Kiev - which is battling pro-Russian separatists in the area - has made it too unsafe to continue with the search for victims' remains.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/ukraine-scraps-ceasefire/1301882.html
|
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the correct solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them.
|
On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them.
._. that phrasing
|
On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them.
oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence.
|
On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence.
Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US.
|
On August 08 2014 10:37 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence. Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US.
word choices, son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
|
On August 08 2014 10:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:37 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence. Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US. word choices, son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
Well, that's unfortunate and I just found it here as well: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007328
Sorry, English isn't my native language and I didn't know there was such a term. I meant final solution as in complete/full. Not partial.
|
On August 08 2014 10:42 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:37 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence. Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US. word choices, son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution Well, that's unfortunate and I just found it here as well: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007328Sorry, English isn't my native language and I didn't know there was such a term. I meant final solution as in complete/full. Not partial.
I understand that you can read over it with English not being your first language, but seeing as the English term is a direct, literal, translation from German, I´d suspect the same holds for the term in Bulgarian? Anyway, it´s wildly offtopic and presumably any German solution to this crisis won´t focus on exterminating anybody.
Insofar as I know, both Germany and the Netherlands are quietly politicking away, rather than flexing their muscles. Meanwhile NATO and the US increase threats... and the trade war is escalating quickly with the Russian sanctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
