Ukraine: As it happens.

IrishTrajan

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

A broken promise remains a broken promise. Never mind the expansion of NATO eastwards to Russia's borders, which wasn't supposed to happen under the gentleman's agreement..

That never happened, there was no such agreement. Putin is parroting that to demonize the West taking precautions to re-assure allies.

steddyeddy

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Yes, but the State and the Oligarchs themselves know fighting a war would be suicide (so much so Putin said that anyone who believes Russia would attack the West is living in a dream). It's much easier to steal billions from the people and amass enormous wealth, than to seriously contemplate fighting the West.

It depends what you consider the west. I can imagine the Russian state being hostile towards Finland. Closer to home I think Kazakhstan will be next. Nearly a third of the population are ethnically Russian. Following the breakdown of the Soviet Union Kazakh is now the national language. A lot of Russians are finding that hard to take.

IrishTrajan

Public_Enema wrote: »

If being reminded of historical reality is a sensitive subject for you then that's tough. You know the truth doesn't stop being the truth, due to the passage of time. It's like the little wolf pack mentality tries to suppress posters from stating facts, facts that expose hypocritical apologists.

"If someone commits a crime, it's okay for me to commit a crime too!"

That's not how it works.

Public_Enema wrote: »

I couldn't give a crap about Putin or Russian. But when I look at the most destabilising influence on this planet since the end of the Cold War. America is leading the pack, closely followed by NATO. It is just laughable to scaremonger about Russia and ignore the wake of destabilising destruction America has left in its wake.

NATO is the US. Even if every member of NATO upped spending, but the US left, NATO would cease to be a viable force.

America is hardly leading the pack in destabilizing the world. If anything, they're responding to destabilizations (which, yes, inevitably destabilize the system) by third party actors with support from rogue States. The US hardly wants an unstable world. Instability leads to oil prices going up. The vast majority of US States need low oil prices. Instability is simply bad for business.

Public_Enema wrote: »

Russia might wrongly want to dominate its borders or sphere of influence. But the American and its almost Reich-like tendencies, appears to want to dominate the world.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. Remind me, was it the Democrats or the Republicans who were calling for genocide of ethnic minorities?


The US became an empire largely through coincidence. There was the USSR and the US as the competing world powers. The US (having taken over from the UK as guarantor of the seas with the lend-lease program) had an obligation to ensure the seas remained neutral and trade flourished. This meant investing heavily in areas that needed rebuilding (Marshall Aid, anybody?) and through investments in Africa, Asia, South America.

US investments, which became inextricably linked to the global markets, developed into diplomatic and military alliances. As the USSR progressed, the US had to counter (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) in order to keep their allies and their interests from being shot to pieces.


Is the US an empire? Most probably, yes. Does it do some evil, questionable stuff at times? Yes. Is it a malevolent force hell-bent on domination? No. It was moulded by its surroundings and became what it is because of competition with the USSR.

That's why the US is different to most "empires" and why the only people who detest their presence in countries are the people opposing them, and lunatics without an ounce of knowledge on the subject.

If the US wasn't wanted, it would be only too happy to pull out (how many politicians in the US have stood on the platform of isolationism?). But it has allies, it has interests, it has obligations, and so it won't pull out. Even when their allies are unsure of the US' resolve in world affairs (like with China's AIIB), you can still bet your bottom dollar that the US hegemony would be preferable to every nation on earth rather than Russian or Chinese hegemony.

Egginacup

IrishTrajan wrote: »

What agreement?

The agreement was regarding East Germany. That NATO troops would not be stationed in Eastern Germany until Soviet forces had gone (it was to be manned by local militias and such in the meantime).

It made absolutely no mention of NATO expansion into the Baltics.

George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansion east in return for allowing the reunification of Germany. It was a verbal agreement that was kept until Clinton who then broke the promise.

A high level Russian dignitary (can't remember his name but will find it) when asked by an American documentarian why Russia didn't secure a written agreement, responded "It's simple. We trusted you."

IrishTrajan

bilston wrote: »

Am I not right in thinking that the combined conventional military strength of the EU is significantly bigger than Russia's?

Nuclear capability is another thing altogether.

In numbers, Europe's capability is greater to or equal to Russia's (especially considering you can't count all of Russia's forces for an invasion of Europe, as it would leave their entire border in Central Asia [highly unstable] and eastern Asia unprotected).

In actuality, I'm not sure. A lot of Europe's forces are in relatively poor conditions, and it could take months to mobilize. Although, Russia's are similarly in poor condition, they likely have the benefit of large numbers of experienced fighters... Sorry. Experienced vacationers... From their "not-war" in Ukraine.


The nuclear option will never truly be on the table, I don't believe, because Germany/Belgium/Italy/Netherlands [not sure on the last one] are all nations with US nuclear assets (the US has said the NPT will no longer be in effect once a nuclear strike is carried out), whilst Britain and France have their own nuclear forces (some 500-600 warheads in total, France have said they'd target civilians outright with their 300).

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansion east in return for allowing the reunification of Germany. It was a verbal agreement that was kept until Clinton who then broke the promise.

Oh, did they? Gorbachev says there was absolutely no agreement on that. That "agreement" you keep parroting is a lie peddled by Putin. What he did was twist words. NATO troops would not move into East Germany until all Soviet forces had been removed. It would be manned by local forces and the Bundeswehr (German Army).

There was absolutely no mention, whatsoever, written or verbal or implied, that NATO would not expand eastwards, it referred solely to NATO troops in Eastern Germany, not in Eastern Europe

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.
- http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html)

What now, Gorbachev is the CIA shill?

Gatling

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Oh, did they? Gorbachev says there was absolutely no agreement on that. That "agreement" you keep parroting is a lie peddled by Putin. What he did was twist words. NATO troops would not move into East Germany until all Soviet forces had been removed. It would be manned by local forces and the Bundeswehr (German Army).

There was absolutely no mention, whatsoever, written or verbal or implied, that NATO would not expand eastwards, it referred solely to NATO troops in Eastern Germany, not in Eastern Europe





What now, Gorbachev is the CIA shill?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh (it's a secret )

Egginacup

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That never happened, there was no such agreement. Putin is parroting that to demonize the West taking precautions to re-assure allies.

You're saying there was no agreement between Bush and Gorbachev? Are you air brushing history now to suit yourself?

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

But what makes me laugh most of all is Poroshenko's admission now that the coup was illegal. CYA anybody? :pac:

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150620/1023639521.html#ixzz3dct6bE9G

If you're going to post proof of Poroshenko's admission, could you at least post a real source, and not a State-owned shilling site?

darkpagandeath

Egginacup wrote: »

George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansion east in return for allowing the reunification of Germany. It was a verbal agreement that was kept until Clinton who then broke the promise.

A high level Russian dignitary (can't remember his name but will find it) when asked by an American documentarian why Russia didn't secure a written agreement, responded "It's simple. We trusted you."

How did that work out for the Ukraine with the agreement about Nuclear disarming... Russia on Trust that's a good one.

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

You're saying there was no agreement between Bush and Gorbachev? Are you air brushing history now to suit yourself?

No, Gorbachev himself is saying there was no such agreement.

Go peddle your lies elsewhere, you're not going to convince anyone here.

IrishTrajan

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How did that work out for the Ukraine with the agreement about Nuclear disarming... Russia on Trust that's a good one.

Which is kind of ironic, considering the UK and USSR actually had written agreements (on napkins, no doubt, but it's still infinitely more than what the Russians allege happened with NATO) on how Eastern Europe would be broken up into spheres of influence. The only area the USSR kept its promise was Greece, because they didn't want to get bogged down in mountainous warfare and support the Communists there (though there was militant Communist groups). They broke every other part of it.

Gatling

Egginacup wrote: »

You're saying there was no agreement between Bush and Gorbachev? Are you air brushing history now to suit yourself?

Have you actual verified links to this historic agreement or are you just saying what somebody said who heard what somebody said about a conversation about 25 years ago that someone else said that actual happend as fact it or did some random Kremlin shill mentioned in a far off place

Egginacup

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, Gorbachev himself is saying there was no such agreement.

Go peddle your lies elsewhere, you're not going to convince anyone here.

Well you see Traj, you weren't present at any talks in 1990, nor was I. Yet you are adamant that no assurances about NATO expansion were ever given.

Secretary of State, James Baker, who I've always liked said assurances were given. Sheveradnadze concurred but changed his story as he got older. Genscher was in a similar camp. Gorbachev had stated emphatically that the West betrayed their promise, yet you now post quotes from him categorically denying that such an agreement was ever in place.
Are you familiar with the term "protecting one's legacy"? None of the ancients want to be ill-remembered in the history books. And the likes of Douglas Hurd, Genscher, etc don't wish to be portrayed as double crossers. Gorbachev certainly doesn't wish to be remembered as the man who acquiesced to NATO expansion to within a few hundred miles of St Petersburg.

If NATO in general and the US in particular are so casual with their intentions regarding not only the security of other states but the ramifications of their deliberate vagueness which is later exploited, rescinded or violated at whim then they shouldn't expect others to adhere to the exact standards that they insist are the sacrosanct and honourable way of conducting oneself on the geopolitical stage.

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you familiar with the term "protecting one's legacy"?

The person who was in the greatest position to know denies it, and you say he's lying. Then provide absolutely no proof of any agreement anyway? What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing?

Gorbachev says there was absolutely no discussion on NATO expansionism, please provide proof to the contrary.

Egginacup wrote: »

If NATO in general and the US in particular are so casual with their intentions regarding not only the security of other states but the ramifications of their deliberate vagueness which is later exploited, rescinded or violated at whim then they shouldn't expect others to adhere to the exact standards that they insist are the sacrosanct and honourable way of conducting oneself on the geopolitical stage.

There is nothing vague about it. The agreement was regarding NATO troops not entering East Germany, that it was to be patrolled/garrisoned by local forces and the Bundeswehr.

There was no need to clear up "vagueness" about NATO's expansion, because that was not the subject of the agreement, it had absolutely nothing to do with the agreement.


So, your entire argument hinges on: NATO lied about something they never talked about, Gorbachev is lying about something they never talked about, but Putin is telling the truth about something they never talked about without ever bringing a single piece of evidence forward?


Go peddle your bullshít elsewhere, I'm not buying it.

Herpes Cineplex

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Absolutely, but to take a thought from Ian Bremmer: If China breaks our sanctions, we sanction China.

As much as the Chinese like Russian oil, they like Western markets more.

Western markets more? Ah stop, Asia and the Asian consumer market is becoming the world power house. You know China has much more than an oil alliance with Russia. Throw in their growing military alliance and their growing financial alliance through the BRIC. Yes America and the West is increasingly resembling an old man, dwelling on past glories and becoming increasingly irrelevant. The american empire is in it's death phase and power will revert to the East. You know, where civilisation came from and the world will be a safer place for it.

IrishTrajan

Herpes Cineplex wrote: »

Western markets more? Ah stop, Asia and the Asian consumer market is becoming the world power house. You know China has much more than an oil alliance with Russia. Throw in their growing military alliance and their growing financial alliance through the BRIC. Yes America and the West is increasingly resembling an old man, dwelling on past glories and becoming increasingly irrelevant. The american empire is in it's death phase and power will revert to the East. You know, where civilisation came from and the world will be a safer place for it.

You can touch yourself to the thought of China-Russia sticking the knife in America's gut, but just remember, that's fantasy. The BRICs? Add them all up they don't touch the US' economic size. Are they a growing market? Yes, definitely. Will they threaten US hegemony? Maybe if the US economy stagnates and everyone else grows rapidly, they might just catch up in the next 30 years.

Also, presenting the BRICs as some sort of a unified front is entirely naive. Russia is befriending North Korea and Vietnam to balance against China, whilst both of them battle over Central Asia. Russia and India remain with relatively close ties to counter China's growth. China actually had a great many troops in Indian territory last year I believe, trying to provoke the Indians. India is closer to the US than it is to China, especially with the US offering EMALS for their carriers.


Militarily? Add up every other nation on the planet, and you still can't beat NATO. China's military has health problems (up to 60% of the people applying to join the military is unfit [bad eyesight, muscle/skeletal weakness, poor lungs] despite them having lowered their standards twice), their equipment budget is spent trying to modify their hardware so that it can be used (China's soldiers have grown ~5 cm taller, meaning they're too tall to work in their MBTs effectively), and their industry is shabby at best.


Is China a strategic threat? Yes, their monstrously large amounts of investment will wean people away from the US-dominated markets. Is China a credible military threat? Nope. More than Russia, probably, but nowhere near a true competitor to the US, nevermind the rest of NATO, or the ANZUS alliance, or the US-Japan-South Korea alliance. Or the Australia-India-Japan-US alliance.


As for your last sentence, "the world will be safer for it", are you honestly saying living under the Chinese Community Party is better than living in the West? Do you seriously think China, whose human rights abuses and torture reports are widespread and in a huge quantity, is a better alternative to the US?

Please, Chicom Shill, drop the fantasy and come live in the real world.

Irish Praetorian

Egginacup wrote: »

Well you see Traj, you weren't present at any talks in 1990, nor was I. Yet you are adamant that no assurances about NATO expansion were ever given.

Secretary of State, James Baker, who I've always liked said assurances were given. Sheveradnadze concurred but changed his story as he got older. Genscher was in a similar camp. Gorbachev had stated emphatically that the West betrayed their promise, yet you now post quotes from him categorically denying that such an agreement was ever in place.
Are you familiar with the term "protecting one's legacy"? None of the ancients want to be ill-remembered in the history books. And the likes of Douglas Hurd, Genscher, etc don't wish to be portrayed as double crossers. Gorbachev certainly doesn't wish to be remembered as the man who acquiesced to NATO expansion to within a few hundred miles of St Petersburg.

If NATO in general and the US in particular are so casual with their intentions regarding not only the security of other states but the ramifications of their deliberate vagueness which is later exploited, rescinded or violated at whim then they shouldn't expect others to adhere to the exact standards that they insist are the sacrosanct and honourable way of conducting oneself on the geopolitical stage.

I'm sorry but I'm finding this so rich, coming from the man for whom journalists, eyewitnesses, general and satellite imagery is insufficient evidence of an invasion, but who is happy to leap at the prospect of imagined assurances given to Russia which were cruelly betrayed. You couldn't make this up...

Well I mean you could and have but you know what I mean...

Irish Praetorian

Herpes Cineplex wrote: »

Western markets more? Ah stop, Asia and the Asian consumer market is becoming the world power house. You know China has much more than an oil alliance with Russia. Throw in their growing military alliance and their growing financial alliance through the BRIC. Yes America and the West is increasingly resembling an old man, dwelling on past glories and becoming increasingly irrelevant. The american empire is in it's death phase and power will revert to the East. You know, where civilisation came from and the world will be a safer place for it.

Say what you will about 'da Whest' and 'the EU' we apparently remain the worlds largest market for paid up shills and trolls...

WakeUp

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Given the ruble has halved in value, the Russian economy has started contracting and Putin is making deals with China that he had been holding off on for years - I would say sanctions are having an effect.

Now as for what the desired outcome is, well the wider implication is of course if countries in general behave like this they can expect to get punished. In terms of Russia itself, the first desire is to make sure that Russia thinks twice if it wants to try pulling another Crimea (IE invading, claiming popular support and annexing) - arguably this has already been achieved given their MO in Donetsk and Luhansk. Medium to long term, this should be about ensuring that Ukraine can secure for itself a lasting and decent peace with Russia that doesn't leave it getting invaded every time Putin wants to flag up his own popularity. Now I'm not naive enough to think that the return of Crimea to Ukraine is going to be an integral part of that deal, but at the very least getting a good deal for one of the few nations in the world to voluntarily give up its nuclear arsenal, is something we should all be in support of.

having an effect to what end? or to put it another way when will the sanctions be lifted? so Sanction Russia fine. but whats the plan what are they attempting to achieve? apart from the moral/emotional right wrong paradigm that doesnt exist when suited of bad Russia. Russia being made an example out of they want to make an example out of Russia. none of that boll0x matters in power politics. Crimea is gone and the Russians wont let the rebels fall in the east. thats how it is now and how it will be in the future.. is that what the sanctions are designed to achieve. if it is that isnt going to work.

France and Germany any time Nato membership for Ukraine has come up have always said nah youre alright actually not wanted. they have taken a more measured stance in the beginning over Ukrainian EU relations. why. because the Russians would have a problem about some aspects of EU/Kiev relations and a serious problem with Nato. so why bother. Russia is more important than Ukraine just as simple as that so dont get involved there. Ukraine and Georgia are a buffer and a nice one at that between us and the Russians might be harsh and that but those two countries are of vital strategic interest to the Russians. doesnt make it right .Europe and Russia are ok with this but who isnt ok with this why Washington isnt. why get involved in Ukraine at all knowing the Russian position. its Washington driving the sanctions war this blind following of US foreign policy in Europe is bewildering to me they dont love us they have their own reasons and interests for being involved there. and they dont care if Europe burns to achieve them. Ukraine, nice pipelines and all that from our ( EU ) point of view though apart from that who gives a phuck about them. Russia is more important. but the Americans have their own ideas and when all is said and done they dont care about Europe. this bullsh1t with Russia is not in our interests. apparently whatever comes out Washington or whatever they deem correct is the path we should be following here in Europe. Russia is not a threat to Europe. respect her interests especially on her border and there wont be a problem. someone didnt get that memo or chose to ignore it. all of this could have been avoided.

US drawing Europe into crusade against Russia, against our interests' – ex-French PM

The US is drawing European states into a “crusade” against Russia, which goes against Europe’s interests, former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has said. Speaking to French media, he stressed that Europe now is dependent on Washington.

“Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe,” Fillon told the BFMTV channel.

The ex-French prime minister, who served in Nicolas Sarkozy’s government from 2007 till 2012, lashed out at Washington and its policies.

Washington, Fillon said, pursues “extremely dangerous” policies in the Middle East that the EU and European states have to agree with.

He accused German intelligence of spying on France “not in the interests of Germany but in the interests of the United States.”

http://rt.com/news/266362-europe-us-russia-crusade/

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Are you seriously implying that Russia is going to attack the US or EU? To do so would be complete and utter suicide, and it is delusional to think Russia wants to be destroyed.

are you seriously implying that Im seriously implying that...seriously? are you...

Irish Praetorian

WakeUp wrote: »

having an effect to what end? or to put it another way when will the sanctions be lifted? so Sanction Russia fine. but whats the plan what are they attempting to achieve? apart from the moral/emotional right wrong paradigm that doesnt exist when suited of bad Russia. Russia being made an example out of they want to make an example out of Russia. none of that boll0x matters in power politics. Crimea is gone and the Russians wont let the rebels fall in the east. thats how it is now and how it will be in the future.. is that what the sanctions are designed to achieve. if it is that isnt going to work.

As I've said, the sanctions are there to provide Ukraine with some of the leverage it needs to try and obtain once more, a decent peace on its borders. It may well come to pass that Ukraine and Russia agree on new borders that include Crimea as part of Russia, but until such an agreement comes about, the sanctions can serve to wave off future Russian aggression and offer the Ukrainians a fraction of the support they deserve in these circumstances.

France and Germany any time Nato membership for Ukraine has come up have always said nah youre alright actually not wanted. they have taken a more measured stance in the beginning over Ukrainian EU relations. why. because the Russians would have a problem about some aspects of EU/Kiev relations and a serious problem with Nato. so why bother. Russia is more important than Ukraine just as simple as that so dont get involved there. Ukraine and Georgia are a buffer and a nice one at that between us and the Russians might be harsh and that but those two countries are of vital strategic interest to the Russians. doesnt make it right .Europe and Russia are ok with this but who isnt ok with this why Washington isnt. why get involved in Ukraine at all knowing the Russian position. its Washington driving the sanctions war this blind following of US foreign policy in Europe is bewildering to me they dont love us they have their own reasons and interests for being involved there. and they dont care if Europe burns to achieve them. Ukraine, nice pipelines and all that from our ( EU ) point of view though apart from that who gives a phuck about them. Russia is more important. but the Americans have their own ideas and when all is said and done they dont care about Europe. this bullsh1t with Russia is not in our interests. apparently whatever comes out Washington or whatever they deem correct is the path we should be following here in Europe. Russia is not a threat to Europe. respect her interests especially on her border and there wont be a problem. someone didnt get that memo or chose to ignore it. all of this could have been avoided.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the 'realpolitik' you're peddling, which seems to boil down to little more than 'screw the Ukrainians, let the Russians have them'. Perhaps its because I have friends in Kiev or perhaps its because of my principles, but I don't feel the inclination to simply stand by and twiddle my thumbs whilst a European nation has its trade and borders threatened for the crime of refusing to bow to the will of its larger neighbour - maybe its an Irish thing? Russia has exerted a pretty unhealthy influence on Ukraine and this entire crisis has arisen out of Ukraine once more expressing a desire to move closer to Maastricht and further from Moscow - as a sovereign nation that is their right.

This idea that the crisis in Ukraine is come US concoction to increase its own power aside from being laughable is also a rather sly attempt to have us ignore some of the more blatant offences that we as Europeans should apparently be accepted as the status quo - in short, that Ukraine should have major decisions of policy made by Mr. Putin. I do not care to acquiescence to such a state of affairs and I think you might not either, which is why I think you might want to consider setting aside the anti-US sentiment for a moment and considering on its own merits the terms of the Russian-Ukrainian relationship - is that something you would countenance for this country? I know I wouldn't, so why should I countenance it for Ukraine?

gandalf

Herpes Cineplex wrote: »

You know China has much more than an oil alliance with Russia.

Yep I'm sure the Chinese are also interested in knock-down discounts on all the resources that Russia can offer.

WakeUp

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

As I've said, the sanctions are there to provide Ukraine with some of the leverage it needs to try and obtain once more, a decent peace on its borders. It may well come to pass that Ukraine and Russia agree on new borders that include Crimea as part of Russia, but until such an agreement comes about, the sanctions can serve to wave off future Russian aggression and offer the Ukrainians a fraction of the support they deserve in these circumstances.

a decent peace what does that even mean?? Poroshenko has stated that Crimea and Rebel held territory must be returned to Ukraine this is pretty much the American position too..does that mean you believe they are going to back down? or what does it mean.. so until Ukraine ( via Washington ) decides what its going to do we ( EU ) are supposed to continue in this vein and this posture toward Russia?

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the 'realpolitik' you're peddling, which seems to boil down to little more than 'screw the Ukrainians, let the Russians have them'. Perhaps its because I have friends in Kiev or perhaps its because of my principles, but I don't feel the inclination to simply stand by and twiddle my thumbs whilst a European nation has its trade and borders threatened for the crime of refusing to bow to the will of its larger neighbour - maybe its an Irish thing? Russia has exerted a pretty unhealthy influence on Ukraine and this entire crisis has arisen out of Ukraine once more expressing a desire to move closer to Maastricht and further from Moscow - as a sovereign nation that is their right.

This idea that the crisis in Ukraine is come US concoction to increase its own power aside from being laughable is also a rather sly attempt to have us ignore some of the more blatant offences that we as Europeans should apparently be accepted as the status quo - in short, that Ukraine should have major decisions of policy made by Mr. Putin. I do not care to acquiescence to such a state of affairs and I think you might not either, which is why I think you might want to consider setting aside the anti-US sentiment for a moment and considering on its own merits the terms of the Russian-Ukrainian relationship - is that something you would countenance for this country? I know I wouldn't, so why should I countenance it for Ukraine?

friends and principles when have they ever mattered when the big boys are involved. such things dont matter when all is said and done in international relations leave the emotions aside they have no place in anything. that said if you do have friends and such over there I can understand where you are coming from. realpolitik well thats how the real world works especially between the bigger powers applying formal logic to the interactions of states and nations doesnt work. you say you feel strongly about this and you dont want to sit idly by and such are you thinking about going to fight the Russians yourself then. the fact you are asking me if its an Irish thing does this mean you are not Irish yourself??..its irrelevant to the conversation so dont feel you have to answer that Im just curious thats all.

This idea that the Americans are not involved in some way in Ukraine , and shouldnt be , I find that laughable myself. Ukraine is neither a member of Nato nor of the EU. yet here we are in this situation with the Russians. anti- US sentiment whats that?...

Irish Praetorian

WakeUp wrote: »

a decent peace what does that even mean?? Poroshenko has stated that Crimea and Rebel held territory must be returned to Ukraine this is pretty much the American position too..does that mean you believe they are going to back down? or what does it mean.. so until Ukraine ( via Washington ) decides what its going to do we ( EU ) are supposed to continue in this vein and this posture toward Russia?

It means precisely what it says, a decent peace, being able to run their own country without having Russian sponsored militias operating inside it, without running into a trade war every time they shift towards the West, now that may involve territorial exchanges, but at the very least supporting Ukraine in its struggle is the least we can do.

friends and principles when have they ever mattered when the big boys are involved. such things dont matter when all is said and done in international relations leave the emotions aside they have no place in anything. that said if you do have friends and such over there I can understand where you are coming from. realpolitik well thats how the real world works especially between the bigger powers applying formal logic to the interactions of states and nations doesnt work. you say you feel strongly about this and you dont want to sit idly by and such are you thinking about going to fight the Russians yourself then. the fact you are asking me if its an Irish thing does this mean you are not Irish yourself??..its irrelevant to the conversation so dont feel you have to answer that Im just curious thats all.

This idea that the Americans are not involved in some way in Ukraine , and shouldnt be , I find that laughable myself. Ukraine is neither a member of Nato nor of the EU. yet here we are in this situation with the Russians. anti- US sentiment whats that?...

Well they matter when it comes to deciding the course of policy, it's why our country gets along so well with fellow democratic states in the EU and not so well with tin pot dictatorships the far side of the world. Putting that aside, an EU which simply shrugs its shoulders when a large militaristic neighbour to its East decides to annex slices of its countries on the grounds of ethnic nationalism, is a VERY poor precedent to set, especially in light of new EU members such as the Baltic states.

As for myself, I am Irish and no I'm not inclined to go 'International Brigades 2.0', but I am determined to try and shake people out of this moral relativistic stupor they seem to have found themselves which has them throwing their arms to the air and waxing about how Russia is bad but so is the US.

Now as for the US in Ukraine, I did not claim they were not involved in some way. However the looming issue is nothing else but Russia invading and annexing pieces of its neighbour.

IrishTrajan

WakeUp wrote: »

friends and principles when have they ever mattered when the big boys are involved. such things dont matter when all is said and done in international relations leave the emotions aside they have no place in anything.

I think this is the first time we've agreed on something. To quote the English:

"Britain has no permanent friends nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests"

Gatling

Ah sure Russia has nukes let's all quake in our boots

obplayer

Gatling wrote: »

Ah sure Russia has nukes let's all quake in our boots

And therein lies the problem.:mad:

InTheTrees

gandalf wrote: »

Yep I'm sure the Chinese are also interested in knock-down discounts on all the resources that Russia can offer.

And the Chinese will blatantly take advantage of Russia's weakness. There's no love lost between those two.

Gatling

obplayer wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.:mad:

But there not the only ones if I'm correct so do several EU countries or at least have nuclear warheads on defensive weapons

Streetwalker

obplayer wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.:mad:

Not if you are Russian