It wasn’t bizarre when avowed haters of Franco were waving around Francoist magazines to justify their beliefs and various others were alleging all sorts of conspiracy theories but now it’s bizarre? :dubious:
Well, were I either the Iranian or Israeli government this would be a great motivator to not scuttle attempts to build nuclear weapons in the former or give them up in the latter(if pressure were ever brought to bare).
As for the complaints about “corruption” “anti-Semitism” and “fascists” within the Ukrainian government, I do sympathize and agree but see no evidence that Russia is any better.
Oh, no problem…I have no issue admitting it’s a nice day and you can have it.
Agreed - at this point, you’d have to be nuts to give up nukes in return for “international guarantees” that “your territory will be respected” or somesuch.
Shoring up is taken seriously if it is done seriously, simple as that. The NATO expansion is taken seriously*. Serious economic investment is taken seriously. Russia only pushes on it’s borders so there really isn’t that many countries to shore up if we actually give a shit. But in many cases we don’t. Where are the countries that we have some moral obligation to protect that don’t already have military or strong economics ties with? Which of those countries won’t become terrorist factories for good old Russia?
*eta: but pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine right now would be too provocative, might force Russia’s hand with regards to the rest of the country. Maybe we can sneak it in when we know how this shakes out.
I said it was the correct move ‘for Putin’ and explain why. Of course you snipped my statement into fragments and put it back as quotes. Here’s the full statement:
"I have not argued it is a good idea what Putin is doing. I think it was the correct move for Putin when the president of Ukraine was overthrown that he thinks will brings the whole shitstorm that the Ukraine’s cyclic upheaval and tug of war between west and east and NATO and missile defense dreams for leftover Reagan disciples to an end. "
If you have no opposition to what I said why snip it up and comment at all? If you do - let’s see what you got without the scissors.
As an ‘idea’ to do what Putin is doing it is not good becsuse there is risk and danger when being so bold and confrontational with military force.
As a move to end this endless cycle of Ukraine back and forth crisis after crisis destabilizing the region I think it is correct for Putin. Putin has the power because he can act alone smack the EU US and NATO players up the side of the head and make them pay attention to him. Putin holds some cards but on that end of his national borders he is one against many. He let the many know he is not to be trifled with and played he fool.
They got the message don’t you think?
It’s not a good idea to do something as dangerous as Putin has done. But as a move for Putin he might get some big issues resolved this way that cannot be resolved in any other way. Or he may be weakened if sanction further harm his economy.
Well see how the EU holds up and counters the move he boldly laid on them.
Well you are wrong. It is raining here and its not that nice.
That deal was of course signed by Russia as well, and they’re the ones actually breaking their promise.
The 1994 deal did not state any obligation on the part of a country to defend Ukraine. The only country breaking their word here is Russia.
The long term results of this are all bad, and Russia will suffer as much as anyone because now all their neighbours trust them less than ever before and will be motivated to arm themselves accordingly.
“Terrorist factories”? I’m not following.
One only hopes that NATO membership means more than the guarantee given by the US, Russia and others to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in return for Ukraine giving up nukes, which apparently means very little.
My guess is that if Russia pulled some sort of stunt like this in (say) Latvia or Estonia, there would be tons of pressure to do nothing about it because ‘holding a referendum on seperation is not an invasion’, etc. etc.
We in the West, and particularly the Euros, are not exactly giving Russia an impression of firm resistance to aggression here, which may well tempt him to go further and further - ultimately leading to a place where we will have to fight.
Is that shooting war ‘squat’?
[QUOTE=RickJay]
That deal was of course signed by Russia as well, and they’re the ones actually breaking their promise.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. All parties (the US, Russia, the UK and I think Ireland IIRC) basically guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty and refrain from acts of aggression against it, in return for the Ukraine signing the NNPT and giving up it’s (formerly Soviet) nukes.
Nope, it doesn’t obligate anyone to actively defend the Ukraine from any aggression…but it does say support if it happens. I believe (and this is again from memory as I don’t have time to look it up) that the signatories are obliged to take any economic or military aggression or other similar disputes to the UN for resolution.
I think Putin miscalculated, but it will all really hinge on how this plays out in the end. Like I said, I think the Crimea is a done deal at this point, except for the shouting. If there is little more fallout for Putin and Russia than some hand-wringage by the US and Western Europe then I’d say it’s a win…if there is fallout, and has a real impact on Russia then I’d go with a loss, even if they come out with the Crimea as a new shinny state in mother Russia.
Utterly ridiculous. Yes, one would hope that a military treaty of mutual defence such as NATO would mean more than a vague respect for territorial integrity. So that’s your fear? Russian separatists in Estonia will get Russia to invade a NATO country? Met with meek Western acceptance? You think Putin is so idiotic as to read that as the “message” we are sending him?
Russia will not “invade”. It claims it hasn’t “invaded” Crimea.
A couple of months ago, I’d have said that Russia doing what it is doing now was utterly impossible.
Article 5 of NATO states as follows:
I am guessing from the replies in this very thread that many, many people would argue that what is happening right now is not an “armed attack”.
And yes, I expect meekness. If a bunch of ethnic Russians, backed by Russia, pushed for independence in a province of (say) Estonia, what do you think would happen? Would the NATO Euro-members agree that Article 5 had been triggered and launch a war against Russia? No way.
I expect a full on NATO “exercise” would be organized and running in Estonia before any Russian backing made any difference. Maybe those poor spineless Europeans will drag their heels but it’d get done.
What if Putin is not tempted to move beyond Crimea? Will it then have been wise that the West chose not to use military force to drive Russian Federation Forces off Crimean soil and send the Russian fleet to the bottom of the Bkack Sea? Or was it wiser to proceed as the West had now been engaged?
Well, life in the Soviet World sucked. Crimea river. 
Russia had to go through some tough times and the water’s still brown and undrinkable, but things have gotten better overall. Russia could have just joined the rest of civilized Europe, sold them gas and oil, imported lots of western goodies, etc. So what if Russia “lost.” Time for them to grow up.
I notice you edited the OP to hide the part where Kinzer claims the Ukrainian opposition is dominated by gangsters who are explicitly against it becoming a pro-western regime.
Was that a coincidence?
Did you actually read the article or did you just skim it and miss the part that contradict your thesis.
Or did you deliberately omit it.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Actually the article says the country is dominated by crooked oligarchs, not the opposition.