personaldesas
Member
Technical question, and correct me if I'm wrong, but: was it really cancelled, or was it just the constitution of Ukraine - as does Russia's - that prevents elections during wartime?
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12,562
They reached the southern outskirts of Stepnogorsk. They have to take the town, likely secure the flank to some distance, and then they can try to roll up to the Konka. I think we're still a ways away from that happening.
I believe it's not the constitution but a law they have thay prevents elections from being held not during war but during martial law. So theoretically you could suspend martial law, hold elections, then re-impose it? Unclear and certainly those elections would come with problems of legitimacy. Many millions of Ukrainians wouldn't be able to vote for practical reasons.
In my dictionary a siege a military operation to surround an object and cut off all access to it. Russia was far from surrounded (Trade across the boarder increased up to 2014) and most militaries in NATO were down sizing, hardly a siege, somewhat a little emotive?
rsemmes
Active Member
It may very well be.
I think that a less than friendly military alliance getting closer to your borders... He gets the point. On the other hand, he could be expressing the Russian point of view, did you try to look from the other side of the fence?
rsemmes
Active Member
And over...
The West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. The crisis shows that realpolitik remains relevant and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border.
Soviet leaders and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns.
During NATO’s 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs Russian President Boris Yeltsin said "This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders."
France and Germany opposed the move (Georgia and Ukraine as NATO members) for fear that it would unduly antagonize Russia. NATO boldly declared: "These countries will become members of NATO."
Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a "direct threat" to Russia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO.
The EU, too, has been marching eastward. Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country’s interests.
US had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves."
The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead.
The new government in Kiev (after Yanukovych) was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labelled neofascists.
As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.
Imagine US happy about a Chinese naval base in Mexico.
- At Georgia's and Ukraine's peril, actually. Our interests are clear, how much Ukrainian (Vietnamese) blood has to be spilled is irrelevant and those $5bn are not any kind of interference in other countries' elections.
And it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.
- A concept that doesn't seem to be that "clear".
The U.S. diplomat George Kennan in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the 1rst round of NATO expansion. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies," he said. "I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else." In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would "say that we always told you that is how the Russians are."
Putin and his compatriots have been thinking and acting according to realist dictates, whereas their Western counterparts have been adhering to liberal ideas about international politics.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to the Crimea crisis reflected this same perspective: "You just don’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext."
- Unless it's US invading Iraq. Kennan seems to be some kind of Cassandra in the Kingdom of Oedipus.
NATO must admit Georgia and Ukraine to contain Russia before it dominates its neighbours and threatens western Europe.
If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date.
- We have the right to threaten Russia but Russia has no right to threaten us, obviously.
The goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp. Akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War.
- Why, we are quite happy with how things are right now.
Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West.
- BTW, Trump has invaded International Trade, but EU is using "other principles" in this war.
The great thing about the West, is that our free and democratic press keep us well informed about those details... All the time.
The West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. The crisis shows that realpolitik remains relevant and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border.
Soviet leaders and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns.
During NATO’s 1995 bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs Russian President Boris Yeltsin said "This is the first sign of what could happen when NATO comes right up to the Russian Federation’s borders."
France and Germany opposed the move (Georgia and Ukraine as NATO members) for fear that it would unduly antagonize Russia. NATO boldly declared: "These countries will become members of NATO."
Putin maintained that admitting those two countries to NATO would represent a "direct threat" to Russia. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008 should have dispelled any remaining doubts about Putin’s determination to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO.
The EU, too, has been marching eastward. Russian leaders view the plan as hostile to their country’s interests.
US had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to help Ukraine achieve "the future it deserves."
The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead.
The new government in Kiev (after Yanukovych) was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labelled neofascists.
As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs) had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.
Imagine US happy about a Chinese naval base in Mexico.
- At Georgia's and Ukraine's peril, actually. Our interests are clear, how much Ukrainian (Vietnamese) blood has to be spilled is irrelevant and those $5bn are not any kind of interference in other countries' elections.
And it is the Russians, not the West, who ultimately get to decide what counts as a threat to them.
- A concept that doesn't seem to be that "clear".
The U.S. diplomat George Kennan in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the 1rst round of NATO expansion. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies," he said. "I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else." In that same 1998 interview, Kennan predicted that NATO expansion would provoke a crisis, after which the proponents of expansion would "say that we always told you that is how the Russians are."
Putin and his compatriots have been thinking and acting according to realist dictates, whereas their Western counterparts have been adhering to liberal ideas about international politics.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to the Crimea crisis reflected this same perspective: "You just don’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext."
- Unless it's US invading Iraq. Kennan seems to be some kind of Cassandra in the Kingdom of Oedipus.
NATO must admit Georgia and Ukraine to contain Russia before it dominates its neighbours and threatens western Europe.
If Putin were committed to creating a greater Russia, signs of his intentions would almost certainly have arisen before February 22. But there is virtually no evidence that he was bent on taking Crimea, much less any other territory in Ukraine, before that date.
- We have the right to threaten Russia but Russia has no right to threaten us, obviously.
The goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp. Akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War.
- Why, we are quite happy with how things are right now.
Did Cuba have the right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians think the same way about Ukraine joining the West.
- BTW, Trump has invaded International Trade, but EU is using "other principles" in this war.
The great thing about the West, is that our free and democratic press keep us well informed about those details... All the time.
Last edited:
rsemmes
Active Member
I just read this in RUSI...
www.rusi.org
...pushing Russia to a point where it will struggle to reconstitute its military sufficiently to threaten NATO for the foreseeable future.
...compromising Ukraine’s independence.
(Ukraine will be allowed to be what we want it to be, not what Russia wants it to be.)
If Ukraine can hold on for another year, continuing to attrite Russian forces, however, then Russia may be pushed beyond its ability to readily recover.
(If... may...)
...that traffic flows through the Baltic Sea where they must pass through Danish waters.
(Freedom of navigation and international trade now? The U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations to challenge excessive maritime claims that restrict navigation.)
...through Ukraine’s long-range precision strike campaign.
(How many missiles to destroy how many factories?)
...provide the basis for bringing Russia to the table to negotiate.
So, our principles are still the same, to remove Russia as competition so we can do with it whatever we want (and with the rest of the world, I would guess). All that Ukraine may get out of it is forcing Russia to negotiate. Whatever sufferings Ukraine must endure during that year is just but a little inconvenience to us.
Sorry, so that we are not threaten by Russia. I am sure Russia already loves NATO.
Ukraine: A European Vision of Victory?
Europe has the capacity and opportunity to cripple Russia and significantly reduce the threat posed to the continent if its states can coordinate their efforts. But the window of opportunity is closing.
www.rusi.org
...pushing Russia to a point where it will struggle to reconstitute its military sufficiently to threaten NATO for the foreseeable future.
...compromising Ukraine’s independence.
(Ukraine will be allowed to be what we want it to be, not what Russia wants it to be.)
If Ukraine can hold on for another year, continuing to attrite Russian forces, however, then Russia may be pushed beyond its ability to readily recover.
(If... may...)
...that traffic flows through the Baltic Sea where they must pass through Danish waters.
(Freedom of navigation and international trade now? The U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operations to challenge excessive maritime claims that restrict navigation.)
...through Ukraine’s long-range precision strike campaign.
(How many missiles to destroy how many factories?)
...provide the basis for bringing Russia to the table to negotiate.
So, our principles are still the same, to remove Russia as competition so we can do with it whatever we want (and with the rest of the world, I would guess). All that Ukraine may get out of it is forcing Russia to negotiate. Whatever sufferings Ukraine must endure during that year is just but a little inconvenience to us.
Sorry, so that we are not threaten by Russia. I am sure Russia already loves NATO.
The reality was the other way round. The countries concernd decided to move into the wests back yard, they made the desision to move into Europe, The west did not force this on them as it was their independent decision that they had the right to make.
What evidence do you have to sustanciate this? I have not seen any evidence of any sustained western presence in this regared.
It appears to me that Ukaine it self was moving to wards having closer ties with Europe, which as a independent nation it was entittled to do. Europe was welcoming of the move, but did not pressure it.
It should be up to Ukraine and it's people to decide what they want to do and how they want to run their country, not for major powers to dictate.
A lot of the US meddling in Cuba was wrong, however the end outcome appeared satisfactory to both parties. However the old saying of two wrongs does not make a wright does apply. In other words just because someone does a wrong, this does not entittle others to follow suit.
My personal view is that just because you are bigger and stronger than your neighbour this does not give you the wright to bully them into doing what you want.
This unfortunately is something both the US and the USSR/Russia have been guilty of.
rsemmes
Active Member
You do realize I am talking about 3 reports, none of them written by me, right?
Has EU independently decided to self impose some tariffs? That is a naive view of international relations.
The coup d'etat and the $5bn are not evident to you?
Yes, Ukraine is entitled as Cuba was entitled. Reality is different, it is not entitlement, it's how things are.
Satisfactory for all three parties? I cannot agree with that, I don't think Cubans agree with you.
Not only US/USSR are guilty of realpolitik. It was, it is and it will be how we (nations) conduct international relations.
Again, "The powerful do what they want and the weak suffer what they must."
Perhaps you would like to explain why this did not end to the general satisfaction of the participants.
Cuba maintained their independence and were no longer threatened by invasion, the US had the missile threat removed from Cuba and the USSR. had the missile threat removed from Turkey. Not perfect but a significant step that preserved world peace.
What has this got to do with a flagrant invasion of an independent country for which the invader had previously made guarantees of their sovereignty and borders. The very least a country can do is have some integrity when it comes to agreements the have undertaken, as not to do so calls into question any agreements the make in the future.
Yes, however this does not mean that these actions should be condoned (as you appear to in this case) To condone such actions is to encourage them to continue.
But selected by you, Reports often ensure that they collect the right evidence to come to the conclusion they want to come to. By selection of the appropriate reports you can prove just about anything.
Russia is an imperialist, terrorist nation and must be stopped. Very sad to see that so many European leaders are still not "stepping up" and not providing Ukraine the assistance they need. It is not only ethically and morally correct to support Ukraine, it is also very much in the interest of European democracies to prevent Russia from grabbing Ukraine. I am hoping that Merz can deliver but I am not yet convinced.
It is not clear to me why Germany has not restarted Taurus production and why they have not started providing Taurus to Ukraine as he promised before he became bundeskanzler, perhaps @kato knows. "Complexity of training" has been mentioned but that does not explain why this should delay the decision, if anything it could be used as an argument to get started asap since it will take time do do the training. Germany still weighing Taurus missile supply to Ukraine, Merz says
It is not clear to me why Germany has not restarted Taurus production and why they have not started providing Taurus to Ukraine as he promised before he became bundeskanzler, perhaps @kato knows. "Complexity of training" has been mentioned but that does not explain why this should delay the decision, if anything it could be used as an argument to get started asap since it will take time do do the training. Germany still weighing Taurus missile supply to Ukraine, Merz says
Hoover
New Member
There are many rumors why Merz doesn´t deliver Taurus to UA.
The most valuable is that he won´t risk further problems with his gouvernment partner, the SPD. In the SPD is a strong wannabe peace keeping but in fact still pro Russian fraction which opponents to a Taurus delivery.
I talked to my deputy in Berlin and he (CDU, Merz-party) says even in the mid-right CDU is a fraction who is afraid of Russian actions in case of a Taurus delivery.
There are a lot fake rumors here in Germany, for example the story, that the Bundeswehr has to take Tauris into action in Ukraine, but that is wrong. The Ukrainians needs a target programming computer, and then they will doing it themselves, because they are smart people. It is non understandable mistake that the German gouvernment didn´t has ordered 1-2 of these programming systems and a big bunch of missiles as a reserve.
So they could deliver a device and batches of Taurus if they running out of the factory. That is a sign that they never seriously planned to deliver Taurus.
Another story is the needed permission by the USA because of some US made main components of the Taurus missile.
Problem: If Russia takes action to Germany (what I don´t believe being credible) the German politics is not sure that EU or NATO will put Art. 5 into effect. The NATO in Europe is a weak alliance because of the pro Russian members Hungary and Slovakia which could opponent Art.5, and the raction of Trump is unclear, too. So there are a lot of different issues regarding Taurus.
To end, Tauris is not a game changer, like no weapon is (beside an nuclear bomb). But it can add to the pressure of the terrorist state of Russia to go into serious negitions.
Thanks for the response. As of today, I do not agree that NATO's article 5 is weak. Article 5 does not require unanimous decision to be triggered. It is true that European NATO nations must rebuild their armed forces, however with both Sweden and Finland in NATO, and also with the rapid build-up in Poland and the Baltics, I am slightly less concerned today than what I was last year.
Even with support from NK and China, Russia is struggling in Ukraine, making slow progress. Unless they manage to take all or significant portions of Ukraine it will be suicidal for Russia to trigger article 5. If they did, and if Ukraine is still a country, it would open up for Ukraine to try to take back what Russia stole from them, since currently Russia cannot handle more than one war at a time. However if they manage to grab all of Ukraine, this will flood Europe with refugees, Russia will gain a lot of resources and become a much bigger threat to Europe. That's one of the reasons it's hard to understand why European politicians don't increase Ukrainian support significantly. The cost of inaction will be much higher than the cost of action.
Russia will of course keep trying to weaken and split up NATO, but for now I don't see Russia trigger article 5. However nobody knows what the future brings so therefore European countries should in addition to increasing support to Ukraine also strengthen their own defenses, significantly. Russia will attack if it smells weakness. The Nordic countries are rearming now; not as fast as the Baltics and Poland but still, moving in the right direction; Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway are all expected to spend 3-3.4% of GDP on defense already this year.
rsemmes
Active Member
An embargoed independence. The powerful do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.
It has to do with a black and white vision of a world that doesn't exist. It (History) is black or a very dark grey.
I am stating the facts. That "condone" is all yours and, don't worry, it will happen again. Your opinion and mine about it are completely irrelevant. Can you imagine two people having the same conversation about US invading Iraq?
Vivendi posted: "Russia is an imperialist, terrorist nation..." Yes, Russia is another imperialist, terrorist nation. Does it feel good to point your finger at that nation? Because that is, in no way, going to make any other nation "innocent".
True and true, like theguardian reporting a missile hitting a metro station but not that across the street there is a missile factory and that the AD were active.
What I cannot select, because I cannot find it, is a report saying that Ukraine didn't blow up the Nordstream, that Ukraine is not killing children in Russia and in Ukraine and that NATO (US) has no interests in Ukraine and in other parts of the world.
France had an issue with Greenpeace, France sank the Rainbow Warrior. That is the real world.
rsemmes
Active Member
Not good for business.
US wants Europe to pay for American weapons, France said that the money has to pay for French weapons. You are just going to, kindly, share all that technology? It is not good for business.
Also, what is the difference between that and actually handing a missile?
As a person living in Europe today I care very much about the situation in Europe, today. The only imperialist terrorist nation threatening European security today is Russia. Apart from that, two wrongs never make a right. Just because there are other imperialist nations and other terrorist nations does not mean that it is wrong to point out that Russia is a terrorist imperialist nation. If your neighbor is raping and killing, would you not point this out because there are others rapists murderers elsewhere? What a horrible argument you are presenting.
rsemmes
Active Member
It has nothing to do with taking Ukraine, it never had.
We want a NATO Ukraine, Russia doesn't; Russia is doing something about it. The Soviet Union did not invade western Europe, Russia is going to do it? I see a lot of imagination there.
Now, we want to protect our interests... Russia wants to protect its interests.
rsemmes
Active Member
I not presenting any argument. I am stating the facts.
Following your argument... There are others rapists murderers elsewhere. Feel free to point your finger at them, at your neighbour or at none at all. I cannot see the point in doing that, even if know that some people feel great throwing stones while living in glass houses.
1. Ukraine was willing to forsake NATO membership until Russia invaded
2. Becoming a NATO member is a long process. A country must want to become a member, nobody is forced into NATO. Also, all existing NATO members must agree to accept the country applying, into NATO.
3. Of course USSR did not invade NATO, the reasons are obvious. And as I stated above I don't see Russia invade NATO currently. However Russia is hard at work weakening and trying to split up NATO. Should Russia succeed, then they will attack other countries; Baltics are high on the list, together with some other countries.
4. Part of Russia's "interests" is to rebuild their empire, and if possible expand it even further. We must fight this, the biggest threat to Europe since WW2.
Last edited:
Recognizing the nature of a threat is the first step in understanding what actions to take to deal with the threat. Therefore it is very important to understand that Russia is an imperialist and terrorist nation. Failure to recognize this much earlier is why we have the current horrible war in Ukraine. If Western European countries and the US have had the same understanding of the Russian threat as the Baltics, Finland and Poland at a much earlier time point, then most likely Russia would have never invaded Ukraine in the first place, they would have been deterred from doing so.