It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian Federation Council Agrees to Putin's Request for military intervention in Crimea

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

victor7
You want to stir more trouble? How about Russia shuts down oil and gas to selected nations in Western Europe.

Result would be....................harsh cold winter and economic depression in Western Europe atleast........all for Ukraine??? don't think so !!
edit on 1-3-2014 by victor7 because: (no reason given)


Or we could use Putin's logic and secure western interest in the region since they are threatening the national security of nations.

Or does that only work for Putin?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
OK Folks. It's a heated subject.

Let's not stray too far from the topic at hand or get caught up in personal bickering, Please.


thanks



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It's obvious that you feel that Putin is the aggressor here and doesn't have a legitimate case. That is fine and you are entitled to your opinions. But what I am wondering is what you feel the solution is in this crisis? Are you suggesting that NATO should mobilize against Russia? That seems like a ridiculously stupid thing to do...

edit to add: For the record, I think Putin is playing a very dangerous game of chicken here. I don't necessarily view his actions as an outright invasion, but I do view them as extremely reckless, and I find Putin to be just as corrupt as the power brokers in the west that have helped to stir up this crisis. That being said, engaging in military brinkmanship over this issue would be completely insane, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong".
edit on 1-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It's obvious that you feel that Putin is the aggressor here and doesn't have a legitimate case. That is fine and you are entitled to your opinions. But what I am wondering is what you feel the solution is in this crisis? Are you suggesting that NATO should mobilize against Russia? That seems like a ridiculously stupid thing to do...


The solution would be for Russia to withdraw its troop, and return the troops authorized to be in the Crimea under the agreement to head back to their bases.

The Ukrainian people / Ukrainian government need to come to an understanding and agree to goals. Those goals would include the status of Crimea, discussion on whether it should be a full part of Ukraine, maintain the status quo or to hold a vote on independence.

Those discussion's and actions should include all Ukrainians, and no just those involved in the Crimea since the result of that vote will affect Ukraine as a nation and not just one region.

Once the internal stuff is settled, then we can move onto the issue between Russia, the EU and work from there. there is no reason Russia and the EU both cant do business with Ukraine, should Ukraine decide to go down that road.

As for the issue on affiliation of Ukraine with NATO or non aligned blocs, it is a Ukrainian decision. I can state that Russia's actions run counter to their stated goals. By doing what they did in Ukraine, they have pushed other former republics into the position of re-evaluating their affiliation with NATO / EU. Even more so with Putin wanting to reestablish the soviet union. If the goal is to keep NATO out, then launching military invasions will do nothing but the opposite.

Treating former republics as anything but sovereign equals is an issue Putin will have to deal with on his own.

This is not the cold war... Using nations like pawn pieces should not be accepted anymore from any country, especially the United State and Russia. Returning to a cold war mentality serves no one either.

Appeasement, as some insist on, does nothing either.


edit on 1-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I think your position is completely reasonable now that you have clarified it. I pretty much agree with you on everything you've said here, except that I do not view Putin as trying to re-establish the Soviet Union. The other issue that I'm concerned about is that while I think you are right about the need for Russian troops to withdraw, if Russia feels it has a case (which it obviously does since it voted to authorize troop movements), how do you go about convincing them they need to honor their agreements? Doing so at the point of a gun is probably going to have the opposite effect and encourage a confrontation.

As for everything else you've stated, I think it is spot on. The Ukrainians need to consider letting the Crimea declare independence. The entire country might need to be redrawn, but the problem there is that western powers have stated that is an unacceptable outcome, as they are trying to protect their economic interests.

Edit:



Appeasement, as some insist on, does nothing either.


Military brinkmanship in this situation could have disastrous consequences for the entire world. The advent of nuclear weapons has changed the way geopolitics works. Terms like "appeasement" aren't as relevant today as they were in 1938, especially when the fate of our species and indeed our planet are at stake. Diplomacy is the only sane way to handle this.
edit on 1-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Usually when one country acts really badly, as we've seen a lot of in recent years, the UN Security Council and/or NATO Security Council have an emergency meeting to discuss SANCTIONS of some kind. Is this the "punishment" that President Obama is threatening Putin with? ... Sanctions? If so, when is that emergency Security Council meeting? I've heard no mention of one with this "crisis".
-cwm



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Cold War II is all but official.

About time Russia gives US a taste of encroachment on its borders. How about sending some "deadly accurate" Iskander missiles with "detachable warheads" to Cuba. Not under the Russian military but as imported by Cuba for its defense forces.

A nuclear warhead is about the size of a small refrigerator (correct me if i am wrong). It can be attached and detached at will.

even if Cuban missiles are not nuke tipped, they can be in 30 minutes.

US will have to think 200 times before trying to take mess with Russian interests in its region i.e. near abroad.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good.So we will know who the real puppet masters behind the svoboda neo-nazis are. Now Russia will not hesitate in using nuclear weapons.We have never forgotten what the nazis did in Russia.

Well ,it will be good retribution.

Whoever will come to us with a sword, from a sword will perish' Alexander Nevsky. So yes,please attack and assist the neo-nazis .Then see what happens .



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
I think your position is completely reasonable now that you have clarified it. I pretty much agree with you on everything you've said here, except that I do not view Putin as trying to re-establish the Soviet Union.

I think his actions to this point in time support the argument that it is what he is trying to do. As I have stated, he is former KGB and exists as if we are still in the middle of the cold war. He strikes me as the type who just cannot exist outside that bubble. Threatening countries who wish to be closer to the EU. He threatens nations who wish to be a part of NATO.

While I get the arguments people are trying to make about NATO expansion, the actions Russia takes only forces the very actions Russia is tying to prevent. In the end it doesn't address the problem Russia has with it.



DeadSeraph
The other issue that I'm concerned about is that while I think you are right about the need for Russian troops to withdraw, if Russia feels it has a case (which it obviously does since it voted to authorize troop movements), how do you go about convincing them they need to honor their agreements? Doing so at the point of a gun is probably going to have the opposite effect and encourage a confrontation.

Forcing Ukraine to negotiate at gun point also is going to have the opposite affect. The resolution would be to withdraw Russian troops that are in violation of the agreement. Russian can keep the military forces that are authorized in the bases per the agreement.

In this area, the first move must be made by Russia. Failure to withdraw will result in armed conflict. Even Russia / Putin is using language that does not restrict their action to just the Crimea. The language they used, referring to Ukrainian territory in the use of force authorization, is provocative and does nothing to de-escalate the situation.

Since people are claiming Russia has the cards, then Russia needs to be the first to make the moves to resolve the situation. absent that, what should the other nations think of Russia and its threat towards other republics? Russia's actions are far more destabilizing that what people think and that destabilization its not contained to just the Crimea.

If you lived in a country that suddenly had portions of it seized by armed invasion, and that country refuses to de-escalate, what would you do? I would be arming myself in preparation of further hostilities. Only Russia can lower the temperature.





DeadSeraph
As for everything else you've stated, I think it is spot on. The Ukrainians need to consider letting the Crimea declare independence. The entire country might need to be redrawn, but the problem there is that western powers have stated that is an unacceptable outcome, as they are trying to protect their economic interests.

If a vote is held by the Ukrainian government, the west will accept the outcome. They have to as anything else would show they have no interest in the people or the country, but just the resources. While some think that is the west regardless, all the more reason to allow the decision to be made solely by Ukrainians. The issue I see is how to hold elections that are fair and free of outside influence / interference?

The other question is what happens if the vote for the Crimea turns out to be no. Will that outcome be acceptable to Russia?



DeadSeraph
Edit:



Appeasement, as some insist on, does nothing either.


Military brinkmanship in this situation could have disastrous consequences for the entire world. The advent of nuclear weapons has changed the way geopolitics works. Terms like "appeasement" aren't as relevant today as they were in 1938, especially when the fate of our species and indeed our planet are at stake. Diplomacy is the only sane way to handle this.
edit on 1-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)


I agree, but as I stated Russia holds the cards for de-escalation. Russian actions also have the possibility of creating an atmosphere where former soviet republics will seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Russian aggression / influence / what have you. Even more so if the EU / West do nothing.

Diplomacy only works when all sides engage faithfully. Is that possible?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Take the neo-nazi western ukraine.They hate east ukrainians like hell. All of them Banderites. Enjoy the rampant skinheadism they bring. Already many of them live in moscow and have radicalized many russian youth to their pathetic ideology.




If a vote is held by the Ukrainian government, the west will accept the outcome. They have to as anything else would show they have no interest in the people or the country, but just the resources. While some think that is the west regardless, all the more reason to allow the decision to be made solely by Ukrainians. The issue I see is how to hold elections that are fair and free of outside influence / interference?


Like how Yankovich who elected democratically in 2010 was toppled by neo-nazi svoboda and praktor funded by nuland and nato. lol at the 5 billion$ ,you gave them.And then they say usa is losing money.


edit on 1-3-2014 by Redrussian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

carewemust
Usually when one country acts really badly, as we've seen a lot of in recent years, the UN Security Council and/or NATO Security Council have an emergency meeting to discuss SANCTIONS of some kind. Is this the "punishment" that President Obama is threatening Putin with? ... Sanctions? If so, when is that emergency Security Council meeting? I've heard no mention of one with this "crisis".
-cwm


The talking pundits are talking about sanctions. Refusal to attend / assist in planning the G-8 summit. NATO has their emergency meeting Sunday.

Other possibilities - Russia has a trade delegation in Washington to broaden trade relations. I would imagine that is not going to happen any time soon, or at least until this situation is resolved. The other half is what could occur outside the US. Trade issues between Russia and the EU / lost contracts, canceled meetings etc etc etc.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Redrussian
Now Russia will not hesitate in using nuclear weapons.

I love this rhetoric... gt over it.. Russia is not the only nation with nukes, so no one will win in that exchange.




DeadSeraph
We have never forgotten what the nazis did in Russia.

Yeah those actions run second to what Stalin did to the Russians. I wonder if the poles have ever forgotten what Stalin / USSR did to them during WWII?


DeadSeraph
Well ,it will be good retribution.

since when is retribution suicidal?



DeadSeraph
Whoever will come to us with a sword, from a sword will perish' Alexander Nevsky. So yes,please attack and assist the neo-nazis .Then see what happens .

Yup, it will "be the mother of all battles" I bet...
edit on 1-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nochzwei
 


Eastern ukraine is pro-russian.Western one hates Russia and supports svoboda and praktor.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   


I agree, but as I stated Russia holds the cards for de-escalation.
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


NATO holds the cards to de-escalation by going back to the borders of Germany like in 1991.

Russia was quiet when central european ex-Warsaw nations were included into NATO.

Russia has however drawn the line which was "near abroad" i.e. ex: Soviet republics except the baltics.

Russia reacted violently when NATO (with similar hidden hand) tried misadventure in Georgia in 2008.

Russia WILL act voilently if NATO, overtly or covertly, tries to get involved in Ukraine.

Actions speak louder than the words.

God forbid, in order to make West understand...............those actions not be the NUKES !!

West is wise enough !!



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 


NATO is not restricted as to membership, so im not sure where you are getting that NATO must remain at the elbe. there are no armed NATO elements on the ground in Ukraine, where as Russia cant claim that.

Secondly,
At what point do you consider a country sovereign? Those nations that are former republics / east bloc are sovereign and can align / join whomever they wish.

Last I checked no former republic has to obtain permission from Moscow to run their nations as they see fit. Or is it your position that a nation is only sovereign when it agrees with Moscow?

Georgia was not a member of NATO in 2008. the fact Russia got in a snit over a country with 5 tanks speaks volumes about Russian over reaction with military fore instead of diplomacy. It also goes to show that Russia still meddles in the affairs of sovereign nations. again, an action that pushes more nations towards NATO / EU.

Is it acceptable for a foreign nation to take military action in Chechnya / Dagestan to protect those people from Russian brutality and oppression?


Russia is the one who can deescalate this by removing its invasion force, telling the other Russian forces tog o back to the bases in Crimea, and going from there.

What exactly is your problem with that?
edit on 1-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   


I agree, but as I stated Russia holds the cards for de-escalation. Russian actions also have the possibility of creating an atmosphere where former soviet republics will seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Russian aggression / influence / what have you. Even more so if the EU / West do nothing.

Diplomacy only works when all sides engage faithfully. Is that possible?


I believe it is, but I think it will need to come from NATO and the EU first. There needs to be a recognition of Russian interests and the previous agreements which were signed into law by the former Ukrainian government. Russia isn't going to budge without assurances that it's naval base and it's economic interests will be respected. Those assurances also need to be made by the Ukrainian government as well.

I think if that much is done, Russia will be willing to withdraw troops and sit down at the negotiating table. But if the west insists that Russia abandon it's interest on western terms, it will not end well and Russia will refuse to budge. The problem here is that neither side wants to lose face. The west doesn't want to appear soft, and the Russians don't want to send the message that they will not defend their interests.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Some of you sound like the same maniacs Kennedy had to deal with..
" stand up to Russia "
" Send in the navy and watch Putin run "
"Weak Obama stand up to Putin"
I know yanks are addicted to guns and mindless war but... to you comprehend the immaturity and stupidity of your "look at me I'm so tough" drivel?

Crimea is a Russian port where the navy is situated. Russia hasn't made a move on mainland Ukraine or Kiev. There's probably many secrets and possibly nuclear weapons there. So far all Russia has done is protect its strategic naval force.

you all pretend to be tough telling Obama to do something.. what do you want him to do? Do you understand whats at stake if either side acts alk bravado? If Obama threatens then he has to back it up. there isn't much room to move here. Ukraine has traditionally been a Russian outpost since the great patriotic war.

The Russians need to respect the will of Ukraine, I don't doubt that.. but this situation needs to be handled delicately or else stupid fun ho American values risk turning this into a snafu

Calm down children.. Georgia didn't mean ww3 and that was a full on military assault.

Lastly, for the record.. Europe has used the cover of the Olympics to encroach on Russian's borders, it wasn't Russia who did this.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join