Over 123% of Sevastopol residents vote to join Russia!

reply to post by shappy


Do some more research on Ukraine please.

Ukraine approached NATO about membership. In 2010 Ukraine met all requirements to become a full member of NATO, and the Ukrainian government declined (as is their right).

Provided nothing has changed, there would be no reason not to allow Ukraine into NATO as a full member.

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

Ukraine have treaties with NATO countries like the US and Britain, a nuclear arms referendum at that. NATO should indeed respond and it is likely eventually they will.

Yes, they do, the Budapest memorandum. That has NOTHING to do with NATO directly, being a NATO member does not give NATO carte blance to meddle in other countries, unless of course, a NATO member is attacked.

NATO have not went into Ukraine, for that very reason, they have no grounds to go there. Simply having their future plans derailed is not grounds to do so.

Those agreements are between those individual countries, not NATO.

reply to post by shappy


This vote was a lot like the vote in north korea, whereby there is only one check box that says Mother Russia.

Xcathdra

shappy
I doubt their non participation in the election would have caused the decision to go the other way anyway.

You and Putin just don't get it do you.. Every time Putin gest caught and cant defend an action, his supporters just dismiss it. You do understand that outside of Russia, people are intelligent and are not just going to take the explanation, that it would not matter with the numbers, as adequate.

It means the election was a farce...
The controls in place to permit those who could vote was a farce.
The controls in place to prevent people who could not vote from voting is a farce.

To expect the world to just accept that BS and move on is insane..

We are expected to accept it and move on when they do the same kind of stuff here in the US ,so why worry about what is going on over there ?
The US needs to fix its own broken system before we can criticise any others for theirs .

shappy

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

Then why are they asking for NATO?

They can ask but they are not getting because Ukraine is not a NATO member and Ukraine is not even close to becoming a NATO member.

It is also obvious that NATO had plans to get Ukraine into Nato to be on the Russian border. Now that is not so smooth for them.

However, as it stands currently, NATO cannot do anything with Ukraine and should not. That is why they are not doing anything in Ukraine.

edit on 17-3-2014 by shappy because: (no reason given)

Why isn't it so smooth?

Turkey and Russia share a border. Oh and Turkey is a NATO member.

reply to post by shappy


Okay let me break it down for you, it was a NATO treaty, as in sponsored and backed by NATO.

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

Okay let me break it down for you, it was a NATO treaty, as in sponsored and backed by NATO.

Can you show me NATO's signiture on it, Please correct me because I have not seen NATO's signiture on it.


Since I have been asked for sources to my claims earlier, I expect the same in return.

Xcathdra
reply to post by shappy

 

Do some more research on Ukraine please.

Ukraine approached NATO about membership. In 2010 Ukraine met all requirements to become a full member of NATO, and the Ukrainian government declined (as is their right).

Provided nothing has changed, there would be no reason not to allow Ukraine into NATO as a full member.

They should have joined in 2010 then. That is their failure. And now, they see the repercussions of that decision. No NATO assistance. if they joined, Russia would not have entered Crimea.

They made a bad choice (or good choice depending on whom you ask ), and now they end up in this mess. No point in crying over spilled milk now.

reply to post by shappy


www.nato.int...

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

www.nato.int...

I asked for their agreement on the Budapest memorandum that was claimed they where signiture to, not a press release calling Ukraine a "valued partner". There is a reason NATO chose the words "valued partner" and nothing else. The semantic meaning is clear as day. If they were obliged to assist Ukraine, they would have done so otherwise NATO risks members losing faith in NATO.

Show me the Budapest memorandum that NATO signed

reply to post by alldaylong

Nato bombed the crap out of Libya too but how did they do that legally ? and why? Oh yea peaceful protesters with RPG's and 50 cal.machine guns .

reply to post by shappy


You have mistook something I said, you are the one who cited the Budapest Memorandum however I was referring not only to that agreement but to the seperate agreements that Russia has with nato itself.

"Russian Federation is a breach of international law and contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Russia must respect its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the spirit and principles of the OSCE, on which peace and stability in Europe rest. We call on Russia to de-escalate tensions.

We call upon the Russian Federation to honor its international commitments, including those set out in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine of 1997, and the legal framework regulating the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, to withdraw its forces to its bases, and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine. We urge both parties to immediately seek a peaceful resolution through bilateral dialogue, with international facilitation, as appropriate, and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)."

reply to post by Xcathdra


Here'swhat I don't get about what your saying. WHY?. I say this. The MICROSECOND that the EU was formed the U.S. should have said "Awesome. Glad you guys got this. We're OUT of NATO" as a matter of fact, it begs the question, why even keep NATO? I mean NATO has it's headquarters in Belgium and like right across the street is the EU headquarters? Last time I checked, the USA is NOWHERE near Europe. So why is the U.S. still in NATO? Think of all the money we could be saving? And Europeans hate us anyway (Feeling is definitely mutual) so why even bother with those people? and the Ukrainians can have OUR place in NATO! that would work for them right? and that way, when all the butchering starts in Europe as "Ivan" starts grabbing more and more of the old WARSAW PACT countries (Hate to live in one of those places, commies have long memories, and carry a grudge almost as well as the British do!) Yeah. The U.S. should tell Europe and NATO to pack sand. What have they ever done for us? NOTHING! Good riddance to bad rubbish !

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

You have mistook something I said, you are the one who cited the Budapest Memorandum however I was referring not only to that agreement but to the seperate agreements that Russia has with nato itself.

"Russian Federation is a breach of international law and contravenes the principles of the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace. Russia must respect its obligations under the United Nations Charter and the spirit and principles of the OSCE, on which peace and stability in Europe rest. We call on Russia to de-escalate tensions.

We call upon the Russian Federation to honor its international commitments, including those set out in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine of 1997, and the legal framework regulating the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, to withdraw its forces to its bases, and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in Ukraine. We urge both parties to immediately seek a peaceful resolution through bilateral dialogue, with international facilitation, as appropriate, and through the dispatch of international observers under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)."

Not at all, I understood it very clearly and made my point very clearly.

It was CLAIMED that NATO was supporting this treaty, as in SIGNITURE AGREEING to it, I know what backing means, you mean they encouraged some countries to sign it, but did not sign it themselves, this is exactly why you will not see NATO acting on Ukraine outside of press releases citing verbage to Ukraine as a valued partner. They are not members, they are not signitory to any memorandum and have no obligation to assist Ukraine, and CANNOT assist Ukraine due to this.

Otherwise, NATO would have acted already. It was clear as day when I saw the press announcement from NATO then silence.

NATO chose their words carefully because that is all they could do, try to dress up the words to be strong and all they could come up with was "valued partner".

reply to post by shappy


You still don't get it, the problem is Russia not Ukraine.

What are they going to do about RUSSIA. WHO IS BREAKING AGREEMENTS LEFT AND RIGHT.

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

You still don't get it, the problem is Russia not Ukraine.

What are they going to do about RUSSIA. WHO IS BREAKING AGREEMENTS LEFT AND RIGHT.

Please. enlighten me, so it was claimed that NATO had to act in Ukraine, I simply asked for the treaty that they are obliged to act, then, oh no, it was all then a missunderstanding when it was realised that NATO in fact are NOT signitory to the said agreement. Not at all. I am very clear about it.

tencap77
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Here'swhat I don't get about what your saying. WHY?. I say this. The MICROSECOND that the EU was formed the U.S. should have said "Awesome. Glad you guys got this. We're OUT of NATO" as a matter of fact, it begs the question, why even keep NATO? I mean NATO has it's headquarters in Belgium and like right across the street is the EU headquarters? Last time I checked, the USA is NOWHERE near Europe. So why is the U.S. still in NATO? Think of all the money we could be saving? And Europeans hate us anyway (Feeling is definitely mutual) so why even bother with those people? and the Ukrainians can have OUR place in NATO! that would work for them right? and that way, when all the butchering starts in Europe as "Ivan" starts grabbing more and more of the old WARSAW PACT countries (Hate to live in one of those places, commies have long memories, and carry a grudge almost as well as the British do!) Yeah. The U.S. should tell Europe and NATO to pack sand. What have they ever done for us? NOTHING! Good riddance to bad rubbish !

edit on 3172014 by tencap77 because: Spelling.

What has Europe ever do for The US?

Lets start with Europeans founding The US in the first place.

Oh the irony.

Xcathdra
Over 123% of Sevastopol residents vote to join Russia!

Where have I seen that statistic?..

That's right!.. It's the same as Putin's approval rating in Russia /sarcasm

reply to post by shappy


True, only the most powerful members of NATO signed this agreement, I was wrong I admit it.

It was not backed by NATO, however should NATO respond in UKRAINE? Is RUSSIA breaking international law, and seperate NATO agreements it has signed? Yes, did RUSSIA sign treaties with UKRAINE? Yes, did RUSSIA sign agreements and treaties with NATO?

Yes, I apologize for being misinformed earlier.

Darolla
reply to post by shappy

 

True, only the most powerful members of NATO signed this agreement, I was wrong I admit it.

It was not backed by NATO, however should NATO respond in UKRAINE? Is RUSSIA breaking international law, and seperate NATO agreements it has signed? Yes, did RUSSIA sign treaties with UKRAINE? Yes, did RUSSIA sign agreements and treaties with NATO?

Yes, I apologize for being misinformed earlier.

Here we are, back to the same argument, going in circles. NATO MEMBERS, SO WHAT. That means nothing. NATO did not sign it.

Being a NATO member does not give NATO carte blance to the agreements signed by members. Those agreements are between those signitory to the agreements signed. Since NATO did not sign it representing NATO, but rather, representing the country of the signiture, not NATO. You keep coming back to this well, a NATO member signed it so it must mean NATO agreeed to it, that is very dangerious and false thinking.