Ukraine crisis: US and Russia set for Paris talks :Lavrov Sets out Ukraine as a neautral State as a

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Xcathdra
And for some to constantly blame the west while ignoring Russian actions is a problem.


On this we can agree. It is a problem... just as much as the other way round.

Deny ignorance.




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

ColCurious
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Xcathdra
And for some to constantly blame the west while ignoring Russian actions is a problem.


On this we can agree. It is a problem... just as much as the other way round.

Deny ignorance.


Absolutely both sides have their hands in the pot. My only complaint is the mindset that some have when it comes to how this should be de-escalated.

Further I don't think either, Russia or the US, has any business negotiating over the affairs of a sovereign nation. For Russia to dictate what countries cannot join NATO and for the west / EU / US to dictate in the other direction, without either side talking to Ukraine / other 3rd party nations, is just asinine to Obama epic proportions.

Ukraine's business is their own, and that extends to how they conduct their foreign policy as well as their internal affairs. In the instance of invasion, they should be allowed to request assistance from whomever, per the UN charter.

Russia gets paranoid with NATO members on their borders...
Non aligned nations get paranoid with Russia on their borders...

If you have 3 tanks, and Vlad has 10k tanks, where would you seek support from?



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I have to agree again, especially with the part about meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation.


Xcathdra
If you have 3 tanks, and Vlad has 10k tanks, where would you seek support from?

If I was Ukrainian I'd still prefer my country to remain independent as much as possible. Maybe even funtion as a bridge between east and west. I don't think the West-Ukrainians have realized yet what they're in for with the EU.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   

ColCurious
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I have to agree again, especially with the part about meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation.


Xcathdra
If you have 3 tanks, and Vlad has 10k tanks, where would you seek support from?

If I was Ukrainian I'd still prefer my country to remain independent as much as possible. Maybe even funtion as a bridge between east and west. I don't think the West-Ukrainians have realized yet what they're in for with the EU.


here is the kicker, which goes back to that whole de-escalation issue. Russia floated the idea of breaking up Ukraine by regions and allowing the a federal affiliation type of governance.

Another idea for Ukraine... Another discussion between Russia and the US... Another example of Russia not dealing with Ukraine, but everyone else.

Until Russia decides to recognize the government of Ukraine as lawful, which I don't see them doing since it serves their purpose, all we have right now is a stalling tactic (imo).

btw thanks for letting me rant.. No offense intended towards you.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No worries, none taken.


Xcathdra
Until Russia decides to recognize the government of Ukraine as lawful, which I don't see them doing since it serves their purpose, all we have right now is a stalling tactic (imo).


As far as I know/remember, Russia offered not to admit the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation as a new constituent region, if we had considered the new leadership in Kiev as illegitimate. That was before facts were made of course.

Fact is, both actions were against international law.
It is a stalemate situation indeed, which is why I continuously advocate that all sides have to return to the table and negotiate from a position of equality.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 

The Liberal West? You can't be serious. To become part of the EU? That would be like taking a sovereign county and giving it the powers of self determination of an Australian State. I'm not saying Putin offers any different of a deal to the UKraine, but the EU isn't free. It is a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. One thing I can say for Putin is to remember how he handled that Syrian mess with the WMD. While Obama and Kerry tried to drag the US into another war, Putin intervened, arranged to have the Syrians disarmed of it, and bailed us out of more wasted Western money and blood. Whatever his motives, lately Putin has represented the interests of the West better than our leaders did. From the Syrian mess, if there is one thing we should have learned is to not trust the motives of our own leadership in such matters.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 

You bet! Keep it as a place where they are pitted against each other, and in that competition, the Ukrainians win economically.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

ColCurious
As far as I know/remember, Russia offered not to admit the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation as a new constituent region, if we had considered the new leadership in Kiev as illegitimate. That was before facts were made of course.


Had the west taken that offer, in addition to Crimea, the remainder of Ukraine would have also been taken under the guise of restoring the former President.

So while the offer appears genuine, in reality its anything but.

Putin is going to rebuild the Soviet Empire, one sham election at a time.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Xcathdra
Had the west taken that offer, in addition to Crimea, the remainder of Ukraine would have also been taken under the guise of restoring the former President.

Maybe. Which also would have been against international law.
Same law that has been violated throughout (at least) the last two decades.


Xcathdra
Putin is going to rebuild the Soviet Empire, one sham election at a time.

I know that this is your opinion, which you're entitled to have ofc... but this rhetoric doesn't really help to solve the problem.
I say back to the facts. Back to the legal framework that was established after WWII for good reasons.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

ColCurious
I know that this is your opinion, which you're entitled to have ofc... but this rhetoric doesn't really help to solve the problem.
I say back to the facts. Back to the legal framework that was established after WWII for good reasons.



I get what you are saying, however there are some areas I don't agree with.

The problem with using that framework is it undermines every single claim made by Russia (then the Soviet Union). At the Potsdam conference, the big 3 planned out the rebuilding of Europe, which required the occupying nations to return government control back to the people.

While the west complied, the Soviet Union did not, resulting in he occupation of eastern Europe / Baltic states / central Asian countries for more than 60 years.

When native peoples are forcibly removed from their land / homes and they are replaced with say Russians, exactly how does one weigh the validity of the claims? Why should Russia / Putin be able to threaten nations simply because during the Soviet years Russians moved to those occupied nations? This is what I'm referring to as well by sham referendums.

As an American, if I were to move to Canada or Britain and all of a sudden decided to gather up all the other Americans and decide to hold a referendum to break away from Canada or Britain, demanding the land and special recognition, would it be valid?

The answer is no.

This is what occurred in Crimea, albeit the transition occurred under an armed military presence, which again adds another level of issues to the overall situation. For those who want to try and make a difference between Russian military and Self defense force - save it. Had it not been for German Hessians Great Britain might have lost the colonies earlier than they did. The fact those groups were German is irrelevant since they were supported / paid for by the crown. A point people like to point out time and again with regards to the US and other foreign nations.

The facts are:
* - Ukraine was a sovereign nation before they were invaded by the Russians back in the 1700/1800's.
* - The Soviet Union handed Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950's.
* - The Soviet Union gave up all claims to Crimea at the fall of the Soviet Union.
* - Putin is homesick for the days of the Soviet Union.

The way to resolve the situation would be for Russia to immediately nullify their annexation, withdraw all military units, whether they are in uniform or not in uniform. Russia should abide by their treaty stipulations with Ukraine about military units in the black sea / Crimea. Russia should immediately withdraw all forces from the border of Ukraine (which includes East Ukraine, South Ukraine, in addition to Russian forces inside Transnistria).

Russia needs to stop complicating the situation by using the Ukraine constitution to support their position only to ignore it when it does not support their position.

Russia needs to withdraw their provocateurs operating in the south and east Ukraine.
Russia needs to quit pushing a federation style government at Ukraine (Ironically the hypocrisy coming from Putin / Russia on that topic is hilarious, and they are to ignorant to see it). I find it hypocritical for Russia to lecture Ukraine on what type of government would work best while maintaining the bs position of it should be handled internally by Ukraine. Personally I think what they mean by that, handled internally by Ukraine, is as long as Ukraine complies with Russias wishes, its coming from inside Ukraine. If Ukraine tells Russia to piss off, which they should, Russia will run the other direction screaming how their "ethnic Germans.... err Russians" are in danger to justify another land grab.

Ukraine should not be forced to have to choose between the west / EU and Russia. As a sovereign nation they should be able to associate with whatever country they choose, without any repercussions from any side.

Russia and the US need to stop carving up the globe into what nations are allowed to work with the west / Russia.

There is absolutely no reason Ukraine could not have had relations both both groups.

What I can tell you for sure is an armed invasion by Russia does nothing to resolve the situation. Making comments about restoring the former soviet Union does not help the situation either. This is not the end of World War II, and there are fromer east bloc nations who will fight before being returned to that style of occupation again.

I think Putin is making a huge miscalculation and its going to bite him in the ass, so bad in fact that his actions will leave absolutely no wiggle room for him to have an escape option. He seems 100% committed to running his version of the "George Armstrong Custer" doctrine, making him extremely dangerous.

When a person commits to an action and does not build in any contingencies on the off chance the plans fail, they are extremely dangerous. It means they are 100% committed to their action, whether it succeeds or fails. It means they are willing to sacrifice everything to achieve the goal. In this case Putin is gambling the lives of Russia Citizen's in an effort to restore the past that has already failed.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good post - also with a few areas I don't agree with, but we agree about the important part: the fate of Ukraine - for the Ukrainians, not anybody else.

Maybe I should clarify again that I'm in no way pro-Russian, nor pro-Putin (I have to admit though that our bureaucrats look like schoolboys compared to that KGB-agent) I'm just not pro-NATO, either.

Regarding de-escalation:
As I said before, NATO/US/EU are in no position to point fingers at Russia, nor demand anything.
International laws either apply to all, or to none, and we violated said laws.
If we agree rules apply, all sides have to sit down and talk serious.
If not - all bets are off and all is fair game.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

ColCurious
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good post - also with a few areas I don't agree with, but we agree about the important part: the fate of Ukraine - for the Ukrainians, not anybody else.

Maybe I should clarify again that I'm in no way pro-Russian, nor pro-Putin (I have to admit though that our bureaucrats look like schoolboys compared to that KGB-agent) I'm just not pro-NATO, either.

Regarding de-escalation:
As I said before, NATO/US/EU are in no position to point fingers at Russia, nor demand anything.
International laws either apply to all, or to none, and we violated said laws.
If we agree rules apply, all sides have to sit down and talk serious.
If not - all bets are off and all is fair game.


Good points...

I guess the question about law violations is contingent on which side is doing it and the purpose / facts behind the action. In all the years I've done law enforcement I have found laws exist for a reason, and that discretion is required when comparing a law to the actions that violated the law.

As an example under the UN charter Russia can argue their actions inside Crimea are required and were requested by the government of Ukraine (Former President Yanukovych). Using the same criteria and UN charter, Ukraine / the west can make the exact same argument in reverse. It brings us to the Latter of the law verse the Spirit of the law.

A person doing 75mph in a 55mph zone warrants a traffic stop. The reason for the speed was a medical emergency. While the letter of the law states the speed is this and they were doing that = violation, the spirit of the law must acknowledge that the speed limit is there for a reason, but it does not take into account an emergency.

The US has been taken to task time and again over our actions and I have no issues with that. I would much rather have nations that feel comfortable telling the US they disagree with our actions rather than stay quiet out of fear we might retaliate (which is what I am seeing with Russia).

Does NATO serve a purpose? I believe so yes.
Did NATO invite Russia to join? Yes and they refused because they were not granted special exemptions.

To look at the legitimacy of NATO I think one has to look at it from its beginning to today. The original intent was to counter the Soviet Union after WWII (because they violated the Potsdam agreement's but I digress
). After the collapse of the Soviet Union it took more and more of a backseat to other things going on, and I am ok with that. I would much rather see an alliance fall into disuse than engage in its intended purpose.

If NATO did not exist, do you think the Iron curtain would have been a lot father west?
I would rather have 28 nations form an alliance of mutual self defense, which alone kept the status quo against the Soviet Union / Russia since the end of WWII, and not be used. If its not used, then it served its purpose. Even now we are seeing the benefit's (Baltic states / Poland).

As for sitting down and talking, we have done that and it went nowhere. Russia is determined to apply their strategy to re-acquire former Soviet Empire territory by any means necessary. Its difficult to resolve the situation in Ukraine being Russia refuses to acknowledge the government.

That brings us back to the scenario of Putin taking land that does not belong to them and the EU / West deciding where exactly to draw the line and stop Russia.

However, Russia has all the cards so they are the ones who need to make the first move (imo anyways).

As a Side note I was not inferring you supported Russia or her actions. You have a better grasp on what's occurring than most and you are willing to engage in debate using logic and common sense while not making it personal. I appreciate that very much btw so thank you.

How far should Putin be allowed to go before he is called out and confronted?
edit on 3-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Xcathdra
reply to post by rigel4
 


Absolutely not... Only Ukraine can determine their future, which includes who they choose to ally with. Even more so with all the other BS Putin has going on in the East / South Ukraine and well as Moldova and the latest comments about Finland. Telling Ukraine they cant join NATO while there are 60-80 thousand Russian troops on the border is, again, a choice with a gun held to their head.

I think the NATO issue is coming up because it will throw his time table off. As a member of NATO Putin will have to do whatever it is he is going to do prior to the join date.

I say bring Ukraine into NATO immediately and deploy troops to Ukraine to protect against further Russian aggression.
edit on 30-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-3-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



Are you completely off your rocker? Getting Ukraine to join NATO immediately
and then deploying troops is a major major escalation.
I was tongue in cheek about China... this ,what you're suggesting
is sheer madness.

Just as well you have no power.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


Since Russia is refusing to back down, and Ukraine is a sovereign nation, why not? There are only 2 options for a resolution to this mess - Russia backs down or they don't and continue to grab land from their neighbors.

Personally speaking I don't want war, but at what point is a line drawn?

Ukraine met the qualifications to join NATO in 2010. They never went through with it for their own reasons, and that's fine.

So far Russia has only gone after a non nato country. How long will that last?

So on, im not off my rocker. I just have no desire to see the appeasement doctrine played again. 50 million deaths was quite enough.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It actually against NATO rules to allow members to join who have
dispute with their neighbors.

So that ends that really.. doesn't it.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yes, NATO serves a purpose: the purpose of a defensive alliance.
I just don't agree with their stance in context of this current crisis.


Xcathdra
I guess the question about law violations is contingent on which side is doing it and the purpose / facts behind the action. In all the years I've done law enforcement I have found laws exist for a reason, and that discretion is required when comparing a law to the actions that violated the law.

I have to mention beforehand that I'm not very knowledgeable about applicable US law, but what you stated here is interesting.

If you'd ask a judge in Germany if a theft of noble motive is not a theft in comparison to a theft of non-, or lesser-noble motive, he will tell you that it stays a theft.
In general, rules must apply regardless of however moral the motives might be, because the inner motive cannot be proven in legally relevant terms (very few exceptions prove the rule, like legitimate self-defence).

Being LEO, you know this is a very delicate issue. It is even more declicate in context of international laws because: through violation of international law - by habitual law - you can alter the applicable international law (!!!)

Precedents and practice are very, very dangerous when it comes to nuclear superpowers.

I think what we're currently witnessing is the era of consequences, following the age of precedents... I'm thinking about making a thread about this.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Sounds good to me if both NATO and Russia agree to keep out of the Ukraine and make it a type of DMZ but even if they do the people are still in for a fight because half the public did not agree with the government being removed at the point of a gun and cannot suport the nazi's that helped to take over.

Public sector wages cut by 65%, Pension by 50% and gas prices up by 50% would ensure riots in any country and the kicker to this is that wages went up in the Crimea along with pensions after they voted to join Russia.

Russia should stop moving it's continental plates closer to all them missile systems that Americans keep placing all over Europe if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   

VirusGuard
Sounds good to me if both NATO and Russia agree to keep out of the Ukraine and make it a type of DMZ but even if they do the people are still in for a fight because half the public did not agree with the government being removed at the point of a gun and cannot suport the nazi's that helped to take over.


Which is why the general consensus among the bulk of nations that Russia's actions in Crimea were not lawful. The only way to resolve the issue would be for the Nazis in Crimea to withdraw and return control back to Ukraine. Since that will most likely not happen, and since Ukraine is going to hold military maneuvers with NATO, here we are....




VirusGuard
Public sector wages cut by 65%, Pension by 50% and gas prices up by 50% would ensure riots in any country and the kicker to this is that wages went up in the Crimea along with pensions after they voted to join Russia.

Yet Crimean's are upset because those promised increases have not occurred yet. Care to tell them when they will see those increases?




VirusGuard
Russia should stop moving it's continental plates closer to all them missile systems that Americans keep placing all over Europe if you ask me.

Tell me, which countries currently have missile systems in place? I am really curious as to what your answer will be since the plans never went forward as Obama canceled them. Remember the conversation between Obama and Medyev and the "I'll have more wiggle room in my second term".

If you guys actually did research instead of parroting the Russian propaganda you would know the points you are trying to use here are in fact non existent.

The missile shield was redeveloped and applied to naval vessels. The continued claims of stationary missiles in Europe are, like Russia's justification in Crimea, propaganda geared towards those who are told what to think, rather than reaching the conclusions on their own after doing their own research.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   

ColCurious
Yes, NATO serves a purpose: the purpose of a defensive alliance.
I just don't agree with their stance in context of this current crisis.

If I may - why not? Ukraine does have a sovereign right, not to mention the UN charter, to request assistance from any nation / group / alliance. The incidents occurring in Ukraine via Russia do represent a fundamental shift in Russia foreign policy, specifically geared towards the west / EU / NATO.

While those shifts are geared towards NATO, notice the path Russia is currently taking.
* - Ukraine
* - Finland
* - Belarus
* - Moldova

All nations that are currently experiencing Russian focus (Belarus as an ally of Russia), none of them NATO alliance members. Theoretically speaking once done with those nations and all that is left is the EU / NATO nations. So while Russia is free to run its own affairs as they see fit, so does every other nation / group - including NATO.



ColCurious
I have to mention beforehand that I'm not very knowledgeable about applicable US law, but what you stated here is interesting.

My comment was not meant as invoking US law into an international situation. I brought it up because its never as black and white as people see it / think it should be.

A better example might this -
Husband and wife are in their house and the husband starts having massive medical issues. The wife calls their doctor, who lives a few blocks away. The doctor knows the medical history of the patient, but there is no time to go to his office across town to retrieve the medication needed. He stops at a closed pharmacy a block from his patient's house. He breaks the window, goes inside and obtains the medication needed. He heads to the house, gives the medicine and saves the mans life.

Fundamentally - the doctor broke several laws.
In reality - A window is broken and a life is saved.




ColCurious
If you'd ask a judge in Germany if a theft of noble motive is not a theft in comparison to a theft of non-, or lesser-noble motive, he will tell you that it stays a theft.
In general, rules must apply regardless of however moral the motives might be, because the inner motive cannot be proven in legally relevant terms (very few exceptions prove the rule, like legitimate self-defence).

Being LEO, you know this is a very delicate issue. It is even more declicate in context of international laws because: through violation of international law - by habitual law - you can alter the applicable international law (!!!)

International law is a problem because frankly, the bulk of it does not exist yet. International law is a noble cause. Guidelines established that applies to the conduct of nations. However, you will notice that every single country on this planet has their own national laws that can and do preempt international law, the US included.

The Europeans created a doctrine called universal jurisdiction when changes were made to the International Criminal Court system. The change allows nations to take direct action inside of a sovereign nation if the government of that nation refuses to take action on their own. While the concept seems noble, it can actually be argued that Russia is doing just that inside Crimea based on their argument of "ethnic Russians" being attacked by locals.

Now - See the issue in the application?
Secondly, if you read the charter of the ICC it can only be applied to nations who adopted and ratified the ICC treaty. It is prohibited from being enforced on a nation that is not a member of the ICC.

Having this information, can anyone explain to me how the ICC is able to prosecute several African leaders for crimes against humanity when they are in fact not members of the ICC?

Do you think Europe would be ok with an African country going after European leaders fro crimes they committed during colonial actions inside the African continent?

See the issue?



ColCurious
Precedents and practice are very, very dangerous when it comes to nuclear superpowers.

A nation does not have to have nuclear weapons to be very very dangerous. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are examples of that. To be honest, I am not concerned with the actions of nations who have large nuclear weapon stockpiles. The countries I am concerned with are the ones who only want a few. Those nations, where the mindset is all we need is to set one off, is what scares the hell out of me. The mindset of those nations are such that they are not using them to win any war, but to inflict as much damage on a people / religious group, secondary casualties be damned.



ColCurious
I think what we're currently witnessing is the era of consequences, following the age of precedents... I'm thinking about making a thread about this.

It would be an interesting thread.. If you do it let me know, I would like to participate if that's ok.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

rigel4
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It actually against NATO rules to allow members to join who have
dispute with their neighbors.

So that ends that really.. doesn't it.


I am under the impression they could join but could not invoke anything alliance based. Secondly, they are not prohibited from responding to a request for assistance.

If Russia opts for Charlemagne doctrine and rolls into Ukraine, while targeting other areas where "ethnic Russians" are, do you really expect NATO to remain quiet? While Russia may not be attacking a NATO member, the threat to NATO exist by those actions. At some point they will see a resurgent Russia on their borders. I doubt Europe is eager to try appeasement again, since it did not work out well for them the first go around.
edit on 4-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join