Russian armor heading towards border with Ukraine - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15165417
noemon wrote:Balkan countries are all, over 90% homogeneous after the fall of Yugoslavia as is the Ukraine. Hardly what anyone would call unstable.

I think you may mean the Baltics, rather than the Balkans.



Homogeneity does not translate to satisfied. Nor does homogeneity mean age old claims have simply been forgotten. They are on ice. If armed why would Serbs not quickly recall what they believe should be their natural frontiers? Flooding Ukraine with arms to take on Russians is also fraught with risks. It has to be seriously considered that Russia may also slip arms to other areas outside Ukraine.

And let us not forget the Turks? They may like a piece of Greece in the ensuring chaos.
#15165420
Juin wrote:Homogeneity does not translate to satisfied. Nor does homogeneity mean age old claims have simply been forgotten. They are on ice. If armed why would Serbs not quickly recall what they believe should be their natural frontiers? Flooding Ukraine with arms to take on Russians is also fraught with risks. It has to be seriously considered that Russia may also slip arms to other areas outside Ukraine.

And let us not forget the Turks? They may like a piece of Greece in the ensuring chaos.


What other areas outside Ukraine? :eh:

I think it's funny when people confuse a word and then instead of saying, yeap sorry they opt to double-down.

I think if anyone has to worry about instability is Israel a lot more than Greece or the Balkan countries.

Juin wrote:I am not sure how Russia is to blame for the developments.


You are saying that Russia has the right to invade any country making the democratic decision to join NATO. :roll:

It doesn't. And the rationale is not rational in any way.
#15165423
B0ycey wrote:Why is it in our interest to supply Ukraine with weapons. Or is it the same interest for Russia who supply Donbass rebels with arms I wonder?

The Ukraine is a divided country. Where and why the fighting is occurring its because the people there want to be part of Russia not Ukraine. So what would indeed be in our best interest would be to divide the country into two. Russia would of course accept that. We wouldn't. But ultimately that is the only solution to this conflict. So perhaps you haven't learnt anything actually. You just repeat the same US line they use for every conflict. War is peace and freedom blah blah blah.



I agree with you. I see no US interest in flooding Ukraine with weapons. But even more, I am baffled by the little attention being paid to the consequences of both powers flooding Ukraine with arms- US to ethnic Ukrainians, and Russia to ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Will all those arms end up only in Ukraine, or will they find themselves to other spots there?

And what is so sacrosanct about Ukrainian territorial integrity? Ukraine is today independent because Russian territorial integrity was never considered sacrosanct. If Ukrainians, as a minority under Russian domination, are entitled to their own independence, then why should Russian minorities under Ukrainian domination not also have the right to independence?

I get the impression independence is legitimate only if it is from Russian domination, but is never legitimate if it is by minority Russians from Ukrainian domination.
#15165425
Juin wrote:I agree with you. I see no US interest in flooding Ukraine with weapons. But even more, I am baffled by the little attention being paid to the consequences of both powers flooding Ukraine with arms- US to ethnic Ukrainians, and Russia to ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Will all those arms end up only in Ukraine, or will they find themselves to other spots there?

And what is so sacrosanct about Ukrainian territorial integrity? Ukraine is today independent because Russian territorial integrity was never considered sacrosanct. If Ukrainians, as a minority under Russian domination, are entitled to their own independence, then why should Russian minorities under Ukrainian domination not also have the right to independence?

I get the impression independence is legitimate only if it is from Russian domination, but is never legitimate if it is by minority Russians from Ukrainian domination.


The right to self-determination applies to all people, including the Russians. The sham non-sense organised by an official dictatorship who illegally invaded a foreign country for no proper reason are not it, however.

I am not going to blame the Ukraine for trying to recover its own national sovereign territory. I think all nations have the right & duty to protect their national boundaries. They are not the aggressors here. Russia is and she should withdraw from the Ukraine.
#15165426
noemon wrote:You are saying that Russia has the right to invade any country making the democratic decision to join NATO. :roll:

It doesn't. And the rationale is not rational in any way.




It is not a uniquely Russian right. I recall that in the early sixties Fidel Castro was under the impression that he had a "democratic" right to have the Soviet Union deploy nukes on its territory; if I recall right, the US demonstrated that there is no such a thing as a "democratic" right to invite an enemy to deploy nukes off the US.

If a country wants to be part of a military alliance then it better make sure the military alliance it is joining is prepared to defend it against those who object to that alliance. The fact of the matter is Nato, as a matter of policy, accepts only applicants who do not bring on board baggages, or interests and conflicts bound to drag Nato in.
#15165427
Juin wrote:It is not a uniquely Russian right. I recall that in the early sixties Fidel Castro was under the impression that he had a "democratic" right to have the Soviet Union deploy nukes on its territory; if I recall right, the US demonstrated that there is no such a thing as a "democratic" right to invite an enemy to deploy nukes off the US.

If a country wants to be part of a military alliance then it better make sure the military alliance it is joining is prepared to defend it against those who object to that alliance. The fact of the matter is Nato, as a matter of policy, accepts only applicants who do not bring on board baggages, or interests and conflicts bound to drag Nato in.


NATO is stationed in all the Baltic and Balkan countries bordering Russia.

The NATO excuse for Russia to invade & occupy Ukraine is really poor.
#15165429
noemon wrote:The right to self-determination applies to all people, including the Russians. The sham non-sense organised by an official dictatorship who illegally invaded a foreign country for no proper reason are not it, however.

I am not going to blame the Ukraine for trying to recover its own national sovereign territory. I think all nations have the right & duty to protect their national boundaries. They are not the aggressors here. Russia is and she should withdraw from the Ukraine.




You have not explained to me why Crimean and Donbass Russians do not have the right to reject being part of Ukraine. They are not asking for themselves considerations that Ukrainians have not also availed themselves. Ukrainians didnt want to be dominated by Russians, so they asked for and got independence. Except, and in their turn, the Ukrainians find themselves with minority ethnic Russians who dont want to be part of Ukraine. It will seem to me hypocritic of Ukraine to reject Russian domination while insisting on their own domination over ethnic minority Russians
#15165434
Juin wrote:You have not explained to me why Crimean and Donbass Russians do not have the right to reject being part of Ukraine. They are not asking for themselves considerations that Ukrainians have not also availed themselves. Ukrainians didnt want to be dominated by Russians, so they asked for and got independence. Except, and in their turn, the Ukrainians find themselves with minority ethnic Russians who dont want to be part of Ukraine. It will seem to me hypocritic of Ukraine to reject Russian domination while insisting on their own domination over ethnic minority Russians


Crimean and Donbass Russians have no more rights than the Ukrainians and others in those territories.

If they want to do that, they can do that properly via elections, via a referendum organised in a time of peace so that people understand their choices instead of fomenting war and tagging along Russian aggression & irredentism.

Juin wrote:Nato is not yet stationed in Ukraine, why should Russia allow that to happen?


NATO is stationed everywhere, in all of Russia's European borders making the Ukraine totally irrelevant to NATO and proving beyond any doubt that the excuse is totally ridiculous.

Besides, Russia has no right to tell anyone who they will be allied with.
#15165435
Juin wrote:Nato is not yet stationed in Ukraine, why should Russia allow that to happen?
Because the Ukraine is a foreign sovereign country. Russia has no right to dictate their policy, or politics.

@noemon's statement is correct, as well. What makes Ukraine being part of NATO such a big deal unless it's simply because then Russia can't take more of the Ukraine?
#15165437
noemon wrote:Crimean and Donbass Russians have no more rights than the Ukrainians and others in those territories.

If they want to do that, they can do that properly via elections, via a referendum organised in a time of peace so that people understand their choices instead of fomenting war and tagging along Russian aggression & irredentism.




Why should Crimean and Donbass Russians play by different rules from Kiev Ukrainians? There was a democratically elected government in Kiev, which government was pro Russian, which did not sit well with the more radical Ukrainians. And what did the ethnic Kievan Ukrainians do? They violently, in the so called Maidan revolution, evicted that government.

Is what is good for ethnic Ukrainians not also good for ethnic Ukrainian Russians?
#15165438
Politics_Observer wrote:@Suchard

Ukraine is no match for Russia without American financial assistance and weapons. I have a very good grip on the situation. Just because Russia is a Goliath and Ukraine is a small less powerful country, doesn't mean that Ukraine can't beat Russia. We have also made a commitment to Ukraine and a commitment is a commitment. We should send plenty of money and weapons to Ukraine to assist them in defending their territorial integrity. I think the U.S. should sell the Ukrainians the weapons they need to take back Donbass AND Crimea from the Russians by the use of force. The Ukrainians need to wait and be patient for the opportune time to strike the Russians.

That all being said, the Russians took Crimea because of the naval port, but this is an opportunity for the US given that the Russia has decided to go into Ukraine and it's an opportunity for the Ukrainians to take back territory that the Russians stole from them. Crimea and Donbass belong to Ukraine and the Ukrainians have every right and should wait patiently to take back that territory through the use of force. And honestly, and I really mean this, this is no joke, especially with Biden in office and Trump being gone, if I were the Russians, I would stay on constant alert and never let my guard down because the minute they do, they could be facing a Ukrainian military attack in the land they stole from Ukraine backed with U.S. assistance. I think the U.S. should keep the money and military support pouring into the Ukrainians.

Forgive me, P_O, but it would take a lot more than American money and weapons for Ukraine to smash the Russian Federation. I cannot understand how anyone could seriously make such a claim. Who do you think will be doing the fighting?

Image
Ukrainian boys

Secondly, the ethnic populations of Crimea and Donbass is Russian, not Ukrainian. Ukraine could not hold any territory it attempted to take from Mother Russia. It will not happen. Filling the heads of Ukrainian children that the old anti-Russian nationalism is quite unforgivable.
#15165441
Juin wrote:Why should Crimean and Donbass Russians play by different rules from Kiev Ukrainians? There was a democratically elected government in Kiev, which government was pro Russian, which did not sit well with the more radical Ukrainians. And what did the ethnic Kievan Ukrainians do? They violently, in the so called Maidan revolution, evicted that government.
Is what is good for ethnic Ukrainians not also good for ethnic Ukrainian Russians?


This is utter nonsense. Euromaidan was a political protest, not an armed separatist movement. Ukrainians decided to trade with the EU, that is not a reason for Russia to invade the country, nor is it a reason that justifies Russia's participation in the separatist movement in the Ukraine.

Al Jazzera wrote:Merkel urges Putin to pull troops back from Ukraine border
German Chancellor calls on the Kremlin to unwind military build-up ‘in order to de-escalate’ the situation in Donbas.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday to pull back a military build-up near the country’s border with Ukraine amid heightened tensions in the conflict-stricken Donbas region.

Ukrainian government troops have battled Russian-backed separatists in the country’s eastern Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which form part of Donbas, since the rebels seized a swath of territory there in April 2014.

Fears of an escalation in hostilities have mounted in recent weeks, with Ukraine raising the alarm about an increase in Russian forces along the countries’ shared border and renewed front-line clashes.

“The Chancellor demanded that this build-up be unwound in order to de-escalate the situation,” Germany’s government said in a readout of a telephone call between Merkel and Putin.

The Kremlin, for its part, said in its readout of the phone call that “Vladimir Putin noted provocative actions by Kyiv which is deliberately inflaming the situation along the line of contact”.

Also on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the United States was discussing Russian troop movements with its NATO allies.

“Russia now has more troops on the border with Ukraine than at any time since 2014,” Psaki told reporters, referring to the period when Russia annexed the Crimea region of Ukraine.

Five Ukrainian soldiers have been killed this week alone. These are all deeply concerning signs,” she added.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to the front line of the Donbas conflict on Thursday.

Images released by Zelenskyy’s office showed the 43-year-old leader in the trenches clad in a helmet and bulletproof vest, handing out awards to Ukrainian soldiers and shaking their hands.

“Thank you for keeping people calm and defending our land,” Zelenskyy told troops during the trip. “You are a true example of heroism and dedication. We remember every warrior who died defending our state.”

Zelenskyy earlier this week called on NATO to lay out a path for Ukraine to join the military bloc, whose expansion Moscow fiercely opposes, saying it was the only way to end the conflict in Donbas.

He said such a move would act as a “powerful deterrent” to Russia, which annexed Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula in March 2014 after an uprising that toppled former Kremlin-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych.

Zelenskyy has accused Russia of flexing its military muscles over the latter’s build-up of troops along their shared border.

Russia has previously said its forces pose no threat and were defensive, but that they would stay there as long as Moscow saw fit.

However, Moscow on Tuesday announced it had begun a planned inspection of its army’s combat readiness involving thousands of drills.

Adding to concerns of a potentially imminent large-scale confrontation, a high-ranking Kremlin official on Thursday said Russia could under certain circumstances be forced to defend its citizens in Donbas.

Dmitry Kozak, the deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration, was quoted by Russia’s Tass news agency as saying that Ukraine’s government were like “children playing with matches”.

“I support the assessment that the start of military action – this would be the beginning of the end of Ukraine,” he said.

Moscow has denied interfering in Donbas, but Ukraine and several Western countries have said separatist forces in the region have been armed, led, funded and aided by Russians.

While a ceasefire halted full-scale warfare in the area in 2015, sporadic clashes never ceased.

More than 14,000 people have died in the fighting, according to estimates made by Kyiv.
#15165445
Godstud wrote:Because the Ukraine is a foreign sovereign country. Russia has no right to dictate their policy, or politics.

@noemon's statement is correct, as well. What makes Ukraine being part of NATO such a big deal unless it's simply because then Russia can't take more of the Ukraine?




In 1962 Fidel Castro also deluded himself with the same argument! That because Cuba was a foreign, sovereign country the US had no right to dictate Cuba's policy or politics. If I recall right the then US behaved as Premier League Powers have always behaved throughout history: it pointed out to Castro that he was misinformed, that Castro should go take Power Politics 101 again, seeing that he appeared to have problems appreciating that might makes right. :lol:

I am not sure what correct has to do with it. What good does it do Ukraine if she is 100% correct and 100% mutilated by Russia? Small countries have to navigate the fine line being correct and getting mauled by Superpowers.

I like this version of Aesop's fables. Small countries are well advised to heed the wisdom of the fox.



""""The lion, the Fox and the Ass entered into an agreement to assist each other in the chase. Having secured a large booty, the Lion on their return from the forest asked the Ass to allot his due portion to each of the three partners in the treaty. The Ass carefully divided the spoil into three equal shares and modestly requested the two others to make the first choice. The Lion, bursting out into a great rage, devoured the Ass. Then he requested the Fox to do him the favor to make a division. The Fox accumulated all that they had killed into one large heap and left to himself the smallest possible morsel. The Lion said, “Who has taught you, my very excellent fellow, the art of division? You are perfect to a fraction.” He replied, “I learned it from the Ass, by witnessing his fate.”""""
#15165446
Your analogy does not work because:

Putting Russian nuclear warheads near the US was never going to happen and it didn't happen.

US nukes do not need Ukraine to be near Russia as they already are along the Russian border and have been there for decades regardless of the Ukraine.

The argument does not compute and as such fails.

The US does not need the Ukraine. And this was not even about the US in the first place, it was about whether Ukrainians can work and travel in the EU. :roll:

Who in his right mind actually believes that Russians in the Ukraine prefer to live in a warzone instead of travelling freely to the EU? :eh:
#15165449
@Juin

Yes, Russia has nuclear weapons. That is correct. But they will not use those nuclear weapons over US assistance to Ukraine. They are not directly fighting our troops and in my view will only use those weapons if they face NATO or US troops especially if they start to end up on the losing side of conflict conventionally (the Russians could just decide to use them right off the bat if they find themselves directly fighting a NATO state which then the U.S. along with other nuclear armed NATO states would probably immediately respond in kind). They would then resort to the use of those nukes to stave off defeat or try to force a political settlement more towards their terms. Given that the U.S. has nuclear weapons too, I find it highly unlikely that Russia would resort to the use of those weapons upon the U.S. or NATO state over Ukraine when they are not directly fighting U.S. or NATO troops. If they did, it would invite a retaliatory nuclear response upon them. It's not like the U.S. is stationing it's own nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil like they did in Cuba back in the 1960s either.

And using nuclear weapons on Ukraine so close to their own border is not a very good idea for Russia given that Ukraine could not pose a serious threat to it's own survival like the U.S. could with it's own nuclear weapons arsenal. Any use of nuclear weapons by Russia on Ukrainian territory that doesn't attack U.S. troops or a NATO member is self defeating for Russia given all that radiation and fallout will just blow over to the Russian side of the Ukrainian-Russian border and irradiate it's own citizens all over due to frustration over Ukraine giving them a hard time while defending their own home soil from a Russian occupation of key parts of their home soil.

It wouldn't be worth the radiation and fallout on it's own citizens by using those weapons on the Ukrainians. Russia would in effect be harming it's own country and it's own citizens by using such weapons so close to their own borders given the fallout would just blow from Ukraine over into Russia given that Ukraine is in such close proximity to Russia. They wouldn't be harming the U.S. Now the radioactive fallout could harm some of the Baltic and East European nations though that are close by Ukraine, but if Russia were to directly strike a NATO country with one of those nuclear weapons they are likely to face a nuclear response directly on their own home soil by nuclear armed NATO states in return. The Russians know this. They are not dumb.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 09 Apr 2021 02:33, edited 3 times in total.
#15165451
noemon wrote:Your analogy does not work because:

Putting Russian nuclear warheads near the US was never going to happen and it didn't happen.

US nukes do not need Ukraine to be near Russia as they already are along the Russian border and have been there for decades regardless of the Ukraine.

The argument does not compute and as such fails.

The US does not need the Ukraine. And this was not even about the US in the first place, it was about whether Ukrainians can work and travel in the EU. :roll:




Just make your own case. Each participant can judge our arguments for their merits or lack thereof.

In the case of Cuba in 1962 the US did not recognise any "democratic" right by Cuba to invite Russian nukes. Big League Powers throughout history have never recognised the "democratic" rights of weaker countries to alliances that threaten their interests. Period.
#15165453
You're wrong @Juin. I don't think you're going to find anyone in agreement with your assertion that Russia is justified in its actions.

Cuba is not a valid comparison.
#15165457
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Yes, Russia has nuclear weapons. That is correct. But they will not use those nuclear weapons over US assistance to Ukraine. They are not directly fighting our troops and in my view will only use those weapons if they face NATO or US troops especially if they start to end up on the losing side of conflict conventionally. They would then resort to the use of those nukes to stave off defeat or try to force a political settlement more towards their terms. Given that the U.S. has nuclear weapons too, I find it highly unlikely that Russia would resort to the use of those weapons upon the U.S. or NATO state over Ukraine when they are not directly fighting U.S. or NATO troops. If they did, it would invite a retaliatory nuclear response upon them. It's not like the U.S. is stationing it's own nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil like they did in Cuba back in the 1960s either.

And using nuclear weapons on Ukraine so close to their own border is not a very good idea for Russia given that Ukraine could not pose a serious threat to it's own survival like the U.S. could with it's own nuclear weapons arsenal. Any use of nuclear weapons by Russia on Ukrainian territory that doesn't attack U.S. troops or a NATO member is self defeating for Russia given all that radiation and fallout will just blow over to the Russian side of the Ukrainian-Russian border and irradiate it's own citizens all over due to frustration over Ukraine giving them a hard time while defending their own home soil from a Russian occupation of key parts of their home soil.

It wouldn't be worth the radiation and fallout on it's own citizens by using those weapons on the Ukrainians. Russia would in effect be harming it's own country and it's own citizens by using such weapons so close to their own borders given the fallout would just blow from Ukraine over into Russia given that Ukraine is in such close proximity to Russia. They wouldn't be harming the U.S. Now the radioactive fallout could harm some of the Baltic and East European nations though that are close by Ukraine, but if Russia were to directly strike a NATO country with one of those nuclear weapons they are likely to face a nuclear response directly on their own home soil by nuclear armed NATO states in return. The Russians know this. They are not dumb.





Of course, the Russians will not use the nukes. What the nukes guarantee is that there will be no blitz to effect regime change at the Kremlin as was the case with Iraq. And if the US is not gonna deploy major assets on the level of what was deployed against Iraq, I do not see how it is not Ukraine who does not wind up battered in a proxy war.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 16
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]