[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Have you thought "hey, maybe it's a good idea for the Russians to stand down" and this would help diffuse the whole crisis. Or do you think it's acceptable that Russia violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine at will when no threat was presented to Russia?

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

I wouldn't call it a win win as nobody really "wins" in situations like this. But at the end of the day, the U.S. has to take into account it's commitments to NATO and it's security interests as well. The US is not the only country making choices here Potemkin. You haven't really seemed to concerned about Ukraine's territorial integrity. Do you think it's acceptable for Russia to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine when no threat was posed to the Russians?

The loss of Crimea was a serious threat to the Russians. And Crimea was not an ages-long integral part of the Ukrainian nation. It was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev back in the late 1950s. That didn't matter back then because Soviet Union, but by the 1990s it mattered tremendously, and so Ukraine joining NATO was equivalent to just handing over Russia's only warm water port to its geo-political enemies, without a shot being fired. That was never going to happen, @Politics_Observer. Never. And any rational person should have been able to see that. The Russians were going to respond. They had to respond.

[noemon]

The loss of Crimea was a serious threat to the Russians. And Crimea was not an ages-long integral part of the Ukrainian nation. It was gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev back in the late 1950s. That didn't matter back then because Soviet Union, but by the 1990s it mattered tremendously, and so Ukraine joining NATO was equivalent to just handing over Russia's only warm water port to its geo-political enemies, without a shot being fired. That was never going to happen, @Politics_Observer. Never. And any rational person should have been able to see that. The Russians were going to respond. They had to respond.

Intra-Soviet politics going against Russia is hardly the fault of the Ukraine, or of the West, Potemkin.

Because Soviet Russia took the decision to make the Crimea a Ukrainian territory, it does not mean that Russia is justified to invade it and kill the Ukrainians to take it back.

Besides, the Ukraine was not about to join NATO anyway, it was about to take the first step to join the EU, not NATO.

[Potemkin]

Intra-Soviet politics going against Russia is hardly the fault of the Ukraine, or of the West, Potemkin.

Because Soviet Russia took the decision to make the Crimea a Ukrainian territory, it does not mean that Russia is justified to invade it and kill the Ukrainians to take it back.

Besides, the Ukraine was not about to join NATO anyway, it was about to take the first step to join the EU, not NATO.

A distinction without a difference, @noemon. The one would have followed from the other. Losing the Crimean warm water port was not an option for Russia. Not then, not now, not ever. They have had that port since the 18th century, and they purchased it with blood and fire. It was never a part of the traditional territory of Ukraine.

[noemon]

A distinction without a difference, @noemon. The one would have followed from the other. Losing the Crimean warm water port was not an option for Russia. Not then, not now, not ever. They have had that port since the 18th century, and they purchased it with blood and fire. It was never a part of the traditional territory of Ukraine.

You are evading reality Potemkin.

1) It's a cheap excuse, the Ukraine was not about to join NATO, it was about to sign a trade agreement with the EU.
2) Intra-Soviet policies and Krushev's mistakes are none of our concern, neither mine nor yours, nor the west's for that matter.

Soviet communist policies do not justify Russia invading the Ukraine in any way, shape or form.

[Potemkin]

You are evading reality Potemkin.

1) It's a cheap excuse, the Ukraine was not about to join NATO, it was about to sign a trade agreement with the EU.

Do you think the Euromaidan faction were going to stop there, @noemon? Putin certainly didn't think so.

2) Intra-Soviet policies and Krushev's mistakes are none of our concern, neither mine nor yours, nor the west's for that matter.

Maybe not, but they are definitely the concern of Russia.

Soviet policies do not justify Russia invading the Ukraine.

The past never really goes away, @noemon. As William Faulkner put it, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

[noemon]

Do you think the Euromaidan faction were going to stop there, @noemon? Putin certainly didn't think so.

Yes I do, the Ukraine was nowhere near to join NATO and Yanukovych was a pro-Russian PM that would never take his country in NATO, euromaidan would not have even happened if Yanukovych stood by his own words to ratify the EU trade agreement.

Russia using Yanukovych to upset the Ukraine's aspiration for trade with the EU, then fomenting terrorism, separatism and eventually outright invasion is not the fault of the west, the EU or the US, Potemkin. It is all the fault of Russia's bellicose aggression and the Soviet Communist quagmires.

The past never really goes away, @noemon. As William Faulkner put it, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

These Soviet policies of placing strategic territories in neighbouring countries in order to entangle 2 or more areas in a strategic quagmire were all a recipe for disaster which is the same kind of disaster that happened in Bosnia and in Yugoslavia more generally.

Soviet communist experiments now blowing up in our faces decades later is not the fault of the west or the US, though the cheek here is that apparently all this is the "west's fault" for offering token diplomatic support that is well below the requirements of support as stated by the Mutual Defence treaties signed between the Ukraine and the UK; but apparently not the fault of Russia or the Soviets.

[Rugoz]

Losing the Crimean warm water port was not an option for Russia.

Russia has plenty of Black Sea coastline on its territory. Any particular reason it couldn't build a port there?

Do you think the Euromaidan faction were going to stop there, @noemon? Putin certainly didn't think so.

Ukraine did not join NATO after the Orange Revolution in 2004 either and there was no immediate danger of it to happen. Putin simply thought it was a good opportunity to take Crimea back.

In any case, the Ukraine would have accepted the loss of Crimea after some pouting. It was the incursion in the East that caused the frozen conflict, which was no doubt Putin's intention.

[Heisenberg]

Russia has plenty of Black Sea coastline on its territory. Any particular reason it couldn't build a port there?

Imagine, for a second, that a pro-Chinese party took power at the state level in California, announced the secession of the state, and gave San Diego to the PLA Navy. Do you think the USA would suck it up because they still have plenty of Pacific Ocean coastline in Orgeon and Washington? Even entertaining the idea is absurd.

It's a similar thing with Russia and Sevastopol. If they lost the port there, it's not as if it the pro-EU, pro-NATO Ukrainian government wouldn't immediately give it to the US Navy. It's either extreme naivety or just plain dishonesty to pretend otherwise. It's apparently fine for western powers to operate according to hard-nosed, self-interested realpolitik, but for Russia to do the same provokes howls of righteous outrage.

[Tainari88]

Imagine, for a second, that a pro-Chinese party took power at the state level in California, announced the secession of the state, and gave San Diego to the PLA Navy. Do you think the USA would suck it up because they still have plenty of Pacific Ocean coastline in Orgeon and Washington? Even entertaining the idea is absurd.

It's a similar thing with Russia and Sevastopol. If they lost the port there, it's not as if it the pro-EU, pro-NATO Ukrainian government wouldn't immediately give it to the US Navy. It's either extreme naivety or just plain dishonesty to pretend otherwise. It's apparently fine for western powers to operate according to hard-nosed, self-interested realpolitik, but for Russia to do the same provokes howls of righteous outrage.

The US sanctions trying to make the Russian ruble drop are not really working. Here is the explanation? What is next? Are they going to go there and fight it out with American troops?

[Politics_Observer]

@Heisenberg

Imagine, for a second, that a pro-Chinese party took power at the state level in California, announced the secession of the state, and gave San Diego to the PLA Navy. Do you think the USA would suck it up because they still have plenty of Pacific Ocean coastline in Orgeon and Washington? Even entertaining the idea is absurd.

@Potemkin Seems to think we would suck it up judging by his posts on how he thinks Ukraine should just "suck it up."

@Tainari88

It's unlikely the US and Russia would fight each other because it would likely escalate into a global catastrophe involving nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have kept both the U.S. and Russia from fighting each other. However, it's not impossible if there are misreading of each other's intentions during high tension crisis or situations. This is why it's important to have a summit so that misreading intentions is minimized as well as easing of tensions and trying to eliminate some of the trust deficit that exists between both sides. This is also another reason why nuclear arms reduction treaties are important too. Those weapons are very serious and have the capability of destroying mankind.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin @ingliz

Poor Ukraine, caught between the "big boys" as ingliz likes to call the major powers. One side wants to invade Ukraine and cause great bloodshed for Ukraine the other side might protract the bloodshed and sufferring out and cause it to last longer. Ukraine is in a "no win" situation and totally fucked. Stuck between the "big boys." But it's the people in Ukraine who bear the greatest and most of the suffering. "Big boys" do what they do as ingliz likes to say. I imagine the average Ukrainian doesn't appreciate the "big boys" too much if they look at in this context. I guess it's a "win win" as Potemkin likes to say for both Russia and the US but not so much of a "win" for Ukraine. War is pretty crazy and insane isn't it Potemkin?

[Rugoz]

Imagine, for a second, that a pro-Chinese party took power at the state level in California, announced the secession of the state, and gave San Diego to the PLA Navy. Do you think the USA would suck it up because they still have plenty of Pacific Ocean coastline in Orgeon and Washington? Even entertaining the idea is absurd.

It's a similar thing with Russia and Sevastopol. If they lost the port there, it's not as if it the pro-EU, pro-NATO Ukrainian government wouldn't immediately give it to the US Navy. It's either extreme naivety or just plain dishonesty to pretend otherwise. It's apparently fine for western powers to operate according to hard-nosed, self-interested realpolitik, but for Russia to do the same provokes howls of righteous outrage.

Such an utterly absurd comparison:
- Ukraine did not hand over Sevastopol to NATO and had no intention to do so. I have no idea where this fantasy comes from.
- Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Turkey are already NATO members. NATO has no need whatsoever for an additional access to the Black Sea.
- Ukraine could offer a port to NATO anywhere else on its coastline.

[Heisenberg]

Poor Ukraine, caught between the "big boys" as ingliz likes to call the major powers. One side wants to invade Ukraine and cause great bloodshed for Ukraine the other side might protract the bloodshed and sufferring out and cause it to last longer. Ukraine is in a "no win" situation and totally fucked.

This is the nature of countries at geostrategic crossroads. Since 1900, Ukraine has at various times been fought over by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia, because of its obvious strategic position. The Americans (and their EU poodles) are simply the latest great power to want to pull Ukraine into their sphere of influence. And like the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Poles before them, they are a false friend. It's about weakening Russia, not strengthening or "liberating" Ukraine.

[Politics_Observer]

@Heisenberg

Well, look on the bright side. It's a "win win" for the US and Russia. Russia gets it's buffer state to buffer against NATO and the US gets to tie down the Russian army so that part of it's army can't make trouble for the U.S. elsewhere plus it possibly forces Russia to spend a bunch of money occupying Ukraine or fighting a protracted conflict. Everybody's happy!

Ohh wait! Looking at it from Ukraine's perspective, this doesn't seem like a "win" for Ukraine and they might not be happy. I think the Ukrainians lose in this deal. What do you think? Did anybody include the Ukrainians in the US Russian summit proposal so maybe they get a say in all of this too? Or am I not understanding something here? Don't they matter?! It is their land after all. This seems like a case of DARWINISM where the little guy loses here.

[Rugoz]

Russia has a naval base in Novorossiysk.

[noemon]

Imagine, for a second, that a pro-Chinese party took power at the state level in California, announced the secession of the state, and gave San Diego to the PLA Navy. Do you think the USA would suck it up because they still have plenty of Pacific Ocean coastline in Orgeon and Washington? Even entertaining the idea is absurd.

It's a similar thing with Russia and Sevastopol. If they lost the port there, it's not as if it the pro-EU, pro-NATO Ukrainian government wouldn't immediately give it to the US Navy. It's either extreme naivety or just plain dishonesty to pretend otherwise. It's apparently fine for western powers to operate according to hard-nosed, self-interested realpolitik, but for Russia to do the same provokes howls of righteous outrage.

The Ukraine is not part of Russia, it is an independent sovereign country.

Equating it with California is propaganda of the highest order.

NATO bases are all over Russia's borders and have not posed a threat to Russia.

Russia is the one posing a massive threat to all its neighbours that are not in NATO, having invaded Georgia, Ukraine and played war games in Armenia.

The Americans (and their EU poodles) are simply the latest great power to want to pull Ukraine into their sphere of influence. And like the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Poles before them, they are a false friend. It's about weakening Russia, not strengthening or "liberating" Ukraine.

The Ukrainian people decided to sign a trade agreement with the EU so that Ukrainian people can trade, work and travel in the EU.

The only one playing Great Power politics with gunboat diplomacy is Russia while the rest of the world is just watching numb like a bystander while Russia is raping the Ukraine for daring to establish a basic relationship with the EU.

[Tainari88]

This is the nature of countries at geostrategic crossroads. Since 1900, Ukraine has at various times been fought over by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia, because of its obvious strategic position. The Americans (and their EU poodles) are simply the latest great power to want to pull Ukraine into their sphere of influence. And like the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Poles before them, they are a false friend. It's about weakening Russia, not strengthening or "liberating" Ukraine.

Putin needs to open discussions and find out what is so attractive for Ukraine to unite with the EU. But it will be a hard sell because not even the UK with Brexit is thinking being part of the EU is attractive enough to not exit for the voters in the UK.

It must be very difficult.

In the end being caught between nuke people with bullshit imperialism on the brain is usually a no win for the ones caught in the middle. As usual and predictable. Again.

[Juin]

To be honest, who gives a shit about Ukraine?

Three powerful Nato members give a shit. The Foreign Ministers of the ex Soviet Socialist Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia descended on Kiev today, where, along with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, these Nato titans sent a powerful warning to Putin

[noemon]

Putin needs to open discussions and find out what is so attractive for Ukraine to unite with the EU.

It means you have to respect other members and people, it means you can have a normal life, and that you can travel, study and work in Europe and retire with your pension anywhere you fancy.

The EU is the finest inter-governmental organisation to exist and to have ever existed in history. There is no reason why anyone from anywhere in the world should not aspire to become a member and enjoy the rights and responsibilities of other members as these equal rights among nations have never ever been offered to other nations and nor will they ever be offered again, certainly not in the near-future.

But it will be a hard sell because not even the UK with Brexit is thinking being part of the EU is attractive enough to not exit for the voters in the UK.

The UK being an ultra-nationalist and parochial country does not mean the EU is a hard-sell.

It means the UK has gone off the rails.