Russian armor heading towards border with Ukraine - Page 12 - 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.
#15166624
@noemon

My point would be that Ukraine reneging on agreements with Russia had foreseeable consequences as Russia had always said the West (NATO=US) gobbling up Ukraine and taking over their warm water base was a step too far.

As to what is legal or not, illegality in international law is a joke. The victor decides what is legal, and that will be Russia.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 14 Apr 2021 14:04, edited 1 time in total.
#15166625
noemon wrote:What is your post-truth Russian point here?


Would it be too difficult for you to abstain from both ad hominem and ad regionem types of argumentation?
I have never said there has never been any Russian interference. What I say is you do not take into account the fact that from November 2013 until July-August 2014 this conflict between the Ukrainian oligarch clans remained internal. So they end up with using their military forces against their own cities/people.

P.S. Yanukovich was not a ‘Russian puppet’ at all.
#15166631
ingliz wrote:@noemon

My point would be that Ukraine reneging on agreements with Russia had foreseeable consequences as Russia had always said the West (NATO=US) gobbling up Ukraine and taking over their warm water base was a step too far.

As to what is legal or not, illegality in international law is a joke. The victor decides what is legal, and that will be Russia.


:lol:




Iron Felix, I could not agree with you more. Victors have always decided what is legal. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana are all examples of victors dictating what is legal
#15166643
Ivan_R wrote:Would it be too difficult for you to abstain from both ad hominem and ad regionem types of argumentation?
I have never said there has never been any Russian interference. What I say is you do not take into account the fact that from November 2013 until July-August 2014 this conflict between the Ukrainian oligarch clans remained internal. So they end up with using their military forces against their own cities/people.

P.S. Yanukovich was not a ‘Russian puppet’ at all.


Yanukovyh proved that he was a Russian puppet, he reneged on his promise to ratify the EU-Ukraine agreement, submitted a Ukraine-Russia trade agreement instead, and when the Ukrainian people ousted him he fled to Russia. As soon as he fled to Russia, Russia initiated the Donbass war by engaging in open terrorism and separatism and when the Russian rebels failed to achieve her objectives she then outright invaded the Ukraine herself.

If you want to deny these facts with Russian post-truths then you will have to do a lot better than simply posturing as a victim.

ingliz wrote:My point would be that Ukraine reneging on agreements with Russia had foreseeable consequences


Which agreement did the Ukraine renege with Russia that led to the terrorism, separatism and invasion?

Please tell us more about Russia's belligerence & aggression.
#15166660
ingliz wrote:@noemon

My point would be that Ukraine reneging on agreements with Russia had foreseeable consequences as Russia had always said the West (NATO=US) gobbling up Ukraine and taking over their warm water base was a step too far.

As to what is legal or not, illegality in international law is a joke. The victor decides what is legal, and that will be Russia.
:lol:


Ingliz, this is truthful (what I highlighted in yellow). In reality very powerful nations whether that be economically powerful or militarily powerful or both? Do live with different rules than the small nations who are the pawns in their game. Since I lived and was born in a place that was a pawn of two Empires in history? The Spanish Empire, then the American USA one? They both violate all kinds of human rights accords, international laws. They play the outraged claim. The British in my opinion are by far the worst with the games of being morally superior. The Americans are products of British imperialism and are deeply two-faced and imitate them in a lot of things.

In the end, it is about raw power grabs. Putin is a Right-Wing despot. I have no doubts. To think he is going to allow the vultures for money in the EU to take his Crimea nest egg and not try the old divide and conquer tactics of all empires with Ukraine? Is naive. The question becomes now? Who is going to enforce Ukraine's desire to join the EU? Who would be willing to face down Putin? Biden?

If he did that what would be the consequences internationally? Your opinion. Because Noemon made a very good point. Russia doesn't want to lose money and power in that region of Europe.

Is BoJo going to announce his support for American hypocrisy like he does when he thinks it might favor his position?
#15166670
noemon wrote:Which agreement did the Ukraine renege with Russia

Describing the agreement as a "sell-out of national interests", they were about to renege on the Kharkiv Pact, a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042.

Tainari88 wrote:what would be the consequences internationally?

None.

but

If Ukraine attacks the Donbas region in force, the consequences for Ukraine will be dire.

"Everything depends on the scale of the conflagration. An escalation could mark the beginning of the end for Ukraine - not a shot in the leg, but in the face"

— Dmitry Kozak, deputy head of Russia's presidential administration, Friday, April 9, 2021

Is BoJo going to announce his support for American hypocrisy

I'd be surprised if he didn't.
#15166684
ingliz wrote:Describing the agreement as a "sell-out of national interests", they were about to renege on the Kharkiv Pact, a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042.


None.

but

If Ukraine attacks the Donbas region in force, the consequences for Ukraine will be dire.

"Everything depends on the scale of the conflagration. An escalation could mark the beginning of the end for Ukraine - not a shot in the leg, but in the face"

— Dmitry Kozak, deputy head of Russia's presidential administration, Friday, April 9, 2021


I'd be surprised if he didn't.


Quite predictable consequences all around.
#15166695
@ingliz @Tainari88

Putin is a former KGB agent, so I think he is using some old KGB trick of threaten action, keep options open and your adversaries off balance, and exploit opportunities that may arise. I think the U.S. should stand firm with it's support for Ukraine. However, that also means sending additional military aid to the Ukrainians. My take from the American perspective. Also, preposition more U.S. troops in the Baltic NATO member states to ensure the security of those NATO states so that NATO is ready for any contingency in the event the Russians attempt to launch a surprise attack on those NATO member states. That way NATO isn't caught off balance if Putin were to suddenly decide to attack a NATO member state. Plus, it's more likely to deter an attack on those NATO member states while raising the costs on Moscow from a military perspective if they decide to send troops into Ukraine.
#15166698
Politics_Observer wrote:preposition more U.S. troops in the Baltic NATO member states

Why?

If you put enough in to be a credible force, you invite an attack.

If you don't, why bother.


:lol:
#15166705
ingliz wrote:Describing the agreement as a "sell-out of national interests", they were about to renege on the Kharkiv Pact, a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042.


You claimed that Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 because the Ukraine reneged on an agreement.

Your claim is evidently false.

2014 is 3 years earlier than 2017 and even if Ukraine refuses to extend the lease of a Russian military base that is still not a justification for a Russian military invasion in the Ukraine.

Tainari88 wrote:Quite predictable consequences all around.


What is a 'predictable consequence' Tainari? The invasion and illegal occupation of Ukraine is a 'predictable consequence' of what?

The UK had a military pact to protect the Ukraine's territory and did nothing when Russian rebels and then Russia itself invaded the country. I would not expect from BoJo to do anything else.

The Ukraine first and foremost has been betrayed by Germany and the UK who are paying lip-service to Putin for years now while preventing the EU from taking meaningful action through proper sanctions. Germany plays this role with Putin, Erdogan and China.
#15166708
@ingliz

I wouldn't attack those U.S. troops pre-positioned in the Baltics if I were Russia (and that's if the US actually does pre-position those troops). That would start World War 3 and it will be Russia that starts it. Attacking those soldiers isn't worth it. NATO countries can move their troops around as they see fit on their territory just as Russia can do the same. What would invite an attack on NATO states during this crisis would be the lack of U.S. troop presence in those countries because then those countries would be easy targets for the taking.
#15166709
Politics_Observer wrote:@ingliz

I wouldn't attack those U.S. troops pre-positioned in the Baltics if I were Russia (and that's if the US actually does pre-position those troops). That would start World War 3 and it will be Russia that starts it. Attacking those soldiers isn't worth it. NATO countries can move their troops around as they see fit on their territory just as Russia can do the same. What would invite an attack on NATO states during this crisis would be the lack of U.S. troop presence in those countries because then those countries would be easy targets for the taking.


Russia has proven that it will invade any country that is not in NATO like it did with both Georgia and Ukraine and also how it betrayed Armenia to Turkey and Azerbaijan making NATO membership a serious existential issue for all these countries.
#15166712
@noemon

I believe Putin will invade a NATO country if it is left open for easy taking. It's the nature of dictators who only care about power. Putin only stops when he sees a clear boundary that can actually be enforced.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 14 Apr 2021 19:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15166713
Dear NATO/UN: Defend the effing sovereignty of sovereign countries from imperial Russia.

Putin thinks Russia owns every country that has Russian speaking people in it. No you don't bitch.

How do you deal with a bully? You don't appease them, you tell them to go to hell. If you tell someone to go to hell you better be willing to send them there or they'll call your bluff (Obama). It's no coincidence Putin is testing Biden and starts rolling the tanks the moment the snow starts melting in spring.
#15166716
ingliz wrote:@noemon
The Opposition, who later became the government, introduced a draft bill abrogating the agreement in June 2013.


First of all, it is irrelevant because as I said, Russia is not justified to invade a country "understandably" for not wanting to house Russian military within its borders.

Second, you need to bring real evidence & context rather than simply your one-liners that count for nothing.

Thanks :)
#15166718
noemon wrote:You claimed that Russia invaded the Ukraine in 2014 because the Ukraine reneged on an agreement.

Your claim is evidently false.

2014 is 3 years earlier than 2017 and even if Ukraine refuses to extend the lease of a Russian military base that is still not a justification for a Russian military invasion in the Ukraine.



What is a 'predictable consequence' Tainari? The invasion and illegal occupation of Ukraine is a 'predictable consequence' of what?

The UK had a military pact to protect the Ukraine's territory and did nothing when Russian rebels and then Russia itself invaded the country. I would not expect from BoJo to do anything else.

The Ukraine first and foremost has been betrayed by Germany and the UK who are paying lip-service to Putin for years now while preventing the EU from taking meaningful action through proper sanctions. Germany plays this role with Putin, Erdogan and China.

It is a predictable consequence of allowing imperial invasions of other nations if their resources or lands and investments are threatened. They (the IMPERIAL) mentality does that all the time Noemon. They come up with pretexts and excuses. The UK and others like Germany don't go for sanctions because they are cowardly liars too about 'consequences' against an Empire with nukes and arms and that threaten with some kind of retaliation.

My rule of thumb is don't trust Empires and plan extremely well their predictable threatening and violent actions. Ingliz statements sound cynical about the 'none' reply about international reactions. The reality is nations with enormous resources, markets, and military firepower, nukes, rarely get invaded and occupied, and threatened. Russia is run by Mr. Mafioso and his backers who are a bunch of corrupt Russian oligarchs with steep investments in Ukraine. They see the joining up of Ukraine as a threat to their advantages in that region. Crimea has always been special for Russia. Dunbass too.

I would do things completely differently but that is because I am not Putin or a right-wing despot with Russian mafioso oligarchs worried about their hegemony in a former Soviet Union member state. For Putin's logic, he is being restrained and diplomatic by not going and shooting it up or blowing it up to make sure his side keeps power. The mentality of Imperialism is mind-boggling.
#15166748
@noemon @ingliz

I think Putin is also testing Biden's mettle. Biden is the new guy on the block. He is a politician but he is not a military man or a spy master. Putin is a spy master and I think is more experienced than Biden when it comes to military matters, tactics and deception. So right now, I have to say, so far, Biden gets a failing grade when presented with his first test by Putin. Putin does this so he gains a better understanding of how experienced his adversary is and to learn more about the way his adversary thinks when it comes to military, deception and espionage matters and what he will be able to get away with. Right now, as far as experience, I would give that advantage to Putin. Putin will probably see he might be able to take some advantage of Biden's inexperience but I think Biden will eventually learn and won't be able to be taken advantage of forever. Biden isn't dumb or incompetent, he's just inexperienced when it comes to these sort of matters. He's an experienced politician but not very experienced in understanding military matters.
#15166752
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I don't agree with that. The U.S. and Russia do not have to be enemies nor does Russia have to crumble or disintegrate. However, those with a vested interest in staying in power (such as Putin) might want to keep the U.S. and Russia enemies because that's what helps keep them in power. The outside boogeyman distracts from domestic problems and focus it on an external enemy. But by and large, people are people wherever you go. You just have politicians who want to stay in power fucking it up for the average joe. That's a rule that applies everywhere.




I will say mine was more a statement of fact than an opinion. It is like saying Rome and Carthage did not have to be enemies. Fine. Problem is that for Rome and Carthage not to have been enemies they would have had to be of a totally different character than they were. Both were imperial and expansionist, and the moment they expanding spheres collided sparks had to fly.

Russia has been expansionist throughout its history. Maybe, as in earlier posts other posters pointed out that the geography of a nation can indicate its foreign policy. Defence for Russia has been pushing its borders forward as far as possible. The US has been imperial in its own way. As long as both are expansionist and imperial in character there is no question of both not being enemies.

Even if Putin is overthrown tomorrow, and a democracy replaces him, I dont see how the objectives of a democracy in Russia would be any different. Russian concerns are the same; be it Czarist, Communist or Putin Russia.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 16

@Potemkin , the problem with this Johnston is […]

But if that is not enough I gave you even more( .[…]

2021 Israeli-Palestine Conflict

the glorious SAA Please stop this nonsense. I h[…]

When did redlining end? Let me know if you need […]