Crisis in Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
ghoti said:
Killadoobs latest reincarnation //sigh

Anyways, I see most of the world voted sensibly. I cant believe how different this vote was from the Georgia vote. The Georgia resolution was adopted with a 14 votes in favor, 11 against and 105 abstentions. This Ukrainian one was overwhelmingly adopted by the world with 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/us-ukraine-crisis-un-idUSBREA2R20O20140328

The world has spoken.
Click to expand...

Lol, like that has ever mattered. General assembly resolutions have been ignored by everyone.........forever
 
ghoti said:
Killadoobs latest reincarnation //sigh

Anyways, I see most of the world voted sensibly. I cant believe how different this vote was from the Georgia vote. The Georgia resolution was adopted with a 14 votes in favor, 11 against and 105 abstentions. This Ukrainian one was overwhelmingly adopted by the world with 100 votes in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/28/us-ukraine-crisis-un-idUSBREA2R20O20140328

The world has spoken.
Click to expand...

Seems those that abstained in the Georgia vote have realised that their abstention would have emboldened Putin this time around. Now they are nervous enough to say enough is enough. So does this mean Russia will now only have 11 trading partners ? :D
 
zippy said:
Seems those that abstained in the Georgia vote have realised that their abstention would have emboldened Putin this time around. Now they are nervous enough to say enough is enough. So does this mean Russia will now only have 11 trading partners ? :D
Click to expand...

Why is this about Putin though? The push to allow Crimea to join Russia is a Russian Parliamentary move. It's also a decision of the majority of the local people in Crimea, and is also a view of the majority of Russians.

Putin is the figure head. And honestly, if Kosovo is independent, so can Crimea join Russia, if the people there want so. Obviously not everyone in Kosovo wanted that, and not everyone in Crimea wanted that but the EU/US/pro-EU Ukrainians should have played things better. Instead of overthrowing the Ukrainian president illegitimately there things could have been done legally and legitimately.

Again the principle of self determination is fundamental. It would have been better to have done a better more legitimate referendum, perhaps, but then again the Ukrainian president was not deposed legitimately either.

The lesson is not to interfere in foreign countries and do things legitimately. Now Crimea will become a part of Russia and that will be that. And that situation could have been avoided.

A very important point to remember is that Ukraine is close to Russia and dependent on it. That situation won't change as one can't just move one's country. It would be better to have good relations. However, knowing the people from that region, I'm sure things will be settled peacefully.
 
Last edited:
Space_Chief said:
Alan, control of NATO is in Washington. This is just for show. The real power is in the hands of the US.
Click to expand...

That's rather naive. Especially considering the involvement of Russia a direct threat to NATO's European members.
 
Alan said:
That's rather naive. Especially considering the involvement of Russia a direct threat to NATO's European members.
Click to expand...

Alan, control of NATO belongs to the US. That's the real force behind these paper militaries. And Western Europe was never really very much against USSR anyway. The French and Germans for example, never wanted the Solidarity movement to win in Poland. They were terrified Poland would become a free country and so default on their loans. It was only Ronald Reagan and Thatcher mostly. The presence of US troops in Europe guarantees the safety of that region, both from the east and also from within, ahem Germany.
 
Space_Chief said:
Alan, control of NATO belongs to the US. That's the real force behind these paper militaries.
Click to expand...

No, where do you get this?

They have a NATO Parliamentary Assembly and military structures, go read on these topics and come back with factual information.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
No, where do you get this?

They have a NATO Parliamentary Assembly and military structures, go read on these topics and come back with factual information.
Click to expand...

De facto control. Not on paper. We're speaking on different levels here. When push comes to shove the power behind NATO is the US. And US will decide which treaties it will honour. It is not entirely sure that US will fight a nuclear war with Russia if former Eastern European countries are invaded. That's why the impetus by the Eastern Europeans has always been to try to get US boots on the ground and have US bases. The US has been reluctant to do this. The ABM shield was supposed to be a way to get US forces into Poland and Czech Republic. This is necessary in the eyes of the Eastern Europeans because the assurances given by NATO membership are not seen as enough.

And my German/French response to Polish freedom movements was an example to illustrate why the Poles and other Eastern Europeans don't trust their continental partners all that much either. Historically Germany and Russia have always seen each other as rivals and the territory between them as belonging to them.

Without the US, NATO can only s-t its pants if Russia were to invade.
 
Last edited:
Taranis said:
http://rt.com/news/usa-inspection-russia-skies-258/

and in other news, the Wall St. Journal say something different:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...9465830294243784?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks
Click to expand...

I doubt the Russians will invade. It's saber rattling and posturing.

But this does sort of put to rest the naive notions as expressed by guys like Fukuyama in his "End of History". History tends to repeat itself. Old conflicts and disputes re-awaken. That's why Europe and Asia are a potential hotbed of conflicts. China vs Japan. Philippines vs China. Japan vs Korea. Japan vs Russia. Vietnam vs China. Russia vs China. Eastern and Central Europe.

Old disputes and concerns run deep. And even in the age of idiocy of Facebook and Twitter and Western feel good silliness, wars can still erupt.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
No, where do you get this?

They have a NATO Parliamentary Assembly and military structures, go read on these topics and come back with factual information.
Click to expand...

Who pays the bills ? - the U.S.

June 16, 2011
NATO’s future: Let Europe bear the cost of defending Europe

For years after World War II, this arrangement was defensible. Our European allies were vulnerable and economically devastated. We had spent much blood and treasure on two wars to preserve their freedom. Providing a deterrent to the Soviets, and a third war, made military and financial sense.

But even in those years, as Gates noted, the United States accounted for only about half of all NATO military spending. Now, well after the end of the Cold War ended, we pay more than 75 percent of the tab.
Click to expand...
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield...efending-europe/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

3 februari 2014
Calculating the value of NATO
Major cuts, sometimes up to 40%, are quite normal at the European end of NATO. The relation between the U.S. and the European NATO members seems to worsen as the Americans generally think they do far too much and Europe far too little. The Americans now foot 75% of the NATO bill and this percentage has gone up from 63%.
Click to expand...
http://www.scienceguide.nl/201402/calculating-the-value-of-nato.aspx

Nato revival

Putin's actions in Crimea have given Nato "a shot in the arm", said a former British defence secretary, reflecting recent widespread concern about the future of the west's military alliance.

The concern was that with Nato-sponsored combat operations in Afghanistan coming to an end this year, the alliance would have nothing to do and its west European members would make further cuts in their defence budgets. The hope in Nato headquarters is that Crimea and Ukraine will shake member governments out of what its officials regarded as complacency.
....................
Nato will reassure its eastern allies by holding exercises and deploying fighters. The US is also using the crisis to galvanise west European Nato members to end their steady fall in defence spending. For the moment, however, there is huge relief they rejected calls for Ukraine to join Nato in 2008 when Russian was attacking Georgia over the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/28/vladimir-putin-crimea-changed-world
 
Nanfeishen said:
Who pays the bills ? - the U.S.

June 16, 2011
NATO’s future: Let Europe bear the cost of defending Europe


http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield...efending-europe/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield

3 februari 2014
Calculating the value of NATO

http://www.scienceguide.nl/201402/calculating-the-value-of-nato.aspx

Nato revival


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/28/vladimir-putin-crimea-changed-world
Click to expand...

The members pays the bills.

You can get 2012/2013 details here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm

The US by no means purchased (being sarcastic) NATO and independently make the alliance decisions, it is a well-documented structure. The strategic command is currently headed by the US and French, where Denmark is heading the chairman position.

Then the US is also generously allocating their NATO budget while they largely carrying bad debt...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X