Current Affairs Ukraine

[Tipp blue]

USA should declare the part of Russia that's East of the Ural mountains as independent and send in peace keepers.
Isn't that how it works?

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think with Crimea the differences were twofold- firstly the history of that place (in which the Russian claim really was strong) and secondly the relative absence of threats.

Then there’s the way it happened, as in not drawn out and without making fools of most European leaders. Putin this time is clearly threatening multiple EU and NATO states and I think a lot of people think that if there is going to be a proper break with Russia you may as well have it now.

If we're going to argue territorial sovereignty now, we should have been arguing it then. The flip-flopping just emboldens the adversary, and then we end up dealing with larger and worse problems down the road. It's like ignoring symptoms of cancer, and then being surprised at a Stage IV diagnosis later.

USA should declare the part of Russia that's East of the Ural mountains as independent and send in peace keepers.
Isn't that how it works?

Good luck defending it.

A more fun reply, if they hadn't settled the issue, would be collectively recognizing the PRC's longstanding claim to Vladivostok. That would give Putin something else to think about. *evil grin*

 

[summerisle]

 

[Deleted member 48881]

 

[Deleted member 48881]

We will not abandon our brothers who gave us Gogol. Solidarity with Ukraine!

 

[GoldenToffee]

I'm a little confused about this because I thought if Russia defies international law and invades and attacks Ukraine, then surely Ukraine's allies, whoever they are, would send their troops in to help protect the country - yet I've not read anywhere about international troops being deployed. The most I've read is that sanctions will be placed on Russia. Does that mean Russia will just be allowed to run amok in Ukraine?

 

[Martin Alvito]

Analysis: It's time to admit it: Mitt Romney was right about Russia

A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.

www.cnn.com

Very interesting point. There's a good chance that Romney cost himself that election by speaking the truth about Russia in no uncertain terms. He was abysmal in other ways in the foreign policy debate that dropped him out of parity in the polls - he had no policy ideas other than 'do what Obama is doing' as I recall it, but that line from Obama was crushing. It completely reversed the trajectory of that election, which was swinging Romney's way after he demolished Obama in the economic debate to become a serious contender.

 

[Deleted member 48881]

I'm a little confused about this because I thought if Russia defies international law and invades and attacks Ukraine, then surely Ukraine's allies, whoever they are, would send their troops in to help protect the country - yet I've not read anywhere about international troops being deployed. The most I've read is that sanctions will be placed on Russia. Does that mean Russia will just be allowed to run amok in Ukraine?

Unfortunately yes, both UK and Germany are cowardly.

 

[PhilM]

I'm a little confused about this because I thought if Russia defies international law and invades and attacks Ukraine, then surely Ukraine's allies, whoever they are, would send their troops in to help protect the country - yet I've not read anywhere about international troops being deployed. The most I've read is that sanctions will be placed on Russia. Does that mean Russia will just be allowed to run amok in Ukraine?

Pretty much so in the conventional sense, but sanctions will be imposed and there'll be a reaction in the non-conventional sense - all the sneaky beaky stuff.

It's all to do with geo-political issues why we won't put troops on the ground.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I'm a little confused about this because I thought if Russia defies international law and invades and attacks Ukraine, then surely Ukraine's allies, whoever they are, would send their troops in to help protect the country - yet I've not read anywhere about international troops being deployed. The most I've read is that sanctions will be placed on Russia. Does that mean Russia will just be allowed to run amok in Ukraine?

In a word, yes.

Short version: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) does not apply. Countries do not generally send troops to stop invasions when the likely outcome is a crushing defeat, unless obligated by mutual defense treaty. They occasionally form coalitions, as in the First Persian Gulf War and the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, when two things obtain:

1) they feel their security interests are threatened by what has taken place
2) they expect to win

 

[GoldenToffee]

Unfortunately yes, both UK and Germany are cowardly.

Pretty much so in the conventional sense, but sanctions will be imposed and there'll be a reaction in the non-conventional sense - all the sneaky beaky stuff.

It's all to do with geo-political issues why we won't put troops on the ground.

Mad that. Not that I want innocent soldiers to lose their lives defending another country, but if there is an agreement for a country to defend their allies when under attack, you'd hope its upheld!

 

[GoldenToffee]

In a word, yes.

Short version: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) does not apply. Countries do not generally send troops to stop invasions when the likely outcome is a crushing defeat, unless obligated by mutual defense treaty. They occasionally form coalitions, as in the First Persian Gulf War and the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, when two things obtain:

1) they feel their security interests are threatened by what has taken place
2) they expect to win

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not at all knowledgeable about anything in this arena so it's great to read from somebody who is.

 

[PhilM]

In a word, yes.

Short version: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) does not apply. Countries do not generally send troops to stop invasions when the likely outcome is a crushing defeat, unless obligated by mutual defense treaty. They occasionally form coalitions, as in the First Persian Gulf War and the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, when two things obtain:

1) they feel their security interests are threatened by what has taken place
2) they expect to win

To win we would need a huge deployment of troops and equipment, and we/NATO currently lack the capability to put enough troops and equipment there.

By capability, I'm talking about corps/division that are at combat readiness. It might stop Russia invading them being there, but if it doesn't they'd be stuck.

It would take months to be ready. That's also before the whole concept that, rightly or wrongly, there's no obligation for us put boots on the ground.

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

I’m talking about the ‘after’ not the ‘before’

But youve just said they’re there to prevent fights - not to actually fight.

The equivalent of you showing up with a team of nfl players that leaves you on your own as soon as a punch is thrown.

So we’re in agreement.

And with Turkey acting like Antonio Brown... Who can blame them?

 

[emir]

Russia is a big superpower, they have nukes that can end the world. While I don't think Russia will try to do anything that's irrational or stupid, I firmly believe that USA and NATO will never intervene in Ukraine militarily because Ukraine is not a NATO member; they have zero obligation to protect Ukraine.