Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Now I see absolutely the same kind of support in the current events. All that EU needs is undisrupted flow of natural gas and relative stability near their borders. It looks like no one cares what will Ukraine lose in terms of lives and territory. Realpolitik....

Unfortunately, UR. You haven't lost the east yet, though. You're better off than the Crimean Tatars, are you not? I feel like the Donetsk 'republic' spiel will be about as far as this incursion spreads.

Would you have said the same when Crimea grab was still a new thing?

You must be new to my view of this incursion, this has been going on for so long that I already have made myself clear. It's just the russian nationalists who think they have a right to do this.

I hope this was all worth Sevastopol, a place you already had a treaty to get to use freely [also with access to the entire coastline of Crimea], a treaty you offered Ukraine in order for her to disarm her nuclear weaponry, with a guarantee you wouldn't invade them in order to allow use of this strategic area

How many countries want to listen to a russia that asks for disarmament, especially after this? it's rather apparent the only way to keep the new USSR from invading is to hold onto your nukes and tell Russian cooperation to fuck off, since the only cooperation with Russia comes on the end of a gun. Of course most countries know this already, Ukraine just thought that a treaty of non-aggression might stop hostilities with a neighbor that is very hostile to their sovereignty. Expect all Russian 'enemies' to have nukes now, good job, I guess..

So worth sevastopol and the now empty beaches.

Also, yes, I do know the importance of Sevastopol in russian nationalism. It just isn't necessary to invade a country to annex an area you practically already owned, breaking a treaty you offered and ratified specifically so you could access the area. I guess flying the flag over the city is more important than international relations and a future for cooperation with the civilized world that isn't in the Russian sphere of influence.

Donetsk is not Crimea, Crimea was already autonomous region with plenty of military bases in it, a bit easier to suppress and annex quickly.

My question is, what is the preferred solution to this for someone who agrees with the Russian invasion? Total annexation of Ukraine? Only the places with 25% or more Russian speakers? Only the borders?

[smjjames]

You know, going along with Mitcl, the whole thing with nukes is probably going to make Iran want a nuclear program even more. Although seriously, who would they need to deter with nukes? I'm sure they can argue the US, but that's not even a viable argument (and please don't go 'Teh US wants OIHL LULEZ!').

Edit: Though that is going offtopic.

Expect all Russian 'enemies' to have nukes now, good job, I guess..

Not neccesarily, they just need to be allied with someone who has nukes, AKA NATO.

My question is, what is the preferred solution to this for someone who agrees with the Russian invasion? Total annexation of Ukraine? Only the places with 25% or more Russian speakers? Only the borders?

Probably the only person who can truly answer that is Putin and nobody but him (and probably his inner circle) know what the ultimate goals are. Would be interesting to know what the general consensus is, unless the general consensus is the propoganda consensus.

[Sheb]

Israel?

[aenri]

You know, going along with Mitcl, the whole thing with nukes is probably going to make Iran want a nuclear program even more. Although seriously, who would they need to deter with nukes? I'm sure they can argue the US, but that's not even a viable argument (and please don't go 'Teh US wants OIHL LULEZ!').

Israel.

[smjjames]

You know, going along with Mitcl, the whole thing with nukes is probably going to make Iran want a nuclear program even more. Although seriously, who would they need to deter with nukes? I'm sure they can argue the US, but that's not even a viable argument (and please don't go 'Teh US wants OIHL LULEZ!').

Israel.

Seems more like Israel wants to just survive, not conquer territory, but this is going offtopic for this thread (since it's Middle East).

[Owlbread]

Seems more like Israel wants to just survive, not conquer territory, but this is going offtopic for this thread (since it's Middle East).

Hmmm

But yes, this is for the Middle Eastern thread.

[Helgoland]

Hmmm

OH COME ON! You bloody well know that the Israeli settlements are a special case that can most certainly not be lumped together with traditional instances of conquest - you're trivializing all the problems! /rage

But yeah, Israel. To prevent a pre-emptive war, I guess.

[LordSlowpoke]

if not for the /rage i'd take it as it should be but wow you legit believe that apparently this is very new to me even in the context of germans

[Helgoland]

I'm not calling it legitimate - but the fact is that the issue is vastly different from, let's say, Napoleon's conquest of the German states, or Russia's subjugation of the Warsaw Pact states. Or the conquest of Latin America by the Spanish. Or the Mongols conquering most of Asia and big parts of Europe.
The only similar situation I can come up with right now is the colonization of North America, and even that is imperfect. Further nitpicking: The actual conquest (if you want to call it that) happened in 1967 (I think), the settlements are just (heh) a way to strengthen their hold on the area.

EDIT: Found the word I was looking for - with the settlements, Israel is saturated.

[Baffler]

Edit: Nevermind, this isn't the thread for it.

[10ebbor10]

Currently, Iran seems to be content with going for Nuclear weapon capability, rather than Nuclear weapons though. But yeah, Israeli Nuclear weapons are a public secret, and someday someone in the region is going to be developing Nuclear weaponry. Might be Iran, might be Saudi Arabia.

[burningpet]

While the settlements are definitely not legit, israel does not have conquering aspirations, especially not of Islamic countries.

So, iran wants nukes only against an israeli pre-emptive war? the only reason for israel to ever attack iran is to destroy its nukes. so they build nukes so we wont bomb their nukes? sorry, this logic fails me.

In actuality, Iran wants nukes because Iran does have imperial aspirations in the middle east.

[Sheb]

Helgoland, sure not all conquests are the same.

Also, I didn't have the time to post more than a single word earlier, but the US is another nuclear-armed country Iran wants/need deterrence again.

smjjames though he was being sarcastic with his "The US wantz OILz lol", but you have to remember that a democratic Iranian government was overthrown in 1953 for daring to nationalize the oil production. Iran then suffered 26 years of US-backed, brutally corrupt dictatorship. (Ironically, that's when Iran's nuclear program started, with US support). When that dictatorship was finally overthrown, the US supported Saddam in a brutal 8-years war that left about half a million dead Iranian soldiers and 10-15,000 dead civilians. During that war, the US supplied sattelite information and chemical warfare technology that allowed Saddam to gas Iranian soldiers. The US also sunk two Iranian warships during that war.

Since then the US has been committing terrorist strikes to target Iran's nuclear program and has done its best to kill Iran's economy while blocking several attempt by Arab states and Iran to declare the Middle East a nuke-free zone (because they want Israel to keep its nukes). The US also supported the 2007 revolution and basically anything that destabilize the regime (not a bad thing per se, but not exactly popular with the regime).

So yeah, from Iran's point of view, deterrence against the US make perfect sense.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

http://mashable.com/2014/06/30/hundreds-kidnapped-eastern-ukraine/

[smjjames]

Guys, let's move the Middle East discussion over to the correct thread, I know I started the tangent, but I'm now trying to rerail the thread.

http://mashable.com/2014/06/30/hundreds-kidnapped-eastern-ukraine/

If those allegations are true, that's pretty disturbing. I mean, yes they've detained journalists before, but this kind of scale is disturbing. If anything, it lessens their legitimacy IMO.