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

[LordSlowpoke]

what do you need a schmidt for? fixing up russia's economy? killing off your domestic terrorists?

Sensible Russia policies. Double-Track Decision FTW!

How about we just start lobbing a few ballistic missiles without warheads into Luhansk? Just to show that we can...

go ahead and call me a pacifist again, but how is allowing foreign nuclear weaponry to be stationed on your territory a good thing?

if you're under attack the owner can just go lolnope and ship them back home

and merely having them there makes you a legit target, if not an outright juicy one

it was a good thing historically, what with the salt and salt ii treaties, but that kinda deal is what sparked various cuban shenanigans years before

[smjjames]

Obama has consistently been more hawkish on this while Europe drags it's feet.

True, I'd just like him to do sanctions that have razor sharp teeth rather than blunt ones. Though US sanctions alone won't do a whole lot without the EU doing equally harsh sanctions.

How do you even combo from invading the other country to immediately calling for peace talks?

Ask Putin.......

[Loud Whispers]

Obama has consistently been more hawkish on this while Europe drags it's feet.

True, I'd just like him to do sanctions that have razor sharp teeth rather than blunt ones. Though US sanctions alone won't do a whole lot without the EU doing equally harsh sanctions.

No, it's just like Obama to paint sharp edges on a single round tooth. US sanctions on Russia are meaningless as Russia has near to nothing to do with the USA in trade or gas. The US and Russia both have nothing to lose by being hawkish to one another, only the EU and Russia here do.

[Helgoland]

what do you need a schmidt for? fixing up russia's economy? killing off your domestic terrorists?

Sensible Russia policies. Double-Track Decision FTW!

How about we just start lobbing a few ballistic missiles without warheads into Luhansk? Just to show that we can...

go ahead and call me a pacifist again, but how is allowing foreign nuclear weaponry to be stationed on your territory a good thing?

if you're under attack the owner can just go lolnope and ship them back home

and merely having them there makes you a legit target, if not an outright juicy one

it was a good thing historically, what with the salt and salt ii treaties, but that kinda deal is what sparked various cuban shenanigans years before

Well, Soviets were stationing similar missiles, and of course the Western countries needed similar capabilities, plus the Bundeswehr is allowed to use these weapons too after the POTUS has authorized their use. And American nuclear weapons on German territory were a good way to make damn sure the US wouldn't chicken out on defending Germany.

[Sergarr]

I think I know what Putin is trying to do: he's trying to get the war stopped so that the Donbass batallion guys can go to Kiev and deal with Poroshenko's government.

At least that's what sounds logical for me.

[FritzPL]

While we're on nuclear weapons, don't forget that Ukraine's borders after it's declaration of independence in 1991 were later guaranteed in 1994, as stated in the Budapest Memorandum, by the US, UK and Russia. The contents of the Memorandum are:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments

Russia, US and the UK guaranteed their independence, and in exchange Ukraine was to give all of it's nuclear weapons to Russia, as well as sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It didn't work.

[LordSlowpoke]

what do you need a schmidt for? fixing up russia's economy? killing off your domestic terrorists?

Sensible Russia policies. Double-Track Decision FTW!

How about we just start lobbing a few ballistic missiles without warheads into Luhansk? Just to show that we can...

go ahead and call me a pacifist again, but how is allowing foreign nuclear weaponry to be stationed on your territory a good thing?

if you're under attack the owner can just go lolnope and ship them back home

and merely having them there makes you a legit target, if not an outright juicy one

it was a good thing historically, what with the salt and salt ii treaties, but that kinda deal is what sparked various cuban shenanigans years before

Well, Soviets were stationing similar missiles, and of course the Western countries needed similar capabilities, plus the Bundeswehr is allowed to use these weapons too after the POTUS has authorized their use. And American nuclear weapons on German territory were a good way to make damn sure the US wouldn't chicken out on defending Germany.

i think we agreed that "they're doing it, so we can do it too" is not a thing that is acceptable

otherwise... sure, why not

's your land, matters little to me if it's ever blown to ashes

would miss the beer though

While we're on nuclear weapons, don't forget that Ukraine's borders after it's declaration of independence in 1991 were later guaranteed in 1994, as stated in the Budapest Memorandum, by the US, UK and Russia. The contents of the Memorandum are:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments

Russia, US and the UK guaranteed their independence, and in exchange Ukraine was to give all of it's nuclear weapons to Russia, as well as sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

ukraine was the single post-soviet country which actually wanted to keep the nuclear weapons stationed on its territory

says a lot about their leadership, really

[Mictlantecuhtli]

ukraine was the single post-soviet country which actually wanted to keep the nuclear weapons stationed on its territory

says a lot about their leadership, really

Yeah, if you're trying to completely ignore how they kept post-USSR Russia from annexing them, that would be a good point.

[Sergarr]

Spoiler: this looks like something from CoD (click to show/hide)

Also:

Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments

The bolded part was broken waaay before the events of this year.

[LordSlowpoke]

ukraine was the single post-soviet country which actually wanted to keep the nuclear weapons stationed on its territory

says a lot about their leadership, really

Yeah, if you're trying to completely ignore how they kept post-USSR Russia from annexing them, that would be a good point.

with all their nuclear weapons they didn't have, or all the military might that was actually something you had to keep in mind when the ussr collapsed and now is... well, ranger put it best

or was russia trying to annex ukraine for the past 20 years and i'm not noticing because i'm just here to astroturf?

[Sergarr]

Post-USSR Russia for a period of 1991 to 2000 was very much not trying to annex anybody.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Not true. Russia tried to annex Crimea in 1994

[Owlbread]

Post-USSR Russia for a period of 1991 to 2000 was very much not trying to annex anybody.

A lot of dead Chechens from the first and second wars would disagree.

[LordSlowpoke]

Not true. Russia tried to annex Crimea in 1994

i'd say the referendum was legitimate, if for two reasons:

1 - crimea was always an "autonomous republic", and ukraine wished to remove that autonomy

2 - the votes were not tampered with (or at least i see no evidence of it being done)

without the hardly legal declaration, i doubt they'd be allowed to keep their parliament or pretty much anything

still, willing to hear you out here

[Owlbread]

I would say that the Crimean referendum, like the Chechen referendum, was not legitimate because it was carried out under Russian occupation. If no Russian forces had been present, and UN observers had observed the proceedings and given it the all clear, it would be legitimate.

Of course, if it was up to me I would have dissolved the little Russian statelet's autonomy long ago and made Crimea an independent state with Crimean Tatar sovereignty and special status as the native people guaranteed in the constitution (none of this Russian nonsense; Crimean Tatar should be the language of government) but I can't disagree with a strong democratic mandate, even one where the central government disagrees. My compatriots in Catalonia are experiencing that exact problem right now with their referendum. At least their country is unified; god knows when the Bretons will ever get that chance.

In the UK people expect immigrants to the country to learn and speak English, and to use English as the language of official matters. I think that's the same in most countries with their own respective languages; it's certainly the case in Russia. We don't expect immigrants to the country to stop speaking their native languages, however; they're welcome to teach it to their children and local schools should teach the language to strengthen ties between the various ethnic/national groups. Given that every Russian in Crimea is an "immigrant" or the descendents of immigrants, comparatively recent at that (i.e. within the last 100-200 years) why don't we expect the same of them?