Print

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

[gogis]

But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?

(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)

Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.

No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.

[Sheb]

Yeah, but you already have a deal for Sevastopol until 2047...

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Here's another one. "Mobilization" isn't used in the military meaning here though, it's supposed to express the urgency of the issue for Turkey. So it's not as serious as it sounds.

Actually, the Turkish government made sure to use the word 'mobilization' specifically because of that fact. They're basically one misstep from firing on any Russian aircraft in their airspace.

[GlyphGryph]

Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.

So, just to be clear - you are perfectly okay with foreign intervention, so long as it suits your country's interests?

Err... right. o_o

Not sure how strong an argument that's going to be insofar as arguing against Western involvement when said involvement does, in fact, serve their interests?

[gogis]

Maybe you didn't understand me: what section of the Nuland video transcript support interpretation 2?

None. But coupled with Klitchko letters *and* alot of other bullshit it's raises shenanigans of zeitgeist calibre.

[XXSockXX]

Here's another one. "Mobilization" isn't used in the military meaning here though, it's supposed to express the urgency of the issue for Turkey. So it's not as serious as it sounds.

Actually, the Turkish government made sure to use the word 'mobilization' specifically because of that fact. They're basically one misstep from firing on any Russian aircraft in their airspace.

I heard of that incident.
Still Turkey hasn't mobilized it's troops as the word would imply. As the article says:

Arriving in Kiev yesterday, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Mustafa Abdülcemil Kırımoğlu, the former Chairman of the Crimean Tatar National Assembly, and noted that Turkey was ready to provide every support, and was in a way mobilized, to protect the rights of the Crimean cognates.
The word “mobilization” diligently selected by Davutoğlu precisely represented the urgency of the issue for Turkey, although not from a military perspective. Turkey has been wary of not raising her voice and has even been partly careful about not ‘annoying’ Russia with regard to the social uprising in Ukraine yet she clearly positioned herself alongside the Western alliance on the issue of Crimea.

[Sheb]

Klitchko letters? I've not heard of them, care to link?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. They're not playing softball, mobilization is a very highly-charged word [rarely used by any government official] that can send a message.

[olemars]

But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?

(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)

Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.

No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.

Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly?  That construct is purely russian. The impression we get in the rest of Europe is that Putin, and to a certain extent the rest of russia, feels that all of Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence. To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.

[PanH]

Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?

There's a thing called "self determination right". You might not be happy that people that live there want to stay with Ukraine (or be independant, or join Russia, for that matter), but it should be up to them to decide. And Russia still has a deal for navy bases, so it's not the point.

[Sheb]

olemars: by their very nature, the deals on the table were mutually exclusive. It was trade agreement with Europe vs custom union with Russia, EU vs Eurasian Union.

[gogis]

So, just to be clear - you are perfectly okay with foreign intervention, so long as it suits your country's interests?

I need another quote just to be clear.
You really never knew we had naval base in Crimea before all that started? Otherwise I can't understand how can't you understand, all that, and I will bold everything
"Crimea is not going full Ukraine"
"we not going to give up ports and navy bases"

[PanH]

-Nothing was threatening the Russian navy in Sevastopol
-Sure hope so. It would be nice to respect one country's sovereignty.
-Russian troops are fine, but not NATO ? Double standard much. EU is right on the other side of Ukraine, you know. If you're expecting no troops from them, that's what they want from Russia too.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@gogis
Had there been threats of revoking the lease?
Because in the meantime, Russia's violating Ukraine sovereignty.
Worse yet, (as mentioned earlier in this thread), Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine a couple decades ago that they wouldn't do exactly this, (invade), in exchange for Ukraine unilaterally disarming their huge nuclear stockpile.
If Ukraine still had it's nukes, Russia wouldn't be in Crimea right now.
So basically everyone's going to want their nukes back, especially the now-hostile Ukraine.
Funny story: it sounds like the same end-result of the NATO-bombing-russia fantasy, except it's true.

--And the EU/NATO aren't happy about this. We've been pushing for nuclear-nonproliferation for EVER--

[Sheb]

PanH, he did say he didn't support invasion. Stop strawmanning him!

gogis, why no NATO? Shouldn't countries be free to choose their alliances?