He was very close to though. Pulled out in the last minute for reasons other than merely his character.
Russia Discussion
- Thread starter iSparky
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The threshold of him starting a war is certainly much higher than it was for Bush.
Agreed.
Opinion: Obama can't have it both ways on Crimea
London (CNN) -- Whatever U.S. and European leaders may say, it seems clear a majority of the residents of Crimea were only too happy to abandon Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. The referendum held there on Sunday was illegal according to Ukrainian constitutional law and took place under duress, following the large-scale incursion of "pro-Russian forces" -- and voters did not have the choice to say "no" to severing ties with Kiev.
But these failings aside, it appears plain that most of Crimea's population, with the exception of the Tatar minority and some ethnic Ukrainians, was content to return to what it regards as its ancestral home. The crucial turnout figures of up to 83% are suspect and may well be inflated. But independent reporting of enthusiastic celebrations suggested the overall outcome genuinely reflected popular wishes -- and was crudely democratic.
For this reason, it is unwise of U.S. President Barack Obama and his European counterparts to declare they will "never" recognize the Crimean result.
This crisis erupted when anti-Russian opposition forces in Kiev overthrew the country's democratically-elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. This action, too, was illegal under Ukraine's constitutional law and had little support in Crimea. But it was swiftly endorsed by Washington and in European capitals.
Now, faced by the pro-Russian opposition's rebound success in Crimea and a political result he does not like, Obama cries foul and refuses to accept the outcome. He cannot have it both ways.
In his telephone conversation with Obama on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin quoted the "Kosovo precedent," a reference to the recognition by the U.S. and several European states (but not Russia) of a 2008 declaration of independence by the provincial assembly in Pristina, even though Kosovo was then still a part of Serbia.
The unrepentant Russian president's slightly disingenuous question to Obama was: So what's the difference?
The right of self-determination of peoples is guaranteed under Chapter One of the U.N. Charter.
In South Sudan (which became independent in 2011), in East Timor, in Croatia and Montenegro and various other Balkan states, the U.S. and its allies have upheld and encouraged this principle. A similar process is currently underway in Scotland. If Catalonia enjoyed a similar freedom, it would quite possibly part company with Spain.
The answer given by Western governments when confronted with the "Kosovo precedent" is that each case is different and indeed, unique, and must therefore be treated on its separate merits. But this, too, is a slightly spurious argument, akin to the hypothesis which states that my invasion of a country (Iraq or Afghanistan, for example) is legally and morally justified, whereas your invasion is not.
In pragmatic as well as theoretical terms, it is a mistake to make of the assisted, hurried but essentially voluntary secession of Crimea a major issue of principle on which there can "never" be compromise. It will obscure the bigger picture. The key challenge for Obama and the EU is not the fate of Crimea per se, but what its destabilising departure implies for the future of Ukraine as a whole and for the wider region.
...
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/opinion/crimea-vote-putin-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
London (CNN) -- Whatever U.S. and European leaders may say, it seems clear a majority of the residents of Crimea were only too happy to abandon Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. The referendum held there on Sunday was illegal according to Ukrainian constitutional law and took place under duress, following the large-scale incursion of "pro-Russian forces" -- and voters did not have the choice to say "no" to severing ties with Kiev.
But these failings aside, it appears plain that most of Crimea's population, with the exception of the Tatar minority and some ethnic Ukrainians, was content to return to what it regards as its ancestral home. The crucial turnout figures of up to 83% are suspect and may well be inflated. But independent reporting of enthusiastic celebrations suggested the overall outcome genuinely reflected popular wishes -- and was crudely democratic.
For this reason, it is unwise of U.S. President Barack Obama and his European counterparts to declare they will "never" recognize the Crimean result.
This crisis erupted when anti-Russian opposition forces in Kiev overthrew the country's democratically-elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. This action, too, was illegal under Ukraine's constitutional law and had little support in Crimea. But it was swiftly endorsed by Washington and in European capitals.
Now, faced by the pro-Russian opposition's rebound success in Crimea and a political result he does not like, Obama cries foul and refuses to accept the outcome. He cannot have it both ways.
In his telephone conversation with Obama on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin quoted the "Kosovo precedent," a reference to the recognition by the U.S. and several European states (but not Russia) of a 2008 declaration of independence by the provincial assembly in Pristina, even though Kosovo was then still a part of Serbia.
The unrepentant Russian president's slightly disingenuous question to Obama was: So what's the difference?
The right of self-determination of peoples is guaranteed under Chapter One of the U.N. Charter.
In South Sudan (which became independent in 2011), in East Timor, in Croatia and Montenegro and various other Balkan states, the U.S. and its allies have upheld and encouraged this principle. A similar process is currently underway in Scotland. If Catalonia enjoyed a similar freedom, it would quite possibly part company with Spain.
The answer given by Western governments when confronted with the "Kosovo precedent" is that each case is different and indeed, unique, and must therefore be treated on its separate merits. But this, too, is a slightly spurious argument, akin to the hypothesis which states that my invasion of a country (Iraq or Afghanistan, for example) is legally and morally justified, whereas your invasion is not.
In pragmatic as well as theoretical terms, it is a mistake to make of the assisted, hurried but essentially voluntary secession of Crimea a major issue of principle on which there can "never" be compromise. It will obscure the bigger picture. The key challenge for Obama and the EU is not the fate of Crimea per se, but what its destabilising departure implies for the future of Ukraine as a whole and for the wider region.
...
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/17/opinion/crimea-vote-putin-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I wonder if there's some connection between this Ukrainian shitstorm and the natural gas deposits believed to be huge in the Black Sea near Crimea. Nah, must be unrelated.
Probably no relation. The same way there was no relatin between the American invasion of Iraq and companies there signing "exclusive" deals with the US.
Countries with power do what they want. Always was that way, always will be.
Holding a country responsible for things they did less than 15 years ago is myopic?
Changing administration does not absolve responsibility.
I guess Russia can invade Ukraine today, and if Putin and his cronies quit tomorrow, everything is fine? Come on man. I know you serve the US military, but try to have a broader world view. The does a lot of good things worldwide, but it has no credibility this matter.
Probably no relation. The same way there was no relatin between the American invasion of Iraq and companies there signing "exclusive" deals with the US.
Countries with power do what they want. Always was that way, always will be.
Holding a country responsible for things they did less than 15 years ago is myopic?
Changing administration does not absolve responsibility.
I guess Russia can invade Ukraine today, and if Putin and his cronies quit tomorrow, everything is fine? Come on man. I know you serve the US military, but try to have a broader world view. The does a lot of good things worldwide, but it has no credibility this matter.
Definitely myopic if you understand that policies change from administration to administration. And there's no magical 15 year limit.
Iraq auctioned off their oil fields and only one of them was partly won by an American company. The largest importer of Iraqi oil is China--importing almost half of the oil produced. Russian Lukoil owns 3 times more than Exxon. Very exclusive.Not to mention that US imports from Iraq have declined since before the invasion.
Last edited:
Shouldn't we get Kosovo back then? In the end this is not the era of Milosevic any longer, our politicians have extradited all accused men to Den Hague and are currently bending backwards just in order to get into the promised land. Surely this qualifies massively go get our territory back?
Russian troops are in the process of storming a Ukrainian military base in Crimea, one officer wounded and the base commander captured.
ETA: Unconfirmed reports of a fatality.
ETA: Unconfirmed reports of a fatality.
So, what happens if the Russian soldiers in Crimea and in mainland Ukraine are captured and tortured or murdered by the Ukrainians? Would Putin complain? They don't qualify as lawful combatants under the Geneva Convention.
This is taking a nasty turn, but not unexpected.
Ukraine and the West would do good not to further escalate this and also refrain from any further provocation.
That's an interesting position to take when a Ukrainian soldier has been killed after a Russian invasion.
In light of Crimea's altered status i guess such acts will be viewed as terrorism, and there'll be elements just waiting for the pretext to crackdowns on the minorities further.
A Ukrainian officer has been killed, it's hardly going to lead to afternoon tea and finger sandwiches.
Well, we predicted the referendum and annexation near the beginning of the thread. Obama won't fight it, and neither should he. What's more important is to shore up the rest of the Ukraine in case Putin still has a roving eye.
That
It's now about whether/ how Ukrainians decide to respond. I can see them waiting until they have prepared militarily as well as they can but I can't see them sitting and doing nothing about this forever.
They can concede Crimea and apply immediately to join NATO. The problem is it would upset eastern Ukraine even more.
The EU's energy dependence on Russia is preventing them from doing anything substantial.
Sir Christopher Meyer [former UK ambassador the United States and Germany] has just been on Fivelive, it is his view that NATO must remind Putin that war is very real threat if he feels emboldened enough turn his gaze towards any of Baltic states.
I think we need to get some NATO trainers in Ukraine at the very least, maybe arrange some multinational training exercises/war games.
Parochially speaking, i highly doubt that this scenario was seriously considered during the 2010 SDSR and the policy that has driven defence cuts since that time.
I think we need to get some NATO trainers in Ukraine at the very least, maybe arrange some multinational training exercises/war games.
Parochially speaking, i highly doubt that this scenario was seriously considered during the 2010 SDSR and the policy that has driven defence cuts since that time.
Last edited:
The EU should consider that a large proportion of its gas comes through Ukraine and they could also stop that if the EU does nothing / not much to help. It isn't just a chip the Russians can use.
Are you being serious? Arranging NATO driven war games literally at Russian borders? How on earth is that suppose to de-escalate the current tensions?
The US will be doing training in Northern Ukraine in June/July, I believe.
I didn't know about any Ukrainian soldier being killed. My point stands nevertheless. Tone down the aggressive rethoric and stop threatening with those imbecile sanctions. It's solving nothing.
You're not planning on flooding our place with Serbs, are you?
Not a bad idea, actually. We could build our settlements at Mt Karmel and would also quickly pick up the language as Russian is very similar to ours
Dont forget according to the rethoric only Russia can de escelate things
I woner how the US would react if Russia arranged training in the north of mexico
Not a bad idea, actually. We could build our settlements at Mt Karmel and would also quickly pick up the language as Russian is very similar to ours
With a million immigrants from Russia here I hope we're not next on Putin's list.
It's a bit late for that. The US already grabbed half of Mexico back in the 1840's.
Given Putin's newfound love of self-determination, when will Chechnya's referendum on independence be held?
Would you support the creation of a fully independent Chechnya?
Any exercises would be as much about averting future tensions as they are a response to the present ones, and speaking of which i don't think that if falls upon NATO to step back at this point. The world will be watching every step taken in the weeks and months ahead, Putin has pledged to respect Crimea's minorities yet few are likely to believe strongly in his sincerity in that regard.
I don't understand who in your scenario is the judge here? 'The world' is watching? You mean the US and UK? Germany, are they watching to? Who is Putin accountable to, and why? What business does Washington have in Ukraine anyway, one trillion miles away from their borders? The arrogance is mind boggling. This is the worst Twilight Zone episode I have ever watched.
It's not about the US or the EU, it's about all countries respecting Ukraine's borders. The one country that hasn't respected them so far is Russia.
Don't be obstreperous. Scotland wants to break from the UK. Countries will fight to retain their rogue regions.
For someone who was uncertain of my meaning you certainly ventured enough assumptions. For what it's worth I should opt for human rights organisations and other NGOs as a starting point. You paint a disheartening picture with some of your words there Mihajlovic, indeed an indifference that is itself an arrogance, so you'll have to pardon me for not thinking geography to be a barrier to one's interest in the plight of others.
Does your support of Putin's actions here override all concern for what might occur in the aftermath?
Last edited:
There are NATO advisers in Ukraine now, and I imagine, have been there for quite some time. The freedom fighters need all the assistance they can get.
Here's an interesting video. A member of Supreme Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) Miroshnichenko (a guy with pony tail) along with his "colleagues" from Svoboda , far right nationalist party, that now holds five positions in a new government, beats and threatens Mr Pantelejmonov, Chief Editor of TV Channel 1 (biggest TV company in Ukraine), forcing him to resign. Why? - because Channel 1 has broadcast Putin's yesterday speech. He's calling Panteleimonov "moskalyuka", which is a derogatory term for Russian.
You misunderstand. I'm not even a Putin supporter and I do not have a fully formed opinion on self-determination either. This is a complex subject altogether. I am only saying that the West cannot go meddling in other nations businesses, invading sovereign states, bombing them into oblivion, disregarding the international law and then all of a sudden play the concerned parent who only has our best interest at heart. It's ridiculous. Have the US and UK been accountable to human rights organisations in the past? Do you believe the position of human rights organisations determine the course if their foreign policy?
1. Inconclusive
2. A few rotten apples can be forgiven
3. It's a young democracy with teething problems, needs more time
3. Swoboda is ultimately pro-West (being anti-Russian)
4. We need to send a clear message to Putin