Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddie1980 said:
And install what? A pseudo-communist/totalitarian regime that's 100% to mother Russia? How's that good for anyone?
Click to expand...

it won't be good for Nato and IMF thats for sure

tho ukraine shouldn't bomb Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic

it will be like georgia (2008) bombing south ossetia and russia making the save
 
At this point I'm not sure what it would take to get Russia to stop what they doing. Given the Putin is willing to wreck Russia's economy to achieve whatever it is he wants to achieve I can't see anything other then a major building of western military assets in Ukraine and warships/aircraft carriers in the dead sea that would make Russia think again.
 
Vtec9k said:
The fact that the "coup", incidentally a bit of an emotive word, only happened after Yanukovych started shooting protesters. And after east also started rising up. Russian spooks had just as much influence in the initial unrest as the EU ones.
Click to expand...

The EU doesn't have spies.
 
Ukraine now reportedly taking steps to open up a full NATO application rather than their current non-aligned status. If they get fast tracked entry, will Putin back down? Under NATO articles an attack on one member is an attack on all. Given NATO have now publicly accused Russia of a "blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and engaging in direct military operations supporting the rebels Ukraine joining NATO would raise the stakes globally significantly.
 
Windle said:
Ukraine now reportedly taking steps to open up a full NATO application rather than their current non-aligned status. If they get fast tracked entry, will Putin back down? Under NATO articles an attack on one member is an attack on all. Given NATO have now publicly accused Russia of a "blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and engaging in direct military operations supporting the rebels Ukraine joining NATO would raise the stakes globally significantly.
Click to expand...

TBH I think it's just as likely to make Putin go all out, full scale invasion and annex Donetsk and Luhansk before the NATO membership is confirmed

How long does it usually take to become a member?
 
Windle said:
Ukraine now reportedly taking steps to open up a full NATO application rather than their current non-aligned status. If they get fast tracked entry, will Putin back down? Under NATO articles an attack on one member is an attack on all. Given NATO have now publicly accused Russia of a "blatant violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and engaging in direct military operations supporting the rebels Ukraine joining NATO would raise the stakes globally significantly.
Click to expand...

NATO are forbidden from admitting any direct neighbour of Russia (though that didn't seem to stop them with Estonia/Latvia) they are also forbidden from admitting any former USSR state (though that doesn't seem to bother them either). The difference is those admissions were made some time ago when Russia was on it's knees and couldn't do anything but complain about NATO violating treaties, today's Russia is much much much stronger by comparison and would have the capability to act against further NATO incursion via both political, economic and military channels.
 
ubersonic said:
NATO are forbidden from admitting any direct neighbour of Russia (though that didn't seem to stop them with Estonia/Latvia) they are also forbidden from admitting any former USSR state (though that doesn't seem to bother them either). The difference is those admissions were made some time ago when Russia was on it's knees and couldn't do anything but complain about NATO violating treaties, today's Russia is much much much stronger by comparison and would have the capability to act against further NATO incursion via both political, economic and military channels.
Click to expand...

What treaty?
 
ubersonic said:
NATO are forbidden from admitting any direct neighbour of Russia (though that didn't seem to stop them with Estonia/Latvia) they are also forbidden from admitting any former USSR state (though that doesn't seem to bother them either). The difference is those admissions were made some time ago when Russia was on it's knees and couldn't do anything but complain about NATO violating treaties, today's Russia is much much much stronger by comparison and would have the capability to act against further NATO incursion via both political, economic and military channels.
Click to expand...

"Mr Rasmussen indicated Nato was open to considering Ukraine's application to join if it met the conditions.

In 2008, Ukraine applied for Nato membership under then-President Viktor Yushchenko.

But the plans were shelved two years later when Viktor Yanukovych came to power and ended Ukraine's Nato ambitions in favour of mending relations with Russia.

Mr Rasmussen said on Friday: "I am not going to interfere with political discussions in Ukraine, but let me remind you of Nato's decision taken at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 according to which Ukraine will become a member of Nato, provided of course that Ukraine so wishes and provided that Ukraine fulfils the necessary criteria."
 
scorza said:
The EU doesn't have spies, member states do e.g. the UK but they report to their nation, not Brussels and that is important.
Click to expand...

Well yea but it doesn't really matter what nationality they actually were, they were acting on behalf of the EU power block. Plus there are plenty of EU politicians, diplomats and such that were doing plenty of under the table deals with the opposition and protest leaders. You could easily lump them into the "spooks" category .

Further more. If it's not here yet, it will be soon ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Intelligence_Analysis_Centre_(EU_INTCEN)
 
And to think all this bloodshed could have been prevented if only Kiev had given the people in the Eastern provinces a referendum on whether they want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia or not.

But such an outbreak of common sense is too much to ask for, apparently.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Why? NATO will do the same here as they did when Spetznaz troops magically appear in the Crimea.

That's 3/10 of nothing for those with short memories.
Click to expand...

At which point Crimea was part of Ukraine and Ukraine not a member of NATO therefore under zero obligation to lift a finger. Don't confuse NATO with the UN Security Council, NATO is an alliance between members. The UN Security Council has a charter for the responsibility of the maintenance of international peace and security. It's main aim is to settle disputes peacefully with settlements etc. It does however have the ability to enforce sanctions or authorize the use of force to "maintain or restore international peace and security". The UN does not have it's own military force, relying instead on contributions/involvement from member states.

If Ukraine join NATO, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty would apply..

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
 
Last edited:
Vtec9k said:
Well yea but it doesn't really matter what nationality they actually were, they were acting on behalf of the EU power block. Plus there are plenty of EU politicians, diplomats and such that were doing plenty of under the table deals with the opposition and protest leaders. You could easily lump them into the "spooks" category .

Further more. If it's not here yet, it will be soon ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Intelligence_Analysis_Centre_(EU_INTCEN)
Click to expand...

Well I say it does matter because believe it or not, not all EU nations have the same foreign policy and the EU's foreign policy unit (headed by Catherine Ashton) is regarded as a bit of a joke. France in particular is notoriously independent minded on the geo-political stage, and Germany has become increasingly active since re-unification.

It's true that EU diplomats were in Ukraine promoting democracy and the rule of law, just like they're doing in other countries like Serbia and Moldova. Why shouldn't they?

Cheers for the wiki link, I didn't know about that.
 
Yea your right, I was being probably a little loose with my definitions trying to make some counterpoints to the earlier post.
 
scorza said:
What treaty?
Click to expand...

When the USSR ended various treaties and agreements were arranged, one of which stated NATO would never admit former Warsaw pact countries.

I think this pretty much sums up the whole situation:

NATO's original mission ended with the Berlin Wall — there was no more Soviet bloc or Warsaw Pact to defend against — but the alliance actually expanded. NATO let in a number of newly independent Soviet republics, like Estonia, and former Warsaw Pact countries, such as Poland. This expansion of NATO really freaked out Russia, which sees it as an attempt by Western countries to encircle Russia militarily and dominate it politically. Arguably, Russia's fear of NATO admitting Ukraine is one of the causes of the crisis.

There's huge disagreement today about what NATO is for (beyond scaring Russia), or even whether it should still exist. The pro-NATO argument is that it keeps the peace in Europe and allows the West to efficiently cooperate on counter-terrorism and humanitarian military operations. The argument against NATO is that it unnecessarily inflames tension in Russia and forces the United States to spend way too much money on its military.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom