Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I might be wrong but I think that Wiki has been edited to infer something different to Ukraine's position over the years though I don't know all the details - there were overtures from NATO in 2008 but Ukraine was not in a hurry to join preferring enhanced cooperation rather than membership. Much of their interest in 2008 period was a reaction to the Russia-Georgia situation anyhow, same as post 2014 their NATO position changed as a reaction to Russian actions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,680
From wiki article on the constitution of Ukraine:
"On 7 February 2019, the Verkhovna Rada voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO"
That's pretty clear policy. You can argue about timeliness, but both intention and direction is clear.
My comments are on the expansion of NATO aspect - Ukraine has, possibly some exceptions aside, only ever made substantial moves towards NATO in response to Russian actions. For a large part of their history post the USSR there was legislation in effect prohibiting integration, rather than cooperation, with external military pacts not just NATO.
End of the day though Russia getting funny about NATO having bases near their borders is a bit silly - the last couple of decades or so the US reach logistics, aided by our own military logistics, has the capability to move a force equivalent to what Russia used in the initial invasion of Ukraine half-way around the globe in probably as little as 72 hours. Bases are convenient but a long time since the were necessary should the West want to invade a country in a traditional sense for Western military operating at NATO strength.
One of the few things which concerned Russia, more so even than our nuclear capability, about the UK's military was/is the ability to rapidly logistic half-way around the globe - sadly something we've allowed to decline in recent years.
One of the few things which concerned Russia, more so even than our nuclear capability, about the UK's military was/is the ability to rapidly logistic half-way around the globe - sadly something we've allowed to decline in recent years.
Soldato
Sorry by pre invasion I mean't Crimea not the current one.
After Crimea they did move that way then seem to back off again somewhat.
Its difficult since as we know there have been a couple of violent swings in their leadership.
With a Pro Russian installed or a pro western installed depending on your takes.
Post crimea and with in effect long standing Russian supported coup/ Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine (again depending on your particular persuasions) its hardly surprising the leadership went that way.
Anyway semantics aside if Ukraine chose to join another grouping or pact or whatever that should be completely within their choice.
No one, should have a veto over that other than the direct members of the group/pact.
Every nation is sovereign right. Or is it only the UK that should be able to make their own choices and others should be forced to do whats best in order to preserve Russias shoulder chips
After Crimea they did move that way then seem to back off again somewhat.
Its difficult since as we know there have been a couple of violent swings in their leadership.
With a Pro Russian installed or a pro western installed depending on your takes.
Post crimea and with in effect long standing Russian supported coup/ Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine (again depending on your particular persuasions) its hardly surprising the leadership went that way.
Anyway semantics aside if Ukraine chose to join another grouping or pact or whatever that should be completely within their choice.
No one, should have a veto over that other than the direct members of the group/pact.
Every nation is sovereign right. Or is it only the UK that should be able to make their own choices and others should be forced to do whats best in order to preserve Russias shoulder chips
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,680
Ukraine might have moved towards NATO/EU membership as a result of Russia's actions. That's a fair guess on your part.
I showed policy and direction of travel regarding NATO/EU membership intent is established- it is in Ukraine's constitution.
@plasmahal pointed our the other poster's claim was "not true", and that was correct.
Its a complete red herring. It is also highly nonsensical.
Russia doesn't give a **** about NATO bases on their borders and knows it is irrelevant.
It is just a good talking point for the broke brains that support them to latch onto, and they know it.
Last edited:
Soldato
To be fair I did mean actively. They have been a bit toe in ever since they gained independence, but I think they always saw the risks as higher than the benefits. One does not simply
They were not actively engaged in joining NATO when Crimea happened, and indeed not really up until last year. Constitutionally they unlocked the option.
When in effect they could NOT join anyway since they were involved in a dispute that prevented membership.
Soldato
*US Official: China’s Blacklisted Spacety Was Providing Satellite Images to Wagner Group
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Many U.S. Partners Share U.S. Concerns About China Considering Providing Lethal Assistance to Russia’s War In Ukraine
*Senior U.S. Defense Official Kahl: Ukraine Front Line ‘a Grinding Slog,' Expects Only Incremental Gains by Both Sides in Coming Months
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Many U.S. Partners Share U.S. Concerns About China Considering Providing Lethal Assistance to Russia’s War In Ukraine
*Senior U.S. Defense Official Kahl: Ukraine Front Line ‘a Grinding Slog,' Expects Only Incremental Gains by Both Sides in Coming Months
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,680
Fair enough. I didn't know myself until plasmahal posted.
It's just that, after showing it's in the constitution, it's a bit much when some people still tried to argue the point!
Soldato
I always like to try and put myself in the shoes of "what if say France were to join Russia alliance" (or similar). We aren't going to start suggesting invasion (or actually do it), because democracy. That's the difference between them and us. Even America wouldn't invade Canada if they went communist (IMO). If they were aggressive to us, then yes.
Russia has decided that they don't like their destuctive capabilities (like missiles) to be hindered, so don't want NATO there. They want the land and resources of Ukraine, so.. based on 'it used to be ours', they decided to go in. That's it.
Russia has decided that they don't like their destuctive capabilities (like missiles) to be hindered, so don't want NATO there. They want the land and resources of Ukraine, so.. based on 'it used to be ours', they decided to go in. That's it.
Soldato
TBH constitutions saying x or y are pretty irrelevant when you can just amend them if you dont like them. In most democracies its impossible for an earlier parliament to bind a later one.
The most extreme resistance to change is probably the US with their fixation on the constitution. They are nutjobs on stuff surrounding that generally.
Eg we enacted a fixed term parliament act, then scrapped it when it became inconvenient.
As ever, "actions speak louder than words". They were not actively seeking membership.
Having it allowed (rather than having it disallowed), isnt the same as actively seeking to do something.
Caporegime
The idea that NATO expansion is the reason this happened is utterly unsupported. In reality, NATO expansion has helped prevent the same situation occurring in multiple other post-Soviet countries. While we're apparently fine throwing Ukraine under the bus when we should have defended them in 2014, no-one seriously thinks Poland or Latvia is at risk of a Russian invasion.
Without the dire leadership of Putin, Russia could be a rich, prosperous European country thriving in co-operation with the EU. He chose to enrich himself and his kleptocrat friends instead. His jealous and petty fascism is the only reason that we're in this mess.
Not really. In most democracies it is much more difficult to amend the constitution than to simply pass a law and few governments have the seats required to do so. Constitutional amendments usually, therefore, require agreement across the political spectrum. Obviously this varies a lot by country.
Hmm tell that to Americans worried about school shootings or pro-implementing some sensible gun laws at a federal level.
FYI they were not engaged at the time because of who the President was just before then... they'd previously applied to join in 2008 and were rejected, largely thanks to France and Germany.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,680
Yeah, OK. I'm out.
Soldato
Yes really.
If it can be amended by the will of parliament then the only barrier to change is whatever test is required in order to make the change.
If however thats not the case, and say it for example needs a monarchs approval who may be against it then thats a different thing.
Its different to conflate a political stalemate on something with the ability to do something.
IMO constitution reform should really be more about the populace directly than the politicians and whilst I am no major fan of referenda that is probably the best way round it.
Especially with FPTP in operation.
Your far more likely to see consensus in regards major change when its a major issue. When its a more minor issue then (eg the gun laws in the US) will make that very difficult.
By the ability remains. Should the democrats and the republicans sudden jointly decide there had to be significant changes then change would be highly likely.
Typically the reason you will struggle to achieve political consensus is that someone will have already politicised the item for gain as a vote winner.
You can set the bar where you want, make it much higher, but if you can change, you can change.
Well, with our perspective it would seem utterly stupid, if you were Russian you'd have a completely different view. You'd see NATO having expanded into all the former USSR countries and getting closer to Russia, you'd see nuclear weapons being placed in countries like Turkey and Germany. You'd look to the fact that Russia was denied the ability to join NATO when it asked to do so, yet all of the other former USSR countries have been welcomed with open arms. I don't understand why this is even a contentious issue. We don't like Russia, we deliberately sought to get as many countries aligned against them as possible. Russia don't like us, if they had the ability and resources they'd do the same thing. The only difference is that a lot of people in the West seem to want to deny reality and pretend like America isn't doing the same thing that Russia is.
NATO expansion may have prevented war, it may have caused war, it isn't black and white for anyone with an objective view. No one is *fine* with anything that's currently happening, stop making dumb statements like that, everyone is pretty ******* far from fine. You think we should have "defended them in 2014", like how? Attacked Russia? Russia will not allow itself to lose Crimea, it is strategically important to them, if you don't know why then Google it. If you want to take their naval base off them then prepare for a full on war with Russia, just as if you were to try and take Pearl Harbor from the Americans.
No one is saying that Putin is anything other than a gangster, so what? Plenty of countries are exactly the same and it's none of our business.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,612
Holds up a lot better than Russian gear looks when it's destroyed
- Status