Ukraine Thread

[Kralizec]

"How come?" That is easy to answer: To bite Russia.

...or, it could be a case of Montenegro wanting to pursue closer relations with USA and Europe. And the rest of NATO welcoming that.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


(edit: Canada too :P)

[Gilrandir]

"My words, you say?" Yes. Where do you read unworthy (worthless)? You are a linguist, you know the importance of words. There are no reason for NATO to built bases in Montenegro, it is not the same of Montenegro is unworthy as you said, is it?
You put a disdain that I didn't. YOUR words, not mine. And you can try to distort the wording as much you want, YOU put an adjective in it.
So, except to upset Russia, what is the reason to have Montenegro in NATO? Naval bases? No. Land bases? No. Airbases? No. For each NATO as plenty of all all around the Balkans. This not a the disdain you showed to Montenegro, it is a reality check.
You should try it.

I didn't show any disdain. This is YOUR interpretation (or rather perversion) of my words. I used the word in the meaning:

worthless adjective (NOT IMPORTANT)

not important or not useful:
She was criticized so much by her employers that she began to feel worthless.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/worthless

For me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...For me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally.

Superficially, NATO is simply a defense alliance. On that prima facie basis, your basic point of assessment -- value to defensive alliance -- would clearly suggest Montenegran irrelevance.

NATO is, functionally, much more than that -- for good or for ill. I think Kralizec as the right of it in his post immediately above.

[Brenus]

"For me" Key words. Your words. And because you are now obliged to accept these are you words, you try to twist around
So, if worthless if not offensive (and it is) why did you start all this polemic?

[Gilrandir]

"For me" Key words. Your words. And because you are now obliged to accept these are you words, you try to twist around

I said that "for me, presenting no interest as a future ally = worthless as a future ally." The second part of the equation is mine, but the first is yours. I used the word "worthless" in the meaning "not important or not useful" which allowed me to claim the two statements are synonymous. Evidently, you imparted this word with a different meaning. So it is a simple misunderstanding. No intentional twisting or other sins you accuse me of.

So, if worthless if not offensive (and it is) why did you start all this polemic?

It is not offensive in the meaning I used it. Just like in: The information on how a language and a dialect are different is worthless. No disdain or humiliation. Just stating the fact that someone isn't interested in the information. That simple.

As for starting a polemic: I found what I considered to be a contradiction in your claims. When you explained that NATO did see a purpose in accepting Montenegro (to piss off Russia) I figured out that, in fact, your statement was ironical or didn't convey the whole of your mind on the issue. Again that simple. Much too often you impart me with attitudes and opinions that would fit perfectly into the image of me you have in your mind, but which, alas, doesn't coincide with the real me.


In other news:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/hagu...-ukraine-56154, where

Also listed in the report are several key criminal complaints in connection with the annexation of Crimea, including the oppression of Crimean Tatars, arrests and unfair trials, killings and kidnappings, and forced military service.

And I remember you were very sceptical that Tatars are in for persecutions after the annexation. So I applied reality check, as you taught.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus/Gilrandir:

Have you considered marriage? The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple, locked into the same endless argument for the rest of their lives.

[Brenus]

"The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple" Well, I tried in vain to stay out, but sometimes...

[Gilrandir]

Brenus/Gilrandir:

Have you considered marriage? The two of you are starting to sound like an old married couple, locked into the same endless argument for the rest of their lives.

More logical development would be a divorce, wouldn't it?

[Gilrandir]

A follow-up on "the Montenergo coup" - officials take it seriously (some even resign):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tion-coup-plot

They even mention names of people (Eduard Shirokov and Vladimir Popov) who are alleged organizers of the coup.

And this, evidently, doesn't bode well for Ukraine:
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/136732...clinton-turkey

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More logical development would be a divorce, wouldn't it?

Your "classic" old married couple would never do that -- they love the argument too much to actually end it.

[Gilrandir]

This is even more disquieting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...d78_story.html

Like Trump, Flynn has advocated forging closer ties with Russia. In interviews with The Washington Post, Flynn acknowledged being paid to give a speech and attend a lavish anniversary party for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network in Moscow last year, where he was seated next to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

[Gilrandir]

Can we say that Russian Foreign Office's spokesperson is a nazi/anti-semite?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...iracy-after-t/

[Sarmatian]

What's happening in Kiev these days? I've found a few mentions of riots and clashes between the police and protesters, rubber bullets, tear gas, the whole nine yards, but media in English is surprisingly silent about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A quick look suggests the militiamen don't want peace with the separatists, which is not unexpected.

On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO.

[Brenus]

"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

[Gilrandir]

Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

Chill out. As the events of the last 2.5 years have shown, the West will not move further than expressing indignation and protest. On a second thought it will - I forgot grave concern.

What's happening in Kiev these days? I've found a few mentions of riots and clashes between the police and protesters, rubber bullets, tear gas, the whole nine yards, but media in English is surprisingly silent about that.

http://www.unian.info/kiev/1636182-c...ry-events.html
http://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-eurom.../28130367.html
Now everything calmed down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"On the topic of Montenegro, it contains a significant chunk of Adriatic Coast and it's part of the old province of Illyria - both reasons to want it in NATO." Because having been part of Illyria (wich Albania proclaims to be the descendant) is a reason to be part of NATO? As Adriatic sea is concern, so Croatia, Greece, Slovenia, so it makes the very difficult of access Montenegro a bit redundant.
No, the only really valid reason to have Montenegro in NATO is to annoy Russia.
Result: Putin is moving short range nuclear missile to Russia European borders if I have to believe the news.
Can't wait the Western powers to express their indignation and protest about this unmotivated unilateral decision.

What should NATO do then, in your opinion?

[Brenus]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

[Montmorency]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

[Husar]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

I guess Russians are not so sure about the US not planning to shred them one day. From within NATO that thought may seem ridiculous today, but maybe not so much if one grew up there.
I generally agree with you though, especially the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

I am not sure that I agree. However, you gave a clear and concise answer to my prompt, so I thank you sir.

[Brenus]

"I am not sure that I agree" I can't ask for more. Thanks.

"the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed" A bit, as in Cyprus?

"NATO is a defensive alliance" Did you follow the news during the last 10-20 years?

[Gilrandir]

According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

Brenus, Brenus...
Now the Impeccable You do what you claim I (the Clueless One) do. Show me at least one post where I used the words you have put into my mouth. Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.

It is a lie because the USSR was self-sustaining so it could do without the West's money, technologies and goods for quite a time. But even so it eventually collapsed.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy.

Georgia hadn't treated Russia as an enemy, it had a bone to pick with Abkhasia and South Ossetia. And Russia thought it its personal issue.

Russia had been Ukraine's strategic partner (according to 1997 Treaty of friendship and cooperation). Do I have to remind you how a partner and friend started to act in February 2014?
Just don't give me the "protection of threatened Russian-speakers by evil nazis" thing.

Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia.

Do negotiate, please. Keep negotiating even if Russia violates what has been agreed upon the next day after the protocol has been signed. Bask in your naivete.

The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.

The entire Coup could have been avoided without the violent dispersion of Maidan meeting on December 1.

Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing.

Ok. Let's call you Putinversteher.

Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico.

If it did you would sooner or later hear about "the oppressed Russian-speaking minorities of Brighton beach" and "Russia is where Russian is spoken".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Brenus:

I would probably not go as far as you do in suggesting that NATO is functioning primarily as an "arm of" US foreign policy efforts. However, I acknowledge that it has been used by the US in that fashion on several occasions and Europe using NATO to leverage USA actions has been MUCH rarer (Libya maybe? Hard to think of many examples of the reverse of the coin, being fair to your point).

Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression (and insure US combat deaths from the outset thus requiring us to participate immediately and not after an 18-36 month lag period), it has been more than simply a defensive alliance for most of its history. It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests.

In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it. Would not a somewhat more pushy stance convince him to desist? Especially since, as you rightly noted above, the current semi-democratic Russian Republic is no where near the military threat the old Soviet regime was. They may still have that dash of paranoia that seems to permeate Russian culture, but Putin and others are not the Politburo living in fear of their own people blinking the wrong way. Thus, the current regime is less oriented towards suppression and, perhaps, a bit more rational. Certainly rational enough to back off if the price seems too high, yes?

[Montmorency]

Русская армия, Чёрный Ворон,
Снова готовят нам красный гром.

[Brenus]

"Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.
End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.

"Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression" I like this answer. NATO was created before the Communist equivalent. But yes, it was preventive.

"In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it": Agree, but you cannot hope the one you are targeting will not see it and react. And it is kind of asymmetric warfare, except Russia can still obliterate Earth several times but can't invade for real a small country without extreme difficulty. And again, NATO is doing exactly the same, following the pattern developed by the USA, especially in Central and South America (but not only). I know it is a bit in the past, but USA got involved in Vietnam in organising a Coup against a Vietnamese Nationalist and installed their puppet.
And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed. Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results. Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.
If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion...

"It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests" This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

[Montmorency]

This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

By its nature then, NATO has to be more multipolar than any Russian-backed organizations. Putin acts precisely for himself and close backers, but the US can't simply control NATO as it pleases without some compromises or favors among the alliance.

If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion

So where is the balance? Perhaps we should keep the "Intermarium" in mind, if not as a political idea then as a geographic one.

[Brenus]

"So where is the balance?" The balance? NATO used the fall of USSR followed by a weak Russia to push East. No way you can say now "sorry, we didn't mean it".
Russia has now an aggressive, nationalist leader, and have the taste for respect back.
So NATO has to deal with situations a bit more carefully in order not to end like in Ukraine.
Balance would start by stop pretending Western Powers didn't exploit the situation. And stop pretending that Tupolev Bear are Nuclear bombers. If Russia still had Anatra D-series or Sikorsky S16, NATO would classified them as Fighters!!!
To recognise that Russia has geostrategic interest, and can be nervous when NATO installed missile at its borders, and when regime change occurred, have to be less arrogant and/or obvious in its participation in the process. NATO doesn't care of democracy as proved by Kosovo. No Country was expelled from NATO for being dictatorships. In fact, a lot of NATO members became member when they were a dictatorship.

[Montmorency]

To recognise that Russia has geostrategic interest

If in seeking to maintain their interests, Russia violates perhaps one of the most important international dictums for the US - no unmanaged territorial changes - then all bets come off. You keep mentioning Kosovo, but whatever you think of the respective parties involved the US interest here and throughout the Balkans was primarily to pacify the region (at least in the short-term). Russia's actions in Crimea are partially a tit-for-tat in response to the Kosovo incident (less so than Georgian intervention), but the irredentist nature of Crimean "re-absorption" is so serious that it overshadows even efforts to dislodge the US from its financial hegemony. I believe that a US administration would even be willing to go so far as to "abandon" a swathe of the Intermarium as a buffer for Russia were Putin to reverse or at least renegotiate the Crimea transfer.

No Country was expelled from NATO for being dictatorships. In fact, a lot of NATO members became member when they were a dictatorship.

By the loose standard you seem to be using, all those countries would still be dictatorships.

[Brenus]

"By the loose standard you seem to be using, all those countries would still be dictatorships." ? Why would they? The regime changes in Greece, Portugal and Spain had nothing to do with NATO. NATO is indifferent to regime if it suits.

"but whatever you think of the respective parties involved the US interest here and throughout the Balkans was primarily to pacify the region (at least in the short-term)" That is your opinion and it might be true. But, put yourself in Russia's post Yeltsin leader, how will you see it? The only reel result is a US base.

As Georgia is concern, it was the same pattern than Croatian Storm Operation, attack on refugees camp and ethnic cleansing... What the Georgian President failed to see was NATO wouldn't back him up as it did for the Croats, and Russia was really at the door and had the power to intervene...