The Ukraine Crisis
- Skjellyfetti
- Anal
- Posts: 14410
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm
- I am a fan of: Appalachian
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
"Russia is continuing the building of a democratic society"
"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes"
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
- Richard Burr, (R-NC)
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59295
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
This an honest, solid take from someone who worked in and knows both countries well.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19949
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Not really, because I'm sure if I dug I could find evidence of Russia ignoring previous agreements in order to further it's own needs.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:22 amTook me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:36 pm
We disagree and I have at least two reasons:
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.
In addition:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, hereinafter referred to as NATO and Russia, based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.
NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.
I do wonder what lengths you will go to to deflect blame for the invasion away from Russia and toward the US and NATO. If you were parsing responsibility, what percentage would you give the US and NATO? What percentage to Russia? What percentage to Ukraine?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
It's not so much deflecting blame as trying to show there is a history of NATO/US offering promises only to not keep them, and thus, poking the bear. You are the only one to recognize that. Most of my issue, which has been stated from the start, is the story is very one sided.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:30 amNot really, because I'm sure if I dug I could find evidence of Russia ignoring previous agreements in order to further it's own needs.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:22 am
Took me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.
In addition:
I do wonder what lengths you will go to to deflect blame for the invasion away from Russia and toward the US and NATO. If you were parsing responsibility, what percentage would you give the US and NATO? What percentage to Russia? What percentage to Ukraine?
If I were to assign, I'd put it at 55% Putin and 45% NATO/US.
Also, as previously stated, I am for what the US is trying to do, but don't agree how ham fisted we are trying to accomplish those goals. True change in how the US operates doesn't happen if everyone believes the US has been awesome all these years.
Lastly, this isn't me digging. This is from a rather large list of Europeans and American researchers/authors giving their version of why this war happened.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19949
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
That's fair. My perspective is that all of those broken US promises are excuses that Putin has used to justify an invasion he likely would have carried out regardless of whether we had broken promises or not. I would probably give Putin and Russia 80+% responsibility.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:35 amIt's not so much deflecting blame as trying to show there is a history of NATO/US offering promises only to not keep them, and thus, poking the bear. You are the only one to recognize that. Most of my issue, which has been stated from the start, is the story is very one sided.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:30 am
Not really, because I'm sure if I dug I could find evidence of Russia ignoring previous agreements in order to further it's own needs.
I do wonder what lengths you will go to to deflect blame for the invasion away from Russia and toward the US and NATO. If you were parsing responsibility, what percentage would you give the US and NATO? What percentage to Russia? What percentage to Ukraine?
If I were to assign, I'd put it at 55% Putin and 45% NATO/US.
Also, as previously stated, I am for what the US is trying to do, but don't agree how ham fisted we are trying to accomplish those goals. True change in how the US operates doesn't happen if everyone believes the US has been awesome all these years.
Lastly, this isn't me digging. This is from a rather large list of Europeans and American researchers/authors giving their version of why this war happened.
I agree the US could and should do better but while we've been hypocritical/clumsy we've also been better than a lot of nations (Dubya building a coalition with international support before invading Iraq compared to Putin's invasion of Ukraine being one example).
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
To be honest, I simply have become frustrated with the whole either/or binary choices we keep being presented with by our media. We never get to root cause.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:57 amThat's fair. My perspective is that all of those broken US promises are excuses that Putin has used to justify an invasion he likely would have carried out regardless of whether we had broken promises or not. I would probably give Putin and Russia 80+% responsibility.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:35 am
It's not so much deflecting blame as trying to show there is a history of NATO/US offering promises only to not keep them, and thus, poking the bear. You are the only one to recognize that. Most of my issue, which has been stated from the start, is the story is very one sided.
If I were to assign, I'd put it at 55% Putin and 45% NATO/US.
Also, as previously stated, I am for what the US is trying to do, but don't agree how ham fisted we are trying to accomplish those goals. True change in how the US operates doesn't happen if everyone believes the US has been awesome all these years.
Lastly, this isn't me digging. This is from a rather large list of Europeans and American researchers/authors giving their version of why this war happened.
I agree the US could and should do better but while we've been hypocritical/clumsy we've also been better than a lot of nations (Dubya building a coalition with international support before invading Iraq compared to Putin's invasion of Ukraine being one example).
I abide by the phrase, "There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying". I don't have to be right, I just want to know the truth.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19949
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Frustrated with either/or binary choices? I'm a libertarian. I get it and I try to point out the hypocrisy of both sides.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:04 amTo be honest, I simply have become frustrated with the whole either/or binary choices we keep being presented with by our media. We never get to root cause.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:57 am
That's fair. My perspective is that all of those broken US promises are excuses that Putin has used to justify an invasion he likely would have carried out regardless of whether we had broken promises or not. I would probably give Putin and Russia 80+% responsibility.
I agree the US could and should do better but while we've been hypocritical/clumsy we've also been better than a lot of nations (Dubya building a coalition with international support before invading Iraq compared to Putin's invasion of Ukraine being one example).
I abide by the phrase, "There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying". I don't have to be right, I just want to know the truth.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
As my daughter would say, "facts".UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:10 amFrustrated with either/or binary choices? I'm a libertarian. I get it and I try to point out the hypocrisy of both sides.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:04 am
To be honest, I simply have become frustrated with the whole either/or binary choices we keep being presented with by our media. We never get to root cause.
I abide by the phrase, "There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying". I don't have to be right, I just want to know the truth.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- SDHornet
- Supporter
- Posts: 19443
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
- I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russ ... -rcna33268KYIV, Ukraine — Russia’s invasion in February prompted a wave of public support for the government of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as millions of Ukrainians raced to help defend their homeland. Four months later — amid Russian advances and spiking casualties — anger and frustration over the handling of the war is swelling.
- SDHornet
- Supporter
- Posts: 19443
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
- I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
This should end well. Something something NATO doesn't start wars or something...
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23231
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
I do not understand the right's adoration of Putin - what is it about him other than he's white? Why do they slavishly worship a homicidal dwarf?
reek2/reek3 can you help us to understand the attraction?
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59295
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Yeah, someone in the State Department told Lithuania to not allow Russian shipments through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. I don't think Lithuania has much legal ground to do this, but we'll see if the rules change again.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59295
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
A really good long game read here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... an/661312/Then, in an expansionist mood, Russia embarked on an ill-judged war of territorial conquest against its neighbor, it did so with a grandiose sense of its conquering power. Russia’s leader, who ruled nearly as an absolute monarch and held his counterpart next door in contempt, believed that his country’s interests were threatened, that Russia deserved more influence and respect. He had envisioned a scenario in which his enemy would yield quickly in the face of overwhelming odds and accede to Russian territorial demands.
Contrary to the expectations of the sovereign and his military planners, the initial campaign went badly for Russia. This was partly because of snarled supply lines and logistics, but the biggest factor in Russia’s early defeats was its profound misjudgment of its foe. No pushover, Russia’s opponent surprised the world with its determination and ability to resist Russian might, aided by timely support from European allies.
Russia’s overconfident intransigence meant it missed an early window of opportunity whereby diplomacy—backed by a huge army and a respectable navy—could perhaps have secured some territorial concessions. Instead, it embarked upon a bloody contest, accompanied by credible reports of looting, civilian atrocities, and sexual violence. Russian troops proved themselves to be as brutal as feared in the territories they occupied. Russian generals were dismayed by the desultory performance of their troops, many of which lacked discipline and were unmotivated, as evidenced by widespread instances of soldiers disobeying orders. Russian efforts were also hampered by subpar technology, disagreement among commanders, a lack of combined arms coordination…
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18033
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Lithuania can do whatever the heck they want to do. Russia doesn't own the ground in Lithuania. They have no inherent right to have rail access through that country. If Russia wants to ship things that are on the sanctioned list (and there are plenty of things, including passengers, that aren't on the sanction list so there is plenty that can be shipped through Lithuania at this time) the Russia can put them on a boat and sail those things to Kaliningrad. No one's blockading anything, there's free access through the Baltic. But if you're going to be a belligerent nation who launches offensive wars of destruction on your neighbors in an attempt to take territory and build an empire, then you have to realize that not everyone is going to play nice with you.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:47 amYeah, someone in the State Department told Lithuania to not allow Russian shipments through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. I don't think Lithuania has much legal ground to do this, but we'll see if the rules change again.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18033
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Let me know when NATO starts a war. I'll be waiting.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18033
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Super. Doesn't change anything. NATO didn't go out looking to expand. Countries that were afraid of Russia deciding to mass troops on their border and then invade in a deliberate and open attempt to add to their "empire" - strangely, exactly what is happening to Ukraine right now, came to NATO and asked for protection. If Russia didn't want NATO to expand, then the best way to do that would've been not to threaten the existence of their neighbors, and in very clear examples (Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc) they did exactly that.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:22 amTook me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:36 pm
We disagree and I have at least two reasons:
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.
In addition:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, hereinafter referred to as NATO and Russia, based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.
NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.
Again, what exactly is Russia's contention that a defensive alliance that has never indicated it's ready to turn offensive and invade Russia, is an existential threat that requires millions of non-Russians to have to give up their lives and freedoms so that Russia can feel "secure"? In another post you actually make the statement that Ukraine being invaded right now, and thousands of people killed, is almost 50% our fault or the fault of the West - that is, frankly, some of the most unbelievable bullsh*t I've ever heard on this site. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18033
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
This is where I call bullsh*t - Russia invading and annexing parts of Ukraine against the will of the Ukrainian government and the people who live there (or who did live there before Russia's invasion killed so many of them) is 100% Putin.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:35 amIt's not so much deflecting blame as trying to show there is a history of NATO/US offering promises only to not keep them, and thus, poking the bear. You are the only one to recognize that. Most of my issue, which has been stated from the start, is the story is very one sided.UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:30 am
Not really, because I'm sure if I dug I could find evidence of Russia ignoring previous agreements in order to further it's own needs.
I do wonder what lengths you will go to to deflect blame for the invasion away from Russia and toward the US and NATO. If you were parsing responsibility, what percentage would you give the US and NATO? What percentage to Russia? What percentage to Ukraine?
If I were to assign, I'd put it at 55% Putin and 45% NATO/US.
Also, as previously stated, I am for what the US is trying to do, but don't agree how ham fisted we are trying to accomplish those goals. True change in how the US operates doesn't happen if everyone believes the US has been awesome all these years.
Lastly, this isn't me digging. This is from a rather large list of Europeans and American researchers/authors giving their version of why this war happened.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 27895
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
The tweeter is wrong when he says its the Russian’s equivalent of Alaska. The US didn’t take Alaska by force, kill a bunch of the population, and forcibly remove the rest who hadn’t fled. The Soviets annexed, or took by force, or stole (whatever term you want to use) what is now Kalingrad Oblast from the Germanas at the end of WWII. It had been East Prussia, and the city of Kalingrad had been Königsberg. The German population that hadn’t already fled (or been killed) was forcibly expelled. Now you can say the Krauts started WWII (in Europe) and to the winner goes the spoils, but before East Prussia was part of Germany it was part of Poland. Bottom line is, it should be Polish or German territory, not Russian.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 27895
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
GF is right here..GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:27 amLithuania can do whatever the heck they want to do. Russia doesn't own the ground in Lithuania. They have no inherent right to have rail access through that country. If Russia wants to ship things that are on the sanctioned list (and there are plenty of things, including passengers, that aren't on the sanction list so there is plenty that can be shipped through Lithuania at this time) the Russia can put them on a boat and sail those things to Kaliningrad. No one's blockading anything, there's free access through the Baltic. But if you're going to be a belligerent nation who launches offensive wars of destruction on your neighbors in an attempt to take territory and build an empire, then you have to realize that not everyone is going to play nice with you.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:47 am
Yeah, someone in the State Department told Lithuania to not allow Russian shipments through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. I don't think Lithuania has much legal ground to do this, but we'll see if the rules change again.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
The issue, as I'm understanding it, is that Russia and Lithuania have an agreement with wording that specifies how this agreement can be severed, and this isn't how it's done. In addition, the materials being transported were not listed as items the EU was sanctioning. So now we have the EU and Lithuania changing the rules.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:27 amLithuania can do whatever the heck they want to do. Russia doesn't own the ground in Lithuania. They have no inherent right to have rail access through that country. If Russia wants to ship things that are on the sanctioned list (and there are plenty of things, including passengers, that aren't on the sanction list so there is plenty that can be shipped through Lithuania at this time) the Russia can put them on a boat and sail those things to Kaliningrad. No one's blockading anything, there's free access through the Baltic. But if you're going to be a belligerent nation who launches offensive wars of destruction on your neighbors in an attempt to take territory and build an empire, then you have to realize that not everyone is going to play nice with you.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:47 am
Yeah, someone in the State Department told Lithuania to not allow Russian shipments through Lithuania to Kaliningrad. I don't think Lithuania has much legal ground to do this, but we'll see if the rules change again.
It's a little extreme, but what happens when the mob determines what rules they want to make and keep?
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 19949
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
The rules changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. It's on them that all of their agreements were up for reinterpretation after that.SeattleGriz wrote:The issue, as I'm understanding it, is that Russia and Lithuania have an agreement with wording that specifies how this agreement can be severed, and this isn't how it's done. In addition, the materials being transported were not listed as items the EU was sanctioning. So now we have the EU and Lithuania changing the rules.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:27 am Lithuania can do whatever the heck they want to do. Russia doesn't own the ground in Lithuania. They have no inherent right to have rail access through that country. If Russia wants to ship things that are on the sanctioned list (and there are plenty of things, including passengers, that aren't on the sanction list so there is plenty that can be shipped through Lithuania at this time) the Russia can put them on a boat and sail those things to Kaliningrad. No one's blockading anything, there's free access through the Baltic. But if you're going to be a belligerent nation who launches offensive wars of destruction on your neighbors in an attempt to take territory and build an empire, then you have to realize that not everyone is going to play nice with you.
It's a little extreme, but what happens when the mob determines what rules they want to make and keep?
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
So you're in the rules based instead of law based. What happens when the rules change in a bad way for you, or America?UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:34 pmThe rules changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. It's on them that all of their agreements were up for reinterpretation after that.SeattleGriz wrote:
The issue, as I'm understanding it, is that Russia and Lithuania have an agreement with wording that specifies how this agreement can be severed, and this isn't how it's done. In addition, the materials being transported were not listed as items the EU was sanctioning. So now we have the EU and Lithuania changing the rules.
It's a little extreme, but what happens when the mob determines what rules they want to make and keep?
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
The mob mentality is seductive.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16534
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Sure bro. I've only said I'd like to end the killing by negotiating, but you're cool with killing everyone as long as their not on your team.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:35 amSuper. Doesn't change anything. NATO didn't go out looking to expand. Countries that were afraid of Russia deciding to mass troops on their border and then invade in a deliberate and open attempt to add to their "empire" - strangely, exactly what is happening to Ukraine right now, came to NATO and asked for protection. If Russia didn't want NATO to expand, then the best way to do that would've been not to threaten the existence of their neighbors, and in very clear examples (Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc) they did exactly that.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:22 am
Took me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.
In addition:
Again, what exactly is Russia's contention that a defensive alliance that has never indicated it's ready to turn offensive and invade Russia, is an existential threat that requires millions of non-Russians to have to give up their lives and freedoms so that Russia can feel "secure"? In another post you actually make the statement that Ukraine being invaded right now, and thousands of people killed, is almost 50% our fault or the fault of the West - that is, frankly, some of the most unbelievable bullsh*t I've ever heard on this site. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Thanks for straightening me out.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz