what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Sava]

To bleed you and also to generate a new wave of support for him domestically.

Yup.

Same thing with OBL and 9-11. Goad America into a fight. Bleed the US dry. Get a whole new generation of fighters. I bet OBL was cheering the day America invaded Iraq too. 2003. Think of how many young children were affected by that. The death and destruction... blaming America for every bit of it.

I look at the ISIS ranks now. You've got teenagers and young adults being drawn into that movement. We're coming up on 12 years now since the invasion. They grew up seeing American troops in their homeland.

It's just stupid. Absolutely stupid.

[Proteus_MST]

Why is it our (sole) responsibility to stop Putin?

Putin isn't our direct enemy. Ukraine isn't our direct ally. If our allies who are neighbors to Ukraine and had almost invited it into their exclusive club (which are closer allies than our allies are with us) don't care, why should we?

JM

Because of the security assurances given in the Budapest Memorandum ...
as "reward" for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapon arsenal, of which the UK, the USA and Russia were the main signees:

The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.^[1] The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

I´d say as one of the 3 signees of the Memorandum (and the one with the largest military), it is the USAs main responsibility to enforce that Russia stops breaking the assurances given in the memorandum.

Europe didn´t sign the memorandum (although individual countries gave weaker assurances)

[PLATO]

Because of the security assurances given in the Budapest Memorandum ...
as "reward" for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapon arsenal, of which the UK, the USA and Russia were the main signees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

I´d say as one of the 3 signees of the Memorandum (and the one with the largest military), it is the USAs main responsibility to enforce that Russia stops breaking the assurances given in the memorandum.

Europe didn´t sign the memorandum (although individual countries gave weaker assurances)

Interesting that you bring up the Budapest Memorandum. The United States specifically stated that the Memorandum was not "binding" in 2013 in response to Belarus arguing that sanctions against it were a violation of the memorandum. Seems we opened the door and Pooter walked right through it. That being said, Ukraine should not be bound by the agreement as well. They did sign the non-proliferation treaty after the Budapest Memorandum though and would need to withdraw from that if they were to consider a rebuilding of their nuclear arsenal. They certainly have the technology and the material to do so if they desired. It might be an interesting diplomatic move on their part to insinuate that they may withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty in order to pressure the Russian position. Hopefully, it would not be a threat that was followed through with though. Ukraine, unfortunately, has little to bargain with other than seperating itself from the west. Let's hope that the French and Germans have come up with a plan that all can accept... It is rather interesting that the two countries that massively invaded Russia and failed are the two taking the lead on a peaceful solution. Perhaps people can learn from history.

[Dinner]

Why is it our (sole) responsibility to stop Putin?

Putin isn't our direct enemy. Ukraine isn't our direct ally. If our allies who are neighbors to Ukraine and had almost invited it into their exclusive club (which are closer allies than our allies are with us) don't care, why should we?

JM

It is not, I would like to see others especially in Europe take part, but history has shown that if someone doesn't stand up to bullies then they take more and more. Sure, that isn't always true, I am not making a slippery slope argument here, but it usually is true that they get bolder and more demanding as they get away with more and more. That is just human psychology and Putin seems to be following the classic pattern. It would be nice if he learned the error of his ways and became a born again pacifist but that doesn't seem likely even though copying China's aversion to foreign military adventures and instead concentrating on national development and economic advancement would probably be a better policy.

[Dinner]

Because of the security assurances given in the Budapest Memorandum ...
as "reward" for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapon arsenal, of which the UK, the USA and Russia were the main signees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

I´d say as one of the 3 signees of the Memorandum (and the one with the largest military), it is the USAs main responsibility to enforce that Russia stops breaking the assurances given in the memorandum.

Europe didn´t sign the memorandum (although individual countries gave weaker assurances)

We can debate if the security assurances were smart or ill advised but the fact is we gave them, in writing, and either the word of the United States is good or it isn't. We know the word of Russia isn't worth crap.

[Colon™]

It is rather interesting that the two countries that massively invaded Russia and failed are the two taking the lead on a peaceful solution. Perhaps people can learn from history.

Rolling over and giving the aggressor anything it wants indeed can be a very effective way of achieving peace. Just keep your fingers crossed that aggressor doesn't end up wanting more.

[Colon™]

Rolling over and giving the aggressor anything it wants indeed can be a very effective way of achieving peace. Just keep your fingers crossed that aggressor doesn't end up wanting more.

You know what? That's what actually happened. The rebels/Russia could hardly have wanted a more accomodating settlement than the Minsk agreement and it still wasn't enough. France and Germany are negotiating on basis of this blatantly failed agreement and we're supposed to hail them for being sunch enlightened souls.

[Colon™]

The Budapest Memorandum is only a promise by signatories to respect Ukraine's borders, not a promise to protect the country from those who violate them.

[Sava]

Rolling over and giving the aggressor anything it wants

Going to continue to fuck that strawman, eh?

NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT

[Colon™]

THAT'S WHAT THE MINSK AGREEMENT IS.

[Dinner]

So what do you do when one of the is blatantly violates the treaty? You know, like how Russia has now twice done (once when it invaded and occupied the Crimea and again when they invaded and occupied those eastern areas)?

[Sava]

I wipe my ass with treaties. I'm more concerned about what is actually the best policy.

But go ahead. Give Putin exactly what he wants. More American treasure flushed down the toilet.

[PLATO]

Rolling over and giving the aggressor anything it wants indeed can be a very effective way of achieving peace. Just keep your fingers crossed that aggressor doesn't end up wanting more.

I don't think that was quite what I suggested. Russia should be made to pay a price. Does that price have to be arming the Ukrainians? Is that even a viable solution? Surely Russia would use that to either start openly supporting the seperatist or even an invasion. Is that the desired outcome? Surely not. Or do you believe that Putin will ROLL OVER and call it a day when we send Ukraine anti-tank weapons? Maybe I am unclear on what you see as the outcome from the U.S. supplying arms to the Ukrainians? Please educate me.

[Hauldren Collider]

The outcome we see is increasing the cost of Putin's continued campaign in Ukraine to the point where he no longer considers it worthwhile, as well as providing the Ukrainians a means to defend themselves in the future.

There is no diplomatic solution to this conflict. Putin has repeatedly made it clear through his actions that he will not honor a cease fire and will not stop until Eastern Ukraine goes the same way as Crimea. So if we don't arm the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians lose. Period. Are we willing to surrender to Putin here? I don't believe we are and I don't believe we should. Given that, there are only two options: Go to war in Eastern Ukraine, or support the Ukrainian military by giving it the weapons it needs to fight the Russians. If that ends up escalating the conflict and Putin manages to take Eastern Ukraine anyway, well that was what would happen if we had done nothing, too. At least by arming the Ukrainians we give them a (literally) fighting chance to maintain their sovereignty and their freedom.

Allowing Putin to win here is dangerous. The precedent it sets is important. Are we going to live in a world where we tolerate people like Putin taking grabs out of countries when they feel like it, or are we going to live in a world where people like Putin respect and fear the consequences of doing so, and countries are able to self-determinate and settle their differences diplomatically? That is what is stake. Not just Ukraine. The entire international system we have built up post-World War II and post-Cold War. Remember, it took a lot of sacrifice to put that system in place.

[Sava]

The outcome we see is increasing the cost of Putin's continued campaign in Ukraine to the point where he no longer considers it worthwhile, as well as providing the Ukrainians a means to defend themselves in the future.

Yes. This is what is already happening with the economic "war". The Russian economy is in shambles.

If you want to delay the process, by all means, lets spend more on an inefficient strategy that effectively does the same thing.