Ukraine to join NATO

[MKSheppard]

Hey, Stas; since we're on the subject of

The Russian state has always been aggressive and expansionist and will continue to be aggressive and expansionist until it recognizes that it is permanently a second-rate power. The sooner that happens the better.

claptrap; I need to point out that among Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors is none other than......Zbigniew Brzezinski; our favoritest polish-american!

Mr Brzezinski refers to Russia as the "Black Hole" in his book "The Grand Chessboard'; IOW he really, really, really hates you guys.

[K. A. Pital]

I need to point out that among Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors is none other than......Zbigniew Brzezinski; our favoritest polish-american!

I know. Obama himself though is more friendly towards Russia than McKane, and IIRC he only got some sideways consultancy from Bzezh. If good ole' "islamist triumph is better than 1980s USSR" Zbigniew rises up again though I won't be clapping my hands for Obama.

Mr Brzezinski refers to Russia as the "Black Hole" in his book "The Grand Chessboard'

He also says it's okay to sponsor radical islamists if they kill dirty Russkies. And I recall a picture of him being taken with some Talibs in Afghanistan. Not the kind of person I'd want to have anything in common, but hey.

As for Hemlock, he just went over the top with that, with the "always agressive, will be agressive, let us hammer second rate power into them!". I guess Red Scare affects thinking severely indeed.

[CJvR]

(which nation did we actually attack in the recent years?)

Austria-Hungary
Poland
The Baltic States
Finland
Japan
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan

[K. A. Pital]

(which nation did we actually attack in the recent years?)

Austria-Hungary
Poland
The Baltic States
Finland
Japan
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan

Did "recent" fly over your fucking head, troll? Russia exists for 17 years. So I re-iterate: which nation have we attacked?

NATO/US wars:
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Afghanistan
Iraq

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

(which nation did we actually attack in the recent years?)

Austria-Hungary
Poland
The Baltic States
Finland
Japan
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan

How doe Japan count when they were the aggressor?

[K. A. Pital]

(which nation did we actually attack in the recent years?)

Austria-Hungary
Poland
The Baltic States
Finland
Japan
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan

How doe Japan count when they were the aggressor?

Sshh, don't spoil his version of history! Japan didn't have a prior history of attacking Russia, and Russia did not attack Japan under allied obligations with the US and Britain. Noes evil Russia!

Not to mention this is not recent. If the idiot wanted to prove Hemlock's thesis, he failed - I could easily rack such a list of wars for any major power.

[Omega18]

Show me, fucktard. "Minority" in the Eastern part? Like, half of Ukraine's population? "Minority"? You asswipe, how about showing a public poll results to prove your opinion?

Lets talk about previous election results in the friggin Ukraine then.

With the 2007 parlimentary elections for instance, the Party of Regions only got about 34% of the vote, and the Communist Party got a bit over 5%. That equals around 40% of the vote, and virtually all the other groups that got votes were not interested in union with Russia. (In fact the biggest number of votes went to parties clearly interested in allying with the west more strongly.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_ ... on%2C_2007

Not all those in the 40% percent number necessarily want a union with Russia either, some simply want to maintain good relations, (which is different than wanting a union) and others simply supported the parties for their domestic policies.

A single not linked to poll which clearly doesn't represent how the people of the Ukraine actually vote doesn't change this. In fact, the results are so unbelievable it certainly makes me wonder who took the poll and what there motives were for doing so. (Beside outright making up the results or doing something like only polling people in the east, you can also certainly get desired results if you phrase the polling questions carefully enough as a rule.)

[MKSheppard]

Lets recap:

-----------------

Outright invasions:

Austria-Hungary - LOL WHUT? 1914!!!! And didn't Germany DoW Russia anyway?

Poland - 1939 (Stupidest thing ever)
The Baltic States - 1939 (Stupidest thing ever)
Finland - 1939

----------------

Peacekeeping operations in support of an allied government; usually Soviet allied, in danger from protestors or internal elements

Hungary - 1950s
Czechoslovakia - 1950s
Afghanistan - 1980s

[Coyote]

Hmm, what has Russia done "over the top" whilst reacting to Ukraine's NATO movements? "Voicing concerns" - the diplo-speak for something that you don't like, and just say "I don't like it" in diplomatic - is not an "over the top" reaction, isn't it?

Well, this is that weird crossroads of "you've got a point" and "wtf?". Like the limited missile defense thing that was going to be stationed in Alaska. And the one in Poland, later on. Both were seen as "provocations" against Russia; but at the same time it was evident that they were pretty limited in deployment and seemed to intended, at best to knock down a tiny amount of missiles-- a fraction of what, conceivably, the Russians could launch. It seemed to me that freaking out about that (especially the Alaska one, which was so soon after the Nork missile test) kinda undermined the seriousness of other concerns.

Explaning that Ukraine, as a NATO member, will be counted as a potential adversary and be targeted by SNFs accordingly, that's "over the top"? Nuclear countries target every potential adversary and NATO has been a longtime adversary of Russia. Russia is still listed as an adversarial nation by US politicians. We don't have any reason NOT to target NATO states.

Stas, remember, it takes two to play this game. You say we still have missiles pointed at Russia while in the same sentence talking about how Russia will have missiles pointed at Ukraine because it associates with the West. So Russia, also, has not given us a reason NOT to target them.

I'm sure that you, me, and many others on this board would agree that the whole thing is foolishly stupid. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I think the US has the position of strength in this and so we have the responsibility of initiative and we (the US) should cut WMD targeting and be more respectful of Russian historical and political concerns. I doubt it would take much arm-twisting for Europe to go along with something like that.

Russia could take some of the starch out of its shorts and be a little more flexible, too, though. I think sometimes Putin has been a dick just because he could, and to prove that Russia is still important.

If Ukraine goes to NATO, I think it might actually provide a strong pro-Slav counterbalance to traditional American domination. Economically, Europe can now dictate equal terms to the USA, even more so with Chimpy McStumblefuck in charge. As far as education and innovation go, Europe is beating us. If Europe chooses to challenge the USA as top dog, we'll have little choice but to accept a multipolar world (China is already pushing us into a corner).

A stronger Europe won't help Russia, but it will force America to get off its high horse... which in the long run will help Russia, if indirectly. Ukrainian membership in NATO will ultimately be a thing between Ukraine and Europe more than anyone else.

[Coyote]

Chechnya.

And cynical political maneuverings in places ranging from Dagestan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other little microstates in the region.

There was also a lot of political support and blustery rhetoric in favor of Slobodan Milosivic and his "Greater Serbia", a phrase that --even if things weren't as bad as Western media reported-- is still not a point-earner in typical households.

Like I said, we can compare the layers of blood on hands until the crows fly home, but it doesn't change the fact that, while many states don't trust the USA, as many also don't trust Russia. After the USSR broke up, only Beyelorus felt bad about it afterwards and wanted to come back. Everyone else-- Hungarians, Romanians, Czechia, etc-- slammed the door and never looked back. They didn't like serving as the historical buffer zone for the Rodina-- sorry, that's the way it was.

I do agree that Bush going to Ukraine and trying to pry them away from Russia and into NATO is a needless provocation... but... if it happens, I don't think the results would be what he intends. Ukraine would bring a lot of backbone to Europe and I think it would be the beginning of the end of US domination of the alliance. It wouldn't be replaced with Ukrainian domination... it would be a realization from Europe that "hey, we can outspend and outgun the USA. Fuck 'em".

We'll have a multipolar world-- USA, EU, Russia and China, with India as the young tiger. It may not be "victory for Russia" day but it will be "US has to learn to play well with others" day instead.

The way things are going, that's probably the best anyone can really have expectations of.

[Kane Starkiller]

I very much doubt Ukraine's entrance into the NATO will strengthen EU as opposed to USA. Notice that newer members like Poland repeatedly side with US rather than rest of EU. And I really can't see UK siding with EU over USA in the case of any serious confrontation.
The real backbone of EU has always been a strong French-German alliance and the strength of EU will depend, IMO, mostly on whether Germans can again exert full influence over their historic "backyard" that is Eastern Europe.

[montypython]

The whole Ukrainian entry into NATO is being fast-tracked by those who already have an ax to grind against Russia anyway, so the only thing that can come of this is even more crap building up before something explodes, or worse.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As for Hemlock, he just went over the top with that, with the "always agressive, will be agressive, let us hammer second rate power into them!". I guess Red Scare affects thinking severely indeed.

You are a second-rate power, and your nation has always typically had an inferiority/backwards complex with the West. Maybe since Byzantium and Ivan. Definitely since Peter. He just said your nation ought to accept its second-rate status. Nothing about "hammering it into you." Sorry, but that's Russian xenophobia right there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Lets recap:

-----------------

Outright invasions:

Austria-Hungary - LOL WHUT? 1914!!!! And didn't Germany DoW Russia anyway?

Poland - 1939 (Stupidest thing ever)
The Baltic States - 1939 (Stupidest thing ever)
Finland - 1939

----------------

Peacekeeping operations in support of an allied government; usually Soviet allied, in danger from protestors or internal elements

Hungary - 1950s
Czechoslovakia - 1950s
Afghanistan - 1980s

How about South Ossetia interference? Noises about intervention in Kosovo?

[Vympel]

The title of this thread is misleading. Just because Bush, a lame-duck, extremely unpopular President internationally with virtually no leverage, says that he supports something, does not somehow translate into "Ukraine will join NATO". The other members of NATO all have veto power - and considerable numbers of them have voiced the opinion that they don't want to upset Russia for the sake of Ukraine or Georgia.

And as for the "paranoia" argument, sorry, it's a justified concern. What other reason does NATO have to expand to Georgia, the hole in the Earth's field latrine, if there ever was one?

[Vympel]

Chechnya.

And cynical political maneuverings in places ranging from Dagestan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other little microstates in the region.

That's completely nonsensical. No offense, but it would help if people took time to understand just what Chechnya and Dagestan are before using them as examples of anything. They are not micro-states, or states at all, for that matter- and never were. They are an intergral part of the Russian Federation, the successor to the Russian SFR- speaking of "cynical political maneuverings" in Dagestan would be like saying America engages in same when it passes Federal laws that affect the states.

Everyone else-- Hungarians, Romanians, Czechia, etc-- slammed the door and never looked back. They didn't like serving as the historical buffer zone for the Rodina-- sorry, that's the way it was.

This also tells me you haven't put much thought into the difference between the USSR, the Russian SFR, and the Warsaw Pact allies. Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia were client states of the USSR, they weren't Soviet Republics. Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, the Baltic States etc were Soviet Republics - ie. part of the USSR.

[Vympel]

How about South Ossetia interference? Noises about intervention in Kosovo?

Are you kidding me? The bar is set desperately low for Russia's alleged aggression and expansionism, isn't it? They "interfered" in Georgia's seperatist regions and made noise about intervening in Kosovo, which they never did?

[thejester]

We used to be a single nation. Surprisingly, most of Ukraine holds our president in higher regard than their own, and also supports a union with Russia.

I'm sorry but this is very clearly non-sense, (other than the used to be a single nation part) especially for the second part.

Hey fucker, how about READING something on the subject before calling something that has been determined quite well by opinion polls, idiot?

None of the information you just posted in anyway supports the statement 'most of Ukraine holds our president in higher regard than their own' and it is drawing a very long bow to say that the majority of Ukrainians favour a unification with Russia when the actual question was a unification of four CIS states in the context of Ukranian membership of the EU.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's completely nonsensical. No offense, but it would help if people took time to understand just what Chechnya and Dagestan are before using them as examples of anything. They are not micro-states, or states at all, for that matter- and never were. They are an intergral part of the Russian Federation, the successor to the Russian SFR- speaking of "cynical political maneuverings" in Dagestan would be like saying America engages in same when it passes Federal laws that affect the states.

Yeah, and simply because a state says something about its integral components does not necessarily speak anything of the moral legitimacy. The fact is that the Russian Federation in of itself is much more an empire than the United States. There are many culturally and ethno-linguistically distinct nations within the Russian Federation. Alaska is NOT to Washington what Chechnya is to Moscow.

This also tells me you haven't put much thought into the difference between the USSR, the Russian SFR, and the Warsaw Pact allies. Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia were client states of the USSR, they weren't Soviet Republics. Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, the Baltic States etc were Soviet Republics - ie. part of the USSR.

Occupying nations and giving them the legal pretense to representation and federalism is quite different to actually doing so; it was imperialism by another name and anyone honest knows that.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How about South Ossetia interference? Noises about intervention in Kosovo?

Are you kidding me? The bar is set desperately low for Russia's alleged aggression and expansionism, isn't it? They "interfered" in Georgia's seperatist regions and made noise about intervening in Kosovo, which they never did?

What, interfering in areas of another sovereign nation doesn't count? With South Ossetia? To point fingers over Yugoslavia - which was a Euro-American effort and internationally supervised, etc. - and then wave off intervention and interference in Georgia by Russia is total hypocrisy.

[Battlehymn Republic]

This would be so much simpler if we just gave all of the land back to the Mongols.

[Vympel]

Yeah, and simply because a state says something about its integral components does not necessarily speak anything of the moral legitimacy.

"Moral legitimacy"? Define same, please?

The fact is that the Russian Federation in of itself is much more an empire than the United States. There are many culturally and ethno-linguistically distinct nations within the Russian Federation.

Non-sequitur. Justify why the existence of many distinct groups within the Russian Federation somehow translates into the Russian Federation being an "empire". You may also want to define "empire", which I assume you're using as a negative perjorative to justify claims of Russians aggressiveness and expansionism - which is in any event also nonsensical, unless you think it's "aggression" and "expansionism" to retain the possessions you keep as the legal successor to the RSFSR, which in turn got same from the Russian Empire.

Alaska is NOT to Washington what Chechnya is to Moscow.

There's no appreciable difference whatsoever.

Occupying nations and giving them the legal pretense to representation and federalism is quite different to actually doing so; it was imperialism by another name and anyone honest knows that.

Who says I was justifying Soviet imperialism? I was pointing out / lamenting level of ignorance about the USSR, the Soviet Republics thereof, and the Warsaw Pact amongst posters.

What, interfering in areas of another sovereign nation doesn't count? With South Ossetia? To point fingers over Yugoslavia - which was a Euro-American effort and internationally supervised, etc. - and then wave off intervention and interference in Georgia by Russia is total hypocrisy.

Garbage. When did Russia do anything equivalent to NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in relation to South Ossetia? It's obvious that Russia post-1991 has not been aggressive/expansionist to any significant extent - the fact that you're reduced to using mere "noise" for example as an argument makes that self-evident.

[TC Pilot]

Yes, I'm sure Russia will be thrilled one of its neighbors might join a specificly anti-Russian military alliance

Honestly, what possible value can be gotten out of bringing Ukraine into NATO over continually antagonizing Russia?

Now we just need to get Finland, Belarus, Kazahkstan, and Mongolia so we can attack Russia from every direction all at once. That'll teach them for trying to infringe on our rightful claims to the North Pole!

[Omega18]

Alaska is NOT to Washington what Chechnya is to Moscow.

There's no appreciable difference whatsoever.

This is extremely silly nonsense.

Alaska was voluntarily sold by the Russian government to the US, for what was considered a reasonable amount of money at the for what was perceived as essentially worthless land by a large portion of the people of that era. At MOST there were about 1,000 Ethnic Russians (this basically includes anyone white from the Russian Empire at the time) at any one time in Alaska prior to it being sold to the US. It should further be noted that many of the those Russians were only in Alaska temperarily and didn't plan on settling there permantly.

Only about 15.6% percent of the population of Alaska today would specifically identify themselves Alaska Natives, (the Native Americans in Alaska) and this population includes plenty of people of mixed race, and obviously this is the group other than the US that would have a claim on the land if anyone does. (The US also has addressed those claims to some degree with the "Native Corporations" that have been set up and the amount of land these corporations own.) Chechnya is a very different situation in a variety of ways.

[Vympel]

This is extremely silly nonsense.

That entirely depends on your premise.

Alaska was voluntarily sold by the Russian government to the US, for what was considered a reasonable amount of money at the for what was perceived as essentially worthless land by a large portion of the people of that era. At MOST there were about 1,000 Ethnic Russians (this basically includes anyone white from the Russian Empire at the time) at any one time in Alaska prior to it being sold to the US. It should further be noted that many of the those Russians were only in Alaska temperarily and didn't plan on settling there permantly.

Only about 15.6% percent of the population of Alaska today would specifically identify themselves Alaska Natives, (the Native Americans in Alaska) and this population includes plenty of people of mixed race, and obviously this is the group other than the US that would have a claim on the land if anyone does. (The US also has addressed those claims to some degree with the "Native Corporations" that have been set up and the amount of land these corporations own.) Chechnya is a very different situation in a variety of ways.

No, it's not. The method by which Russian Empire acquired Chechnya- conquest, does not make Chechnya any less a legitimate part of the Russian Federation, by any consistent norm for the conduct of nation states - that is the premise by which I proceed. For fuck's sake, the existence of the United States in total is a by product of ruthless conquest and large scale ethnic cleansing / mass killing of native peoples - does America get "moral legitimacy" over its possessions by conquest because there's so few native americans left after they lost their wars to keep their freedom and land?

And it's not just the US- I could go on like this for the next decade about most countries in the world.