• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,341
Reaction score
82,722
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?


Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.


Bojo-504038.jpg
 
Simpleχity;1066078555 said:
A British Foreign Secretary who excuses Russia’s invasion of Crimea?


Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.


Bojo-504038.jpg

The horrible thing is that the man is right, when he says:
“If you want an example of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine, ” he told reporters." And it is correct to say: " "On May 9 this year, during questions and answers after a speech on Europe, it transpired that for Johnson it was not Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and its military aggression in Eastern Ukraine that had caused “real trouble”, but the EU’s actions. " (both from the article.

That is not to say that Putin did not essentially commit a war crime and that it was not Russia that annexed European territory using military means. There is no excusing that.

However, the EU had not allowed Ukraine into NATO and so the country was unprotected. It then was forcing through a "trade treaty" with a military article that was known to be a clear confrontation with Russia. That would have been okay, had the EU been willing to back Ukraine up, if the obvious attack came or had stationed troops in Crimea and the Eastern provinces. But it did not do that. It let Russia take the cookie after presenting it on a plate and daring the mean man of the East.
 
In an interview in 2015, Putin stated that the decision to invade Crimea was initially discussed and operational planning was accomplished in January 2014. These events transpired before Viktor Yanukovych fled Kyiv in mid-February 2014. In other words, the invasion of Crimea was not bound to the fate of Yanukovych and/or the EU Association Agreement. Putin had decided to steal Crimea regardless of other mitigating factors.

Due to the corruption of Ukraine's presidents and MPs following independence in 1991, the Ukraine military floundered and was severely eviscerated during the term of Viktor Yanukovych. In 2014, there was nothing Ukraine could do (militarily) to protect Crimea and portions of Donbas from direct Russian aggression.
 
Back
Top Bottom