Sherman123
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,774
- Reaction score
- 3,791
- Location
- Northeast US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post
Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.
If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII
Obama's backing down every chance he gets.
I would think very true.
It's remarkable to view how many see Russia as a power player on the World Stage. Outside of energy, Russia is an also ran. As a country, they amount to very little. This is all bluster by Putin, with nothing of substance to back up his play, other than some belief Russia today should be viewed in the same light as the USSR of yesterday.
No it will not. Christ. We are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia. Even if we put troops on the Dnieper at the invitation of the Ukrainian government (as we should) we wouldn't be on the verge of World War III.
I don't discount the threats of any country with nukes.
I think that it was being overly aggressive with our recent moves in Ukraine that got us to this point. So I don't agree with you.
While I agree that we are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia, I do think that if tensions are not allowed to ease, both sides could start to implement foreign policy in a way that deteriorates trust and increases paranoia, thus creating the environment in which a war could be started. Therefore both sides should proceed with caution. The displays at that meeting were not a good sign at all.
What is wrong with got people? Don't you know a plane is missing?
It's on CNN right now 24/7, and their ratings are skyrocketing. You're missing the real story.
Now stop wasting bandwidth with this trivial nonsense.
It's certainly true that Russia is not as powerful as the USSR. However, it is incorrect to say that they are not a power player on the world stage. It's a big mistake to underestimate them in that way.
Well, in my opinion, it's a bigger mistake to estimate them in the way you suggest.
They are not an industrial power by any stretch. They are nowhere near the military power the USSR was, and after the inevitable fall of the USSR, it turns out they weren't even the military power their propaganda suggested they were at the time.
Short of the nuke arsenal, they don't have much, other than a leader it appears many are afraid of.
Overly aggressive? :lamo
While one must admire they way in which Victoria Nuland engineered the fall of Yanukovych and installation of Yatsenyuk, it was rather aggressive and a very big strategic mistake.
There is the natural gas supply Russia has, and that is the thing being used like a knife at Europes throat
Only one side is proceeding with caution, the other has been fomenting violence in a neighboring state and has launched a full scale invasion of its territory and proceeded to annex it within the space of a week. The other side has completely abandoned the field. Deterrence is inherently risky but you undertake it in the hope of heading off worse outcomes. If you aren't willing to play that necessary game then you've already lost.
We have an determined autocracy which seeks to buttress its influence, regain territory, and increase its relative strength when arrayed against the West. Firm steps have to be taken to reinforce faith in the US security guarantee, to create a limit to the maximum Russian advance, and coordinate resistance. Otherwise we'll continue to see Russia carve out influence in driblets until one day soon you'll have a re-established pro-Moscow regime in Kiev, Transnistria re-absorbed into Russia, and Russian bases on the frontier of Central Europe in western Ukraine.
Ukraine needs to be a line in the sand and we've utterly failed to step up to the task.
How was it aggressive?
Your characterization here completely ignores that although Victoria Nuland displayed tactical brilliance in engineering the fall of Yanukovych, it was a reckless move that was strategic foolishness. Not only that but it completely ignores the fact that placing NATO right on a vulnerable Russian border, and indeed right alongside it's Black Sea fleet would have the effect of substantially limiting Russia's power. No power, that could help it, would allow an military alliance that was specifically designed to contain it to put it into such a vulnerable position. That's why it is of no surprise that Putin responded in the way that he did, rather it was to be expected.
Furthermore, while you are correct that Russia is trying to buttress its influence and increase it's relative strength against the West, you have completely ignored the fact that the West is trying to do the same against Russia. Again, how else do you expect them to respond? And as far as regaining territory with regards to Crimea, I doubt we would be discussing this if Nuland had not dismantled the government of Yanukovych.
That said, you are correct when you say we have to make it absolutely clear that we will stand up to any further Russian advances. But the truth is that the preponderance of the blame for this incident lies with the US. It was a big mistake.
Well, in my opinion, it's a bigger mistake to estimate them in the way you suggest.
They are not an industrial power by any stretch. They are nowhere near the military power the USSR was, and after the inevitable fall of the USSR, it turns out they weren't even the military power their propaganda suggested they were at the time.
Short of the nuke arsenal, they don't have much, other than a leader it appears many are afraid of.
We hardly 'engineered' the fall of Yanukovych. People are willing to go down extraordinarily deep rabbit holes on the basis of a single leaked phone call. We did however seek to exploit a developing situation as best we could and put ourselves on the best possible footing. But we did not 'dismantle' the Yanukovych government--his opposition did that for him. His own actions and palpable weakness in the face of the street movement caused the desertion of political alliances which were only ever tenuous and self-interested.
USA demands from Akhmetov and Kliuyev to rise a party revolt against Yanukovych. Sanctions otherwise
I's become known of the details of the meeting between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Rinat Akhmetov.
Nuland reported that in case of a dispersal of the Euromaidan the US and EU leaders got agreement on a single reaction. That is immediate sanctions against primer politicians and oligarchs in the surroundings of Yanukovych. Moreover, the list will be continued by the names both of those, who are responsible for the the forced dispersal, and of those, who didn’t stand for the peaceful scenario. This remark won’t let anyone of the leaders of the Regions Party to avoid responsibility. What is even more important, Nuland provided the list of politicians, who will be sanctioned in the first place. Those are Rinat Akhmetov, Vadim Novinsky, Andrey and Sergey Kliuevs.
The USA anticipates that the Regions Party fraction will support all of four demands in order to begin peaceful negotiations:
1. To announce pre-term election of the President.
2. To announce pre-term elections of the Parliament.
3. To release Tymoshenko from jail and to recover her civic rights in full.
4. To open criminal cases on all the executives of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Berkut, who participated in dispersals of peaceful demonstrations.
Nuland was very precise that unfulfillment of these conditions will question any operational activities of the Metinvest and System Capital Management companies in foreign countries. The crucial moment is that the meeting was held with just Akhmetov. It means that the US does not consider Yanukovych as a reliable partner. Since the last means to communicate with Yanukovych were exhausted, the USA and EU decided to make final efforts before sanctioning Ukrainian oligarchs. They urged leaders of the Regions Party to go against Yanukovich’s will and in fact to rise a party revolt.
Secondly of course it would do that, it is the ideal. Our goal is to limit Russian power and box in a dangerous autocracy. Why do you think we extended NATO protections to the Baltics and engaged in MAP talks with Georgia? This isn't about equity, it's about winning which is something that Moscow unfortunately understands.
There is the natural gas supply Russia has, and that is the thing being used like a knife at Europes throat
Russia achievements in the area of advanced military technology are only matched by the United States. Their military hardware is in high demand the world over. They have conquered design problems that have baffled even the Chinese and that is one reason that the Chinese purchase Russian jet engines for their advanced fighter jets. Not only that but the Chinese also purchase Russian fighters. That's one reason they are a world class power.
Another reason they are a world class power is because they have enormous oil and gas reserves. Germany, the current engine of the EU economy, is dependent on Russia for 36 percent of it's natural gas. That's another reason they are a world class power.
And finally, as you have indicated, they a nuclear arsenal that is only matched by that of the US, and is in truth, capable of destroying the US, at least as we know it.
That's why it's a big mistake to underestimate them.
MAD still applies, so a state sponsored threat of that nature is not worth the effort to entertain.
As to military might, Russia is not in the same league as the U.S.. The only reason others purchase their equipment is because second best is better than nothing.
Their oil and gas reserves are the only stick they have in the bag. That stick could be blunted with sufficient will to do so. Turn off their markets, and Russia withers.
They are in essence a one trick pony
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post
Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.
If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII
Leaving nukes out of it, that would be a short war. The US alone would destroy Russias conventional military. Although Russia could form an axis with Islamic countries and China. Without China, World vs Russian Axis would be one sided. Hopefully we would not actually try to invade russia, just pummel them into retreat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?