Now that the tension around Ukraine is rising, who do you think is justified sending troops in Crimea, Ukraine?
Putin proposes to send Russian armed forces to Ukraine | Reuters
Totally agree Carinal... no one should send troops in to another sovereign country unless asked by their government, or the government has become completely illegitimate through mass murder or other crimes against humanity, and even then interference is iffy at best.
Besides russia seems to be taking action similar to Nazi Germany right before WW2 officially started with france and britten entering the fight. Taking up first thsoe places that were "Ethnically" and "historically" german, in this case russian, and then expanding on that each time saying " we will stop after this" and then ignoring any peace treaty or agreement afterwords. I hope the world has learned Appeasement never works. First Georgia, now Ukraine.
I hope not because if we do it will have to be a NATO undertaking and thats gonna involved a lot of talks before that even happens. Also, I dont think it will happen because it seems to me Obama is pretty timid as far as this crisis has gone so far- and he's the only one with enough influence to cobble together a coalition to get this through politically.
Also, unless the Ukrainian military fragments along ethnic lines like Yugoslavia did I think the most they will be asking for is shipments of ammo and money- a united Ukrainian military can bloody the Russians if they have the will to do it.
Poor analogy. NATO, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction exist as much now as they did at any time during the Cold War. If those things existed in 1939 there wouldn't have been a WWII.
Why do you think Russia went nuts over the previous Soviet bloc nations that joined NATO?
With the exception of a complete Mutually Assured Destruction,
and a FORMAL Nato, and FORMAL UN, we did have international groups in place such as the League of nations the predecessor to the UN, and it was believed that if another world war happened that due to technology it would last so long that most of the worlds population would be destroyed and / or starve afterwords.... Though this didn't happen exactly a large portion of the world did end up dead, and / or starving after ww2. So at the time there was a form of MAD just not so immediate. as for NATO, there were treaties that united the USA, Britain, France among others that said that if germany became aggressive again they would immediately put it down for fear of a second Great War. these treaties were ignored in favor of Appeasement which became FORMAL policy in all three countries until germany got to close to home. no one wanted to go through it again, and fear stopped them from kicking it in the but early.
Pre ww2 is a perfect analogy for what is happening, except the UE and NATO might actually do something other then sit on their asses.... Maybe.
Poor analogy. NATO, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction exist as much now as they did at any time during the Cold War. If those things existed in 1939 there wouldn't have been a WWII.
Appeasement and the threat of aggression to international stability exist as much today as they did during World War II. If they didn't exist in 1939 there also wouldn't have been a WWII.
That being said, this should be a primarily European Union responsibility, seeing as Ukraine is in their own backyard and that the revolution was pro-EU. We should aid them, especially if Russia backs a separatist movement in Crimea, but we should only send in troops (through NATO) if Russia makes incursions beyond Crimea.
No! No "exception." You cannot remove mutually assured nuclear destruction from the equation!
Complete apples and oranges. NATO is an armed-to-the-teeth organization specifically tasked with the objective of stopping further Soviet incursions. There was no such military pre-WWII created for the purpose of stopping German transgressions.
The bigger question is about the Crimea itself. It has a majority Russian population and the only reason it ended up in Ukranian hands is because of bizarre sentimentality from Krushchev and because Yeltsin was asleep at the wheel in '92. I wouldn't actually have a problem with the Crimea becoming part of the Federation, the bigger issue is setting precedents for violent expansionism. The situation could be resolved by trading the peninsula in a legitimate transfer of power for say a 30 year sweetheart natural gas deal.
You don't get it do you?
It's not just Crimea. The Russian army is going to enter all of ukraine from the eastern border. You won't just see Crimea become part of Russian federation, you might just see 1/3rd of Ukraine get annexed too.
Ofc, there's nothing anyone can do. There isn't. If the west sends troops in there, it's going to be catastrophic.
And this...is why certain ex-Soviet blocs joined NATO when they had the chance.
To think we'd allow Russia to invade countries we are bound by treaty to defend is irrational.
Despite all rhetoric, Russia is not a backwards dictatorship. It's their business.
Russia is a repressive despotism that's at odds with our interests. We cannot allow them to dictate the future of a European country that's close to becoming a member of the EU and NATO, and we cannot abandon the idea of territorial integrity if they try to break away Crimea.
I don't think any military forces should be deployed at this stage (other than Ukraine's, obviously), especially not in Crimea. If it goes beyond what has happened now, diplomatic and economic pressure should be placed on Russia by EU and NATO countries. If it becomes a conflict, it would be beneficial to deploy Eurocorps to parts of Ukraine in order to prevent an all-out invasion or bombing campaign by Russia.I think you're over-reaching and considering wasting resources on something that is not so bad and has very little upside.
Russia is not going to start slaughtering Ukrainians, institute dictatorship or otherwise lose their minds over this. Under Russia, Ukraine will be no worse off than Venezuela. Not a regional crisis and not our business.
Now that the tension around Ukraine is rising, who do you think is justified sending troops in Crimea, Ukraine?
Putin proposes to send Russian armed forces to Ukraine | Reuters
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?