NYCmetsfan
Banned
You think they'll close the straits? Really?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ukrainian Conflict - Donetsk Boogaloo
- Thread starter Salvadora
- Start date
- Status
The consequences of breaking this deal- it could push other states to develop nukes- if I was Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania I'd be considering some nukes right now.
If the US won't protect a state that it was pledged to protect- what good is the US nuclear umbrella period? Inaction in Ukraine will make other US allies nervous, and will mean we might have to take more action than we wish later.
I'm not saying we have to send troops/bring the fight, but we need to do something strong- like full-on hard economic sanctions from all of NATO, Putin and Russia's oligarchs have to suffer for this (even the people if necessary)
Has always been is a bit generous, it was conquered in 1783 from the Crimean Khanate.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Can NATO move in troops into Ukraine close to Crimea?
I don't think they will.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Someone who lives in the Ukraine just said "On TV the polititions are continously talking of Budapest Memorandom and says the west must protect them."
If invited by Ukraine NATO could move troops wherever it wants. It does seem unlikely that NATO would get involved even if Ukraine asks for help though.
Captain Tuttle
Member
The US is the teeth in NATO so unless Obama says OK (he won't) it won't happen
Lagspike_exe
Member
That's one mighty nacy. Aside from the fact that Turkey will never jepordaize its trading position with Russia over non-NATO member's clash with Russia.
You have to understand it is quite a logistical challenge to get all 28 EU foreign ministers to Brussels at such short notice. Especially as they only meet at scheduled times, giving the Sherpas a right headache. It's still stupid minds you, it would be better if each state had a permanent representative in Brussels at all times for such emergencies.
Let me get this straight, in response to the question "how else can we put pressure on Russia aside from literally sending in an army?", your standards are that they have to have zero possible repercussions in the West (unlike the original suggestion of actual warfare).
Way to move the goalposts.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Why wouldn't he unless he has assurance by Russia they won't step out of Crimea? It seems like NATO could easily make the case for it.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I think the American people are war weary after 13 years and Ukraine isn't a strategic interest. This is on Europe's doorstep, I think he sees this as their problem (I agree).
nope, almost all states have signed the treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Lagspike_exe
Member
....
What's so hard about getting ministers on a commercial airline (if they don't have a private government jet) tomorrow morning? This isn't a meeting about some absurd subject, it is an emergency. They don't look like they care at all with this.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I don't see how this is true. This is not a war, it's moving troops to make sure no troops go past Crimea, and it would be NATO, not "Obama". Might as well close all your bases then.
Possibly, at the invitation of the government of Ukraine, albeit a government not recognised by Russia.
It's not just getting from national capitals, or ministers weekend constituencies, but also the Brussels city police and Belgium intelligence service putting in place security arrangements at such short notice. 28 foreign ministers in one location makes for a tempting target by any assortment of nutjobs.
UnluckyKate
Member
Putin really wanted that Yalta Datch back.
Captain Tuttle
Member
The only way it could possibly happen if is Congress was screaming for action and they have been really, really quiet.
And again, I think NATO without the US is a speed bump. I guess I could see France and Britain doing something under the guise of NATO, the US maybe supplying logisitical support, that would be about it.
There's not going to be a fight over Crimea or even Ukraine. Putin won this. It's over.
Edit: I'm with you on the bases though, we might as well close them
That will not happen because the prime ministers want to keep their job. The people were against afghanistan, iraq, lybia, syria and ukraine is the same.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Yeah OK, petty logistics are to be blamed.
maquiladora
Member
You'd think that would have happened already...
I think that even if scientists discovered asteroid on imminent collision course with Earth, EU would take a week time to organize meeting of ministers. They would talk, shake hands, eat canapes, drink coffee and with big smile on their faces reveal the truth that human race will be extinct in three weeks.
This is how they roll in Brussels
We can expect lots of talks on Monday and statement for this crisis (bad bad Russia). Russia will probably respond with upping the gas price fivefold, unless they (EU members) start mind their own business.
The problem is that a deployment of peacekeepers solely in the Kyivan-administered territory is a political non-starter. It's a diplomatic winner - matches Russian rhetoric about security, provides assistance above and beyond that promised in the Budapest memorandum, draws a solid red line around core western interests, and matches the West's position in other proxy civil wars in the region. But in terms of selling it to a US audience, it satisfies neither the hawks, who aren't going to be satisfied with anything short of physically fighting the Russian "peacekeepers" out of Crimea and would probably start baying for a war to "free" Ossetia and Chechnya once we had assets in the region, nor the isolationists, who would just as soon pull out of eastern Europe, Germany, old England, and possibly New England just to reinforce the point.
My standards are that we don't ignite a massive war or fuck up the global economy, both of which I clearly stated in my posts.
The majority of people in this thread that are clamoring for American action, which is to whom my initial post was targeted at and not to you, are not looking for the US to boycott the G8 summit or pull diplomats or anything similar, which amounts to the same Russian response as the one Obama's speech led to.
Maybe before accusing me of not reading the thread, you should go back and reread exactly what you're replying to.
You said:
But then most of what you suggested would do dick all in terms on putting actual pressure on Russia, and the things that would, such as sanctions or freezing assets, would be met by resistance from the Russians. Considering how fragile our economy is, and how oil and gas prices soar if someone sneezes, any Russian resistance would certainly cause damage to the global economy. Not sure why comprehending that is so difficult for you.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
What prime ministers? And where do you get the idea people don't care about Ukraine? I'm seeing the opposite; people actually care about Russia invading a European country, not about Middle Eastern countries.
Who are those isolationists? It's hard to imagine anyone with that agenda holding the key votes in any circumstance.
fastford58
Member
Ruffled some feathers in here. No need for personal attacks, though.
I guess no one thinks that the weakening US position in the world could possibly be a factor in military build ups and destabilization to a degree.
And before you all jump on me for being an "idiot Republican", I already know full well when your country started sliding sideways, and it wasn't with Obama.
I wouldn't vote for anyone in either one of those parties, to be honest. It's a gong show all round.
I guess no one thinks that the weakening US position in the world could possibly be a factor in military build ups and destabilization to a degree.
And before you all jump on me for being an "idiot Republican", I already know full well when your country started sliding sideways, and it wasn't with Obama.
I wouldn't vote for anyone in either one of those parties, to be honest. It's a gong show all round.
maquiladora
Member
Latvia and Lithuania have invoked NATO Article 4. Special North Atlantic Council meeting will happen as a result on Monday.
The prime ministers in europe, especially germany.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The US is still the strongest country on this planet despite what many would want to believe.
This is state-wide ethnical discrimation you're talking about. Besides, it doesn't work like that. It's not like there are just some Russian people who happened to move onto core Ukrainian territory. Most of those people have been living their for generations. The line between a Ukrainian and a Russian is extremely thin, in fact.
Drake
Member
England, France, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Germany. They're all to the west (or Northwest). Surely one of those countries will come to protect them. It's on their doorstep after all.
In terms of actual politicians, it's limited to dyed-in-the-wool backbenchers on both the left and right, and the left would likely fall in line due to the "supporting self-determination of a liberal democracy" counterargument.
In terms of the sound-bite-driven public, the Republicans made a very effective bludgeon out of our involvement of Libya for some time. The opposition doesn't have to have a smarter plan, or even pick whether we should be more or less involved, they just have to add another argument to the chorus of "Obama's doing it wrong" leading up to November - viz. the soundbite that "over half the country is opposed to Obamacare" compared to the reality of support being 25% single-payer / 45% ACA / 30% no reform.
It's a very effective attack on the "middle way" "left", as also seen in the general collapse of the French Third Republic.
njean777
Member
Like they did with hitler?
Yeah, where is this idea that the "US global position is weakening" coming from? The US is still the only superpower left. And if anything, its global strategic position has grown stronger of the last few years - the US military is no longer bogged down in Iraq for one and they are pulling out of Afghanistan. Both are areas that were huge resource sinks and lowered US readiness elsewhere in the world.
Widespread use of drone warfare has also allowed the US to exert direct force almost wherever they want without sending actual troops and while keeping costs down. So now the US has a battle-hardened military with highly advanced weaponry they are free to send wherever they want. The US is arguably stronger today than it were in 2000. At least militarily.
elrechazado
Banned
Well I'm relieved. No country has ever broken a treaty.
fastford58
Member
No doubt, and not refuting. But that strength is trending downwards as others are trending upwards at an alarming rate.
I'm sure countries that have in the past felt like they were under the protectorate of the US are reevaluating that position now. Ukraine was one such country, even.
If Russia takes over sections of Ukraine and the only thing the US/NATO does is send angry letters, I expect Germany and Japan's (among others) decision to rebuild their forces up will be much easier to make.
No, they're just the Sherpas that handle all the boring technical stuff. It is the ministers, as part of the Foreign Affairs Council of the Council of the European Union (phew) that actually make the decisions. Think of it like the US Senate, with its army of interns, legal assistants and chiefs of staff; but no actual senators. That's the FAC a lot of the time. Hence why I believe the Council (not to be confused with the Council of Europe or the European Council) should be reformed as the European Senate, with each state sending a permanent senator that resides in Brussels.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Proofs? Doesn't seem to be the case. The US is looking to be more ahead than anyone else these days on that front. Don't let the number of boots fool you. The defense sector has been growing like crazy over the past two years. Boeing, Lockheed, etc, are pretty much all at all time highs. The US military is basically leveling up.
Drake
Member
yes, and this is why other countries need to step up and this is the perfect opportunity. it's time for someone else to be the world police.
Why would they give a shit about that if they believed there was an imminent and real threat that could be solved by developing nuclear weapons?
fastford58
Member
Drone warfare on countries without counter-measures. And despite the pull out in Iraq, there are talks about shrinking the military to lower than pre-WW2 size.
maquiladora
Member
As long as things stay limited to Crimea I don't see any possibiliby of any country getting into a confrontation with Russia over this. Even Ukraine itself is showing restraint.
Well it would be no harm if NATO peacekeepers, possibly operating under a UN mandate, were stationed in all of Ukraine, minus Crimea, as their presence would deter possible Russian action outside of the Crimean Peninsula where we have already seen pro Russian "activists" raising the Russian tricolour over regional parliament buildings in Russian speaking regions. What's to stop the Russian Army from entering these regions under the pretext of "protecting Russian citizens"? A large, well armed NATO force would for starters.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The difference is the US has basically had a big live training field for 25 years now. The shrinking military is bullshit; fewer troops doesn't mean squat. Would you be confident in a company that needs to hold high labor count or a competitor who can do the same with half the employees?
It's a sign the US military is evolving. All defense companies are at an all time high right now. Go look at Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
And thus you expose yourself. The downsize of the military, which is not nearly as significant as advertised, does not restrict US military strength. We're returning to pre-Iraq/Afghanistan levels.
The military is modernizing, not playing Battleship.
- Status