So it's the west fault for respecting the self determination if another independent nation?

That's a bullshit answer dude for real. You sound like a battered wife.

First, significant portions of the Ukrainian population are oriented towards Russia, not the West.
Second, this is not about morals or ethics or anything like that. It's about real politics.

Is it an asshole move by Russia to prevent its neighbor Ukraine from aligning with the EU and the NATO? Of course it is. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it, and it was totally predictable that trying to force the issue anyway would only make things worse for everyone.


I'll repeat my question to you: do you think that the U.S. would tolerate Mexico forming a tight military alliance with China? One which would eventually lead to Chinese military bases in close proximity to the US-Mexico border, or to Chinese nukes being stationed on Mexican soil, in striking distance to LA/SF/PHOE/DAL/HOU?

Why don't you think there is anything we can do about it?

You're acting like Ukraine isn't bordered by Europe..you're playing dumb for the sake of argument.

Ukraine has had elections and revolutions. The people left over from the Stalinization of Ukraine surely do not like this.

There is theoretically things we could do about it, but not in practice. In practice, Russia will always have a higher interest in Ukraine than the West and therefore be willing to invest more (political/military/economic) resources into keeping it in its influence sphere than the West.
By the way, President Obama said essentially the same thing:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/



Yes, Obama could have and should have sent javelin missiles to Ukraine to enable them to hold their own against further Russian aggression. But when it comes to the strategical end goal, when it comes to Ukraine joining NATO, he is absolutely right: Russia will always be willing to sacrifice more to prevent this from happening than the West would be willing to sacrifice to make it happen.




You still dodge my question: do you think that the US would use similar force and "asshole tactics" to prevent a looming Mexico-China military alliance?

Want me to address an argument by analogy? Why change the subject in the first place?

I didn't know you respected Obama so much. You can just quote him when he agrees with you but abandon his platform that includes rights and dignity for all people and support a Trump?

So your position is that Russian aggression to your east should go unchallenged.

Maybe the conservatives are right here in their want to abandon European democracy.

To answer your question the Cuban missile crisis happened already. So has having several of our armor divisions all over Germany. I know where ni was in your country I could be in a tank in Ukraine in less than 48 hours. Also US soldiers have fought Russian soldiers in South Ossetia in North Georgia.

As much as you wish to appease Putin appeasement isn't a winning strategy. As a German you should appreciate it, but probably not as much as any pole who may post here.

Plenty of real life developments and examples we don't have to dive into fantasies about Mexico and China. Mexico didn't have two revolutions rejecting American puppet leaders like ukraine. I didn't dodge, it was just a question that's beneath me.

This post was edited by Skinned on Nov 26 2019 01:49pm

You're misunderstanding me.

- Russian aggression can and should be challenged.
- I disagree with Obama's tactical decisions on Ukraine, he should have armed the Ukrainians with javelin missiles from the get go to check said Russian aggression.
- I do agree with Obama's strategical assessment, however, that Russia will do "whatever it takes" to prevent Ukraine from joining the NATO, and that the West therefore should abandon this goal of an Ukrainian NATO membership.
- I quoted Obama because he shares my opinion on the strategical outlook in Ukraine, and I assumed him to be a source that you, my conversation partner, would respect.
- Sidenote: I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I dont hate him.






You're wrongly ascribing me a weak, appeasing position on Russia. As I said: Russian aggression can and should be checked. Trump sending the Ukrainians anti-tank missiles is an example of that. Or the economic sanctions that the Europeans have imposed on Russia under French-German leadership. Or the strengthening of NATO battalions in the Baltic countries.

Nonetheless, this pushback against Russian aggression only goes so far. An Ukrainian NATO membership is a red line that the Russians wont allow to be crossed, no matter how much pushback it gets them. Feel free to disagree with me on this point, but I really dont think that acknowledging this reality can be considered "appeasement".




Lol. The United States blatantly waged a war of aggression against Mexico and stole parts of their land during the Mexican-American war of 1846, not out of necessity or longstanding emotional wounds, you did it just because you could.
You already violently shoved them into the dust and broke their resistance to your hegemony over North America more than 160 years ago. Of course there were no revolutions in Mexico. And if we're going a bit further than just Mexico alone and look at other Latin American countries under the Monroe Doctrine, you will find plenty of examples of revolutions against US-installed puppet governments.

Either way, I stand by my point that an Ukrainian NATO membership is very comparable to the idea of a Mexico-China military alliance. Guess we'll agree to disagree on that one then...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 26 2019 04:24pm

Like Skinned, I find the China/Mexico analogy unworkable. But there's a completely valid debate as to how wise it is to try to bring Ukraine into the European fold, especially into NATO. I honestly don't know what the right answer is myself. Although a relationship with the European Union doesn't necessarily mean they have to join NATO. Btw, this is completely ignoring the Ukrainian populace's actual wishes, and just focusing on the benefits to the West.

Part of this debate is how we think of Russia. Historically it's been a great power that has had strong influence on it's neighbors. Outside of history, and Russian sensibilities, why should we care? Maybe it's useful to slowly move Russians into a position where they no longer entertain the fantasy of being the most powerful country in the world.

kek

poor barnie, worked over by hillary and now potentially obama

Fair enough. And I dont mean that sarcastically.
I'm still curious how the U.S. will cope with the similar realization in 1-2 decades...


Regarding Ukraine, yes, an EU membership without a NATO membership is a possibility. But this decision should not only be on the Ukrainian people and some Brussels bureaucrats, it should also be on the people of the current EU states. Ukraine is a depraved, extremely corrupt country with crumbling infrastructure, extreme poverty, a mostly dead economy, a relatively large population (45m) and it would give the EU a huge outer border with Russia.

Overall, Ukraine would be a bottomless pit in terms of subsidies and grants, bring a ton of trouble with it and not offer all that much in return. For Ukraine, an EU membership would surely be attractive. But for a taxpayer of one of the EU's major contributors, the idea of this piss poor, super corrupt country joining the EU is not attractive at all.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 26 2019 07:04pm

Dems gonna' dem.