Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Serious? Look at the UN voting, often it is just the US with a few token countries on one side, everyone else on the other. The recent LGBT death penalty which the US voted against alone with countries like Saudi Arabia. Being the only country not in the Paris Climate agreement. Vote against Cuban Embargo resolution with the US and Israel being the only ones to vote against it. An excerpt from a 1984 article in the NYT "American isolation emerged, as usual, as a major theme of the 1983 General Assembly that was completed last month. The United States voted alone, or almost alone, on a host of resolutions on South Africa, Namibia and the Middle East, some of which mentioned the United States by name as fostering ''aggression'' or ''collaboration'' with racism." in the minority against the Resolution for Palestine to be an observing status, etc, etc.
So in fact it was a good thing that Russia didn't send troops to Kiev. I don't think that's the case but it's just as plausible of a theory as many others that are being thrown around.
Your theory has merit but I don't think it would have went down that way and if it did everybody knows what is going on. Anybody that matters, knows what is going on. Anybody with a concern knows what happened in the Donbas. A government should not attack its own people. A lot of countries would recognize the MORAL OBLIGATION of Russia to end the killing and be admired for it. Humans do have a sense of justice. People will ask why Russia did it and find out. On top of that Russia would surely have a successful campaign as most Ukrainians feel a close kinship with Russia. There's no doubt in my mind that after the initial actions the Ukrainian Army itself would be the force entering Kiev. The junta had little success in the first days of the conflict getting them to cooperate to begin with and most of us people who dig deep into this stuff have no doubt what is what.
I think Erasure is correct in her assessment. Putin did not want to take it further for personal reasons and reasons of economics. You break it you fix it. In the end though this whole mess is working for Russia so maybe Putin and his people are crazy like foxes.
Yup. Really a nice lot of countries which voted in Russia's favour: Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan... I would love to have those countries at my home party.
Germany could've gotten away with it's land grabs in the 1930s, but then it took to big of a bite and decided that it needed all of Poland, and then WWII started. Same would've happened with Russia if it took all of Ukraine. Russian Leadership learned the mistakes of Nazi Germany, if you want to expand your territory you take a little bit at a time, not full scale invasions.
Just what land has Russia taken? The status of the Crimea was not firm to begin with. Nikita Khrushchev gifted it to Ukraine but it was never ratified by the Duma leaving custody of it in doubt. That's why it was neglected for so long. Russia has solved that problem and it isn't going to change anytime soon.
You want to go into the tie munchers little excursion into S Ossetia? Abkhazia? I'll call that preventing ethnic cleansing which all countries have a moral obligation to do. Chechneya? Do you want those crazies on your border? Supported and financed by the west? Yeah right. Russians are many things but stupid is not one of them. Russia is not expanding anywhere but Russia is keeping the peace on her borders regardless of what the west tries to do to destabilize it.
I don't think you understand my argument. Erasure was saying that Russia should've invaded Ukraine and stopped the revolution from happening and enact Martial law in Ukraine in order to prevent NATO from destroying Russia.
No, Erasure is saying that Russia should have taken the Eastern part of Ukraine along with Crimea when it could with no bloodshed, and let the NATO, SHMATO and Western part of Ukraine to do whatever they like with the rest of it.
Quote:
My counter argument is if NATO really wants to destroy Russia then perhaps that's exactly what they were hoping Russia's response was, then they could prove to the UN council that Russia indeed is a rouge and aggressive country and needs to be dealt with, and cut all diplomatic and economic ties to Russia on a global scale and perhaps even go to war with. But instead Russia only took Crimea and the majority of the world took a neutral approach and figured it's not their problem. So in fact it was a good thing that Russia didn't send troops to Kiev. I don't think that's the case but it's just as plausible of a theory as many others that are being thrown around.
What "neutral approach?" Where did the sanctions come from then?
I am not even sure what you are talking about here..
Quote:
Germany could've gotten away with it's land grabs in the 1930s, but then it took to big of a bite and decided that it needed all of Poland, and then WWII started. Same would've happened with Russia if it took all of Ukraine. Russian Leadership learned the mistakes of Nazi Germany, if you want to expand your territory you take a little bit at a time, not full scale invasions.
What "all of Poland," when Poland was split between Germany and Russia - that's number one and number two, thinking that Germany "could get away with the land grab in the 1930ies" is not to understand that at that historic period Germany was targeting specifically Russia, and no "Poland" ( or any other "land grab") was in any way sufficient for Hitler.
No, Erasure is saying that Russia should have taken the Eastern part of Ukraine along with Crimea when it could with no bloodshed, and let the NATO, SHMATO and Western part of Ukraine to do whatever they like with the rest of it.
That's the best solution to this whole problem. East and West Ukraine.
No, Erasure is saying that Russia should have taken the Eastern part of Ukraine along with Crimea when it could with no bloodshed, and let the NATO, SHMATO and Western part of Ukraine to do whatever they like with the rest of it.
What "neutral approach?" Where did the sanctions come from then?
I am not even sure what you are talking about here..
What "all of Poland," when Poland was split between Germany and Russia - that's number one and number two, thinking that Germany "could get away with the land grab in the 1930ies" is not to understand that at that historic period Germany was targeting specifically Russia, and no "Poland" ( or any other "land grab") was in any way sufficient for Hitler.
Last time I checked western world doesn’t equal the whole world.
Also thanks for clarifying your stance the whole Ukraine invasion thing, and I see the marit of Russia officially taking the Donbas. Also as I’ve mentioned many times on this thread I think it’s a good thing that Crimea is part of Russia and my family is from Crimea. What I’m against are extreme nationalists like Zhiranovsky who think that Russia should send its troops to Kiev if not even Warsawa and Berlin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
