How should we act on Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

[niki]

Try sanctions and moving military assets closer to Russia first. If that doesn't work some sort of proportionate response is warranted.

If international conflicts were handled by mmo champion armchair generals the world would be over by now. No one will risk WW3 over Ukraine get over your selves. The West cannot do anything and will not do anything.

[thoruga]

I think the best course of action would be invading Syria. Now that Russia has their own war, US don't need their permission anymore.

[Haven]

Apparently yes.
Because calling an elected President a dictator is not an attack to the guy, but an insult to the people who voted for him.

He's Russian. This alone is enough of a reason to call him an evil dictator tyrant already.


[Infracted]

[Skroe]

I think the best course of action would be invading Syria. Now that Russia has their own war, US don't need their permission anymore.

I think we should do something even more slick.

Arrange for a Syrian rebel raid on the Russian Syrian Naval base.

Won't have our finger prints on it. Promise.

[Milchshake]

He's Russian. This alone is enough of a reason to call him an evil dictator tyrant already.

Plenty of dictator's get elected. Being elected doesnt make one immune to being a dictator. Venezuela, Egypt both elected dictator's.
WWII Germany famously elected a dictator.

What makes Putin essentially a dictator are actions like; jailing most opposition politicians, consolidating media under state or party control, banning or severely restricting protests or opposition ability organize.

See in the West, when Obama won the election, he doesnt through McCain or Romney in jail. If Joe the Plumber were like Pussy Riot, even he doesnt get throw in jail. We dont restrict the Tea Party demonstrations to 3 people.
Obama doesnt form up a Nashi or other "youth corps"
Obama doesnt get to appoint his pal as the head of ABC, Fox News or even to MSNBC.

Putin and Yanukovych did most or all of these. Putin is *afraid* of opposition.

Putin can win in the Ukraine all he wants. There's nothing to win really. He nabbed a country that needs an immediate 35bn bailout, with longterm economic issues. He destabilized a country on his doorstep.
This stabilzation will continue as long the Russian military occupies Ukraine. No one will invest will the Russian military is still there. The occupation will retard the Ukraine's efforts at reconciliation and return to normalization.
The longer Ukraine remains occupies and destabilized, the longer it will take to fix.

Grats Putin/Russia, meet Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule. You broke it, you own it.

[Charge me Doctor]

What makes Putin essentially a dictator are actions like; jailing most opposition politicians, consolidating media under state or party control, banning or severely restricting protests or opposition ability organize.

jailing of all politicians to be correct. There was mass jailing for politicians who had business (which they shouldn't have due to constitution). There is only one media channel "under party control". There is no bans or severely restricts on peaceful protests. And there is not ban on "opposition ability organize" w.e. it means

[lsnderick]

I cannot believe this thread is not locked yet. The pictures some of you guys posted of soldiers taking pictures with locals are not Russian soldiers, please get your facts straight before posting fake stuff and sending out wrong information. Those soldiers are Crimean self defense squads.

I'm sorry but those guys ARE Russian forces from the Russian Naval Base..



See the 'RUS' in the the plate

[Deleted]

Can't believe this happened after michael buble sang that beautiful song about that regions river.

[Milchshake]

jailing of all politicians to be correct. There was mass jailing for politicians who had business (which they shouldn't have due to constitution). There is only one media channel "under party control". There is no bans or severely restricts on peaceful protests. And there is not ban on "opposition ability organize" w.e. it means

Nice got me on a technicality there. Russia jailed "all" the politicians. Except for the United Russia ones (Putin's Party). Those guys just shunted their businesses to family members.
Like former governor of oil-rich Bashkortostan, had unified the region’s oil industry and installed his son as the chairman of the resultant conglomerate. The governor of the Krasnodar region, where Sochi is, had a twenty-two-year-old niece who had somehow come to own a major stake in a multimillion-dollar pipe factory, a poultry plant, and a number of other businesses.
The governor of the Sverdlovsk region (Boris Yeltsin’s birthplace), has an eighteen-year-old daughter who owns a plywood mill and a dozen other local businesses. “How does all this wonderful entrepreneurial talent appear only in the children of United Russia members?”. “What business schools did they attend?”

Yanukovych taking a page out of United Russia's play book, somehow his son managed to amass a 200 million empire as a dentist.

So if Russia is all for jailing corrupt politicians, why are they harboring Yanukovych. We can start a whole thread documenting his corruption.

[Shalcker]

Nice got me on a technicality there. Russia jailed "all" the politicians. Except for the United Russia ones (Putin's Party). Those guys just shunted their businesses to family members.

United Russia members do get jailed too, membership is not "immunity", just occasional "protection". You do realize they have many members, and got internal politics that can cause them to stop turning "blind eye" in some cases? They do have to keep their image up and still need at least some popular support.

So if Russia is all for jailing corrupt politicians, why are they harboring Yanukovych. We can start a whole thread documenting his corruption.

Because we only believe in "persecution after due process". Not "he is obviously corrupt and must be persecuted _right now_"; if there are suspicions there must be investigation, specific charges brought up, and judge will make decision based on available evidence.

[Deleted]

Response to 9/11. Un resolution, that Russia voted for.


Done under an acknowledged bi-lateral relationship with the government of Pakistan. We drone terrorists, because they let us, and they deny it and curse us out for it. Our drone bases we use in Pakistan, by the way, are BASED IN PAKISTAN AT PAKISTANI BASES.


UN Resolutions, that Russia voted for, including the occupation, which Russia also voted for.


The sactions we approved are international in nature, with the EU, and China and Russia. Russia voted for these sactions.


Cold war shenannigans on our part. We're not in this business anymore.


You mean intervening in two humanitarnian crises so slavic peoples Russians are sympathetic to didn't mass murder muslims?
It's the very picture of legitimacy.

The invasion of Iraq was never approved by the UN security council.

[Deleted]

Add more globalisation. That'll prevent any and all conflicts in the future. /ihasblueeyes

[dacoolist]

For Mother Russia! *COUGH* I mean .. The United Stated of Merica.

- OT: I chose the one more likely to how I feel - Westerner Ukraine is not our problem because we always get into peoples messes and cause MORE issues instead of helping half the time..

[Sixteen18]

Ukraine has utterly failed to make use of their independence. They can't have a single election without a revolution following it, the country is utterly bankrupt and fails to even make use of their valuable natural resources, people are divided into factions that hate each other enough to kill in mass. They deserve everything that is coming to them and worse. US also has no business getting involved in this in any way, Ukraine and Russia have been interdependent on one another for centuries, let them solve these issues themselves.

[Ottius]

A war between Ukraine and Russia

A war? An invasion? Listen, read on the subject of international rights law. Nothing Russia is doing right now is against it. More than 50% of Southern and Easters areas of Ukraine are populated with Russian citizens or Ukrainian citizens who don't support the new terroristical and illegitimate government. They made an official request for Russia to intervene. Even if Russia brings its troops on the Ukrainian soil, it will be according to the international rights law. Because, a) The citizens and the only legitimate government made such request, and b) because Russia has a navy base inside Ukrainian border and has every right to defend it.

Unlike the USA, who intervenes and invades countries they have legitemate national interests in. Funny how "Westerners" voted for sanctions against Russia, while there is nothing to be sanctioned about and its their beloved 'Murica is the one that needs to be sanctioned.

The hypocrisy of the Western world is just mind blowing.

[Skroe]

The invasion of Iraq was never approved by the UN security council.

Yes, it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1441

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Being as the US/Iraq never signed a peace treaty, a materiel breach of the ceasefire means the ceasefire is over. And to back that up, it cited Resolution 687, from 1991.

The US tried to get a seperate resolution. Then when it became clear we weren't going to get it, we decided this one was sufficient. It may not have been the law's intent, but to the letter of the law, it was enough.


By the way, the UK/France did the same thing in 2011 with the Libya campaign. No new resolution? No problem! That still makes it legal, under the prior resolution, to the letter of the law.

[Ottius]

Sanctions, most definitely. We have to demonstrate to Russia that acting as the USSR did is not acceptable.

Let's sanction the US instead? We have to demonstrate to US that acting as they have been doing for the last 50 years is not acceptable.

[Deleted]

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GUYl_RYvfw

[Ausr]

Let's sanction the US instead? We have to demonstrate to US that acting as they have been doing for the last 50 years is not acceptable.

Good luck with that, truly. It'll never happen. Hell, Somalia is more likely to send a manned ship to the Moon than that ever happening.

[Deleted]

Yes, it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...esolution_1441



Being as the US/Iraq never signed a peace treaty, a materiel breach of the ceasefire means the ceasefire is over. And to back that up, it cited Resolution 687, from 1991.

The US tried to get a seperate resolution. Then when it became clear we weren't going to get it, we decided this one was sufficient. It may not have been the law's intent, but to the letter of the law, it was enough.


By the way, the UK/France did the same thing in 2011 with the Libya campaign. No new resolution? No problem! That still makes it legal, under the prior resolution, to the letter of the law.

Huh. I did not know this. Thanks