Nations Gather To Defend Against Russian Aggression

It makes no difference that the US government is largely responsible for the disintegration of Ukraine?

Interesting logic...

 

The only Europeans to have nukes are Russia, France and Britain.
All other Europeans do not have nukes.

So while a subset of Europeans do have nukes, you are not from within that subset and nor is their any expectation on any of those who are, to deploy them in your defence.

Swedes, you, are not defended by nukes.
Indeed most European people are not. Only the French, the Russians and The Brits.


Also.. those Europeans that do have nukes, do use their additional conventional forces to attack places.
And often. And indeed no one on earth does so more than the British.

 

This highlights how stupid it is when americans speak of "europe" during the times of ww2 as if it was one country. Germany was defeated and occupied, but the UK and france won. and Sweden wasn't even involved.. One can't just talk about "europe" as if it was a single country.. You didn't crush europe, you crushed germany, and mind you, you weren't alone in doing that.

funny.. I think that an anarchist who supports an authoritarian country must not be thinking very straight

 

Actually, we are. the EU actually has a common defence policy.. Member states are obliged to assist eachother if one is the victim of "armed aggression on its territory". look up Eu article 42.7. France invoked this article after the paris attacks.

 

It might do to the Ukrainians but there are bigger fish to fry here.

 

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States
shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in
accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains
the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

I didn't know about this thanks. Referendum soon. Hoping to leave the EU.


And you take this to mean that if you get attacked, everyone in Britain and France will sacrifice all their lives for you?
Start the nuclear holocaust?
No chance. None whatsoever. Not even NATO membership gets you that.

 

First of all, you do not have enough in your puny arsenal to make an impression on me so you really ought to give up this silly admonition to 'stop' me from saying or doing anything.

There are also millions more Ukrainian people in the west who desire no relationship with their former Russian conquerors and seek instead alliances with European nations and the US....which, by the way, they are perfectly free to do so.

I don't claim to speak 'for' the Ukrainian people....but rather in 'support' of their aspirations to remain free of Russian dominance & aggression.

 

Don't strain you milk...you know a whole lot less than you think you know.

 

Only about half of them hold that aspiration. The other half hold entirely opposing aspirations.
If they wish to separate, let them. What harm is there in this?
Why do they all have to die for other peoples hatred of Russia?

 

Perhaps that might be the solution....but either way, it's an internal consideration by the people and government of the Ukraine.
I wonder if you would also be as agreeable to such aspirations if any of the states that make up the Russian Federation were to seek separation?
Like you said....what harm is there in this!

 

Back in the IRA days I used to be firmly against all separatists on principle.
I would self identify with the Russia vs Chechenya for example. Turkey vs the Kurds. Spain vs Barcelona.

Today things are different. I am a bit more nuanced. If people wish to divide and there is an easy new line to draw on the map that recognises this political division well, then I am in favour of it.

Outside of this I will back my major allies even in an unjust war. That means Russia and that means you. Global security is more important.

Western Ukraine have always been NAZI scumbags. I'm not inclined to support them in anything.

I am agreeable to nations splitting from Russia. I think the fall of the Soviet Union has addressed that issue successfully. I view Russia as the guarantor of it's regional stability and I seek to encourage them in that role.

 

Such views undermine deterrance and are thus a threat to peace... Nukes are truly horrible weapons and we never want to use them, but unless we are willing to use them it actually increases the risk of them being used. Nukes are the ultimate deterrance, but deterance only works if the enemy thinks you will counter attack. If you say you are not prepared to use nukes, it's more likely they will be used.

 

Nope, that would be American foreign policy which is quite another thing. Americans, like anyone else, I can take or leave.

 

As signatories to NATO we have an obligation to defend any other NATO nation which comes under attack. The same applies to any other NATO member state should Britain come under attack. In a thermonuclear exchange scenario it doesn't matter any longer; we'll all be dead or dying hideous deaths.

 

When the opposition is merely politically ideological in nature, as has been the case with most of those who have come under attack from America, how do you feel about "fairness" then? What had America to fear from say, militarily inert Nicaragua, apart from a left-wing government?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

 

No, you specified "Americans".

I guess its a good thing that you have difficulty accepting your deep seated hatred.

 

Economic interests. didn't they try to nationalise i.e. steal american companies?

 

Likewise, you show how stupid Europeans are when they speak of America, as if it were one country.

In reality, America is an assemblage of cultures and identities.

The perception of unity is purely illusory, being held together largely by force and fraud.

But that is neither here nor there.

We're speaking in generalizations because it's simpler to do so.

And generally speaking, Europe was destroyed and subsequently occupied as a result of WWII.

I will stipulate the reality is more nuance and complex, but as a generalization, it's largely accurate.

You confuse a neutral posture as support.

And I'm not denying that Russian's central government, like ALL central governments, is an illegitimate authoritarian farce.

However, I don't go around pretending like the US central government is somehow more noble and more pure on account of it being in America.

Nor do I wallow in denial as you do of the US government's rampant global imperialism and authoritarianism.

So I'm entirely consistent in my viewpoints. Can't say the same for you.

 

Not really.

The President of Ukraine was democratically elected and the US government helped to overthrow him.

That is the exact opposite of promoting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

 

You're free to continue making silly statements. That's your right.

And I'm free to tell you stop making silly statements. That's my right.

As for the "millions more Ukrainian people in the west etc.", that is false.

The electoral majority voted for Viktor Yanukovych in the 2010 Presidential elections. He won by almost a million votes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010

So the majority of Ukrainians don't agree with you.

And when you say things like "the Ukrainian people" without any qualification, that implies that you're somehow representing their views accurately, which you are clearly not.

Fact is, there are millions of Ukrainian people living in the east who have as much right as the people living in western Ukraine to seek partnership and friendship with Russia.

But you basically think they are non-humans who should just sheepishly submit to the illegal overthrow of their democratically elected President by a bunch of right-wing, neo-Nazi militants.

 

Thomas Jefferson warned us against "entangling alliances" with foreign countries.

Yet here you are, promoting such entanglements and subverting our independence and sovereignty in the process.

The same independence and sovereignty that American patriots fought and died for in the American revolution.

You are spitting on their graves and repudiating the wisdom of the founders.

Yet you act like you're some kind of American patriot.

 

American can never away itself from international affairs. They have the world's largest economy and the world's strongest military. Think the Iran-Iraq War. The US supported Iraq, but didn't want Iran to fall, so they supplied them as well. This doctrine used is meant to be a balance of power that suits the US interests that no force will become a regional hegemony. It was used from Reagan all the way to Clinton. The Americans were too irrational after 9/11 and upsetting the balance of power by taking out Saddam and making the Iraq a Saudi/Iranian playground. The Arab Spring ended up also a big screw up, and the US didn't realize these nations won't instantly stabilize and often became Saudi backed terrorist ground. The Iran nuclear deal, is an example of going back to the balance of power doctrine, because Iranian money means more money resources for Assad.

Here is a video describing US foreign policy doctrine. It is a 2011 video, that predicted the Iranian nuclear deal.
[video=youtube;HtM-i_hhNyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtM-i_hhNyk[/video]

 

LOL...sure you're free to demand that I stop just about anything but I'll simply laugh in your face. Your ignorant historical revisionism and silly hyperbole moves me not in the slightest.

- - - Updated - - -

Jefferson did however make an alliance with France...furthermore, I'm sure that what Jefferson meant by "entangling alliances" in 1801 takes on a whole new meaning in the dynamic world of the 21st century. You cannot engage the contemporary world with the commitments of 18th & 19th century considerations.

'Whining' is hardly is hardly a debate skill....you should try, it at all possible, not to engage in it so much.

 

America was far from isolationist before WW1. It just didn't have the military and economy for Global dominance. War of 1812 (declared by Founding Father btw) (which was an extension of the Napoleonic Wars)is a perfect example American ascendance to a world power.. As is the Mexican and Indians Wars and then colonization of multiple islands.

Australia is a perfect of a isolated nation that isn't isolationist. Since it relies so much on international trade, it has military overseas to protect it's interests.

 

ok I'm going to have to stop you right there because what you just did was complete and utter stupidity. Yes. Yanuk was elected by majority vote in 2010. FOUR (*)(*)(*)(*)ING YEARS before the Maiden Revolution. FOUR YEARS before he went back on his promises and stopped the EU deal. FOUR YEARS before he ordered thugs to gun down protestors in the street.

So saying "the majority of Ukrainians don't agree with you" using this as your argument, is a complete and utter fail and I get the impression that you were well aware of this, but you have to make an argument anyway somehow because, who are we kidding, gotta earn that paycheck right?