Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by askubala: quote: Originally posted by plandalet: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
i think russia will respect their neutrality. Last thing russia wants in NATO sitting on their door step. If Russia leaves them be, then there won't be any need for NATO to come trotting in, and Ukraine can be that much needed buffer zone between east and west.
Nice theory but it doesn't fly. Russia doesn't want a neutral Ukraine. It pretty much believes that Ukraine should do as it's told by the Russians. Who do you think tried to poison Yushenko?
But Yushenko was pushing too much towards NATO. so hardly neutral.
If Ukrainians don't want to join NATO, that is a legitimate (if ultimately unrealistic) position. If Russia doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, that is none of Russia's business.
How is not joining NATO unrealistic, Oralloy. Are we going to make them?
No. Russia is going to make them. If Ukraine doesn't join NATO, Russia is going to brutally conquer them. I'm pretty sure Ukraine does not want to be brutally conquered by Russia. They may not want to join NATO, but it is clearly preferable to the alternative. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think Russia would count Ukraine joining/not joining NATO as their business, Oralloy, whether you think it or not.
I think Russia is evil for having that point of view. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: Kind of like how your government counts it as their business. 
As a member of NATO, our government has some interest in the issue. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
This lady that you can't remember the name of sided with the politicians who refused to criticise Russia, which was an interesting development, nothing very neutral about that.
Not criticizing Russia is not a sign of wanting Russia to dominate them. The popular political position in Ukraine is to balance between the two sides instead of siding with one over the other. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: You've taken my wink out of context ,
OK -- sorry about that then. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: it's because I see you having to modify your stance. Now the Ukraine needs to do something if it wants to belong to NATO, where's the they'll be rushing to join us posts you were posting a wee while ago.
My stance probably modifies continuously as more information comes in, but I'm not sure I've changed my stance here. "Rushing Ukraine into NATO" and "Ukraine providing bases to NATO forces" are not contradictory positions. I'm just responding to a slightly different issue, so I am putting my position in a slightly different way.
I'm glad to see that you have shifted your stance about NATO because it was pretty untenable. Thank you for your "sorry". I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral". |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by askubala: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by askubala: quote: Originally posted by plandalet: quote: Originally posted by askubala:
i think russia will respect their neutrality. Last thing russia wants in NATO sitting on their door step. If Russia leaves them be, then there won't be any need for NATO to come trotting in, and Ukraine can be that much needed buffer zone between east and west.
Nice theory but it doesn't fly. Russia doesn't want a neutral Ukraine. It pretty much believes that Ukraine should do as it's told by the Russians. Who do you think tried to poison Yushenko?
But Yushenko was pushing too much towards NATO. so hardly neutral.
If Ukrainians don't want to join NATO, that is a legitimate (if ultimately unrealistic) position. If Russia doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, that is none of Russia's business.
Of course its their business, Russia doesn't want 100's of hostile missiles on their boarder. Just like the US understandably didn't want Russian nukes in Cuba. Best thing Ukraine could do is understand their position and respect it. If they want what’s best for their people they should take a more neutral stance. lean too much towards NATO and they make themselves a threat to Russia, so this whole step towards acquiring more security will actually have a detrimental effect. By the sounds of things they're coming to realize this.
If Ukraine doesn't join NATO, Russia will conquer them. I expect they won't like being conquered. If Russia didn't want to be surrounded by weapons, they shouldn't have started invading and trying to topple European democracies. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I'm glad to see that you have shifted your stance about NATO because it was pretty untenable.
I don't see how I shifted, or what is untenable about it. As far as I see, we've got Ukraine. It's just a matter of time. I'm thinking more about Turkmenistan now. Once we build pipelines across the Caspian Sea to get all the oil and gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, we'll need to protect those pipelines from Russia. Plus Turkmenistan would provide a good corridor to Afghanistan once we start bombing Pakistan. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I'm glad to see that you have shifted your stance about NATO because it was pretty untenable.
I don't see how I shifted, or what is untenable about it. You're right, Oralloy, your position hasn't changed, and this post sums it up. It's all about American imperialism with you. I guess you don't read the Asian Times to get a different viewpoint. You should sometimes, it'll make you realise that US imperialism is riding off into the sunset. As far as I see, we've got Ukraine. It's just a matter of time. I'm thinking more about Turkmenistan now. Once we build pipelines across the Caspian Sea to get all the oil and gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, we'll need to protect those pipelines from Russia. Plus Turkmenistan would provide a good corridor to Afghanistan once we start bombing Pakistan.
|
| |
|
|
oops, my post hasn't posted.
What I did say, Oralloy, was that your post sums up where you are coming from, and your stance hasn't shifted at all. It's all about Americal Imperialism. You just haven't realised it's riding off into the sunset. You need to read some non-western based media from time to time just to realise how much. Do you know that Iran and Russia are basically in your back yard now, in Latin America. Things are changing, but your government is just not keeping you up to date on it. Why do you think it was only bluster that came from the West over Georgia?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I'm glad to see that you have shifted your stance about NATO because it was pretty untenable.
I don't see how I shifted, or what is untenable about it. As far as I see, we've got Ukraine. It's just a matter of time. I'm thinking more about Turkmenistan now. Once we build pipelines across the Caspian Sea to get all the oil and gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, we'll need to protect those pipelines from Russia. Plus Turkmenistan would provide a good corridor to Afghanistan once we start bombing Pakistan.
Forgot to add -- I do know that the government of Turkmenistan is evil and insane. Given the greater evils of the world, I think we would be better off just looking the other way on that one though.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet.
I don't think that's why I said, Oralloy. I said that she wasn't being neutral, and not being neutral is often about what you don't say, rather than what you do, especially if it is to do with situations like Russia and Georgia. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I'm glad to see that you have shifted your stance about NATO because it was pretty untenable.
I don't see how I shifted, or what is untenable about it. As far as I see, we've got Ukraine. It's just a matter of time. I'm thinking more about Turkmenistan now. Once we build pipelines across the Caspian Sea to get all the oil and gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, we'll need to protect those pipelines from Russia. Plus Turkmenistan would provide a good corridor to Afghanistan once we start bombing Pakistan.
Forgot to add -- I do know that the government of Turkmenistan is evil and insane. Given the greater evils of the world, I think we would be better off just looking the other way on that one though.
Gosh, one minute you're showing the Pakistan government with money, next you want to bomb them. That's a bit schizophrenic when it comes to foreign policy, is it not?  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
oops, my post hasn't posted.
Actually it did -- your words were mixed in with mine. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
What I did say, Oralloy, was that your post sums up where you are coming from, and your stance hasn't shifted at all. It's all about American Imperialism. You just haven't realised it's riding off into the sunset. You need to read some non-western based media from time to time just to realise how much. Do you know that Iran and Russia are basically in your back yard now, in Latin America. Things are changing, but your government is just not keeping you up to date on it.
After the first cold war, when Russia was no longer a threat, it was ok to let South America follow its own path. Unfortunately the rise of the new cold war means we'll probably have to start supporting brutal dictatorships down there again to keep the bad guys out. ---- This isn't about American imperialism. I don't think there is even such a thing as American imperialism. Russia is trying to use their dominance of gas supplies to bully Europe. The gas pipeline across the Caspian Sea is all about preventing Russia from bullying Europe. What is wrong with letting Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan sell their own gas without going through Russia? As for Afghanistan, we are engaged in a just war of self-defense against the people who did 9/11. That isn't imperialism either. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet.
I don't think that's why I said, Oralloy. I said that she wasn't being neutral, and not being neutral is often about what you don't say, rather than what you do, especially if it is to do with situations like Russia and Georgia.
Her position is that Ukraine should neither join with Russia nor antagonize Russia. That is pretty close to neutral in my view. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
oops, my post hasn't posted.
Actually it did -- your words were mixed in with mine. quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
What I did say, Oralloy, was that your post sums up where you are coming from, and your stance hasn't shifted at all. It's all about American Imperialism. You just haven't realised it's riding off into the sunset. You need to read some non-western based media from time to time just to realise how much. Do you know that Iran and Russia are basically in your back yard now, in Latin America. Things are changing, but your government is just not keeping you up to date on it.
After the first cold war, when Russia was no longer a threat, it was ok to let South America follow its own path. Unfortunately the rise of the new cold war means we'll probably have to start supporting brutal dictatorships down there again to keep the bad guys out. ---- This isn't about American imperialism. I don't think there is even such a thing as American imperialism. Russia is trying to use their dominance of gas supplies to bully Europe. The gas pipeline across the Caspian Sea is all about preventing Russia from bullying Europe. What is wrong with letting Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan sell their own gas without going through Russia? As for Afghanistan, we are engaged in a just war of self-defense against the people who did 9/11. That isn't imperialism either.
thanks for pointing that out, Oralloy, our words being mixed together. How romantic...  One person's supporting evil dictators is another person's American imperialism. I recognise that lots of Americans call Hugo Chavez an "evil dictator". Does that mean you are going to support him - wouldn't that be a turnaround for the books? I think your money pot is rapidly drying up too. Guess you'll have to oust Russian and Iranian supported governments from Latin America first - that'll be interesting - taking on Russia in your own backyard. I think Russia is talking about diverting their oil to China, who, of course, also have a share of US oil from Iraq, having wangled their way in their due to US dependence on them not withdrawing their financial support to the US economy, and are also involved in Cuban waters and I think Venezuala. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet.
I don't think that's why I said, Oralloy. I said that she wasn't being neutral, and not being neutral is often about what you don't say, rather than what you do, especially if it is to do with situations like Russia and Georgia.
Her position is that Ukraine should neither join with Russia nor antagonize Russia. That is pretty close to neutral in my view.
Not in mine... I think not saying anything says a lot! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet.
I don't think that's why I said, Oralloy. I said that she wasn't being neutral, and not being neutral is often about what you don't say, rather than what you do, especially if it is to do with situations like Russia and Georgia.
Her position is that Ukraine should neither join with Russia nor antagonize Russia. That is pretty close to neutral in my view.
Not in mine... I think not saying anything says a lot!
What would you consider neutral then out of interest? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I recognise that lots of Americans call Hugo Chavez an "evil dictator". Does that mean you are going to support him
No. But toppling him and replacing him with an allied evil dictator seems like it may be in order. Gotta go for now -- will check back later. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I recognise that lots of Americans call Hugo Chavez an "evil dictator". Does that mean you are going to support him
No. But toppling him and replacing him with an allied evil dictator seems like it may be in order. Gotta go for now -- will check back later.
I guess Russia and China probably won't let you though, and they have plenty of money to splash around (I think US pursestrings are a bit tight at the moment)... tata, Oralloy... speak later  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by plandalet: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback: quote: Originally posted by Oralloy: quote: Originally posted by Thewitchisback:
I think failing to criticise Russia is probably a bit more than being "neutral".
Refusing to criticize Russia is far from wanting to be a Russian puppet.
I don't think that's why I said, Oralloy. I said that she wasn't being neutral, and not being neutral is often about what you don't say, rather than what you do, especially if it is to do with situations like Russia and Georgia.
Her position is that Ukraine should neither join with Russia nor antagonize Russia. That is pretty close to neutral in my view.
Not in mine... I think not saying anything says a lot!
What would you consider neutral then out of interest?
I think not siding with the party that refused to criticise Russia would have been pretty neutral. Unfortunately, that's not what she did. She voted to strip the president of some of his powers and failed to support a toughly worded statement blaming Moscow, thereby siding with the opposition. Doesn't seem very neutral to me. |
| |
|
|
Russia has a right to comment on Ukraine joining NATO but not to stop them. Otherwise you have to believe that germany had a right to intervene in the Sudentenland.
|
| |
|
|
