Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Viking]

Good book, BUT ITS FICTION!!!!!!11111onweonewoeneoneoene WTF?????++++++plusplusplus

Guardian livebloggers have a sense of humour

I don't doubt he is well read. I just feel that this suggests that Guardian livebloggers don't know that if all you know about he crimean war is Flashman and Tennyson and Nightingale then that's what you think it was.

[Admiral Yi]

i'm saying that general exploitation occurs, and people are getting too emotionally involved over countries that have little to do with the US. we tried to invade cuba after their government fell and the new government was realigned with the opposition. in a sense, same with vietnam. same with grenada. etc. etc. this is russia's grenada or whatever other analogy you want to make

The analogy I would prefer to use is none at all because i don't think any fit.

[LaCroix]

The analogy I would prefer to use is none at all because i don't think any fit.

ok, just remember - don't get lost in the trees

[Admiral Yi]

ok, just remember - don't get lost in the trees

I'll try not to forget.

[OttoVonBismarck]

there's nothing here that compels the US to defend ukraine's territorial integrity. not even close. it's a promise that the US will not violate ukraine's independence and sovereignty, not that they promise to uphold it. that would be an insane treaty for the US to sign. only the most desperate party seeking foreign assistance would legitimately try to interpret that to mean the US is obliged to defend ukraine. well, that and laymen 

Hey you stupid cunt, see this part of my post you declined to quote when responding to me:

What you're probably confused on is whether it's a requirement that we protect Ukraine--it isn't.

You can just go ahead and push a baseball bat up your ass the next time your ignorant ass feels the need to "explain" something to me I've already said in the text of the post you're responding to as you do it.

[Ed Anger]

 

[LaCroix]

Hey you stupid cunt, see this part of my post you declined to quote when responding to me:

You can just go ahead and push a baseball bat up your ass the next time your ignorant ass feels the need to "explain" something to me I've already said in the text of the post you're responding to as you do it.

ahem. you were the one bringing it up as an argument for why the US should intervene. if you knew it was a faulty argument, then why did you bring it up?

(edit) maybe i should clarify the intent of my post...

it sort of confused me why you were going on about this treaty. a few pages back you mentioned it in a list of reasons for why the US should intervene. then someone points out that the treaty doesn't support the US intervening, and you say "well of course!" but continued to stress that the treaty could be used as justification for military intervention.

that's wrong, as i was pointing out. the US could militarily intervene all it wants, but it would be embarrassing if it were to use that treaty as a reason for its intervention. you shouldn't assume i didn't read your post. i'd admit if i overlooked your admission, as i have before with other posters - i didn't, though. i do apologize for upsetting you, though 

[PDH]

War threat level 3: OvB has downed his third double bourbon.

[Fireblade]

Europe's disarmament after 1991 was a mistake. What the West needs is the creation of an elite, multinational force to defend Europe from Russian aggression.

[Jacob]

Canada pulls ambassador from Moscow: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-harper-recalls-ambassador-tells-putin-to-withdraw-1.2556228

We're pulling out of the G8 process as well, it seems.

[fhdz]

+1

[11B4V]

Putin is bluffing.

[Queequeg]

Anyone else filled with the strangest desire to watch Threads and When the Wind Blows?

[OttoVonBismarck]

ahem. you were the one bringing it up as an argument for why the US should intervene. if you knew it was a faulty argument, then why did you bring it up?

Oh, where did I do that? I said we could use it as part of our justification for moving troops into Kiev-controlled parts of Ukraine to help them with internal security matters. I never said it was a justification for anything else. Most importantly I never argued the agreement in and of itself was a reason for us to intervene. The reason we would intervene would be to check Putin, but foreign policy is a grand dance and in this day and age you always try to justify your actions, even when you're just committed bald-faced aggression. By and large even Hitler tried to drum up some veneer of justification for his actions.

As a justification to parade out in front of the EU it would be one of a few key things to justify our behavior if we decided to send a military detachment to Kiev. But it would be secondary to the fact the current government of the Ukraine would be requesting our presence there.

(edit) maybe i should clarify the intent of my post...

it sort of confused me why you were going on about this treaty. a few pages back you mentioned it in a list of reasons for why the US should intervene. then someone points out that the treaty doesn't support the US intervening, and you say "well of course!" but continued to stress that the treaty could be used as justification for military intervention.[/quote]

No, I didn't. Where did this happen? I reread the thread--something I'm about 90% sure you didn't do at all to start with. My first mentioning of the treaty was actually in response to DGuller and my first post about the treaty specifically says it does not require us to protect the Ukraine--and then I point out that since both ourselves and Russia promised not to fuck with Ukraine in order to get them to disarm their nuclear stockpile Ukraine would be more than justified in re-arming nuclearly and I posited we should help them do that if they want. I made it clear however from my very first post on the subject that it did not require we protect Ukraine, meaning it is not a defensive alliance treaty establishing a NATO-style relationship between us and Ukraine. That was my very first post in reference to the treaty. Your narrative about my comments in regard to the treaty are completely false. Have you gotten around to shoving that baseball bat up your ass yet? Because I'm really not seeing what you're bringing to this thread other than a habit of lying about what other people have posted--which in the format of a message board is particularly stupid since anyone can look at prior posts and note that you're lying.

that's wrong, as i was pointing out. the US could militarily intervene all it wants, but it would be embarrassing if it were to use that treaty as a reason for its intervention. you shouldn't assume i didn't read your post. i'd admit if i overlooked your admission, as i have before with other posters - i didn't, though. i do apologize for upsetting you, though 

The treaty specifically obligates both the United States and Russia to not fuck with Ukraine's territory or sovereignty. A treaty is like a contract and can require specific performance--as our membership in NATO does. Or it can be an open-ended treaty like the Memorandum with Ukraine. But I can't see any argument at all that we wouldn't have a good legalese justification for sending soldiers to help Kiev with security in response to Russia violating its treaty obligations. Most treaties historically have not required specific performance per se but have been similar to the memorandum, they just spell out a rough agreement. In reality that's about all you need, because all that matters anyway is what you're willing to do if the other parties don't hold up to their end. In many situations signatories just don't care, violations are seen as not a big deal or too minor to get all heated up about (many of Germany's first violations of Versailles were of this nature, and Versailles didn't require the signatories respond to Germany failing to do what it said it would do.) In video game terms I'd say we definitely would have a casus belli against Russia for not holding up its end of the treaty. But in the 21st or even 20th centuries there's not going to be a direct conflict with Russia, but if we wanted to deploy a limited military presence to Ukraine (and I've already pointed out that's the last in a long line of options) we would want some veneer of justification for our actions. Putin is making the argument he is protecting Russian speakers and Russian citizens living in Crimea. We could say we are taking responsibility for the safety of Ukraine due to having persuaded them to de-arm themselves and having signed an agreement saying we would "respect" their territorial integrity and sovereignty--in addition to the fact we would only go in if specifically asked to do so.

[Razgovory]

Look at me, siding with Otto and Derspeiss!