advertisement


Ukraine III

Status
Not open for further replies.
gx502 said:
Look, the US is a very powerful country so they can do such things. But that doesn’t mean that I really agree with them. I think they shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of other nations.

Obviously we see things differently but that’s my view.
Click to expand...
So is the activity 'meddling' because of the nature of the activity, or is it meddling because it's the evil US doing it?

If the first, I wonder how affairs can go forward. Should the US act exactly the same toward the Ukraine, regarding trade and assistance, even if an oppressive asshole Putin toady is running the place? Should the US avoid meddling by avoiding any government involvement in trade and assistance, leaving such matters totally to corporations and NGOs as their own discretion and interest may dictate? That might mean continued meddling, though who meddles and what they want may change. Or should the government close up the US and have nothing to do with anybody? What sort of international system would you like?

Or if the later, who do you want to be boss of the US and make us act as you wish? What levers of power will be legitimate to use for this purpose?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You don't know my view, so we may not see things differently. How, for starters, are you defining 'meddling'? Does providing arms and logistics support to Ukraine in its defence against Russia constitute 'meddling'? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Fair play!

My view might be very simple minded but I think the US might take umbrage if hypothetically speaking a foreign power was heavily involved in supporting an uprising and hand picking the leaders of neighbouring country like Canada or Mexico. Highly unlikely I know but i just use the example as way of thinking about what went on in the Ukraine in 2014.

Now in terms of providing arms to the Ukraine…


First I’d say Ukraine is a smaller and less powerful country than Russia. But Russia just happens to be its neighbour. This can make things tricky. I recall a Nepalese friend of mine telling me that in Nepal affairs of state are like walking a tight rope between India and China, and the lobbyists/adherents of the two exist actively inside Nepal. Not nice but that is the reality of the situation.

At this point of time I think it’s irresponsible to send arms into the Ukraine. It’s gonna amplify the bloodshed. I think the Russians do have the military capability to overcome the Ukrainian military and imported anti tank anti aircraft weapons. To my eyes the Russians are using similar tactics to those used in Syria.I don’t think they are in a great hurry.

It’s too little too late. Hence I asked the question are Russia’s security concerns about NATO expansion well founded? I honestly don’t know myself. I just know they have expressed these concerns for a long time.

Anecdotally I did read that Russia expressed these concerns at the collapse of the Soviet Union and somehow they were satisfied with asssurances. But these were never formally agreed or codified.

But even so the Russian federation has expressed concerns for a long time.

Ukraine is not a current NATO member. Also membership is not an easy road since some parts of the Ukraine want to break away and join the Russian federation. So yes I would say sending arms into UKR is meddling.

If Putin takes Ukraine, and then decides he doesn’t like NATO forces being present in Poland. If he were then to take offensive military action against a NATO member well that’s a whole different ball game. Excuse my use of such light hearted terminology.
 
FN1KOWyXMAUt1ZY


When I see a redditor who deserted after 36 hours in Ukraine...
 
DonQuixote99 said:
So is the activity 'meddling' because of the nature of the activity, or is it meddling because it's the evil US doing it?

If the first, I wonder how affairs can go forward. Should the US act exactly the same toward the Ukraine, regarding trade and assistance, even if an oppressive asshole Putin toady is running the place? Should the US avoid meddling by avoiding any government involvement in trade and assistance, leaving such matters totally to corporations and NGOs as their own discretion and interest may dictate? That might mean continued meddling, though who meddles and what they want may change. Or should the government close up the US and have nothing to do with anybody? What sort of international system would you like?

Or if the later, who do you want to be boss of the US and make us act as you wish? What levers of power will be legitimate to use for this purpose?
Click to expand...

Simply put i would say it’s meddling because you are interfering with the choice of leadership of a foreign state. Doesn’t matter to me who is doing it.

Of course in terms of trade and other relations with the US surely that is fine so long as it is bilaterally based.
 
gx502 said:
My view might be very simple minded but I think the US might take umbrage if hypothetically speaking a foreign power was heavily involved in supporting an uprising and hand picking the leaders of neighbouring country like Canada or Mexico. Highly unlikely I know but i just use the example as way of thinking about what went on in the Ukraine in 2014.
Click to expand...

Someone beneath the Secretary of State expressing political desires to an ambassador hardly comprises "hand-picking leaders".

And what are ambassadors for if not expressing one nations' desires to another?
 
gx502 said:
Fair play!

My view might be very simple minded but I think the US might take umbrage if hypothetically speaking a foreign power was heavily involved in supporting an uprising and hand picking the leaders of neighbouring country like Canada or Mexico. Highly unlikely I know but i just use the example as way of thinking about what went on in the Ukraine in 2014.
<snip>

At this point of time I think it’s irresponsible to send arms into the Ukraine. It’s gonna amplify the bloodshed. <snip>

Ukraine is not a current NATO member. Also membership is not an easy road since some parts of the Ukraine want to break away and join the Russian federation. So yes I would say sending arms into UKR is meddling.

If Putin takes Ukraine, and then decides he doesn’t like NATO forces being present in Poland. If he were then to take offensive military action against a NATO member well that’s a whole different ball game. Excuse my use of such light hearted terminology.
Click to expand...
Why would it be different if Putin were acting against a NATO member, though? Does NATO having a mutual agreement turn the 'meddling' into 'support'? And if so, does not having an agreement in place mean that no country should be permitted to go to the aid of another country which has been attacked?

You see, I think there are degrees of 'meddling' some of which are desirable, some of which are acceptable, and some of which are not acceptable. And I don't think your stated position takes into account this possibility. To you, all actions of one state which have an affect on another state are unacceptable. I think that is very simplistic, and naive to the point of being childish.

Edit: And I think @gustav_errata is exactly right about diplomacy and the role of ambassadors. This is not meddling, is is part of a normal process of discussion and exchange of viewpoints which is essential if we are to avoid misunderstandings, and worse.
 
gustav_errata said:
Someone beneath the Secretary of State expressing political desires to an ambassador hardly comprises "hand-picking leaders".

And what are ambassadors for if not expressing one nations' desires to another?
Click to expand...


Ok so they were simply communicating a preference for the leaders.

i cannot prove my point, but I’ll concede and just say that I’m suspicious of their motives. I won’t say more but will defer to your point.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Why would it be different if Putin were acting against a NATO member, though? Does NATO having a mutual agreement turn the 'meddling' into 'support'? And if so, does not having an agreement in place mean that no country should be permitted to go to the aid of another country which has been attacked?

You see, I think there are degrees of 'meddling' some of which are desirable, some of which are acceptable, and some of which are not acceptable. And I don't think your stated position takes into account this possibility. To you, all actions of one state which have an affect on another state are unacceptable. I think that is very simplistic, and naive to the point of being childish.

Edit: And I think @gustav_errata is exactly right about diplomacy and the role of ambassadors. This is not meddling, is is part of a normal process of discussion and exchange of viewpoints which is essential if we are to avoid misunderstandings, and worse.
Click to expand...

If Putin was to take offensive military action against a NATO member state would that not activate NATO collective defence principle?
 
ks.234 said:
For clarity I wasn’t passing comment on your posts at all. In fact an alternative voice is, for me, welcome. Some of the pile ons, less so.
Click to expand...

Even an “alternate voice” about the Kennedy assassination and 9/11? I sure hope not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top