Ukraine - Russia 2014

Discussion in 'Other Conflicts' started by Peninha, Jun 2, 2014.

  1. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    This is present and recent history, but I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this conflict. Do you think, based on what history has taught us, that the Russians will be satisfied by occupying Ukraine or they will continue to march on like the Germans did back in the WW2? Is there a connections between these two wars on are they two entirely different things?
  2. Yorf

    Yorf New Member

    I personally don't believe this will start any larger conflicts. Russia will take (or already took) what they wanted with the rich ports and whatnots, and EU and US can't do much other than just shun them.
  3. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    I sort of agree with you, but don't forget that Ukraine is living a "civil" war, meaning, is not a real civil war, but one that Russians caused to make the country collapse and eventually more regions "join" Russia.
  4. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    I disagree with your view on the whole event.
    I see a NATO expansion caused all this. Although the Russians no longer want a cold war after Soviet Union broke apart, the US/NATO continue to surround Russia with numerous military bases and trying to build missile "shield" in their face all in the name of "stop Iranian missiles"... nobody with a brain is going to believe that.
    This time, it's a NATO sponsored coup overthrew a legit president in Ukraine, which caused all this. Russia had no choice but to react... just like the last time with Georgia. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia with the approval of NATO, the Russians had no choice but to react.

    Russia is on the defensive and they are just reacting to continuous NATO aggression.
  5. Sam Tarly

    Sam Tarly New Member

    I highly doubt Russia would march on Europe like Germany did during WWII, the main reason for this is that the Russian government would have very little support from its own people and would probably erupt into massive riots. When Germany marched on Europe, it was backed by its own citizens who, at first, supported the expansion as compensation for the slights they received after WWI, Russia has no such support, Putin is not respected in his country and any attempt to push this any further will probably not be tolerated by the Russian people.
  6. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    No way Russia will do that and I doubt they ever set foot on Ukraine again, the first agreement with the EU is already signed so I believe that the next step will be they becoming a part of the EU and to NATO as well.
  7. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    So far the Russians haven't violated any rules.
    They had an agreement with Ukraine back in 1998 that Russia can place up to 50,000 troops in Crimea. So it was legit if they move troops into Crimea.

    The current Ukraine government is anything but "legit". It was a coup that overthrew the legit president (who was elected). The current government was not elected but got into power by riot/coup/violence/deception/and the back of foreign powers (NATO).
  8. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    I was not aware of that agreement you mention vash, but you know that what comes in the media left the impression on everyone that in fact Russia invaded them. I think if one thing that history taught us, is that these wars always have foreign influences as background.
  9. avbodder

    avbodder New Member

    There's no real chance Russia would start a ground war, not with the nuclear powers that exist in the world today. If they tried to march into Germany or Poland they'd be sparking WW3 which would kill us all. Vladimir Putin is interested in increasing Russian power and prestige, not leading his nation into utter ruin.
  10. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Putin is doing nothing more than defending his country against continuous NATO aggression.

    NATO has been trying to take away Russian naval base in Syria... by sponsored a "rebelling" there.
    NATO had given support to Georgia to invade South Ossetia.
    NATO had sponsored another coup in Ukraine in order to take away Russian naval base at Crimea.
    NATO has Russia surrounded with numerous military bases and is attempting to build missile "shield" in Russia's face.

    Every story says otherwise is pure anti-Russia propaganda.

    When you guys argue about whether Russia is going to invade Europe or just Putin trying to look tough...
    It is like I punched a guy in the street every time I walked by him, and finally he snapped. Then I tell everyone how this guy was going to set fire to the entire neighborhood...and a buddy of mine "argue" with me that the guy is only trying to look tough... something like that!

    The victim is being demonized... by the bully. And everyone is buying into the bully's propaganda...

    Russia is the weaker side in this conflict. US+NATO is 10x stronger in economy, population, conventional military. The only thing that is protecting Russia for now is their stock pile of nukes. Once the "missile shield" is in place and fully working, Russia will be in real trouble. Why would the weaker one be the aggressor and actively looking for trouble??
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2014
  11. avbodder

    avbodder New Member

    The peculiar idea that Russia is blameless here doesn't make a lot of sense. NATO has Russia surrounded because the members of NATO surround Russia. It's an alliance originally formed to prevent Russian aggression under the Soviets. Nobody is going to start a shooting war with each side having a nuclear arsenal. Putin knows that he can win small strategic victories on his borders, especially with a relatively uncaring United States looking elsewhere in the world. He's acting as any power does - to secure the geopolitical influence and power of his nation, nothing more.
  12. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
    Russia is nowhere near "North Atlantic". All those newer NATO members and NATO want to be countries are nowhere near North Atlantic. NATO originally did not have Russia surrounded, but NATO continue to expand bases in Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia etc. completely have Russia surrounded from three sides. These extra bases are not located within NATO members' border.

    If NATO didn't sponsor a coup to overthrow the legit Ukraine president in the first place, Putin didn't need to do anything. All he did was to protect Russia when it is threatened.
  13. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    Yes, NATO might stand up for that, but if any other country wants to join I don't believe they will not accept it, the more the better I believe when the aim is to establish peace in the world.
  14. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    The aim of NATO is NOT "world peace". Don't take the words of it, but look at the actions of it.

    While NATO was first formed to counter USSR, that goal is no longer valid since USSR had broke up long time ago, and Russia is now a third rate power without its nukes.

    Current NATO's aim is nothing more or less than to secure member countries' order to ensure the organization's dominance in the world economy/politics/military. To achieve this goal, any mean is necessary... including sponsoring coup in foreign countries to overthrow their governments (ex: Libyan, Syrian, Ukraine), organize/arm rebelling in foreign countries (ex: Libyan, Syrian), direct military strike on foreign countries (ex: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan)... And actively engaging in surrounding/suppressing "enemy" states (ex: Iran, Russia, China) while using propaganda to demonize them on daily basis.

    Without NATO, the world would be more peaceful than it is now.
  15. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    OK, so you are saying that NATO currently is an armed extension of the power of some countries? To be honest I thought that most recent military interventions have been made outside the scope of NATO.
  16. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Yes. NATO is acting like an armed gang with a false flag of "peace and democracy".
    Invasion of Iraq in 2003 for example, UN never approved it. NATO went ahead anyway. Not that UN is important to NATO in the first place, but when they could...they would make good use of the "legit" cover from UN's approval... Then again, they have proved that they don't really need that "legit" cover if they can't get it. Their self-interest is more important than the false "legit" when the stake is high.

    All those "trials"...
    Former president of Yugoslavia was arrested by NATO, and his final words to a visiting Russian official was "They are trying to kill me"... and a few days later he died.
    Saddam...did anyone see the trial?
    Gaddafi... he was executed on the spot.
  17. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    Saddam wasn't taken by NATO I think, the US did that on their own. Either cases, I agree with what you say, these military organizations serve purposes way different than the ones they were created for.
  18. skynel_27

    skynel_27 New Member

    I just wish these all would end. It's just so disheartening.
  19. Peninha

    Peninha Member

    Totally, not only people are dead, but the bodies aren't being returned, the clothes and credit cards are being stolen, inhuman, no respect what-so-ever.
  20. taylor00

    taylor00 New Member

    NATO keeps bugging Russia, but Putin is smarter. He knows exactly what NATO wants and every dirty trick they will use to get it. Unfortunately the public will never know what is really going on, and will be misled by the media.

Share This Page