Russian invasion of Ukraine

[obfuscator]

By this point it seems fairly obvious that russia is slowly invading Ukraine.

 

At what point should legitimate efforts be taken to stop them?

 

It seems to me that the UN/Nato/US/other countries have no real desire to stop russia and they could probably take over the entire country with nothing but economic sanctions. Thoughts?

[Low Levelled]

I'm glad we (the US) arent getting involved further.

You know that won't last ;)

[Major Dash]

It really isn't the US's place though.

[Sy_Accursed]

It kinda is the US place when one of the other most powerful nations in the world is invading democratic people.

 

It is kinda the place of all the big powers - US, Uk, France, Germany etc. to step up and say no you cannot just invade other democratic countries in the 21st century.

 

Turning a blind eye to it would basically be an invitation to another attempt at a Nazi Empire, just a Russia one. I mean Germany passed a few discriminatory laws and people turned a blind eye and said its not our place, then Germany held the olympics and no-one made any major stand against their discriminatory laws so then Germany started to slowly invade its neighbouring countries.

 

Now take Germany out of all those sentences and put in Russia.

 

This road only leads to World War 3 unless the world and its most powerful leaders send to a strong message to Putin that this is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

At this point it doesn't even have to be military action, Nato, the UN etc. can pass much more hard hitting sanctions - Russia assets in foreign countries can be frozen, they can stop all trading with russia, they can evict all russian diplomats and embassies, they can make shops strip all russian made products from their shelves. The big businesses who hold much sway in russia are unlikely to turn a blind eye to Putin continuing down this path if they suddenly have heaps of their assets frozen and cannot continue to trade affectively.

[Tim]

 

Turning a blind eye to it would basically be an invitation to another attempt at a Nazi Empire,

 

In regards to that, the Russian Federation were big fans of "Hitler's Germany" and the Nazi movement well beyond WW2 even into today. 

[JeRambo]

At this point it doesn't even have to be military action, Nato, the UN etc. can pass much more hard hitting sanctions - Russia assets in foreign countries can be frozen, they can stop all trading with russia, they can evict all russian diplomats and embassies, they can make shops strip all russian made products from their shelves. The big businesses who hold much sway in russia are unlikely to turn a blind eye to Putin continuing down this path if they suddenly have heaps of their assets frozen and cannot continue to trade affectively.

Couldn't that infuriate Russia even more? 

 

I don't want to sound like a Doomsayer, but I think Russia and China will combine forces and "conquer" the world. That's coming from both a religious and personal view.

Hasn't China said in the past that they could raise an army of over 200 million? 

 

War is coming.

 

/begin flame

[Estonian dude]

Noone wants to sanction Russians, because it would lose money. Russia is a market with 150 million consumers. Noone wants to be cut off from that.

Also, most of Europe is reliant on Russia for nearly all oil and gas. A few countries by as much as 100%. Baltics, for example.

 

I am fairly certain, and Merkel and others have said they won't start WW3 for Ukraine. Noone does anything. All is up to Putin. He can do whatever he wants, and there isn't anyone confident enough to oppose.

[RpgGamer]

Well doesn't that just suck

[Low Levelled]

The general perception of the United States around the world isn't exactly the best. And yet, the U.S. repeatedly attempted to help countries whether it be with aid or with soldiers. The U.S. just can't win in the public eye. Sit back and they're criticized for not helping, push the issue and they're criticized for getting in the way of other's business.

[Estonian dude]

Tell me about it.

 

And I live in one of the most US-friendly countries in Europe.

[Low Levelled]

Tell me about it.

 

And I live in one of the most US-friendly countries in Europe.

[bleep]ing Estonia, mate

[Jonanananas]

The general perception of the United States around the world isn't exactly the best. And yet, the U.S. repeatedly attempted to help countries whether it be with aid or with soldiers. The U.S. just can't win in the public eye. Sit back and they're criticized for not helping, push the issue and they're criticized for getting in the way of other's business.

 

That's more of a general problem with military interventions though. They very often have negative results and the question is whether to do nothing, which means the original atrocities will continue, or if you intervene and likely leave a country with new and possibly worse issues behind.

In this case, I definitely don't want the US to intervene. There's next to nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost. It might very well lead to World War III if the US deployed their army there.

 

I think right now the best course of action would be for the Ukraine to accept the temporary loss of territory, and to impose grave sanctions on Russia. Putin will never back down, but maybe the international isolation will make Russians realize where their president has got them and result in a strenghtening of the  opposition. And I just don't think that control over the region for Ukraine is worth all those deaths that would be necessary, if it's even possible considering the fairly open support of Russia with troops and weapons.

 

But Saq is right, really serious sanctions won't happen, because it would cost money which East Ukraine isn't worth in the minds of politicians and major corporations.

[Estonian dude]

Well, it ain't only about East Ukraine anymore. Question is, whether Putin stops with Ukraine or goes further.

 

Moldova for example... Ukraine's small neighbour, whose biggest export is humans (unfortunately). Poorest country in the EU, with lots of (older) people still yearning for the old Soviet times.

 

Ain't looking too shabby for us either.

[sees_all1]

An observation - the United States has less influence around the world today than say, ten or twenty years ago.

 

I think this has more to do with the political atmosphere and the current president then it has to do with military strength or technological capability.

Put another way, if the United States had someone similar to Putin for President, I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine.

[obfuscator]

Then again, popular opinion in the US is more against intervention than for it. I think if obama had the same political support bush did post 9/11 he'd be much more likely to take military action.

[sees_all1]

 

An observation - the United States has less influence around the world today than say, ten or twenty years ago.

 

I think this has more to do with the political atmosphere and the current president then it has to do with military strength or technological capability.

Put another way, if the United States had someone similar to Putin for President, I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine.

If we had someone similar to Putin I think we would have invaded Syria / Egypt / Libya / Iran or any combination of those four by now, in which case that might be incentive enough for (real) Putin to invade Ukraine.

 

 

Why would invading any of those four countries give Putin more incentive to invade Ukraine? Also, Putin has already invaded Ukraine, so why would it matter?

 

As far as I can tell, stopping Russia from annexing Ukraine would have done some good. If there was no fighting in that area, MH17 likely would not have been shot down sparing 298 innocents.

[Range_This11]

An observation - the United States has less influence around the world today than say, ten or twenty years ago.

 

I think this has more to do with the political atmosphere and the current president then it has to do with military strength or technological capability.

Put another way, if the United States had someone similar to Putin for President, I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine.

 

Your perception of lack power and influence that the U.S. projects has nothing to do with our President. In the last ten or twenty years, we've seen many other countries enter the world stage as serious power players. It's not that the U.S. is dwindling, it's just no longer the only show in town. 

[sees_all1]

 

 

 

An observation - the United States has less influence around the world today than say, ten or twenty years ago.

 

I think this has more to do with the political atmosphere and the current president then it has to do with military strength or technological capability.

Put another way, if the United States had someone similar to Putin for President, I don't think Putin would invade Ukraine.

If we had someone similar to Putin I think we would have invaded Syria / Egypt / Libya / Iran or any combination of those four by now, in which case that might be incentive enough for (real) Putin to invade Ukraine.

 

 

Why would invading any of those four countries give Putin more incentive to invade Ukraine? Also, Putin has already invaded Ukraine, so why would it matter?

 

As far as I can tell, stopping Russia from annexing Ukraine would have done some good. If there was no fighting in that area, MH17 likely would not have been shot down sparing 298 innocents.

 

I mean what you're suggesting with that statement is that Putin wouldn't invade the Ukraine because the US's hardass president would [bleep] him over somehow, but if we were already invading countries x y and z we would probably have more difficulty generating that response.

 

It's easy to look back in hindsight and say 298 people could have been spared but you have failed to consider the events that might have unfolded had we intervened.

 

 

Obama had a red line in 2012, warning Syria not to use chemical weapons. Syria did, and it drew no response from the U.S.

 

What happens when Obama tells Putin that invading other countries will draw a response from the U.S.? Obama now has history of losing games of chicken.

[obfuscator]

I don't think the president is solely to blame, but I think it's ridiculous to claim he has nothing to do with it. he has proven throughout his presidency that he is averse to military action compared to his predecessors, and that does affect the way the world views the US. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely has an effect.

[sees_all1]

If Obama can't keep his word on smaller, easier matters, why would anyone think that he'd keep his word on more difficult ones?

 

If the U.S. went scorched earth with drones in Syria after the chemical weapons, who would've batted an eye? The U.S. has been in the middle east for most of the last decade.

[Estonian dude]

It ain't really American business here.

 

[bleep]ing Merkel and Hollande and Cameron in the other hand... I understand Germans have invested a lot in Russia, but damn, you are risking your helluva lot larger investments in the EU.

[Estonian dude]

Maybe cause US, UK and Russia made a deal 1994 to support and preserve the then-current borders of Ukraine, no matter what, in exchange for which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. This treaty is the only reason why there isn't an all-out nuclear war already.

Russia can go [bleep] itself, it has proven time and time again it doesn't hold treaties for nothing.

But this is the authority of US at stake. What is the point of NATO or any other treaty that the US has signed, when they can't keep them?

[sees_all1]

 

If Obama can't keep his word on smaller, easier matters, why would anyone think that he'd keep his word on more difficult ones?

 

If the U.S. went scorched earth with drones in Syria after the chemical weapons, who would've batted an eye? The U.S. has been in the middle east for most of the last decade.

 

A really expensive thing to do to earn Russia's respect. Is it really worth it? More importantly is Eastern Europe worth it either?

 

I mean if Ukraine was a major oil supplier to the US we would be getting involved and negotiation would be something along the lines of "one step closer and we drop the nukes"

 

 

It's not just Russia, it's the rest of the world. Obama shows he won't use military force, then there is no threat of the U.S. engaging with anyone. What if China decided to take over Japan, or North Korea over South Korea, or Iran over Iraq? Each one of those instances would be a much bigger commitment than droning Syria, and each a bigger threat since the theoretical aggressors know they won't have repercussions.

 

If the U.S. had a President as strong willed as Putin, I think the real Putin would have thought twice about invading Ukraine.

[Estonian dude]

Again, as was said before, it is not as much about purely strategic or economic importance, it is of their commitment. Their authority. US, or well, NATO has been very involved in Eastern Europe. Symbolically it has a massive influence.

 

If US doesn't keep on their treaties, why would anyone ever even think they would be in any way better than Russia?

Why wouldn't Iraq or Korea start partnerships with Russia and cut off USA, if they are the same? Russia could even give better incentives.

What is the point of NATO?

What is the point of Pacific partnerships?

Why should Australia or Philippines or even UK hold good terms with US?

Has EU no importance to US?

Is the stability of EU of no importance to the US?

This is happening right on the border of EU.

[Estonian dude]

I have a bit of a personal agenda here aswell...

This thing is happening less than a thousand miles from me. Russia is less than 150 miles from me.

Estonia has no real economic or strategic importance to the US.

It would take 3 hours for Russians to take the whole country.

Our pretty much only protection comes from international treaties.

Whether NATO article 5 shall be used or are we just too insignificant and can be sacrificed.

What is this small patch of land with 1.3m people anyways.

No oil.