So if you already accept that they won't return Crimea to Ukraine, then for how long do you propose Russia pay its penance? Five years? Fifteen? Seventy? A hundred?
What's the end game for Crimea?
- Thread starter White_Unifier
- Start date
So if you already accept that they won't return Crimea to Ukraine, then for how long do you propose Russia pay its penance? Five years? Fifteen? Seventy? A hundred?
What are you talking about? Crimea isn't the only conflict zone in Ukraine do you even know about the Eastern Russian backed Rebel region? This is were the hotspot is daily shelling and shooting, starving, dying. The biggest reason for the seize fire agreement, this is where Russia is keeping Ukraine destabilized.
To help you get caught up
[youtube]1pN_WrHN2lo[/youtube]
[youtube]rA8214le5D8[/youtube]
[youtube]w5mLUXxXXE4[/youtube]
So do you think Russia should still be rewarded for interfering in Ukraine?
So what's the endgame? Russia hasn't shown any desire to return Crimea yet and it's still fighting in other parts of Ukraine.
How do we end the stalemate?
Russians are already occupying Palestine. American Jews don't want them in Israel.
Our Defense Minster kicked the Canadian NATO spec arms door open for Ukraine.
It's only beginning. This is far from over.
Israel was largely settled by Ashkenaz from Russia. It a Russian colony, of sorts (not an intentional one).
From link:
Russia and the west are on a collision course over Crimea after Moscow was accused of orchestrating a "military invasion and occupation" of the peninsula, as groups of apparently pro-Russian armed men seized control of two airports.
Get real 'accused of' and 'apparent' ruskies staging a "miltary invasion" is light years from shock and awe...that was an invasion. Of course the west has to pin blame somewhere for their failure to gain control of urkraine which makes encircling russia with nato troops a prob.
Russia likes that their navy is viewed as rust buckets, who is going to waste time stewing over such junk, speaking of israel the u.s. has withdrawn from un human rights council cause they claim un is biased when it comes to israel, apparently u.s. brass deem palestinians make pretty good cannon fodder.
So not a big deal that Crimea was taken by special forces disguised as local forces instead of a mass invasion? Wasn't Crimea not still taken over by force? You do realize that Russia had a large military presence in Crimea already due to the port they were renting from Ukraine that was utilized by the special forces. So IMO it was an invasion
When force is deemed essential to protect sovereignty a surgical remedy to me is far superior to mass slaughter and indiscriminate bombing. The nato plan to encircle russia quite naturally alarms their quarry making ukraine and crimea very important to their security. I can understand russia resisting america coaching maidan as their motive was patently obvious however I cannot find anywhere a rational reason for iraq being razed.
As invasions go crimea doesn't even register on the madness scale it only rates on the western lame stream medias' scale, never let pesky facts get in the way of natos' agenda.
As invasions go crimea doesn't even register on the madness scale it only rates on the western lame stream medias' scale, never let pesky facts get in the way of natos' agenda.
So if I get your reasoning right it wouldn't be a big deal if the U.S. seized NFLD, NB, NS, PEI, and forced a farce referendum to join the States, because Canada is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?
Do you honestly think Ukraine and their citizens are irrelevant?
Do you honestly think Ukraine and their citizens are irrelevant?
Not just ukranians all citizens are irrelevant when it comes to political agendas ask any libyan or palestinian, crimea is a miniscule potatoe on the victims of political agendas list.
Your argument lacks parallel, if ontario possessed nukes capable of tempering u.s. ambitions the east coast would remain canuck then the threat would devolve into a lame stream media propaganda event just as it has with ukraine, btw why would washington want to inherit our massive debt?.
Your argument lacks parallel, if ontario possessed nukes capable of tempering u.s. ambitions the east coast would remain canuck then the threat would devolve into a lame stream media propaganda event just as it has with ukraine, btw why would washington want to inherit our massive debt?.
OK, let's go with that. Let's say the US seized NFLD, NB, NS, PEI, and forced a rush referendum to join the states, what would we do about it?
Now the US would claim that the majority voted to stay in the US so we must respect democracy, while the new alliance against the USA would have doubts about that. So what would be our options?
One option I guess would be to insist on an internationally-monitored referendum take 2 and the combined alliance could impose strict sanctions until then. If the US claim is true, then the US might not mind that as a way to end this standoff and rebuild its economy.
Another option could be to simply insist that the US return those provinces to us regardless of the people's will to remain with the US. That could be politically difficult. Even if the majority wanted to remain with the US, the US would still have been wrong to invade and Canada would still have a right to insist on getting its land back. In practical terms though, just compare the US' military might to Canada's and tell me what we could do about that. If we can't fight militarily, then we might be able to fight a battle of wits. If the US claims that it won a fair referendum, then it should not mind calling another better-monitored referendum. Should it refuse, we could then legitimately challenge its moral claim and even Americans would support us on at least that. It would be more than reasonable a request seeing the US had no business attacking Canada in the first place. Should the US call the referendum, it's properly monitored, and the provinces vote to stay with the US in this hypothetical scenario, given how the US had no business annexing them in the first place, the alliance might still be able to pressure the US through painful sanctions to at least agree to recognize any Canadian citizen born after the annexation date as having the full freedom to work there visa-free. Again, seeing how the US had no business attacking Canada in the first place, that would be more than reasonable and the US could maybe accept that.
The other option would be for the alliance to just maintain sanctions on the US until the US unconditionally turn the provinces over without a referendum. The the US refuse, then what? We just languish for the next century?
The members of the alliance could perhaps help Canada's languishing economy in such a scenario through preferential trade and visa policies. In practical terms though, what more could they do?
You mean just like they are doing in Ukraine now
If Ukraine wouldn't have turned in their nukes your scenario would be valid, to your first point, Thus the lack of will to turn up the heat on Russia
If Ukraine wouldn't have turned in their nukes your scenario would be valid, to your first point, Thus the lack of will to turn up the heat on Russia
Russia was wrong. I'm not denying that. We could raise sanctions against Russia but it does appear that Russia is determined to hang on to Crimea knowing that the tougher the sanctions, the more they hurt Russia and the EU at the same time. So if Russia decides to play the long game, what do we do? For how long do we try sanctions before we accept that they have failed? Five, fifteen, seventy, a hundred years?
If the sanctions fail, do we send boots on the ground or not? If we're not prepared to send boots on the ground, then what? I'm not looking at the ethics of it along but the practicalities of it too.
The UN has to put some teeth into the cease fire agreement, keep supporting Ukraine with equipment and training, no need for boots on the ground just help Ukraine get organized and grow stronger believe it or not Russia is already scared of Ukraine's will for independence and inner strength to survive
Maybe. If that's the case, then we could always strengthen Ukraine's hand in certain ways. For example, imagine if Canada and the EU adopted a policy granting unconditional unilateral free trade with Ukraine but cut all economic ties to Russia including flights. Just close the border totally. This would mean that Ukraine would reserve the right to import from Russia and resell to the EU, Canada, etc. and import from other countries and sell to Russia.m It would also decide whether to allow Russian or foreign flights into or out of Ukraine. Russians who want to visit the EU would have to fly through Ukraine first and vice versa for others wanting to visit Russia. This could make Russia somewhat economically dependent on Ukraine while still not hurting EU states too much since they could still buy gas from Ukraine that Ukraine could buy from Russia. But Ukraine would call the shots on this.
If that causes Russia to transfer Crimea back to Ukraine, great. But what do we do if that still doesn't work?
We've had trade agreements with Ukraine since the 90's especially in the agriculture sector, you have to give it time Trump just recently allowed the sale of lethal weapons, to a smaller extent so did Canada and the UK. to Ukraine, gotta to play the long game with Russia.