sachin34357 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Obama: No Country Has Right to Send Troops to Another Country Unprovoked http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-no-country-has-right-to-send-troops-to-another-country-unprovoked/ The irony. Were these guys 'provoked' by Iraq when they deployed their troops there? "You just don't - in the 21st century - behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext," :Secretary of State John Kerry
Iconoclast Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Suspect Putin's next move will be to starve Ukraine of natural gas. Hopefully Crimea will be the end of his military advance.
Muloghonto Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Crimea is turning out to be an interesting political question: Scenario: Region A of country B has ethnic majority in common with country C. Now, Countries B & C suddenly end up in such bad terms that region A, on the surface atleast, is showing 'total support' for breaking away/joining country C. The case for region A is obvious: if they are different enough from B and culturally locked enough to country C, they may just want to be politicaly under C's sphere in the first place. ( as in this case, both Russia & Crimea are russian majority regions ethnically, overwhelmigly so) What really should countries B,C and any third party country (X ) do in such a situation ? IMO, Ukraine should've seen this coming a mile away and so should we.
gs Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 "You just don't - in the 21st century - behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext' date='" :Secretary of State John Kerry[/quote'] Good one Kerry! I am sure eye-rack had tonnes of nukular weapons!! :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Desi Cartman Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Crimea is turning out to be an interesting political question: Scenario: Region A of country B has ethnic majority in common with country C. Now, Countries B & C suddenly end up in such bad terms that region A, on the surface atleast, is showing 'total support' for breaking away/joining country C. The case for region A is obvious: if they are different enough from B and culturally locked enough to country C, they may just want to be politicaly under C's sphere in the first place. ( as in this case, both Russia & Crimea are russian majority regions ethnically, overwhelmigly so) What really should countries B,C and any third party country (X ) do in such a situation ? IMO, Ukraine should've seen this coming a mile away and so should we. I'm confused BC what did I read
hhunaeh Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Crimea is turning out to be an interesting political question: Scenario: Region A of country B has ethnic majority in common with country C. Now, Countries B & C suddenly end up in such bad terms that region A, on the surface atleast, is showing 'total support' for breaking away/joining country C. The case for region A is obvious: if they are different enough from B and culturally locked enough to country C, they may just want to be politicaly under C's sphere in the first place. ( as in this case, both Russia & Crimea are russian majority regions ethnically, overwhelmigly so) What really should countries B,C and any third party country (X ) do in such a situation ? IMO, Ukraine should've seen this coming a mile away and so should we. In the current case, region A was a part of country C till 1991 and currently has the naval base of country C. This has to be unique only to russia and crimea. Do our northern and western neighbours need russia's precedence to attempt anything of the sort? I don't think so. Both will act when the time is right. Haven't they already done so in the past?
Brainfade Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 "You just don't - in the 21st century - behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext' date='" :Secretary of State John Kerry[/quote'] So, what do you all expect Pres. Obama and Sec. Kerry to say? "Well, Vlad, it's all good, buddy ... we made a huge mistake in Iraq, you go ahead do the same fookin' thing in Ukraine. We all agree that 2 wrongs make a right, and it'll all be one clean slate. We have your back, homey." The only thing to do is publicly condemn Russia, while privately deciding to stay the hell out and see where it goes.
Brainfade Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 In the current case, region A was a part of country C till 1991 and currently has the naval base of country C. This has to be unique only to russia and crimea. Do our northern and western neighbours need russia's precedence to attempt anything of the sort? I don't think so. Both will act when the time is right. Haven't they already done so in the past? We've seen this before in Jaffna. Rajiv Gandhi tried to intervene and get the sides to agree on something. It backfired and cost him his life - at the hands of the "C" people.
Sachin=GOD Posted March 6, 2014 Author Posted March 6, 2014 Wall Street Journal @WSJ Breaking: Crimea to vote March 16 on joining Russian Federation, says Russian news agency RIA-Novosti http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
hhunaeh Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 Russian interests in Crimea ‘legitimate’: India NEW DELHI: India believes Russia has "legitimate interests" in Ukraine — a position that is opposed to the stand of the West on the latest crisis. Interestingly, China has opposed Russia's intervention in Crimea, deviating from a long-standing support to Moscow in the UN Security Council. A statement by MEA on Thursday said India is "concerned at the subsequent escalation of tension, especially in view of the presence of more than 5000 Indian nationals, including about 4000 students, in different parts of Ukraine". However, when questioned, national security adviser Shivshankar Menon said, "There are legitimate Russian and other interests involved and we hope they are discussed and resolved." However, the MEA papered over the NSA's comment, calling "for a legitimate democratic process to find full expression through free and fair elections that provide for an inclusive society." "India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighbouring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue," said the statement. India has been reluctant to criticize Russia in international forums, going back to its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 when New Delhi refused to criticize Moscow. While China supported Russia on issues like Syria and Libya, it also called for respecting the sovereignty of these countries. Chinese President Xi Jinping was quoted last week by the official Chinese media as he weighed in on the Ukraine issue. Xi said, "At present, the situation in Ukraine is highly complicated and sensitive and has regional and global impact." Xi told Putin, "China believes that Russia can coordinate with other parties to push for the political settlement of the issue so as to safeguard regional and world peace and stability. China supports proposals and mediation efforts of the international community that are conducive to reduction of tension."
hhunaeh Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Putin calls up Manmohan Singh after Russia annexes Crimea NEW DELHI/MOSCOW:Russian President Vladimir Putin telephoned Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday evening and thanked him for India's support to Russia on Crimea. During the conversation, the Prime Minister emphasized on territorial integrity and expressed hope expressed the hope that all sides would exercise restraint and work together "constructively to find political and diplomatic solutions that protect the legitimate interests of all countries in the region and ensured long-term peace and stability in Europe and beyond." Putin telephoned the Prime Minister around 7.30pm and discussed the evolving situation in Ukraine and Sunday's secession referendum in Crimea. Thanking Putin for explaining the Russian position with regard to recent developments in Ukraine, Singh "emphasized the consistent position India had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries", India's foreign ministry said in a statement. Singh and Putin also discussed the close relationship and mutually-beneficial partnership between the two countries, the statement further said. Both leaders reaffirmed the importance that both countries attach to their special and privileged strategic partnership. The foreign ministry said that Singh also thanked Putin for his personal leadership in further deepening and strengthening the India-Russia strategic partnership in recent years.
CSK Fan Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I hope MMS grows the nuts to do this to POK. And make more problems for ourselves? What on earth will we gain from that except managing a bunch of terrorist camps?
CSK Fan Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I hope we do cosy up to Russia and China. US has really been giving us the short end of the stick lately for no reason. From diplomatic cases to openly favouring Pakistan, US has not been the greatest of allies
bulbul Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 ^ Nothing new , US never been a real ally for us. Its always Russia which is our good friend & so does Israel :winky:
hhunaeh Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 India is not openly supporting russia, but putin still thanked us. We will not impose sanctions like the west, not that we could, and we will very likely abstain from any anti russian vote in the UN. I suppose that counts as support in the eyes of russia, as they are desperate for any kind of endorsement. MMS "emphasized the consistent position India had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries." I don't see how we can choose between our trading partners and our largest military supplier. Staying out of it and not angering either russia or america is the best option IMO.
CSK Fan Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 India is not openly supporting russia, but putin still thanked us. We will not impose sanctions like the west, not that we could, and we will very likely abstain from any anti russian vote in the UN. I suppose that counts as support in the eyes of russia, as they are desperate for any kind of endorsement. MMS "emphasized the consistent position India had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries." I don't see how we can choose between our trading partners and our largest military supplier. Staying out of it and not angering either russia or america is the best option IMO. One more thing is, supporting Russia openly would also mean legitimizing such plebiscites, something India is avoiding in Kashmir
hhunaeh Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 One more thing is' date=' supporting Russia openly would also mean legitimizing such plebiscites, something India is avoiding in Kashmir[/quote'] that's true
Crookbond Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 We have openly supported Russia now, haven't we?
Recommended Posts