Reply to US has no good options in Ukraine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US has no good options in Ukraine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the end result of all of this is a divided Ukraine -- with Russia holding the eastern areas -- then was there any purpose to the war, even if Ukraine ends up "winning"?

Would Ukraine have been better off side-stepping the conflict by agreeing, months ago, to long-term neutrality with NATO membership permanently off the table?

Or would Putin have eventually launched an invasion even if Ukraine had signed a neutrality agreement?

[/quote]

That’s not an acceptable resolution. If Russia gets to keep any of Ukraine, Ukraine would need to fortify and militarize the border against the next invasion. Russia has to be kicked all the way out of Ukraine, including out of Crimea. [/quote]

Lol crimea isn’t going back at least for a century.

Get serious [/quote]

I was thinking about this.  Ukraine should do some sort of Panama Canal/Hong Kong lease arrangement for Sevastpol.  Something like that might be the best bad case scenario.[/quote]

Am I correct that the annexation of Crimea was precipitated, in part, by Ukraine's intention to break the long-standing lease signed with the Russians that allowed them to station military forces in Sevastpol?

[/quote]

No.  It appears that this is what happened

1997 - Treaty dividing the Soviet fleet etc.  Russia given a lease until 2017.
2008 - Ukraine PM says it wont extended.
2010 - pro-Russia govt elected (Manafort's people) and new treaty signed.  This happened almost immediately after the election.  This extended the lease until 2042 with a 5 year renewal in exchange for discounted nat gas.  Very contentious ratification vote in Ukrainian parliament.
2014 - Russia annexes and immediately cancels treaty.[/quote]

Thx for your response. In 2008, why did the Ukrainian PM indicate that the lease wouldn't be extended? What was the motivation? And why was the vote in 2010 so contentious? Hopefully this wasn't the result of the US Government trying to guide the outcome.

The fact that there was such much debate within Ukraine regarding the lease probably struck a nerve in the Kremlin given that the port is of great strategic importance to Russia. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics