War with Russia

[ATG]

I think that description is pretty silly, but for the sake of argument let's say it was accurate. How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners? You might want to consider that Russia has profoundly damaged diplomatic and economic relations with the West. It has managed to put itself on the wrong end of a load of sanctions, get itself suspended from the G8, and has lost any leverage to negotiate a reduction in global oil production. That has led to a mass exodus of foreign investment, the flight of a huge amount of domestic wealth out of the country, a collapse in the rouble and a big economic down turn of an already weak economy. All of that was entirely predictable. Could luck finding a foreign policy own goal of that size in the recent history of any western state.

[ATG]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

We are assured it is only the "moderate opposition" being trained and equipped. It is just like the huge improvement in Libya since being given explosive freedom and democracy.

They weren't given it. They took it for themselves with some assistance from the British and the French airforces. Where was the USA in this? Sidelined.

[AreOut]

ATG said:

I think that description is pretty silly, but for the sake of argument let's say it was accurate. How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners?

but it all happened AFTER western-instigated armed coup in Kiev which removed LEGALLY elected president from power

so it was also started by western states not by Russia, they had to react and protect their interests and people there

[Mojocvh]

AreOut said:

ATG said:

I think that description is pretty silly, but for the sake of argument let's say it was accurate. How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners?

but it all happened AFTER western-instigated armed coup in Kiev which removed LEGALLY elected president from power

so it was also started by western states not by Russia, they had to react and protect their interests and people there

Nope you can spin like a RT producer all you like but the above is totally false...

[Axionknight]

ATG said:

They weren't given it. They took it for themselves with some assistance from the British and the French airforces. Where was the USA in this? Sidelined.

And the country is in a better state now, yes?

...

[Mr Whippy]

Mojocvh said:

AreOut said:

ATG said:

I think that description is pretty silly, but for the sake of argument let's say it was accurate. How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners?

but it all happened AFTER western-instigated armed coup in Kiev which removed LEGALLY elected president from power

so it was also started by western states not by Russia, they had to react and protect their interests and people there

Nope you can spin like a RT producer all you like but the above is totally false...

So why did they go in there? For no reason except to suffer economic sanctions that would cripple their economy?

Seems an odd thing to do.


They wanted to be there, and now they are. So they've achieved their goal.

Dave

[QuantumTokoloshi]

ATG said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

We are assured it is only the "moderate opposition" being trained and equipped. It is just like the huge improvement in Libya since being given explosive freedom and democracy.

They weren't given it. They took it for themselves with some assistance from the British and the French airforces. Where was the USA in this? Sidelined.

You might want to check that misconception out. Operation odyssey dawn and the 114 civilian casualties, cruise missiles etc. and one F 15 shot down, disagree with you.

[ATG]

Odessey dawn would be the NATO air exclusion operation sanctioned by the UN security council and executed by the British and French air forces. Hardly US unilateral foreign policy.

Take the tin foil hat off, remove the chips from your shoulders and welcome to the real world.

[ATG]

Mr Whippy said:

So why did they go in there? For no reason except to suffer economic sanctions that would cripple their economy?

Seems an odd thing to do.

It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

ATG said:

Odessey dawn would be the NATO air exclusion operation sanctioned by the UN security council and executed by the British and French air forces. Hardly US unilateral foreign policy.

Take the tin foil hat off, remove the chips from your shoulders and welcome to the real world.

The Iraq invasion by your definition, was not "unilateral US foreign policy", neither was Afghanistan. I am amazed they were railroaded into all these conflicts.

Stretching a clause in a UN resolution to "protect civilians", to include bombing (ironically then killing civilians) and the support of terrorists, including some extreme jihadists, is par for the course. This has been amply demonstrated in the actions in Ukraine.

You might remember Nuland "f*ck the EU" conversation or Ashton's conversation with the Estonian Foreign minister. Oh sorry, that must be my tin foil hat again

You need to step away from CNN, The Sun, BBC and the Daily Mail start thinking for yourself a little, you might enjoy it.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 4th December 17:45

[Octoposse]

ATG said:

How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners?

Crimea is a done deal and - for all the EU/US quibling about process, duress, etc - fully in line with wishes of tha majority of the population. Kosovo chicken coming home to roost (although Russia used aboout 0.000001% of the force that NATO did against Serbia and Montenegro).

As for violence in the East, that was never Russia's aim. What Putin wanted - back in February/March, was a negotiated political settlement, some figleaf of federalism in the East, to let him 'quit whilst he was ahead'. It's the West that egged Kiev on to seek a military solution - so, yes, Russia has 'sustained' a civil war in the sense that they didn't watch as Ukrainian tanks and warplanes targetted civilians and resolved fundamental divides in the country by force.

ATG said:

It has managed to put itself on the wrong end of a load of sanctions, get itself suspended from the G8, and has lost any leverage to negotiate a reduction in global oil production.

Quite so, why is presumably why 'we' didn't want a political / constitutional negotiated settlement back in February / March . . . figured that Putin was finished either way - internal political support evaporating if images of triumphant Kiev paramilitaries on the border, hundreds of thousands of refugees, Russian people grumbling that Putin hadn't helped '. . . those poor people chased from their lands by fascists . . .', external sanctions and loss of place in the world if he did push back. Make him pay a price for Syria, Crimea and general not-knowing-his-place, and sod the poor Ukrainians, Russians (and, unexpectedly, passing planeload of civilans) who would inevitably pay the price . . .

[Transmitter Man]

AreOut said:

ATG said:

I think that description is pretty silly, but for the sake of argument let's say it was accurate. How do you think the consequences of that compare to the consequences for Russia of annexing the Crimea and creating and sustaining a civil war in the east of Ukraine which had killed a load of Ukranian civilians plus a plane full of foreigners?

but it all happened AFTER western-instigated armed coup in Kiev which removed LEGALLY elected president from power

so it was also started by western states not by Russia, they had to react and protect their interests and people there

Completely inaccurate.

Excluding what Pukin was propagating on his completely controlled channels (The first amendment 'freedom of the press' has never existed in Russia, you diod note that in the days leading up to Yanukovic fleeing with much of the state coffers more than a few of his own party members wanted him impeached.

You also I'm sure are aware there were only six members of svoboda the right wing part in the makeup of the new, democratically elected government.

trying to pin this on the west or the US is complete utter balderdash.

Backing the Ukrainian people in wanting closer links to Europe and there ex-president of Russian decent saying $uck you top the people is I'm afraid completely kosher.
and legitimate.

No wonder the UK banned RT due to it's openly unfair and biased reporting.

My god, wake up man.

Phil

[Octoposse]

Transmitter Man said:

Backing the Ukrainian people in wanting closer links to Europe and there ex-president of Russian decent saying $uck you top the people is I'm afraid completely kosher.
and legitimate.

The fundamental problem with your argument is that the Ukrainian people did not want closer links to Europe . . .

OK, to qualify that - some did, some (especially in the South and East) did not. Indisputably the outcome of political and constitutional processes in Ukraine was that the democratically elected government, reflecting the will of a considerable strand of Ukrainian society, determined against. And were then violently overthrown.

[anonymous-user]

So by tearing apart Ukraine then both camps in Ukraine get what they want. It's what happens elsewhere when a country is made up of two tribes(or more) who want very different things. Think Yugoslavia, Sudan, India/Pakistan, soon to be Iraq.........
We need to remember that a lot of the stirring that the U.S is doing is all about rivalry and dominance. It's not about countering a threat to our safety, it's about competition and the Americans trying to stop anyone from limiting their own power. The Russians are not our enemy,(although I think Putin is too authoritarian) they are just doing things another way. They are not cutting off heads or imposing their will on others.
You win some, you lose some. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. Life does continue when things go someone else's way.

[skyrover]

Octoposse said:

Transmitter Man said:

Backing the Ukrainian people in wanting closer links to Europe and there ex-president of Russian decent saying $uck you top the people is I'm afraid completely kosher.
and legitimate.

The fundamental problem with your argument is that the Ukrainian people did not want closer links to Europe . . .

OK, to qualify that - some did, some (especially in the South and East) did not. Indisputably the outcome of political and constitutional processes in Ukraine was that the democratically elected government, reflecting the will of a considerable strand of Ukrainian society, determined against. And were then violently overthrown.

Most Ukrainians wanted closer ties with Europe (poll conducted in may 2014... no doubt things will have swung even more dramatically in Europe's favor since)

[FourWheelDrift]

Over 80% believed there would be vote rigging in the last 2012 elections.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20120888

Russia of course said it was fair and above board.

[AreOut]

Transmitter Man said:

Completely inaccurate.

Excluding what Pukin was propagating on his completely controlled channels (The first amendment 'freedom of the press' has never existed in Russia, you diod note that in the days leading up to Yanukovic fleeing with much of the state coffers more than a few of his own party members wanted him impeached.

You also I'm sure are aware there were only six members of svoboda the right wing part in the makeup of the new, democratically elected government.

trying to pin this on the west or the US is complete utter balderdash.

Backing the Ukrainian people in wanting closer links to Europe and there ex-president of Russian decent saying $uck you top the people is I'm afraid completely kosher.
and legitimate.

No wonder the UK banned RT due to it's openly unfair and biased reporting.

My god, wake up man.

Phil

lol and western media isn't biased? I have watched with my own eyes how they spun during 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, now that required some stomach.

I am already awake and I follow all sides to get the better picture, you follow only one.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Never mind influencing Ukraine, the US has an ex US embassy person added to the Ukraine parliament.

I am sure that is just a coincidence.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-04/how-ukrai...

[skyrover]

What do Putin, the price of oil, and the ruble have in common?

They'll all hit 63 next year.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

skyrover said:

What do Putin, the price of oil, and the ruble have in common?

They'll all hit 63 next year.

Bada boom tish