Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[Cobnapint]

Octoposse said:

But 'we' do want a Ukrainian military victory and have encouraged Kiev to seek one. It therefore seems a bit rich to blame Putin for all the subsequent poor bloody victims, on all sides and none.

The fact is they are defending Ukraine from westward creeping Russian forces (oh sorry - friendly pitchfork wielding Russian speaking yokels who are just defending themselves against the evil child slaughtering Ukrainian army) under the orders of Putin who has the bit between his teeth after a walkover smash and grab in Crimea.

A military victory is the only positive outcome available at the present time, because the chap with VP on his KGB issue pyjama case isn't listening to the vast ensemble of foreign leaders who have been constantly calling for him to respect Ukraine's internationally recognised boarders and to basically stop stirring the st.

If he stopped sending his troops (that he says aren't there) over the border, stopped firing artillery in the same direction (which he say's he isn't) and stopped supplying miltary hardware to the rebels (ditto) then peace would reign.

Blame Putin? Naah.

[Octoposse]

Cobnapint said:

. . . under the orders of Putin who has the bit between his teeth after a walkover smash and grab in Crimea.

Demonstrably untrue. Yes, Putin has Crimea, but that's why he wants an end to the conflict. Months ago. Quit whilst you're ahead - love him or loathe him, he's not stupid. The only proviso, with respect to his powerbase and popularity at home is that the political settlement must not look like a defeat - that's why a figleaf of compromise from Kiev would be enough. But no, we'd rather fight to the last Ukrainian.

Cobnapint said:

A military victory is the only positive outcome available at the present time

Apart from a peaceful solution, of course . .

Cobnapint said:

the chap with VP on his KGB issue pyjama case isn't listening to the vast ensemble of foreign leaders who have been constantly calling for him to respect Ukraine's internationally recognised boarders and to basically stop stirring the st.

No, they're telling him to eat st, as payback for Crimea. Again, love him or loathe him, the internal political imperative facing Putin and any future Russian leader is not eating the st we forcefed to his immediate predecessors.

Cobnapint said:

If he stopped sending his troops (that he says aren't there) over the border, stopped firing artillery in the same direction (which he say's he isn't) and stopped supplying miltary hardware to the rebels (ditto) then peace would reign.

Quite, Kiev could step up the air strikes on unarmed civilians, crush dissent, and ethnically cleanse the East. Or to put it less starkly - of course, all that peace requires is that one side lays down its arms . . . but given that there's an immediate offered solution right now in the form of peace talks and a constitutional settlement, why do we prefer the fighting to continue?

[XJ Flyer]

Cobnapint said:

Octoposse said:

But 'we' do want a Ukrainian military victory and have encouraged Kiev to seek one. It therefore seems a bit rich to blame Putin for all the subsequent poor bloody victims, on all sides and none.

The fact is they are defending Ukraine from westward creeping Russian forces (oh sorry - friendly pitchfork wielding Russian speaking yokels who are just defending themselves against the evil child slaughtering Ukrainian army) under the orders of Putin who has the bit between his teeth after a walkover smash and grab in Crimea.

A military victory is the only positive outcome available at the present time, because the chap with VP on his KGB issue pyjama case isn't listening to the vast ensemble of foreign leaders who have been constantly calling for him to respect Ukraine's internationally recognised boarders and to basically stop stirring the st.

If he stopped sending his troops (that he says aren't there) over the border, stopped firing artillery in the same direction (which he say's he isn't) and stopped supplying miltary hardware to the rebels (ditto) then peace would reign.

Blame Putin? Naah.

Yet more typical EU supporter type propaganda.Since 'the end of the Cold War' NATO has moved eastwards to a point where it's forces and remit are now at Russia's borders with Ukraine obviously being next on the list.Then the EU and it's supporters have the nerve to say that the problem is all about a creeping westward Russian advance.If you really want a war with Russia that type of st is one of the best ways of going about starting one.

[XJ Flyer]

Octoposse said:

Cobnapint said:

. . . under the orders of Putin who has the bit between his teeth after a walkover smash and grab in Crimea.

Demonstrably untrue. Yes, Putin has Crimea, but that's why he wants an end to the conflict. Months ago. Quit whilst you're ahead - love him or loathe him, he's not stupid. The only proviso, with respect to his powerbase and popularity at home is that the political settlement must not look like a defeat - that's why a figleaf of compromise from Kiev would be enough. But no, we'd rather fight to the last Ukrainian.

Cobnapint said:

A military victory is the only positive outcome available at the present time

Apart from a peaceful solution, of course . .

Cobnapint said:

the chap with VP on his KGB issue pyjama case isn't listening to the vast ensemble of foreign leaders who have been constantly calling for him to respect Ukraine's internationally recognised boarders and to basically stop stirring the st.

No, they're telling him to eat st, as payback for Crimea. Again, love him or loathe him, the internal political imperative facing Putin and any future Russian leader is not eating the st we forcefed to his immediate predecessors.

Cobnapint said:

If he stopped sending his troops (that he says aren't there) over the border, stopped firing artillery in the same direction (which he say's he isn't) and stopped supplying miltary hardware to the rebels (ditto) then peace would reign.

Quite, Kiev could step up the air strikes on unarmed civilians, crush dissent, and ethnically cleanse the East. Or to put it less starkly - of course, all that peace requires is that one side lays down its arms . . . but given that there's an immediate offered solution right now in the form of peace talks and a constitutional settlement, why do we prefer the fighting to continue?

It seems clear that NATO and the EU have managed to pull off a propaganda coup in respect of creating support for what is unarguably destabilising NATO aggression against Russia not vice versa.The fact is no one in NATO would have dreamed of making such a stupid move eastwards during the Cold War so what's changed.

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

It seems clear that NATO and the EU have managed to pull off a propaganda coup

Like the Russian propaganda then? They are, after all, the World Champions of smoke screens, twisting the truth and misinformation, both as Soviet and Russia.

[skyrover]

Europe has removed it's ban on weapon exports to Ukraine (implemented under the Yanukovych regime due to his treatment of civilians)

The way is now clear to supply Ukraine with weaponry

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22924035/Rusland_hekelt__EU.html

[hidetheelephants]

Better crank up the ECGD then, the merchants of death don't take cheques.

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

It seems clear that NATO and the EU have managed to pull off a propaganda coup

Like the Russian propaganda then? They are, after all, the World Champions of smoke screens, twisting the truth and misinformation, both as Soviet and Russia.

No one ever said that Russia isn't a potential adversary.However it would be fair to say that what we're seeing now is an aggressive move eastwards by NATO being justified by trying to call it Russian westward expansion and aggression.The result being destabilisation of the old defensive Cold War stand off that kept the peace between Russia and Western Europe.To be replaced by something more sinister and far more dangerous on the part of 'the West's 'defence' policy.If we'd have wanted war with Russia based on the logic that it historically likes to stomp around in it's own back yard while being suspicious of us in 'the West' we 'could have done that years ago in which case none of us would now be discussing anything on here.While the time to sort Russia out if we really wanted to was in 1914 by joining Germany against them.Instead of which,just like now,the propaganda machine not only got us into a pointless fight which we had no need to get into.But it also took us into a fight on the wrong side having done so.

[fido]

XJ Flyer said:

The result being destabilisation of the old defensive Cold War stand off that kept the peace between Russia and Western Europe.To be replaced by something more sinister and far more dangerous on the part of 'the West's 'defence' policy.

Okay, but why the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine? They have already nabbed Crimea - easily - and could have stopped there. Why provoke EU (who are economically weak) and the US (who have enough problems to deal with) and bring the UK into this? If as you say there is illogical stupidity then it's surely on both sides.

[XJ Flyer]

skyrover said:

Europe has removed it's ban on weapon exports to Ukraine (implemented under the Yanukovych regime due to his treatment of civilians)

The way is now clear to supply Ukraine with weaponry

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22924035/Rusland_hekelt__EU.html

Which backs Putin even further into a corner regarding his generals.In a war of seperation with Ukrainian nationalists suddenly changing into a war with NATO by proxy.In which case from Russia's defence chiefs' point of view there's probably not much difference between that and direct NATO involvement in Ukraine.No one seems to have learn't much from 1914 in that there is a tipping point where government policy starts getting dictated by military strategy not government leadership.Western Europe had better hope that it doesn't blindly end up finding that point in the Russian government by mistake in this case.

[XJ Flyer]

fido said:

XJ Flyer said:

The result being destabilisation of the old defensive Cold War stand off that kept the peace between Russia and Western Europe.To be replaced by something more sinister and far more dangerous on the part of 'the West's 'defence' policy.

Okay, but why the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine? They have already nabbed Crimea - easily - and could have stopped there. Why provoke EU (who are economically weak) and the US (who have enough problems to deal with) and bring the UK into this? If as you say there is illogical stupidity then it's surely on both sides.

It's obvious that the EU and NATO intend to move into Ukraine and that Russia is meeting that challenge by drawing a line in the sand at Eastern Ukraine.Contrary to the idea that Russia wants to quit while it is ahead it's NATO that needs to think about the cost benefit equation by declaring Ukraine as an area of no interest to 'the West' or at least Eastern Ukraine.It certainly isn't going to do that by arming Ukrainian nationalists to kick Russians out of Eastern Ukraine.That's just going to pour petrol on what is still,so far,luckily,just a localised dispute in Russia's back yard.

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

No one ever said that Russia isn't a potential adversary.

Good. They have a track record filled with horror, which the ex Soviet/WP countries and their populations were subjected to. This again brings us to the second part of my post, the fear and hate which is the biggest reason for these countries to join the EU and NATO.

XJ Flyer said:

It's obvious that the EU and NATO intend to move into Ukraine

It's mainly Ukraine who wants to get closer to the EU and NATO, for fear and simply for being pretty tired of being bullied by Soviet and later Russia. Most ex Soviet/WP countries have gone this route, it's easy enough to understand if you have spent time in any of the countries or with the people of these countries. They can tell you stories you wish you had never heard.

[Transmitter Man]

Octoposse said:

uite, Kiev could step up the air strikes on unarmed civilians, crush dissent, and ethnically cleanse the East. Or to put it less starkly - of course, all that peace requires is that one side lays down its arms . . . but given that there's an immediate offered solution right now in the form of peace talks and a constitutional settlement, why do we prefer the fighting to continue?

Putin does not want an end to the conflict IMO, until he has Odessa as well thereby cutting off access to the black sea to Ukraine.

My wife's nephew together with 500 others at his works alone in Ukraine have just been called up to the military reserves.

[rich85uk]

Transmitter Man said:

Putin does not want an end to the conflict IMO, until he has Odessa as well thereby cutting off access to the black sea to Ukraine.

My wife's nephew together with 500 others at his works alone in Ukraine have just been called up to the military reserves.

This

If Putin wanted an end to this he would of pulled his troops out of Ukraine a long time ago, wouldnt suprise me if he keeps going until he has a chunk of Eastern Ukraine too. Lets face it while he has the border area heavily guarded you can be sure Russian troops and weapons will continue to filter into Ukraine. Without outside help i dont see Ukraine being able to stop Putins plan

[Octoposse]

rich85uk said:

Transmitter Man said:

Putin does not want an end to the conflict IMO, until he has Odessa as well thereby cutting off access to the black sea to Ukraine.

My wife's nephew together with 500 others at his works alone in Ukraine have just been called up to the military reserves.

This

If Putin wanted an end to this he would of pulled his troops out of Ukraine a long time ago, wouldnt suprise me if he keeps going until he has a chunk of Eastern Ukraine too. Lets face it while he has the border area heavily guarded you can be sure Russian troops and weapons will continue to filter into Ukraine. Without outside help i dont see Ukraine being able to stop Putins plan

No . . if he wanted Eastern Ukraine he would have taken it months ago. He wants a deal and has repeatedly asked for one. It's the West that wants a military solution - apparently our political masters have been told by their analysts that Moscow will tolerate the crushing of the separatists in the East.

I think what I posted in April and May is still right on the money:

Octoposse said:

Octoposse said:

. . . the real refutation of the diatribe will be after the fact: unless Ukraine does something really stupid, Russia is not going to annexe chunks of it. Then, no doubt, the same interventionist cheerleaders who are now pouring scorn on 'our' pathetic response to "Putin's thuggery" will without shadow of a doubt switch their articles to how-our-robust-response-stared-down-the-evil-empire-and-saved-Ukraine.

Well, 100% right so far (that was 9th April).

Russia has all the 'pretext' it was accused of wanting, although that was always a red herring - it could have created it at any time in the past few years, and - anyway - those that would object to the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine would object to the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine whatever the circumstances.

But now it is getting dangerous . . . Putin's main objective has always been to remain popular at home - thus pushback to the EU/US pissing in his backyard by encouraging regime change in Ukraine, using that to reverse a decision Russia has won by political means, was inevitable. Now the mood of the Russian people is staring to wobble as they see on their televisions footage that we don't see much on ours - unarmed Russian speakers confronting Ukrainian armoured vehicles, funerals, and men and women lying dead in the street. Once "why isn't our government helping these poor people resist fascism?" becomes a popular sentiment, heard on the Metro and in bars, then Russian military intervention and a unilateral peacekeeping mission is inevitable.

Ergo, we really really need to stop encouraging the regime in Kiev to "re-establish its authority" by military means, and negotiate, pdq . . .

[Octoposse]

skyrover said:

Europe has removed it's ban on weapon exports to Ukraine (implemented under the Yanukovych regime due to his treatment of civilians)

Unlike the current regime that uses Su-25s against them . . .

[skyrover]

Octoposse said:

skyrover said:

Europe has removed it's ban on weapon exports to Ukraine (implemented under the Yanukovych regime due to his treatment of civilians)

Unlike the current regime that uses Su-25s against them . . .

Not sure the Russians would comply if you asked them nicely to stop... nor would I describe them as "civilians"

[Octoposse]

skyrover said:

Octoposse said:

skyrover said:

Europe has removed it's ban on weapon exports to Ukraine (implemented under the Yanukovych regime due to his treatment of civilians)

Unlike the current regime that uses Su-25s against them . . .

Not sure the Russians would comply if you asked them nicely to stop... nor would I describe them as "civilians"

What would you describe them as then?
http://vk.com/wall-32450421_338463?z=photo-3245042...

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

No one ever said that Russia isn't a potential adversary.

Good. They have a track record filled with horror, which the ex Soviet/WP countries and their populations were subjected to. This again brings us to the second part of my post, the fear and hate which is the biggest reason for these countries to join the EU and NATO.

XJ Flyer said:

It's obvious that the EU and NATO intend to move into Ukraine

It's mainly Ukraine who wants to get closer to the EU and NATO, for fear and simply for being pretty tired of being bullied by Soviet and later Russia. Most ex Soviet/WP countries have gone this route, it's easy enough to understand if you have spent time in any of the countries or with the people of these countries. They can tell you stories you wish you had never heard.

The facts say that Ukraine is/would be just another in a long line of EU/NATO eastward expansion.With the difference that it would cross the line in the sand which Russia isn't prepared to allow.

As I've said we've been here before at Yalta and Potsdam and the Cold War which followed it.In all cases we ( rightly ) decided that it wasn't worth the inevitable war which we couldn't win just to put Russia in it's place.The fact is Russia has since walked away from those historic 'issues' and given those people their lives and countries back.The last thing we should be doing is now supporting them in an attempt to get 'pay back' against Russia by moving NATO into old Soviet turf.Especially when that 'turf' happens to be disputed Russian territory itself in Ukraine.

As for the Cold War western Europe ( rightly ) decided that it's not worth taking ourselves out against Russia for eastern Europe and if/when push comes to shove nothing should have changed in that regard.No matter how much the EU propaganda tries to say otherwise.

While if it's supposedly all about 'payback' that might explain at least some of why Germany went to war against Russia and it's then WW1 slavic allies in WW2.If we've learn't anything from those two wars it should be that we don't want a 3 rd for the same reasons.

[XJ Flyer]

Octoposse said:

rich85uk said:

Transmitter Man said:

Putin does not want an end to the conflict IMO, until he has Odessa as well thereby cutting off access to the black sea to Ukraine.

My wife's nephew together with 500 others at his works alone in Ukraine have just been called up to the military reserves.

This

If Putin wanted an end to this he would of pulled his troops out of Ukraine a long time ago, wouldnt suprise me if he keeps going until he has a chunk of Eastern Ukraine too. Lets face it while he has the border area heavily guarded you can be sure Russian troops and weapons will continue to filter into Ukraine. Without outside help i dont see Ukraine being able to stop Putins plan

No . . if he wanted Eastern Ukraine he would have taken it months ago. He wants a deal and has repeatedly asked for one. It's the West that wants a military solution - apparently our political masters have been told by their analysts that Moscow will tolerate the crushing of the separatists in the East.

I think what I posted in April and May is still right on the money:

Octoposse said:

Octoposse said:

. . . the real refutation of the diatribe will be after the fact: unless Ukraine does something really stupid, Russia is not going to annexe chunks of it. Then, no doubt, the same interventionist cheerleaders who are now pouring scorn on 'our' pathetic response to "Putin's thuggery" will without shadow of a doubt switch their articles to how-our-robust-response-stared-down-the-evil-empire-and-saved-Ukraine.

Well, 100% right so far (that was 9th April).

Russia has all the 'pretext' it was accused of wanting, although that was always a red herring - it could have created it at any time in the past few years, and - anyway - those that would object to the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine would object to the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine whatever the circumstances.

But now it is getting dangerous . . . Putin's main objective has always been to remain popular at home - thus pushback to the EU/US pissing in his backyard by encouraging regime change in Ukraine, using that to reverse a decision Russia has won by political means, was inevitable. Now the mood of the Russian people is staring to wobble as they see on their televisions footage that we don't see much on ours - unarmed Russian speakers confronting Ukrainian armoured vehicles, funerals, and men and women lying dead in the street. Once "why isn't our government helping these poor people resist fascism?" becomes a popular sentiment, heard on the Metro and in bars, then Russian military intervention and a unilateral peacekeeping mission is inevitable.

Ergo, we really really need to stop encouraging the regime in Kiev to "re-establish its authority" by military means, and negotiate, pdq . . .

The way I see it going is either the partition of Ukraine.

Or the Ukrainians kick Russia out of Eastern Ukraine with NATO help in whatever form.Then NATO moves in up to the 'Russian' border.Sadly it's my bet that at that point Putin will be shown to have been a moderate in the Russian government and the military Generals then take over.Then all hell potentially breaks loose in the form of WW3 and as I've said the US then seeks an exit strategy for it's own benefit over the smouldering ruins and casualties sustained by Europe in the coming fight with Russia.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 2nd August 22:30