Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
MiniMan64 said:
Serious question XJ, are none of the former Eastern bloc countries allowed to join/associate with the EU or NATO, even if it is the wish or demand of the majority of the population, lest the process might upset Russia?
The irony is, of course, that closer ties with the EU was arguably notthe wish or demand of the majority of the population of Ukraine, and was indisputably not the outcome of peaceful constitutional processes in democratic Ukraine. So 'we' encouraged regime change, and the rest is - as they say - history . . . .MiniMan64 said:
XJ Flyer said:
MiniMan64 said:
Serious question XJ, are none of the former Eastern bloc countries allowed to join/associate with the EU or NATO, even if it is the wish or demand of the majority of the population, lest the process might upset Russia?
It seems clear enough that EU membership is not the issue.It is all about the NATO alliance moving up to Russia's borders and let alone strategically important areas like Crimea.Which is obviously what the Ukraine dispute is all about.As for all the brave NATO expansion supporters on here.Your move.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/...
MiniMan64 said:
And what if those ex-Eastern Bloc WANT to join NATO? Why is that anything to do with what Russia wants?
First of all, what do existing NATO members want? How on earth is it in the interests of, say, Luxembourg or Portugal? Or the UK . . . Either we're really willing to go to war to defend Ukraine, or it's all a bluff. Or maybe whoever wants to threaten Ukraine thinks it's a bluff, and call it, when it isn't . . . That'll be a bit of a bummer and I'll have to rummage under the stairs for my Boots DMS and '58 webbing . .
And it certainly does no favours to Ukraine, Georgia, whatever, kidding them that the geopolitical reality is not that they have to seek cooperation and peaceful coexistence with powerful neighbours, because hey presto some white knight will ride to their rescue if they choose confrontation instead.
greygoose said:
That doesn't fit with your views about evil NATO trying to take over the world though whilst sweet little Russia and heroic Putin try to avoid launching a nuclear war.
I'm sure that XJ can answer for himself, but that certainly doesn't appear to be the argument.It's rather that NATO pissing in Moscow's backyard is a remarkably stupid idea in that Putin has absolutely no alternative to pushing back. That's not an argument based directly on ethics, but on pragmatism - what choices increase the likelihood of peaceful coexistence.
Going further, that the issue has emerged at all seems a testament to the foolish policy decisions that have brought us to this point, given that there are actually no fundamental diverging interests between Russia and the existing NATO (or EU) memberships whatsoever.
Octoposse said:
It's rather that NATO pissing in Moscow's backyard is a remarkably stupid idea in that Putin has absolutely no alternative to pushing back. That's not an argument based directly on ethics, but on pragmatism - what choices increase the likelihood of peaceful coexistence.
The case of Finland makes for interesting reading:http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/06/put...
Russia threatening them with WW3.
MrCarPark said:
Octoposse said:
It's rather that NATO pissing in Moscow's backyard is a remarkably stupid idea in that Putin has absolutely no alternative to pushing back. That's not an argument based directly on ethics, but on pragmatism - what choices increase the likelihood of peaceful coexistence.
The case of Finland makes for interesting reading:http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/06/put...
Russia threatening them with WW3.
However Sweden is something else in which case Russia is crossing a line in making threats towards a neutral country that is certainly in the western sphere.
In which case now might be a good time to remind Russia's military leadership that they are also dealing with a nuclear armed opposing force ( being that it is obvious that,just as I said,the rhetoric is now turning more serious and what would be expected from a military point of view not a diplomatic one ).However it is my bet that Russia is able to use the nuclear threat because America has obviously lost the bottle to answer that threat in kind.
Which is why we are where we are with America and NATO stupidly trying to turn the Cold War conventional let alone then adding insult to stupidity by trying to do it in Russia's back yard.With Russia answering that the old fashioned way with assured destruction.While America obviously no longer likes the idea of making that threat a mutual one thereby increasing the chances of WW3 starting even more.
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
However Sweden is something else in which case Russia is crossing a line in making threats towards a neutral country that is certainly in the western sphere.
And Finland is not?What fundamentals have changed that they would want to abandon that neutrality?
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
However Sweden is something else in which case Russia is crossing a line in making threats towards a neutral country that is certainly in the western sphere.
And Finland is not?The question then being will America want to risk it's homeland.I wouldn't want to bet on it.Which is why we are where we are in respect of NATO stirring up a s
t storm having changed strategy from the one of MAD to one of conventional containment in Russia's back yard. Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 30th August 23:34
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
It seems clear enough that EU membership is not the issue.
And yet it is, because it is that EXACT issue what kicked it all off.Viktor Yanukovych enjoyed being close to Russia and being just as corrupt, he had his mansion etc and the police force he created to protect him. Problem for Ukraine now is that he did not need a powerful army with the mighty Russia being so close to them,his overpaid police force who had snipers take out pro EU protesters have fled with Yanukovych and leave behind an army that is poorly paid with old equipment ( Yanukovych's police force would earn 4X as much as a soldier)
rich85uk said:
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
It seems clear enough that EU membership is not the issue.
And yet it is, because it is that EXACT issue what kicked it all off.Viktor Yanukovych enjoyed being close to Russia and being just as corrupt, he had his mansion etc and the police force he created to protect him. Problem for Ukraine now is that he did not need a powerful army with the mighty Russia being so close to them,his overpaid police force who had snipers take out pro EU protesters have fled with Yanukovych and leave behind an army that is poorly paid with old equipment ( Yanukovych's police force would earn 4X as much as a soldier)
That was just a symptom of where we are now not the cause.It was that other strategic genius Bush who kicked it all off way back in 2008.Which is why NATO is taking such an interest in proceedings now.Because that is the real agenda not just EU membership and Russia knows it.
www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia
Will the EU's more attractive Ashton replacement have more luck sweet talking Vlad? 
EU appoint new placemen to replace the previous placemen; viva democracy.
EU appoint new placemen to replace the previous placemen; viva democracy.
XJ Flyer said:
However Sweden is something else in which case Russia is crossing a line in making threats towards a neutral country that is certainly in the western sphere.
Russia is literally crossing the line by overflying Finnish and Baltic states' airspace on an increasingly frequent basis.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-28/finland-p...
That looks a lot like an act of provocation, and puts Russia's actions in Ukraine in a different light.
rich85uk said:
overpaid police force who had snipers take out pro EU protesters
You state that as fact, which it is not. The snipers killed both protestors and police, the nett result of the action brought about the fall of Yanukovych. The recorded conversation between the Estonian foreign minister and Katerine Ashton showed the uncertainty of what actually went on.If they wanted to put pressure on Yanukovych, and focus the world attention on Ukraine, it was effective. Just like the downing of the Malaysian jet has been effective in ratcheting up pressure on Russia on Ukraine. It may just be the flow of events, both events were positive for the Ukrainian nationalist interests from an international perspective.
MrCarPark said:
Russia is literally crossing the line by overflying Finnish and Baltic states' airspace on an increasingly frequent basis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-28/finland-p...
That looks a lot like an act of provocation, and puts Russia's actions in Ukraine in a different light.
Russian aircraft over the Baltic = provocation, US warships in the Black Sea = ?. I'll get my globe out to check who's operating closer to home waters . . . .http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-28/finland-p...
That looks a lot like an act of provocation, and puts Russia's actions in Ukraine in a different light.
skyrover said:
I wasnt aware the black sea was Russian territorial waters
some of it will be... the issue with Finland is (IMO) a lot more worrying. There is a VERY strong case for Russia vis-a-vis Crimea and there is a case for certain parts of Ukraine (however weak that may or may not be), Finland on the other hand I can see not excuseOctoposse said:
They have both persued very different models of neutrality since 1945 (and both prospered).
What fundamentals have changed that they would want to abandon that neutrality?
For about 600 years Finland was part of Sweden, but in 1809 Russia defeated Sweden at war and Finland became Russian. Times were grim during the Russian era, but in 1917 Finland declared independency with the blessing of the new leaders of Russia. The civil war began, whites vs. reds, the white Jaegers were trained in Germany and the red side received Russian help. After a blood filled civil war, the white side won and Finland was fully independent.What fundamentals have changed that they would want to abandon that neutrality?
In 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact meant that Russia made demands on Finland to let significant areas to Russia, Finland refused, and so in November Russia started bombing Finland and the Winter War began. Surprisingly for Russia, Finland didn't fold, and in the spring of 1940 a peace treaty was signed.
But even during the interim peace, Soviet put demands on Finland which lead to more strains on the relations and finally to have another go at each other.
In the summer of 1941, after German and Soviet expansion in Europe and Soviet incorporating the Baltic countries, the Continuation War began. On the 25th of June Soviet bombs fell over Finland again.
The world was at war, Finland was in a bad state after the Winter War and in desperate need of help against Russia, so once again Germany came to assistance, Finland had some tough choices to make and finally decided that "the enemy of my enemy is my ally, if not necessarily my friend".
The war raged until the fall of 1944, the losses were big on each side, but Finland had once again defended its independency, even if the price to pay was very high and lasted for very long after the war.
In 1945 the Lapland War saw Finnish troops take on German troops to clear them out of Finnish territory, and that ended the war on Finnish behalf.
From 1945 and up until 1991 when Soviet fell apart, Finland had to adjust to Soviet and was not really allowed to make any decisions without approval from Moscow. After the fall of Soviet Finland has taken the step up to becoming a world leader in many fields, the educational system is praised, recently Finland was awarded the "least failed nation" award, Finnish shipbuilding is renowned as is/was Nokia, and so on.
Finland does not want to become the puppet nation it once was.
Lately there has been a very big influx of Russians in Eastern parts of Finland, and if history is anything to go by, Putin uses "the interests of Russian minorities" as a legitimate reason for interfering, or invading other nations, so I would say that Finland is rightfully very concerned about how things are going.
As the PM of Finland recently said, "a neutral nation has no friends".
Finland needs friends if push comes to shove.
XJ Flyer said:
The key being the word 'neutral' and where do we draw the line.However considering Finland's geographic location it would remove any Russian justification for threatening it if it re iterated Finnish neutrality regarding NATO's territorial limits rather than obviously planning the opposite.Only if Russia 'then' decided to threaten Finland would I say the same that would justify a NATO response.That response needing to be the nuclear threat not the conventional one.
The question then being will America want to risk it's homeland.I wouldn't want to bet on it.Which is why we are where we are in respect of NATO stirring up a st storm having changed strategy from the one of MAD to one of conventional containment in Russia's back yard.
Finland has not been a part of Russia for a century, Finland is neutral (probably more so than Sweden), Finland has not been seriously discussing a NATO membership until recent actions of VP. The question then being will America want to risk it's homeland.I wouldn't want to bet on it.Which is why we are where we are in respect of NATO stirring up a s
t storm having changed strategy from the one of MAD to one of conventional containment in Russia's back yard. Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 30th August 23:34
Finlandia said:
Octoposse said:
They have both persued very different models of neutrality since 1945 (and both prospered).
What fundamentals have changed that they would want to abandon that neutrality?
For about 600 years Finland was part of Sweden, but in 1809 Russia defeated Sweden at war and Finland became Russian. Times were grim during the Russian era, but in 1917 Finland declared independency with the blessing of the new leaders of Russia. The civil war began, whites vs. reds, the white Jaegers were trained in Germany and the red side received Russian help. After a blood filled civil war, the white side won and Finland was fully independent.What fundamentals have changed that they would want to abandon that neutrality?
In 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact meant that Russia made demands on Finland to let significant areas to Russia, Finland refused, and so in November Russia started bombing Finland and the Winter War began. Surprisingly for Russia, Finland didn't fold, and in the spring of 1940 a peace treaty was signed.
But even during the interim peace, Soviet put demands on Finland which lead to more strains on the relations and finally to have another go at each other.
In the summer of 1941, after German and Soviet expansion in Europe and Soviet incorporating the Baltic countries, the Continuation War began. On the 25th of June Soviet bombs fell over Finland again.
The world was at war, Finland was in a bad state after the Winter War and in desperate need of help against Russia, so once again Germany came to assistance, Finland had some tough choices to make and finally decided that "the enemy of my enemy is my ally, if not necessarily my friend".
The war raged until the fall of 1944, the losses were big on each side, but Finland had once again defended its independency, even if the price to pay was very high and lasted for very long after the war.
In 1945 the Lapland War saw Finnish troops take on German troops to clear them out of Finnish territory, and that ended the war on Finnish behalf.
From 1945 and up until 1991 when Soviet fell apart, Finland had to adjust to Soviet and was not really allowed to make any decisions without approval from Moscow. After the fall of Soviet Finland has taken the step up to becoming a world leader in many fields, the educational system is praised, recently Finland was awarded the "least failed nation" award, Finnish shipbuilding is renowned as is/was Nokia, and so on.
Finland does not want to become the puppet nation it once was.
Lately there has been a very big influx of Russians in Eastern parts of Finland, and if history is anything to go by, Putin uses "the interests of Russian minorities" as a legitimate reason for interfering, or invading other nations, so I would say that Finland is rightfully very concerned about how things are going.
As the PM of Finland recently said, "a neutral nation has no friends".
Finland needs friends if push comes to shove.
XJ Flyer said:
The key being the word 'neutral' and where do we draw the line.However considering Finland's geographic location it would remove any Russian justification for threatening it if it re iterated Finnish neutrality regarding NATO's territorial limits rather than obviously planning the opposite.Only if Russia 'then' decided to threaten Finland would I say the same that would justify a NATO response.That response needing to be the nuclear threat not the conventional one.
The question then being will America want to risk it's homeland.I wouldn't want to bet on it.Which is why we are where we are in respect of NATO stirring up a st storm having changed strategy from the one of MAD to one of conventional containment in Russia's back yard.
Finland has not been a part of Russia for a century, Finland is neutral (probably more so than Sweden), Finland has not been seriously discussing a NATO membership until recent actions of VP. The question then being will America want to risk it's homeland.I wouldn't want to bet on it.Which is why we are where we are in respect of NATO stirring up a s
t storm having changed strategy from the one of MAD to one of conventional containment in Russia's back yard. Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 30th August 23:34
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.'Friendship' in that case not being a blank cheque of support in the event of them picking conventional fights with Russia over past historic arguments and moving,or planning to move,NATO conventional forces up to Russia's borders as part of that.
The fact is we are where we are because of what Russia ( correctly ) views as NATO changing it's strategy from one of fore and foremost a policy of 'defence',based on the strategy of mutually assured destruction in the event of an attack.To one of offensive containment based on moving NATO conventional forces up to Russia's borders.Ironically not only does Russia view such a change as a threat it also views it as a sign of weakness.IE the fact is the west's nuclear deterrent has always obviously applied in the case of Finland's and Sweden's neutrality anyway so why the need now for them to actually join NATO with the obvious threat which that poses to Russia's borders.While there's no way that we'd ever have launched that nuclear threat just because we were being overflown by Russian probing flights.
The fact is for all NATO's offensive moves and posturing the thing that is obviously missing in all this is the clear threat of the western nuclear deterrent used in the defensive role.As opposed to NATO obviously having changed tactics to one of offensive conventional threats on Russia's borders.In which case don't be surprised if/when Russia responds in kind 'and' with it's nuclear threat in the knowledge that NATO has obviously lost it's bottle regards the latter.This whole s
t storm has got George Bush's strategic intelligence levels all over it.With Russia's withdrawal from it's previous buffer zones being a test and a trap concerning NATO's intentions and the strength of our previous tactics based on nuclear deterrents,which Bush and NATO has walked straight into Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 14:39
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 14:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff