Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
irocfan said:
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 excuseXJ Flyer said:
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.
Those "friends", who would they be?XJ Flyer said:
The excuse is clear,when a previously neutral region,that was previously happy to live peacefully under the west's nuclear defensive shield,makes the change to joining in the new NATO strategy of offensive conventional containment on Russia's borders.
Previously neutral, when did Finland and Sweden join NATO? A sure way of raising the question of joining an alliance in a nation is to breach that nations territory, U137 springs to mind, and hundreds of other "incidents" during the cold war era and during more recent times.
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.
Those "friends", who would they be?XJ Flyer said:
The excuse is clear,when a previously neutral region,that was previously happy to live peacefully under the west's nuclear defensive shield,makes the change to joining in the new NATO strategy of offensive conventional containment on Russia's borders.
Previously neutral, when did Finland and Sweden join NATO? A sure way of raising the question of joining an alliance in a nation is to breach that nations territory, U137 springs to mind, and hundreds of other "incidents" during the cold war era and during more recent times.
The issue given in the link posted is all about Russia threatening Finland in regards to the documented reports of Finland's 'intent' to join NATO.In which case Russia understandably sees that as a threat by NATO towards Russia hence Russia moving to a heightened level of alert v Finland etc.The problem in all theses cases seeming to be that Russia has set up the west to find out exactly what NATO is planning.Bush seems only to keen to have provided Russia with an answer.The obvious conclusion being that America is no longer prepared to risk it's homeland as part of the previous MAD defence strategy and has instead chosen a much more dangerous strategy of offensive eastward expansion of NATO using tactical conventional methods rather than the previous defensive strategic nuclear strategy.Using the historic fears and aggressive intent of those with scores to settle with Russia.Russia's military is obviously and predictably meeting that challenge head on including by way of reference to it's strategic nuclear deterrent.So exactly how is Finland joining NATO going to make the slightest difference to that situation other than just pouring petrol on the fire.While bearing in mind that what Obama hasn't said regarding that Russian nuclear threat says a lot more than what he has regarding the Ukraine issue in that regard.IE we've got Bush and Obama when we need/ed a Kennedy.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 17:12
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.
Those "friends", who would they be?XJ Flyer said:
The excuse is clear,when a previously neutral region,that was previously happy to live peacefully under the west's nuclear defensive shield,makes the change to joining in the new NATO strategy of offensive conventional containment on Russia's borders.
Previously neutral, when did Finland and Sweden join NATO? A sure way of raising the question of joining an alliance in a nation is to breach that nations territory, U137 springs to mind, and hundreds of other "incidents" during the cold war era and during more recent times.
The issue given in the link posted is all about Russia threatening Finland in regards to the documented reports of Finland's 'intent' to join NATO.In which case Russia understandably sees that as a threat by NATO towards Russia hence Russia moving to a heightened level of alert v Finland etc.The problem in all theses cases seeming to be that Russia has set up the west to find out exactly what NATO is planning.Bush seems only to keen to have provided Russia with an answer.The obvious conclusion being that America is no longer prepared to risk it's homeland as part of the previous MAD defence strategy and has instead chosen a much more dangerous strategy of offensive eastward expansion of NATO using tactical conventional methods rather than the previous defensive strategic nuclear strategy.Using the historic fears and aggressive intent of those with scores to settle with Russia.Russia's military is obviously and predictably meeting that challenge head on including by way of reference to it's strategic nuclear deterrent.So exactly how is Finland joining NATO going to make the slightest difference to that situation other than just pouring petrol on the fire.While bearing in mind that what Obama hasn't said regarding that Russian nuclear threat says a lot more than what he has regarding the Ukraine issue in that regard.IE we've got Bush and Obama when we need/ed a Kennedy.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 17:12
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.
Those "friends", who would they be?XJ Flyer said:
The excuse is clear,when a previously neutral region,that was previously happy to live peacefully under the west's nuclear defensive shield,makes the change to joining in the new NATO strategy of offensive conventional containment on Russia's borders.
Previously neutral, when did Finland and Sweden join NATO? A sure way of raising the question of joining an alliance in a nation is to breach that nations territory, U137 springs to mind, and hundreds of other "incidents" during the cold war era and during more recent times.
The issue given in the link posted is all about Russia threatening Finland in regards to the documented reports of Finland's 'intent' to join NATO.In which case Russia understandably sees that as a threat by NATO towards Russia hence Russia moving to a heightened level of alert v Finland etc.The problem in all theses cases seeming to be that Russia has set up the west to find out exactly what NATO is planning.Bush seems only to keen to have provided Russia with an answer.The obvious conclusion being that America is no longer prepared to risk it's homeland as part of the previous MAD defence strategy and has instead chosen a much more dangerous strategy of offensive eastward expansion of NATO using tactical conventional methods rather than the previous defensive strategic nuclear strategy.Using the historic fears and aggressive intent of those with scores to settle with Russia.Russia's military is obviously and predictably meeting that challenge head on including by way of reference to it's strategic nuclear deterrent.So exactly how is Finland joining NATO going to make the slightest difference to that situation other than just pouring petrol on the fire.While bearing in mind that what Obama hasn't said regarding that Russian nuclear threat says a lot more than what he has regarding the Ukraine issue in that regard.IE we've got Bush and Obama when we need/ed a Kennedy.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 17:12
That's the difference between a policy of strategic 'defence' based on nuclear deterrents as opposed to what we've got now going on between Russia and NATO.Russia obviously wants to get back to that proven system which has kept the peace since the H bomb was invented.While America obviously doesn't.Meanwhile your answer to that is for Finland ( and obviously Ukraine ) to join NATO in a policy of defence that's actually based on conventional offence thereby making war with Russia more likely not less.With Russia obviously still up for taking it to and beyond the brink of assured destruction while America's answer to that speaks for itself in that the word mutual is now obviously missing from that response in regards to America's position.In which case Putin's reference to unilateral nuclear action against America might just make America think again about Bush's obvious policy of 'containment' which is blowing up in Amerca's face just like his Iraq mission did.Bearing in mind the silence still coming from the White House regarding the statement in question.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 18:54
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 18:57
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 19:01
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Yes Finland,like most other countries with an interest in 'defence' against Russian aggression,needs 'friends'.
Those "friends", who would they be?XJ Flyer said:
The excuse is clear,when a previously neutral region,that was previously happy to live peacefully under the west's nuclear defensive shield,makes the change to joining in the new NATO strategy of offensive conventional containment on Russia's borders.
Previously neutral, when did Finland and Sweden join NATO? A sure way of raising the question of joining an alliance in a nation is to breach that nations territory, U137 springs to mind, and hundreds of other "incidents" during the cold war era and during more recent times.
The issue given in the link posted is all about Russia threatening Finland in regards to the documented reports of Finland's 'intent' to join NATO.In which case Russia understandably sees that as a threat by NATO towards Russia hence Russia moving to a heightened level of alert v Finland etc.The problem in all theses cases seeming to be that Russia has set up the west to find out exactly what NATO is planning.Bush seems only to keen to have provided Russia with an answer.The obvious conclusion being that America is no longer prepared to risk it's homeland as part of the previous MAD defence strategy and has instead chosen a much more dangerous strategy of offensive eastward expansion of NATO using tactical conventional methods rather than the previous defensive strategic nuclear strategy.Using the historic fears and aggressive intent of those with scores to settle with Russia.Russia's military is obviously and predictably meeting that challenge head on including by way of reference to it's strategic nuclear deterrent.So exactly how is Finland joining NATO going to make the slightest difference to that situation other than just pouring petrol on the fire.While bearing in mind that what Obama hasn't said regarding that Russian nuclear threat says a lot more than what he has regarding the Ukraine issue in that regard.IE we've got Bush and Obama when we need/ed a Kennedy.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 31st August 17:12
That's the difference between a policy of strategic 'defence' based on nuclear deterrents as opposed to what we've got now going on between Russia and NATO.Russia obviously wants to get back to that proven system which has kept the peace since the H bomb was invented.While America obviously doesn't.Meanwhile your answer to that is for Finland ( and obviously Ukraine ) to join NATO in a policy of defence that's actually based on conventional offence thereby making war with Russia more likely not less.
Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Finlandia said:
Strange that we are here arguing about it then, when there have been two different wars already between Finland and Russia. What about downing an aircraft? How about a submarine on its way to the naval centre of Sweden? Are these real enough breaches and threats?
Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Exactly which wars between Russia and Finland have there been since the end of WW2.As for downing an aircraft Russia shot down a U2 over Russian airspace decades ago which was rightly seen as no reason by either side to start a war and end the world as we know it.In just the same way that nuclear armed Russian subs off the US coast were never seen as any reason to go to war.IE a defence policy based on the nuclear deterrent is just that it's all about deterrents and concentrates minds on making sure not to fight each other.Unlike the present policy of NATO expansion. Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway hasn't had any 'problems' is because they've been NATO members since the start like us.Which is just yet more confirmation that the issue is all about NATO eastward expansion to the point where it changes the checks and balances of power.Ironically in this case because of a change in western defence policy regards Russia and Russia knows it.
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
Strange that we are here arguing about it then, when there have been two different wars already between Finland and Russia. What about downing an aircraft? How about a submarine on its way to the naval centre of Sweden? Are these real enough breaches and threats?
Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Exactly which wars between Russia and Finland have there been since the end of WW2.As for downing an aircraft Russia shot down a U2 over Russian airspace decades ago which was rightly seen as no reason by either side to start a war and end the world as we know it.In just the same way that nuclear armed Russian subs off the US coast were never seen as any reason to go to war.IE a defence policy based on the nuclear deterrent is just that it's all about deterrents and concentrates minds on making sure not to fight each other.Unlike the present policy of NATO expansion. Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway hasn't had any 'problems' is because they've been NATO members since the start like us.Which is just yet more confirmation that the issue is all about NATO eastward expansion to the point where it changes the checks and balances of power.Ironically in this case because of a change in western defence policy regards Russia and Russia knows it.
So explain to me why Russia would shoot down aircrafts or send submarines to naval centres of a neutral country?
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway haven't had these problems is because they are members of NATO, full stop.
Maybe the reason why Finland and Sweden are now discussing a NATO membership is that they have gotten fed up with Russia bullying them, just like so many ex Soviet/WP states have?
Finlandia said:
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway haven't had these problems is because they are members of NATO, full stop.
Maybe the reason why Finland and Sweden are now discussing a NATO membership is that they have gotten fed up with Russia bullying them, just like so many ex Soviet/WP states have?
Wasting your time there Finlandia. In his world you should be worshipping at Putin's bare chested feet.Maybe the reason why Finland and Sweden are now discussing a NATO membership is that they have gotten fed up with Russia bullying them, just like so many ex Soviet/WP states have?
In other news:
We need to tell the truth about what Russia is doing in Ukraine - Nato must face up to the realities of Putin’s war of aggression in eastern Europe – and take material steps to support Ukraine
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/...
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
Strange that we are here arguing about it then, when there have been two different wars already between Finland and Russia. What about downing an aircraft? How about a submarine on its way to the naval centre of Sweden? Are these real enough breaches and threats?
Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Exactly which wars between Russia and Finland have there been since the end of WW2.As for downing an aircraft Russia shot down a U2 over Russian airspace decades ago which was rightly seen as no reason by either side to start a war and end the world as we know it.In just the same way that nuclear armed Russian subs off the US coast were never seen as any reason to go to war.IE a defence policy based on the nuclear deterrent is just that it's all about deterrents and concentrates minds on making sure not to fight each other.Unlike the present policy of NATO expansion. Strangely enough Denmark and Norway have not had any problems of the like, wonder why?
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway hasn't had any 'problems' is because they've been NATO members since the start like us.Which is just yet more confirmation that the issue is all about NATO eastward expansion to the point where it changes the checks and balances of power.Ironically in this case because of a change in western defence policy regards Russia and Russia knows it.
So explain to me why Russia would shoot down aircrafts or send submarines to naval centres of a neutral country?
Maybe the reason why Denmark and Norway haven't had these problems is because they are members of NATO, full stop.
Maybe the reason why Finland and Sweden are now discussing a NATO membership is that they have gotten fed up with Russia bullying them, just like so many ex Soviet/WP states have?
I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
Finlandia said:
Read my previous posts, I grew up in the shadow of Soviet/Russia, I know what I'm talking about.
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.There is more chance of kicking off a pointless war which we can't win if we don't continue with that policy.In all other cases if it ever reaches the point where they don't leave us alone even though we are leaving them alone then that's why we have the nuclear deterrent and that's the time to use it.
So how does Finland joining NATO or not make any difference to the latter.Bearing in mind that Russia has threatened to nuke us all in this case because it's us who aren't leaving it alone in the form of NATO expansion.Which just as expected has resulted in silence from our main nuclear arsenal in the form of America.In which case welcome to NATO you're now in it anyway wether you like it or not.As they say be careful what you wish for.
Finlandia said:
And what about the numerous breaches and threats before? Maybe it's the way Soviet/Russia has been/is behaving that pushes many of the former Soviet/WP nations towards a NATO membership, and now Finland and Sweden as well?
Quite. Every time Putin's obvious paranoia triggers him to take actions that would have made a cold war soviet leader proud, nations around him are forced to react in kind. This triggers even more paranoia in Putin's lying little head, and so it goes on.Could you ever imagine Gorbachev behaving in this manner?
Cobnapint said:
Finlandia said:
And what about the numerous breaches and threats before? Maybe it's the way Soviet/Russia has been/is behaving that pushes many of the former Soviet/WP nations towards a NATO membership, and now Finland and Sweden as well?
Quite. Every time Putin's obvious paranoia triggers him to take actions that would have made a cold war soviet leader proud, nations around him are forced to react in kind. This triggers even more paranoia in Putin's lying little head, and so it goes on.Could you ever imagine Gorbachev behaving in this manner?
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/...
Basically - Putin doesnt want to be humiliated by one of the ex USSR countries choosing to improve their lot by looking west rather than east.
I mean - how DARE an independent sovereign state such as Ukraine choose Europe over Russia ... how dare they choose democracy, freedom and growth over an allegiance to Russia !!
(Notice how independent states like Poland and the Czech republic have prospered after geting rid of the Soviet shackles and joining Europe .. compared to Ukraine who has been hobbled by Russia / russian implanted governments )
Putin just wants to punish them for this choice / and show that he can invade independent sovereign states on spurious grounds as and when he chooses ... a bit like the Nazis did in the 1930s.
hidetheelephants said:
AreOut said:
I understand some people hate him but does he really look paranoic to you?
Increasingly yes; he's surrounded himself with yes men who won't contradict him, this is not the act of a rational human being.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff