Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

Author
Discussion

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.

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.
This!
To add Finland, in 1991 when Soviet fell apart Finland had nothing to show, because of the Soviet interference in politics and decision making, even if Finland wasn't part of Soviet or the WP.
Now Finland is unarguably known for many positive things, the least failed nation 2014 and the praised educational system for example.

toppstuff

13,698 posts

246 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.

The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.
Precisely. XJ can't get his head around the simple fact that Russias neighbours have turned their backs on Russia because of the way that Russia treats them. The EU may or may not "invite" them, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that aside from ethnic Russians, most of the populations of eastern European countries want nothing to do with Moscow. And you can't blame them.

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.

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.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.

These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.

Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.

alfaman

6,416 posts

233 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
jmorgan said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.

The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.
And Polish history.
And Czech / Slovakian history.


soad

32,829 posts

175 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
alfaman said:
jmorgan said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.

The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.
And Polish history.
And Czech / Slovakian history.
Add the Baltic states to that.

jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
No previous then.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.
It isn't. It is a Western-manufactured crisis.

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.
It isn't. It is a Western-manufactured crisis.
If a man beats his wife, forces her to his will and refuses to let her do things she wants. Then she threatens to leave him for another man who's kind to her. Who would you say manufactured the crisis in the marriage?

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
soad said:
alfaman said:
jmorgan said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.

The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.
And Polish history.
And Czech / Slovakian history.
Add the Baltic states to that.
Afghanistan says hello.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.

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.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.

These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.

Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.
You seem a bit selective in your references to historic 'attacks'.Eastern Europe was also attacked by Germany so was western Europe.However everyone seems to have managed to move on in the case of Germany.

Admittedly Russia is always going to be a problem.However it views the west just the same in large part because of the aforementioned German aggression.In which case moving NATO conventional capability eastward can only add to that problem.While the excuse for that being all about Putin seems to overlook the fact that NATO expansion started before Putin was in office.

As for NATO as it stands it is now the worst of all worlds alliance driven by too many countries with personal historic 'issues' with Russia which they aren't prepared to forget.Who are trying to pick conventional fights with a country which,if/when push comes to shove, still sees defence in terms of the assured destruction provided by the strategic nuclear option.While America is looking for the exit in that regard in a futile attempt to save itself and Russia knows it.Which leaves the real question in this case is it worth ending it all over the idea that Russia isn't going to allow Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to be taken by the EU and NATO.While also wanting,what it maybe rightly sees as,the NATO threat to it by eastward expansion,either stopped and reversed.Or if not liquidated.

I'm guessing that all the brave anti Russia talk will go quiet when it becomes increasingly obvious that Russia is prepared to fry the Northern Hemisphere over the argument.The question is are the opposition in that case.Doubtful.In which case it is better for all concerned to start looking for a compromise now than to keep digging itself further into a hole which trust me no one will want to find the bottom of.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Munter said:
scherzkeks said:
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.
It isn't. It is a Western-manufactured crisis.
If a man beats his wife, forces her to his will and refuses to let her do things she wants. Then she threatens to leave him for another man who's kind to her. Who would you say manufactured the crisis in the marriage?
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.





jmorgan

36,010 posts

283 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
You seem a bit selective in your references to historic 'attacks'.Eastern Europe was also attacked by Germany so was western Europe.However everyone seems to have managed to move on in the case of Germany.

Yeah, they stopped and were militarily hobbled for a few generations. Putin likes his power and is not about to let go and sod anyone who gets in the way.

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.

There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.

Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.

There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.

Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
The idea that Russia is probably prepared to fry the Northern Hemisphere over the issues of Eastern Ukraine and NATO expansion is a fact not paranoia.The obvious question in that case being are you really prepared to wipe out the world as we know it rather than compromise over the issues.Bearing in mind as I've said previous compromise over such issues such as the deal reached to solve the Cuban Missile crisis.You can forget about everything that you've been told as part of the so called post Cold War indoctrination as part of that question.We are now back in the world of 1960's70's defence strategy wether you like it or not so get used to it.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

133 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Munter said:
If a man beats his wife, forces her to his will and refuses to let her do things she wants. Then she threatens to leave him for another man who's kind to her. Who would you say manufactured the crisis in the marriage?
That is a terrible analogy.

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.

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.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.

These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.

Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.
You seem a bit selective in your references to historic 'attacks'.Eastern Europe was also attacked by Germany so was western Europe.However everyone seems to have managed to move on in the case of Germany.
Yes I am selective, after all this is a thread about Soviet/Russian aggression on its former allies and neighbours, it's not about Germany or IRA for that matter.

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
Munter said:
If a man beats his wife, forces her to his will and refuses to let her do things she wants. Then she threatens to leave him for another man who's kind to her. Who would you say manufactured the crisis in the marriage?
That is a terrible analogy.
So Ukraine is happy with it's relationship with Russia? I suspect not...

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.

There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.

Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
The idea that Russia is probably prepared to fry the Northern Hemisphere over the issues of Eastern Ukraine and NATO expansion is a fact not paranoia.The obvious question in that case being are you really prepared to wipe out the world as we know it rather than compromise over the issues.Bearing in mind as I've said previous compromise over such issues such as the deal reached to solve the Cuban Missile crisis.You can forget about everything that you've been told as part of the so called post Cold War indoctrination as part of that question.We are now back in the world of 1960's70's defence strategy wether you like it or not so get used to it.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19
That's the wrong paranoia. I was talking about your view of why Putin is throwing his toys around. Not that he is.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.

There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.

Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
The idea that Russia is probably prepared to fry the Northern Hemisphere over the issues of Eastern Ukraine and NATO expansion is a fact not paranoia.The obvious question in that case being are you really prepared to wipe out the world as we know it rather than compromise over the issues.Bearing in mind as I've said previous compromise over such issues such as the deal reached to solve the Cuban Missile crisis.You can forget about everything that you've been told as part of the so called post Cold War indoctrination as part of that question.We are now back in the world of 1960's70's defence strategy wether you like it or not so get used to it.


Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19
That's the wrong paranoia. I was talking about your view of why Putin is throwing his toys around. Not that he is.
That didn't answer the question.As for my view as to why we are where we are the only way that you'd find out if I'm right is to offer Russia the terms I'm saying that it is looking for.IE NATO withdrawal from the ex WP/Soviet states and a deal to partition Ukraine East/West.

Or NATO can just carry on the way it is going in which case the original question stands.Are you willing to wipe out the world as we know it just to keep NATO moving eastwards as part of another one of Bush's genius strategic master plans,or compromise.

However I'm guessing that NATO knows I'm right in regards to the 'reasons' why Russia is throwing it's toys out of the pram but America is too thick to realise that Bush's plan has been rumbled by Russia and we're now back in the Cold War which never actually went away.Although having said that things 'might' just have turned out differently 'if' NATO hadn't moved in when and where Russia moved out.

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 1st September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
That didn't answer the question.
Ahh the Irony is also strong I see.