Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[Cobnapint]

vonuber said:

The main thing of course is that if Russia hadn't intervened directly, the fighting would in all likelihood have been well over by now.

It would, but Putin doesn't see it like that. In this interview he's blaming Kiev for not negotiating with the seperatists in SE Ukraine - why the fk should they Vlad? It's UKRAINE, and the seperatists, ably assisted by your lot, happen to be shooting at the Ukrainian army FFS.

He also acccuses the UA of encircling towns and villages in that area and aiming shelling directly at houses.

He didn't hang around for any more questions, but it's quite clear he wants that SE corner for himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SCjaCgh0lY

[Octoposse]

vonuber said:

The main thing of course is that if Russia hadn't intervened directly, the fighting would in all likelihood have been well over by now.

Yep - and if we'd encouraged Kiev to seek a political solution rather than a military one it wouldn't even have started . . .

[vonuber]

Octoposse said:

ep - and if we'd encouraged Kiev to seek a political solution rather than a military one it wouldn't even have started . . .

Er I think you'll find the trouble all started after the arrival of a few Russian 'advisors' who kicked it off.
And what about the Crimea? You know that part of the Ukraine occupied by Russia?

It's funny how there was no claims for separation until Kiev started looking at improving their lot by getting away from Putin's gang.

[Octoposse]

Cobnapint said:

In this interview he's blaming Kiev for not negotiating with the seperatists in SE Ukraine - why the fk should they Vlad? It's UKRAINE, and the seperatists, ably assisted by your lot, happen to be shooting at the Ukrainian army FFS.

Well, 'we' got frightfully annoyed when the previously elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, used force against anti-government protestors. And if you look back at the trouble in the East, it started with unarmed villagers trying to push back armoured vehicles loyal to the new regime in Kiev - who they perceived as fascist - with their bare hands.

Cobnapint said:

He also acccuses the UA of encircling towns and villages in that area and aiming shelling directly at houses.

Err . . . they're not???

Cobnapint said:

He didn't hang around for any more questions, but it's quite clear he wants that SE corner for himself.

Absolutely not. He's wanted a political deal (albeit recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea) since February. A figleaf of federalism is all he wants in the East . . . Kiev and its western backers wanted a military solution to 'punish' Putin for Crimea - since its clear that Putin couldn't allow that to happen for reasons of Russian domestic politics, it was a policy aim somewhere between the illinformed and the totally deranged.

[XJ Flyer]

Octoposse said:

vonuber said:

The main thing of course is that if Russia hadn't intervened directly, the fighting would in all likelihood have been well over by now.

Yep - and if we'd encouraged Kiev to seek a political solution rather than a military one it wouldn't even have started . . .

The problem simply being that 'we' in the form of the EU and NATO don't want to seek a compromise solution because NATO has obvious strategic designs on interfering with Russia's Black Sea region strategic interests.Which all seems to be part of Bush's plan to 'contain' Russia where America wants it.All based on the catastrophic miscalculation that Russia won't push back up to and including the use of the nuclear option if that's what it takes.

[Octoposse]

vonuber said:

And what about the Crimea? You know that part of the Ukraine occupied by Russia?

I think you'll find it's actually part of Russia now.

Likely to remain so until about the time the US restores Texas to Mexico. If you disagree, set out a plausible sequence of events to the contrary . . .

[Cobnapint]

XJ Flyer said:

NATO has obvious strategic designs on interfering with Russia's Black Sea region strategic interests.Which all seems to be part of Bush's plan to 'contain' Russia where America wants it.All based on the catastrophic miscalculation that Russia won't push back up to and including the use of the nuclear option if that's what it takes.

Don't you talk some rubbish.


NATO couldn't give a flying fook about the Black Sea region - why should it FFS? We've just spent the last 20 years trying to bring Russia back in from the cold, make it an ally, befriend it, assist it with anti-terror intelligence and trade with it. And we were doing alright until he started playing pass the polonium.

And if it ever came to a stuation where America was worried about the BSF, it could destroy it from bloody miles away if it wanted to.

And whats 'Bush' got to do with anything these days...?

It's no wonder Putin's so paranoid, I think he's reading your posts on here every night. Or are you his actual advisor?

[XJ Flyer]

Octoposse said:

vonuber said:

And what about the Crimea? You know that part of the Ukraine occupied by Russia?

I think you'll find it's actually part of Russia now.

Likely to remain so until about the time the US restores Texas to Mexico. If you disagree, set out a plausible sequence of events to the contrary . . .

The big question being that there might just be some bat st crazy idea amongst the Ukrainians and their EU/NATO/US supporters that they'd like to try it and that is probably when/where we'd see it all kick off big time assuming they don't start it all off in Eastern Ukraine first.Being that holding Crimea,from Russia's point of view,would logically mean also needing to hold Eastern Ukraine and vice versa in the case of a NATO backed Ukraine wanting to take it back.As I've said if the EU/NATO and Ukraine are not prepared to back down over the issue by negotiating a compromise that lets Russia hold Eastern Ukraine and Crimea then it has all the ingredients to start WW3.

[XJ Flyer]

Cobnapint said:

XJ Flyer said:

NATO has obvious strategic designs on interfering with Russia's Black Sea region strategic interests.Which all seems to be part of Bush's plan to 'contain' Russia where America wants it.All based on the catastrophic miscalculation that Russia won't push back up to and including the use of the nuclear option if that's what it takes.

Don't you talk some rubbish.


NATO couldn't give a flying fook about the Black Sea region - why should it FFS? We've just spent the last 20 years trying to bring Russia back in from the cold, make it an ally, befriend it, assist it with anti-terror intelligence and trade with it. And we were doing alright until he started playing pass the polonium.

And if it ever came to a stuation where America was worried about the BSF, it could destroy it from bloody miles away if it wanted to.

And whats 'Bush' got to do with anything these days...?

It's no wonder Putin's so paranoid, I think he's reading your posts on here every night. Or are you his actual advisor?

I'll admit that last sentence made me laugh.

Great so the EU/NATO couldn't care less about East Ukraine and Crimea.So why the problem.Just 'advise' Ukraine that it would be in everyone's interests to negotiate a solution that lets Russia keep Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by way of partition job done.Which still leaves the issue of the NATO presence in the ex soviet/WP states to sort out.

As for Bush I've previously posted his strategy for the region in which NATO move in against the wishes of Russia and so far nothing seems to have changed one bit from that in the case of the new US administration.

[Cobnapint]

Octoposse said:

Absolutely not. He's wanted a political deal (albeit recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea) since February. A figleaf of federalism is all he wants in the East . . . Kiev and its western backers wanted a military solution to 'punish' Putin for Crimea - since its clear that Putin couldn't allow that to happen for reasons of Russian domestic politics, it was a policy aim somewhere between the illinformed and the totally deranged.

My ideas and Putins ideas of a 'political deal' are clearly very different. I've seen his in action - you mass your armed forces on the border making out you're conducting (wink wink) military exercises. Then, when everybodys warmed up, you get your troops to remove all their insignia and just roll into wherever you want.

Then, if you want a bit more, you bully the incumbent government of that particular sovereign state you are 'dealing' with, until you get a bit more.

It's a bit more than a figleaf he's after. More like the whole branch.

[Cobnapint]

XJ Flyer said:

I'll admit that last sentence made me laugh.

Great so the EU/NATO couldn't care less about East Ukraine and Crimea.So why the problem.Just 'advise' Ukraine that it would be in everyone's interests to negotiate a solution that lets Russia keep Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by way of partition job done.

You might be laughing - I'm crying with frustration here.

I didn't say they weren't bothered about E Ukraine or Crimea, I just don't think NATO were ever concerned about Russia having naval interests in that area.

[XJ Flyer]

Cobnapint said:

XJ Flyer said:

I'll admit that last sentence made me laugh.

Great so the EU/NATO couldn't care less about East Ukraine and Crimea.So why the problem.Just 'advise' Ukraine that it would be in everyone's interests to negotiate a solution that lets Russia keep Crimea and Eastern Ukraine by way of partition job done.

You might be laughing - I'm crying with frustration here.

I didn't say they weren't bothered about E Ukraine or Crimea, I just don't think NATO were ever concerned about Russia having naval interests in that area.

Since when did NATO have any interests in Crimea whatsoever and what changed and why in that case.Unfortunately Russia understandably doesn't see it the same as you do.Whatever Russia's interests are in the region they are obviously more than ours and naval and air defence assets and keeping supply routes from Russia open to them,obviously form a large part of those interests.

[Cobnapint]

XJ Flyer said:

Since when did NATO have any interests in Crimea whatsoever and what changed and why in that case.Unfortunately Russia understandably doesn't see it the same as you do.Whatever Russia's interests are in the region they are obviously more than ours and naval and air defence assets and keeping supply routes from Russia open to them,obviously form a large part of those interests.

That's what I'm saying, they (NATO) didn't. The interest they are showing now is because Russia has broken the Budapest agreement, entered an independant country and taken part of it for themselves. That doesn't usually go down too well on the international stage a) because it's morally and legally wrong, and b) because everybodys wondering who could be next.

Technically speaking, despite the 'referendum', the international community should be standing up for the rights of Ukrainian international borders and sending in the troops (like we did for Kuwait, and Poland) to get the Russians out.
That is what the UN and international agreements actually exist for.

Trouble is, there's alot of unfathomable history down in that corner of the world, the population of Crimea doesn't seem to mind it, and the world doesn't really need another ststorm of a war if it can help it - especially one where the enemy is Russia.

Edited by Cobnapint on Tuesday 2nd September 02:13

[alfaman]

XJ Flyer said:

Octoposse said:

vonuber said:

The main thing of course is that if Russia hadn't intervened directly, the fighting would in all likelihood have been well over by now.

Yep - and if we'd encouraged Kiev to seek a political solution rather than a military one it wouldn't even have started . . .

The problem simply being that 'we' in the form of the EU and NATO don't want to seek a compromise solution because NATO has obvious strategic designs on interfering with Russia's Black Sea region strategic interests.Which all seems to be part of Bush's plan to 'contain' Russia where America wants it.All based on the catastrophic miscalculation that Russia won't push back up to and including the use of the nuclear option if that's what it takes.

You really do talk some utter lopsided crap/ come across as willfully blind.

Ukraine is a sovereign state who wants to turn it's back on Russian control and interference.

It has every right to do that.

You seem to think Ukraine belongs to Russia. It doesn't.

Using your warped conspiratorial logic ... If Scotland voted for independence and join the euro : England would have a right to mass it's army on the border , invade , take over southern Scotland, cause mayhem, to 'protect English interests in Scotland whose rights were being denied by the scots' - especially if the scots didn't want an English puppet as their leader.

[greygoose]

Please don't bring Scotland into this, we've already had to endure tortured analogies to Ireland and Northern Ireland.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

alfaman said:

You really do talk some utter lopsided crap/ come across as willfully blind.

Ukraine is a sovereign state who wants to turn it's back on Russian control and interference.
The
It has every right to do that.

You seem to think Ukraine belongs to Russia. It doesn't.

Using your warped conspiratorial logic ... If Scotland voted for independence and join the euro : England would have a right to mass it's army on the border , invade , take over southern Scotland, cause mayhem, to 'protect English interests in Scotland whose rights were being denied by the scots' - especially if the scots didn't want an English puppet as their leader.

England have done it before.

[scherzkeks]

Octoposse said:

ep - and if we'd encouraged Kiev to seek a political solution rather than a military one it wouldn't even have started . . .

Not backing a coup on an elected president (with lots of help from ultra-right nationalists) would also have helped.

[skyrover]

An estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers have been deployed in Ukraine

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/russi...

[DMN]

Now we have the thinnly veiled threat from Putin:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/putin...


For all of XJ-Tinfoliers rhetoric about stopping NATO's expansion eastwards, its not working out that way for Putin is it. All he is doing is drawing those countries further towards NATO.

If he wants to stop NATO, then he needs to stop sending his troops in the Ukraine.

[2013BRM]

It's all a bully has in his repertoire, threats. The man is a complete arse