Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
DMN said:
XJ Flyer said:
NATO's eastward expansion having nothing whatsoever to do with Putin because it started before Putin was ever in office is a fact not tinfoil hat theory.In addition to the 'fact' that NATO's intent to move into all of Ukraine against the wishes of Russia was clear as of 2008 at least.The bit I would say is from Russia's point of view 'if' he wants to stop NATO then the way to do it is by using the Russian nuclear threat to the US homeland.Not by sending in troops to deal the problem on NATO's terms as NATO. expects.Which I'd guess is what he was referring to concerning his nuclear cababilities.Being that there's no point in trying to hold onto Eastern Ukraine and nuking it to do it.The problem is that America is so far in denial that the Cold War is back on that it doesn't even realise or understand the threat.
Your "argument" is that Putin is pushing back to stop NATO.Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:29
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:32
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:40
The fact is, it isn't working.
Instead of making theose he wishes to have power over come running back, their going even further towards NATO.
If Putin is trying to build a buffer between Russia and NATO, he has failed.
irocfan said:
Wow!!! That is a fkload of amour there
Interesting this, a political commentator on the radio the other night pointed out that Putin would have to approve any "invasion" through the Russian parliament - there's no guarantee of this happenning as there is real opposition to this activity, and this was one of the reasons why so many vacationing and off duty soldiers were appearing instead of regular soldiers, as an outright invasion would be classed as illegal even to the Russian parliament. There is also some vocal opposition to any military engagement by various Russian groups (Army Mothers was one of them I think), particularly after Russian nationals are turning up dead or injured in hospital after returning from some unidentified battle zone.
I can't find anything on the news to say whether Putin has applied, or had approved any emergency measures to escalate things to this point or beyond. I suppose he's still denying anything is happenning, but perhaps without the full backing, Putin will be forced to hold back. Then of course, this is only until he comes up with his own version of the Dodgy Dossier and it's voted through.
skyrover said:
and the vid has mysteriously disappeared....DMN said:
XJ Flyer said:
NATO's eastward expansion having nothing whatsoever to do with Putin because it started before Putin was ever in office is a fact not tinfoil hat theory.In addition to the 'fact' that NATO's intent to move into all of Ukraine against the wishes of Russia was clear as of 2008 at least.The bit I would say is from Russia's point of view 'if' he wants to stop NATO then the way to do it is by using the Russian nuclear threat to the US homeland.Not by sending in troops to deal the problem on NATO's terms as NATO. expects.Which I'd guess is what he was referring to concerning his nuclear cababilities.Being that there's no point in trying to hold onto Eastern Ukraine and nuking it to do it.The problem is that America is so far in denial that the Cold War is back on that it doesn't even realise or understand the threat.
Your "argument" is that Putin is pushing back to stop NATO.Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:29
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:32
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:40
The fact is, it isn't working.
Instead of making theose he wishes to have power over come running back, their going even further towards NATO.
If Putin is trying to build a buffer between Russia and NATO, he has failed.
Which just leaves the fact yes NATO has,up until that point,made some eastward gains at the price of kicking off a new Cold War and creating a situation in the balance of power between east and west that is at least as dangerous as where we were at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.The difference this time being that we've got Obama running the show not Kennedy.Watch this and learn.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQP1mcHuXvg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lly-u3Wocf4
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 3rd September 10:22
prand said:
irocfan said:
Wow!!! That is a fkload of amour there
Interesting this, a political commentator on the radio the other night pointed out that Putin would have to approve any "invasion" through the Russian parliament - there's no guarantee of this happenning as there is real opposition to this activity, and this was one of the reasons why so many vacationing and off duty soldiers were appearing instead of regular soldiers, as an outright invasion would be classed as illegal even to the Russian parliament. There is also some vocal opposition to any military engagement by various Russian groups (Army Mothers was one of them I think), particularly after Russian nationals are turning up dead or injured in hospital after returning from some unidentified battle zone.
I can't find anything on the news to say whether Putin has applied, or had approved any emergency measures to escalate things to this point or beyond. I suppose he's still denying anything is happenning, but perhaps without the full backing, Putin will be forced to hold back. Then of course, this is only until he comes up with his own version of the Dodgy Dossier and it's voted through.
EvoDelta said:
irocfan said:
mutterings about a ceasefire agreed... if true some great news for a change
I saw this just now too.How can Putin agree to a ceasefire if Russian troops are not even involved?
jmorgan said:
XJ Flyer said:
Trust me history shows that Russia's leaders are all just figure heads who implement policy decided by others ( much ) higher up the chain of command.
Stalin? He had some idea's about who was in charge.PRTVR said:
DMN said:
XJ Flyer said:
NATO's eastward expansion having nothing whatsoever to do with Putin because it started before Putin was ever in office is a fact not tinfoil hat theory.In addition to the 'fact' that NATO's intent to move into all of Ukraine against the wishes of Russia was clear as of 2008 at least.The bit I would say is from Russia's point of view 'if' he wants to stop NATO then the way to do it is by using the Russian nuclear threat to the US homeland.Not by sending in troops to deal the problem on NATO's terms as NATO. expects.Which I'd guess is what he was referring to concerning his nuclear cababilities.Being that there's no point in trying to hold onto Eastern Ukraine and nuking it to do it.The problem is that America is so far in denial that the Cold War is back on that it doesn't even realise or understand the threat.
Your "argument" is that Putin is pushing back to stop NATO.Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:29
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:32
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 2nd September 16:40
The fact is, it isn't working.
Instead of making theose he wishes to have power over come running back, their going even further towards NATO.
If Putin is trying to build a buffer between Russia and NATO, he has failed.
www.fprado.com/armorsite/Challenger2_Pics/Challeng...
While a power like Russia is not exactly going to be bothered about a few of these.Which certainly aren't 'tanks'.Or for that matter the few Challengers we could afford while we were building them.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29040...
XJ Flyer said:
'He' hasn't 'agreed' to anything the 'ceasefire' has been agreed between 'the Ukrainian Russian loyalists' and the Ukrainian nationalist side' at the 'request' of the Ukrainian nationalist side.Probably because it has just dawned on them that America doesn't want nukes flying into it's back yard if things were to keep escalating with US and NATO help.
Maybe the reporting is a bit off then:BBC News said:
Ukraine's President Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin in telephone talks on a "ceasefire process" for the war-torn east.
Why would they need to agree with Putin? May as well have called the President of Botswana.EvoDelta said:
XJ Flyer said:
'He' hasn't 'agreed' to anything the 'ceasefire' has been agreed between 'the Ukrainian Russian loyalists' and the Ukrainian nationalist side' at the 'request' of the Ukrainian nationalist side.Probably because it has just dawned on them that America doesn't want nukes flying into it's back yard if things were to keep escalating with US and NATO help.
Maybe the reporting is a bit off then:BBC News said:
Ukraine's President Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin in telephone talks on a "ceasefire process" for the war-torn east.
Why would they need to agree with Putin? May as well have called the President of Botswana.www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/ukraine-russ...
XJ Flyer said:
Trust me history shows that Russia's leaders are all just figure heads who implement policy decided by others ( much ) higher up the chain of command.Putin is the puppet now just as those before him were.While whatever the tactics being used by the Russian military you can bet that they are dictated by the military leadership to Putin not vice versa.The fact is the west kicked off a new Cold War from the time it started the policy of NATO expansion during Yeltin's administration.The fact that Putin was then put into office is a symptom of that not the cause.
I guess you're saying it's the powerful military leaders who opened doors for Putin to come to power and now dictate his policies according to their self interests.Any idea who these people are, and what their motivations are, or are you just basing it on a historical assumption?
And just to help me, what does NATO expansion involve? As far as I can see in the UK we have reduced our military capability to fractions of that during the Cold War.
DMN said:
In XJ-Tinfoliers head, it involves NATO agressivly spreading its roots into the ex-svoiet block.
In reality its the ex-soviet block doing everything they can to get away from Russia.
Actually I have the answer now. Just looked up Wikipedia at the NATO Enlargement page and it says this:In reality its the ex-soviet block doing everything they can to get away from Russia.
"In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organization, amid much debate within the organization and Russian opposition.[1][2] Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. These nations were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague summit, and joined NATO on 29 March 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul summit. Most recently, Albania and Croatia joined on 1 April 2009, shortly before the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit."
So there has been a fairly significant incorporation of ex USSR countries into NATO - and these countries appear to be fairly keen to join. Perhaps Urkraine was one country too far for Russia.
EvoDelta said:
XJ Flyer said:
'He' hasn't 'agreed' to anything the 'ceasefire' has been agreed between 'the Ukrainian Russian loyalists' and the Ukrainian nationalist side' at the 'request' of the Ukrainian nationalist side.Probably because it has just dawned on them that America doesn't want nukes flying into it's back yard if things were to keep escalating with US and NATO help.
Maybe the reporting is a bit off then:BBC News said:
Ukraine's President Poroshenko says he has agreed with Russian President Putin in telephone talks on a "ceasefire process" for the war-torn east.
Why would they need to agree with Putin? May as well have called the President of Botswana.Maybe Putin hasn't been telling the truth - surely not!!!
...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff