Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

Author
Discussion

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
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.
Everyone knows that any deal involves Putin and his bosses above him but 'officially' Russia isn't involved.It really is best for all concerned that NATO doesn't need to know and the west stays well out of it and let them all sort it out amongst themselves.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/ukraine-russ...
Who are Putin's bosses?

QuantumTokoloshi

4,161 posts

216 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
9mm said:
Who are Putin's bosses?
I do not think there is many, not even Chuck Norris. Vlad P. is estimated to be worth North of 50 Billion USD.


Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 3rd September 13:51

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
prand 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.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.
Bearing in mind that I don't have personal access to the internal workings of the Russian government,just as Kennedy's administration didn't in 1962,yes I'm basing my ideas on an educated guess just like they did in the case of Kruschev.

NATO 'expansion' involved the incorporation of the ex WP and Soviet states which is a process which started before Putin came to power.Which seems strange in a supposedly 'post Cold War' environment.




Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 3rd September 14:25

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
9mm said:
XJ Flyer said:
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.
Everyone knows that any deal involves Putin and his bosses above him but 'officially' Russia isn't involved.It really is best for all concerned that NATO doesn't need to know and the west stays well out of it and let them all sort it out amongst themselves.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/ukraine-russ...
Who are Putin's bosses?
What in the old days would have been known as the Politburo with a large input from the military generals.It is just that the west doesn't want to believe it now because the 'Cold War' is as far as the public is concerned over.While in reality obviously not which is why the west was telling Yeltsin etc that it was over while at the same time moving NATO in when and where Russia moved out.However telling the public it was over at least allowed the west to get away with making military spending cuts while in reality trying to pick more of a fight with Russia than before.Which is why we are where we are with Ukraine.IE Russia has finally said enough.

Jimbeaux

33,791 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
9mm said:
XJ Flyer said:
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.
Everyone knows that any deal involves Putin and his bosses above him but 'officially' Russia isn't involved.It really is best for all concerned that NATO doesn't need to know and the west stays well out of it and let them all sort it out amongst themselves.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/ukraine-russ...
Who are Putin's bosses?
I would like to hear that answer myself.

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
NATO 'expansion' involved the incorporation of the ex WP and Soviet states many before Putin came to power.
Who bloody well WANTED to join to provide security FROM RUSSIA. And given recent events it was a bloody smart move.

Jesus, it's not difficult is it! banghead

Cobnapint

8,596 posts

150 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
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?
He'll just deny it ever happened.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
NATO 'expansion' involved the incorporation of the ex WP and Soviet states many before Putin came to power.
Who bloody well WANTED to join to provide security FROM RUSSIA. And given recent events it was a bloody smart move.

Jesus, it's not difficult is it! banghead
Why would they need 'security from Russia' when the west was telling the Russians that the Cold War is over.So it really isn't difficult to work out that Russia wouldn't have been stupid enough to believe it either.So it withdrew from those buffers to test NATO's intentions and bingo NATO walked into the trap.So NATO has been working on the miscalculation that Russia doesn't know that the Cold War never ended from NATO's point of view.While Russia obviously decided to see how far NATO was prepared to go.Now it knows.Which is why Russia recently threatened to nuke us.Which why NATO isn't now helping the Ukrainian nationalist forces to re take Crimea.Because even NATO isn't stupid enough to trade wiping out the northern hemisphere to get Crimea.

DMN

2,982 posts

138 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
XJ Flyer said:
Why would they need 'security from Russia'
Because given Russias actions in the Ukraine and Georgia and Chechnya have shown, having security against Russian interference and aggression is a very, very good thing.

Putin is doing a great job on behalf of NATO. Now everyone is going to want to join it.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
DMN said:
XJ Flyer said:
Why would they need 'security from Russia'
Because given Russias actions in the Ukraine and Georgia and Chechnya have shown, having security against Russian interference and aggression is a very, very good thing.

Putin is doing a great job on behalf of NATO. Now everyone is going to want to join it.
Given NATO's obvious plans for expansion,up to and including Crimea,before Putin was even in power.While at the same time telling Russia that the Cold War was supposedly over,it is a reasonable assumption that Russia's actions in Ukraine are a result of that not vice versa.As for 'everyone wanting to join it'.There obviously isn't any point depending on who and where they are because America isn't going to put the US homeland at risk of nuclear attack in order to save them.That arguably even applied to us and France let alone Ukraine. Hence the independent French and British nuclear deterrent.

In all cases the relevant bit being that there is no defence against Russia other than the strategy of mutually assured destruction and no one with any sense wants to wipe out the northern hemisphere to kick Russia out of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

Jimbeaux

33,791 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
OK, I am starting a bounty. $100 'Merican for whoever accurately counts how many times the phrases "Risk the U.S. Homeland", "Nuclear attack", and "NATO expansion" are used in this thread. Did I miss any slightly overused phrases? scratchchin

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Jimbeaux said:
OK, I am starting a bounty. $100 'Merican for whoever accurately counts how many times the phrases "Risk the U.S. Homeland", "Nuclear attack", and "NATO expansion" are used in this thread. Did I miss any slightly overused phrases? scratchchin
WW3? Russian buffer zone? smile

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

261 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
Cobnapint said:
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.
How did that interim government come to power? Let's rehash that part. IIRC it was a violet coup, in which there was ample evidence that the United States and possibly other Western governments were contributing financial and material support to groups like Svoboda. There were even US contractors photographed on the ground -- Xe/Academi/Blackwater I believe (or perhaps they have chosen to hide behind a new name now). These tactics mimic what the US govt. has been doing to destabilize countries like Venezuela and others in South America for years.



Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 2nd September 21:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

"The armed forces, whether military or paramilitary, can be a defining factor of a coup d'état."

Can you see what your supposition is missing [well apart from any co-location with reality].





greygoose

8,224 posts

194 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
NATO 'expansion' involved the incorporation of the ex WP and Soviet states many before Putin came to power.
Who bloody well WANTED to join to provide security FROM RUSSIA. And given recent events it was a bloody smart move.

Jesus, it's not difficult is it! banghead
It seems to be very difficult for some.

rich85uk

3,310 posts

178 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Bit of a sad read from the mother of a Russian soldier killed in Ukraine, it's not completely blaming Putin for everything but it does seem fairly honest so worth a read before it is re edited or removed for good

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-...

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

261 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
rich85uk said:
Bit of a sad read from the mother of a Russian soldier killed in Ukraine, it's not completely blaming Putin for everything but it does seem fairly honest so worth a read before it is re edited or removed for good

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-...
Some poor buggers had a delivery last Sunday, bit unusual as it wasn't Amazon, turns out the long slim wooden box held their headless son. And they had to sign for him too....from R4.

Jimbeaux

33,791 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Finlandia said:
Jimbeaux said:
OK, I am starting a bounty. $100 'Merican for whoever accurately counts how many times the phrases "Risk the U.S. Homeland", "Nuclear attack", and "NATO expansion" are used in this thread. Did I miss any slightly overused phrases? scratchchin
WW3? Russian buffer zone? smile
Ah, there you go! biggrin

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Jimbeaux said:
OK, I am starting a bounty. $100 'Merican for whoever accurately counts how many times the phrases "Risk the U.S. Homeland", "Nuclear attack", and "NATO expansion" are used in this thread. Did I miss any slightly overused phrases? scratchchin
Not over used just inconveniently accurate.

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
rich85uk said:
Bit of a sad read from the mother of a Russian soldier killed in Ukraine, it's not completely blaming Putin for everything but it does seem fairly honest so worth a read before it is re edited or removed for good

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-...
Finlandia said:
...lets see his popularity come crashing down when Russian mothers start receiving their sons back in black bags and wooden boxes.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Wednesday 3rd September 2014
quotequote all
Jimbeaux said:
Finlandia said:
Jimbeaux said:
OK, I am starting a bounty. $100 'Merican for whoever accurately counts how many times the phrases "Risk the U.S. Homeland", "Nuclear attack", and "NATO expansion" are used in this thread. Did I miss any slightly overused phrases? scratchchin
WW3? Russian buffer zone? smile
Ah, there you go! biggrin
Absolutely.Russia withdrew from those previous 'buffer zones' then NATO moved in while at the same time trying to tell everyone that the 'Cold War was over'.Obviously Russia wasn't daft enough to believe it while those with Bush's levels of strategic know how thought Russia would.Until the process reached Ukraine and Crimea and then guess what loads of US and NATO rhetoric telling Ukraine to go for it resulting in loads of casualties on both sides.Followed by a nuclear threat from Russia followed by Ukrainian nationalists 'requests' for a ceasefire.