Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

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.

The mistake being the one of not playing the nuclear card against Bush in 2008 before it all kicked off and seeing if he and his administration were up for taking the US to the brink over Crimea etc as Kennedy's and Kruschev's were over Cuba and Turkey.

[Jimbeaux]

XJ Flyer 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?

Not over used just inconveniently accurate.

That phrase must be used three times in 24 hours to qualify; sorry.

[Jimbeaux]

XJ Flyer said:

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?

WW3? Russian buffer zone?

Ah, there you go!

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.

Yep; Mitt Romney had it right about Russia, among other things. Anyway, "Cold War was over", there is one for the list.

[toppstuff]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia' when the west was telling the Russians that the Cold War is over.

Idiot statement of the week so far.

Clue: Russia's neighbours were a little bit bullied by Russia over the past few generations. No money. Labour camps. Oppression. KGB. A diet of turnips. That kind of thing. Such treatment is sure to sour relations when you think about it

You really are a prize clown sometimes.

Anyhow, as you were..

[XJ Flyer]

Jimbeaux said:

XJ Flyer said:

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?

WW3? Russian buffer zone?

Ah, there you go!

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.

Yep; Mitt Romney had it right about Russia, among other things. Anyway, "Cold War was over", there is one for the list.

Russia wasn't daft enough to believe it being above Cold War was over.

Romney might have made a better president than Obama which wouldn't be difficult.But like Bush he is no Kennedy in knowing how to deal with Russia in a way which won't cost everyone on on both sides a lot of lives when there's no need to go to war.

[petrolsniffer]

toppstuff said:

Idiot statement of the week so far.

Clue: Russia's neighbours were a little bit bullied by Russia over the past few generations. No money. Labour camps. Oppression. KGB. A diet of turnips. That kind of thing. Such treatment is sure to sour relations when you think about it

You really are a prize clown sometimes.

Anyhow, as you were..

Theres little getting through to him. Always seems to gloss over those points.I doubt he lived through russian oppression or knows anyone that did.

[XJ Flyer]

toppstuff said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia' when the west was telling the Russians that the Cold War is over.

Idiot statement of the week so far.

Clue: Russia's neighbours were a little bit bullied by Russia over the past few generations. No money. Labour camps. Oppression. KGB. A diet of turnips. That kind of thing. Such treatment is sure to sour relations when you think about it

You really are a prize clown sometimes.

Anyhow, as you were..

To be fair Russia was 'a little bit bullied' by Germany with a bit of help from Hungary amongst others.Which is what turned it into a paranoid wreck of a country about being attacked again from the west.

While France has also felt a 'little bit bullied' over previous generations by both us and Germany and vice versa.The difference is we've all moved on.

However in the case of Russia us telling them that we've moved on from the Cold War in their case too,while at the same time doing the exact opposite,in the form of trying to push NATO into Crimea,is just going to turn what was a Cold War a lot hotter,if not about as hot as it gets.

[XJ Flyer]

petrolsniffer said:

toppstuff said:

Idiot statement of the week so far.

Clue: Russia's neighbours were a little bit bullied by Russia over the past few generations. No money. Labour camps. Oppression. KGB. A diet of turnips. That kind of thing. Such treatment is sure to sour relations when you think about it

You really are a prize clown sometimes.

Anyhow, as you were..

Theres little getting through to him. Always seems to gloss over those points.I doubt he lived through russian oppression or knows anyone that did.

Yes but as we told Yeltsin etc that was all 'supposed to have been' put behind us and we all move on because the 'Cold War' was supposedly 'over'.When in fact NATO had no intention whatsoever of 'moving on' but unfortunately for Bush's etc plans Russia knew it.Which is why Russia has threatened to nuke us and we've now backed off.The only question in that case was why didn't Russia do that back in 2008 and thereby save everyone a lot of lives in this case at least.

[Octoposse]

DMN said:

Octoposse said:

Moscow is clearly eager to sign up to, and has been eager to sign up to for six months now.

Yes eager because its got what it wants, the illegal occupation of the Crimea.

As a point of detail, it's not 'occupying' Crimea - Crimea is now part of Russia. (As for legality, I refer you to Article 1, Paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations).

But, yes, you put your finger on the nub of the issue . . . 'we' don't want a deal because a deal is a victory for Putin. Fair 'nuff, b..u..t it is then completely untenable and illogical to blame Moscow for the deaths and misery that are inevitabe until there is a deal.

[vonuber]

Octoposse said:

b..u..t it is then completely untenable and illogical to blame Moscow for the deaths and misery that are inevitabe until there is a deal.

Really? So it is illogical to blame Russia for having its troops fight the Ukrainian Army in the Ukraine? Who should we blame then?

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia'

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

[vonuber]

Finlandia said:

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia'

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

'Was' being the word.Those days are gone,forgotten and over.Which is at least what the west told Russia.While at the same time planning to move NATO into Crimea.The eventual resulting dispute causing large scale loss of life,including the mistaken shoot down of a civil airliner.

All over a matter which could have been negotiated as part of the new Cold War environment which NATO's bad faith has caused in the relationship between the west and Russia.

IE there's no way that Russia was ever going to allow Eastern Ukraine to become a part of NATO.Which just left the choice of negotiate or mutually assured destruction when the argument inevitably turned nuclear.

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia'

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

'Was' being the word.Those days are gone,forgotten and over.Which is at least what the west told Russia.While at the same time planning to move NATO into Crimea.The eventual resulting dispute causing large scale loss of life,including the mistaken shoot down of a civil airliner.

All over a matter which could have been negotiated as part of the new Cold War environment which NATO's bad faith has caused in the relationship between the west and Russia.

IE there's no way that Russia was ever going to allow Eastern Ukraine to become a part of NATO.Which just left the choice of negotiate or mutually assured destruction when the argument inevitably turned nuclear.

That's a no then, because if you had known you would understand why they still today seek away from Kremlin and want security in the form of an alliance.

[Zad]

They "need security" in the same way that small local shops "need security" from those helpful skinhead chaps in Range Rovers with sledgehammers and baseball bats in the back.

[Octoposse]

vonuber said:

Octoposse said:

b..u..t it is then completely untenable and illogical to blame Moscow for the deaths and misery that are inevitabe until there is a deal.

Really? So it is illogical to blame Russia for having its troops fight the Ukrainian Army in the Ukraine? Who should we blame then?

Well . . . the domestic political imperative for Putin is not to appear humiliated (the ethics is unimportant, doesn't matter what whether we approve - backing off and appearing to eat st like his immediate predecessors did, over Kosovo for example, and that's the beginning of the end in terms of domestic support). He knows that, we know that, he knows we know . . . etc etc. And 'we' also knew that - or certainly should have known that if the US and EU employ any half-decent analysts - before we decided to throw our weight behind regime change in Ukraine, from which cataclysmically poor decision all subsequent woe has flowed.

So Moscow really, really wants a deal - full recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea (which it was of course part of anyway up to 1954), some tweaks to the Ukrainian constitution to provide a figleaf of federalism, and some security guarantees. 'We' don't want a deal, figuring that 'we' can't lose - either Putin persists and Russia is damaged in terms of economics and international image, or he backs down, is weakened, and removed . . . that'll learn 'im to mess with us!

Cynical bearing in mind the costs that thousands of innocent individuals and families have paid and will pay - some forseen (like Ukrainian servicemen, or Russian speaking Ukrainians going about their normal lives), some unforseen (like passengers and crew of MH70). But it was the US and EU's decision to encourage Kiev to seek a military solution instead of a political one. Putin has had far fewer options, given the political imperatives imposed on him by his powerbase - constituency if you like - in Russia.

Apart from being cynical, you'd also have to question the wisdom of EU/US policy . . OK, fatally weaken Putin at home, do you think he'll be replaced by someone more cuddly or less cuddly?

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia'

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

'Was' being the word.Those days are gone,forgotten and over.Which is at least what the west told Russia.While at the same time planning to move NATO into Crimea.The eventual resulting dispute causing large scale loss of life,including the mistaken shoot down of a civil airliner.

All over a matter which could have been negotiated as part of the new Cold War environment which NATO's bad faith has caused in the relationship between the west and Russia.

IE there's no way that Russia was ever going to allow Eastern Ukraine to become a part of NATO.Which just left the choice of negotiate or mutually assured destruction when the argument inevitably turned nuclear.

That's a no then, because if you had known you would understand why they still today seek away from Kremlin and want security in the form of an alliance.

That alliance itself making them ( and us ) less secure than if they'd have remained neutral with no NATO status when Russia moved out.That is because,from Russia's point of view,being a NATO member makes them a threat to Russia whereas remaining neutral doesn't.

As I've said the west's defence against Russia is solely based on the nuclear deterrent and it will make no difference wether those ex WP/Soviet states are neutral or not if/when the time comes to end it all and the type of threat level required to be reached for NATO's major nuclear powers to do so.The fact is the US,UK,or France won't end the world as we know it to over eastern Europe let alone eastern Ukraine and that applies no differently now in 2014 than it did in 1964-84.

If that wasn't case we wouldn't be sitting here arguing now because Putin's threat to nuke us over Ukraine would have been met by us and the US going to Defcon 1.

In which case I'm guessing that the Ukrainians and the Polish,let alone the Scandinavians,would be telling us that they've bottled out long before we've even launched.I'd bet in addition to many of the brave lot here who seem to want us to sort Putin out over Crimea.Which explains why the NATO backed Ukrainian army has sensibly and at last 'requested' a ceasefire before anyone else gets hurt over the issue.

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

Why would they need 'security from Russia'

Can I ask you a serious question, do you have any idea of what life was like in the Soviet states like Ukraine and the Baltic countries?

'Was' being the word.Those days are gone,forgotten and over.Which is at least what the west told Russia.While at the same time planning to move NATO into Crimea.The eventual resulting dispute causing large scale loss of life,including the mistaken shoot down of a civil airliner.

All over a matter which could have been negotiated as part of the new Cold War environment which NATO's bad faith has caused in the relationship between the west and Russia.

IE there's no way that Russia was ever going to allow Eastern Ukraine to become a part of NATO.Which just left the choice of negotiate or mutually assured destruction when the argument inevitably turned nuclear.

That's a no then, because if you had known you would understand why they still today seek away from Kremlin and want security in the form of an alliance.

That alliance itself making them ( and us ) less secure than if they'd have remained neutral with no NATO status when Russia moved out.That is because,from Russia's point of view,being a NATO member makes them a threat to Russia whereas remaining neutral doesn't.

As I've said the west's defence against Russia is solely based on the nuclear deterrent and it will make no difference wether those ex WP/Soviet states are neutral or not if/when the time comes to end it all and the type of threat level required to be reached for NATO's major nuclear powers to do so.The fact is the US,UK,or France won't end the world as we know it to over eastern Europe let alone eastern Ukraine and that applies no differently now in 2014 than it did in 1964-84.

If that wasn't case we wouldn't be sitting here arguing now because Putin's threat to nuke us over Ukraine would have been met by us and the US going to Defcon 1.

In which case I'm guessing that the Ukrainians and the Polish,let alone the Scandinavians,would be telling us that they've bottled out long before we've even launched.I'd bet in addition to many of the brave lot here who seem to want us to sort Putin out over Crimea.Which explains why the NATO backed Ukrainian army has sensibly and at last 'requested' a ceasefire before anyone else gets hurt over the issue.

Thank you, that's enough, I know already that you have no idea.

[Mojocvh]

"As I've said the west's defence against Russia is solely based on the nuclear deterrent and it will make no difference wether those ex WP/Soviet states are neutral or not if/when the time comes to end it all "

You keep repeating this, empty vessels etc.....

[XJ Flyer]

Mojocvh said:

"As I've said the west's defence against Russia is solely based on the nuclear deterrent and it will make no difference wether those ex WP/Soviet states are neutral or not if/when the time comes to end it all "

You keep repeating this, empty vessels etc.....

If it was an 'empty vessel' then the US and/or NATO would have armed the Ukrainian army to the teeth and then told it to do whatever it takes to push the Russians out of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.Possibly with US air support.