Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[scherzkeks]

toppstuff said:

There is a war in Ukraine simply because most Ukrainians don't want to live in a stty country that has been raped by the Russians for decades.

There is a conflict in Ukraine because it's democratically elected government was ousted in a Western backed coup set off by said government temporarily abstaining from signing a trade agreement. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the facts remain facts.

toppstuff said:

Russia is the rapist that doesn't want one its girls leaving the house. Truth is, its too late. They've gone already.

Epic.

[toppstuff]

scherzkeks said:

toppstuff said:

There is a war in Ukraine simply because most Ukrainians don't want to live in a stty country that has been raped by the Russians for decades.

There is a conflict in Ukraine because it's democratically elected government was ousted in a Western backed coup set off by said government temporarily abstaining from signing a trade agreement. Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the facts remain facts.

toppstuff said:

Russia is the rapist that doesn't want one its girls leaving the house. Truth is, its too late. They've gone already.

Epic.

Thanks for revealing your true colours ! You are a Russian troll. That much is clear.

Ignore the facts that Ukraine is a disaster economically compared to its neighbours.

Ignore the fact that Russian influence has held Ukraine back while its neighbours are richer, healthier and more free. These are FACTS by the way - backed up by statistics and evidence and all that awkward stuff.

Ignore that the majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia, just like the same with Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Czech etc etc etc...

If Russia was so great, why doesn't anyone who isn't Russian want to be with them? Why is Russia so lonely?

[scherzkeks]

toppstuff said:

Thanks for revealing your true colours ! You are a Russian troll. That much is clear.

Ignore the facts that Ukraine is a disaster economically compared to its neighbours.

Ignore the fact that Russian influence has held Ukraine back while its neighbours are richer, healthier and more free. These are FACTS by the way - backed up by statistics and evidence and all that awkward stuff.

Ignore that the majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia, just like the same with Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Czech etc etc etc...

If Russia was so great, why doesn't anyone who isn't Russian want to be with them? Why is Russia so lonely?

How old are you?

[toppstuff]

scherzkeks said:

How old are you?

Old enough to have spent time in Eastern Europe both before and after the collapse of communism. I was a young teenager when the USSR collapsed. I have friends in Germany ( East and West ) and I do business across the Baltic states.

How old are you? And how much are the Russians paying you?

[Finlandia]

XJ Flyer said:

toppstuff said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

We know Poland is moving ahead and the reason for that is because we're going backwards having transferred west European wealth to make eastern Europe richer.Which is all about using our money as a bribe to facilitate Bush's post Cold War plans to push NATO into Crimea.However it seems like Russia has said enough and stopped the plan in it's tracks.Unless that is the Ukrainian requested ceasefire is now off the table and WW3 is back on again.

And why is Finland moving ahead? Is it because the West is giving its money to Finland, or is it because Finland was under heavy Soviet/Russian influence and after the collapse of Soviet Finland was able to go its own way?

Stop making sense. It makes XJ's head explode because it does not fit with his pro-Russian stance. He cannot comprehend that a country can do well once it is unshackled from Russian influence, or that it should have the audacity to want to break away in the first place. He's more interested in watching Red Square marches on You Tube than learning about attitudes toward Russia among non-Russian Europeans.

No my view is the total opposite to that.In understanding that Russia is a dangerous paranoid neighbour.

Good, so then you understand why Ukraine, Estonia et all want nothing to do with Russia, and are actively seeking into alliances both economic and armed ones.

[TankRizzo]

scherzkeks said:

How old are you?

I'd like to see you answer some of Finlandia's questions instead of pretending you haven't seen them.

[scherzkeks]

TankRizzo said:

I'd like to see you answer some of Finlandia's questions instead of pretending you haven't seen them.

What answers were you having trouble understanding, Tank?

[XJ Flyer]

toppstuff said:

XJ Flyer said:

Great so if we want nothing to do with the Kremlin why did we go grovelling to Yeltsin and previous Russian leaders telling them that the Cold War is over and we want to open more channels and links with Russia.While at the same time planning to move NATO further East into Russia's back yard.When surely the correct strategy was just to leave everything as it was with the west on our side and east on theirs with just enough channels of communication left open to make sure that we didn't nuke each other by accident.

"We" didn't go grovelling to anyone.

The USSR failed. A vacuum was created.

The old members of the USSR would have moved on regardless. They would have rejected Russia regardless , even if the EU never existed. Things change when empires collapse, that can't be avoided.

Once again, and in an echo of every statement you ever seem to make, you completely ignore the simple fact that the former eastern bloc countries have turned their backs on Russia out of their own choice. And they would have done even if NATO and the EU never existed.

It is clear and obvious that you have never met an eastern European or a Russian, or set foot on any of these countries you seem to want to talk about so much.

Go here: http://www.easyjet.com/en/

Get a cheap flight to Estonia, or Poland. Go to a bar. Ask some questions about the Russians from people young and old. Then you may stop talking such nonsense.

I was here during the time in question and the west certainly did go grovelling to the Russians claiming peace and goodwill.No mention there about when and wherever Russia withdraws we'll put NATO there to replace it.Let alone then moving it into Crimea.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8


As for the Poles and Estonians why bother because I know what the answer will be.It will go along the lines of give them more money from EU funds because they hate the Russians just like the British supposedly do.Which is a reasonable description of western defence policy since Reagan and those who followed him tried to stitch up the Russians by pretending the Cold War was over and obviously failed.Because what you obviously think was a 'vacuum' was actually a test or a trap depending wether NATO wanted to pass it or walk into it.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 4th September 13:40

[toppstuff]

XJ Flyer said:

I was here during the time in question and the west certainly did go grovelling to the Russians claiming peace and goodwill.No mention there about when and wherever Russia withdraws we'll put NATO there to replace it.Let alone then moving it into Crimea.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8


As for the Poles and Estonians why bother because I know what the answer will be.It will go along the lines of give them more money from EU funds because they hate the Russians just like the British supposedly do.Which is a reasonable description of western defence policy since Reagan and those who followed him tried to stitch up the Russians by pretending the Cold War was over and obviously failed.

This is like debating with a six year old.

[vonuber]

My granddad was Polish. after WW2 he couldn't go back (after escaping to the UK) because he would have been shot as he had the temerity to resist the Russian invasion of 1939.
And people wonder why East Europeans hate Russians.

As an aside, regarding Crimea being part of Ukraine in 1954.. well, 8 years earlier large parts of Russia was actually Poland and Lithuania, and parts of Poland were Germany. Maybe they should start getting their territory back too.

[XJ Flyer]

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

toppstuff said:

Finlandia said:

XJ Flyer said:

We know Poland is moving ahead and the reason for that is because we're going backwards having transferred west European wealth to make eastern Europe richer.Which is all about using our money as a bribe to facilitate Bush's post Cold War plans to push NATO into Crimea.However it seems like Russia has said enough and stopped the plan in it's tracks.Unless that is the Ukrainian requested ceasefire is now off the table and WW3 is back on again.

And why is Finland moving ahead? Is it because the West is giving its money to Finland, or is it because Finland was under heavy Soviet/Russian influence and after the collapse of Soviet Finland was able to go its own way?

Stop making sense. It makes XJ's head explode because it does not fit with his pro-Russian stance. He cannot comprehend that a country can do well once it is unshackled from Russian influence, or that it should have the audacity to want to break away in the first place. He's more interested in watching Red Square marches on You Tube than learning about attitudes toward Russia among non-Russian Europeans.

No my view is the total opposite to that.In understanding that Russia is a dangerous paranoid neighbour.

Good, so then you understand why Ukraine, Estonia et all want nothing to do with Russia, and are actively seeking into alliances both economic and armed ones.

An alliance which we'd do well to turn down being that there's no place in it for any motivation that is based on irrational hatred based on historic animosities,under a defence strategy of mutually assured destruction.

As for economic no thanks let them earn their own money like we had to.

[XJ Flyer]

toppstuff said:

XJ Flyer said:

I was here during the time in question and the west certainly did go grovelling to the Russians claiming peace and goodwill.No mention there about when and wherever Russia withdraws we'll put NATO there to replace it.Let alone then moving it into Crimea.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8


As for the Poles and Estonians why bother because I know what the answer will be.It will go along the lines of give them more money from EU funds because they hate the Russians just like the British supposedly do.Which is a reasonable description of western defence policy since Reagan and those who followed him tried to stitch up the Russians by pretending the Cold War was over and obviously failed.

This is like debating with a six year old.

That is actually a better description of the level of thinking that exists within NATO since starting its eastward expansion.

[scherzkeks]

vonuber said:

... 8 years earlier large parts of Russia was actually Poland and Lithuania, and parts of Poland were Germany. Maybe they should start getting their territory back too.

This is actually the argument a select few of your colleagues here are makin -- that the new Ukrainian government has a right to shell and displace "separatists" and associated civilians the eastern Ukraine because the Soviets displaced residents of Soviet satellite countries 70 years ago. You should really come to some kind of consensus on what your position is.

[greygoose]

XJ Flyer said:

greygoose said:

Giving in to people because they have nuclear weapons is appeasement whether you like it or not, when would you stop giving in to Putin, when he takes over France or Kent?

Stop going on about Bush as well, he hasn't been in charge for years.

The whole strategy has got Bush's level of intelligence all over it being that it is just the same to the letter with no change.IE NATO expansion into Crimea.

So are you saying that Kennedy 'gave in' to Kruschev and the deal he made to stop WW3 taking place in 1962 was 'appeasement' and that instead of taking the missiles out of Turkey he should have told Kruschev that NATO is going to take over Crimea instead.

As for Russia taking over France and Kent you really need to start getting your head around the idea of a defence policy that is based on the strategy of mutually assured destruction.IE in that case there would be no France or Kent left to take over.The difference in this case being that we were never going to end it all over it being us wanting to take over Crimea.

I think you need to get your head around the fact this isn't 1962 and the Eastern Bloc no longer exists.

[toppstuff]

XJ Flyer said:

That is actually a better description of the level of thinking that exists within NATO since starting its eastward expansion.

XJ - I think I going to call you " The Weak Appeaser" from here on...

You seem so keen to appease the bear; give them what they want.

What makes you think appeasement is the right thing to do?

When will it end?

How has appeasement worked out through history?

[scherzkeks]

toppstuff said:

Old enough to have spent time in Eastern Europe both before and after the collapse of communism. I was a young teenager when the USSR collapsed. I have friends in Germany ( East and West ) and I do business across the Baltic states.

How old are you? And how much are the Russians paying you?

I was a young teenager when the USSR collapsed, am American and now reside in Germany and have friends in the former East and West. I am also the powerfully-built director of Gazprom.

Like yours, parts of my profile might be nonsense.

[XJ Flyer]

vonuber said:

My granddad was Polish. after WW2 he couldn't go back (after escaping to the UK) because he would have been shot as he had the temerity to resist the Russian invasion of 1939.
And people wonder why East Europeans hate Russians.

The idea that east Europeans should hate the Russians over what happened in WW2 makes no more sense than Russia and France etc hating the Germans.It is over and time to move on.The fact is things might be looking a lot different now 'if' eastern Europe had shown some better faith towards Russia by keeping the east European areas neutral instead of moving NATO into them.At worst there was nothing to lose being that NATO's ultimate defence strategy against Russia is always going to be the nuclear deterrent.In which case it will make no difference wether eastern Europe was neutral or part of NATO assuming both sides ever go to war.

[Mojocvh]

scherzkeks said:

toppstuff said:

Thanks for revealing your true colours ! You are a Russian troll. That much is clear.

Ignore the facts that Ukraine is a disaster economically compared to its neighbours.

Ignore the fact that Russian influence has held Ukraine back while its neighbours are richer, healthier and more free. These are FACTS by the way - backed up by statistics and evidence and all that awkward stuff.

Ignore that the majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia, just like the same with Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Czech etc etc etc...

If Russia was so great, why doesn't anyone who isn't Russian want to be with them? Why is Russia so lonely?

How old are you?

And with that you have just lost what credibility you had........

[scherzkeks]

Mojocvh said:

And with that you have just lost what credibility you had........

If only it were so easy to push those nasty facts out of sight ...

[XJ Flyer]

greygoose said:

XJ Flyer said:

greygoose said:

Giving in to people because they have nuclear weapons is appeasement whether you like it or not, when would you stop giving in to Putin, when he takes over France or Kent?

Stop going on about Bush as well, he hasn't been in charge for years.

The whole strategy has got Bush's level of intelligence all over it being that it is just the same to the letter with no change.IE NATO expansion into Crimea.

So are you saying that Kennedy 'gave in' to Kruschev and the deal he made to stop WW3 taking place in 1962 was 'appeasement' and that instead of taking the missiles out of Turkey he should have told Kruschev that NATO is going to take over Crimea instead.

As for Russia taking over France and Kent you really need to start getting your head around the idea of a defence policy that is based on the strategy of mutually assured destruction.IE in that case there would be no France or Kent left to take over.The difference in this case being that we were never going to end it all over it being us wanting to take over Crimea.

I think you need to get your head around the fact this isn't 1962 and the Eastern Bloc no longer exists.

The weapons and the defence strategy are just the same with the same end result regardless of the 'post Cold War' propaganda trying to tell everyone otherwise.While Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is not the eastern Bloc as far as Russia is ( probably justifiably ) concerned it is part of Russia and NATO's obvious intention is to take it over.In which case Kennedy's logic,as opposed to Bush's, is even more relevant now than it was then.