Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
Konstatin Zatulin said:
Russia’s War Aims in Ukraine Are Complete Control over Kiev, Zatulin Says
Staunton, September 12 – Konstantin Zatulin, the director of the Russian Institute for CIS Countries, has bluntly described Moscow’s war aims in Ukraine as directed toward the establishment of complete control over Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies and a privileged position in that country for the Russian language and the Moscow Patriarchate.
Speaking in Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea earlier this week, Zatulin said that Moscow’s policy toward Ukraine rests on three “main principles,” all of which taken together would reduce to almost nothing Ukraine’s ability to act in any way independently from what the Russian Federation wants.
First of all, the Moscow politician said, “Ukraine must become a federative state.” That is because “the eastern subjects” of such a federation “where people speak Russian and have their own relationship to history will always be a guarantee for Russia that Ukraine will not be able to adopt anti-Russian positions.”
Moreover, he continued, “the federalization of Ukraine will give Moscow a voice in the internal affairs [of Ukraine] via [its influence in these] eastern regions.”
Second, Zatulin continued, Russian must become a state language in Ukraine not only because of the presence of Russian speakers in that country but because “it is impossible to be an anti-Russian state with Russian as a state language.”
And third, he added, Moscow will not allow a split in the Russian Orthodox Church between Ukrainians and Russians because “the very fact that people go to one church plays an enormous role and will not allow for bloodletting.”
According to Zatulin, “the most immediate tasks” of the Russian authorities are not to allow the formation of any alliance in Ukraine directed against Moscow. Whether the West or Ukraine likes it or not, “Crimea is de facto in Russia,” and Moscow must ensure that “Ukraine not be consolidated on an anti-Russian basis.”
Among other things, the Moscow figure said, this means that Ukraine cannot become a member of the Western alliance. “Moscow is in a position to defend its interests, and ‘the expansion of NATO is impossible without Russia’s permission.” To any suggestions in that regard, “we say no.”
In other comments, Zatulin expressed regret that the Minsk accords did not give official recognition to the Donetsk and Lugansk “people’s republics,” but he suggested that this mistake could and would be corrected in the future.
http://www.interpretermag.com/russias-war-aims-in-...Staunton, September 12 – Konstantin Zatulin, the director of the Russian Institute for CIS Countries, has bluntly described Moscow’s war aims in Ukraine as directed toward the establishment of complete control over Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies and a privileged position in that country for the Russian language and the Moscow Patriarchate.
Speaking in Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea earlier this week, Zatulin said that Moscow’s policy toward Ukraine rests on three “main principles,” all of which taken together would reduce to almost nothing Ukraine’s ability to act in any way independently from what the Russian Federation wants.
First of all, the Moscow politician said, “Ukraine must become a federative state.” That is because “the eastern subjects” of such a federation “where people speak Russian and have their own relationship to history will always be a guarantee for Russia that Ukraine will not be able to adopt anti-Russian positions.”
Moreover, he continued, “the federalization of Ukraine will give Moscow a voice in the internal affairs [of Ukraine] via [its influence in these] eastern regions.”
Second, Zatulin continued, Russian must become a state language in Ukraine not only because of the presence of Russian speakers in that country but because “it is impossible to be an anti-Russian state with Russian as a state language.”
And third, he added, Moscow will not allow a split in the Russian Orthodox Church between Ukrainians and Russians because “the very fact that people go to one church plays an enormous role and will not allow for bloodletting.”
According to Zatulin, “the most immediate tasks” of the Russian authorities are not to allow the formation of any alliance in Ukraine directed against Moscow. Whether the West or Ukraine likes it or not, “Crimea is de facto in Russia,” and Moscow must ensure that “Ukraine not be consolidated on an anti-Russian basis.”
Among other things, the Moscow figure said, this means that Ukraine cannot become a member of the Western alliance. “Moscow is in a position to defend its interests, and ‘the expansion of NATO is impossible without Russia’s permission.” To any suggestions in that regard, “we say no.”
In other comments, Zatulin expressed regret that the Minsk accords did not give official recognition to the Donetsk and Lugansk “people’s republics,” but he suggested that this mistake could and would be corrected in the future.
Large Russian attack on Donetsk airport last night. The 'ceasefire' is a farce and the Russians have just trundled a large 'aid' convoy across the border again.
The Mistral class ship that the French are supposedly withholding also went to sea last night. With the 300 Russian crew on board. I'm sure the French aren't double dealing at all
The Mistral class ship that the French are supposedly withholding also went to sea last night. With the 300 Russian crew on board. I'm sure the French aren't double dealing at all
skyrover said:
Konstatin Zatulin said:
Russia’s War Aims in Ukraine Are Complete Control over Kiev, Zatulin Says
Staunton, September 12 – Konstantin Zatulin, the director of the Russian Institute for CIS Countries, has bluntly described Moscow’s war aims in Ukraine as directed toward the establishment of complete control over Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies and a privileged position in that country for the Russian language and the Moscow Patriarchate.
Speaking in Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea earlier this week, Zatulin said that Moscow’s policy toward Ukraine rests on three “main principles,” all of which taken together would reduce to almost nothing Ukraine’s ability to act in any way independently from what the Russian Federation wants.
First of all, the Moscow politician said, “Ukraine must become a federative state.” That is because “the eastern subjects” of such a federation “where people speak Russian and have their own relationship to history will always be a guarantee for Russia that Ukraine will not be able to adopt anti-Russian positions.”
Moreover, he continued, “the federalization of Ukraine will give Moscow a voice in the internal affairs [of Ukraine] via [its influence in these] eastern regions.”
Second, Zatulin continued, Russian must become a state language in Ukraine not only because of the presence of Russian speakers in that country but because “it is impossible to be an anti-Russian state with Russian as a state language.”
And third, he added, Moscow will not allow a split in the Russian Orthodox Church between Ukrainians and Russians because “the very fact that people go to one church plays an enormous role and will not allow for bloodletting.”
According to Zatulin, “the most immediate tasks” of the Russian authorities are not to allow the formation of any alliance in Ukraine directed against Moscow. Whether the West or Ukraine likes it or not, “Crimea is de facto in Russia,” and Moscow must ensure that “Ukraine not be consolidated on an anti-Russian basis.”
Among other things, the Moscow figure said, this means that Ukraine cannot become a member of the Western alliance. “Moscow is in a position to defend its interests, and ‘the expansion of NATO is impossible without Russia’s permission.” To any suggestions in that regard, “we say no.”
In other comments, Zatulin expressed regret that the Minsk accords did not give official recognition to the Donetsk and Lugansk “people’s republics,” but he suggested that this mistake could and would be corrected in the future.
http://www.interpretermag.com/russias-war-aims-in-...Staunton, September 12 – Konstantin Zatulin, the director of the Russian Institute for CIS Countries, has bluntly described Moscow’s war aims in Ukraine as directed toward the establishment of complete control over Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies and a privileged position in that country for the Russian language and the Moscow Patriarchate.
Speaking in Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea earlier this week, Zatulin said that Moscow’s policy toward Ukraine rests on three “main principles,” all of which taken together would reduce to almost nothing Ukraine’s ability to act in any way independently from what the Russian Federation wants.
First of all, the Moscow politician said, “Ukraine must become a federative state.” That is because “the eastern subjects” of such a federation “where people speak Russian and have their own relationship to history will always be a guarantee for Russia that Ukraine will not be able to adopt anti-Russian positions.”
Moreover, he continued, “the federalization of Ukraine will give Moscow a voice in the internal affairs [of Ukraine] via [its influence in these] eastern regions.”
Second, Zatulin continued, Russian must become a state language in Ukraine not only because of the presence of Russian speakers in that country but because “it is impossible to be an anti-Russian state with Russian as a state language.”
And third, he added, Moscow will not allow a split in the Russian Orthodox Church between Ukrainians and Russians because “the very fact that people go to one church plays an enormous role and will not allow for bloodletting.”
According to Zatulin, “the most immediate tasks” of the Russian authorities are not to allow the formation of any alliance in Ukraine directed against Moscow. Whether the West or Ukraine likes it or not, “Crimea is de facto in Russia,” and Moscow must ensure that “Ukraine not be consolidated on an anti-Russian basis.”
Among other things, the Moscow figure said, this means that Ukraine cannot become a member of the Western alliance. “Moscow is in a position to defend its interests, and ‘the expansion of NATO is impossible without Russia’s permission.” To any suggestions in that regard, “we say no.”
In other comments, Zatulin expressed regret that the Minsk accords did not give official recognition to the Donetsk and Lugansk “people’s republics,” but he suggested that this mistake could and would be corrected in the future.
XJ Flyer said:
Which effectively leaves NATO with two choices.Either as before historically it accepts the situation of the East/West balance of power underwritten by the nuclear deterrent,in which case those aims described above are more or less justified under that balance.Or NATO goes to war over the situation in which it sees that historic balance of power as no longer applicable and with the aim of keeping hostilities on a conventional footing with the aim of regime change in Russia.It isn't really difficult to work out which of those options would be totally insane.
An ironic final line there.....Mojocvh said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which effectively leaves NATO with two choices.Either as before historically it accepts the situation of the East/West balance of power underwritten by the nuclear deterrent,in which case those aims described above are more or less justified under that balance.Or NATO goes to war over the situation in which it sees that historic balance of power as no longer applicable and with the aim of keeping hostilities on a conventional footing with the aim of regime change in Russia.It isn't really difficult to work out which of those options would be totally insane.
An ironic final line there.....XJ Flyer said:
Which effectively leaves NATO with two choices.Either as before historically it accepts the situation of the East/West balance of power underwritten by the nuclear deterrent,in which case those aims described above are more or less justified under that balance.Or NATO goes to war over the situation in which it sees that historic balance of power as no longer applicable and with the aim of keeping hostilities on a conventional footing with the aim of regime change in Russia.It isn't really difficult to work out which of those options would be totally insane.
Of course, the Ukrainians have no say at all in your world view.No, they're not countries, they're just playthings for Russia and NATO, haven't you been listening?
Because we all know NATO's invaded the other side of the ukraine after inciting a rebellion and sneaking troops in, it's their favorite tactic. Countries don't apply for protection because they're worried about Russia doing exactly what it's done you know, it's all forced.
Oh, wait.
Because we all know NATO's invaded the other side of the ukraine after inciting a rebellion and sneaking troops in, it's their favorite tactic. Countries don't apply for protection because they're worried about Russia doing exactly what it's done you know, it's all forced.
Oh, wait.
vonuber said:
XJ Flyer said:
Which effectively leaves NATO with two choices.Either as before historically it accepts the situation of the East/West balance of power underwritten by the nuclear deterrent,in which case those aims described above are more or less justified under that balance.Or NATO goes to war over the situation in which it sees that historic balance of power as no longer applicable and with the aim of keeping hostilities on a conventional footing with the aim of regime change in Russia.It isn't really difficult to work out which of those options would be totally insane.
Of course, the Ukrainians have no say at all in your world view.PhillipM said:
No, they're not countries, they're just playthings for Russia and NATO, haven't you been listening?
Because we all know NATO's invaded the other side of the ukraine after inciting a rebellion and sneaking troops in, it's their favorite tactic. Countries don't apply for protection because they're worried about Russia doing exactly what it's done you know, it's all forced.
Oh, wait.
'Protection' in this case meaning the simple choice between either a conventional war with Russia or using the nuclear deterrent on the basis of mutually assured destruction.Both being a no win scenario and the former most likely escalating into the latter anyway.In which case moving the balance of power eastwards just lowers the bar concerning the point where the west would ( supposedly ) be prepared to kick off such a war.Probably to the point where the west would not be willing to meet the obligations which it is stupidly tying itself to.IE I'd doubt that it could ever have been guaranteed that the US would really be willing to accept the possibility of the assured destruction of much of the US,even in the case of most of western Europe being wiped out.Let alone a Russian move on Ukraine.Because we all know NATO's invaded the other side of the ukraine after inciting a rebellion and sneaking troops in, it's their favorite tactic. Countries don't apply for protection because they're worried about Russia doing exactly what it's done you know, it's all forced.
Oh, wait.
Ex Russian air force Commander believe's a BUK shot down MH17, not another aircraft.
Former Russian Air Force general (and head of the Russian air force) Peter Deynikin asserted to Russia’s RIA Novosti that it was an SA-11 (“Buk”), and not an air-to-air missile, that brought down MH-17. Deynikin bases his assertion on what he believes are evidence of SA-11 warhead submunitions found in the bodies of some of the victims. When a 70 kg Buk warhead detonates, it sprays a hail of steel balls (think buckshot for airplanes) intended to perforate a target’s fuselage, engine(s), and vital components.
http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html
interesting that a Russian news outlet ran this article, counter to the claims of the Government and media in general
Former Russian Air Force general (and head of the Russian air force) Peter Deynikin asserted to Russia’s RIA Novosti that it was an SA-11 (“Buk”), and not an air-to-air missile, that brought down MH-17. Deynikin bases his assertion on what he believes are evidence of SA-11 warhead submunitions found in the bodies of some of the victims. When a 70 kg Buk warhead detonates, it sprays a hail of steel balls (think buckshot for airplanes) intended to perforate a target’s fuselage, engine(s), and vital components.
http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html
interesting that a Russian news outlet ran this article, counter to the claims of the Government and media in general
Edited by skyrover on Sunday 14th September 10:57
skyrover said:
Ex Russian air force Commander believe's a BUK shot down MH17, not another aircraft.
who except Russian propagandists assert 'another aircraft'? The only thing lacking to nail the BUK culprits is gold standard 'proof' of who supplied it, and who was at the controls and chain of commandskyrover said:
Ex Russian air force Commander believe's a BUK shot down MH17, not another aircraft.
Former Russian Air Force general (and head of the Russian air force) Peter Deynikin asserted to Russia’s RIA Novosti that it was an SA-11 (“Buk”), and not an air-to-air missile, that brought down MH-17. Deynikin bases his assertion on what he believes are evidence of SA-11 warhead submunitions found in the bodies of some of the victims. When a 70 kg Buk warhead detonates, it sprays a hail of steel balls (think buckshot for airplanes) intended to perforate a target’s fuselage, engine(s), and vital components.
http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html
interesting that a Russian news outlet ran this article, counter to the claims of the Government and media in general
why is that interesting? The media there is mainly under government control but it's not North Korea.Former Russian Air Force general (and head of the Russian air force) Peter Deynikin asserted to Russia’s RIA Novosti that it was an SA-11 (“Buk”), and not an air-to-air missile, that brought down MH-17. Deynikin bases his assertion on what he believes are evidence of SA-11 warhead submunitions found in the bodies of some of the victims. When a 70 kg Buk warhead detonates, it sprays a hail of steel balls (think buckshot for airplanes) intended to perforate a target’s fuselage, engine(s), and vital components.
http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html
interesting that a Russian news outlet ran this article, counter to the claims of the Government and media in general
Edited by skyrover on Sunday 14th September 10:57
Russian troops reported to be moving into Ukraine with tanks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30025138
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30025138
Blaster72 said:
Russian troops reported to be moving into Ukraine with tanks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30025138
Just a bigger column of troops than normal. Probably looking to secure the area more thoroughly i.e kick the last of the Ukrainian troops from Donetsk airport etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30025138
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff