Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[toppstuff]

XJ Flyer said:

If you'd have said damn the EU for giving our wealth away to eastern Europe and opening up our labour markets to east European labour,all to get it onside as part of Bush's plan to change the west's defence policy,you'd be right.

I'm guessing that there's no place for the UKIP anti federalist EU view concerning the situation.

Wrong wrong wrong. Olympic levels of wrongness.

The EU expanded simply because the USSR collapsed. It left a vacuum. The USSR was a drunk in the ditch that couldn't even get off the floor, lying in its own piss. Nothing worked. No-one was getting paid.
The USSR totally and completely failed. Ceased to function. It left a vacuum and it was powerless to stop its old oppressed countries from getting on with a better life.

It is only now that Russia has money from oil that it is getting pissy about things. Well its too late. Everyone hates them and they have moved on.

The EU didn't need to tempt them. The USSR failed and left a vacuum.

[XJ Flyer]

toppstuff said:

XJ Flyer said:

If you'd have said damn the EU for giving our wealth away to eastern Europe and opening up our labour markets to east European labour,all to get it onside as part of Bush's plan to change the west's defence policy,you'd be right.

I'm guessing that there's no place for the UKIP anti federalist EU view concerning the situation.

Wrong wrong wrong. Olympic levels of wrongness.

The EU expanded simply because the USSR collapsed. It left a vacuum. The USSR was a drunk in the ditch that couldn't even get off the floor, lying in its own piss. Nothing worked. No-one was getting paid.
The USSR totally and completely failed. Ceased to function. It left a vacuum and it was powerless to stop its old oppressed countries from getting on with a better life.

It is only now that Russia has money from oil that it is getting pissy about things. Well its too late. Everyone hates them and they have moved on.

The EU didn't need to tempt them. The USSR failed and left a vacuum.

We're not talking about 'just' EU expansion we're arguing about NATO expansion.Assuming that it is only Putin who is supposedly the problem then why the need for NATO expansion under the Yeltsin regime.The fact is Russia set up a test,or a trap depending on the result,to establish NATO's true intentions,and NATO walked straight into it.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Mojocvh said:

Could you just reaffirm your point, highlighted in BOLD, for us again...now I might be wrong [but I'm not] but pouring "russian" people into an area is hardly an act of neutrality, ask The Finns if you need that explained further.

Oh and cut the WW3 burnt to a crisp crap, it doesn't impress anyone.

A certain amount of care is needed here and I do not think the EU has the quality of representation to thread this needle. You are dealing with a large conventionally armed, technologically sophisticated enemy, who could, bring the war to every UK and EU household, both economically and militarily.

Putin is merely acting like a superpower, nothing the USA has not done in the last 15 years. Russia may not be the power she once was, but still holds some Aces, primarily, gas and military force. The EU needs to tread carefully in handling this. If they are prepared to wreck the fragile EU economy, freeze this winter and possibly enter into a hot or proxy war with Russia, then continue on the current course.

Th EU needs to make a lot of tutting noises, shaking of heads, wagging of fingers and stamping of feet but ultimately Russia will get its way here. At best, a federalised Ukraine, at worst a whole new chunk of Western Russia. The other severe options are not palatable to the EU or the UK; Alice does not need to go down those rabbit holes.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 1st September 19:17

[XJ Flyer]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Mojocvh said:

Could you just reaffirm your point, highlighted in BOLD, for us again...now I might be wrong [but I'm not] but pouring "russian" people into an area is hardly an act of neutrality, ask The Finns if you need that explained further.

Oh and cut the WW3 burnt to a crisp crap, it doesn't impress anyone.

A certain amount of care is needed here and I do not think the EU has the quality of representation to thread this needle. You are dealing with a large conventionally armed, technologically sophisticated enemy, who could, bring the war to every UK and EU household, both economically and militarily.

Putin is merely acting like a superpower, nothing the USA has not done in the last 15 years. Russia may not be the power she once was, but still holds some Aces, primarily, gas and military force. The EU needs to tread carefully in handling this. If they are prepared to wreck the fragile EU economy, freeze this winter and possibly enter into a hot or proxy war with Russia, then continue on the current course.

Th EU needs to make a lot of tutting noises, shaking of heads, wagging of fingers and stamping of feet but ultimately Russia will get its way here. At best, a federalised Ukraine, at worst a whole new chunk of Western Russia. The other options are not palatable to the EU or the UK and some have some concerning endings for all concerned.

I think that underestimates Russia's commitment in how far it is willing to take the argument in terms of the nuclear option.While re affirming the missing link in the form of the silence from America regarding that open reference by Russia concerning that option.IE America really thinks that it can push Russia into an area where it wants it to be with no implications in regards to how far Russia will go in pushing back.I'd guess that Putin could have concentrated American minds more in that regard if he'd have made it clearer that America would still be a target in terms of the nuclear threat in just the same way as it was during the height of the cold war.Although as we've seen here the NATO supporting war mongers seem to be in denial concerning just what war with Russia actually means.

Which is probably the result of years of indoctrination that the Cold War is now over and the massive nuclear threat which was an accepted everyday life part of that has now gone.To supposedly be replaced by a strategy which would be based on conventional 'war' like the Iraq campaigns that's just seen from a distance on TV followed by an inevitable win for 'our side'.Hopefully they will wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late.

[PhillipM]

I don't see many of those NATO warmongers invading other countries and claiming it's for defence.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

XJ Flyer said:

Abridged

Nuclear is very very unlikely. A proxy or even limited hot war is more likely, especially as the war of words is ratcheted up.

The big escalation will be in relation to gas. If the EU or Russia starts messing with the gas, through sanctions or through proxy EU / Ukrainian intervention (which they talked about, but got muzzled very quickly by the EU), expect both sides to react badly.

This conflict has many moving parts, with potential for an unexpected and possibly unintentional escalation, the Malaysian Airline atrocity as example.

[Finlandia]

Mojocvh said:

Finland next in line for the treatment??

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&a...

http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2014/09/fin...

Lets see if I get the dreaded call.

I can't really see anything more than posturing, but then again as a payback for old times, who knows what the ex KGB guy has in his warped mind.

At least this time Finland has a bit more modern stuff than the Soviet era leftovers they once were forced to have.

[Octoposse]

toppstuff said:

Jeepers. I am lost for words.

Damn the EU for creating a stable democracy with a high standard of living that people aspire to be a part of. Damn them to hell.

And damn the Ukrainians for being fed up with being poor while their neighbours have prospered. Damn them for daring to dislike being robbed for the past 4 generations by Russia. Rather than want an end to it, by your logic they should be grateful, shut up and just put up with Russian hegemony.

You crazy little man. You are a Russian internet plant. They've got to be paying you for this BS. .

Except there is a flaw in your narrative . . . the Ukrainians did not want to sever ties with Russia in favour of closer links with the EU!

OK, they were split on the issue, but indisputably the outcome of the political process in Ukraine was, thanks but no thanks EU . . .

As a not directly political (if slightly superseded by events!) website I stumbled across whilst mulling over a holiday in Crimea puts it (background is concern over continued preservation of the historic Maxim Gorky battery . . . ): "On the more optimistic note, new Ukraninan president Victor Yanukovich, propelled to power by voters from more Russia-oriented Eastern Ukraine, promised to renew lease of the Sevastopol naval base to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, move, which can preserve 30th battery well into 21st century."

But 'we' encouraged protests in Kiev against that political outcome. Pushback from Moscow to pissing in what they perceive as their backyard was 100% predictable and predicted (see posts from myself and others at the time) . . . presumably/hopefully our government and the EU employ analysts competent enough to have told them that, so you really, really, have to ask whether plunging Ukraine and its blameless people into this apalling mess was malign conspiracy or unfathomable cock-up.

[Octoposse]

PhillipM said:

I don't see many of those NATO warmongers invading other countries and claiming it's for defence.

Russian co-religionists and long-time ally Serbia?

[Octoposse]

Finlandia said:

I can't really see anything more than posturing, but then again as a payback for old times, who knows what the ex KGB guy has in his warped mind.

Not warped, IMHO, and what he has in mind is quite straightforward:

1) I owe my genuine popularity among the Russian people to the perception that I won't stand for being humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors (that, and paying pensions on time and in full);
2) If I am humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors, that will be the inevitable beginning of the end for me in Russia;
3) Ergo I shall push back against any attempt to humiliate me like my two predecessors were.

Kiev could have done a deal with Moscow four or five months ago but, encouraged by the US and EU, it preferred to seek a military solution. Well, bugger me, real people have died, hardly any of whom (or none at all?) deserved to. Unforgiveable, as 1-3 above are hardly rocket science . .

[Finlandia]

Octoposse said:

Finlandia said:

I can't really see anything more than posturing, but then again as a payback for old times, who knows what the ex KGB guy has in his warped mind.

Not warped, IMHO, and what he has in mind is quite straightforward:

1) I owe my genuine popularity among the Russian people to the perception that I won't stand for being humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors (that, and paying pensions on time and in full);
2) If I am humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors, that will be the inevitable beginning of the end for me in Russia;
3) Ergo I shall push back against any attempt to humiliate me like my two predecessors were.

Kiev could have done a deal with Moscow four or five months ago but, encouraged by the US and EU, it preferred to seek a military solution. Well, bugger me, real people have died, hardly any of whom (or none at all?) deserved to. Unforgiveable, as 1-3 above are hardly rocket science . .

Those three points already show his warped mind, lets see his popularity come crashing down when Russian mothers start receiving their sons back in black bags and wooden boxes.

Where is Gorby, the world needs him.

[JensenA]

Finlandia said:

Octoposse said:

Finlandia said:

I can't really see anything more than posturing, but then again as a payback for old times, who knows what the ex KGB guy has in his warped mind.

Not warped, IMHO, and what he has in mind is quite straightforward:

1) I owe my genuine popularity among the Russian people to the perception that I won't stand for being humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors (that, and paying pensions on time and in full);
2) If I am humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors, that will be the inevitable beginning of the end for me in Russia;
3) Ergo I shall push back against any attempt to humiliate me like my two predecessors were.

Kiev could have done a deal with Moscow four or five months ago but, encouraged by the US and EU, it preferred to seek a military solution. Well, bugger me, real people have died, hardly any of whom (or none at all?) deserved to. Unforgiveable, as 1-3 above are hardly rocket science . .

Those three points already show his warped mind,

Where is Gorby, the world needs him.

How do they show he has a warped mind? That's exactly what he should do. He's a proud Russian, who is proud of his nation, and the people respect him. Russians like a strong leader. Not "weak willed namby pamby politically correct mustn't offend anyone let's have a nice discussion about it and organise a conference in geneva to discuss it leaders" like we have.

[XJ Flyer]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

XJ Flyer said:

Abridged

Nuclear is very very unlikely. A proxy or even limited hot war is more likely, especially as the war of words is ratcheted up.

The big escalation will be in relation to gas. If the EU or Russia starts messing with the gas, through sanctions or through proxy EU / Ukrainian intervention (which they talked about, but got muzzled very quickly by the EU), expect both sides to react badly.

This conflict has many moving parts, with potential for an unexpected and possibly unintentional escalation, the Malaysian Airline atrocity as example.

I'm only going by what I knew of the Cold War between NATO and Russia turning hot scenario.To my knowledge at least at that time there was no way that any possible situation tested during numerous simulation exercises wouldn't inevitably go nuclear in a big way very quickly when escalation was factored in.

In this case the logical progression can only be that either Russia keeps it small scale and probably loses Eastern Ukraine depending on Ukraine nationalist forces getting sufficient help from NATO.In which case the Ukrainian nationalist forces will then try to take Crimea back.Then a small scale Russian involvement will inevitably turn ( very ) big.Probably to the point of involving western Ukraine and maybe even the neighbouring NATO states like Poland etc.At which point we are then in a NATO v Russia conflict.

Or Russia ups the involvement levels in Eastern Ukraine to pre empt and avoid the possibility of losing it and having to defend Crimea from a weaker position.In which case that too would probably inevitably result in a Ukraine wide fight with ever increasing levels of NATO support eventually leading to likely direct involvement of NATO states like Poland.In which case we are again back in a NATO v Russia conflict.

In either of those two scenarios I'd guess that nuclear escalation is far more likely than Russia caring less about the gas supply issue or in fact any type of peacetime trade issues.Which just leaves the question of where America would be in all that.It is my guess that they'll be more interested in keeping the resulting st storm concentrated in Europe and away from the US homeland.

But whatever happens it seems obvious that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is the key factor from Russia's point of view and it is my bet that there are no strategic limits as to how far Russia is prepared to go to hold onto both. Probably seeing the argument as a modern day win or lose make or break version of Stalingrad if that's what it takes to halt and reverse the eastward expansion of NATO.

[Finlandia]

JensenA said:

Finlandia said:

Octoposse said:

Finlandia said:

I can't really see anything more than posturing, but then again as a payback for old times, who knows what the ex KGB guy has in his warped mind.

Not warped, IMHO, and what he has in mind is quite straightforward:

1) I owe my genuine popularity among the Russian people to the perception that I won't stand for being humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors (that, and paying pensions on time and in full);
2) If I am humiliated by 'the West' like my two predecessors, that will be the inevitable beginning of the end for me in Russia;
3) Ergo I shall push back against any attempt to humiliate me like my two predecessors were.

Kiev could have done a deal with Moscow four or five months ago but, encouraged by the US and EU, it preferred to seek a military solution. Well, bugger me, real people have died, hardly any of whom (or none at all?) deserved to. Unforgiveable, as 1-3 above are hardly rocket science . .

Those three points already show his warped mind,

Where is Gorby, the world needs him.

How do they show he has a warped mind? That's exactly what he should do. He's a proud Russian, who is proud of his nation, and the people respect him. Russians like a strong leader. Not "weak willed namby pamby politically correct mustn't offend anyone let's have a nice discussion about it and organise a conference in geneva to discuss it leaders" like we have.

As said, lets see how popular he is when body bags start rolling in, and the economic sanctions put an end to the spending, not that there would be anything to spend the money on anyway.

There is a very thin but clear line between good and strong leadership and the likes of Stalin, who seems to be some sort of a role model. Both are known for taking care of their political opponents in a more or less non civil way, to put it mildly.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Finlandia said:

As said, lets see how popular he is when body bags start rolling in, and the economic sanctions put an end to the spending, not that there would be anything to spend the money on anyway.

There is a very thin but clear line between good and strong leadership and the likes of Stalin, who seems to be some sort of a role model. Both are known for taking care of their political opponents in a more or less non civil way, to put it mildly.

There already is a serious fatality rate for Russian soldiers taking leave this Summer.

[Finlandia]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

There already is a serious fatality rate for Russian soldiers taking leave this Summer.

But you see, those died during their holiday, probably while diving or some other sport.

[Cobnapint]

Finlandia said:

But you see, those died during their holiday, probably while diving or some other sport.

That's right. They got lost whilst on holiday, and accidently died. It was on RT last night. The moon is made of cheese as well apparently.

[Mojocvh]

XJ Flyer said:

Mojocvh said:

XJ Flyer said:

Blib said:

Is NATO forcing independent nations to join in its inexorable 'march' Eastwards?

The point is NATO being an opposing force to Russia and an organisation that Russia's military views as a threat, moving into areas that Russia has moved out of.When it is obvious that those areas needed to remain neutral.Thereby removing the potential 'threat' from Russia's point of view.

Bearing in mind that from the point of view of avoiding WW3 we need to see it from the opponent's point of view not the same old one sided blinkered Russia bad NATO good propaganda that is doing nothing but fooling ourselves.

Could you just reaffirm your point, highlighted in BOLD, for us again...now I might be wrong [but I'm not] but pouring "russian" people into an area is hardly an act of neutrality, ask The Finns if you need that explained further.

Oh and cut the WW3 burnt to a crisp crap, it doesn't impress anyone.

Neutral meaning no need to move NATO into areas that Russia moved out of.Assuming the Cold War was supposedly over and it is supposedly only now Putin who is the problem since that time,then why the need for eastward NATO expansion under Yeltsin's administration.

As for thinking that Russia is bluffing about the nuclear option 'if' NATO doesn't start seeing sense that's your choice.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 19:00

As always you deny the right to self determination.

[vonuber]

The main thing of course is that if Russia hadn't intervened directly, the fighting would in all likelihood have been well over by now.

[XJ Flyer]

Mojocvh said:

XJ Flyer said:

Mojocvh said:

XJ Flyer said:

Blib said:

Is NATO forcing independent nations to join in its inexorable 'march' Eastwards?

The point is NATO being an opposing force to Russia and an organisation that Russia's military views as a threat, moving into areas that Russia has moved out of.When it is obvious that those areas needed to remain neutral.Thereby removing the potential 'threat' from Russia's point of view.

Bearing in mind that from the point of view of avoiding WW3 we need to see it from the opponent's point of view not the same old one sided blinkered Russia bad NATO good propaganda that is doing nothing but fooling ourselves.

Could you just reaffirm your point, highlighted in BOLD, for us again...now I might be wrong [but I'm not] but pouring "russian" people into an area is hardly an act of neutrality, ask The Finns if you need that explained further.

Oh and cut the WW3 burnt to a crisp crap, it doesn't impress anyone.

Neutral meaning no need to move NATO into areas that Russia moved out of.Assuming the Cold War was supposedly over and it is supposedly only now Putin who is the problem since that time,then why the need for eastward NATO expansion under Yeltsin's administration.

As for thinking that Russia is bluffing about the nuclear option 'if' NATO doesn't start seeing sense that's your choice.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 19:00

As always you deny the right to self determination.

There is a big difference between self determination and NATO membership.The fact is if you join NATO you automatically become a potential enemy of Russia and therefore a threat to it especially in the case of being on Russia's borders.

Whereas remaining neutral at least removes that issue.

The question being why would anyone see any advantage in the former of those in a defence environment that's based on the idea of nuclear deterrents.

The other question being assuming that the Cold War was supposedly 'over' then why would there have been any need for those new EU members to want to join NATO anyway.

The fact is as I've said Russia set a test for NATO to either pass,by showing good faith by staying out of the ex soviet/WP states.Or a trap to walk into by eastward expansion up to Russia's borders.As we've seen NATO chose the latter.In which case,from Russia's point of view,the Cold War was obviously back on from that time.Hence Putin being put into office.

Which just leaves the question does NATO want to turn a potentially catastrophic miscalculation,in the form of eastward expansion into the ex soviet and WP states,into a guaranteed one in the form of expansion into Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

The realisation that we are now back in a Cold War environment and a situation that's least as serious as that during the Cuban Missile Crisis as part of that in this case,might help in that regard.