Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?
Discussion
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.
The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.
I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.
Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.
alfaman said:
jmorgan said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.
The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.scherzkeks said:
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.
It isn't. It is a Western-manufactured crisis.soad said:
alfaman said:
jmorgan said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
Ironically history suggests that in most cases if we leave Russia alone they'll leave us alone.
The Finnish history suggests otherwise, read my previous posts.Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.
I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.
Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.
Admittedly Russia is always going to be a problem.However it views the west just the same in large part because of the aforementioned German aggression.In which case moving NATO conventional capability eastward can only add to that problem.While the excuse for that being all about Putin seems to overlook the fact that NATO expansion started before Putin was in office.
As for NATO as it stands it is now the worst of all worlds alliance driven by too many countries with personal historic 'issues' with Russia which they aren't prepared to forget.Who are trying to pick conventional fights with a country which,if/when push comes to shove, still sees defence in terms of the assured destruction provided by the strategic nuclear option.While America is looking for the exit in that regard in a futile attempt to save itself and Russia knows it.Which leaves the real question in this case is it worth ending it all over the idea that Russia isn't going to allow Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to be taken by the EU and NATO.While also wanting,what it maybe rightly sees as,the NATO threat to it by eastward expansion,either stopped and reversed.Or if not liquidated.
I'm guessing that all the brave anti Russia talk will go quiet when it becomes increasingly obvious that Russia is prepared to fry the Northern Hemisphere over the argument.The question is are the opposition in that case.Doubtful.In which case it is better for all concerned to start looking for a compromise now than to keep digging itself further into a hole which trust me no one will want to find the bottom of.
Munter said:
scherzkeks said:
alfaman said:
It IS all about Ukraine wanting to join Europe.
It isn't. It is a Western-manufactured crisis.XJ Flyer said:
You seem a bit selective in your references to historic 'attacks'.Eastern Europe was also attacked by Germany so was western Europe.However everyone seems to have managed to move on in the case of Germany.
Yeah, they stopped and were militarily hobbled for a few generations. Putin likes his power and is not about to let go and sod anyone who gets in the way.XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.
Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.
Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19
XJ Flyer said:
Finlandia said:
XJ Flyer said:
So far we've got a reference to two so called 'wars' between Russia and Finland,an aircraft somehow being taken out,and a Russian sub being somewhere that it shouldn't have been.You haven't answered the question about exactly which 'wars' are being referred to while the other two examples aren't exactly something that warrant taking out the northern hemisphere for.Whatever it is you're referring to certainly hasn't been anything which has threatened the existence of us or Scandinavia.So are you really suggesting that you would have preferred for NATO to have ended it all over those examples or are we all better off with the status quo.
I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
Finland was attacked by Soviet/Russia in 1939 and 1941, large parts of Eastern Europe were attacked by Soviet/Russia during and after WW2, the Baltic states, Poland, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Estonia 1991 and now Ukraine 2014, all because they did not jump when Moscow told them to jump.I've seen nothing on your side of the argument that would say that the present 'issues' between Russia and NATO aren't just as I've said.That being a change in US defence policy from one of defence based on the nuclear deterrent to one of offensive containment based on the eastward expansion of NATO into areas close to Russia's borders which Russia views as strategically important to it in at least remaining neutral buffers between it and NATO and/or areas like Crimea which it views as not only strategically important but also Russian territory.
IE another example of Bush's genius strategic thinking this time in trying to isolate America from the implications of the MAD strategy has actually made WW3 between NATO and Russia more likely.While to add insult to injury obviously taking advantage of historic hostile,aggressive, anti Russian feeling in parts of eastern Europe and Finland to do it.With 'friends' like that who needs enemies.
These are just the outright attacks, the bullying was always present, the breaches were/are happening on a regular basis.
Guess why these nations now seek to join EU and even more so to join NATO? Also note it's these nations wanting to join NATO not the other way around.
scherzkeks said:
Munter said:
If a man beats his wife, forces her to his will and refuses to let her do things she wants. Then she threatens to leave him for another man who's kind to her. Who would you say manufactured the crisis in the marriage?
That is a terrible analogy. XJ Flyer said:
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.
Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
Munter said:
XJ Flyer said:
That would depend on the real motives of the new man towards the ex and wether 'kind to her' actually means a sugar daddy who's just trying to use bribery to get at the ex.While in general divorce usually means splitting the assets which in this case the ex is prepared to fight for what he arguably rightly sees as his with nuclear weapons.
Wow. The paranoia is strong with this one.There is no bit of land that belongs to Ukraine that Putin can "arguably rightly sees as his". It's a sovereign state that other sovereign states should allow to do what it wants. Not decide it's doing the wrong thing, bribing officials and start shooting the place up to get what they want.
Nobody is there to "get at" anybody. All the west wants is a stable trading partner. If Russia want the same thing all they need to do is stop smacking Ukraine around, get back inside their own border and make themselves look attractive, rather than playing the hard man (or tosser as it's otherwise known)
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 1st September 15:19
Or NATO can just carry on the way it is going in which case the original question stands.Are you willing to wipe out the world as we know it just to keep NATO moving eastwards as part of another one of Bush's genius strategic master plans,or compromise.
However I'm guessing that NATO knows I'm right in regards to the 'reasons' why Russia is throwing it's toys out of the pram but America is too thick to realise that Bush's plan has been rumbled by Russia and we're now back in the Cold War which never actually went away.Although having said that things 'might' just have turned out differently 'if' NATO hadn't moved in when and where Russia moved out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff