Aggression by Russia/uk?
Discussion
jimothyc said:
This is rather similar to the time they transited a Russian aircraft carrier through the English channel on it's way to the Med. We kept a close eye on it at the time, but I beleive we stopped somewhat short of letting off any guns or dropping any bombs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364
Not similar at all.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38745364
The Straits of Dover have international law that permits freedom of navigation, which is the same rights that allow the RN to sail into the Black Sea and South China Sea (QEC group destination), despite being within the 12 miles of sovereign nations.
Russia are claiming the RN have sailed within 12 miles of the Russian coast in an area not covered by freedom of navigation. This is wrong. Crimea is not Russian territory.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-richmond-escor...
Evanivitch said:
Permanent solution to a dispute that validates Russian policy to invade sovereign nations and annex land. How is that an acceptable way forward?
It sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
Where ever his employer tells him the line isIt sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
Dagnir said:
Given the proximity of the Russian vessels and aircraft, It does sound like the usual aggression.
Pretty bored of their arrogance...
I thought the armed forces (esp RAF) liked the Russian Tu-142 Bears getting close as it allowed them to practice with a real "target" and it kept both sides sharp?Pretty bored of their arrogance...
Evanivitch said:
Crimea is not Russian territory.
Russia since 1783 (apart from a brief hiatus during which it voted for pro-Russia parties), elects representatives to the Russian Duma, majority population who speak Russian and think of themselves as Russian, controlled by Russia. Looks a bit Russian to me!Octoposse said:
Evanivitch said:
Crimea is not Russian territory.
Russia since 1783 (apart from a brief hiatus during which it voted for pro-Russia parties), elects representatives to the Russian Duma, majority population who speak Russian and think of themselves as Russian, controlled by Russia. Looks a bit Russian to me!
Evanivitch said:
Permanent solution to a dispute that validates Russian policy to invade sovereign nations and annex land. How is that an acceptable way forward?
It sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
Well, there’s two angles - principle and pragmatism.It sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
The pragmatism is simple - there is no conceivable sequence of events that ends up with Russia giving up Crimea. So what is the point of keeping the conflict going in Eastern Ukraine rather than negotiating a settlement?
The principle? Well, included in the founding principles of the United Nations is self determination of peoples . . . something we resolutely refuse to acknowledge that applies even to people who speak Russian. The majority population is Russian. As for precedent, Kosovo.
Octoposse said:
ussia since 1783 (apart from a brief hiatus during which it voted for pro-Russia parties), elects representatives to the Russian Duma, majority population who speak Russian and think of themselves as Russian, controlled by Russia. Looks a bit Russian to me!
1. Forcibly imposed Russian governance doesn't make it a legitimate regime.2. Americans are not British. Brazilians are not Portuguese. As per my previous point, when you arrest those that actively oppose you, and punish those that refuse to follow you, then "think" is a stretched term.
3. I guess your optics are very different to most people outside of Россия.
Octoposse said:
Well, there’s two angles - principle and pragmatism.
The pragmatism is simple - there is no conceivable sequence of events that ends up with Russia giving up Crimea. So what is the point of keeping the conflict going in Eastern Ukraine rather than negotiating a settlement?
Russia starts a conflict and the only pragmatic resolution is to give them what they want?The pragmatism is simple - there is no conceivable sequence of events that ends up with Russia giving up Crimea. So what is the point of keeping the conflict going in Eastern Ukraine rather than negotiating a settlement?
How about Russia stops the violence and returns to its own border. That sounds rather pragmatic to me. It requires no additional cost in blood, steel and money.
Octoposse said:
The principle? Well, included in the founding principles of the United Nations is self determination of peoples . . . something we resolutely refuse to acknowledge that applies even to people who speak Russian. The majority population is Russian. As for precedent, Kosovo.
The right to self determination is a valuable thing. So why isn't Russia respecting that?https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert...
The term “refuseniks” applies to the 3,500 Ukrainian citizens who refused Russian citizenship in 2014. That number would be far higher if people had been given more than two weeks to apply for the right to refuse Russian citizenship. That’s right. Ukrainian citizens had to stand in long lines to apply for the right to refuse citizenship that they didn’t want.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/01/new-crim...
She is one of around 11,000 foreign landowners on the peninsula — most of them Ukrainian — who are no longer allowed to own land under Russian law.
In March 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law prohibiting foreigners from owning land in most parts of Crimea — including the popular coastal areas of Sevastopol, Kerch, Yalta and Yevpatoriya — giving them a year to sell or register their property with a Russian citizen. It came into force on March 20.
Octoposse said:
Evanivitch said:
Permanent solution to a dispute that validates Russian policy to invade sovereign nations and annex land. How is that an acceptable way forward?
It sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
Well, there’s two angles - principle and pragmatism.It sounds like your solution to saving lives is to give into bully-boy tactics with a passive response. So can I ask, where do you draw lines?
The pragmatism is simple - there is no conceivable sequence of events that ends up with Russia giving up Crimea. So what is the point of keeping the conflict going in Eastern Ukraine rather than negotiating a settlement?
The principle? Well, included in the founding principles of the United Nations is self determination of peoples . . . something we resolutely refuse to acknowledge that applies even to people who speak Russian. The majority population is Russian. As for precedent, Kosovo.
Having Russian heritage is not the same as wanting to be governed by Putin and his kleptomaniacs.
And what a surprise that you trotted out Kosovo. You can't have it both ways. Either Kosovo was acceptable or or it wasn't. Russia thinks it wasn't, yet uses it as an excuse for its own behaviour. It's an argument that would embarrass a three year old.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 23 June 19:26
That article says UK gonna build 2 naval ports in Ukraine. Make things exciting in a few years!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-agreem...
Wow imagine all this happens so soon after that agreement was signed on board!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-signs-agreem...
Wow imagine all this happens so soon after that agreement was signed on board!
ATG said:
Anyone ask the Crimeans what they wanted? You know, with a free and fair referendum with international observers.
Having Russian heritage is not the same as wanting to be governed by Putin and his kleptomaniacs.
And what a surprise that you trotted out Kosovo. You can't have it both ways. Either Kosovo was acceptable or or it wasn't. Russia thinks it wasn't, yet uses it as an excuse for its own behaviour. It's an argument that would embarrass a three year old.
We’ll, if a referendum is the way forward (and that seems reasonable) then let’s table the idea. But that’s not our policy - it’s that Ukraine’s borders are fixed and inviolable, irrespective of the wishes of any populations within them, and that the principle of self determination of peoples does not apply (except when we say it does).Having Russian heritage is not the same as wanting to be governed by Putin and his kleptomaniacs.
And what a surprise that you trotted out Kosovo. You can't have it both ways. Either Kosovo was acceptable or or it wasn't. Russia thinks it wasn't, yet uses it as an excuse for its own behaviour. It's an argument that would embarrass a three year old.
Edited by ATG on Wednesday 23 June 19:26
Ergo the relevance of Kosovo - Serbia had internationally recognised borders too, that it took a 78 day bombing campaign to ‘redraw’.
Octoposse said:
We’ll, if a referendum is the way forward (and that seems reasonable) then let’s table the idea. But that’s not our policy - it’s that Ukraine’s borders are fixed and inviolable, irrespective of the wishes of any populations within them, and that the principle of self determination of peoples does not apply (except when we say it does).
Ergo the relevance of Kosovo - Serbia had internationally recognised borders too, that it took a 78 day bombing campaign to ‘redraw’.
Why don't you address my points about "self determination" in Crimea?Ergo the relevance of Kosovo - Serbia had internationally recognised borders too, that it took a 78 day bombing campaign to ‘redraw’.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff