Aggression by Russia/uk?
Discussion
JagLover said:
The Crimea is either Russian, Tartar, or the peoples the Tartars displaced (if you want to go ever further back in history). What it has never been is Ukrainian. Khrushchev handed it over to the Ukraine in 1954 without any popular vote on the issue and many believe that this contravened USSR law, but went ahead anyway.
Makes no difference what so ever. Crimea was and still is legal part of independent Ukraine. If local population wants it to be Russian territory it needs to be done without little green men from Moscow. There is only one proper action to correct current situation. Crimea is returned to Ukraine and Russia pays preparations. Until this is done financial sanctions need to be kept and increased up to complete shutdown of trade with it. If this is not done its only matter of time they do it again and again to some other areas.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.
If I had to guess the vote would have been for autonomy rather than to be part of Russia or remain wholly part of Ukraine; they might be ethnically russian but they probably aren't stupid.
Octoposse said:
Depends on how far from shore they were. Because Crimea is an integral part of Russia, whether third parties like it or not (and the people who actually live there rather do).
We could throw our weight behind a deal that recognises that reality, and that would end the conflict elsewhere in Ukraine, but instead have decided that fighting to the last Ukrainian seems preferable.
Well, appeasement under similar circumstances worked out so well in the 1930s...We could throw our weight behind a deal that recognises that reality, and that would end the conflict elsewhere in Ukraine, but instead have decided that fighting to the last Ukrainian seems preferable.
Unknown_User said:
I'm sure this is a political act dreamt up by Bozza and his tory chums designed to appeal to a certain demographic. See the RN recently chugging off to confront French fisherfolk.
Is there a by-election on the horizon?
Zdrávstvuj, comrade! Thanks for the comment but I’d rather get on with my day. Do svidaniya!Is there a by-election on the horizon?
None of this has anything to do with freeing the Crimea, it is a simple flag flying exercise of mutual benefit to both the UK and Russia. The UK can present itself as a courageous defender of the world's freedom, Russia can present itself as a strong military nation, capable of going toe to toe with the West.
Following this there will be stern warnings about the opposing countries behaviour from Putin and Bozza, which again will play well domestically.
Following this there will be stern warnings about the opposing countries behaviour from Putin and Bozza, which again will play well domestically.
While the RN has every right to sail in international waters steaming off the coast of Crimea seems deliberately designed to annoy the Russians. It is not as if it is on the way to anywhere else. It seems to have backfired as it has handed the Russians an opportunity of saying 'we scared off the Royal Navy'.
JagLover said:
That is inaccurate
Crimea was taken in the late 18th century and developed as Russia's main black sea base. The people settling in it were predominantly drawn from Russia rather than the Ukraine. Hence why it was around 50% Russian BEFORE the deportation of the Crimean Tartars.
The Crimea is either Russian, Tartar, or the peoples the Tartars displaced (if you want to go ever further back in history). What it has never been is Ukrainian. Khrushchev handed it over to the Ukraine in 1954 without any popular vote on the issue and many believe that this contravened USSR law, but went ahead anyway.
The Tatar genocide was 1944, after 27 years of Soviet rule and Russian immigration.Crimea was taken in the late 18th century and developed as Russia's main black sea base. The people settling in it were predominantly drawn from Russia rather than the Ukraine. Hence why it was around 50% Russian BEFORE the deportation of the Crimean Tartars.
The Crimea is either Russian, Tartar, or the peoples the Tartars displaced (if you want to go ever further back in history). What it has never been is Ukrainian. Khrushchev handed it over to the Ukraine in 1954 without any popular vote on the issue and many believe that this contravened USSR law, but went ahead anyway.
Ayahuasca said:
While the RN has every right to sail in international waters steaming off the coast of Crimea seems deliberately designed to annoy the Russians. It is not as if it is on the way to anywhere else. It seems to have backfired as it has handed the Russians an opportunity of saying 'we scared off the Royal Navy'.
They are on the way somewhere else, Georgia is the next port of call.Supercilious Sid said:
Unknown_User said:
I'm sure this is a political act dreamt up by Bozza and his tory chums designed to appeal to a certain demographic. See the RN recently chugging off to confront French fisherfolk.
Is there a by-election on the horizon?
Zdrávstvuj, comrade! Thanks for the comment but I’d rather get on with my day. Do svidaniya!Is there a by-election on the horizon?
Ayahuasca said:
While the RN has every right to sail in international waters steaming off the coast of Crimea seems deliberately designed to annoy the Russians. It is not as if it is on the way to anywhere else. It seems to have backfired as it has handed the Russians an opportunity of saying 'we scared off the Royal Navy'.
What if Russia had damaged the UK boat, or even sunk it?What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
Trevor555 said:
What if Russia had damaged the UK boat, or even sunk it?
What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
Barring accidents that's extremely unlikely, people are mistaking posturing for actual aggression here. What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
No one really wants an escalation anyway, because it doesn't really benefit anyone.
Ayahuasca said:
While the RN has every right to sail in international waters steaming off the coast of Crimea seems deliberately designed to annoy the Russians. It is not as if it is on the way to anywhere else. It seems to have backfired as it has handed the Russians an opportunity of saying 'we scared off the Royal Navy'.
Sailing off the Ukrainian coast was deliberately intended to piss-off the Russians that are illegally occupying the Crimea, yes.Just like the QE carrier group will deliberately p
s off the Chinese in the South China Sea.Newarch said:
Trevor555 said:
What if Russia had damaged the UK boat, or even sunk it?
What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
Barring accidents that's extremely unlikely, people are mistaking posturing for actual aggression here. What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
No one really wants an escalation anyway, because it doesn't really benefit anyone.
Does the captain have immediate authority to strike back? Or would our government have 10 meetings before any decision was made?
Evanivitch said:
Sailing off the Ukrainian coast was deliberately intended to piss-off the Russians that are illegally occupying the Crimea, yes.
Just like the QE carrier group will deliberately ps off the Chinese in the South China Sea.
Or the way Rosa Parks sitting on the bus pissed off the segregationists.Just like the QE carrier group will deliberately p
s off the Chinese in the South China Sea.You can't allow Russia China or anyone else to dictate who can use international waters.
Newarch said:
Trevor555 said:
What if Russia had damaged the UK boat, or even sunk it?
What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
Barring accidents that's extremely unlikely, people are mistaking posturing for actual aggression here. What would the UK's response actually be?
Would they have the balls to strike back? Or just invent some sanctions?
I'm just curious.
No one really wants an escalation anyway, because it doesn't really benefit anyone.
What did we do then?
Bill said:
The Tatar genocide was 1944, after 27 years of Soviet rule and Russian immigration.
However you would like to term it 1944 is over a hundred and fifty years after the start of Russian immigration to the region and census carried out before Communism showed a large Russian population. The 1897 census showed roughly equal numbers of Russians and Tartars in the province at around a third of the population each. The Russian share rose to close to 50% just before WW2.The number of Russians was bound to rise as Sevastopol was one of their principal ports.
Which is also, as I pointed out, a bit besides the point when considering whether the Crimea is Russian or Ukrainian as the Tartars certainly aren't Ukrainian.
Edited by JagLover on Thursday 24th June 11:24
Everyone is banging on about this being the U.K. v Russia
If I’m not mistaken isn’t the U.K. ship part of a NATO force conducting “right of passage” movements in international waters ?
Isn’t the U.K. ship also in company with a Dutch and an American destroyer not on its own in the Black Sea?
If I’m not mistaken isn’t the U.K. ship part of a NATO force conducting “right of passage” movements in international waters ?
Isn’t the U.K. ship also in company with a Dutch and an American destroyer not on its own in the Black Sea?
And as if by chance, not only was a BBC journalist on board, so was a member of the Daily Wail...!!!
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/what-are-th...
Obviously every single Royal Navy ship has a member of the Daily Heil on board when they sail in contested waters.
Just remind me when that by-election is?
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/what-are-th...
Obviously every single Royal Navy ship has a member of the Daily Heil on board when they sail in contested waters.
Just remind me when that by-election is?
Earthdweller said:
Everyone is banging on about this being the U.K. v Russia
If I’m not mistaken isn’t the U.K. ship part of a NATO force conducting “right of passage” movements in international waters ?
Isn’t the U.K. ship also in company with a Dutch and an American destroyer not on its own in the Black Sea?
Is it? You certainly wouldn't know that from the coverage. They usually do these things as part of an international effort so I'm sure you are correct. If I’m not mistaken isn’t the U.K. ship part of a NATO force conducting “right of passage” movements in international waters ?
Isn’t the U.K. ship also in company with a Dutch and an American destroyer not on its own in the Black Sea?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff