UKC

Why isn't this bigger news?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28972878

Is everyone pretending it's not happening? Or that it doesn't have implications?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It is all over the news

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Is the Ukraine in Europe?

It is worrying with the posturing between the sides, and I wonder how far Russia will push this. The west are powerless to stop this without escalating the situation.

In reply to balmybaldwin: Well, they want to be. It was them wanting to sign up to various EU agreements that kicked this all off in the first place.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The West will just continue to fund, arm and support as much as they can their preffered side on the sly as usual. Leaders may condemn it on the telly or something.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Are you really saying that the West didn't help the fall of the previous Kiev regime and is not helping them now? That the USA didn't maintain pressure on Russia throughout all those years of the Cold War, that all those "coloured revolutions" were in no way stimulated by the West, that the fall of the Soviet Union was in no way helped by Western actions and that the steady pushing East of NATO is a figment of Russian imagination?

You seem to be one of those people who only sees the acts of the side you dislike and are totally blind to the acts of the side you favour.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


There goes another irony meter.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Black...pot...kettle......rearrange words to suit, Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Er, no, I'm not sure I'm commenting on any of those things. I think your extrapolation drive has possibly overheated.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

And I think you're a poor troll - leave that to Lemming.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


From your UKC posting that sounds a lot like you.

In reply to mrbird:

True

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Another good arms sale opportunity if ever we saw one.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


This is not true. The G8 summit is next week and I believe the matter is to be settled in a grudge match of paper, scissors, stone between Putin and Obama.

In reply to ByEek:

Teabagging at dawn.

D

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

.It appears as though parents of Russian soldiers are waking upto the fact that their sons are being killed/captured in action in Ukraine and yet they are being told they have been killed whilst on training exercises.A couple of the so called liberal Russian newspapers are reporting this. You can spin a story so far, until the truth comes out.

There have been some fascinating articles in the FT and the likes about the development of " hybrid " warfare.

It will be interesting to see if the French actually do sell those 2 helicopter carriers to Russia. I believe there are about 600 Russian sailors undergoing extensive training in France at the moment as part of the deal. Might be better if the European Army bought them off France instead.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



This made me smile Brucie Bonus.

E

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It seems the Ukraine is now asking to join Nato... that'll calm the Ruskies down!

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Especially as they were promised that if the let E Germany go without a fight there would be no Eastward movement by NATO.

I imagine you are being ironical but alas many of the pro-NATO ukcers will take you literally... they seem incapable of ever trying to see the world from the other man's point of view, whether it be Russia, Palestine, Gibraltar or the Malvinas they all step in line behind the Daily Mail like good little puppies, yet all the while swear blind that they are so "liberal" and would never read the Mail.

Funny, isn't it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It is.. but so is your blind insistence on taking the 'other sides' view..

You've still not explained why China should not give up Tibet?

The fact that you say 'let East Germany go'.. is incredible.. it was a free country that wanted unification. Or are you now advocating for holding people against their will?

So Crimea should be russia because the Crimean population want to be russian.. but Gibralter shouldn't be British even though Gibraltans want to be British?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I'm curious as to where Gunrun is on these debates? Is she on the front line in Ukraine or something?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think it's good news we're responding with economic sanctions and backing the Ukraine on the sly. 100 years ago Russian mobilisation was one of the factors leading to world war - maybe we have learned something

In reply to IainRUK:

East Germany was anything but a free country at the time that Russia let it go.

Whilst clearly against the will of the East German people, it wasn't in Russia's best interests as the subsequent collapse of the USSR showed... without the assurances of NATO that it wouldn't move further east, I expect the revolution would have been put down in a very bloody mess.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Technically it was..

In reply to IainRUK:


Crimea is a particularly good example since the pro Russian population bias is due to the fact that just after WWII the USSR carried out forced migrations to remove a large portion of the population and then brought in others to replace them.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Leaving Bruces trolling/lunancy to one side.
It has got plenty of press. However think it is more a case of the governments mostly staying out of it since they really dont want to start WW3.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>




Because we are scared of the situation escalating into full scale war(WW3?)

Obama is a nice guy but lacks the determination of a Kennedy, not to mention the fact that Ukraine is much further away from the USA than Cuba, so the risk seems less immediate to the USA.

Putin is testing the West, and the more he gets away with the bolder he becomes.

In reply to Trangia:

Its now pretty much accepted russian troops are in Ukraine, but the Ukrainian rebels say the troops are there on their summer holidays.. just opted to fight in a civil war than be at the beach on the black sea...

In reply to IainRUK:


And funnily enough when they get back their 'training' will probably be on a beach on the black sea

In reply to IainRUK:


Whereas their parents are being told they're on manoeuvres.

In reply to Trangia:


I'm not sure that anyone will start a war ( or a war by proxy ) over the baltic states or Ukraine . They are not of strategic value to the USA , although face would be lost if they became occupied or semi annexed .
The thing that would seriously give the green light to world war 3 would be a major attack on Iran by Israel - and judging by the regular violations of Iranian airspace by Israeli and US drones , we must assume that such a situation is not unlikely .

In reply to IainRUK:

I wonder what would happen if UK troops just went to Syria to shoot some ISIS guys and/or Assad in the face for their holidays.

In reply to SethChili:

If you were in Poland you might be pretty nervous from a historical point of view. And Poland has been pretty vociferous about the position.

Estonia etc are all members of NATO and we back their security.That is why there are RAF typhoons there at the moment protecting the airspace.

In reply to IainRUK:


I realise you are younger than me but even so I would have thought you would have heard of the Second World war and the somewhat key role that Germany played in it and how after years of struggle and millions of deaths, most of them in the Soviet Union, the advancing Red Army met up with the Allies, principally Britain and it's Empire and the USA, at a line which became the border between Western and Eastern zones of influence for many years to come. The division of Germany was the will of all the victors, not just Russia, everyone wan't to avoid Germany building up to critical mass for a third time in one century... all this and so many other details seems to have escaped you completely.

I blame the school system.

In reply to neilh:

But in a hypothetical situation , would the US , UK or other major nato powers actually go to war with Russia if a russian jet bombed a Latvian military base or a group of Spetznaz crossed the border and caused trouble .
Treaties have been broken before and I think that no one in whitehall or washington will be interested in taking casualties for a country with a GDP of $28 billion ?

In reply to IainRUK:


Again something to blame on the education system (although to be fair I didn't know it either until the civil war in Ukraine broke out) Crimea was Russia until 1954, had been for centuries, and was a vital military base for Russia being it's main warm sea port. For reasons that are not clear, and some even put down to too much vodka inside Khrushchev, it was transferred by decree to the Ukraine, as an administrative measure within the same political unit, ie. the USSR. This was of no difficulty even after the split of the USSR as long as the Ukraine remained neutral but became a problem both for Russia and the Crimeans when anti-Russian, and rather unpleasant, pro-Western coup d'Etat happened. The presence of extreme elements, harking back to the collaborationists of WW2, even the Russian language was dropped for a while, lead the demand from Crimeans to return to Russia, or rather for many, get away from the Kiev junta. Russia agreed and this went trough with very little violence.

Compared with the bloodbath in the remaining part of Ukraine they seem to have made a sensible choice.

In reply to Trangia:


Seriously don't you think there is also the same thing from NATO and the West? If the Ukraine joins NATO then Russia will have NATO right on it's frontier. A situation that could lead to serious instability and would only be of interest to the military interests within NATO, who have been looking for excuses for their continued existence ever since the end of the Cold War. Brinkmanship works from both sides and if you look at a map since the end of WW2 the front-line has been moving steadily East, not West.

That's not just my opinion, or lunacy as one stalwart ukc NATO groupie will have it, it is a simple, observable geographical fact.

In reply to IainRUK:


And how many Western troops, either training personnel or mercenaries, are fighting against the population of East Ukraine? Do you remember the start of the military operations? at first the official Ukraine Army soldiers laid down their arm and refused to fire on civilians... now they that stopped all of a sudden and the death toll beats that in Gaza, over 2500 have died on minimum estimates. The change was brought about by replacing conscripts with new less scrupulous killers.

I can't say the slaughter has not been reported but it's hardly being covered in depth, the massacre in the Trade Union building, for example, has dropped off our screens entirely and yet it was a bloodier episode worse than any single operation committed by the IDF.

So on this subject perhaps you should read your Bible and take the beam out of your own eye before going on about the speck in that of the other.

In reply to SethChili:

Russia signed up to respect the borders of Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

In reply to trouserburp:


So it is economic sanctions that is the big threat that is going to frighten them.

What are we paying all that money for Trident for then if it is not going to deter anyone?
( as they know we are not going to use them

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The difference being that Eastern European countries have joined NATO of their own free will. NATO, unlike Russia doesn't and hasn't forced itself on other countries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Who are Russia to dictate to the other countries whether they should look east or west? All these ex-Soviet countries simply prefer to be part of NATO / the EU rather than be part of Russia.

In reply to Trangia:


Pull the other one, Russia is doing exactly what any other country would do in this position securing it's borders. NATO on the other hand invade countries on a regular basis.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's simply Putin-esque propaganda bollocks to state that the Ukrainians are fighting against the population of East Ukraine. They are fighting against terrorists who form a small proportion of the population (in addition to Russian troops, it would appear).

In reply to The Mystery Toad:


Except it appears not to know where the borders are...

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

Maybe something to do with the ongoing civil war?

In reply to The Mystery Toad: Could you remind me which countries NATO has invaded? Obviously you wouldn't be stupid enough to mention Afghanistan or Iraq.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'And how many Western troops, either training personnel or mercenaries, are fighting against the population of East Ukraine? '

At a guess, Bruce, zero. Do you know something different?

In reply to The Mystery Toad:

Which countries?

In reply to The Mystery Toad:


The civil war which you would think would make Russian soldiers think twice about going on holiday there...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28986764

Poland blocks Russian defence minister's jet

In reply to SethChili:

You do not know. Its a little too close for comfort if that happened. The key is to draw a big red line to say it shouldn't.At the moment most European countrys have run down their military spending to around 1per cent of gdp. I suspect we may have some uncomfortable discussions about increasing that at the price of spending in other areas.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hold on.. so centuries = valid claim for land… Crimea..

Decades of occupation = invalid claim for land.. Isreal's case..

Can we have a Bruce Hookers timeline for valid claims.. once you've occupied for X numbers of yours your claim is valid.. So far Israel.. invalid claim..

So centuries makes it OK..

Yet the British have held Gibraltar for centuries, over 300 years now, and that's not valid…

Tibet have been occupied by China for 60 years.. that's valid..

Crimea has been occupied by Russia for Centuries.. that's valid..

The British have colonised the Falklands for 170 years, that's not valid..

Israel have occupied Palestine for 50-60 years, that's not valid..

You seem to be picking and choosing when we undo history.. I'm for leaving things as they are now in all cases as long as freedom and liberty of all peoples is protected.. something China doesn't allow in Tibet FYI..

In reply to IainRUK:

Agree whole heartedly. Bruce just picks and chooses to suit his view of politics and then selectively cherry picks bits of history to try and bolster his tenuous theories.

Suspect things might go quiet on the Bruce front now. He's gone from very vocal to totally absent on the Hamas thread, still he did give me something to laugh about.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>too much vodka

Exactly

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I've tried pointing out to you before, Russia (and the USSR before it) has always had borders with NATO.

In reply to Trangia:


Are you sure about that? Tell it to the Greeks, the Vietnamese, and quite a few others just after the war and countless more countries since which "voluntarily" fell under the influence of the West all over the world since, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya being the latest.

It's not just the "others" who throw their weight around.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


His Master's Voice speaking - pull the other one it's got bells on!

Didn't you see the films of crowds persuading the tanks to turn back and Ukrainian soldiers giving up their weapons rather than shoot on the people - and they weren't Russian films they were made by the BBC or AFP. or the massacre of 50 or so people in the Trade Union building... the terrorists are those following orders from Kiev. All they have to do is negotiate regional autonomy for parts of East Ukraine, that's what the "rebels" want, but they prefer killing, over 2500 up to now of which many civilians. All facts not a word of spin in it... but there's none so blind as those who will not see.

In reply to TobyA:


But only in the North, this would be in their heartland - take a look at google maps.

In reply to atrendall:

I was working, I don't spend all my life on ukc! (quite)

In reply to IainRUK:


How many times do I have to say this, since the countries of the world got together and said might was no longer right, basically since the UN was set up. Are you dense or something, I've posted this several times in the last few days and numerous times before.. I think I have in a reply to you. What's the point in replying if you don't read them?

It's not the only factor though, the violence of the acts, the danger they present to the planet are others and in both cases Israel presents very serious problems.

Concerning Gibraltar, Spain is now a democracy in the EU, the least Britain could have done to consolidate this would have been to hand back the sovereignty of the rock and arrange a lease for the port facilities as a sign of good will.

Concerning the Malvinas this has been contested by Argentina ever since they were taken over, numerous other threads have covered this minor problem so if you want my arguments use the "search" function.

Tibet was part of China for more than centuries, thousands of years, it's nothing new and anyway someone had to get rid of the feudal domination (average life span about 40 years) and this represents a vital security question for China as Crimea does for Russia... maybe you think the USA would return Hawaii to its native population? But again there have been numerous threads on the subject in which I have participated, use the "search" button, and stop the red herrings.

For the nth time if you are against Tibet having "occupied" China how come you support Palestine being occupied by the zionists? You accuse me of being incoherent but you are yourself - I have pointed this out to you 3 times at least and you have never answered.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I dont support Palestines occupation.. I just think a just fair society was better.. if Palestine was just.. equal.. maybe.. as it is it's a homophobic state..

A gay arab would rather live in a racist Israel.. than a homophobic Palestine.. tbh I think the best outcome is two states which let people have their own beliefs and lifestyles.. something neither allow..

Logistically, like with NZ, the US, Australia, I don't think Israel can be disbanded and returned to its native people..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Spain? The country which won't allow Basques as a separate nation and also hold colonies all over…

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Excellent. What bits of which countries do we get as gestures of goodwill?


Oh well, it's just a pity that "the countries of the world got together and said might was no longer right" - which unfortunately means that when the inhabitants of a few islands don't want a hostile takeover they don't have to have one.


Any other countries that we should occupy just because we disagree with their regimes, their lifespans and their strategic threat. I assume North Korea has to be near the top of the list.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Tell me which countries bordering Russia NATO has forced to join it so as to "threaten" Russia?


The same question to L The Mystery Toad which you failed to answer last night.

In reply to Trangia:

Nato led offensives on or beyond it's borders since the Berlin wall came down. Note this is nothing covert, just basic stuff broadcast at great lengths on mainstream media.

Kuwait
North Iraq and Turkey
Former Yugoslavia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sea lanes around Somalia
Libya

In reply to The Mystery Toad:

In what way did these expeditions directly threaten Russia or force these countries to join NATO?

In reply to IainRUK:


Maybe Britain, the oldest democracy in the world, the land of the "Mother of Parliaments" could show a good example... or is this really asking too much?

The days where our Dreadnoughts need coaling ports all over the planet are finished, don't you think?

In reply to off-duty:


All the nearby bits of our country occupied by other countries seems reasonable... I'd be the first in the street marching next to you to reclaim them. You'll have to find even one square yard first though!

In reply to Trangia:


Yugoslavia is one, don't you remember the way that was bombed into submission after being thoroughly destabilised. But NATO doesn't work quite so openly in general, look at the way they are gradually preparing public opinion for involvement in the Ukraine... did you see their spokesman on the telly last night? Since when do army officers of international bodies make such political statements publicly? Isn't this a job for elected politicians? NATO has become a machine defending its own uncontrolled objectives... they'll have us at war before you know it, anything to justify their existence.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So by those standards the Russians should be getting out of the Ukraine. Since the pro-Russian population bias in some parts is due to the USSR brutal mass relocations of people they didnt like and then sending in their own colonists.
Good we got that one sorted.


Britain would have been happy to. Its just the people who live there disagree. Since they arent treated as a colonial population we cant just ignore them.


Impressive that since the UK was on the Falklands before the Agrentinans had even been thought of, let alone butchered their way from Buenos Aires to the coast.


Well for starters its not thousands of years. Only, at best, a few hundred, with several rebellions and periods of very loose control.
By those standards the UK would still be able claim ownership of large parts of the world based on the previous empire.


Which, strangely enough, was the average Chinese lifespan at the time they so kindly helped tibet out.


Is the majority of the population in favour?



Who says they are? The Tibet issue has the advantage it would be a lot easier to resolve though.

In reply to dissonance:


Perhaps you should check out the history of the area... Russia started in Kiev.


What about the Spanish people?


Nonsense, but we won't go back though that again, the first settlement was French, passed onto Spain, then to what was to become Argentina, but we've been through all that before.


Again read your history, but discuss it on another thread please instead of blocking this one


So the British Empire was historically part of Britain/England and is contiguous? I see.


So you can at least admit the enormous improvements the Chinese Revolution has brought to the area, again a good subject for a thread, but not a reason to hijack this one


This sentence is incomprehensible so I can't answer it. Were you getting over-excited? Better take your morning pills.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Russia started in Kiev'. Totally bizarre. Yes the Russ did originally settle there, and the Angles started in Schleswig-Holstein. Does that fall within Brucie's statute of limitations, can we go and invade because that's where we came from too?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Are you thinking of places like Mellila?
Or places like Wales and Scotland where England has offered the opportunity for their populace to democratically determine their own future?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Actually, the split is pretty much even, Tibet has been independent from China or governed China for around the same amount of time as it's been a part of China.

At the time when China invaded Tibet, Tibet was independent.

If you look at the Bhutan Region, which was also feudal when Tibet was during the Chinese invasion, that country now has democracy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
So as Scotland has been part of the UK for hundreds of years are you proposing we invade should Scotland gain independence?

The people of the Falklands want UK rule... Similarly Gibraltar.. That's your argument for Crimea being annexed.. Which you support...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What like letting the people decide?

Doing what the population want?

Or is your idea of setting an example of a great democracy is for Britain to go against the wishes of the people in those regions?

Come on Brucie this is too easy...

In reply to Timmd:


It has also governed China at one time... a complex history and one in which China has been the richest and most developed country in the world over 4000 years for all but the couple of centuries which have just finished. Two centuries of domination by imperial powers that they are not ready to forget - which is what I mean by trying to see things from the other man's point of view.

In reply to IainRUK:





And the Spanish people in all this? Really you are incapable of breaking out of the Bulldog British mind set, do you wear Union Jack underpants?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Which? Gibraltar wants to be part of the UK... My view is let those people decide...

Tibet..,

Basque..

Scotland...

Crimea..

No bulldog spirit.. Democracy mate...

In reply to off-duty:


No, I was thinking of places equivalent to Gibraltar, little pieces of the British Isles that are held by foreign countries against British wishes but they won't give back... Try as I may I can't find any.

Mellila doesn't seem to be part of GB according to Wikipedia it's miles and miles away... I don't think any British claim, none of which I can find any trace of, would have much chance of success, and nor should it.

In reply to IainRUK:
For the third time, what about the rights of the Spanish people, don't they count? Basically what you are announcing is the "colonialists charter", get a bit of land by whatever means, push in plenty of people who are largely dependent on the metropolitan economy, then say lets have a vote, if we win it's ours for good!

A good try but this con-trick has been tried before and found wanting.

PS. At least we agree on one thing though, Crimea is legitimately part of Russia again.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:





You know, Mellila - small Spanish enclave on the Mediterranean coast of Morocco, just 250 miles from, err, Ceuta....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
That's democracy... The minority loses out, like in the Crimea...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Normandy? Gascony? Aquitaine?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Or woman's.

What about Tibet's point of view (given that the Bhutan is now democratic after being feudal when Tibet was)?

Oh I forgot, China need a buffer zone...so that's all right then?

If you're going to think of the other person's point of view, it has to apply universally.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Britain hasn't expressed wishes to get them back of late, that's a key condition. In the other direction the Channel Islands are clearly geographical anomalies, they should really be part of France but as France doesn't ask for them back and neither do the people there's no problem. If one day a rabid nationalist government came to power in France and demanded the return of the Channel Islands I agree it could be embarrassing.

But there's no chance of that, is there?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
they should really be part of France but as France doesn't ask for them back and neither do the people there's no problem. If one day a rabid nationalist government came to power in France and demanded the return of the Channel Islands I agree it could be embarrassing.



why? the channel islands have been connected to the UK for almost 1000 years…

even if they asked for them what actual legitimate claim do they have?

You really do just spout nonsense.. we can't just go on undoing decades, never mind centuries and millennia of history..

you are absolutely barking...

In reply to Timmd:


"Man" is the term used to describe the species.


Indeed, what about it. Is it represented by a bunch of feudal lords living in luxury in India and their Dalai Lama leader? I don't think so myself, he had his chance but blew it by siding with the CIA plan to block the land reform.

In reply to IainRUK:

Hit a raw nerve, did I? Now I know you wear Union Jack knickers! You do know that already the Channel Islands are not part of Great Britain? They belong to the Queen, a relic of "her lands" in Normandy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Erm.. maybe check your history.. and why they crown dependencies.. we didn't claim them… it was the other way around… they came with an invader..

I know they aren't part of GB.. I said connected..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>


i dont wish to hijack the thread, but you know me, i can't let that pass without comment



that's all the truth; but its not the whole truth.

there was a british settlement prior to the transfer of the french one to spain

and the reason for that act of generosity by the french?

the edict of a 15th century pope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas

hardly a reliable bedrock for a 21st century sovereignty claim...

along with many others, i do struggle to find consistency in your views on sovereignty issues. i agree Iain's position- sovereignty for Tibet, but not palestine, is hard to understand. but so is your's, sovereignty for Palestine, but not Tibet.

surely its neither, or both?

(my view is self determination for both)

best wishes,

and interesting recommendations you made on the other thread the other night, will check them out,

gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
when did I say no sovereignty for palestine?

I said a two state solution was now probably the only option.. ideally a single state with religious freedom and equality was my preference but I think that ship has sailed..

Tibet is easier as we have borders.. palestine we don't (because of Israel's land grabs).. which is why I always favoured a one state solution..

say palestine is granted sovereignty where do you draw the borders between israel? or should israel be disbanded?

Which I just think is unworkable and would never be accepted..

The problem with I+P is the extremists on both sides are now dominating and destroying any chance of progress. Even with this last ceasefire, which at least doesn't have a deadline, Hamas or some group continued to fire rockets for an hour.. trying to derail the peace process..

In reply to IainRUK:

sorry Iain, misread one of your earlier posts

In reply to IainRUK:

and dont want to turn it into another palestine thread (though its gone pretty off topic already...)

1967 borders seem a reasonable starting point, hard to deliver now given the settlement building. disbanding israel- i think Bruce makes some good points, but i agree its just not going to happen.

more likely, there will be no solution, but another generation of what we've seen already. as the years pass, the extremists grow in power, the gulf between the two sides grows, israel's ability to insulate itself from the consequences of its treatment of the palestinians becomes more complete, and the settlement building continues. pretty grim really.

best wishes,

gregor

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well actually no, during the USSR period, they also had a border with NATO in Turkey. But anyway, you were mistaken once again.

In reply to The Mystery Toad:






You don't seem to know much about the history, structure or the treaty-basis of NATO.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

yeah i think '67 would be the best starting point..

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The Ukrainian situation has had a myriad threads started about it, with none of them actually discussing Ukraine...

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

OK to bring it back on track: Putin should stop lying about Russian involvement - it makes diplomacy and negotiations impossible to conduct - and withdraw troops now. Perhaps it's not too late (despite the deaths of Russian soldiers, reported as 'killed on training exercises') for all concerned to pretend that this didn't really happen.

Then perhaps some negotiations could take place regarding the rights of would-be secessionists; or alternatively, maybe arrangements could be made for those who want to be part of Russia to go and live there. Hmm, now there's a thought...

As it is Putin may be painting himself into a very tight corner, and for someone whose whole - and only - mass appeal is the perception of strength, seems pretty dangerous to me. Hence the OP.

In reply to TobyA:

So the senior nato commanders were just moonlighting then?

In reply to The Mystery Toad:

"Senior NATO commanders" are just senior officers from member state militaries seconded to NATO military commands for periods of time. Of the conflicts you mentioned some NATO had nothing to do with (if you remember Germany and France blocked the Turkish request for Art. IV cooperation in the run up to Iraq, so that NATO wouldn't even help one of its own member states protect its borders, let alone actually do anything in the Iraq invasion) while other were notable NATO-joint operations (albeit ones that showed many of the structural flaws and weaknesses of the organisation).

In reply to TobyA:

They don't pick and choose when they are in Nato, UK / NATO is the default, therefore any conflict involved with more than one NATO county is a NATO grouping. For structures of command and control the HQ May not be NATO but they've given it the go ahead else the operations listed before would never have taken place and campaign medals wouldn't have been awarded.

It's very naive or maybe leading as In the case of this discussion to think otherwise.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think Putin believes he can lie to the world with the same impunity that he lies to the Russian people. That's even without factoring-in whether he actually cares, and I'm not sure that he does. It's worth noting that his stock at home appears never to have been higher than it is now, at least that's my observations from Russians I know. Additionally, the sanctions (the ones imposed by Russia which appear to have more effect on ordinary Russians than the ones imposed by the west) appear to be simply breeding a siege mentality and strengthening the Russian national resolve.


There needs to be some sort of plan in place that would satisfy all parties, but what that can be I really don't know. I think to some extent Putin just can't have a revolution of a corrupt leader succeeding so close to home, so he needs to keep stirring trouble. I have no idea what his aim or strategy is in Ukraine.


Yep, it's a dangerous and worrying development. The only end I can see is if someone within Russia takes him on if things get too bad, and I can't see that happening. Maybe public opinuion will turn against him when Russian soldiers start returning in body bags but I'm not so sure even about that. They seem to think they're fighting a re-run of the Great Patriotic War.

In reply to The Mystery Toad:


No it is not...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Do you think the circumstances concerning Palestine and Tibet are even remotely similar then?


How would you carry out self determination today in the case of Palestine as the majority of Palestinians are living in exile and the approximately 4 or 5 million Jewish settlers have been moved into the area since Israel was set up on their lands?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

He's suggesting, as I understand it, a two state solution, as a start based on the 1967 borders.. that would require some movement of settlers but at least moves back into Israel may be more acceptable, than shifts to random designated countries..

In reply to TobyA:


Russia never had a border with Turkey... been at the vodka?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The USSR had a border with Turkey.

And yes, I have been at the vodka.

Za zdorovie!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



He's pretty clear that he doesn't mean Russia...

In reply to IainRUK:

So you seem to be saying the Uk are not part of Nato?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



trying to compare the two is likely to be unhelpful. for every similarity there are as many differences, in nature and severity.

however, as far as i can see, Tibet is a region that is ethnically different from the rest of china, has a long history of periods of autonomy, and whose inhabitants have a wish to be independent from china. there has been a policy to encourage migration of han chinese to tibet, to the point that tibetans are now a minority in their own country, and unrest directed at security more autonomy has met with violent responses.

from what i've read, my sympathies lie with tibetans, though i'm happy to listen to arguments as to why they should be elsewhere...


if i knew the answer to that, i'd be up for the Nobel peace prize...

2 states along the 1967 borders seems the only realistic possibility. but even that seems a forlorn hope at present. if america's current support were to change in the future- then who knows? there are demographic changes in america going on, and who's to say that the current priorities, of unflinching military and economic support for israel, will be the same in 30, 50, 100 years time. if america scales back its backing, then that will change the settlement that can be achieved. until then, i think its stuck the way things are now, sadly,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to The Mystery Toad:

No I'm not.. but I think the UK and the US can act independently of NATO..

Like they can be part of the UN and act independently of the UN..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Here's a clue, take a look at how all the other 19th and 20th century colonisations have been dealt with. There is no other solution, a two state "solution", if the Israelis ever accepted, which is more than doubtful, would only result in a pause in the fighting until new generations restarted, a single state solution is the the only possibility, acceptable for the Palestinians only with the right to return for all, but would they be able to live together after all the killing? I doubt it and anyway I can't see the Israelis accepting losing their "Jewish homeland".

So when faced with two impossible "solutions" all that's left is to treat Palestine like all the other similar cases.

PS. I don't have the energy to debate China and Tibet and I don't see how it effects Palestine, anyway as I've said five times now if some condemn China then they must also condemn the Jewish settlers of Palestine - they don't. But so what? One problem can be solved and another left unsolved, we don't refuse to lock up one criminal because we can't lock up another.

Second "anyway", what one thinks about Tibet depend on what one thinks about the legitimacy of the Chinese Revolution. If you think Revolutions are legitimate or not... the Russian, French, English revolutions, I think they were legitimate, an oppressed people has the right to fight it's oppressors. Others don't agree, it is a basic watershed and most of the other answers come from there.

In reply to IainRUK:



Come on now NATO is just a US front man... The UN's not much better.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Of course.. I don't deny that about NATO..

Not for the UN, its useless due to the veto process..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



What about the revolution on the Maidan in Kiev?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There was an excellent R4 programme over the weekend on Poroshenko. Well worth listening to.I was impressed with the guy. Fought his way up from a poor background, now he is selling his business interests, to avoid corruption claims. Got 54% of the votes in the elections( nearest was aboput 13%). Owns a tv station which is considered to be neutral in its political views. Speaks fluent English ( so is able to get his point across well in these tough negotiations.Does not flaunt his wealth ( unlike others from that region).

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


Come on now you can't compare that with the other real revolutions I've mentioned. By revolution I mean a major social change; a change of ruling class, the Maidan affair doesn't seem to have done this, the "new" president was already in previous governments... If anything it was a swing to the right just more of the same corruption, with a few nazi sympathisers thrown in for good measure.

In reply to neilh:


And we all believe you! A chocolate Berlusconi in other words.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here's what Russia is really interested in... Europe, what's that?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

He is under pressure to sell that, but by Ukranian standards the station is a symbol of virtue on unbiased reporting - this from the BBC- whom I guess know about these things.Try listening to it before jumping to conclusions.

In reply to neilh:

I have looked at it and it stinks, he's just another profiteer... Can you imagine in Britain if Murdoch had even stood for election? Not only that but the whole way the previous profiteer, but again an elected one was pushed out of power stank too. There were some pretty nasty people involved and the role of the EU was pretty disgusting too, IMO, holding out the carrot of EU membership when they knew this wasn't even possible.

But that's been discussed for yonks already, now let's get back to the subject of this thread, apparently a country with a GDP on a par with Italy is going to invade Europe (total GDP 4 or 5 times more) and backed by the most powerful country in the world, the USA.... somehow I just don't see it, but if some people want to get their knickers in a twist at the idea then I won't try to stop them!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You need to do some more reading colonel. You could start with looking at Japan's GDP in 1940 compared to that of the US. A ratio of about 1 to 5 if my memory serves me correctly.

Putin's problem is that he's decided to ride a nationalist horse that he can't control and can't get off.

In reply to Postmanpat:
But Japan's objective was never to invade the USA, it was to break into markets that it was denied, some say it succeeded in the these war aims, but at a cost. This thread suggest Russia is invading Europe... which is clearly nonsense, and nonsense because they are not that stupid, despite what some seem to believe. On the other hand given that in the way they see it they were invaded by the West three times in the last century, at enormous human and material cost to themsleves, they are very keen in preventing this happening again.

I'd say they were perfectly reasonable in this desire, and so I think it is important to ignore the warmongers and see that Russia is on the defensive here, for the simple numerical reasons I mentioned above.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Is Russia's objective to invade the USA? Seems unlikely . Japan invaded Asia for geopolitical reasons despite this bringing it to war with both the US and UK with combined GDP six or seven times theirs. So your reasoning is irrelevant.


Possibly, or possibly Putin fears the loony right, Strelkov, Dugin et al who make no secret of their desire to rebuild the empire, more than he does a bunch of pusillanimous wankers in Brussels. I doubt he knows.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Do you really think GDPs are important when they've got silos full of nuclear weapons, millions more people and a complete disregard for the spilling of others' blood?

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


Ultimately yes, unless you think he is mad enough to launch a nuclear war which would result in the total destruction of his own country! I wonder if the Russian missiles still work even? I don't think the Russians are mad, I'd say the last 100 or so years has shown more madness in the Western world than in Russia... who has attacked who after all?

Have you seen this remarkable speech, sign of madness if ever one was required, by the Nato Secretary-General Rasmussen: who has just twigged that "We must face the reality that Russia does not consider Nato a partner"!!!

NATO was set up to face up to Russia during the decades of the cold war and this character, Secretary General of the organisation goes on the telly to say they see NATO as "adversaries"! The organisation that bombed the Serbs into obliteration and he wants us to think that the Russians could possibly have seen them as pals. Truly the mind boggles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29016170

In reply to Postmanpat:


The OP seems to think they are invading Europe, not the USA. Ultimately the major wars of the last century have shown that it's industrial power that counts, so GDP does matter and Russia is no longer up to it, especially as a lot of its own is oil and gas. There's absolutely no way Russia could defeat the West and Putin knows it, to pretend Russia is any threat to us is about as honest as Blair's WMD which Iraq could fire on London in 40 minutes... Just spin from the warmongering nutters, like the one on the video linked just above.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Once again it's pointless discussing anything with you because you can't grasp a simple sentence. I'll try and make it simple before I retire for the night. Russia is threatening Europe not the USA. Japan was threatening Asia, not the the US. The US mainland was not threatened by either . That is what the two situations have in common. Do...you...understand.....Now...?

Of course Russia's not "up to it" but neither was Japan. They were just hijacked by a bunch of dumb nationalists.

Incidentally, you need to read some more. The major wars ofthe last century were fought before nuclear weapons were invented, until they finished the second one.

With that I'll leave you to misunderstand somebody else. Tootle pip.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:


You talking about Russia or the USA? Fit's both

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're the one who brought Japan into the discussion... are you "confused" again? Having a bit of shut eye is probably the best solution - good night.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Really strange. You genuinely havent understood a simple sentence and you dont even know it. Odd.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

what have we got in Ukraine? A Kleptocracy then A radical turn from East to West- a given sea change now in effect. But it has brought into conflict two opposing forces: The agreement of border integrity signed by Russia: And Putin's popular sense of nationalism inherent in his use of the word, roughly translated as "Russkies" { and which someone unwittingly hit upon earlier in the conversation}. It's the nationalism that is the problem and which has been pushed the politics to the point of disintegration of international law { tanks now over the border and despite the fact that Russian speakers are a relative minority in Eastern Ukraine.} I think Putin has pushed this. We now think the notion of "statehood" suggested will lead to Russsian mission creep and so Kiev asks for Nato. These talks would at least have to remove Russian tanks and personnel from Ukraine to prevent the next move of Kiev joining Nato. That would have to be the first move at this stage and it is still possible. Otherwise surely we are drifting towards Putin's fear of Ukraine not being an independent buffer zone. I find Putin's strategy pretty confusing and I think his sense of nationalism has led him astray to being heavy handed in Ukraine