Missing planes

[Genie]

This whole 'war' is pretty cowardly by Russia isn't it. They have these 'separatists' doing what they want them to do, they give them the weapons and ammo, training, I spose food and money too... but then distance themselves because they are not wearing the state uniform.

 

They should grow a pair and either back it with their own troops or call the whole thing off.

[Ads]

Their troops were in the Crimea.

[TrentVilla]

I'm sure it's not all that different to us backing the Afgan fighters against the Soviets or even our actions in places in the Middle East.

[peterms]

I should think if there is to be criticism of an external country stoking conflict in the Ukraine for its own political ends, the place to start would be the role of the US.

[Ads]

I would probably look at elements of a Russian Air Assault brigade deploying to the Crimea and have a glance at the Russians first before I would turn to the Great Satan.

 

In levels of stoking, putting troops on deck is right up there.

[peterms]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

 

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties.  Whereas US interest in the region is...what?  It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

[tonyh29]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

 

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties.  Whereas US interest in the region is...what?  It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

or even the US getting involved in Northern Ireland  ..oh wait

[Ads]

I don't see how Russia not sending T-90's over the border into eastern Ukraine anyway detracts from the fact they deployed airborne forces into soverign territory of its neighbour. That's stoking things.

 

I am not sure if geography, economics or recent Soviet history justify it. I certainly don't see it as legitimate.

[TrentVilla]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

 

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties.  Whereas US interest in the region is...what?  It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

The situation in Ukraine and the involvement of the US and Russia is really no different to the events that have been played out in various countries around the globe as the US and Russia conduct a tug of war over an ailing nation state.

That said I think the motives and actions of the two are vastly different even if both in their own ways are to a large extent self serving. It is true to say that Russia has more of a vested interest in Ukraine but I think I would question the notion that that interest can be justified as being legitimate.

Putin's Russia is simply trying to hold off or even push back the boarders of the EU for all sorts of reasons, militarily, culturally, politically, economically and you would have to say for reasons of self interest of those in power. First they tried it through an economic deal and when that failed they took a more sinister approach.

While the US aren't the fallback protectors of democracy they claim and there is as always a large degree of self interest in their actions I don't see them as being in any way comparable to Russia's or as a result less legitimate or worthy of the same criticism or scorn.

[peterms]

I don't see how Russia not sending T-90's over the border into eastern Ukraine anyway detracts from the fact they deployed airborne forces into soverign territory of its neighbour. That's stoking things.

 

I am not sure if geography, economics or recent Soviet history justify it. I certainly don't see it as legitimate.

 

I suppose it depends where you start from.  If you take the view that these are all independent, sovereign countries and one has interfered in the internal governance of another, it looks a little different than if you see it as one more part of the process of the US trying to weaken Russia, chip away at its borders, create hostile countries where there were once buffer zones, and rally international efforts to undermine its economy.

 

The US sees Ukraine as a key area in its battle to undermine Russia.  Brzezinski set this out in his book, discussed here.

 

 

It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower

 

Why would the United States run the risk of siding with anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis in Ukraine?

 

One of the keys may be found by looking back at Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard in which he wrote, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

 

The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be “unapologetic” in perpetuating “America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.”

 

“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

 

Brzezinski delved into the importance of little known Ukraine by explaining in his 1997 book, “Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.”

 

“Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination.

 

Brzezinski wrote that Eurasia is “the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,” and that “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.”

 

Understanding Brzezinski’s long-term view of Ukraine makes it easier to comprehend why the US has given $5 billion to Ukraine since 1991, and why today it is hyper-concerned about having Ukraine remain in its sphere of influence.

 

It may also help explain why in the past year the US and many of its media outlets have feverishly demonized Vladimir Putin.

 

By prominently highlighting the mistreatment of activist group Pussy Riot, incessantly condemning Russia’s regressive position on gay rights, and excessively focusing on substandard accommodations at the Sochi Olympic Games, the Obama administration has cleverly distracted the public from delving into US support of the ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi factions of the Ukrainian opposition, and has made it palatable for Americans to accept the US narrative on Ukraine.

 

Interestingly enough, it was Brzezinski who first compared Putin to Hitler in a March 3 Washington Post Editorial. Hillary Clinton followed-up the next day with her comments comparing the two, followed by John McCain and Marco Rubio who on March 5 agreed with Clinton’s comments comparing Putin and Hitler. Apparently Brzezinski still continues to influence US political speak.

 

In his book, Brzezinski contends that “America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily… economically… technologically… and culturally.”

 

While this may have been accurate in 1997, it can be argued that today, other than militarily, the US no longer reigns supreme in these domains.

 

So late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.

 

At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.

 

In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.

 

All US statements, actions and diplomatic efforts in relation to MH17 are in my view better understood in this light, rather than taken at face value as being simple, honest, uncomplicated and unspun responses to a tragedy.

[Ads]

I look at it from the perspective of Russia sending in airborne forces into the sovereign territory of its neighbour.

 

I understand the Russian outlook and the perceived need of the buffer state to keep the west at bay so to speak and the Ukraine being a weak link in that buffer system. But if the Ukraine want to align with the EU/US and possibly what Russia fears as the ultimate consequence of that, NATO, then that is a decision for the Ukraine and in no way legitimises Russian actions at all.

 

I find it a weak argument to suggest that the US has done more than most in this when, forgive my repetition, Russia deployed airborne forces and effectively annexed a swathe of Southern Ukraine. Are we suggesting now that the "if in doubt, invade" is the go to foreign policy option when a sovereign neighbour is swayed or induced to not comply with your own foreign policy requirements?

Edited July 23, 2014 by Ads

[peterms]

I look at it from the perspective of Russia sending in airborne forces into the sovereign territory of its neighbour.

 

I understand the Russian outlook and the perceived need of the buffer state to keep the west at bay so to speak and the Ukraine being a weak link in that buffer system. But if the Ukraine want to align with the EU/US and possibly what Russia fears as the ultimate consequence of that, NATO, then that is a decision for the Ukraine and in no way legitimises Russian actions at all.

 

I find it a weak argument to suggest that the US has done more than most in this when, forgive my repetition, Russia deployed airborne forces and effectively annexed a swathe of Southern Ukraine. Are we suggesting now that the "if in doubt, invade" is the go to foreign policy option when a sovereign neighbour is swayed or induced to not comply with your own foreign policy requirements?

 

Well, it's a simple matter of fact that the US has done more intervention in other countries in a whole range of ways than anyone else.  Probably than everyone else put together.  That doesn't make it the right course of action for Russia or anyone else, but it does rather mean the US should shut up about the need to respect the integrity of other countries.

 

If it was right for the people of Ukraine to decide to leave the USSR and become a sovereign state, it it also wrong for the people of Crimea to decide they'd rather not be part of Ukraine?  Is self-determination a good thing in itself and a right, or only, as the US appears to think, when it fits the US' wider strategic aims?

[Ads]

I don't see how the first paragraph reconciles with the point that the US are the most to blame for stoking up the situation? If you wanted to criticise US foreign policy, then that is your prerogative, but the US intervention in Grenada or Iraq does little to alter Russia having done more than most by placing a brigade size force in the Crimea.

It is precisely that point which makes any comments about self determination of the Crimea entirely disingenuous, when Russian troops command the streets on your way to vote.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Ads

[peterms]

Will try to reply tomorrow when I'm not cooking.

[Mr_Dogg]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties. Whereas US interest in the region is...what? It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

or even the US getting involved in Northern Ireland ..oh wait

The US has had Irish connections for hundreds of years, they weren't sticking their nose in for no reason. Plus they played their part in bringing about peace.

[tonyh29]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties. Whereas US interest in the region is...what? It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

or even the US getting involved in Northern Ireland ..oh wait

The US has had Irish connections for hundreds of years, they weren't sticking their nose in for no reason. Plus they played their part in bringing about peace.

Meh , every country on the planet has an Irish pub , doesn't mean they have to get involved

[Mr_Dogg]

Russia has treated Crimea and Ukraine quite differently, and has been strongly criticised for its lack of support of ethnic Russians in Ukraine who oppose the Kiev regime.

But it has legitimate interests in both places, given the geography, the history, the population and the cultural ties. Whereas US interest in the region is...what? It's like Japan or Brazil getting involved in Northern Ireland.

or even the US getting involved in Northern Ireland ..oh wait

The US has had Irish connections for hundreds of years, they weren't sticking their nose in for no reason. Plus they played their part in bringing about peace.

Meh , every country on the planet has an Irish pub , doesn't mean they have to get involved

That's the same.

[TrentVilla]

Will try to reply tomorrow when I'm not cooking.

[AshVilla]

http://youtu.be/TkMmN3xRooM

 

(Volume Warning)

 

I found this quite eerie so many hearses

 

Fair play to the drivers on the right who stop their cars as a mark of respect as they drive past

Edited July 23, 2014 by AshVilla

[peterms]

Will try to reply tomorrow when I'm not cooking.

But you promised you wouldn't tell.

As long as I fed your £60 a day habit.