So, Russians sending in tanks to ukraine & flying bombers down the coast of the U.S. all the way to Gulf of Mexico. Start of a new Cold War?.....seems very likely.
You're assuming the Cold War ever really ended. If it had, why would we be making super new stealth fighters, bombers etc? But then defence has always been big business. This little escapade has probably been more to do with Ass Sec Nuland's infamous comment about the EU. One failed state as created a lot of tension and harmed trade between the EU and Russia, which is naturally good for the US.
So what to do next?, do we start putting bombers in the air, bring up the defcon status.
We haven't got any bombers. Neither does the rest of the EU. We've kind of abandonded strategic bombing capability and CAS in favour of sexy stealthy things that can't really currently fly.
One thing is for sure, alert status fighters such as our eurofighters are going to be constantly busy for the foreseeable future.
Yup. More cost to go with the lost opportunties from sanctions. We could always try some diplomacy but it's probably too late given the rush to demonise Putin and Russia.. But China's making the most of things.
You're assuming the Cold War ever really ended. If it had, why would we be making super new stealth fighters, bombers etc? But then defence has always been big business. This little escapade has probably been more to do with Ass Sec Nuland's infamous comment about the EU. One failed state as created a lot of tension and harmed trade between the EU and Russia, which is naturally good for the US.
We haven't got any bombers. Neither does the rest of the EU. We've kind of abandonded strategic bombing capability and CAS in favour of sexy stealthy things that can't really currently fly.
Yup. More cost to go with the lost opportunties from sanctions. We could always try some diplomacy but it's probably too late given the rush to demonise Putin and Russia.. But China's making the most of things.
When I say "do we" I mean we as in NATO.....we currently have some B52 and stealth B2 bombers stationed in the UK.
If the situation continues to get worse, I foresee one side or both breaking treaty agreements, such as deploying nuclear tomahawks throughout Europe.
iMO we got to let putin know we are just as serious as him, otherwise he might just keep pushing. Restraint on the side of the west could be seen as a sign of weakness by some. Ironically, we have only gone down the route of restraint because we are dealing with a nuclear armed hard liner.
When I say "do we" I mean we as in NATO.....we currently have some B52 and stealth B2 bombers stationed in the UK.
They're American. Nobody else in the EU or NATO has those..
If the situation continues to get worse, I foresee one side or both breaking treaty agreements, such as deploying nuclear tomahawks throughout Europe.
Assuming they're not already, although the W80 is allegedly retired. Previous nuclear storage sites like Turkey may get dusted off, especially as relations between Turkey and Russia are a bit... strained at the moment. But then relations with the US ain't great either. But if the Cold War is back on, and the West is imposing it's will around the world it would seem sensible for other nations like Russia, China and India to respond accordingly.
iMO we got to let putin know we are just as serious as him, otherwise he might just keep pushing.
Given the antics of some politicians like Hilary Clinton and others comparing Putin to Hitler, I'd say he's been quite restrained. Risk at the moment is if we can't restrain Ukraine from shelling the seperatists, Russia may decide it's time to send in peace keepers. Although a joint call for a UN peacekeeping force from say, Russia, China and the non-permanent security members would be more amusing.
They're American. Nobody else in the EU or NATO has those..
Assuming they're not already, although the W80 is allegedly retired. Previous nuclear storage sites like Turkey may get dusted off, especially as relations between Turkey and Russia are a bit... strained at the moment. But then relations with the US ain't great either. But if the Cold War is back on, and the West is imposing it's will around the world it would seem sensible for other nations like Russia, China and India to respond accordingly.
Given the antics of some politicians like Hilary Clinton and others comparing Putin to Hitler, I'd say he's been quite restrained. Risk at the moment is if we can't restrain Ukraine from shelling the seperatists, Russia may decide it's time to send in peace keepers. Although a joint call for a UN peacekeeping force from say, Russia, China and the non-permanent security members would be more amusing.
I feel I should remind u that pres Obama has pledged Americas support for the East european countries. And it therefore follows that as part of the NATO group, armed US bombers would be flown out of bases in the UK if the need should arise.
As for "peace keeping" forces from Russia,........lol, more like armed troops, APCs, & tanks to suppress freedom fighters (or "terrorists" if your Russian).
I feel I should remind u that pres Obama has pledged Americas support for the East european countries. And it therefore follows that as part of the NATO group, armed US bombers would be flown out of bases in the UK if the need should arise.
Which we could of course refuse. Would be diplomatically sensitive but happened the first time we bombed Libya. They flew from UK bases but weren't allowed to overfly other EU countries.
But let me remind you of something else. The NA in NATO stands for North Atlantic, which many recent members are nowhere near. Then there was the discussions post-German unification where NATO expansion may or may not have been agreed. But NATO's a bureaucracy so happiest when it's growing. More jobs for the boys and a lot of money to be made flogging NATO-standard weapons to the new members.
So NATO and the EU have been merrily expanding right up to Russia's borders, and invading the odd small country like Iraq, Libya etc and provoking regime change in Syria, or Ukraine..
And we complain about Russia's 'expansion plans'?
As for "peace keeping" forces from Russia,........lol, more like armed troops, APCs, & tanks to suppress freedom fighters (or "terrorists" if your Russian).
Thus far the 'freedom fighters' have really been in the seperatist areas, ie those who don't want to be ruled by the Kiev kleptocrats. There's also been little real evidence of any serious Russian intervention, just a variety of false and sometimes patently ridiculous claims from the Ukrainian government, eg the origin of the Buk SAM launcher.
If the Russians seriously wanted to intervene, Donetsk airport and the land corridor to Crimea would have been in place long ago.. And if we keep poking the bear, they may just decide to get hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
And this shows what happens when the Russians get all medieval-
With a touch of ignorance I was going to ask if we should pre-empt Moldova and send some Nato troops in.
Like Ukraine, they got an economic short straw from historic Russian rule so they also look to the EU for an improved future.
With a touch of ignorance I was going to ask if we should pre-empt Moldova and send some Nato troops in.
Check their website.. It's NATO. But who's troops do you want to send into the meat grinder?
Like Ukraine, they got an economic short straw from historic Russian rule so they also look to the EU for an improved future.
How do you work that one out? It declared independence (like Novorussia), joined the CIS, got tempted by the potential of EU handouts and has basically been struggling ever since. Which is a shame in some ways because they make some rather nice wines..
""A Russian Deputy Prime Minister threatening to use a strategic bomber is a very serious threat in the current regional context," Romania's foreign office said in a statement late Saturday."
Or..
According to Rogozin's tweets posted in English on Saturday, Romania barred him on his way home from flying in a civilian aircraft through adjacent Romanian airspace. Ukrainian interceptor jets had also blocked his flight path, Rogozin said.
"Upon US request, Romania has closed its airspace for my plane," Rogozin tweeted. "Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160."
So sounds like the US is trying to impose an air blockade on Russian civil flights. Helpful in defusing tensions do you think?
This sort of attitude is precisely why putin is able to flex his mussles.....
NATO is a group, it's not a case of who's troops we use. In any event it wouldnt just be troops from one country. NATO strength is in acting together, collectively, not creating divisions such as don't fly those NATO aircraft over our country which is part of NATO. Putin will see this as a split and use it to his advantage, for example by doing something specific which can't be successfully dealt with unless those opposing views are unfied.
And what about Russian bombers flying over the North pole, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico....will Obama respond to this, if so, how. More to the point, is he politically able to now, and did putin put this into action precisely because he thinks Obama can't do anything politically due to those recent elections.
NATO is a group, it's not a case of who's troops we use. In any event it wouldnt just be troops from one country.
But who's troops should we send into Ukraine to defend the gas thieves and kleptokrats? Or just stand between the various militias carving out their own fiefdoms?
And what about Russian bombers flying over the North pole, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico....will Obama respond to this, if so, how.
Based on past experience, badly. But why shouldn't Russia fly in international airspace? We do the same. We also decide the president of sovereign Syria's the wrong president, so must go. We ignored their election results, just as we're ignoring the will of the people in Ukraine. Why are we allowed to intervene in other sovereign nations, but not Russia?
But who's troops should we send into Ukraine to defend the gas thieves and kleptokrats? Or just stand between the various militias carving out their own fiefdoms?
Based on past experience, badly. But why shouldn't Russia fly in international airspace? We do the same. We also decide the president of sovereign Syria's the wrong president, so must go. We ignored their election results, just as we're ignoring the will of the people in Ukraine. Why are we allowed to intervene in other sovereign nations, but not Russia?
Well, it may of slipped my memory but didn't a majority of people in ukraine vote for closer EU integration? Putin then came in and offered their leader "a bag of money" so to speak and he took it and went against his people's decision. I thought that was how all this got started...and the reaction from putin was......take Crimea.
Well, it may of slipped my memory but didn't a majority of people in ukraine vote for closer EU integration? Putin then came in and offered their leader "a bag of money" so to speak and he took it and went against his people's decision.
Not entirely. Go back to the first sponsored revolution, the Orange Revolution in 2004. That was mainly fought on an anti-corruption/anti-oligarch kind of campaign but in a uniquely Ukrainian way. So many accusations of corruption, vote rigging, Western intervention etc. So that ended up with Yanukovych as President trying to sort out Ukraine's economy, which basically came down to a choice of going with the EU, or Russia.
To join the EU, Ukraine would have had to pass a bunch of laws and reforms to meet membership conditions, which were opposed by some of the Ukrainian parliament. Russia imposed sanctions and naturally wanted payment for it's gas and it kind of ended up like this-
On December 11, 2013 the Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, said he had asked for 20 Billion Euros (US$27) in loans and aid to offset the cost of the EU deal. The EU was willing to offer 610 million euros (838 million US) in loans, however Russia was willing to offer 15 billion US in loans. Russia also offered Ukraine cheaper gas prices. As a condition for the loans, the EU required major changes to the regulations and laws in Ukraine. Russia did not.
Arguably Russia offered the better deal, Yanukovych agreed, then we helped with the coup to kick him out. And the rest is becoming history with Ukraine in even more of a mess than it was to start with and facing up to the realities of their new life under EU & IMF management.
I thought that was how all this got started...and the reaction from putin was......take Crimea.
People seem confused about that. Crimea decided it didn't want to go along with the new, not entirely legitimate Ukrainian coup leaders and voted for independence. We decided principles of self-determination only apply when we think it's in our interests and won't recognise their vote. So the Crimeans voted to join Russia, Russia said 'OK'. No invasion necessary given the 20,000+ Russians based there as Black Sea Fleet HQ.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Libya, Iraq we've decided it's ok to use force to remove their leaders. Why is it ok for us to use armed intervention, but not Russia?
Ukraine's president has ordered the withdrawal of all state services, including funding for hospitals and schools, from rebel-held areas.
Petro Poroshenko issued a decree that also asks parliament to revoke a law granting self-rule to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
So those pesky rebels held an election and now Poroshenko's instituting a programme of collective punishment to go with the artillery bombardments.
Now the rebels have an elected leader, wouldn't it be more sensible and less costly in terms of lives, suffering and damage to.. well, negotiate with the new rebel leaders? This move just seems to raise the risk of full-on intervention on humanitarian grounds.
So those pesky rebels held an election and now Poroshenko's instituting a programme of collective punishment to go with the artillery bombardments.
Now the rebels have an elected leader, wouldn't it be more sensible and less costly in terms of lives, suffering and damage to.. well, negotiate with the new rebel leaders? This move just seems to raise the risk of full-on intervention on humanitarian grounds.
Now if Assad did the same to Syrian rebels that would be unacceptable, but because we are friends with the unelected leader of Ukraine we'll turn a blind eye to this.
Putin will crawl back into his shell once the Republicans get back into power.
Regan would have whipped his ass if he was still around. And even the Russians would have cheered.
It is a little more odd that it was during the period when Ukraine was "supported" by its western allies that several billion dollars worth of physical gold - the people's gold - just "vaporized."
In any event, now that the disappearance of Ukraine's gold has been confirmed, perhaps it is time to refresh the "unconfirmed" story that a little after the current Ukraine regime took power the bulk of Ukraine's gold was taken to the United States.
42 tonnes of gold possibly gone AWOL. Or 20 tonnnes. Or something odd has happened. Ukraine's economy and currency has been crashing, so not really a good time to be selling gold. Then again, Gordon Brown famously did at a record low price.
Simply moving the gold in a time of uncertainty isn't necessarily suspicious. Many countries store their gold in the big gold centres like Paris, London, New York and have moved gold to secure it in times of war or political stability. As long as it's there, it can still count as that countrie's gold reserve. But then ZH has been reporting some other gold oddities, like Germany's attempts to repatriate it's gold from NY..
Whether it is covertly backed military aid from the US remains to be seen.
Dalia Grybauskaite the Lithuanian president should be concentrating on issues in her own country considering the country is practically broke and much of the population are worse off than they were under Communist rule.
Plus provoking Russia will not go down well with the sizeable Russian minority in the country.
As predicted by one or two other posters on here, the Western media has lost all interest in the region other than waffle by the likes of 'Forbes' about Ukraine becoming the next Silicon Valley....
Whether it is covertly backed military aid from the US remains to be seen.
Dalia Grybauskaite the Lithuanian president should be concentrating on issues in her own country considering the country is practically broke and much of the population are worse off than they were under Communist rule.
Plus provoking Russia will not go down well with the sizeable Russian minority in the country.
As predicted by one or two other posters on here, the Western media has lost all interest in the region other than waffle by the likes of 'Forbes' about Ukraine becoming the next Silicon Valley....
The media isn't much of a guide to anything. They are not covering most of the big security issues - Iran, Russia or thei ncreasingly tense situation building in Asia. Even ISIS is off the agenda although the air campaign is up to 24 strikes a day,. There's limited coverage offundamentalist activity in Africa or Egypts ongoing war against al queda/ISIS and Hamas in the Sinai .
On the ground though things have changed dramatically. The NATO air deployments are still there, the US has moved a rotational armoured brigade forward into Poland, and there's US troops on the ground in the Baltic states and Romania. .We in the UK have an armoured battlegroup exercising with the Poles. Everyone with a border with Russia, or near one, is increasing their defence budget, and several are increasing their ability to call out more manpower to deal with Russian tourists The Poles are doubling their modern tank force, and lots of rifle clubs are being set up , the Finns are buying missiles to hit back at russian targets if they are attacked, and the Baltic states are buying impressive numbers of anti-tank missiles. Germany under Merkel is is still neglecting her armed forces , but Mrs Merkel seems now to be committed to the need to deter Putin - even if she relies on Polish and US troops to do it.
....the Lithuanian president should be concentrating on issues in her own country considering the country is practically broke and much of the population are worse off than they were under Communist rule.
Plus provoking Russia will not go down well with the sizeable Russian minority in the country........
The problem has always looked like 'don't trade with the west' or we will annex/push for a civil war.
Every single conflict towards Russias borders has looked very similar. It almst looks like the general populations are being told to act like a Russian provence and only serve/trade with Russia.
It is baffling because, before Putin came along, Russia was itself looking towards more integration with Europe. Now it is full steam in reverse.
I suppose looking to the future, an extremely solitary UK, under premiership of Farage or his successor could look to a Russian gas/oil trade agreement to lessen UK power cuts.
Well, it may of slipped my memory but didn't a majority of people in ukraine vote for closer EU integration? Putin then came in and offered their leader "a bag of money" so to speak and he took it and went against his people's decision. I thought that was how all this got started...and the reaction from putin was......take Crimea.
Dave....I wouldn't really bother with Jellied Eel ...I've had the pleasure of interacting with him and tbh he's very very pro Russian and believes the west is evil. All you need to know is that he believes RT is unbiased :D
It seems that 'little Lithuania' has decided to provide military aid to the regime in Kiev.
Kinda wondering what aid they could provide. They seem to mostly use Vietnam era US kit which the Ukraniums don't. So unless Lithuania has stockpiles of ex Soviet surplus kit in storage, the Ukraniums would also need training and spares to maintain the kit.
Meanwhile, in other news, post-Maidan, some things appear unchanged-
At the same time, companies owned by Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man and a Yanukovych ally, continue to export coal. At a recent Energy Ministry meeting, an Akhmetov representative explained that his company had long-term contracts to honor and needed the hard currency. Any purchases by the Ukrainian government would be paid in hryvnia, which has been losing value.
According to ZH, Ukraine flipped it's gold into dollars whilst the dollar price was high. So kind of a reverse-Brown.. But then it needs hard currency because it's own is in free-fall, and Russia's greatest Generals are approaching, Generals Winter, Snow, Frost and Mud..
The problem has always looked like 'don't trade with the west' or we will annex/push for a civil war.
Every single conflict towards Russias borders has looked very similar. It almst looks like the general populations are being told to act like a Russian provence and only serve/trade with Russia.
It is baffling because, before Putin came along, Russia was itself looking towards more integration with Europe. Now it is full steam in reverse.
I suppose looking to the future, an extremely solitary UK, under premiership of Farage or his successor could look to a Russian gas/oil trade agreement to lessen UK power cuts.
When Yanukovych was president he was offered two deals, one from the EU which pretty much said he was to upgrade his country to EU standards whilst opening up industry and services to competition meaning even more Ukrainians would be thrown out of work and face poverty.
Or the alternative was to continue accepting cheap gas from Russia along with favourable trading agreements ( a quarter of Ukraine's exports go to Russia) and a better loan terms than the US or the EU was offering
He chose the latter, it didn't suit the West and he was forced to flee.
At the end of the day Ukraine has ended up with a paltry 1 billion loan from America in return for handing over drilling rights to American companies mainly in the disputed East of the country.
The same happened to the Baltic States, their economies are now in ruins with very little manufacturing now left and why Lithuania for example has lost around 25% of its population, decamping mainly to The UK and Germany.
Comments
You're assuming the Cold War ever really ended. If it had, why would we be making super new stealth fighters, bombers etc? But then defence has always been big business. This little escapade has probably been more to do with Ass Sec Nuland's infamous comment about the EU. One failed state as created a lot of tension and harmed trade between the EU and Russia, which is naturally good for the US.
We haven't got any bombers. Neither does the rest of the EU. We've kind of abandonded strategic bombing capability and CAS in favour of sexy stealthy things that can't really currently fly.
Yup. More cost to go with the lost opportunties from sanctions. We could always try some diplomacy but it's probably too late given the rush to demonise Putin and Russia.. But China's making the most of things.
When I say "do we" I mean we as in NATO.....we currently have some B52 and stealth B2 bombers stationed in the UK.
If the situation continues to get worse, I foresee one side or both breaking treaty agreements, such as deploying nuclear tomahawks throughout Europe.
iMO we got to let putin know we are just as serious as him, otherwise he might just keep pushing. Restraint on the side of the west could be seen as a sign of weakness by some. Ironically, we have only gone down the route of restraint because we are dealing with a nuclear armed hard liner.
They're American. Nobody else in the EU or NATO has those..
Assuming they're not already, although the W80 is allegedly retired. Previous nuclear storage sites like Turkey may get dusted off, especially as relations between Turkey and Russia are a bit... strained at the moment. But then relations with the US ain't great either. But if the Cold War is back on, and the West is imposing it's will around the world it would seem sensible for other nations like Russia, China and India to respond accordingly.
Given the antics of some politicians like Hilary Clinton and others comparing Putin to Hitler, I'd say he's been quite restrained. Risk at the moment is if we can't restrain Ukraine from shelling the seperatists, Russia may decide it's time to send in peace keepers. Although a joint call for a UN peacekeeping force from say, Russia, China and the non-permanent security members would be more amusing.
I feel I should remind u that pres Obama has pledged Americas support for the East european countries. And it therefore follows that as part of the NATO group, armed US bombers would be flown out of bases in the UK if the need should arise.
As for "peace keeping" forces from Russia,........lol, more like armed troops, APCs, & tanks to suppress freedom fighters (or "terrorists" if your Russian).
Which we could of course refuse. Would be diplomatically sensitive but happened the first time we bombed Libya. They flew from UK bases but weren't allowed to overfly other EU countries.
But let me remind you of something else. The NA in NATO stands for North Atlantic, which many recent members are nowhere near. Then there was the discussions post-German unification where NATO expansion may or may not have been agreed. But NATO's a bureaucracy so happiest when it's growing. More jobs for the boys and a lot of money to be made flogging NATO-standard weapons to the new members.
So NATO and the EU have been merrily expanding right up to Russia's borders, and invading the odd small country like Iraq, Libya etc and provoking regime change in Syria, or Ukraine..
And we complain about Russia's 'expansion plans'?
Thus far the 'freedom fighters' have really been in the seperatist areas, ie those who don't want to be ruled by the Kiev kleptocrats. There's also been little real evidence of any serious Russian intervention, just a variety of false and sometimes patently ridiculous claims from the Ukrainian government, eg the origin of the Buk SAM launcher.
If the Russians seriously wanted to intervene, Donetsk airport and the land corridor to Crimea would have been in place long ago.. And if we keep poking the bear, they may just decide to get hanged for a sheep as a lamb.
And this shows what happens when the Russians get all medieval-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDdTB1GzHJw
think I spotted a Ukrainian shield in that as well..
Like Ukraine, they got an economic short straw from historic Russian rule so they also look to the EU for an improved future.
http://www.dw.de/eu-parliament-ratifies-deal-with-moldova/a-18061476
I expect Russia to extend their trade sanctions against Modova. THe Russian thought seems to be 'how dare they aspire to economic improvement'.
http://www.dw.de/romania-demands-explanation-over-russian-threat/a-17627761
""A Russian Deputy Prime Minister threatening to use a strategic bomber is a very serious threat in the current regional context," Romania's foreign office said in a statement late Saturday."
Check their website.. It's NATO. But who's troops do you want to send into the meat grinder?
How do you work that one out? It declared independence (like Novorussia), joined the CIS, got tempted by the potential of EU handouts and has basically been struggling ever since. Which is a shame in some ways because they make some rather nice wines..
Or..
According to Rogozin's tweets posted in English on Saturday, Romania barred him on his way home from flying in a civilian aircraft through adjacent Romanian airspace. Ukrainian interceptor jets had also blocked his flight path, Rogozin said.
"Upon US request, Romania has closed its airspace for my plane," Rogozin tweeted. "Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160."
So sounds like the US is trying to impose an air blockade on Russian civil flights. Helpful in defusing tensions do you think?
But Nagorno-Karabakh may kick off first.
NATO is a group, it's not a case of who's troops we use. In any event it wouldnt just be troops from one country. NATO strength is in acting together, collectively, not creating divisions such as don't fly those NATO aircraft over our country which is part of NATO. Putin will see this as a split and use it to his advantage, for example by doing something specific which can't be successfully dealt with unless those opposing views are unfied.
And what about Russian bombers flying over the North pole, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico....will Obama respond to this, if so, how. More to the point, is he politically able to now, and did putin put this into action precisely because he thinks Obama can't do anything politically due to those recent elections.
But who's troops should we send into Ukraine to defend the gas thieves and kleptokrats? Or just stand between the various militias carving out their own fiefdoms?
Based on past experience, badly. But why shouldn't Russia fly in international airspace? We do the same. We also decide the president of sovereign Syria's the wrong president, so must go. We ignored their election results, just as we're ignoring the will of the people in Ukraine. Why are we allowed to intervene in other sovereign nations, but not Russia?
Well, it may of slipped my memory but didn't a majority of people in ukraine vote for closer EU integration? Putin then came in and offered their leader "a bag of money" so to speak and he took it and went against his people's decision. I thought that was how all this got started...and the reaction from putin was......take Crimea.
Not entirely. Go back to the first sponsored revolution, the Orange Revolution in 2004. That was mainly fought on an anti-corruption/anti-oligarch kind of campaign but in a uniquely Ukrainian way. So many accusations of corruption, vote rigging, Western intervention etc. So that ended up with Yanukovych as President trying to sort out Ukraine's economy, which basically came down to a choice of going with the EU, or Russia.
To join the EU, Ukraine would have had to pass a bunch of laws and reforms to meet membership conditions, which were opposed by some of the Ukrainian parliament. Russia imposed sanctions and naturally wanted payment for it's gas and it kind of ended up like this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Initial_causes
On December 11, 2013 the Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, said he had asked for 20 Billion Euros (US$27) in loans and aid to offset the cost of the EU deal. The EU was willing to offer 610 million euros (838 million US) in loans, however Russia was willing to offer 15 billion US in loans. Russia also offered Ukraine cheaper gas prices. As a condition for the loans, the EU required major changes to the regulations and laws in Ukraine. Russia did not.
Arguably Russia offered the better deal, Yanukovych agreed, then we helped with the coup to kick him out. And the rest is becoming history with Ukraine in even more of a mess than it was to start with and facing up to the realities of their new life under EU & IMF management.
People seem confused about that. Crimea decided it didn't want to go along with the new, not entirely legitimate Ukrainian coup leaders and voted for independence. We decided principles of self-determination only apply when we think it's in our interests and won't recognise their vote. So the Crimeans voted to join Russia, Russia said 'OK'. No invasion necessary given the 20,000+ Russians based there as Black Sea Fleet HQ.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Libya, Iraq we've decided it's ok to use force to remove their leaders. Why is it ok for us to use armed intervention, but not Russia?
So those pesky rebels held an election and now Poroshenko's instituting a programme of collective punishment to go with the artillery bombardments.
Now the rebels have an elected leader, wouldn't it be more sensible and less costly in terms of lives, suffering and damage to.. well, negotiate with the new rebel leaders? This move just seems to raise the risk of full-on intervention on humanitarian grounds.
Now if Assad did the same to Syrian rebels that would be unacceptable, but because we are friends with the unelected leader of Ukraine we'll turn a blind eye to this.
Regan would have whipped his ass if he was still around. And even the Russians would have cheered.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-looting-of-ukraine-and-the-us-energy-war/5408626
:rolleyes:
Makes me wonder how it would have gone if we had stood up for oursleves and booted out Maggie. There are so many similarities on that one.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
42 tonnes of gold possibly gone AWOL. Or 20 tonnnes. Or something odd has happened. Ukraine's economy and currency has been crashing, so not really a good time to be selling gold. Then again, Gordon Brown famously did at a record low price.
Simply moving the gold in a time of uncertainty isn't necessarily suspicious. Many countries store their gold in the big gold centres like Paris, London, New York and have moved gold to secure it in times of war or political stability. As long as it's there, it can still count as that countrie's gold reserve. But then ZH has been reporting some other gold oddities, like Germany's attempts to repatriate it's gold from NY..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/24/us-ukraine-crisis-lithuania-idUSKCN0J80UK20141124?utm_source=twitter
Whether it is covertly backed military aid from the US remains to be seen.
Dalia Grybauskaite the Lithuanian president should be concentrating on issues in her own country considering the country is practically broke and much of the population are worse off than they were under Communist rule.
Plus provoking Russia will not go down well with the sizeable Russian minority in the country.
As predicted by one or two other posters on here, the Western media has lost all interest in the region other than waffle by the likes of 'Forbes' about Ukraine becoming the next Silicon Valley....
The media isn't much of a guide to anything. They are not covering most of the big security issues - Iran, Russia or thei ncreasingly tense situation building in Asia. Even ISIS is off the agenda although the air campaign is up to 24 strikes a day,. There's limited coverage offundamentalist activity in Africa or Egypts ongoing war against al queda/ISIS and Hamas in the Sinai .
On the ground though things have changed dramatically. The NATO air deployments are still there, the US has moved a rotational armoured brigade forward into Poland, and there's US troops on the ground in the Baltic states and Romania. .We in the UK have an armoured battlegroup exercising with the Poles. Everyone with a border with Russia, or near one, is increasing their defence budget, and several are increasing their ability to call out more manpower to deal with Russian tourists The Poles are doubling their modern tank force, and lots of rifle clubs are being set up , the Finns are buying missiles to hit back at russian targets if they are attacked, and the Baltic states are buying impressive numbers of anti-tank missiles. Germany under Merkel is is still neglecting her armed forces , but Mrs Merkel seems now to be committed to the need to deter Putin - even if she relies on Polish and US troops to do it.
Every single conflict towards Russias borders has looked very similar. It almst looks like the general populations are being told to act like a Russian provence and only serve/trade with Russia.
It is baffling because, before Putin came along, Russia was itself looking towards more integration with Europe. Now it is full steam in reverse.
I suppose looking to the future, an extremely solitary UK, under premiership of Farage or his successor could look to a Russian gas/oil trade agreement to lessen UK power cuts.
What an extraordinary confession....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/igor-strelkov-i-started-war-eastern-ukraine-1475982
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine/511584.html
Dave....I wouldn't really bother with Jellied Eel ...I've had the pleasure of interacting with him and tbh he's very very pro Russian and believes the west is evil. All you need to know is that he believes RT is unbiased
A legacy of that Bush Blair failed 'crusade' really.
Kinda wondering what aid they could provide. They seem to mostly use Vietnam era US kit which the Ukraniums don't. So unless Lithuania has stockpiles of ex Soviet surplus kit in storage, the Ukraniums would also need training and spares to maintain the kit.
Meanwhile, in other news, post-Maidan, some things appear unchanged-
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-12/winter-is-coming-to-ukraines-energy-supply
At the same time, companies owned by Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest man and a Yanukovych ally, continue to export coal. At a recent Energy Ministry meeting, an Akhmetov representative explained that his company had long-term contracts to honor and needed the hard currency. Any purchases by the Ukrainian government would be paid in hryvnia, which has been losing value.
According to ZH, Ukraine flipped it's gold into dollars whilst the dollar price was high. So kind of a reverse-Brown.. But then it needs hard currency because it's own is in free-fall, and Russia's greatest Generals are approaching, Generals Winter, Snow, Frost and Mud..
When Yanukovych was president he was offered two deals, one from the EU which pretty much said he was to upgrade his country to EU standards whilst opening up industry and services to competition meaning even more Ukrainians would be thrown out of work and face poverty.
Or the alternative was to continue accepting cheap gas from Russia along with favourable trading agreements ( a quarter of Ukraine's exports go to Russia) and a better loan terms than the US or the EU was offering
He chose the latter, it didn't suit the West and he was forced to flee.
At the end of the day Ukraine has ended up with a paltry 1 billion loan from America in return for handing over drilling rights to American companies mainly in the disputed East of the country.
The same happened to the Baltic States, their economies are now in ruins with very little manufacturing now left and why Lithuania for example has lost around 25% of its population, decamping mainly to The UK and Germany.