[Archived] Is world war 3 about to kick off, starting in Ukraine

[jim mk2]

. Labelling him and all Americans rednecks is prejudiced bordering on racist.

Aww, come off your high horse. Redneck is a term of endearment. Which one of the rednecks would Steve be in Deliverance ?

[MCMC1875]

Ridiculous. Russia have taken over Crimea and made it part of their country. America/Nato has done no such thing in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. All 3 have been abandoned or are in the process of being abandoned to the whims of their own populace. Afghanistan was invaded because it harboured terrorists who murdered thousands of people, Iraq because it had a dictator who'd started a war, Libya because it had a dictator killing his own people. None were a strategic expansion except in the eyes of conspiracy theorists and blinkered haters of the West

Criticising Steve Moss' intelligence simply highlights how dire your own is. Regardless of the guy's standpoint, his posts are well structured, well researched and eloquent. Labelling him and all Americans rednecks is prejudiced bordering on racist.

.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Diplomacy should always be the first option Paul. However the "militarists" as we have been labeled believe that sanctions will not work as they did not work against Tehran or indeed Saddam and his regime. As I have posted before, Putin is refusing to negotiate with the west as he believes we are part of the problem, so that is not an option. Sanctions? well as I stated above they are not always effective (if ever) and this is further evidenced by the fact that in spite of the threat of said sanctions the Russians are now demanding autonomy for parts of the Ukraine itself and doing so using the very "gun boat" diplomacy you yourself do not want to see the west using, So please let me ask you. How far are you willing to let Putin go and if( as I believe) sanctions prove to be ineffective, what course of action would you then adopt?

Did sanctions fail against Iran and Iraq? Let's have a look at the evidence...

The main crimes of Saddam Hussein dated back to 1988-1991. After the Gulf War (the first one) the CIA funded attempts to foster a revolution in Iraq which was repressed, but was that unexpected? After that there are only the relatively vanilla human rights abuses that one would expect from almost any country in the Middle East, most of which is not far removed from what the American government is known to have done to its own opponents, and none of it seems to mark the country out for invasion. The goal of sanctions was to prevent Hussein from getting his hands on weapons of mass destruction. The claims of weapons of mass destruction made before the invasion have been shown to be unfounded (apart from the ones that had already been used, but we knew about those because we supplied them for use in the war with Iran), and Saddam's nuclear ambitions were effectively ended by Israel's bombing of the Osirak reactor (a move which the US condemned at the time, since Saddam was still considered a favoured friend). All things considered, Iraq was stable and posed no threat to the US or its allies in the region. Sanctions appear to have done their job.

Sanctions on Iran were toughened in recent years and, along with the election of a more moderate president, helped to bring the country to the negotiating table in the last few months. There were no threats of invasion. For 35 years before that Western policy on Iran had been a farce, preferring subterfuge and bullying to treating the Iranians like adults. Again, Iran has no nuclear weapons and the last war they fought ended in 1988. Funnily enough, that war was fought against the invading forces of a US-backed Saddam Hussein and it was only after that 8 year conflict came to an end that Saddam began to lose favour with the West. Coincidence?

Admittedly Tehran has involved itself in other conflicts across the Middle East, but if Washington has the right to promote its interests anywhere in the world why should everyone else play by different rules?

Over the past decade, Iran has attempted to negotiate a few times as sanctions took hold. Honestly, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric could just as easily be seen as an attempt to force the West to negotiate as a legitimate threat. Iran proposed a nuclear weapons free zone from Afghanistan to Morocco, but the US refused to even consider it because that would have included disarming Israel. You don't hear much about that because it doesn't fit well with the narrative we're fed by our news media.

Sanctions are the best lever we have in cases like this. Of course there has to be a suggestion that we would be prepared to use force in dire circumstances, but we aren't at the point where that route needs to be promoted as an inevitability.

otto man - I use the term "militarists" for want of anything better. I don't intend it in a perjorative sense but do feel it's an adequate shorthand.

How far do we allow Putin to go? I think it can be no further BUT, and I know the question you'll raise, I still cannot imagine the circumstances under which I would agree to war. We can move troops in and out, we can posture etc. and I suspect Putin will still push to find the boundary. He would probably keep pushing until his opponents are forced to prove they are prepared to fight and hostilities begin. This is the problem with demonstrating one's willingness to fight. If we are convinced Putin needs to be shown the West will fight it doesn't matter how many tanks are lined up nothing is proven till the bombs begin to fall. If Putin really wants to test this the outcome is terrible.

If war breaks out we are not discussing a small conflict somewhere hot and dusty against a largely inadequately armed and trained enemy. This is two modern, well equipped armies going head to head. Historically I think I'm right in saying Russia doesn't worry too much about counting the dead provided victory is achieved which puts the West in a very tough position. I truely believe "we" would struggle to find enough people prepared to die in a foreign land.

If I'm asked for a solution it would be this. War will devastate Europe so we have to be prepared to cut Russia off economically, not sanctions but a complete isolation from all and every form of trade. The effect on European and probably world economies would be far-reaching but surely better than war? If Russia were to be totally isolated economically, socially, travel, sport etc. perhaps the Russians would do the job for us?

The political term would be "hawks".

If war breaks out we are talking about long-range strikes against military targets in Ukraine whilst Russia tries to bomb NATO cruisers in the Black Sea and shoot down aircraft that enforce a no-fly zone. Should Putin get really aggressive we might see strikes on NATO members in Eastern Europe, but missile defence systems mean that any fear of bombs falling over western Europe is little more than hysteria.

How to protect allies in the Baltic region would be a difficult question since their military installations would not be sophisticated enough to protect themselves against Russia's long-range capabilities. If the nuclear option comes into play then, to steal a line from Kennedy, both sides would be entering a "war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth". Neither side genuinely wants that.

Ridiculous. Russia have taken over Crimea and made it part of their country. America/Nato has done no such thing in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. All 3 have been abandoned or are in the process of being abandoned to the whims of their own populace. Afghanistan was invaded because it harboured terrorists who murdered thousands of people, Iraq because it had a dictator who'd started a war, Libya because it had a dictator killing his own people. None were a strategic expansion except in the eyes of conspiracy theorists and blinkered haters of the West

Criticising Steve Moss' intelligence simply highlights how dire your own is. Regardless of the guy's standpoint, his posts are well structured, well researched and eloquent. Labelling him and all Americans rednecks is prejudiced bordering on racist.

Afghanistan has not been abandoned and the pressure on Hamid Karzai to allow coalition forces to remain for the foreseeable future rather suggests that we don't want to leave it to the "whims of the own populace".

Iraq has been left to its own devices for the most part (save the city-sized US embassy that still occupies a large part of Baghdad), and the largest challenge facing Nouri al-Maliki's government these days is how to stop the violence that is almost exclusively being carried out by groups that hadn't been heard of in Iraq during Saddam's reign, groups that threaten not only the lives of Iraqis but the stability of the entire region. Good advert for the use of military force. Meanwhile, most of the American politicians that advocated the 2003 invasion are now lamenting the rise of Iranian and Chinese influence as they expected US interests to have primacy once the conflict was over.

Libya has been the most unadultered of the three, the timing of the decision to remove that particular dictator was more strange than the ethics, did it really take 42 years to decide that Gaddafi was an undesirable? It's hard to know whether we made that one better or worse, but we'll leave that alone because, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya was already heading for disaster without the input of the West.

Sorry for the long post guys.

[Amo]

Since when are 'Muricans a 'race'?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Afghanistan has not been abandoned and the pressure on Hamid Karzai to allow coalition forces to remain for the foreseeable future rather suggests that we don't want to leave it to the "whims of the own populace".

Iraq has been left to its own devices for the most part (save the city-sized US embassy that still occupies a large part of Baghdad), and the largest challenge facing Nouri al-Maliki's government these days is how to stop the violence that is almost exclusively being carried out by groups that hadn't been heard of in Iraq during Saddam's reign, groups that threaten not only the lives of Iraqis but the stability of the entire region. Good advert for the use of military force. Meanwhile, most of the American politicians that advocated the 2003 invasion are now lamenting the rise of Iranian and Chinese influence as they expected US interests to have primacy once the conflict was over.

Libya has been the most unadultered of the three, the timing of the decision to remove that particular dictator was more strange than the ethics, did it really take 42 years to decide that Gaddafi was an undesirable? It's hard to know whether we made that one better or worse, but we'll leave that alone because, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya was already heading for disaster without the input of the West.

Well I'm pretty sure we do want to leave Afghanistan, in any way that doesn't allow the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to march back in within the year seems to be the only specification. Maybe that's not achievable yet, but I'm sure it will be before too long. I agree things haven't got better in Iraq, and certainly aren't going as well as any American politician would have hoped. But the original motive for going in remains fairly sound in my opinion. A dictator with a proven record for starting a major war, who had far from given up expanding his military power. America didn't plan the timing to remove Gaddafi, the Libyan people did. I assume you've heard of the Arab spring. The west simply stepped in when Gadaffi started massacring the rebels.

You've stated puzzlement at things not playing out to the west's advantage in Iraq and Libya. Well that's puzzlement based on the idea that the only reason the west stepped in is for 100% selfish reasons. The liberals in this country love a good ramble about how it was all about oil or expanding the west's influence, or in Wilpshire Blue's case he seems to think Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyan are part of America to the extent that Crimea is part of Russia. Well that's mostly garbage in my opinion. Oil prices are rising faster than ever and western influence in the middle east is more tenuous than ever. So either America/Nato is repeatedly bungling their claimed empire expansion, or its nothing even resembling an empire expansion in the first place.

Mostly international politics is selfish, and occasionally its based around the idea of what's right. In the modern world only certain countries have the comfort and security to indulge in doing what's right, and only America and Europe ever seem to have the desire. That alone should make us friends and allies. And yet a dismaying proportion of people in this country have this contemptible standpoint that whatever happens in the world must be America's fault. Its apparently fashionable, and utterly idiotic.

[jim mk2]

Ever since the 1950s the US has relentlessly expanded Nato up to Russia's borders, incorporating nine former Warsaw Pact states and three former Soviet republics into what is effectively an anti-Russian military alliance in Europe. The European association agreement which provoked the Ukrainian crisis also included clauses to integrate Ukraine into the EU defence structure.

That western military expansion was first brought to a halt in 2008 when Georgia attacked Russian forces in South Ossetia and was driven out. The short but bloody conflict signalled the end of George W Bush's world in which the US empire would enforce its will without challenge on every continent.

Given that background, it is hardly surprising that Russia has acted to stop Ukraine falling into the western camp, especially given that Crimea is also the home of one of Russia's main naval bases. In a world where the US and its allies have turned international lawlessness into a permanent routine, others are bound to try the same game.

[old darwen blue]

This thread is riveting reading, well done posters.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Well I'm pretty sure we do want to leave Afghanistan, in any way that doesn't allow the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to march back in within the year seems to be the only specification. Maybe that's not achievable yet, but I'm sure it will be before too long. I agree things haven't got better in Iraq, and certainly aren't going as well as any American politician would have hoped. But the original motive for going in remains fairly sound in my opinion. A dictator with a proven record for starting a major war, who had far from given up expanding his military power. America didn't plan the timing to remove Gaddafi, the Libyan people did. I assume you've heard of the Arab spring. The west simply stepped in when Gadaffi started massacring the rebels.

You've stated puzzlement at things not playing out to the west's advantage in Iraq and Libya. Well that's puzzlement based on the idea that the only reason the west stepped in is for 100% selfish reasons. The liberals in this country love a good ramble about how it was all about oil or expanding the west's influence, or in Wilpshire Blue's case he seems to think Afghanistan, Iraq and Libyan are part of America to the extent that Crimea is part of Russia. Well that's mostly garbage in my opinion. Oil prices are rising faster than ever and western influence in the middle east is more tenuous than ever. So either America/Nato is repeatedly bungling their claimed empire expansion, or its nothing even resembling an empire expansion in the first place.

Mostly international politics is selfish, and occasionally its based around the idea of what's right. In the modern world only certain countries have the comfort and security to indulge in doing what's right, and only America and Europe ever seem to have the desire. That alone should make us friends and allies. And yet a dismaying proportion of people in this country have this contemptible standpoint that whatever happens in the world must be America's fault. Its apparently fashionable, and utterly idiotic.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over if evidence of his involvement in 9/11 could be produced. The White House refused. After the Soviet tanks rolled out of Kabul there had been no interest in the affairs of Afghanistan, but suddenly it became very important. As it stands, almost all of the presidential candidates in Afghanistan and the majority of public opinion (as far as polls there can be relied upon) are opposed to ISAF remaining beyond 2014, and regardless of whether the soldiers stay or not the next president of the country we "liberated" will likely be a murdering, mutilating thug from the Northern Alliance, but as long as we can tell ourselves the bad guys are all gone it's ok, right?

I thought the motive for war in Iraq was to get rid of WMDs? Or was it to get rid of the al-Qaeda cells that never seemed to be there before but have suddenly sprung up since Saddam was removed? Whatever, the main point was that when Saddam was starting a major war with Iran we were right behind him, but when he resorted to force against a nation that was threatening his country's economy by undermining the price of oil we changed our minds because he had outlived his usefulness. Sanctions had already prevented Iraq from rebuilding as a significant fighting force, any argument to the contrary is frankly ridiculous.

Remember that the reason we felt we had to disarm Saddam in the first place was because we empowered him. Britain made a mess of diplomacy in Iran because too many people were still clinging to the days of Empire as they robbed that country blind, when we finally convinced the US to come along for the ride and remove Mossadegh we didn't realise how easily the public anger at the coup could be turned into support for religious fundamentalists. Having seen the rise of Khomeini we needed someone who would balance him out in the region, enter Saddam.

Since we were so benevolent in helping out the Libyan opposition, am I safe to assume we'll be launching air strikes on Sana'a, Cairo, Damascus and Amman any day now? Funny that we were so keen to remove Gadaffi when the Libyans demanded it, yet when the Egyptians demanded that Mubarak relinquish power we were entirely more reticent, and there has been very little mention of the military coup that has ensued. Drone strikes in Yemen continue, but not against the government which, although unpopular to the point of inciting violence amongst its own people, has been quite accommodating of Western interests. Assad refuses to go in Syria and has been butchering his own people for 4 years now, yet we sit on our hands.

How about Erdogan in Turkey? Where were we when he was using violence to maintain his grip on power?

We have actually been supporting Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan because we needed regional allies for the war in Afghanistan, but his treatment of his own people is diabolical. What are we planning to do about that?

While we're running through the list, why haven't we done anything about the Kims in North Korea? We made such a big deal out of the nuclear threat of Iran, despite our best experts saying Tehran was decades away from developing nuclear weapons, yet North Korea periodically carries out tests on its well-established nuclear programme and all we have done is talk about it.

Given the pattern, can you understand why a cynic might not believe that the "coalition of the willing" were being selfless in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

When the US and Europe want to start doing what's right, I'll be right behind them. Forcing Israel to enter serious negotiations regarding their occupation of Palestinian land and the right of return for displaced Palestinian refugees might be a nice start.

As for comparisons to Crimea, you're right, it isn't even close to similar. Russia has invaded a territory that has never accepted Ukrainian rule since the demise of the USSR; a region that has made repeated bids for independence in the hopes of being absorbed into the Russian Federation and whose population constitutes a majority of ethnic Russians. If we're talking about giving the people what they want, maybe we should just let it be. Of course, it's not what we want so in this case the will of the people matters less than the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Apart from anything else, people seem to be of the opinion that sanctions won't work and the top NATO commander in the region says military force isn't a viable option, so what are we going to do?

If we're criticising Russia then I'd rather talk about Chechnya, Daghestan, Kaliningrad and whatever other principalities there are that would quite like to do the opposite of Crimea and declare themselves independent of Russia. Even Siberia isn't completely happy with being Russian.

[Paul]

.

[Guest Norbert]

While we're running through the list, why haven't we done anything about the Kims in North Korea? We made such a big deal out of the nuclear threat of Iran, despite our best experts saying Tehran was decades away from developing nuclear weapons, yet North Korea periodically carries out tests on its well-established nuclear programme and all we have done is talk about it.

I agree with your points about Iraq, Karimov in Uzbekistan and the probable future of Afghanistan, but I wanted to comment on this bit. Firstly, the USA is still technically at war with North Korea. Secondly, Seoul is well within range of North Korea's artillery, and if a real effort to get rid of the North was mounted by the USA, Seoul would be battered. Japan is also within range of North Korea's missiles so they might want to lob a few over there as a final act of vengeance as the regime falls apart. Thirdly, China is likely to prop up North Korea with weapons and money in an effort to avoid dealing with the millions who would try and flee into China once the Kimmy crew lose their grip on events. Fourthly, the country will eventually collapse because of it's backwardness (though this may take a good while). And finally, I think there is a consensus amongst politicians that industrious, technologically advanced and educated east Asians are more valuable than a load of corrupt, hot headed religious nutjobs from the middle east or central Asia so they let them get on with blowing each other up, just as long as the oil flow is not disrupted.

[thenodrog]

I visited Russia in 1979, in the depths of winter and by chance the week Russia invaded Afghanistan. The Foreign Office said it was safe for us to go, so off we went. Russia back then was a fascinating but desperate place. The transformation when I returned 2 years ago was startling. Modern Russia is a vibrant, rich country with a large and increasingly wealthy middle class (non-existent in 1979) that enjoys spending its wealth and the luxuries of life. You only have to holiday around Europe in the best hotels to see Russians enyoing their newfound prosperity. Putin can flex his muscles all he likes but there is no way these people will allow their country to descend into its poor, internationally isolated pre-1990 state. Economic sanctions that hurt the Russians will work, and could lead ultimately to Putin's downfall.

Does that constitute a comment on the failings of communism WB?

[thenodrog]

Labelling him and all Americans rednecks is prejudiced bordering on racist.

It's quite obvious that the word 'racist/racism' has altered and widened it's meaning to ridiculous proportions in todays precious and pampered society since the difficult mid 20th century days of the holocaust, polgroms, apartheid etc but that is surely a ridiculous thing to say SKH.

[Guest Norbert]

This whole issue of whether we should go to war with Russia etc. got me thinking about a TV series I had heard about that was made in the 1980's. I had to find out what it was called, and discovered it was called Threads. Reading the plot summary alone is enough to make me avoid pressing that big red button, and the danger of a nuclear war should not be dismissed as 'one of those things'.

[Adam C]

Redneck Americans (with IQ to match) such as Steve Moss fail to understand that US aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out.

Labelling him and all Americans rednecks is prejudiced bordering on racist.

Since when are 'Muricans a 'race'?

It's quite obvious that the word 'racist/racism' has altered and widened it's meaning to ridiculous proportions in todays precious and pampered society since the difficult mid 20th century days of the holocaust, polgroms, apartheid etc but that is surely a ridiculous thing to say SKH.

I think the word is "xenophobic". As far as I can tell the only difference between xenophobia and racism is that the former refers to prejudice, fear and hatred expressed against a different nationality as opposed to a race. It is still bad form and SKH is correct to call Wilpshire on this one on my view.

For what it's worth this is my favourite thread here as well and I am enjoying the debate.

[jim mk2]

I think the word is "xenophobic". As far as I can tell the only difference between xenophobia and racism is that the former refers to prejudice, fear and hatred expressed against a different nationality as opposed to a race. It is still bad form and SKH is correct to call Wilpshire on this one on my view.

Don't be silly. The term "Rednecks" is disparaging certainly but not derogatory. Perhaps they deserve it - see the link below.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3792-rednecks/

So back to Russia and the impending threat of world world three after Putin annexed a former satellite that wanted to return to the Russian federation anyway.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

It's quite obvious that the word 'racist/racism' has altered and widened it's meaning to ridiculous proportions in todays precious and pampered society since the difficult mid 20th century days of the holocaust, polgroms, apartheid etc but that is surely a ridiculous thing to say SKH.

Probably. I think Hypnotic is right in that the correct term would be xenophobic.

I mainly like to use such provocative terms against left-wing/liberal people as its something they've employed at each and every opportunity to describe the right for decades. Racists, facists, insular, intolerant, prejudiced etc, all standard ammunition of the left in most political debates. And yet its amazing how many are just as bad, if not worse, themselves.

Disparagingly labelling another poster and the country he comes from as a bunch of rednecks, and then bringing up Deliverance. Can you imagine the disgust I'd receive on here, and rightly so, for describing an Asian poster in the same manner? But decency and politeness seems to go out of the window when some of these slavering America-phobes get going.

And then after such a display of ignorance and prejudice, its back to adopting the saintly standpoint of poltiical sophistication and superiority of the left. Laughably hypocritical.

[yoda]

Ever since the 1950s the US has relentlessly expanded Nato up to Russia's borders, incorporating nine former Warsaw Pact states and three former Soviet republics into what is effectively an anti-Russian military alliance in Europe. The European association agreement which provoked the Ukrainian crisis also included clauses to integrate Ukraine into the EU defence structure.

That western military expansion was first brought to a halt in 2008 when Georgia attacked Russian forces in South Ossetia and was driven out. The short but bloody conflict signalled the end of George W Bush's world in which the US empire would enforce its will without challenge on every continent.

Given that background, it is hardly surprising that Russia has acted to stop Ukraine falling into the western camp, especially given that Crimea is also the home of one of Russia's main naval bases. In a world where the US and its allies have turned international lawlessness into a permanent routine, others are bound to try the same game.

Have NATO annexed any of those 9 countries

The EU treaty is what is wanted by the Ukraine government, not an outside state

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Have NATO annexed any of those 9 countries

The EU treaty is what is wanted by the Ukraine government, not an outside state

Just because a nation wants to do something does not mean it would be diplomatically prudent to pursue such a course.

How did the US feel when Cuba allied with the Soviet Union? Imagine if Canada and Mexico had done the same thing and then Moscow positioned missiles within those countries for "defence". What do we think the reaction would be in Washington, even today?

It wouldn't be tolerated, and yet that is exactly the game of brinksmanship that NATO has embarked upon since the end of the Cold War. Depending on who you talk to, it may also be against what was agreed, certainly the US ambassador to Russia in 1990 says there was a gentleman's agreement that NATO would not expand past Germany.

Looking again at who we ally ourselves with, the faction we are currently supporting in Ukraine are not a pleasant bunch. The dominant groups amongst those who took to the streets to oust Yanukovych (who was put in power in free and fair elections) are opposed to democratic leadership and celebrate the lives of men who participated in the Holocaust.

To those Ukrainians who wish to tie themselves to Russia the issue of signing an agreement with the EU is a non-starter. Think of the damage done to Mexican agri-business when they signed NAFTA. The whole point of the EU treaty is to give Western European companies a foothold in the EU, for which we are ready to hand Ukraine certain short-term financial relief measures; essentially asking them to sell their future for immediate gain.

In polls taken over the last year, public opinion in Ukraine was split pretty evenly, and there was certainly no clear majority in support of closer ties to the EU across the country. In Kyiv there was a large majority in favour, which is why we saw so many people taking to the streets there on the news. Further east, in Donetsk for example, similar majorities are opposed to Euromaidan. The last credible polls had 45% in favour, 48% opposed; so the democratic nations of NATO have once again supported the removal of a democratically elected president by a faction that does not represent the majority opinion (but does happen to be agreeable to Western business interests).

If there was any sign that the EU and US were sensitive to the concerns of those in eastern Ukraine then maybe they wouldn't be so keen to reach for Moscow as a security blanket.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Probably. I think Hypnotic is right in that the correct term would be xenophobic.

I mainly like to use such provocative terms against left-wing/liberal people as its something they've employed at each and every opportunity to describe the right for decades. Racists, facists, insular, intolerant, prejudiced etc, all standard ammunition of the left in most political debates. And yet its amazing how many are just as bad, if not worse, themselves.

Disparagingly labelling another poster and the country he comes from as a bunch of rednecks, and then bringing up Deliverance. Can you imagine the disgust I'd receive on here, and rightly so, for describing an Asian poster in the same manner? But decency and politeness seems to go out of the window when some of these slavering America-phobes get going.

And then after such a display of ignorance and prejudice, its back to adopting the saintly standpoint of poltiical sophistication and superiority of the left. Laughably hypocritical.

You need to get over yourself.

[yoda]

Just because a nation wants to do something does not mean it would be diplomatically prudent to pursue such a course.

How did the US feel when Cuba allied with the Soviet Union? Imagine if Canada and Mexico had done the same thing and then Moscow positioned missiles within those countries for "defence". What do we think the reaction would be in Washington, even today?

It wouldn't be tolerated, and yet that is exactly the game of brinksmanship that NATO has embarked upon since the end of the Cold War. Depending on who you talk to, it may also be against what was agreed, certainly the US ambassador to Russia in 1990 says there was a gentleman's agreement that NATO would not expand past Germany.

Looking again at who we ally ourselves with, the faction we are currently supporting in Ukraine are not a pleasant bunch. The dominant groups amongst those who took to the streets to oust Yanukovych (who was put in power in free and fair elections) are opposed to democratic leadership and celebrate the lives of men who participated in the Holocaust.

To those Ukrainians who wish to tie themselves to Russia the issue of signing an agreement with the EU is a non-starter. Think of the damage done to Mexican agri-business when they signed NAFTA. The whole point of the EU treaty is to give Western European companies a foothold in the EU, for which we are ready to hand Ukraine certain short-term financial relief measures; essentially asking them to sell their future for immediate gain.

In polls taken over the last year, public opinion in Ukraine was split pretty evenly, and there was certainly no clear majority in support of closer ties to the EU across the country. In Kyiv there was a large majority in favour, which is why we saw so many people taking to the streets there on the news. Further east, in Donetsk for example, similar majorities are opposed to Euromaidan. The last credible polls had 45% in favour, 48% opposed; so the democratic nations of NATO have once again supported the removal of a democratically elected president by a faction that does not represent the majority opinion (but does happen to be agreeable to Western business interests).

If there was any sign that the EU and US were sensitive to the concerns of those in eastern Ukraine then maybe they wouldn't be so keen to reach for Moscow as a security blanket.

That was bit contrite, anyway did NATO annex any of the 9 countries you quoted, not that it matters as the EU are being ably supported by the USA in the one world order project.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

That was bit contrite, anyway did NATO annex any of the 9 countries you quoted, not that it matters as the EU are being ably supported by the USA in the one world order project.

Less a project than the natural progression of any civilisation; as one becomes dominant it destroys the alternatives, but that's another discussion.

Anyway, you're so fixated on annexation being the only relevant point that you missed the vast majority of the issue, along with the fact that it wasn't me that listed the eastern European affiliates of NATO.

At the heart of the UN Charter is the right to self-determination (Chapter 1, Article 1), Crimea exercised that right. If you don't accept the results of the 2014 plebiscite then go back to the poll held in 1992 where the majority voted for Crimean independence with the ultimate intention of becoming part of Russia; there were no Russian soldiers holding the public buildings then.

So no, NATO has not annexed any eastern European nations, but then none of their citizens have ever voted for such action either, which makes them quite different to Crimea. What NATO has done in Ukraine is use NGOs and support for neo-Nazi groups to bring about regime change against the will of at least half the population.

[Guest Norbert]

Has NATO itself done that, or countries within NATO?

[Dreyski]

Does that constitute a comment on the failings of communism WB?

I would suspect yes and no. The middle class only really exists in the big cities, and even there, there is evidence of the huge gap between the haves (with their chauffeur-driven cars, euro-style apartments etc) and the have nots (most pensioners in Ukraine lost their life savings following independence, university professors who make ends meet by driving 'gypsy cabs', and so on). Going out into the country is like stepping back into the past and I believe that life before and after communism there would be very similar (maybe fewer KGB informants).

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

You need to get over yourself.

Great response. I'll assume that translates to "can't think of a proper reply but stop talking so I win the argument".

[T.J.Newton]

Nobody ever "wins" an argument.