Russia to build new super army! Ukraine, Human Rights and WW3

[Saracen]

I fail to see the rationale on taking military action against the separatists and the Russians. How is the separatists/Russian actions any different to when the CIA interfered in the Afghan/Russian conflict during the 1980s?

Well, for a start, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, as a geo-political powerplay for a middle east toe-hold, and the CIA were helping the indigenous population of the invaded country to fight the aggressor. This time, the Russians have annexed a chunk of Ukraine, despite explicitly signing a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, then fermented unrest in another chunk of Ukraine, all resulting in an airliner belonging to one completely uninvolved country, carrying some 200 citizens of another, and 100 citizens of a wide variety of yet more uninvolved countries.

[opel80uk]

Well, for a start, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, as a geo-political powerplay for a middle east toe-hold, and the CIA were helping the indigenous population of the invaded country to fight the aggressor. This time, the Russians have annexed a chunk of Ukraine, despite explicitly signing a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, then fermented unrest in another chunk of Ukraine, all resulting in an airliner belonging to one completely uninvolved country, carrying some 200 citizens of another, and 100 citizens of a wide variety of yet more uninvolved countries.

So not too dissimilar to when the States supported Iraq after Iraq invaded Iran, and themselves shot down an passenger jet then? Which the US never admitted responsibility for BTW. Oh, and let’s not forget the Wests supplying of, and then subsequent blind eye turning & hand-wringing, when Saddam gassed his own people. But I guess it was viewed as the lesser evil at the time.

At the end of the day, Russia are not doing anything that a big power wouldn’t do to advance their own interests. This whole painting of Russia and Putin as some kind of bogeyman is rather laughable really. If the States were in Russia’s shoes, does anyone truly believe they would act any differently?

[wasabi]

Still doesn't make it right though.

[Saracen]

So not too dissimilar to when the States supported Iraq after Iraq invaded Iran, and themselves shot down an passenger jet then? Which the US never admitted responsibility for BTW. Oh, and let’s not forget the Wests supplying of, and then subsequent blind eye turning & hand-wringing, when Saddam gassed his own people. But I guess it was viewed as the lesser evil at the time.

At the end of the day, Russia are not doing anything that a big power wouldn’t do to advance their own interests. This whole painting of Russia and Putin as some kind of bogeyman is rather laughable really. If the States were in Russia’s shoes, does anyone truly believe they would act any differently?

Maybe, but it wasn't the comparison I responded to.

And the notion that Russia, which of course dance's to Putin's tune, isn't the 'bogeyman' in this situation is what's laughable.

[neonplanet40]

Apparently the UK is still supplying arms to Russia despite whinging and pushing for the French to stop doing so. The hypocrisy never ends.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to the money. Europe will NOT come down hard on Russia. The energy sector is far too dependant on them. And for me, that is the most tragic part. Hundreds of civilians can die around the world but generally nothing will be done about it, bar some verbal blustering and posturing. Unless of course, it is a country like Iraq in which their is wealth to be gleaned from the situation. Sad really.

[OilSheikh]

On a side note, US and UK have always been involved in other country's internal matters and they then have to clean up the mess when things turn sour

e.g. Afghanistan - Supported Talibans, and now they themselves want to get rid of the Talibans

[opel80uk]

Maybe, but it wasn't the comparison I responded to.

And the notion that Russia, which of course dance's to Putin's tune, isn't the 'bogeyman' in this situation is what's laughable.

When it comes to leaders of big powers, especially leaders of countries engaged in geopolitical activities, and their allies, there are only bogeymen.

[Top_gun]

Well, for a start, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, as a geo-political powerplay for a middle east toe-hold, and the CIA were helping the indigenous population of the invaded country to fight the aggressor. This time, the Russians have annexed a chunk of Ukraine, despite explicitly signing a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, then fermented unrest in another chunk of Ukraine, all resulting in an airliner belonging to one completely uninvolved country, carrying some 200 citizens of another, and 100 citizens of a wide variety of yet more uninvolved countries.

I think you've missed my point. The Americans and Russians have acted as military backers in a number of military conflicts since the end of the second world war. The CIA interfered in the Afghanistan/USSR conflict while the Russians has interfered in the Ukranian/Separatist conflict. In my mind there is no differential differences.

[Saracen]

I think you've missed my point. The Americans and Russians have acted as military backers in a number of military conflicts since the end of the second world war. The CIA interfered in the Afghanistan/USSR conflict while the Russians has interfered in the Ukranian/Separatist conflict. In my mind there is no differential differences.

I take your point, but you asked about differences. One difference was that Russia invaded Afghanistan, and the US helped Afghans fight back. In Ukraine, Russia effectively invsded in Crimea, though not in the overt way they did in Afghanistan, and annexed a chunk of a country in flat contradiction to the "guarantee" Putin, personally, had signed only a few years earlier that he would not do so. So, we know he's a liar, and that his written promises are worthless.

Maybe Putin ought to join the LibDems?

I'm not, emphatically NOT saying that the US are angels, or don't do things for their own vested interest (who does, in nation states?), or that I ageee with or support all US involvements around the world.

But you asked for differences between those two specific scenarios. I outlined a couple.

It's not whether I missed or didn't miss your point, or whether I agree with it or not, it's simply a couple of differences.

[Saracen]

On a side note, US and UK have always been involved in other country's internal matters and they then have to clean up the mess when things turn sour

e.g. Afghanistan - Supported Talibans, and now they themselves want to get rid of the Talibans

Well, the US supported the Mujahideen, not the Taliban, and they aren't at all the same thing.

[wasabi]

On a side note, US and UK have always been involved in other country's internal matters and they then have to clean up the mess when things turn sour

e.g. Afghanistan - Supported Talibans, and now they themselves want to get rid of the Talibans

Sort of . ish. At the time the Taliban weren't that important - it was the mujahideen who were the key players in fighting off the invading Red Army. The taliban popped up a bit later (90s).

[opel80uk]

Sort of . ish. At the time the Taliban weren't that important - it was the mujahideen who were the key players in fighting off the invading Red Army. The taliban popped up a bit later (90s).

And a lot of the Mujahideen actually fought against the Taliban movement. But I think the point being made is that the West are happy to involve themselves in various conflicts, to further their own interests, but then cry foul when Russia or Putin do it. It's the hypocrisy of the West that a lot of people find galling, setting aside whether Russia's actions are right or wrong for one moment. The Governments of the West, in particular the US and UK, were happy to support Russia and Putin in Chechnya, Saddam in Iran, the 2003 Invasion of a sovereign nation etc, but seem to think Russia ought not to do the same. That being the case, when the US or UK talk about what is ‘right’, they do so only from a position of what is ‘right’ for them and their interests. If Ukraine was an Anti-Eu, anti-American state, would we be hearing this outcry? Not for one second.

As for Putin being a liar – Pah. He’s a Politician, and a high level one at that. What does anyone expect?

[Saracen]

....

As for Putin being a liar – Pah. He’s a Politician, and a high level one at that. What does anyone expect?

Ture enough, but on an order of magnitude that dwarves even opportunistic LibDem promises that they assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, they would never be in a position to be held to.

[j1979]

So. I'm looking at the elephant. Fight Russia or not?

So. I'm looking at the elephant. Fight Russia or not?

Either the people of Russia will rise up and get rid of Putin or some wider conflict is inevitable. One of my best friends in Ukraine has told me what has been happening over these last few days, her partner is fighting in the east in the Ukrainian Army, and since Monday, apparently, there has been a massive influx of fresh Russian fighters coming over the boarder. My twitter source are also reporting a build up of Russians in the east... It's clea Russia are not going to back down.... But more meaningless tit for tat sanctions for now, that could work if things move slowly. We need much stronger Iran type sanctions. 0 trade with Russia.

At the moment the west don't want to force Putin into a corner but, can't be seen to do nothing. He is a war criminal and ethnic cleanser, but because we have trade with Russia they were prepared to over look the 200,000 or so people he has had murdered in Chechnya... It's OK for a rigged token "referendum" in Crimea, but where the people want to leave Russia they are simply crushed.

I find it interesting, that he said yesterday that other countries "should not meddle in Russian internal affairs". He actually seems to think war in Ukraine is a Russian internal affair, and 220 + dead EU citizens and 40+ Asians on top of the people killed in Ukraine is actually nothing to do with anyone but Russia.

The most telling thing you can see with regards to Russia's ex soviet neighbours is that they fall into 2 very distinct categories. The effective dictatorships, that are very Pro-Russian. For example Kazakhstan, Belarus where the propaganda is very partisan.
The democratic and very anti Russian eg. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

Those countries most hawkish over the Russians are those that know them best. And those that support Russia are those states that with to maintain a grip on their authoritarian regime.

The man is is only 5'6" so he obviously has small man syndrome. The world needs to get rid of him, the sooner the better. How many more people need to die to make the biggest country in the world even bigger? I would love to see him in the the hague answering all sorts of questions. I would love to see him hang. I felt strangely sorry for Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussian when they met their end, not sure why really... they were both pretty bad people. For Putin's end I won't feel the same humanity, I'm sure.

My guess is sanctions (if increased to a useful level) will cause his downfall, but if the Russian aggression continues, then, maybe I was right with my WW3 prediction in December. The problem is either Putin loses face at home, or he loses face internationally, for him to step back now means he must admit his errors, but that is dangerous for his corrupt regime to maintain it's bubble. They are already censoring many small anti Russian sources on the internet. If things get very bad Possibly Facebook and twitter, Skype could be banned.

However the EU looks weak and pathetic at the moment, it's been almost a week and they have done next to nothing.

In short, if Russia backs off Putin loses, Russia carries on it's aggression, more people die but eventually Putin loses. whatever happens Putin will be dead within 5 years, it's almost inevitable. I don't think he can backtrack out of this one.


What do you think wasabi? Do you think we should be readying the troops and calling up reserves?

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20080.aspx

[opel80uk]

Ture enough, but on an order of magnitude that dwarves even opportunistic LibDem promises that they assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, they would never be in a position to be held to.

Agreed. The big difference between the 2 though is that the Lib Dems face a wipe-out at the next GE, whereas Putin’s actions have arguably strengthened his position within Russia which is, presumably, his priority. I actually happen to think that Putin’s actions, whilst alarming, are entirely consistent with what a leader of a big power would do in a similar situation, and find it strange that there are some that are placing some sort special category on him, as if he’s the next Hitler, as opposed to just another geopolitical Premier.

[TheAnimus]

Because he has passed a lot of laws that many would consider oppressive.

It's not good to be gay, you can imprison people for causing offence, there has definitely been a brain drain too, three years ago I was working with a team out in St Petes, from those 12 people, only one still remains, the others were all scared. When I first started working with them, they were starting to be very worried about going to protests, things only got worse.

There are a lot of uneducated types, people who have little, who really like Putin, they admire the strength.