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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like the rebels are starting to fracture now,one has said they had a Buk system and another one denies it:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-...er-confirms-fi
http://ngrguardiannews.com/news/worl...ng-buk-missile

[j1979]

Absolutely. His actions are entirely consistent with the leader of a country that is engaged in geopolitics. The reason I keep bringing up things that you say are irrelevant, is to example this. Yet it is me who is blind.

Your conflating lots of issues. Firstly, the West encouraged Saddam to invade Iran, to further their own interests and then complained when he done the same with Kuwait later on. The Scud missiles that you talk about were first fired by Iraq when they were supported by the US. It’s exactly this type of scenario that is, aside from entirely predictable, infuriating.

What America definitely shouldn’t have done after 9/11 is invaded Iraq, a country with virtually no terrorist organisations, wasn’t involved at all in 9/11, who posed no real threat to the West and didn’t have any WMD’s. What they should have done was what the UN weapons inspectors suggested – more time. Instead, they invaded a sovereign nation on the flimsiest pretence to advance their own political agenda. Does that remind you of anyone? The problem is, now instead of pro West leader Bush, we have Putin. I think we’re starting to realise how a lot of the rest of the world felt when Bush was pulling the strings.

As for the State’s nervous allies – do you think they are now safer, or not, as a result of US actions?

If you want to start a new thread called opel80uk dislikes wester forign policy.. feel free. but if you would like to switch Russia Today channel off for a few mins you might learn something.

First, in hindsight Iraq and Afganistan were a large mistake, most people can agree on that. And more time may well have given time to get decent inteligence on Iraq. However Saddam had fired on americas ally and later threated to do it again the refused entry to weapons inspectors. hindsight is great and at the time i was on an anti war march... however Saddam could have simply said, ok, come take a look and called Americas bluff...! His need to want to play with fire cost him and Iraq dearly, and America and UK are to blame for many problems.

However the problems were there long before America, mistakes made in drawing up nation-states were ill conceived. But the Sunni, Kurd and Shia relations were a powder keg of conflict for centuries, long before nation-states of America. In the same way as war broke out in Yugoslavia when Tito died, there was a high chance the same would happen in Iraq at some point anyway, when Saddam died...maybe his sons would have carried on in the same vein. America is simply one of the main catalyts. The other bing the arab spring in north Africa. So the west can and righlty does blame it's actions for the some of problems of Iraq, but they are not the cause, but the catalyst.

but this is the last post on the subject because agruing about others countries forign policy is childish. This is about Russian forign policy.

You may notice the little green men, the fact that they almost always fight without insigia and without fail break the geneva convention.
Russian action in Europe since the wall came down and then the USSR disintegrated.

1991–1992 Georgian war against Russo-Ossetian alliance (pro-Russian military support)
1991–1993 Georgian Civil War (pro-Russian military action)
1991–1995 Croatian War of Independence (pro-Russian military action)
1992 War of Transnistria (Russian and pro-Russian military action and unofficial annexation)
1992 Ossetian-Ingush conflict (Russian military action)
1992–1993 First Georgian war against Russo-Abkhazian alliance (Russian military action)
1992–1995 Bosnian War (pro-Russian forces involved in ethnic cleansing)
1993 Russian constitutional crisis (Russian internal standoff)
1994–1996 First Chechen War (evidence ethnic cleansing by Russians / Russian military action)
1998–1999 Kosovo War (Russian involvement)
1998 Second Georgian war against Russian-Abkhazian alliance (Russian military action)
1999 Dagestan War (Russian military action)
1999–2009 Second Chechen War (evidence ethnic cleansing by Russians / Russian military action)
2004 Georgia, Adjara crisis (Russian involvement)
2006 Georgia, Kodori crisis (Russian involvement)
2007–present Civil war in Ingushetia (Russian involvement)
2007 Huge cyber attacts against Estonia.
2008 Russia–Georgia war (Russian military action / occupation and annexation)
2009–present Insurgency in the North Caucasus (Russian military action)
2013 Lithuania cyber attacks followed by Russian threats
2013-2014 Euromaidan (Russian involvement)
2014-present Crimean crisis (Russian occupation and annexation)
2014-present Ukraine ongoing Russian Involvement.

This list does not take into account people killed in clandestine attacks, outside of Russia's boarder.

Your statement about Iran Air Flight 655, you will notice, America did not deny they owned the ship, the missile, neither did they deny that Americans fired the missile. You will note they had been fired upon by the Iranians.

You will also note that the Netherlands, the UK nor the Malaysians had not fired a single shot at the Russians. Who continue to deny involvement, that continue to fight a war without insignia (yet again).

"What difference does whether they are democratic or not make?"

This has to be the funniest of your statements, and there have been a few so that is say something.

Why are free people are more likely to make informed choices and have informed opinions than oppressed people? If you don't know the answer, and don't know the reason it's relevant, then you should start reading.. ill get you started. http://www.google.com/

Now you have taken the thread off topic, so either shut up or start a new thread.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Now you have taken the thread off topic, so either shut up or start a new thread.

If you don't like what people say then ignore it - but you have little or no right to tell people to shut up. Don't be a douche.

[j1979]

Looks like the rebels are starting to fracture now,one has said they had a Buk system and another one denies it:

http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-...er-confirms-fi
http://ngrguardiannews.com/news/worl...ng-buk-missile

I was reading on twitter, the reason for these inconsistency is because reports are coming in the 2 fighters shot down yesterday, were fired from Russia.

Putin's next move?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was reading on twitter, the reason for these inconsistency is because reports are coming in the 2 fighters shot down yesterday, were fired from Russia.

Putin's next move?

He is a politician - what do you think??

[opel80uk]

If you want to start a new thread called opel80uk dislikes wester forign policy.. feel free. but if you would like to switch Russia Today channel off for a few mins you might learn something.

First, in hindsight Iraq and Afganistan were a large mistake, most people can agree on that. And more time may well have given time to get decent inteligence on Iraq. However Saddam had fired on americas ally and later threated to do it again the refused entry to weapons inspectors. hindsight is great and at the time i was on an anti war march... however Saddam could have simply said, ok, come take a look and called Americas bluff...! His need to want to play with fire cost him and Iraq dearly, and America and UK are to blame for many problems.

However the problems were there long before America, mistakes made in drawing up nation-states were ill conceived. But the Sunni, Kurd and Shia relations were a powder keg of conflict for centuries, long before nation-states of America. In the same way as war broke out in Yugoslavia when Tito died, there was a high chance the same would happen in Iraq at some point anyway, when Saddam died...maybe his sons would have carried on in the same vein. America is simply one of the main catalyts. The other bing the arab spring in north Africa. So the west can and righlty does blame it's actions for the some of problems of Iraq, but they are not the cause, but the catalyst.

but this is the last post on the subject because agruing about others countries forign policy is childish. This is about Russian forign policy.

You may notice the little green men, the fact that they almost always fight without insigia and without fail break the geneva convention.
Russian action in Europe since the wall came down and then the USSR disintegrated.

1991–1992 Georgian war against Russo-Ossetian alliance (pro-Russian military support)
1991–1993 Georgian Civil War (pro-Russian military action)
1991–1995 Croatian War of Independence (pro-Russian military action)
1992 War of Transnistria (Russian and pro-Russian military action and unofficial annexation)
1992 Ossetian-Ingush conflict (Russian military action)
1992–1993 First Georgian war against Russo-Abkhazian alliance (Russian military action)
1992–1995 Bosnian War (pro-Russian forces involved in ethnic cleansing)
1993 Russian constitutional crisis (Russian internal standoff)
1994–1996 First Chechen War (evidence ethnic cleansing by Russians / Russian military action)
1998–1999 Kosovo War (Russian involvement)
1998 Second Georgian war against Russian-Abkhazian alliance (Russian military action)
1999 Dagestan War (Russian military action)
1999–2009 Second Chechen War (evidence ethnic cleansing by Russians / Russian military action)
2004 Georgia, Adjara crisis (Russian involvement)
2006 Georgia, Kodori crisis (Russian involvement)
2007–present Civil war in Ingushetia (Russian involvement)
2007 Huge cyber attacts against Estonia.
2008 Russia–Georgia war (Russian military action / occupation and annexation)
2009–present Insurgency in the North Caucasus (Russian military action)
2013 Lithuania cyber attacks followed by Russian threats
2013-2014 Euromaidan (Russian involvement)
2014-present Crimean crisis (Russian occupation and annexation)
2014-present Ukraine ongoing Russian Involvement.

This list does not take into account people killed in clandestine attacks, outside of Russia's boarder.

Your statement about Iran Air Flight 655, you will notice, America did not deny they owned the ship, the missile, neither did they deny that Americans fired the missile. You will note they had been fired upon by the Iranians.

You will also note that the Netherlands, the UK nor the Malaysians had not fired a single shot at the Russians. Who continue to deny involvement, that continue to fight a war without insignia (yet again).

"What difference does whether they are democratic or not make?"

This has to be the funniest of your statements, and there have been a few so that is say something.

Why are free people are more likely to make informed choices and have informed opinions than oppressed people? If you don't know the answer, and don't know the reason it's relevant, then you should start reading.. ill get you started. http://www.google.com/

Now you have taken the thread off topic, so either shut up or start a new thread.

Firstly, it would be wise to refrain from telling people to 'shut up' on a thread. I'm not the type to ever complain about a post, but the mods can see it and will likely result in you being banned, which I wouldn’t like to see.

Secondly, when I said "What difference does whether they are democratic or not make?" I was, I thought obviously, referring to the fact that, regardless of whether they are democratic or not, an alliance of those 2 nations makes militarily action virtually impossible. I wasn't, again I thought obviously, discussing the relevant merits, or lack of, of those 2 undemocratic regimes who.

And lastly, I wouldn't have mentioned Western foreign policy if you hadn't, in this and the previous thread, advocated sending Western troops in to that theatre. It simply follows that if you are having a discussion about sending UK troops in there, an analysis of UK and Western foreign policy is essential. That's not a radical idea, it's just common sense.

[peterb]

Now you have taken the thread off topic, so either shut up or start a new thread.

We realise this is an emotive and personal topic, and you have been given perhaps a little more leeway than normal to express your viewpoint - and for others to answer it.

However, that does not extend to comments like the one quoted.

If you don't like what someone is saying, or you feel a topic has gone off topic, then you are free to answer or point it out, but the bit I have highlighted is unacceptable. opel80uk is entirely free to counter your arguments or point of view.

Please consider this a final warning. Should it happen again, your access to HEXUS will be suspended for a cooling off period, which would be a pity.

[j1979]

Firstly, it would be wise to refrain from telling people to 'shut up' on a thread. I'm not the type to ever complain about a post, but the mods can see it and will likely result in you being banned, which I wouldn’t like to see.

Secondly, when I said "What difference does whether they are democratic or not make?" I was, I thought obviously, referring to the fact that, regardless of whether they are democratic or not, an alliance of those 2 nations makes militarily action virtually impossible. I wasn't, again I thought obviously, discussing the relevant merits, or lack of, of those 2 undemocratic regimes who.

And lastly, I wouldn't have mentioned Western foreign policy if you hadn't, in this and the previous thread, advocated sending Western troops in to that theatre. It simply follows that if you are having a discussion about sending UK troops in there, an analysis of UK and Western foreign policy is essential. That's not a radical idea, it's just common sense.

Maybe you forgot this post

http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...ml#post3323005

Sorry, but you always take it in you Russia Today style. always, every thread.. America, Snowden, Iraq, Iran Afghanistan.

So start a new thread.

We realise this is an emotive and personal topic, and you have been given perhaps a little more leeway than normal to express your viewpoint - and for others to answer it.

However, that does not extend to comments like the one quoted.

If you don't like what someone is saying, or you feel a topic has gone off topic, then you are free to answer or point it out, but the bit I have highlighted is unacceptable. opel80uk is entirely free to counter your arguments or point of view.

Please consider this a final warning. Should it happen again, your access to HEXUS will be suspended for a cooling off period, which would be a pity.

I have highlighted it as have others in this thread and previous ones. Numerous times, and he carries on with the same Snowden/ George Golloway / American foreign policy. The Thread is about Russia and the Flight it shot down.

He doesn't' get it.

If he wants to start a new thread then he can have that debate there.

[peterb]

He doesn't' get it.

No - you don't get it. He (or anyone else) can draw on examples to illustrate a point - the fact that it doesn't support your point of view is not an attack on you, it is a supporting factor for their point. Now, if it continues, or you discuss that point, it may become part of the topic..

I'm not discussing this further here - this is off topic. My point stands - attack the ideas - not the person. Keep personalities out of the debate.

(And BTW, Vbulletin has excellent facilities for multiple quoting posts or editing existing posts - there is no requirement to answer each post with an individual post. It makes the thread very unwieldy, especially with large signature blocks.)

[opel80uk]

I have highlighted it as have others in this thread and previous ones. Numerous times, and he carries on with the same Snowden/ George Golloway / American foreign policy. The Thread is about Russia and the Flight it shot down.

He doesn't' get it.

If he wants to start a new thread then he can have that debate there.

The thread is about the Flight that was shot down, but you are advocating that the West should get involved, and yet don’t want me to talk about the West? So presumably we can only discuss Western foreign policy if that discussion concurs with what you think we should do? That’s not how a discussion works I’m afraid. And furthermore, with you advocating that the West get involved, it is entirely reasonable to discuss it and, if appropriate, criticise it.

The point I was making regarding the acceptance that the passenger jet was shot down accidently is because that situation is, diplomatically, very different from a passenger jet wilfully being shot down, and that there has been a precedent of this kind of thing before, by those now criticising Russia. It wasn’t, if that was your implication, that I supported it, or that I was following a RT viewpoint; for what it’s worth I think the Jet was shot down by Russian separatists, aided directly or indirectly, by the Kremiln, but my own viewpoint has no bearing on that original point.

As for my viewpoint, even if I did support Russia, which I don’t, or if I did think that American foreign policy has exacerbated the situation, which I do, you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn’t express that viewpoint, or somehow it’s not valid. Why? Because it might be one shared by Galloway and/or Snowden? Or simply because it is different from yours? Is your argument really lacking enough substance that, instead of actually debating the points, you attempt to shut me up simply because I disagree with you and others? For someone who spends an awful lot of time talking about freedom and democracy, that stance seems at odds with a lot of what you are saying. That said it doesn’t overly surprise me - You are a self-confessed supporter of Ukrainian nationalism, and as someone who is an Anti-nationalist I see this all the time; the personalities and flag colours change, but the methods and tactics do not.

[wasabi]

We need to do something before Putin sees another sign of Western weakness. Clearly we're too weak to take Russia on militarily other than in an 80s throwback MAD nuclear showdown. Best solution I've seen suggested is a 'kill the chickens to scare the monkey' set of sanctions. Hit companies / subsidiaries and major investors in Gazprom, the big natural gas company most of Europe are dependant on. Don't hit them directly, just slowly escalate up the ladder of bodies that are related till they begin to take notice.

[peterb]

We need to do something before Putin sees another sign of Western weakness. Clearly we're too weak to take Russia on militarily other than in an 80s throwback MAD nuclear showdown. Best solution I've seen suggested is a 'kill the chickens to scare the monkey' set of sanctions. Hit companies / subsidiaries and major investors in Gazprom, the big natural gas company most of Europe are dependant on. Don't hit them directly, just slowly escalate up the ladder of bodies that are related till they begin to take notice.

Which, to some extent is what is happening. However, Russian Gas is essential for many European nations, so there will be a reluctance to go down that route - a fact which Putin knows - he has used the Gas pipeline as an economic weapon himself.

However, the principle is good, and IIRC, some Russian assets in the UK have been frozen, although that then leads to a tit-for-tat situation.

[j1979]

The thread is about the Flight that was shot down, but you are advocating that the West should get involved, and yet don’t want me to talk about the West? So presumably we can only discuss Western foreign policy if that discussion concurs with what you think we should do? That’s not how a discussion works I’m afraid. And furthermore, with you advocating that the West get involved, it is entirely reasonable to discuss it and, if appropriate, criticise it.

The point I was making regarding the acceptance that the passenger jet was shot down accidently is because that situation is, diplomatically, very different from a passenger jet wilfully being shot down, and that there has been a precedent of this kind of thing before, by those now criticising Russia. It wasn’t, if that was your implication, that I supported it, or that I was following a RT viewpoint; for what it’s worth I think the Jet was shot down by Russian separatists, aided directly or indirectly, by the Kremiln, but my own viewpoint has no bearing on that original point.

As for my viewpoint, even if I did support Russia, which I don’t, or if I did think that American foreign policy has exacerbated the situation, which I do, you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn’t express that viewpoint, or somehow it’s not valid. Why? Because it might be one shared by Galloway and/or Snowden? Or simply because it is different from yours? Is your argument really lacking enough substance that, instead of actually debating the points, you attempt to shut me up simply because I disagree with you and others? For someone who spends an awful lot of time talking about freedom and democracy, that stance seems at odds with a lot of what you are saying. That said it doesn’t overly surprise me - You are a self-confessed supporter of Ukrainian nationalism, and as someone who is an Anti-nationalist I see this all the time; the personalities and flag colours change, but the methods and tactics do not.

From the start, the west are involved, Poland are just as closely related to the west Ukrainians as the Russians are to the eastern Ukrainians. The EU are perfectly entitled to offer a trade agreement to a democratic Ukraine, and possibly in the future full membership, just the same as the 3 Baltic states. Having NATO on Russia's door step in not a platform for invasion, it's a fail-safe for precisely what Russia is doing now.

The Russians are using the fact some ethnic Russians live in Ukraine as an excuses to wage an illegal proxy war in one of the EU's peaceful neighbors. That war from the start has been engineered, fomented, funded and manipulated by Russia. Hardly any of the fighters in the east are from east Ukraine. They are mostly Russian/Chechnya and some from Sevastopol. That in itself concerns the EU and it's allies. In the same way Hitler did in German speaking lands in the run up to the 2nd world war.

The EU is (was) Neutral / Trade allies of Russia, and Ukraine was allied to both Russia and the EU. Putin offered a trade deal , the EU offered a trade deal. If you want to compare apples, then do you think Poland /EU would have invadede Ukraine if they signed a deal with Russia.. No. Yanukovych chose Russia after promising the EU deal before, the rest is history... Russia then invade and annex their former allies. They continue a proxy war and then shoot down EU citizens. Did the EU behave this way to Norway or Switzerland because they wanted to stay independent of the EU? Would they invade if they wanted to sign a deal with Russian... No.

You talk about American / EU involvement in the run up. But Russia are making trade deals all over the planet, the UK is allied to America and has (had) 1000's of trade licensees in place with Russia, as do other American allies. Did the US threaten allies on signing these deals with Russia.. No

Did Russia fund the Party of Regions (yes) was there all Russian involvement in government (yes). So if Russia has been involved with Ukraine from the start, why shouldn't America or the EU look for stronger ties in Ukraine? And if the Ukrainians choose to look west and not east what has that got to do with the Russians?


Fast forward to July and the west are very much involved, the Russians shot down 200 EU citizens.

The question should be why are the Russians involved? fighting without insignia in a foreign country and breaking the rules of engagement. How many Ukrainians have to die before Russia gives up and collapses in it's own world of seedy cold war style corruption.

Tell me why are Russia involved? Why did they send Green men to Crimea to annex it? Why did they send men to east Ukraine? and why did they send men to Odessa?

Why are they sending weapons? Why is it any of Russia's business? Not a single person was killed in Crimea prior to Russian invasion, and not a single on in east Ukraine until they started to send bus loads of "protesters" in.

If you want it to be a level playing-field in terms of Russian vs EU -US involvement in Ukraine... We would already be at full scale war. The west's involment so far is minimal, much to my disappointment.

You won't find any EU / US solderers or citizens fighting on the battlefield, nor sponsoring local thugs or financially backing local politicians. The west have sent aid, and some non lethal military assistance (mainly food). The east is Ukraine industrial heartland, the south is it's agricultural heartland, and Crimea was it's tourism heartland. It's all now ruined because Russia couldn't just let Ukraine have self determination. Ukraine has never threatened Russia, invaded any other sovereign country, and no government force killed any citizens after Yanukovych.

So the west are fully entitled to put troops on the ground in Ukraine.. and the longer this goes on the more higher the chance of that happening. Putin is not backing down.

Russia have no legitimate right to be in Ukraine. And the EU after 200 + of it's citizens now do have a legitimate reason to offer military support to Ukraine should they choose to use it.

Which, to some extent is what is happening. However, Russian Gas is essential for many European nations, so there will be a reluctance to go down that route - a fact which Putin knows - he has used the Gas pipeline as an economic weapon himself.

However, the principle is good, and IIRC, some Russian assets in the UK have been frozen, although that then leads to a tit-for-tat situation.

It's summer ! everyone should have a BBQ and boycott Russian gas.

[opel80uk]

From the start, the west are involved, Poland are just as closely related to the west Ukrainians as the Russians are to the eastern Ukrainians. The EU are perfectly entitled to offer a trade agreement to a democratic Ukraine, and possibly in the future full membership, just the same as the 3 Baltic states. Having NATO on Russia's door step in not a platform for invasion, it's a fail-safe for precisely what Russia is doing now.

The Russians are using the fact some ethnic Russians live in Ukraine as an excuses to wage an illegal proxy war in one of the EU's peaceful neighbors. That war from the start has been engineered, fomented, funded and manipulated by Russia. Hardly any of the fighters in the east are from east Ukraine. They are mostly Russian/Chechnya and some from Sevastopol. That in itself concerns the EU and it's allies. In the same way Hitler did in German speaking lands in the run up to the 2nd world war.

The EU is (was) Neutral / Trade allies of Russia, and Ukraine was allied to both Russia and the EU. Putin offered a trade deal , the EU offered a trade deal. If you want to compare apples, then do you think Poland /EU would have invadede Ukraine if they signed a deal with Russia.. No. Yanukovych chose Russia after promising the EU deal before, the rest is history... Russia then invade and annex their former allies. They continue a proxy war and then shoot down EU citizens. Did the EU behave this way to Norway or Switzerland because they wanted to stay independent of the EU? Would they invade if they wanted to sign a deal with Russian... No.

You talk about American / EU involvement in the run up. But Russia are making trade deals all over the planet, the UK is allied to America and has (had) 1000's of trade licensees in place with Russia, as do other American allies. Did the US threaten allies on signing these deals with Russia.. No

Did Russia fund the Party of Regions (yes) was there all Russian involvement in government (yes). So if Russia has been involved with Ukraine from the start, why shouldn't America or the EU look for stronger ties in Ukraine? And if the Ukrainians choose to look west and not east what has that got to do with the Russians?


Fast forward to July and the west are very much involved, the Russians shot down 200 EU citizens.

The question should be why are the Russians involved? fighting without insignia in a foreign country and breaking the rules of engagement. How many Ukrainians have to die before Russia gives up and collapses in it's own world of seedy cold war style corruption.

Tell me why are Russia involved? Why did they send Green men to Crimea to annex it? Why did they send men to east Ukraine? and why did they send men to Odessa?

Why are they sending weapons? Why is it any of Russia's business? Not a single person was killed in Crimea prior to Russian invasion, and not a single on in east Ukraine until they started to send bus loads of "protesters" in.

If you want it to be a level playing-field in terms of Russian vs EU -US involvement in Ukraine... We would already be at full scale war. The west's involment so far is minimal, much to my disappointment.

You won't find any EU / US solderers or citizens fighting on the battlefield, nor sponsoring local thugs or financially backing local politicians. The west have sent aid, and some non lethal military assistance (mainly food). The east is Ukraine industrial heartland, the south is it's agricultural heartland, and Crimea was it's tourism heartland. It's all now ruined because Russia couldn't just let Ukraine have self determination. Ukraine has never threatened Russia, invaded any other sovereign country, and no government force killed any citizens after Yanukovych.

So the west are fully entitled to put troops on the ground in Ukraine.. and the longer this goes on the more higher the chance of that happening. Putin is not backing down.

Russia have no legitimate right to be in Ukraine. And the EU after 200 + of it's citizens now do have a legitimate reason to offer military support to Ukraine should they choose to use it.

I would agree that Russia has no legitimate right to be in Ukraine, but then large powers don’t always do what’s right when what’s ‘right’ conflicts with their own interests. And that’s what I meant when I said Putin is doing what any leader would do in his situation – he’s advancing his own interests. If America, or Britain, thought for one minute that it would be in their own best interests, economically and politically, to side with Russia, do you think they wouldn’t? As for a legitimate reason for the West to put troops in Ukraine, that would only really apply if it could be proven that that it was intentionally shot down whilst knowing it was a passenger jet, i.e. an intentional attack on those civilians, otherwise it’s a pretty flimsy pretence. And regardless, I’m afraid I would bet that a British public, including me, tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan legacy, are going to need more than that if we are to support actual military involvement of UK troops. (see why recent history is not so irrelevant now?)

As for why Russia are involved in Ukraine, I think it’s a pretty safe conclusion to suggest that Putin would like parts of the old Soviet Union back within the Republic, and is testing the waters to see how far he can go. Couple that with the fact that the areas he has gone into have a majority of ethnic Russians, and there’s his rationale, or legitimacy, as he would see it.

[wasabi]

Sure we can cite lots of individual examples of bad invasions by NATO / US / whatever. Yet they're our allies, and Russia most certainly isn't. Deciding to turn a blind eye to your historical enemy's wrongs while navel-gazing and infighting with your allies isn't a smart move IMO.

[TooNice]

Just a quick post, but I think that ethnicity should not (emphasising both "should" and "not") be used to establish country borders. And on the flip side, citizens of any ethnicity of a given country should be given equal rights. If you feel that you have more in common with people from another country, then move there. The only exception would be if the government oppress and discriminates it's own citizens on basis of ethnicity.