Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'
Options
Comments
-
alaimacerc wrote: »Yes, and there's about three things technically wrong in the above! In addition to the one originally at hand that's been pointed out, the idea that there's a UK constitution, and that its monarchy is an absolute one. These latter two are almost mutually contradictory, in any case. And in the event, neither is in any useful sense true.
You play the Magna Carta, I raise you Orders in Council. Now, normally these are a mere formality (compared to the possible refusal of our President to sign an Act of the Oireachtas, for example.) However in a crisis or emergency they could be used to put the UK under effective military rule without a Parliamentary vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_to_war
Note that although the pre-drafted emergency legislation could be moved through Parliament (or the Commons alone), this is not required.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Judging by the contributions so far in this thread this opinion will not be well received. I however cannot find much fault with his (Stephen Cohen's) analysis.
In case anyone's interested by the comments in the video re: the CIA
Note that US administration has now admitted that CIA director John Brennan was secretly in the Ukraine recently.
Now rewind a little in the thread to when it was suggested that the US played a major role in supporting the revolution to oust Yanukovych
Add to that the ever increasing NATO expansion in Eastern Europe and the EU's idiotic ultimatum in November for the Ukraine to chose either Europe or Russia exclusively and it becomes a little clearer how this whole mess started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9jULgC42o0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »To be strictly legal, there is no such animal as a "British citizen". Legally all British passport holders are subjects of the crown, because, in constitutional terms, the UK is still technically an absolute monarchy.
Ok, this is a technicality, but then again technically correct is the best form of being correct.
Can you cite something to back that up? Wiki cites the British Nationality Act 1948 as saying there is such a thing.0 -
Peregrinus explained the British subject thing. Back in the days of empire it used to be written on a passport "x is a British subject" but in the modern era, post WW2, it says "x is a British citizen".
It was just after WW2 or around that time that the army and admin jobs for Britons around the empire dried up, while British "subjects" from abroad (previously referred to as "the natives") started travelling to Britain for work. A British "citizen" in the modern sense is a much narrower category.
Interesting, it is mostly only the white people in England who call themselves "English". Others associate the term with English nationalism and ethnicity and call themselves "British", despite having been born and bred in England for a few generations. The same does not seem to apply in Scotland oddly enough, where anyone born and reared there is happy to call themselves a Scot.
The Brits will tell you they do have a Constitution, but it is an unwritten one. It's true in the sense that they have a certain way of doing things; the rules and the interaction between parliament and the monarchy which have evolved over time. Taken collectively, these procedures "constitute" something, as opposed to anarchy which is the absence of any fixed rules.0 -
An interesting little snippet there;stevejazzx wrote: »
If true that might explain the "weak and foolish" Ukraine military response. It would not be the first time that the CIA has cultivated and groomed a "local leader" prior to regime change, only to discover that the local leader had considerably less popularity, influence and ability than he had led them to believe. Anyone remember Ayad Allawi? The man they had been grooming for years to replace Saddam as president of a new "democratic" Iraq."Brennan landed in Ukraine on Saturday under an assumed name and held a "series of secret meetings" with the country's "power bloc" Interfax reported, citing an unidentified official in the Ukrainian parliament. The person who said this to Interfax in a phone talk added that John Brennan came to Ukraine not under his real name. According to some yet unconfirmed information, the decision to suppress protesters in Slavyansk, a city in Ukraine's east, with force was advised to Ukraine's authorities by Brennan."
I wonder if Brennan advised the Maidan coup leaders that they should hold elections as soon as possible? A referendum even?
I noticed that in the other video Cohen kept referring to Ukraine as a state made up of several countries. He has a point, historically it is an area that has been subject to the ebb and flow of various empires; the Austro-Hungarian, Polish/Lithuanian, Russian, Ottoman have all left their mark. At the same time, its not impossible for a state like that to exist as a single entity. But it takes a government which emphasises civic values and multiculturalism, not just one region's version of nationalism.0 -
Advertisement
-
An interesting little snippet there;
If true that might explain the "weak and foolish" Ukraine military response. It would not be the first time that the CIA has cultivated and groomed a "local leader" prior to regime change, only to discover that the local leader had considerably less popularity, influence and ability than he had led them to believe. Anyone remember Ayad Allawi? The man they had been grooming for years to replace Saddam as president of a new "democratic" Iraq.
This supposed weak Ukrainian response is a game of cat and mouse as the Americans are awaiting Russian forces en masse across the border so they can point the finger and claim the Russians started it. There has been a cold war game played out since November between the US and Russia. As Cohen explained in the video Putin was content with the settlement in February but the US backed an Ukrainian revolt because they weren't getting what they wanted.
They want military installations in Ukraine as a long term game plan. They also a pathway into the future energy markets, hence their interest in Syria and Ukraine. and more NATO expansion into areas they previously agreed that they would stay out of. The US previously tried to push through plans to install a Missile defense system in Poland but that was controversial and the Russians strongly objected. Now they've coerced the Polish government into doing to for them; this is the kind of long term control they can get by providing bailout funds through the IMF or indirectly via the EU. But first they require destabilization of the country.
They have been doing it in South America for years. Watch Oliver Stones documentary South of the Border for more.
[/quote]I wonder if Brennan advised the Maidan coup leaders that they should hold elections as soon as possible? A referendum even?
I noticed that in the other video Cohen kept referring to Ukraine as a state made up of several countries. He has a point, historically it is an area that has been subject to the ebb and flow of various empires; the Austro-Hungarian, Polish/Lithuanian, Russian, Ottoman have all left their mark. At the same time, its not impossible for a state like that to exist as a single entity. But it takes a government which emphasises civic values and multiculturalism, not just one region's version of nationalism.
Yes, this is why he said this conflict started 300 years ago. The western Ukrainians are looking across the border at their supposedly liberated Polish neighbors and yearning for EU access and in other parts of the country many people still feel tied to Russia. As for Crimea it never really left the grip of Moscow; with the EU and US offering Ukrainian exclusivity deals on joining up and getting big loans they put Putin into a corner. The policy has been disastrous as everything they hoped Putin would back down on he hasn't. The US should not be involved this heavily in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine and possibly the EU. It's insane, like Russian being involved in a dispute between the US and Canada/Mexico. The US's involvement represents, ultimately corporate and military interests as this is the basis for their understanding of democracy.0 -
A contingent of U.S. Army paratroopers arrived in Poland on Wednesday, the first of what will be a "persistent presence" of U.S. troops......
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/
Video of US troops arriving in Poland. Initially only for "exercises" but they will be hoping to be allowed to stay and set up the first base there. The more insecure people in that region are made to feel, the more likely they are to permit new US bases. If the US can set up a string of bases across Poland and Western Ukraine they will be manning a new interface boundary between the eastern and western spheres of influence, a fortified line from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
That new front will be about 1000km east of the old Iron Curtain where these paratroopers have come from; which was a US army base originally set up during the 1950's at Vicenza Italy, close to the former Yugoslavia.0 -
Oh FFS. Poland is a NATO member, or do you want Vladimir to have a veto over that, too?
Rather unlikely that the US will be setting up any new bases in Europe given the massive defence cuts under way and the switch in focus to Asia. If they do, it'll be at the expense of others e.g. in the UK.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Firstly, neither the US nor the EU are heavily involved in this dispute - the Ukrainians have been effectively abandoned by the West and left to fight a dangerous, paranoid Russia on their own. As far as I read it at the time, and still do, Nuland's telephone call doesn't demonstrate anything substantially more than a self-interested wish by the US for some kind of stability and honesty to return to Ukraine's political system. I haven't seen any credible evidence of any serious EU or US interference in the affairs of Ukraine other than the kind of open encouragement of honest politics, or at least as close as Ukraine is ever likely to get to it. The Russian state-sponsored notion that the EU and the US are driving every element of Ukrainian policy, or even any serious amount of it, is delusional, as the Russian state knows quite well. Russia lost its pliable kleptocrat in Kiev and, like a jilted, but knocked-up, bridezilla, is lashing out and refusing to accept any responsibility for it.stevejazzx wrote: »The US should not be involved this heavily in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine and possibly the EU. It's insane, like Russian being involved in a dispute between the US and Canada/Mexico.
But more importantly, is the imbalance here. On the one hand, there's a weak, sovereign nation whose disastrous political leaders are free, or should be, to pick and choose their friends and their policies as they wish. And on the other hand, a militaristic dictatorship which is determined to stop it from doing so.
Your position, and recedite's, only make sense by generally abandoning the current understanding of sovereign, self-directing nation states, international law and treaty - which understanding arose from the ashes of WWII -- and return to the dangerous days of "spheres of influence" where one nation can poke around in the internal affairs of others close by, can declare citizens of another country to be oppressed citizens of one's own for the purposes of providing a "reason" to invade and do pretty much anything it wants for no better reason than the vanity of a little man.
Putin's actions are insanely dangerous because they destroy the basis for peace in Europe. Putin no doubt understands this and simply doesn't care. And like the stereotype concerning small men, he's out to acquire himself and by implication, his pitiful country, a little respect and if the $50 billion or whatever he blew on the Winter Olympics won't do it, then he seems quite happy to dust off his savage, poorly-trained military and have them do it instead.
One can almost hear the bold Sergey licking his lips in anticipation as his military continues to line up a mile or two from Ukraine's border.If this military machine is not stopped today, it will lead to a large number of dead and wounded0 -
Firstly, neither the US nor the EU are heavily involved in this dispute - the Ukrainians have been effectively abandoned by the West and left to fight a dangerous, paranoid Russia on their own. As far as I read it at the time, and still do, Nuland's telephone call doesn't demonstrate anything substantially more than a self-interested wish by the US for some kind of stability and honesty to return to Ukraine's political system. I haven't seen any credible evidence of any serious EU or US interference in the affairs of Ukraine other than the kind of open encouragement of honest politics, or at least as close as Ukraine is ever likely to get to it. The Russian state-sponsored notion that the EU and the US are driving every element of Ukrainian policy, or even any serious amount of it, is delusional, as the Russian state knows quite well. Russia lost its pliable kleptocrat in Kiev and, like a jilted, but knocked-up, bridezilla, is lashing out and refusing to accept any responsibility for it.
But more importantly, is the imbalance here. On the one hand, there's a weak, sovereign nation whose disastrous political leaders are free, or should be, to pick and choose their friends and their policies as they wish. And on the other hand, a militaristic dictatorship which is determined to stop it from doing so.
Your position, and recedite's, only make sense by generally abandoning the current understanding of sovereign, self-directing nation states, international law and treaty - which understanding arose from the ashes of WWII -- and return to the dangerous days of "spheres of influence" where one nation can poke around in the internal affairs of others close by, can declare citizens of another country to be oppressed citizens of one's own for the purposes of providing a "reason" to invade and do pretty much anything it wants for no better reason than the vanity of a little man.
Putin's actions are insanely dangerous because they destroy the basis for peace in Europe. Putin no doubt understands this and simply doesn't care. And like the stereotype concerning small men, he's out to acquire himself and by implication, his pitiful country, a little respect and if the $50 billion or whatever he blew on the Winter Olympics won't do it, then he seems quite happy to dust off his savage, poorly-trained military and have them do it instead.One can almost hear the bold Sergey licking his lips in anticipation as his military continues to line up a mile or two from Ukraine's border.
If I may make the point that anybody on the planet with a single brain cell that heard the "nulland" phone call, it's pretty clear listening that they were choosing who was going to run the Ukrainian government... In my humble opinion that's heavily involved..
Also in my opinion, ukraines government are unelected by the people, just put in there without their say so... Just like the last 3 in Italy, and they're doing real well... So they're hardly legitimate0 -
Advertisement
-
Are you familiar with any aspect of this conflict?jimeryan22 wrote: »Also in my opinion, ukraines government are unelected by the people, just put in there without their say so... Just like the last 3 in Italy, and they're doing real well... So they're hardly legitimate0 -
-
Oleksander Turchynov was elected by the Ukrainian Rada as Ukraine's interim president, much as Enda Kenny was voted into his position as Taoiseach by the members of the Dail. The Rada that voted Turchynov into office was, and remains, elected by general election.jimeryan22 wrote: »I'm familiar with the fact that the guy now running the country was non elected ex banker...
Turchynov is almost certain to be replaced by a popularly-elected president in the presidential election called for a few weeks' time -- if the country doesn't descend into a Russian-instigated civil war of course.
What's your point?0 -
Oleksander Turchynov was elected by the Ukrainian Rada as Ukraine's interim president, much as Enda Kenny was voted into his position as Taoiseach by the members of the Dail. The Rada that voted Turchynov into office was, and remains, elected by general election.
Turchynov is almost certain to be replaced by a popularly-elected president in the presidential election called for a few weeks' time -- if the country doesn't descend into a Russian-instigated civil war of course.
What's your point?
I thought I had made it.. It's seems the us state department is actually running Ukraine...And that, as you stated, the president was elected by the rada, not the people...
I agree with you when you say by the time real elections come, that the place may have descended into civil war... I hope not, but looks likely alright..0 -
You'll have to provide some evidence that this is the case. I certainly haven't seen any beyond the ravings of Russian state-controlled media and the Russian politicians who pay for it.jimeryan22 wrote: »It's seems the us state department is actually running Ukraine.0 -
Oleksander Turchynov was elected by the Ukrainian Rada as Ukraine's interim president, much as Enda Kenny was voted into his position as Taoiseach by the members of the Dail. The Rada that voted Turchynov into office was, and remains, elected by general election.
Turchynov is almost certain to be replaced by a popularly-elected president in the presidential election called for a few weeks' time -- if the country doesn't descend into a Russian-instigated civil war of course.
What's your point?
Doesn't change the fact that Yanukovych was illegally removed.
Was he impeached or removed? To my understanding they passed a resolution (pretty conclusive it was too something like 300-0!) nonetheless there was no official procedure leading to impeachment which I believe is the only way to remove a president legally in Ukraine (unless they've since made an amendment change there also; Tymoshenko anyone?). The resolution merely has the power to ask that he resign. So bearing in mind that Yanukovych couldn't have been removed legally by Ukraine's own constitution how did they hold a legal interim vote for presidency? And wasn't it just a little hypocritical to claim that Crimea needed their permission for referendum (in case of misunderstanding I agree that the Crimea referendum was illegal - just that's its not completely black and white).
It's clear from informed commentators on the matter that it was a coup.
That's fine, it was his time, it's a wonder he lasted that long - however it should be acknowledged as a coup. This would all be fine if the entire affair had have been orchestrated internally however, as I have pointed out, the coup was heavily funded and organised by outside parties who have political, military and economic interests in Ukraine. Russia was quick to react to outside influences - this whole process has been a series of speculative gambles on Russia's reaction to 'x'. Firstly the EU ultimatum, secondly a coup. thirdly IMF funded bailouts.
Surely you don't think that this is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine exclusively? This is between Russia and NATO. The problem is that NATO have agreed with Russia that they wouldn't expand into eastern Europe with bases. The opposite is clearly not the case with NATO citing defense as a reason to break any treaty they may have signed on the matter meanwhile accusing Putin of Nazi like expansionist ideals through versions media outlets owned almost directly by their respective governments; the very definition of brilliant propaganda.
Meanwhile Russia under Putin clings to some ideal of historic nationalism and becomes more ostracized from the western world. This is a very bad situation.
The only hope is that commerce will win out over war.0 -
You'll have to provide some evidence that this is the case. I certainly haven't seen any beyond the ravings of Russian state-controlled media and the Russian politicians who pay for it.
I cite the "nuland" tape... Clear evidence of the state department making "the" descision who went in.. Evidence enough to most0 -
Back in late February, Yanukovych negotiated, then agreed to sign a multi-partite (EU, Russia, US, protesters, Yanukovych, Rada) de-escalation agreement following the massacre of around 100 Maidan protesters.stevejazzx wrote: »Doesn't change the fact that Yanukovych was illegally removed.
Russia then refused to sign it, the Rada carried out its promised actions, the EU/US didn't really have to do much, if anything, but signed it anyway, the majority of the protestors signed (PS excepted), then Yanukovych refused to sign and fled the country. You might recall a video of Radek Sikorsky, the Polish foreign minister, delivering a blunt warning to the Maidan protesters demanding that they sign the agreement.
Anyhow, Yanukovych's flight caused a constitutional crisis as the Ukrainian constitution doesn't specify what's to happen when a president flees the country. In the absence of this, the Rada voted to impeach Yanukovych (for which there is a constitutional process) and voted in -- with the support of around one quarter of Yanukovych's Party of the Regions and a majority of MP's overall -- Turchynov as interim president until early presidential elections next month. Yanukovych was them impeached in order to satisfy Ukraine's constitutional law as closely as possible. No idea why Turchynov and company chose to wait three months until the next election; it should have been six weeks max, but there you go.
In summary, Yanukovych triggered a constitutional crisis which the Rada resolved, as best it could. Yanukovych was not removed. He fled. Leaving behind copious documentation in his multi-million-dollar mansion concerning his illegal, corrupt activities, btw.
The Rada's solution was not perfect by any means, but Yanukovych's position had become untenable following the Maidan massacre and most especially his fleeing the country and the Rada acted as fast and as legally as it could, given the legal vacuum in which it was operating.0 -
Back in late February, Yanukovych negotiated, then agreed to sign a multi-partite (EU, Russia, US, protesters, Yanukovych, Rada) de-escalation agreement following the massacre of around 100 Maidan protesters.
Russia then refused to sign it, the Rada carried out its promised actions, the EU/US didn't really have to do much, if anything, but signed it anyway, the majority of the protestors signed (PS excepted), then Yanukovych refused to sign and fled the country. You might recall a video of Radek Sikorsky, the Polish foreign minister, delivering a blunt warning to the Maidan protesters demanding that they sign the agreement.
Anyhow, Yanukovych's flight caused a constitutional crisis as the Ukrainian constitution doesn't specify what's to happen when a president flees the country. In the absence of this, the Rada voted to impeach Yanukovych (for which there is a constitutional process) and voted in -- with the support of around one quarter of Yanukovych's Party of the Regions and a majority of MP's overall -- Turchynov as interim president until early presidential elections next month. Yanukovych was them impeached in order to satisfy Ukraine's constitutional law as closely as possible. No idea why Turchynov and company chose to wait three months until the next election; it should have been six weeks max, but there you go.
In summary, Yanukovych triggered a constitutional crisis which the Rada resolved, as best it could. Yanukovych was not removed. He fled. Leaving behind copious documentation in his multi-million-dollar mansion concerning his illegal, corrupt activities, btw.
The Rada's solution was not perfect by any means, but Yanukovych's position had become untenable following the Maidan massacre and most especially his fleeing the country and the Rada acted as fast and as legally as it could, given the legal vacuum in which it was operating.
I agree with all of that but surely it should have been done by a referendum...?
Plus, it's not like there's no illegalitys of the new crowds history, namely yulia the oil princess0 -
What are your thoughts about the annexing of Crimea - legal or illegal? Is international law being observed, or is it being ignored?stevejazzx wrote: »Doesn't change the fact that Yanukovych was illegally removed.
And what about the ongoing destabiliization and threatened/(actual?) military action -- is that the act of the kindly neighbour? And a legitimate response to a constitutional crisis?0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly, neither the US nor the EU are heavily involved in this dispute -
Em, I know that concession on this point leaves some probable alternative explanations to this crisis other than exclusively 'russiadidit' but you are wrong here.
American troops now en route to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in response to Russian troop movements and European concerns over "Russian aggression". Yesterday, US soldiers arrived in Poland
Lets see
Nuland phonecall leaked exposes deep and worried American interests and intervention in political process in Ukraine
McCain visits Ukraine and backs opposition leader and a revolution
Kerry threaten sanctions
The US have now mobilized troops.
There can be doubt.the Ukrainians have been effectively abandoned by the West and left to fight a dangerous, paranoid Russia on their own. As far as I read it at the time, and still do, Nuland's telephone call doesn't demonstrate anything substantially more than a self-interested wish by the US for some kind of stability and honesty to return to Ukraine's political system.
**** the EU?
There's self interest and there's power play.
The conversation was about coaching and mentoring, read manipulating, inexperienced political leaders that a US supported and funded coup put in place.
If you think that the US's involvement here is genuine then that will make it the first country in which it is. We know from history their human rights record and of their war mongering so their genuine and honest presence and concern I consider as being next to impossible. It would mean they've completely turned their whole political system around and had a complete about turn move happen in their foreign policy? I must have missed the memo. It seems Nuland, the CIA McCain, Kerry etc. etc etc. did too.Robindch wrote:Your position, and recedite's, only make sense by generally abandoning the current understanding of sovereign, self-directing nation states, international law and treaty - which understanding arose from the ashes of WWII -- and return to the dangerous days of "spheres of influence" where one nation can poke around in the internal affairs of others close by, can declare citizens of another country to be oppressed citizens of one's own for the purposes of providing a "reason" to invade and do pretty much anything it wants for no better reason than the vanity of a little man.
You'describing the US? Right?;)
This is the same way I've heard the US described for the last 50 years0 -
On the contrary, when the US picks and chooses which Ukrainian politicians will be fast tracked into the new regime, that is gross interference. Not "the pursuit of honesty".Nuland's telephone call doesn't demonstrate anything substantially more than a self-interested wish by the US for some kind of stability and honesty to return to Ukraine's political system.
Secondly, why would you think the US wants stability there anyway?
The US has benefited from the instability. They are now well on the way to establishing US military bases on Polish soil, something that was out of the question this time last year. There is even a possibility that they will have military bases inside Ukraine eventually. Kiev and Moscow have fallen out with each other following the Maidan coup. Formerly close allies, they are both weakened by the break-up. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy by the US.
The fact that Crimea went over to Putin was a minor setback for US manipulators, but in general the instability in Ukraine is working well for them. It is having the same effect on European citizens that "The War on Terror" has had on US citizens at home, that is to make it easy for those behind the US military machine to get their way unopposed.0 -
0
-
-
They are now well on the way to establishing US military bases on Polish soil, something that was out of the question this time last year.
It's never out of the question that one ally will by agreement establish a military base in another. If Poland did not feel the need for this a year ago and now does, it's solely because of Putin's aggression.There is even a possibility that they will have military bases inside Ukraine eventually.
If that is with the agreement of the Ukraine government, why on earth not? They had a Russian base on their territory by agreement, after all (until Russia decided to annex the territory.)
Why should Putin have a veto on what the Ukraine can do on their own territory? Are they a sovereign nation, or a Russian satellite?Kiev and Moscow have fallen out with each other following the Maidan coup. Formerly close allies, they are both weakened by the break-up. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy by the US.
Complete bollox. The only one who has gained from this is Putin.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
So what are the chances of the Polish or the Turkish armies establishing their own military bases in the USA?It's never out of the question that one ally will by agreement establish a military base in another.
You misunderstand the reason for the US bases in Europe. They are also in Japan, Pacific islands, Guantanamo; they are legacy bases in occupied territory, as captured in war and then kept going on long leases during "the cold war," or never handed back at all. Or as with the UK, established during wartime, when the very survival of the host country was in doubt.
Basically, it is an unequal relationship; it is necessary to pulverize or scare the $hit out of the hosts before they will allow a foreign military base.
In this case, Russia is not threatening Poland, but the US is trying to convince the Poles that they are under threat, citing the instability in Ukraine since the Maidan coup, which we know the US has encouraged along.
Ukraine is a slavic nation, the language originated as a dialect of Russian, the writing is cyrillic, the people are inter-related. Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belarus traditionally constituted "European Russia" going back to the days of Tsars and earlier. Ukraine was also an important part of the Soviet Union and the USSR.Complete bollox. The only one who has gained from this is Putin.
Putin's dream is to re-establish the region as an economic superpower, building on a Russian dominated Customs Union. As Ukraine slips away, so the dream gets harder to realise.
The people in the eastern parts of Ukraine would accept a situation where it was a largely neutral country in terms of EU/Nato V Russia, but they will never accept American military bases on their soil. If the US ever gets to establish bases, it will be in Western Ukraine only, having split the country in half. They would find themselves eyeball to eyeball with Russians in their military bases across the border in Eastern Ukraine, as invited in by the Eastern Ukrainians.0 -
-
In this case, Russia is not threatening Poland, but the US is trying to convince the Poles that they are under threat
Actually it's the Poles and Baltic States trying to convince NATO to beef up their presence in the region.Putin's dream is to re-establish the region as an economic superpower, building on a Russian dominated Customs Union. As Ukraine slips away, so the dream gets harder to realise.
So he wants to put vast swathes of other countries under his diktat; you seem to think this is fair and reasonable.but they will never accept American military bases on their soil.
This is another of Vladimir's fictions. There is no possibility of US bases in Ukraine.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
I have a real interest in this problem as I have a son-in-law who is Polish and a good friend whose visa I sponsor to the UK who is Russian and, amongst other things, taught Valdimir Putin to ski and still teaches his personal guards.
The view from inside Russia is interesting. The economy is not going well (worse since sanctions though) and an external adventure is a typical response to internal issues. Putin was hailed as a hero for rebuilding the international standing of Russia after the corrupt regime of Boris Yeltsin. Problem is there is now a realisation that Putin is just as corrupt though in a different way however my friend pointed out that though his support continues to drop, Russians just shrug and say "who else is there?". There is no effective opposition.
The view from the Polish set of grandparents (we have a grandson... potty training is a nightmare!!) is that of real concern. They see a lot of posturing by NATO and the west but do not see any effective action. If the tanks rolled in they believe that the EU and NATO would scream loudly and together with the UN do precisely.... nothing. Are their fears justified? The problem I have is that I cannot actually say no! Sounds silly but could it happen? A return to a totalitarian regime under Tsar Putin? Surely not. However they are watching Eastern Ukraine with some concern as they live very near the border at Przemyśl. Not to forget that there are significant Russian populations in the Baltic states. A bit of destabilisation, take over of buildings, masked Russian special forces, vote for independence... join Russia. Seems to be working so far.0 -
Advertisement
-
That would not happen, but if it did, it would trigger the third world war, because Poland has been in Nato since 1999 and the other Nato countries would be obliged to join in. That is the whole point of Nato as a defence alliance. It's also how WWI was triggered, after some dude was assassinated in Serbia. Various defence alliances kicked in.The view from the Polish set of grandparents (we have a grandson... potty training is a nightmare!!) is that of real concern. They see a lot of posturing by NATO and the west but do not see any effective action. If the tanks rolled in they believe that the EU and NATO would scream loudly and together with the UN do precisely.... nothing. Are their fears justified?
OK, so what region in Poland, or any Baltic state has a Russian majority? Apart from Kaliningrad...is that "a warm water port" BTW?.. they are watching Eastern Ukraine with some concern as they live very near the border at Przemyśl. Not to forget that there are significant Russian populations in the Baltic states. A bit of destabilisation, take over of buildings, masked Russian special forces, vote for independence... join Russia. Seems to be working so far.
Lets suppose the majority in the eastern half of Poland suddenly became enamoured with Putin and wanted their territory to join Russia (but your relatives did not agree). Would your relatives have the right to veto that change? Its not really democracy if you are holding the people against their will, is it?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9jULgC42o
Advertisement