BREAKING Russian warships fire on Ukrainian Navy boats in the Black Sea
igCorcaigh wrote: » This seems to be true... Bad move. Ukraine should just lick their wounds and go home. Nobody wants armed conflict.
Ten of Swords wrote: » Holodomor remembrance day was yesterday in Ukraine Just sayin... /TinfoilHat
namloc1980 wrote: » Makes sense now that you put it together! Seriously though broadcasting the country's defence committee meeting live on TV is playing up massively to the home audience. Bizarre carry on.
Akrasia wrote: » Ukraine could have joined NATO in 2010 but their president pulled out. Bet they wish they hadn't done that now.
whisky_galore wrote: » Think you can put together quite a list of nations who cosied up to Hitler at one time or another.
mad muffin wrote: » Sure could. A lot of them have seen the error of their ways. Ukraine? Not so much.
Gatling wrote: » So let russia keep grabbing land and water and anything else they can get their hands on and blame the Ukrainians. It's like a parent of a bully blaming the kids being bullied for being weak
SterlingArcher wrote: » Who's doing the bulling who tho Gatling.... Look up the US missile defence systems being installed all along Russias borders by America, 2008 poland, and others, long before Ukraine happened. America has been pushing and pushing. It is now the biggest $upplier. I'd wager Ukraine was the the final straw. No I'm not pro Russia.
gandalf wrote: » Why did so many Eastern bloc nations readily agree to join their former enemy NATO? I wonder why that was? NATO doesn't invade and forcibly build bases, those nations had to apply for membership and invite them in? Why did they do that? Any answers from the "RT" side please
Doctors room ghost wrote: » What’s happening now.is it kicking off
SterlingArcher wrote: » Who's bulling who tho Gatling.... Look up the US missile defence systems being installed all along Russias borders by America, 2008 poland,
Irish Praetorian wrote: » I'm sorry, the US is bad because it wanted to ward off potential aggression against Eastern Europe, which has in living memory been annexed/vassalized by the Soviet Union, and this is an example of their aggression? This is one of those peculiar ideas I usually only hear from Russians or their apologists which when plainly stated seems to be little more than the idea that if you refuse to lay prostrate and defenceless before an aggressor, then you ARE the aggressor. I recall a similar example from history when in 1939 one of the great complaints of the Soviets against the Finns was that the Finns were building defensive bunkers, and this supposedly constituted such an existential threat to the Soviet Union that they had littler alternative but to invade. It was a ridiculous notion then, it remains a ridiculous notion now.
Gatling wrote: » Russia reopened the Kerch Strait to all shipping, Ah well.
SterlingArcher wrote: » You should be sorry. With your Russian apologists crap. It is the strategic siege of Russia. No two ways about it. If China or Russia start putting missile defence systems on America's boarders what the hell do you think would be the reaction. Cuban missile crisis. .
SterlingArcher wrote: » You should be sorry. With your Russian apologists crap. It is the strategic siege of Russia. No two ways about it. If China or Russia start putting missile defence systems on America's boarders what the hell do you think would be the reaction. Cuban missile crisis. Like the notion of US aggression is so far fetched. This is one of them peculiar ideas you only hear from Tony Blair apologists.
gandalf wrote: » Ah Irish Praetorian you left out George Soros
Odhinn wrote: »
scopper wrote: » Word is Russia will invade later today.
Gringo180 wrote: » So you class the BBC as a British/Western propaganda news outlet? Seems hard to get the truth these days from our media.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » A 'strategic siege' - in what possible sense? This seems to go back to my earlier point about the Soviet vision of what constituted aggression; you are talking about a country with the worlds largest nuclear, AFV and territorial totals and a history of throwing its weight around with its neighbours in both economic and military terms, now complaining about being 'under siege'? I mean this is a particularly interesting point when we consider the circumstances that have led up to the present day. Why is it that just about every Russian neighbour that can has clamoured for entry into things like NATO and the EU? Is it because people who aren't Russians like to be evil to Russia or maybe because most of them recall being subjugated in living memory, and even in the period post 1990, they have observed the dangers of being in Russia's 'near abroad', ranging from mass ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia to military occupation in Moldova. Can you imagine the outcry if in the 90s the US had intervened in a sectarian conflict with one of its neighbours, saw half the population ousted and then proceeded to vassalize the remainder? This is before we even consider the events of 2014. Now see I have no problem making the arguments that the US has been aggressive and unjustified in several of its actions post 1990 - what I want to know is why Russian apologists cannot do the same?
SterlingArcher wrote: » Well I am no Russian apologist. I regardless of the **** they are doing, negotiation and de-escalation are key. That has to come from all sides. My point about the missiles are another area of antagonism that needs to be de-escalated. End of.
