What about Ukraines actual border.....
This is getting severely ridiculous
I think it has something to do with the ever encroachment of NATO on Russia's borders.
Why can't Russia stay out of Ukraine and Georgia after all they have annexed land from both Ukraine and Georgia..
Not America ,not Nato
But Russia
We need journos like this!
Finland seemed to fair pretty well, despite not being in NATO, shared a land border with the USSR, heck even made them an enemy in WWII. Why can't USA just stay out of Georgia and UKraine?
Why do they insist on installing 'friendly' leaders to sell off assets?
I think what you're observing is a similar sort of thing, albeit taken to an extreme - when that journalist Eoin Harris would go way out of his way to criticize anything remotely connected to the "Shinners". And he (or maybe it was Conor Cruise O'Brien) would justify his venom by saying something along that lines that we need to criticize the transgressions of our own, far louder than the transgressions of others.
Here's the rub, you haven't reconciled yourself with the fact the USSR collapsed for very good reasons. Mourning it's loss is like mourning the loss of the Ottoman Empire.
You also haven't reconciled yourself with the fact that Ukraine and Georgia know full well a coercive relationship with Russia offers them no future, and is a recipe for a rump Soviet Union mk.2 with them answering to the Kremlin, with none of the benefits a closer relationship with the EU offer. Russia offers these places no future and they and you know it.
That's why it's a Lord Haw Haw act. You've wedded yourself to a Russian nationalist self pity world view that has autocracy and military threat at its core. You can't seriously morally, ethically or otherwise pin Russia's decision to invade both countries on the US, yet here you are trying and failing to do so.
Why you adopt this stance is open to conjecture. My own read is that this could be any tin pot autocrat worldwide, and no matter the consequences for the region or the people, you'd be out with the pom poms cheerleading simply because outwardly they're saying they're jabbing a finger in the eye of imperialism or other such nonsense.
Suppose certain types of individuals believe the rise of the new Soviet union will be ever lasting peace ,
Except to the EU/Baltic States who lived under Forced occupation and oppression by russia and Russian forces ,how many people were disappeared under Soviet rule......
No. As mentioned I protested the war.
This stuff is bizarre.
So you think that the US invaded Iraq to SAVE Iraqi lives? (seriously?)
What's with personalizing the attack?
You conveniently omit that the post WW2 peace in Europe was maintained by a stand off between the 2 largest powers. Since then one of them imploded, but not entirely. The opportunity was there for US and NATO to act responsibly but instead they doubled down growing their power, undermined the UN and the 'rules based order' with military adventurisms here and there, and now have their finger prints all over the messy situation in Georgia and Ukraine.
The implosion of the USSR and subsequent US hegemony has created an unstable world.
According to George Allison self described journalist ..
Not the British , but one man on Twitter
Was in the anti-war movement yonks back, marched against the Iraq war. I noticed there were more than a few who didn't give one toss about any Iraqi's killed by Saddam. It was partisan to them, they had to "pick a side", it wasn't possible to criticise all participants proportionally.
There are a lot of nasty conflicts in the world, and there are these individuals who only selectively "care" about certain sides to certain conflicts because the perceived hypocrisy "annoys" them more than the sum total of suffering on all sides. As I've mentioned before it's the new Godwin in these threads.
Naval movements and transits are not unusual in the North Atlantic or indeed Irish EEZ. A live fire excericse of the sort Russia was planning most certainly was.
The problem with posters like yourself is that you don't have the courage of your convictions. You speak the language of balance, and say "oh well the UK does x, and the US does y, so it's ok if Russia does z" - trying to draw ridiculous moral equivalencies and have a thin veneer of even-handedness.
The real truth is that you're putting on a Lord Haw Haw act for a deeply illiberal and autocratic leader, and there's a deep seated psychological attraction to what you see as an all powerful Tsar like foil to the liberal democratic world you grew up under, with all its imperfections, however the best civilization has come up with, but for some reason reject.
That's between you and your psychologist, but you should drop the conceit you care about Ukraine, peace on the European continent or anything else that makes our corner of the world worthwhile living in and defending.
What's the lay of the land, people?
Do we need the Irish fishermen to do Coveney's job again?
also conveniently failing to mention the Russian numbers in the Atlantic
Well the Brits themselves called it a Heavy British military presence.
So now you don't trust what they say?
3 aircraft wow Huge presence ....
Nothing compared to the Russian presence on the Ukrainian border
The State Dept. spokesman had a lot more patience with that reporter than I would have had. Of course they're not going to reveal sources. I also agree that the preemption by publishing the operation was a great move by the US. Cost's nothing, and puts a ? mark against a possible strategy for the other side.
Interesting that you used the word 'imminent'. Shillyshilly should have something to say about that.
My cleaner is from Ukraine and is just back after xmas. According to her people are very worried. With regard to Zelensky's statements she thinks he is "EedYOT".
Heavy British military presence off the coast of Ireland? They must be planning to invade Ireland. There is no other explanation!
I think it's pretty telling that nobody inside Russian believes an invasion of Ukraine is imminent. Prior to the invasion of Crimea there was wall to wall coverage on Russian state TV stoking up fears of the Maidan revolution and talking about the danger to the Russian speaking populations in Crimea and the east of the country. That is not the case now. Even critics of Putin such as Gary Kasparov and Alexei Navalany think the massing of troops on the border and the demands to NATO are just a bluff by Putin in order to get the international spotlight and try and win some concessions.
This is an interesting DW interview with a Russian foreign policy expert, based in Moscow who also believes that there will be no invasion.
I can't see how Putin could invade if it'd be a shock to most Russians. I've been weighing it up for the past few weeks but now I'd be very surprised if it happened. I'm not quite sure how Putin pulls back and saves face given the demands he made to NATO but I'm sure he'll figure something out and it's not as if he has to worry about a critical media at home.
Britain reports a 'heavy British military presence off the coast of ireland".
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/heavy-british-military-presence-off-irish-coast/
Are they trying to provoke a confrontation with Russia?
According to your personal opinion it won't happen.
Likewise, according to my personal subjective opinion Russia aren't going to try it either. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Regardless of it happening or not, it's a smart move by the US to openly pre-empt such a scenario.
Putin is escalating the situation in order to get concessions. If you were e.g. the leader of the UK, how would you respond to these types of aggressive moves from Moscow? (in a way that wouldn't lose you your job the next day)
nope, not shy at all. Quite happy to point out when people duck and dive points and talk garbage about things that have been proven incorrect.
I don't know what evidence they have, but they undermine their case massively with press conferences like that. If the first casualty of war is the truth, military people and politicians are the last place I would look for 'evidence' anyway.
A retired US journalist, who admittedly might have been wrong, but it always stuck with me, told me that the AP is the Pentagon's friend, while Reuters is friendlier to the State Dept. That exchange yesterday could be viewed as the hawks putting pressure on the doves, pressing on the justification for action, not because they are appalled by it, but because they are irriatted by these delays and want to get on with their poxy, proxy war.
All this chatter creates anxiety too, which drives weapons sales. Job done.
Oh right I get it now. You're one of those people who believe press = truth and the Russians are the enemy and Americans are good guys yada yada yada...
"How dare he insinuate the US/UK governments might lie to manufacture a justification for war!"
That is the real ominous shadow behind all this; how dare we insinuate NATO would use this situation to do some global engineering.
For someone with plenty to show, you're very shy about stepping up to the plate...bluster and bluff is all you've got...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a605da6df673e065ac5a7e976411f425.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/99cb88aba86d6cd761548c5d5bb50f6a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a08d55691d6f78a042612a7aa18ff3ab.svg)
