Kiev

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's not complex. It's not murky. It is very simple. When people, no matter how large your minority is, are a majority in a smaller entity, and the majority in the larger entity are c*nts, then by osmosis, the smaller majority in their own way act like c*nts to the minorities in their area where they are a majority.
Hence Slavs feck Ukrainians who feck Russians who feck Krim Tatars who feck Bulgari who feck badgers.
C*nts the lot of 'em... Just like the IRA and the UVF were c*nts and like how the Afrikaaners And the ANC were c*nts.

Not all people, not all of the time. Ever.

Even in the Rwanda genocide people were being rescued, protected, hidden by the tribal 'enemies'.

It's old news now - given how events are moving - but a two week old poll in Ukraine - i'm told by email, I can't give a source - showed only 7% wanting Ukraine to divide...

That said, Newsnight tonight had some tasty guys, talking about 'problem ethnicities' in the Ukraine, who, when pressed, identified 'the Russians and the Jews'... I'm definitely not saying this is the majority or motivating force in the ukrainian Revolution, but Newsnight's view was that far right forces were growing...

But, they will also be opposed...

I suspect that Ukraine has only a small minority who are c**ts... But they may be truly prickish ones...

Anyway, i'm off to a muslim country in the morning and expect to enjoy it hugely...

I was on about people with causes, not those oppressed by those with the cause. So I refute your argument...they ar c*nts, all of them, all the time. And I'm glad you'll be enjoying your Muslim sojourn. I hope wherever your going they are not quite as vile and c*nt like as most Muslims with a cause, like the Chinese Muslims for instance. Of course they're only a minority, I understand that...just like I understand that the numpties standing around a Kiev square for months on end are equally a minority. One thing they've got in common though is a cause. C*nts.

[Montreal Wanderer]

15.01 John Kerry has appeared on the Sunday morning political show "Face the Nation," on CBS.

He said:

You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.
Mr Kerry, however, added that Russia still has "a right set of choices" that can be made to defuse the crisis.
It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations.

Mr Kerry said Obama told Putin in a 90-minute phone call on Saturday that "there will be serious repercussions if this stands. The president ... told Mr Putin that it was imperative to find a different path, to roll back this invasion and un-do this act of invasion."
Mr Kerry said G8 nations and some other countries are "prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia" with a "broad array of options" available.
They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges.
He also mentioned visa bans, asset freezes and trade isolation as possible steps.

So 'Mr' Kerry the law abiding US of A is appalled, what a feckin' joke!
'Violation of the sovereignty', ring any bells? Vietnam, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, almost Syria, Iran in the pipeline and countless other places, you lot should be sectioned not sanctioned.

I'm not sure you are entirely fair here, Hoboh, however much we dislike American foreign policy and/or Kerry. Let us look at your examples of violation of sovereignty.

Vietnam - US invited by legitimate government first as advisors then as allies - no violation of sovereignty.
Iraq (Iraq 1) - A UN decision given to NATO to implement in defence of Kuwait. Not a unilateral US decision.
Iraq 2 - a violation of sovereignty on "a trumped-up pretext". I'll give you that one.
Pakistan. A surgical strike for Bin Laden - a violation of sovereignty but arguably justified. i.e. the pretext wasn't trumped up. Similar to Entebbe.
Somalia. If you refer to 1992-1995 this was again a UN sanctioned action in a failed state to carry out humanitarian aid. It heated up when Pakistani peace-keepers were killed.
Almost Syria??? Close only counts in horseshoes.
Iran in the future??? Who knows - I imagine there will be a diplomatic solution. Failing that I expect Israel will handle things.

Your only valid example appears to me to be Iraq 2 and I think you will find that Kerry was very much opposed to that Bushism. I would have given you Grenada.

[Hoboh]

15.01 John Kerry has appeared on the Sunday morning political show "Face the Nation," on CBS.

He said:

You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.
Mr Kerry, however, added that Russia still has "a right set of choices" that can be made to defuse the crisis.
It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations.

Mr Kerry said Obama told Putin in a 90-minute phone call on Saturday that "there will be serious repercussions if this stands. The president ... told Mr Putin that it was imperative to find a different path, to roll back this invasion and un-do this act of invasion."
Mr Kerry said G8 nations and some other countries are "prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia" with a "broad array of options" available.
They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges.
He also mentioned visa bans, asset freezes and trade isolation as possible steps.

So 'Mr' Kerry the law abiding US of A is appalled, what a feckin' joke!
'Violation of the sovereignty', ring any bells? Vietnam, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, almost Syria, Iran in the pipeline and countless other places, you lot should be sectioned not sanctioned.

I'm not sure you are entirely fair here, Hoboh, however much we dislike American foreign policy and/or Kerry. Let us look at your examples of violation of sovereignty.

Vietnam - US invited by legitimate government first as advisors then as allies - no violation of sovereignty.
Iraq (Iraq 1) - A UN decision given to NATO to implement in defence of Kuwait. Not a unilateral US decision.
Iraq 2 - a violation of sovereignty on "a trumped-up pretext". I'll give you that one.
Pakistan. A surgical strike for Bin Laden - a violation of sovereignty but arguably justified. i.e. the pretext wasn't trumped up. Similar to Entebbe.
Somalia. If you refer to 1992-1995 this was again a UN sanctioned action in a failed state to carry out humanitarian aid. It heated up when Pakistani peace-keepers were killed.
Almost Syria??? Close only counts in horseshoes.
Iran in the future??? Who knows - I imagine there will be a diplomatic solution. Failing that I expect Israel will handle things.

Your only valid example appears to me to be Iraq 2 and I think you will find that Kerry was very much opposed to that Bushism. I would have given you Grenada.

So daily drone strikes and US Special forces in the Pakistan northern terrortries are not?
Somalia, the US went it alone with bad consequences and a hasty withdrawel.
'Nam! legit government? thats pushing it abit or was the legit government the CIA?

[Harry Genshaw]

15.01 John Kerry has appeared on the Sunday morning political show "Face the Nation," on CBS.
He said:
You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.

Vietnam - US invited by legitimate government first as advisors then as allies - no violation of sovereignty.

Surely the Gulf of Tonkin incident qualifies as a 'trumped up pre text'?

[Lord Kangana]

The victors write history.

America are an exceedingly victorious nation over the last near-century.

Treason doth never prosper....

[Montreal Wanderer]

15.01 John Kerry has appeared on the Sunday morning political show "Face the Nation," on CBS.
He said:
You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.

Vietnam - US invited by legitimate government first as advisors then as allies - no violation of sovereignty.

Surely the Gulf of Tonkin incident qualifies as a 'trumped up pre text'?

American involvement pre-dated the incident and it certainly was a real naval action (as opposed to Weapons of mass destruction which were a myth). The incident caused Congress to allow the President to escalate US involvement, not to start it. I'm not trying to defend American policy or justify the domino theory, although in retrospect I think we would have to say American won the cold war.

[Montreal Wanderer]

15.01 John Kerry has appeared on the Sunday morning political show "Face the Nation," on CBS.

He said:

You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.
Mr Kerry, however, added that Russia still has "a right set of choices" that can be made to defuse the crisis.
It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, willful choice by President (Vladimir) Putin to invade another country. Russia is in violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Russia is in violation of its international obligations.

Mr Kerry said Obama told Putin in a 90-minute phone call on Saturday that "there will be serious repercussions if this stands. The president ... told Mr Putin that it was imperative to find a different path, to roll back this invasion and un-do this act of invasion."
Mr Kerry said G8 nations and some other countries are "prepared to go to the hilt to isolate Russia" with a "broad array of options" available.
They're prepared to put sanctions in place, they're prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges.
He also mentioned visa bans, asset freezes and trade isolation as possible steps.

So 'Mr' Kerry the law abiding US of A is appalled, what a feckin' joke!
'Violation of the sovereignty', ring any bells? Vietnam, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, almost Syria, Iran in the pipeline and countless other places, you lot should be sectioned not sanctioned.

I'm not sure you are entirely fair here, Hoboh, however much we dislike American foreign policy and/or Kerry. Let us look at your examples of violation of sovereignty.

Vietnam - US invited by legitimate government first as advisors then as allies - no violation of sovereignty.
Iraq (Iraq 1) - A UN decision given to NATO to implement in defence of Kuwait. Not a unilateral US decision.
Iraq 2 - a violation of sovereignty on "a trumped-up pretext". I'll give you that one.
Pakistan. A surgical strike for Bin Laden - a violation of sovereignty but arguably justified. i.e. the pretext wasn't trumped up. Similar to Entebbe.
Somalia. If you refer to 1992-1995 this was again a UN sanctioned action in a failed state to carry out humanitarian aid. It heated up when Pakistani peace-keepers were killed.
Almost Syria??? Close only counts in horseshoes.
Iran in the future??? Who knows - I imagine there will be a diplomatic solution. Failing that I expect Israel will handle things.

Your only valid example appears to me to be Iraq 2 and I think you will find that Kerry was very much opposed to that Bushism. I would have given you Grenada.

So daily drone strikes and US Special forces in the Pakistan northern terrortries are not?
Somalia, the US went it alone with bad consequences and a hasty withdrawel.
'Nam! legit government? thats pushing it abit or was the legit government the CIA?

I did say American activity in Pakistan (whether drones or forces on the ground) was a violation of sovereignty, although it was arguably justifiable.

I'm not sure which particular Somali intervention you refer to.

Diem was a duly elected Premier of South Vietnam in 1954 and President 1955 which makes him legit (although he may have received more popular votes than the size of the electorate). I think he was assassinated in a CIA coup, but he had previously requested American military advisory help against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

[Hoboh]

The view of a Russian replying to a gung ho Yank taken from the Guardian comment section.
The mindset should be a worry to all the 'sanction' nut jobs, EU fuel supplies are looking dodgy.
I guess short time working in Germany due to an energy crisis must be good for us?
I would shed no sleep for the destruction of the EU!

Your post shows you know little about Russia. (You are American, right?) So here some background information: As much as many Russians resent the corruption of their financial and political elites, the country is still haunted by two vast traumas: the enourmous slaughterhouse of WWII which caused 20 millions Russian casualties and the rapid decay of the Jelzin era. After 1989, with the end of the Warsaw pact, the Russians undertook the largest withdrawal from their sphere of geopolitical influence which has ever occured in world history. And what good did it do them? While Gorbatchov talked about a "European house", suggesting Russia as part of it, the US has declined any Russian offer of serious mutual cooporation for decades (and Europe unfortunately kept in line, like usual). Instead it happened already in the Clinton era that US oil companies digged their machinery into the ground of most Kaukasian neighbour countries (hardly calm and peaceful countries) and the US military guarded their businesses. Then middle east - as the world's oil tank - was completely brought under control of US oil companies (and we all remember here how seriously the US took international law there, don't we?) - and oligarchs like Chodokovsky even tried to get US capital into the Russian energy market. In the course of the Iraq war Bush put all former Russian allies in the region (Iran, Syria) on the list of further targets ("axis of evil") in the name of "democracy" (while plotting with terribly 'democratic' countries like Saudi Arabia, Katar and the like). This phase was an experience of utter humiliation for Russia.

Thus Putin is widely considered in Russia as the man who gave them their dignity back - and many Russians have swallowed the historical lesson that their leaders have never been too soft to them, but that their authoritarian style is much better than the consequences they have to suffer from a weak leadership. (Just read Russian classics!) On the other hand the large Russian minorities in the Ukraine, which has historically an enormous significance for Russian culture (Ukraine is regarded as the craddle of Tsardom and the Russian orthodox church), identify strongly with Russia - and uttlerly distrust Western Ukrainians (and the extreme right-wing and anti-Russian Swoboda party ranges about 35 percent).

If Mexiko would - after a rebellion - intend to implement a pro-Russian government and enter a political community which seems to be under Russian control (as the NSA scandal proves the EU-countries to be under US control!) and could afterwoods be a country with Russian military bases - what would the US do? They would invade Mexico, right? And their historical rights in Mexico don't equal Russian rights in regard to the Ukraine.

To make that clear: I don't like Putin, and I think the Ukrainians have all rights in the world to decide about their own fate. (As we Europeans too, therefore, NSA, get your spying centres off our territories!!!)

But I know that no solution will be found, if at least Europe doesn't come to terms with Russia in an honest way that shows an adequate degree of respect to and sympathy for that great, though problematic and utterly tragic country. Putin won't be there forever, but he will stay in charge as long as the Russians fear their weakness might cause a desaster. And nobody in Europe can have any interest in the collapse of that vast country.

[Worthy4England]

Given that most of the above is a pop at US foreign policy, how have you managed to weave the EU into it, other than the oblique reference to the NSA (American) scandal which allegedly proves (misguidedly in this case) that the EU is under US control?

I'm trying to work out who's most mixed up, the random Hoboh quoted post, or Hoboh.

[KeyserSoze]

Russia issues ultimatum for ukranian forces to leave Crimea by 3am or face an assault, according to Ukranian defence sources.

feck

[bobo the clown]

Putin is a preening cock ... & will do anything he likes in that arena and there's nowt the West can or will do about it.

The next will be the annexation of Eastern Crimea .... only at the invitation of the beleaguered and frightened Russian speaking people of course. The question being where he stops.

They've tried by perverting politics, having failed it's the military route.

[boltonboris]

Hopefully, the Russians will hack into the Google servers and disable it for whatever reason.

That way, a few on this thread will be fvcked.

[Lord Kangana]

Russia issues ultimatum for ukranian forces to leave Crimea by 3am or face an assault, according to Ukranian defence sources.

feck

In his lecture the other night, Niall Ferguson asked the question if WW1 could ever happen again (or the diplomatic f*ck up that lead to it). His own opinion was that Japanese-Chinese tension probably held the greatest threat. Within about 48 hours it seems the answer has shown itself. Really, truly, quite frightening.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Russia issues ultimatum for ukranian forces to leave Crimea by 3am or face an assault, according to Ukranian defence sources.

feck

In his lecture the other night, Niall Ferguson asked the question if WW1 could ever happen again (or the diplomatic f*ck up that lead to it). His own opinion was that Japanese-Chinese tension probably held the greatest threat. Within about 48 hours it seems the answer has shown itself. Really, truly, quite frightening.

Come on LK, I had you down as both intelligent and sussed.
Notwithstanding China v Japan, try:
Iran v Israel
N Korea v S Korea
N Korea v Japan
India v Pakistan
India v China
Kazakhstan v Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia v Iran
and they're all well before any Islamic derived barbarism versus the west or US v the rest or Russia versus disaffected regions.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm not remotely scared of the local interest issues you've just thrown up. They sound like a pub league who's-who of what not to worry that much about.

Russia is a leviathan. Ukraine looks unlikely to back down. The rhetoric is building. America can't just bomb The Kremlin at random to neutralise the issue, as she could to protect just about any other of those vassal states.

[Hoboh]

Given that most of the above is a pop at US foreign policy, how have you managed to weave the EU into it, other than the oblique reference to the NSA (American) scandal which allegedly proves (misguidedly in this case) that the EU is under US control?

I'm trying to work out who's most mixed up, the random Hoboh quoted post, or Hoboh.

The EU started all this by trying to expand AGAIN! just who the feck are they expanding for?
No one it seems except the Germans has had anything good out of the EU and it's even cost them a pretty penny or two, so again just who the feck is benefiting from all this EU expansion and why are they hell bent on pushing it to the point of war with by far the biggest and most powerful country in Europe?
Now maybe you see where the EU and the Yanks fit together, the Yanks alone cannot fight and expand their policies across the Middle East and Africa and Europe, they need their puppets.

[Lord Kangana]

They've wound you up like a kids toy, so I'd say that's a massive win for all members (European and not) of The Wanderer.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm not remotely scared of the local interest issues you've just thrown up. They sound like a pub league who's-who of what not to worry that much about.

Russia is a leviathan. Ukraine looks unlikely to back down. The rhetoric is building. America can't just bomb The Kremlin at random to neutralise the issue, as she could to protect just about any other of those vassal states.

Russia are deadly serious, Ukraine isn't.
The simple facts are that the Don Bas and Crimea are not really Ukrainian. Russia's done this before, just look at Abkhazia and South Ossetia 'annexed' from Georgia, and then note where Sochi is. The west was up in arms then, what seven years ago, and now go to the Olympics there.
The real lesson is look at a map of Europe, see where Kaliningrad is, and ask yourself, how the feck is that Russian? If even the Germans and Poles have annexed territory, Ukraine has no chance.

[Worthy4England]

Given that most of the above is a pop at US foreign policy, how have you managed to weave the EU into it, other than the oblique reference to the NSA (American) scandal which allegedly proves (misguidedly in this case) that the EU is under US control?

I'm trying to work out who's most mixed up, the random Hoboh quoted post, or Hoboh.

The EU started all this by trying to expand AGAIN! just who the feck are they expanding for?
No one it seems except the Germans has had anything good out of the EU and it's even cost them a pretty penny or two, so again just who the feck is benefiting from all this EU expansion and why are they hell bent on pushing it to the point of war with by far the biggest and most powerful country in Europe?
Now maybe you see where the EU and the Yanks fit together, the Yanks alone cannot fight and expand their policies across the Middle East and Africa and Europe, they need their puppets.

What complete bollocks you spout, Hobes. Regardless of EU membership, I think there's a fair old assumption that we generally side with the Yanks. As shown on many occasions where US interventions haven't had unilateral support from the EU nations, but UK has rocked-up anyhow.

If you seriously think that the UK outside of the EU wouldn't be siding with the US and condemning what's happening in Ukraine right now, then you're more barking than I thought.

What we have here is a country that's been declared independent of Russia and has strong ties to for example NATO for which it's been offered membership. That's nothing to do with the EU.

No one is talking to Russia about Ukraine's desire or not to join the EU - because it's an independent nation (and doesn't need Russia's approval) - allegedly - that's an entirely different conversation than whether or not the EU should expand - which you're just using as yet another opportunity to knock the EU on the grounds that you can now spout, spuriously, that the EU are pushing Russia to war.

Great hairy gonads as usual.

[Hoboh]

Given that most of the above is a pop at US foreign policy, how have you managed to weave the EU into it, other than the oblique reference to the NSA (American) scandal which allegedly proves (misguidedly in this case) that the EU is under US control?

I'm trying to work out who's most mixed up, the random Hoboh quoted post, or Hoboh.

The EU started all this by trying to expand AGAIN! just who the feck are they expanding for?
No one it seems except the Germans has had anything good out of the EU and it's even cost them a pretty penny or two, so again just who the feck is benefiting from all this EU expansion and why are they hell bent on pushing it to the point of war with by far the biggest and most powerful country in Europe?
Now maybe you see where the EU and the Yanks fit together, the Yanks alone cannot fight and expand their policies across the Middle East and Africa and Europe, they need their puppets.

What complete bollocks you spout, Hobes. Regardless of EU membership, I think there's a fair old assumption that we generally side with the Yanks. As shown on many occasions where US interventions haven't had unilateral support from the EU nations, but UK has rocked-up anyhow.

If you seriously think that the UK outside of the EU wouldn't be siding with the US and condemning what's happening in Ukraine right now, then you're more barking than I thought.

What we have here is a country that's been declared independent of Russia and has strong ties to for example NATO for which it's been offered membership. That's nothing to do with the EU.

No one is talking to Russia about Ukraine's desire or not to join the EU - because it's an independent nation (and doesn't need Russia's approval) - allegedly - that's an entirely different conversation than whether or not the EU should expand - which you're just using as yet another opportunity to knock the EU on the grounds that you can now spout, spuriously, that the EU are pushing Russia to war.

Great hairy gonads as usual.

Membership? where?

The formal basis for NATO-Ukraine relations is the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC). Successive governments reinforced the political dialogue and practical cooperation between NATO and Ukraine. NATO supports a range of initiatives in Ukraine, while Ukraine contributes to NATO’s missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and in 2013 became the first partner country to contribute to the NATO-led counter-piracy operation Ocean Shield.


Following recent developments, on 27 February 2014, NATO Defence Ministers stated that “a sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security.” This echoes a key point made in the 1997 Charter. Defence Ministers added that “NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity, democratic development, and the principle of inviolability of frontiers, as key factors of stability and security in Central and Eastern Europe and on the continent as a whole.”

At the Chicago Summit in May 2012, NATO leaders marked the 15th anniversary of the 1997 Charter and welcomed Ukraine’s commitment to enhancing political dialogue and interoperability with NATO, as well as its contributions to NATO-led operations. They also declared that NATO was ready to continue to develop its cooperation with Ukraine and assist with the implementation of reforms in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the Annual National Programme. This continued support was reiterated by NATO Defence Ministers at their February 2014 gathering.

Dialogue and cooperation between NATO and Ukraine has become well-established in a wide range of areas. In particular, Ukraine has proved to be an important contributor to Euro-Atlantic security in the framework of NATO-led operations.

Another important aspect of relations is the support given by NATO and individual Allies for Ukraine’s ongoing reform efforts, particularly in the defence and security sectors. These reforms are vital for the country’s democratic development.

I think you will find that a coup has just taken place and right as of now there is no legit government in the Ukraine!

Now't to do with the EU oh please! You could not miss the signficence of Aston and the EU commisioners brokering peace, supporting the new government, promising financial aid, yet they are nothing to do with it The original 'freedom' movement was because the EU was seen as a way out of Russian influence so whos spouting bollocks?

Just wait and see how much actual support the Yanks get from us. France and least of all Germany, hot air and sod all else.