Russia commits act of war.

[Helen of Annoy]

I simply see that the USA has been pumping money into the opposition for at least a decade and especially into the more extreme right wing elements.

The consequence is that the country went from reasonable stability to been utterly ****ed in little more than a few years. is there a way out ? possibly if NATO doesn't put massive troops on the ground and turn it into the new frontier of a modern cold war.

Br Cornelius

I wish it was true and there was any serious money pumped into restoring Ukrainian sovereignty.

Stop confusing what could be called populism (it's not populism, there's no good term yet) for extreme right wing. There's the actual right wing too, but who doesn't have those too?

Don't tell me you don't know how freely they express themselves In your holy, perfect Russia? So? Quod licet Russian Iovi, non licet Ukrainian bovi or something? Russia has no right to teach Ukraine anything, especially not moral or political sanity.

NATO won't intervene, especially not by childish scenario of people who think they've got the logic behind geopolitical crap.

If it does intervene, then it's not cold but warm war. In short, spare me the phrases.

[Helen of Annoy]

Lets face another fact - the separatists and Russia have released all data available including the black boxes in a far more timely manner than Kiev or the USA - does that look like people afraid of the truth ?

Br Cornelius

Parrot, like a parrot... reciting phrases... 57% of them contain the word "truth"... what is it with you soviets, can't you say anything in your own words, like other, sane people do?

And timely? Timely?!

Russians took the plane down, did everything they could to hide the fact they did it, even sent black box to Moscow and fought against legal Ukrainian army, preventing official, international investigators from reaching the site.

This is ridiculous. I'm talking to a brainwashed. But if I don't, it could look like I approve, and it's essential that we who don't approve of terorrism are loud enough.

[Guest]

The truth will out - and I don't think you will like what it says.

Br Cornelius

[toast]

Russians took the plane down,

Nobody knows yet who took down the plane, so you don`t. It`s the media who says so but should we

listen to them or should we keep our objectiveness?

[Helen of Annoy]

That is my point all along. if NATO doesn't do for Latvia in the same way it would for France then the credibility is lost. this is what i dont want to see happen but i feel it's a real possibility. Do you think NATO would act in the same manner regardless of the member? i know this is meant to be the collective defence corner stone, but in reality do you think NATO would go to war over Latvia in the same way it would for France?

(partly copied from wiki)

As for the Russian occupation of Crimea the UK, America and Russia signed an agreement under (wiki - The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents. The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996. (wiki end)

credibility for all those involved has some what been lost - don't you think? and anyone in the future who's asked to give up their nuclear stockpiles with the same assurances that Ukraine received are going to think twice.

Yes, I believe NATO would do the same for any member. If I didn't believe that, I'd be against my country's membership in such organisation.

A country of Croatian or Latvian size may be insignificant, but the principles are never insignificant.

NATO lost no credibility in Ukrainian case, they didn't attack or took advantage of Ukrainian giving up nukes. Thw West is doing what they can, facing quite irrational opponent, that made itself an opponent without any desire of any other side to get into any kind of war, cold or warm. Russia lost credibility, all of it. Dear brotherly nation, let me badmouth you, snipe at your youth, rip off chunks of your territory, start an open yet undeclared war against you and on top of it all, act like I never heard of my own signature on that agreement.

But that's soviet style for you...

[Helen of Annoy]

Nobody knows yet who took down the plane, so you don`t. It`s the media who says so but should we

listen to them or should we keep our objectiveness?

All right, fair enugh. I'll wait for objective results and then tell you: I told you so.

[Helen of Annoy]

So, it was great having a nervous breakdown with you guys, I'm gone for today but just one more little thing, to my dear misguided lefties before anyone else:

Russian propaganda was not meant to make anyone believe in it, it was meant to scare people, by showing you how much they don't care. How far they'll go.

This, besides horrible organization, is why their latest propaganda embarrassments are so inconsistent. In their own mindset, it's a sign of their domination. Consistency is for those who want to earn your trust, something they don’t believe in. They believe in bribe and force.

[Guest]

America now backtracking on its claims of proof that seperatists did it, new claim is that a rough Ukrainian army officer probably did it;

U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.

http://www.latimes.c...0722-story.html

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.

The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

Robert Parry

http://consortiumnew...see-in-ukraine/

Sound like they are preparing the ground for a mighty climb down in rhetoric by the time the evidence is examined. Of course by then it will be to late to stop the juggernaut on its path to all out war.

We maybe lucky and the timely release of the data to the world media may defuse the situation before it esculates - but you have to ask - what is the ultimate intention of the crazies who are trying to start a war with Russia ?

Br Cornelius

Edited July 30, 2014 by Guest

[TSS]

America now backtracking on its claims of proof that seperatists did it, new claim is that a rough Ukrainian army officer probably did it;

http://www.latimes.c...0722-story.html

http://consortiumnew...see-in-ukraine/

Sound like they are preparing the ground for a mighty climb down in rhetoric by the time the evidence is examined. Of course by then it will be to late to stop the juggernaut on its path to all out war.

We maybe lucky and the timely release of the data to the world media may defuse the situation before it esculates - but you have to ask - what is the ultimate intention of the crazies who are trying to start a war with Russia ?

Br Cornelius

That story came out on the 22nd July, just 5 days after the plane came down (it was even posted on this site). You're posting it a week later and saying it looks like a mighty climb down in rhetoric by the time the evidence is examined. Far from the climb down you say, it seems that it's just you that is late to the party on this one.

[Guest]

That story came out on the 22nd July, just 5 days after the plane came down (it was even posted on this site). You're posting it a week later and saying it looks like a mighty climb down in rhetoric by the time the evidence is examined. Far from the climb down you say, it seems that it's just you that is late to the party on this one.

I said they were preparing the ground for when the investigation doesn't back up their rhetoric. The climb down is yet to come.

However it is still the case that the original rushed media blitz news stories are still the only ones been discussed both here and across the media.

Br Cornelius

[Border Collie]

Lets face another fact - the separatists and Russia have released all data available including the black boxes in a far more timely manner than Kiev or the USA - does that look like people afraid of the truth ?

Br Cornelius

These are the separatists that have been preventing the crash investigators from accessing the site?

[No Censorship]

I find your innocence....charming. Forget the Greek question. Truth is, more often than not, what people want it to be, and there's always enough "facts" that can be cited to support whatever that is. Sometimes the wisest of us are often the most foolish.

That's the first time that I've been called innocent since I was 17. I agree with your comment on truth. People bend and shape it to fit their belief system, and it doesn't matter what their belief system is. Some people stretch it more than other people, and there are a few folks out there who really do want "just the facts, ma'am".

[stevewinn]

Ukraine must be a wake-up call for NATO

31 July 2014.

The Defence Committee publishes its Third Report of Session 2014-15, Towards the Next Defence and Security Review: Part Two - NATO, HC 358.

The Defence Committee, in its report published today, argues that recent events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine should be a wake-up call for NATO and the UK. It argues that NATO is not well prepared to face the new threat posed by Russia. NATO has serious deficiencies in its command and control structures, in its ability to predict and give adequate warning of potential attack, and in the readiness of its forces. NATO may not have the collective political will to take concerted action to deter attack.

Russian Federation actions in Ukraine have now raised the prospect, however unlikely, of a Russian attack on a NATO Member State. The risk of a conventional attack by the Russian Federation on a NATO state is low, but NATO needs to take much more action to deter that risk. The risk of an unconventional attack using the "ambiguous warfare" tactics deployed in Ukraine and elsewhere, whilst still small, is more substantial and would be even more difficult to counter.

NATO needs to reorder, train and exercise its capabilities to be able to defend against both eventualities. The Committee calls on the UK Government to take the lead at the NATO Summit in Wales in September to ensure that NATO is ready to face such threats.

Recommendations

The Committee's specific recommendations call for:

• The pre-positioning of military equipment in the Baltic States;
  
• A continuous presence of NATO troops on training and exercises in the Baltic;
  
• The re-establishment of large-scale military exercises including all NATO Member States and involving political decision makers;
  
• Improvements to the NATO rapid reaction force and the possible establishment of a new Standing Reserve Force for NATO;
  
• Improvements to processes for warning of imminent attack;
  
• Radical improvements in Russian expertise in the UK government, allowing for real analysis and assessment of the Russian threat;
  
• The development of new tactics to respond to the threat of "ambiguous" attacks from Russia - including how to counter threats from cyber, information warfare, and irregular militia; and
  
• A reconsideration of Article 5, to allow response to less conventional attacks.
  

The committee concludes that the threats to UK security are increasingly dynamic in their scale, complexity, uncertainty and urgency. NATO needs radical reform to be able to anticipate, plan and respond to these threats. Threats from terrorism and failed states continue to increase, change and develop. Meanwhile, events in Ukraine and Crimea represent the re-emergence of a real state on state threat to NATO's eastern borders.

Read the full report here.

http://www.publicati...nce/358/358.pdf

Makes interesting reading. page 10 section 2.

Nuggets of information throughout this report.

[Mikolaj]

My point is the credibility of NATO is at stake here. when you allow minnows to join you run the risk of testing that credibility and you need to ask the question are we really fully prepared to adhere to Article 5 If Russia was to attack one of those minnows. are we really prepared to go to war with a country with tactical nukes. because if we don't then there is a bigger issue - where would that leave NATO? should the giants risk house and home for a minnow. whose got no cultural ties, who we've got no national interest in? I'll put my cards on the table i dont want the United Kingdom entering into a full scale war with a great power and a power with tactical nukes for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, or Romania. not when these countries do not take seriously their own defence. Its collective defence not,

What do you know about Croatian army?

I asume nothing. Their military operation Storm was one of greatest military operation in modern warfare. Its studied in Israel and USA military schools.

Second, Croats have great military history. They smashed:

-Avars

-Arabs

-Mongols

-Franks

-Byzantines

-Venetians

-Geneose

-Hungarians

-Bulgars at their prime time

-Ottomans-as nobody bussiness!!!

et cetera

Only one who smashed Croats was Napoleon. In fact Marmont. And Napoleon said: "If I have 100 000 Croats I would conquered the world."

And now Croats are in Afghanistan and Kosovo where they protect Serb minority.

How do you think that small country survived from 600 AD till today? Its because of their vitality and agility. Not because Brittish, French, USA protected them.

Ofcourse USA and Germany are now their biggest allies. USA become Croatia ally in 1990s. They are now part of NATO.

But not because nuclear umbrella for Croatia.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mikolaj

[Mikolaj]

Ukraine must be a wake-up call for NATO

Ukraine needs to be free from Russian hegemony.

[Mikolaj]

from c.4:40 is Croatian army in Kosovo. Before that in Afghanistan.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mikolaj

[stevewinn]

What do you know about Croatian army?

I asume nothing. Their military operation Storm was one of greatest military operation in modern warfare. Its studied in Israel and USA military schools.

Second, Croats have great military history. They smashed:

-Avars

-Arabs

-Mongols

-Franks

-Byzantines

-Venetians

-Geneose

-Hungarians

-Bulgars at their prime time

-Ottomans-as nobody bussiness!!!

et cetera

Only one who smashed Croats was Napoleon. In fact Marmont. And Napoleon said: "If I have 100 000 Croats I would conquered the world."

And now Croats are in Afghanistan and Kosovo where they protect Serb minority.

How do you think that small country survived from 600 AD till today? Its because of their vitality and agility. Not because Brittish, French, USA protected them.

Ofcourse USA and Germany are now their biggest allies. USA become Croatia ally in 1990s. They are now part of NATO.

But not because nuclear umbrella for Croatia.

All marvellous stuff, no doubt the Membership of NATO has helped the Croatian military improve, training and modernising with NATO allies, but for all your bluff and bluster, and with all due respect the Croatian military is small and as no expeditionary and limited capability. with 12,000 to 14,000 Army you might be able to hold your own against your good friends Serbia But not much else. -

- but my post was referring to modern day and to NATO's credibility being tested if one of the smaller countries is attacked, would the main powers of the alliance rush to the defence of the smaller - when the fact is - that the smaller member countries in NATO such as your own don't take their defence serious, and they simply cannot - because, Year on year since you joined NATO your percentage of GDP spent on your Defence as fallen. NATO minimum requirement is 2% When your government was applying to join NATO starting the accession into the alliance pre 2000 through PforP they spent 3.2% of GDP on Defence. this year your government is to spend 1.2% of GDP on Defence.

It was a few years ago now, possibly 2010? But i remember watching the RUSI Lecture, Where the The UK Chief of the Defence Staff delivers his annual lecture at the Royal United Services Institute, and when talking about future wars, He stated that Governments have become complacent in thinking State on State conflicts are over, a thing of the past - and that future wars are small anti-Terror, special forces and cyber technology wars and as a result the conditions are set for possible conflicts by global powers, them being unbalanced unprepared and dragged into wars not of their choosing and these will be started, not by direct confrontation but indirectly by smaller countries and over small territories.

People could point at the ongoing troubles in Ukraine/ Crimea /Russia. and say that, that lecture was pretty much spot on. So what worries me is NATO's credibility being tested. so the more and more we allow membership of smaller countries to join NATO, the more and more smaller territories the more and more chance like the lecture highlighted the more chance of us being dragged into a war.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

''Croatian army protects Serbian minority at Kosovo.''

Don't go there please dear, ever And thanks for this headache that i just got Do you have any idea what you talk about?

[Mikolaj]

''Croatian army protects Serbian minority at Kosovo.''

Don't go there please dear, ever And thanks for this headache that i just got Do you have any idea what you talk about?

Ofcourse. Who is minority in Kosovo? Serbs. And recently they were in war with Albanians. Did you watched videos what happened when NATO isnt around?

No one ignores fact that Albanians were victims during Yugoslavia and in recent war. Atleast thats what I read. If you know better please do tell. Im not expert on Kosovo but Im willing to learn.

edit: Being in NATO mission in Kosovo doesnt mean just to protect borders.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mikolaj

[Mikolaj]

- but my post was referring to modern day and to NATO's credibility being tested if one of the smaller countries is attacked, would the main powers of the alliance rush to the defence of the smaller - when the fact is - that the smaller member countries in NATO such as your own don't take their defence serious, and they simply cannot - because, Year on year since you joined NATO your percentage of GDP spent on your Defence as fallen. NATO minimum requirement is 2% When your government was applying to join NATO starting the accession into the alliance pre 2000 through PforP they spent 3.2% of GDP on Defence. this year your government is to spend 1.2% of GDP on Defence.

It was a few years ago now, possibly 2010? But i remember watching the RUSI Lecture, Where the The UK Chief of the Defence Staff delivers his annual lecture at the Royal United Services Institute, and when talking about future wars, He stated that Governments have become complacent in thinking State on State conflicts are over, a thing of the past - and that future wars are small anti-Terror, special forces and cyber technology wars and as a result the conditions are set for possible conflicts by global powers, them being unbalanced unprepared and dragged into wars not of their choosing and these will be started, not by direct confrontation but indirectly by smaller countries and over small territories.

People could point at the ongoing troubles in Ukraine/ Crimea /Russia. and say that, that lecture was pretty much spot on. So what worries me is NATO's credibility being tested. so the more and more we allow membership of smaller countries to join NATO, the more and more smaller territories the more and more chance like the lecture highlighted the more chance of us being dragged into a war.

Whats bluff in my earlier post?

Serbia isnt treat to Croatia anymore. As one USA anonymus offical said for Ukrainian press: "Serbs are like native Americans. They always play in their wardrums calling for rain. Last time they summoned Storm (Croatian military operation). These people needs to stop lecture another countries about their history, calling themselves heavenly people and turn to real problems in their society." He/she wanted to say that its always usefull to have external enemy because it removes focus for real issues in Serbia. Serbia have own problems which needs decades to be solved. Aplogies for 1990s wars, redemption for it, corruption, desicion will they go with EU or Russia, Kosovo, Vojvodina, Chetniks to name a few.

And numbers of soldiers you quote are special forces. One special soldiers in modern warfare is counted as 11 common soldiers.

Also Croatia have new president. Which worked in NATO. And she stressed out that she will upgrade Croatian army. With more funds for it. And even with more soldiers.

Lets be honest, neither England is big country. As I remember Putin officals said that UK is just small island. Thats how Russians percive UK.

"Being dragged into war" its wrong on so many levels that I will not be able to cover it. Its fine when forigners dying for Brittish interests but its waste of life if Brittish died for forginer interests. Every country have right to join NATO. NATO isnt Brittish army. I think you dont quite understand whats NATO in the first place and whats geopolitics.Smaller countries being in NATO is in interest of all NATO members. Its geopolitics.

This remind me how some West European rednecks (I can easily name them like this) thought that EU shouldnt be expanding in East Europe. Its just uneducated people who dont have economics background.

I doubt that you are Brittish. You seemed educated yet you presented stance which isnt stance of UK government. Perhaps you are Brittish who dont agree with UK government.

But UK isnt NATO. Lets see Bosnia. In USA constitution (?-or some other offical document confirmed by US senate)is written that Serbia made genocide in Bosnia. So now you want to tell me that NATO shouldnt reacted against Serbia? Do you understand on what principles USA was founded?

Your stance in bizzare to me. I dont know any Brittish who think like you do.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mikolaj

[Mikolaj]

Let me put it this way. You have to choose, either NATO or...this military organization...

http://en.wikipedia....on_Organisation

So if you want to have this military organization in central Europe, its fine. But it tells on which side you are sitting.

Or just leave NATO as French did and stop complaining.

We are happy to have smaller countries in NATO.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mikolaj

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Ofcourse. Who is minority in Kosovo? Serbs. And recently they were in war with Albanians. Did you watched videos what happened when NATO isnt around?

No one ignores fact that Albanians were victims during Yugoslavia and in recent war. Atleast thats what I read. If you know better please do tell. Im not expert on Kosovo but Im willing to learn.

edit: Being in NATO mission in Kosovo doesnt mean just to protect borders.

Exactly as you say, there is much more to learn about history of this area and i would rather not talk about that ( only reason is that i hope and believe that future generations will 'write' much better history then those before them and i don't like going back ). For now, by my humble opinion, truth is that many people in ex Yugoslavian countries ( mainly Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia - especially in Bosnia ) are still living in the past - on the expense of those who would rather see progress and love in future. One more thing, it is hard to find unbiased source of informations.

[Just Dave]

Russian troops attacked Ukrainian military targets from with in Russia. Mean while Obama golfs

http://www.usatoday....raine/13108615/

Is Ukraine a USA ally or not.

Even thou this post is from summer last year, we can clearly see the rubbish they feed to US public and all others who picks up this non/sense.. There was no evidence of any Russian invasion nor hostile fire towards Ukrainian side..

Every last bit fabricated by US and Nato Inteligence services, just to give them a reason for sanctions and military build up... this was pushed so far, that we were perhaps in the brink of a war between 2 strongest nations on this planet..

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Even thou this post is from summer last year, we can clearly see the rubbish they feed to US public and all others who picks up this non/sense.. There was no evidence of any Russian invasion nor hostile fire towards Ukrainian side..

Every last bit fabricated by US and Nato Inteligence services, just to give them a reason for sanctions and military build up... this was pushed so far, that we were perhaps in the brink of a war between 2 strongest nations on this planet..

So far, at least 2 million Russian soldiers were fighting in Ukraine. If we would count every news headline

[stevewinn]

Let me put it this way. You have to choose, either NATO or...this military organization...

http://en.wikipedia....on_Organisation

So if you want to have this military organization in central Europe, its fine. But it tells on which side you are sitting.

Or just leave NATO as French did and stop complaining.

We are happy to have smaller countries in NATO.

You are missing my point, NATO credibility lies in its deterrence. my point is this NATO allows countries to join the alliance, in affect using NATO as a geopolitical tool to limit the influence of Russia. using an example countries such as Estonia, Latvia etc..... 1) cannot defend themselves and 2) NATO can not defend them. - the entire organisation very existence relies on no aggressor (E.g: Russia) testing NATO's resolve.

The more countries we allow to join NATO who cannot defend themselves and NATO cannot defend - then the day draws ever closer of NATO's credibility being questioned and what happens when that day arrives? two options 1) NATO goes to war or 2) NATO does very little, next to nothing. then the alliance was tested found wanting and in effect Finished. that is what's on the line.

I don't want to see NATO tested because that signals we're between a rock and a hard place and there's no good outcome. So my stance is to limit us to this exposure from it ever happening and in my view, which i think is logical, the more we expand NATO, the more chance of this happening.

Example: can be seen with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Where we had a near miss.i dont think people realise how close we came. - NATO membership was hinted at to Ukraine. (Ukraine falls into the bracket of not able to defend itself and NATO not being able to defend it)

Lets just imagine for a second Ukraine Had joined NATO and then the EU offered Ukraine the association agreement. Russia then moves on Crimea, like events witnessed. two questions arise 1) would Russia - have moved on Crimea if Ukraine was part of NATO?, and 2) what would NATO have done if Russia still moved on Crimea? (invading a NATO member)

- can you hand on heart see the major economies of NATO going to all out war with the likes of Russia. risking house and home for a country (Ukraine) with no National interest for 97% of the members, Ukraine's economy was/is in collapse. - Its the expansion of NATO allowing such defenceless countries which put the Alliance in jeopardy. The United Nations is the place for these countries not NATO.