War with Russia next?
Stand by for a 98% vote in favour, I'd say.
As Stalin put it, 'it's not important how people vote, what's important is how you count them'.
War of words has escalated.
NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News
I am sure that will go over well with the "we hate America as a reflex" crowd.
Keep it classy, Dimitry.
NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News
"Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly current affairs show. Behind him was a backdrop of a mushroom cloud following a nuclear blast.
Kiselyov was named by President Vladimir Putin in December as the head of a new state news agency whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.
Kiselyov was named by President Vladimir Putin in December as the head of a new state news agency whose task will be to portray Russia in the best possible light.
Keep it classy, Dimitry.
I would say that any nuclear power is capable of turning the US or any other country into radioactive ash. That's the nature of the beast, unfortunately.
So melmothw, please explain why you think the unelected "interim government" feels the need to form a militia, directly answerable to itself? Hardly a step forward for democracy, peace and stability is it?
Not going to get drawn into (another) argument on this one Trim Stab. I think after 245 posts on the subject that those who are minded to change their minds probably have, and those that aren't won't.
Last edited by melmothtw; 17th Mar 2014 at 21:36.
Having watched quite a few TV news items about this, there are 2 people who stand out in particular as being totally and utterly irrelevant and unreasonable:
1. The odious John Kerry, who acts like the bad guy from one of the poorer episodes of Star Trek - the Universe's dominant robot.
2. That ridiculous little Mekon William Hague. Surely we can find someone better to hold the position of Foreign Secretary?
If Putin was to turn to the West and say "Just $od off and mind your own business, will you!", would anyone be surprised - or disagree?
1. The odious John Kerry, who acts like the bad guy from one of the poorer episodes of Star Trek - the Universe's dominant robot.
2. That ridiculous little Mekon William Hague. Surely we can find someone better to hold the position of Foreign Secretary?
If Putin was to turn to the West and say "Just $od off and mind your own business, will you!", would anyone be surprised - or disagree?
Beags......as many times as we have differed.....on this one I solidly agree with you without any let or hindrance!
Lurch is a National Embarrassment!
Lurch is a National Embarrassment!
Biggest load of sh1t on Sky news paper review, going on about a Times report about RAF fighters going to the Baltic states. Don't jouno's do some research. Baltic states air policing system has been going on for years. 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," television presenter Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly current affairs show.
Someone should wheel out a right wing commentator of our own, just remind them that whilst they could do that, whilst its occuring the very same thing would be happening to them. Or has Barry stood all you guys down. Maybe some premptive save the world get rid of your nukes sort of thing.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think Putin would be so bold if this event was happening in a spot where Allied military power could be more easily brought to the party. The Black sea is almost a lake as far as western navies are concerned.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wellington
Age: 77
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putin's fan club?
I find it astonishing that so many people writing to this thread appear to endorse the actions of a dictator of a country that had to build a wall to keep its 'citizens' from leaving.
Yes there are some Western leaders who are not totally impressive, yes London and Washington have and no doubt will make mistakes, but people used to risk their lives to escape from Russia to get to the West.
Britain, the US, Ukraine and Russia signed a UN document in December 1994 that pledged them to uphold the integrity of the Ukraine. It said the signatories would not use force, would respect Ukraine's integrity and economy and any trouble would be taken straight to the UNSC.
That document on its own gives London and Washington not just a right but an obligation to get involved.
How many East Germans moved to Russia when the wall came down?
How many Poles moved east rather than West?
Reading some of the posts on this thread I can begin to wonder if freedom of speech is such a good idea.
I've never met anyone from the Ukraine, but I did used to know a girl from East Germany who managed to get out just before the wall went up.
I do still remember an expo that Russia put on at Earls Court, probably in the 1960s that was suffused with gritty, grey, ugliness.
Nothing has changed, except that the West has steadily disarmed itself, both in terms of weapons and troops while earning a few francs by building ships ideal for sailing troops and tanks across the Black Sea or down the Baltic to invade what hapless country happens to be there.
Yes there are some Western leaders who are not totally impressive, yes London and Washington have and no doubt will make mistakes, but people used to risk their lives to escape from Russia to get to the West.
Britain, the US, Ukraine and Russia signed a UN document in December 1994 that pledged them to uphold the integrity of the Ukraine. It said the signatories would not use force, would respect Ukraine's integrity and economy and any trouble would be taken straight to the UNSC.
That document on its own gives London and Washington not just a right but an obligation to get involved.
How many East Germans moved to Russia when the wall came down?
How many Poles moved east rather than West?
Reading some of the posts on this thread I can begin to wonder if freedom of speech is such a good idea.
I've never met anyone from the Ukraine, but I did used to know a girl from East Germany who managed to get out just before the wall went up.
I do still remember an expo that Russia put on at Earls Court, probably in the 1960s that was suffused with gritty, grey, ugliness.
Nothing has changed, except that the West has steadily disarmed itself, both in terms of weapons and troops while earning a few francs by building ships ideal for sailing troops and tanks across the Black Sea or down the Baltic to invade what hapless country happens to be there.
Foxed Moth - absolutely agree with you as I do with BEagle in his last post.
The above is the bottom line here. NATO and the UK in particular have all downgraded the 'Fully Comprehensive' insurance policy to 'Third Party' only but our politicians haven't yet caught up with the reality of a bare cupboard and lowering world status. Despite the frankly pathetic posturing from the likes of Lurch and the Mekon, Putin knows their is nothing of substance that the West will do or even could do.
Crimea has now fallen and Eastern Ukraine stands wide open. In fact, Russia could drive all the way to Slovakia and no-one will do anything about it other than bleat. For those Brits old enough to remember the Cadburys Smash adverts from the 1970's, I can only imagine the Russian leadership crying with laughter in the same vein, with such terrible repercussions as banning a handful of low level officials from travelling to the west and pulling out of a minor scale military exercise!
Nothing has changed, except that the West has steadily disarmed itself, both in terms of weapons and troops
Crimea has now fallen and Eastern Ukraine stands wide open. In fact, Russia could drive all the way to Slovakia and no-one will do anything about it other than bleat. For those Brits old enough to remember the Cadburys Smash adverts from the 1970's, I can only imagine the Russian leadership crying with laughter in the same vein, with such terrible repercussions as banning a handful of low level officials from travelling to the west and pulling out of a minor scale military exercise!
FM
That would be the democratically elected dictator, of course.
Totally agree, but there is one leader who seems to be doing the job of leading rather than posturing.
Egypt? Libya? Iraq? Syria??
And one might play Devil's Advocate and say that none of them have used force. We have no real idea, apart from some guesses/speculation in the press whether "Russia" has even breached its treaty limits on numbers of personnel based in Crimea.
Does it? That's a genuine question, I have not read the text of the treaty, but does it really obligate the UK or US to get involved any more than we actually have?
And therein lies the main problem. Western nations have gambled on the illusory post-Cold War "peace dividend" and yet most Western politicians will admit that the world is a more dangerous place since the Wall came down; but the cuts to the Armed Forces keep coming.
people writing to this thread appear to endorse the actions of a dictator of a country
there are some Western leaders who are not totally impressive
London and Washington have and no doubt will make mistakes
It said the signatories would not use force
That document on its own gives London and Washington not just a right but an obligation to get involved
the West has steadily disarmed itself, both in terms of weapons and troops
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wellington
Age: 77
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP
On 19th December 1994 the UK and the US, together with the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, signed the Bucharest Memorandum; pledging to respect the independence and the borders of the Ukraine; to refrain from the threat or use of force against the Ukraine; to refrain from economic coercion and to seek immediate UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine become a victim of an act of aggression.
So, there is no explicit or even implied requirement for the UK or the US to run to Ukraine's aid other than to go to the UNSC, which they did and which unsurprisingly was vetoed.
However, it does mention 'threat' of force and I reckon the threat is manifest, regardless of whether any triggers have been pulled.
Russia, or more accurately, Putin, has now blatantly broken these pledges. So London and Washington could say they have fulfilled their obligations by going to the Security Council and leave it at that, but they did sign the document, it does link them to the Ukraine.
United Nations Official Document
I have argued, albeit not in this forum, against defence cuts for decades and I despair for the security of the 'West.'
For decades the people elected to protect the Realm have wreaked grievous harm instead, usually citing money as a cause.
Often, far to often, they have failed in their duty, but those who live in the West and cast Putin as a role model, who argue in his favour, such people I would cheerfully send to a Siberian holiday camp.
So, there is no explicit or even implied requirement for the UK or the US to run to Ukraine's aid other than to go to the UNSC, which they did and which unsurprisingly was vetoed.
However, it does mention 'threat' of force and I reckon the threat is manifest, regardless of whether any triggers have been pulled.
Russia, or more accurately, Putin, has now blatantly broken these pledges. So London and Washington could say they have fulfilled their obligations by going to the Security Council and leave it at that, but they did sign the document, it does link them to the Ukraine.
United Nations Official Document
I have argued, albeit not in this forum, against defence cuts for decades and I despair for the security of the 'West.'
For decades the people elected to protect the Realm have wreaked grievous harm instead, usually citing money as a cause.
Often, far to often, they have failed in their duty, but those who live in the West and cast Putin as a role model, who argue in his favour, such people I would cheerfully send to a Siberian holiday camp.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to reply to Air Pig.
That report is in todays Daily Telegraph then? The thing being most people (myself included) don't know actually where and what the RAF do, most days. The way the story is being spun to sell is that its a deliberate escalation of military activity along the Russian Border by the UK, simple as that.
The RAF need to be more forthcoming about what they are doing. It was also reported in last weeks Guardian (and placed somewhere on 'ere by me, although I was strongly rebuked for doing so by some pruners) that the RAF will be operating combat/bomber drones within Africa and elsewhere this year. All this is kept away from the public by someone- its therefore not a surprise that it comes as news to members of the UK public when things like theses are published.
The RAF need to be more forthcoming about what they are doing. It was also reported in last weeks Guardian (and placed somewhere on 'ere by me, although I was strongly rebuked for doing so by some pruners) that the RAF will be operating combat/bomber drones within Africa and elsewhere this year. All this is kept away from the public by someone- its therefore not a surprise that it comes as news to members of the UK public when things like theses are published.
The West is all mouth and no trousers.
There's nothing the West can do, or will do, and Putin knows it.
He'll take Crimea in the next couple of months, preferably via a puppet Government (which is what he tried with Yanakovich and the whole of Ukraine anyway)
Troops will be used, but no significant fighting will occur.
There's nothing the West can do, or will do, and Putin knows it.
He'll take Crimea in the next couple of months, preferably via a puppet Government (which is what he tried with Yanakovich and the whole of Ukraine anyway)
Troops will be used, but no significant fighting will occur.
CG
The RAF need to be more forthcoming about what they are doing.
Next thing you'll be demanding to have the locations of the RN attack subs published so it doesn't come as a shock to the public should they be needed to be used in anger....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,900 Likes
on
1,242 Posts
It would seem the RAF may be in the Ukraine, along with several other nations soon... I wonder if they will change the exercise coverage?
US Army to proceed with planned exercise in Ukraine - News - Stripes
US Army to proceed with planned exercise in Ukraine - News - Stripes
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this wasn't so serious you would have to p!ss your self laughing. The Russians respect strength, thats why they love Putin.
Whats the great and almighty response of the west, a few piddly sanctions on a few people. F$%^ me they must be quaking in their boots.
Whats the great and almighty response of the west, a few piddly sanctions on a few people. F$%^ me they must be quaking in their boots.