PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Such rank hypocrisy from UK & US., Ukraine
Roverboy
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 05:50
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



So we and usa are threatening more sanctions against Russia for allegedly supporting separatist rebels in the main being peaceful.

Erm didn't we do that in Libya also lending them the RAF to bomb a legitimate govt into submission. We are also doing this now in Syria openly supplying rebels with "no lethal" army equipment, whilst it's an open secret the CIA are also training and arming Islamic rebels to fight a legitimate govt, whilst the Ukraine govt isn't even legitimate, it's just pro-western and not pro- Russian as the elected one was.

This post has been edited by Roverboy: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 05:52


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 05:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Gan
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 06:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



Quite an accurate analysis

Pity that the USA and UK Governments also have no understanding of Eastern European culture outside of a multi-national song contest
The only surprise is that the protesters who over-threw a pro-Russian Government with a military base on its doorstep didn't see it coming
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roverboy
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 06:57
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



Successive UK and American govts have very much had a "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude to foreign policy in the last few years.


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain swoop
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 07:31
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,670
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,956



So, you support Appeasing Russian Expansion in to neighboring countries?

Isn't that what happened in the 1930s?

What do we do when Polish or Latvian 'Russian Separatists' along the Russian Border start to do the same and Putin says he is going to send in 'Peacekeeping' troops to defend the oppressed Russian citizens?

How can you compare the situation with Syria.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 09:32
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,906
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



when did the treaty of Westphalia become optional


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 10:07
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (captain swoop @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 08:31) *
So, you support Appeasing Russian Expansion in to neighboring countries?

Isn't that what happened in the 1930s?

What do we do when Polish or Latvian 'Russian Separatists' along the Russian Border start to do the same and Putin says he is going to send in 'Peacekeeping' troops to defend the oppressed Russian citizens?

How can you compare the situation with Syria.

If you look at history Crimea was always part of Russia. It was handed to Ukraine in the 50's when it was all part of the USSR as a political gesture in the belief it would effectively still be Russian. The Government of Ukraine flirted with Europe and tried to distance itself from Russia alienating the mainly Russian ethnic population of Crimea. So Russia's annexation is in fact no more than restoring territory that had always been Russian. Of course that is very different to Syria, Libya, Iraq etc etc. Here the UK and US supported anti government military and political movements because they wanted the Government to fall in the hope the replacement would be pro west.

So whilst Putin does cause me some concern I think that what he did has infinitely more legitimacy than our foreign policy since Blair came to power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 10:31
Post #7


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,371
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 11:07) *
If you look at history Crimea was always part of Russia. It was handed to Ukraine in the 50's when it was all part of the USSR as a political gesture in the belief it would effectively still be Russian. The Government of Ukraine flirted with Europe and tried to distance itself from Russia alienating the mainly Russian ethnic population of Crimea. So Russia's annexation is in fact no more than restoring territory that had always been Russian. Of course that is very different to Syria, Libya, Iraq etc etc. Here the UK and US supported anti government military and political movements because they wanted the Government to fall in the hope the replacement would be pro west.

So whilst Putin does cause me some concern I think that what he did has infinitely more legitimacy than our foreign policy since Blair came to power.

You've presumably noticed that the current woes are actually in eastern Ukraine outside Crimea? And that Putin says he has a 'right' to send troops into those (non-Crimean) parts of Ukraine? Whatever the hypocrisy of our own governments now or in the past, that has no bearing on whether what Russia is now doing is right - not to mention that if they continue with this annexation wheeze elsewhere in Europe it's f***ing dangerous for all of us.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain swoop
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 11:28
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,670
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,956



What happens in a couple of months time when Putin has his bits of Ukrain and has his troops sat in their cities?

there are Russian populations in the Baltic states and it Poland. How do we respond when he decides he should be sending troops in to protect Russian populations in Nato countries?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roverboy
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 13:37
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



I very much doubt putin would risk the almost certain prospect of a war with the west (although idont doubt he'd give nato a good fight for its money).

My point is we can hardly claim the moral high ground with our track record in Libya and Syria for instigating regime change because we don't like them.


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain swoop
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 14:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,670
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,956



Putin has been on Russian TV today saying he has a 'Right' to send the Russian Army in to Ukraine to protect Russian Citizens.

As he has engineered the whole thing it's just a matter of time till the Tanks roll over the borders.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 15:48
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 11:07) *
If you look at history Crimea was always part of Russia. It was handed to Ukraine in the 50's when it was all part of the USSR as a political gesture in the belief it would effectively still be Russian. The Government of Ukraine flirted with Europe and tried to distance itself from Russia alienating the mainly Russian ethnic population of Crimea. So Russia's annexation is in fact no more than restoring territory that had always been Russian. Of course that is very different to Syria, Libya, Iraq etc etc. Here the UK and US supported anti government military and political movements because they wanted the Government to fall in the hope the replacement would be pro west.

So whilst Putin does cause me some concern I think that what he did has infinitely more legitimacy than our foreign policy since Blair came to power.

You've presumably noticed that the current woes are actually in eastern Ukraine outside Crimea? And that Putin says he has a 'right' to send troops into those (non-Crimean) parts of Ukraine? Whatever the hypocrisy of our own governments now or in the past, that has no bearing on whether what Russia is now doing is right - not to mention that if they continue with this annexation wheeze elsewhere in Europe it's f***ing dangerous for all of us.

He did this in Georgia and the world didn't end.

I agree it is a dangerous position. I, like most people, would prefer troops and tanks not to be on the streets of any European country. But there is a context to this which isn't as black and white as the west make out. Roverboys point was that to criticise Putin for interfering in a sovereign country is hypocrisy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 15:57
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



I own a house in the Ukraine. I speak Ukrainian badly - almost as badly as I speak Russian (well slow down then - ED) I employ several Ukrainian and Russian freelancers. I talk to them and their families frequently. I travel to the Ukraine every few years. I have considered the situation VERY carefully and in depth. So far I have not been too surprised by events. My only real surprise is that the Russian speaking section of the population have not got more angry more quickly.

I am somewhat underwhelmed by those that say there is "Russian Intervention" in Eastern Ukraine. Did no one think there has been "western intervention" in western Ukraine? When local rioters (and not the general population) took control of the police station in Lviv (etc) - did anyone worry that Poland (goaded by Uncle Sam) was exerting any undue influence on a region that WAS Poland before the second world war? No doubt that was "democracy in action". The flip side is that anyone can stage a revolution and a good number of people in the Eastern oblasts have done exactly that. They have absolutely no wish to be ruled from Poland or Germany (or Brussels), either directly or indirectly. And in Lugansk and Donetsk they have no real wish to form closer ties with the EU, in fact the opposite view is gaining some ground. My contacts in Russia, as westernised and internet savvy as they may be, have no wish to join the EU or indeed eject Putin (but you how things are when the vodka dries up...).

Think that's a mad idea - go talk to UKIP. They might be swivel eyes loons but they have popular support. And many Tories aren't far behind in their disdain for the EU. So if the English don't particularly like the EU then why should anybody in eastern Ukraine, a place well beyond the EU's sphere of monetary influence. To them its "better the devil they know"....

IMHO, Ukraine is not a really a country or even one social group. It is another "hotch potch" of social groups, often old enemies, drawn from the Ruthenian Poles/Bohemians, Tartars, Cossacks and Rus. And probably several drunk Scythians. Within its current boarders, it only really had currency in the Soviet Union. Left to its own devices I suspect it would rapidly fall apart - roughly down the Dniepr river. The old Ruthenians to the west can join Europe - which should come as a shock to Europe! And the population to the east of the divide can move into a distant orbit around Moscow. I might say "like Belarus" but I am hopeful they may see sense in avoiding that precise path.

That many people in the east do feel some antipathy to the current government Kiev and the EU is not in question. If the interim government in Kiev decides to use less "jaw, jaw" and more "war, war" ( a thing it criticised the previous Yukanovich government for) then let the games commence!. The only reason the "west" wants Ukraine intact, territorially speaking, is because if it can pull off an "annexation" of west Ukraine then it would be default get "east Ukraine" and thus another boarder with Russia. But I doubt that would be allowed to happen for similar reasons to the Americans not wanting Russian missiles in Cuba.

What's a good way forward? IMHO - Mr Kerry - shut up. Mr Haig - put a sock in it. EU - get on with doing something useful and stop trying to raise tensions elsewhere. In fact let the people who are affected by this mess try to sort it out without continuous intervention by out side interests. The Ukrainian population has intelligence and ability. Let them use it to sort out their own problems. As for financial help for Ukraine's economic woes - ask Greece how well "financial assistance" and "democratic government" worked there....

What of Czar Putin? Hmmmm. He has a difficult job and I am not always happy with the way he (or his government) does it. But compared to Emperor Bush he is almost a pacifist. Don't believe me? Does one remember when the Americans supplied Stinger missiles to Afghan Terrorists/Unlawful Combatants to kill Russian soldiers who were fighting the same people that our lads have just stopped fighting? The Russians might be brutal but they are not as spiteful as the Septic Tanks. They have never supplied Igla SAM's to the Afghans to waste the British or the Americans (who replaced the Russians).

And as for American and British foreign policy towards totalitarian dictators propped up by corruption and less than transparent governments - perhaps after the Ukraine, Mr Haig and Mr Kerry could turn their attentions to, errr, Bahrain or even, errr, Saudi Arabia. No? I didn't think so.... Their bold statements about democracy and the need for popular support for governments (as admirable as they may be) amount to another load of particularly malodorous flatulence when faced with "realpolitik". In reality they are as powerless to act against events in Eastern Ukraine as they are to act against events in North Korea. Which allows them to say more than they can actually do. Politicians! Huh!



--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgtdixie
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 16:45
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,529
Joined: 5 May 2011
From: UK
Member No.: 46,399



DD

I often disagree with you, but your informed and incite-full post accords with the limited knowledge I have from visiting Crimea a couple of years ago. I think that sometimes the west forgets that not everyone wants to be in the club as much as the west wants them to be in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain swoop
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 20:24
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,670
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Member No.: 18,956



If it isn't stopped it will be a tipping point. I can guarantee the same thing will start happening in other former Soviet satellites. Putin is on a mission to re-form the Soviet Union.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psimmons200
post Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 21:49
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,614



A nation with a strong identity, history and culture forming a relatively small part of a larger sovereign state. It is ultimately ruled by a government it doesn't support (and didn't vote for), from a capital city hundreds of miles away. This nation wants a referendum to allow its people to choose between the status quo or a new constitutional settlement.

Is this to be encouraged, or discouraged?


And why would the answer be different depending on whether the nation in question is Crimea or Scotland?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buellguy
post Fri, 18 Apr 2014 - 14:16
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,786



QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 22:49) *
A nation with a strong identity, history and culture forming a relatively small part of a larger sovereign state. It is ultimately ruled by a government it doesn't support (and didn't vote for), from a capital city hundreds of miles away. This nation wants a referendum to allow its people to choose between the status quo or a new constitutional settlement.

Is this to be encouraged, or discouraged?


And why would the answer be different depending on whether the nation in question is Crimea or Scotland?


Depends really, Crimea was Russian and had been since 1783 until 1954 when it was handed to the Ukraine during the time of the CCCP. It's been autonomous since 1991
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 18 Apr 2014 - 15:01
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,360
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (captain swoop @ Thu, 17 Apr 2014 - 21:24) *
If it isn't stopped it will be a tipping point. I can guarantee the same thing will start happening in other former Soviet satellites. Putin is on a mission to re-form the Soviet Union.


Isn't that the old domino theory the US fell flat on its face with in south east asia?

------
Thanks to DD for that analysis. I doubt we'd get anything quite so informed in any media.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roverboy
post Sat, 26 Apr 2014 - 20:04
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,270
Joined: 4 Apr 2003
From: Northants
Member No.: 20



When saddam and gadaffi used troops to try and crush a peoples rebellion against the govt the US and Europe protested and declared the use of the army in such circumstances to be a crime against humanity, and got the ICC involved and to issue world-wide arrest warrants against all and sundry (except the nice friendly rebels who then murdered saddam in the most violent and inhumane way possible who we backed) and lent these rebels the Royal (Mercenary) Air Force to bomb him to bits.

Now when the present EU friendly govt in the Ukraine who we now support, does the same thing and sends in the army to crush the pro-Russian rebels what do we and the USA do, we PRAISE them for their restraint !!!!!!! Oh, and blame Russia for supporting them and implement more sanctions against Russia .

Double standards or what ?????????


--------------------
Diesel, the fuel of the future......

Roverboy 2 Apcoa 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post Sun, 27 Apr 2014 - 23:07
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,378
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
From: Up north
Member No.: 25,505



My two penny worth. The UN security council is 3 west 2 east permanent members and a rotating number of others. The 2 east normally do not see eye to eye. Therefore Russia can legitimately feel outnumbered when it comes to UN resolutions when it feels its national interests are threatened. Can anyone tell me how on earth NATO had a legitimate interest in Afgansistan? It is nowhere near the North Atlantic, but we legitimised it by extrapolating the threat of radical Muslims to within our own borders. If we can do that, looking at things from a Russian perspective, why should the Ukraine be any different?


--------------------
Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psimmons200
post Tue, 29 Apr 2014 - 20:15
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 574
Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Member No.: 59,614



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Mon, 28 Apr 2014 - 00:07) *
Can anyone tell me how on earth NATO had a legitimate interest in Afgansistan? It is nowhere near the North Atlantic, but we legitimised it by extrapolating the threat of radical Muslims to within our own borders. If we can do that, looking at things from a Russian perspective, why should the Ukraine be any different?


When the USSR fought radical Islamists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the West united in condemnation and funded & armed the rebels to fight their jihad. 15 years later we roll back into Kabul to fight... radical Islamists preaching jihad.

No wonder the Russians have no time for Western foreign policy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 20th March 2019 - 06:11
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.