But hopefully won’t be going to war.
All the signs are that we are facing another Crimean war. Russia is rattling sabres and the Ukrainians are, understandably, taking the invasion as a declaration of hostility.
It really doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong here – the matter is escalating for exactly the same reason that these wars always do – politicians with balls where their brains should be. Either way, we should keep well out of it.
Makes on weep for the stupidity of it all.
Particularly as Putin has “form” on this – ask around in Moldova, Chechnya, Ossettia,& Georgia.
And nieither of the previous Ukrainian “leaders” seem to have been particularly clever, either.
All the more reason for us to stay well away from it all.
And what have the “West” threatened Russia with?
“You will not be allowed to attend the G8!”
Oh fucking WOW!!! I bet Putin is REALLY shitting his kecks now!
Any way, I am on the side of the Russians in this one.
Any one against the E.U can not be all THAT bad.
I’m not on anyone’s side. All I know is that it’s none of our business.
I have to agree with you Furor, Obama is making noise and threatening Russia in all sorts of meaningless ways, the US’s whole slag off Russia is escalating and the whole nonsense over the Olympics and “Gay rights” when the US has some of the most draconian laws in many states was an utter farce.
I am not surprised Putin is getting wholey fed up with the west and it’s meddling in Russian affairs.
If the Ukrainian rebels really want to join the EU let them because they will live to regret it their government have it right stay away from the EU.
As for Ms Yulia Tymoshenko, she was convicted of crimes but it did look like a set up, seems to me the Ukraine is looking for a fight.
I do think we should mind our own business and not get involved, let Putin sort it out and Obama and Carey needs muzzling the man is nearly as big a liability as Boris Johnson.
This had trumped up charges written all over it. The Soviet Union may have gone, but the apparatchiks that ran it still remain – along with the mentality. Locking up one’s political opponents being one of the methods that still seems to be in use.
The Ukrainians wanted a change of leadership – and why not? Yanukovych was clearly a despot – and evidence since his overthrow suggests he was corrupt as well. That they want to change one power crazed despot for another is up to them, but it is not they who are spoiling for a fight as the whole thing was an internal conflict. Russia has invaded its borders, which is an act of war. The Ukrainians have an internal struggle going on and Russia should leave them to sort it out. If there is a war, then it is Russia that is to blame, not the Ukraine.
Yeah
Google for
Sergei Magnitsky ….
Indeed.
but but … we’ve sent William Hague to the Ukraine. That should do it! hahahahahahahaha
Now, y’all will have to forgive me for being a bit behind the game here, but I’ve yet to work out exactly what Russia and the EU are getting their knickers in such a twist about. Can anyone explain to me what they are so afraid of losing if Ukraine decides to favour “the other side?” It’s not as if Ukraine “belongs” to either of them any more, so what are they squabbling about? Ukraine’s just Ukraine. It’s a country of its own. If it wants to, it can trade, co-operate with and maintain good diplomatic relations with both sides, can’t it? Why does having strong links with one rule out the possibility of having strong links with the other? Can anyone more politically-savvy than me actually explain what the root of the argument is?
Prior to 1954, the Crimea was part of Russia. Khrushchev changed the boundaries. So you have a country that is ethnically divided. The western Ukraine is moving towards Europe, but the Crimea and Russia don’t want to. Indeed, Putin would like to see an old Soviet Bloc type arrangement as a counterbalance to NATO and the EU.
The sensible thing here would be to revert the Crimea back to its pre-1954 situation and let western Ukraine go its own way – and if that is into the arms of the EU, well, more fool them, but it is their destiny after all.
LR – if you would indulge me, I have some questions about your views on UK foreign policy.
Would you advocate the same isolationist* position for Britain if Russia sent troops into Lithuania to “protect” the substantial ethnic Russian population in that country? I appreciate that there would be some differences in this scenario compared to the current situation in Ukraine, including that Lithuania is a member of NATO (although what would not be different is the sovereignty of one nation state is being trampled by another). However, I am interested to know the extent to which you think Britain should stay out of international entanglements.
In addition, in your various posts over the last few months advocating that Britain stay out of the affairs of others (e.g. on Syria), would you also suggest that the United States does the same? I am trying to understand if your isolationist views apply solely to Britain or rather extend to other western powers. Is your isolationism implicitly reliant on the fact that even if Britain withdrew from projecting its power (such that it is) overseas, the US would continue to do so and so Britain, like many other European countries, would continue to enjoy the benefits of the American defence umbrella and the stability it provides (or has in the past provided) to the international system. Or in the alternative, do you think the US should cease to project its considerable power into the troubled regions of the world, that is, adopt the same foreign policy prescriptions you advocate for Britain?
* I do not intend to use this term in this post a derogatory fashion – I do think it does accurately reflects your position on UK foreign policy but am happy to be corrected.
No one has elected either us or the USA as world policemen. Other peoples conflicts are just that; other peoples, and nothing to do with us or the USA and we should all keep our noses out of them.