If Russia disavows any connection to the insurgents who brought down MH17, have they opened the way for European or US fighters to knock them out? Either overtly or covertly. It seems Russia would hardly have room to complain, except insofar as it might be forced to bring its designs on the whole country out in the open.
I fear western involvement is what putin wants. Putin disavows the seperatists for their ghoulish incompetency (that he was all along counting on to occur), some conglomerate of euro countries bombs them to bits shortly after. Russia makes a public show and dance about the escalating violence and then steps in seeking to curb ‘western aggression’, knowing full well that neither the eurosphere, the US or Russia itself would commit to a professional war. Once the dust settles and the various interests have backed off he will look like a hero. To himself only, I might add.
So you endorse the United States and Europe getting involved in a civil war that’s none of their business? Much more directly than the Russians have done?
Great.
If that is done, Putin will probably plant a kiss on the cheek of the first NATO ambassador he meets and order his troops into the entire Ukraine. Way to give him an excuse.
I dare say that when over 200 European citizens are murdered, the continent has reason to consider this “its business”?
BTW, Ukraine is a subject of a security memorandum by the US and UK, who offered guarantees of its territorial integrity in return for giving up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. If that doesn’t make Ukraine their business, then what on earth would?
Should Russia have had the right to declare war on America when we mistakenly shot down an Iranian plane in 1988? accidents happen.
Well, I think it should be pointed out that taking out a missile system that the Russians put into a sovereign nation to support a war of secession is not intervening “much more directly” than the Russians, but really rather equivalently. Nor does it amount to “declaring war on Russia”. But I’d have to acknowledge that direct military intervention by the west in Ukraine would not end well and has to be off the table barring some new major escalation. Meanwhile the pro-Russian rebels seem undeterred by the disaster they just precipitated as they’ve reportedly just shot down two Ukrainian military jets.
Uh…how do you arrive at this as a valid analogy?? For one, Russia always had the ‘right’ to declare war on the US if they so chose. For another, on what basis would Russia use to declare war on the US for something that happened against the Iranians?? Iran could have done so with some justification, but Russia? And, of course, the two incidents aren’t really all that analogous in any event, even assuming that the ‘insurgents’ who fired the ground to air missiles made an actual mistake.
Yes. If, in the future, the U.S. and U.K. expect any other nation to give up their nuclear arsenal BECAUSE THE U.S. AND U.K. HAD PLEDGED TO PROTECT THEM FROM ATTACK IF THEY DID SO, then somebody better be living up to their “Security Assurances”.
It currently looks like the Ukraine should have kept their nukes and they would have been better prepared to defend themselves from outside aggression.
We didn’t have a defense treaty with Ukraine. We promised that if anyone violated their sovereignty we’d complain loudly, and that’s what we’ve done.
Would it be “fair game” to bomb Ukrainian separatist military assets. Sure. Would it be a good idea? No.
Everyone here who wants to go to war with Russia, raise your hands. You? You? How about you? No? No one here wants to go to war with Russia? No one? Seriously, not one person wants to go to war with Russia?
OK, now that we’ve established that we don’t want a war with Russia, how about options for Ukraine that DON’T INVOLVE GOING TO WAR WITH RUSSIA?
Because if we start bombing Russian separatists in Ukraine, we’re going to find ourselves at war with Russia, since the Russian separatists are armed, funded, lead, trained, inspired, and supported by Russia.
Bombing Russians in Ukraine is different than bombing Libyans or Iraqis, the difference is the “Russian” part.
Luckily for us we elected Obama in 2012 rather than Romney, so this isn’t going to turn into Sarajevo.
Yeah, Romney would have been prepared for a Russian threat rather than thinking that was 80’s foreign policy, and that they were our bestest buddies now.
So, “We should fight against aggressors, except when the aggressors are strong?”
What Koxinga said. Well over 100 Europeans died. It kind of is Europe’s business.
Putin’s words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
So you’re in favor of a war with Russia, then?
Explain, President Velocity, what your strategy is now? Roll armored divisions into Kiev? Bomb Russian SAM sites? Nuke Moscow?
By accident.
The signatories to that memorandum agreed not to invade the Ukraine, they did not agree to help an unelected Ukrainian government repress regions of their country which are seeking autonomy, or even to defend them against an outright invasion.
The only actual evidence linking the separatists to the downing of the aeroplane is a twitter feed, which also recorded the separatists taking a Buk missile system from the Ukrainian military. There’s no reason to think the Russians supplied anything relevant.
They’re hardly going to just sit back and get bombed, are they? You seem rather more blase about the Ukrainians dropping bombs on their own civilian population.
This.
Russia, one of the signatories, of course didn’t give a shit when they actually invaded and took Crimea and actively aid other groups seeking to destroy Ukrainian national integrity. But you’re right doesn’t mean the elected government gets to “repress” armed and significantly foreign militants “seeking autonomy”. :rolleyes: