Russian forces enter the Crimea

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-UN-Security-Council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-Ukraine-crisis.html

Ukraine crisis live: UN Security Council to hold emergency meeting on Ukraine crisis

Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'


http://online-russian.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Russian-Language-use-in-Ukraine.jpg


21.01 AFP has reported that Russian aircraft carrying nearly 2,000 suspected troops have landed at a military air base near the regional capital of the restive Crimean peninsula, according to an official in Kiev's new government.

"Thirteen Russian aircraft landed at the airport of Gvardeysky (near Simferopol) with 150 people in each one," Sergiy Kunitsyn, the Ukrainian president's special representive in Crimea, told the local ATR television channel, adding the air space had been closed. It was not immediately clear if Russia had the right to use the base or send additional troops there under its agreements with Ukraine.

Caution should be exercised before calling this an "invasion" right now - the new Kiev government may be panicking.

Russia may well be demonised by the western world for this but by all means, it's acting rationally and within it's own interests. The only peaceful solution here would be an independence referendum for the East of the Ukraine (including Crimea) but I very much doubt the new 'democratic' pro-western Government in Kiev - along with the US, EU and NATO - would agree to this.

If the west and the central Ukraine government refuse a referendum/a split..... then I have to say Russia is logical to go in.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666893/Ukraine-crisis-live-UN-Security-Council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-Ukraine-crisis.html

Ukraine crisis live: UN Security Council to hold emergency meeting on Ukraine crisis

Russian foreign ministry admits to entering Crimea from its Black Sea Fleet base as the Ukraine's interior minister accuses country of 'armed invasion'


http://online-russian.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Russian-Language-use-in-Ukraine.jpg



Russia may well be demonised by the western world for this but by all means, it's acting rationally and within it's own interests. The only peaceful solution here would be an independence referendum for the East of the Ukraine (including Crimea) but I very much doubt the new 'democratic' pro-western Government in Kiev - along with the US, EU and NATO - would agree to this.

If the west and the central Ukraine government refuse a referendum/a split..... then I have to say Russia is logical to go in.

Thoughts?

Not really rational taking over the airports of another country. I doubt the US/EU would directly get involved as it's right on Russia's doorstep and could potentially escalate the situation. The most likely scenario will be Crimea being annexed by Russia, which looks increasingly likely due to Moscow rushing through new annexation legislation. Whether or not the new government in Kiev will allow this is another matter (although the Ukrainian army pales in comparison to Russia's).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not really rational taking over the airports of another country. I doubt the US/EU would directly get involved as it's right on Russia's doorstep and could potentially escalate the situation. The most likely scenario will be Crimea being annexed by Russia, which looks increasingly likely due to Moscow rushing through new annexation legislation. Whether or not the new government in Kiev will allow this is another matter (although the Ukrainian army pales in comparison to Russia's).

Our governments will never get involved because we are led by weak men who only like to pick on smaller countries, ie Iraq and Afghanistan both of which had no airforce. Russia would smack us back and knock out a few teeth if we tried anything on.

Ideally there would be a referendum in the East of Ukraine, but the west seems to want Ukraine to stay together. Putin has no choice.

[The Don]

Our governments will never get involved because we are led by weak men who only like to pick on smaller countries, ie Iraq and Afghanistan both of which had no airforce. Russia would smack us back and knock out a few teeth if we tried anything on.

Ideally there would be a referendum in the East of Ukraine, but the west seems to want Ukraine to stay together. Putin has no choice.

Thank god, why would we go in? I don't think starting a war with Russia would be very sensible...

It's also funny how there are rumours of russia giving out russian visas and citizenship in the crimea area to practically anyone to boost the percentage of 'Russians' in there to justify them making a move, which is a tactic they apparently used in the Georgia situation. Either way, it's not looking good for Ukraine.

[The Don]

Obama has made an official statement on the whole situation now.

Link to recording https://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/obama-makes-statement-on-1

[Okeanos]

Your graphic is completely wrong, most of those regions which are green are not majority Russian speaking. Russia is not acting rationally, it is undermining a legitimate revolution and it is infringing the sovereignty of another country. Technically the native Crimeans are the Tartars.... the last time Russia got involved in the Crimea, Stalin deported them to Central Asia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your graphic is completely wrong, most of those regions which are green are not majority Russian speaking. Russia is not acting rationally, it is undermining a legitimate revolution and it is infringing the sovereignty of another country. Technically the native Crimeans are the Tartars.... the last time Russia got involved in the Crimea, Stalin deported them to Central Asia.

The revolution undermined a legitimate government.

[The Don]

The revolution undermined a legitimate government.

You must have a funny definition of legitimate. I don't view a president who gives himself more and more power and orders the murder of his countries citizens as legitimate. I don't know why you're trying to paint yanukovych as some sort of victim. Do you not know how corrupt he is/was?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You must have a funny definition of legitimate. I don't view a president who gives himself more and more power and orders the murder of his countries citizens as legitimate. I don't know why you're trying to paint yanukovych as some sort of victim. Do you not know how corrupt he is/was?

I'm not defending him or his government. I'm pointing out that, as much as the western media are trying to portray this as a peoples revolution, it's a US/EU-backed coup against a government that was elected in Ukraine. Sure half the country absolutely hated the government, but that's only because the Russian half of the country managed to outvote the Ukrainian side at the last election.... the wonders of multiculturalism.

Whoever you get in Ukraine it's going to be corrupt, brutal and run like a tinpot country. The only question is, are we going to keep lying to ourselves - as many of you did in the Arab Spring - over what the revolution and opposition are really about.

[-:Undertaker:-]

RT ‏@RT_com 44m

#UKRAINE: Russian flags raised in the cities of Melitopol, Yevpatoria and Mariupol http://on.rt.com/xhz2zu pic.twitter.com/rYYxBJyL4I


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhpdSs_CcAEF8oN.jpg

President Putin has also requested use of force in Crimea and it's gone to the Russian Duma upper house....


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02838/Ukraine-Putin-stat_2838543c.jpg

Maybe that's something President Obama could do in future (asking Congress to declare war) as the US constitution demands but which various Presidents - Clinton, Bush and Obama - have completely ignored making them unconstitutional wars.

It's come to something where Russia can be teaching America lessons. :P

[The Don]

Thing are beginning to look even worse... Apparently Russia has brought in extra 6,000 troops to Ukraine and Putin has received permission from the Duma to use armed forces in Ukraine.

Edit: Beat me to it Dan. I'm starting to doubt whether the US/NATO/EU will stay out of this after reading about the Budapest Memorandum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

- - - Updated - - -


President Putin has also requested use of force in Crimea and it's gone to the Russian Duma upper house....


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02838/Ukraine-Putin-stat_2838543c.jpg

Maybe that's something President Obama could do in future (asking Congress to declare war) as the US constitution demands but which various Presidents - Clinton, Bush and Obama - have completely ignored making them unconstitutional wars.

It's come to something where Russia can be teaching America lessons. :P

Teach the US on what? How to completely ignore international treaties? Not sure why you're getting a hard on when Russia is completely in the wrong at this point. Is it because it's Anti-EU/US?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Teach the US on what? How to completely ignore international treaties? Not sure why you're getting a hard on when Russia is completely in the wrong at this point. Is it because it's Anti-EU/US?

Teach the US political class a lesson in following it's own laws. When declaring war in America, the constitution states that only the Congress can declare war, not the President. In recent years, US Presidents - including Obama - have got around this by illegally claiming that the wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were not wars but something else. That is tyranny, and for all Putin's faults its a disgrace that the United States are being shown up in comparison to him. Who is the real war monger? Putin or Obama? At least Putin declares war legally.

As for the EU angle and Putin being wrong, why so? The European Union started this entire thing after it had a sulk following the Ukrainian governments decision to end talks on closer ties with the EU. Since then, EU officials have been stirring this pot of **** in the hope that they could topple the elected (yes, and corrupt) government in Ukraine and have it replaced by a pro-EU (and corrupt) government.

I'm glad that Putin is stepping in and telling the EU that he will not have governments toppled on his doorstep. All you have to do is simply imagine if the tables were turned and this was happening in reverse - there would be outrage.

[The Don]

Teach the US political class a lesson in following it's own laws. When declaring war in America, the constitution states that only the Congress can declare war, not the President. In recent years, US Presidents - including Obama - have got around this by illegally claiming that the wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were not wars but something else. That is tyranny, and for all Putin's faults its a disgrace that the United States are being shown up in comparison to him. Who is the real war monger? Putin or Obama? At least Putin declares war legally.

As for the EU angle and Putin being wrong, why so? The European Union started this entire thing after it had a sulk following the Ukrainian governments decision to end talks on closer ties with the EU. Since then, EU officials have been stirring this pot of **** in the hope that they could topple the elected (yes, and corrupt) government in Ukraine and have it replaced by a pro-EU (and corrupt) government.

I'm glad that Putin is stepping in and telling the EU that he will not have governments toppled on his doorstep. All you have to do is simply imagine if the tables were turned and this was happening in reverse - there would be outrage.

The EU didn't start this, the Ukraine citizens did because they were unhappy with the government. To excuse such international wrong doings simply because "the US did it in the past" is absolutely terrible. Provide some links as to how the EU and not the Ukrainian citizens are responsible for this, and then justify how some other country doing something similar in the past excuses Russia for doing the same? As you said whenever someone brings up the Native American argument "We should be learning from the past, not repeating it" Yet here you are revelling in it simply because it's ~Controversial~ to the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The EU didn't start this, the Ukraine citizens did because they were unhappy with the government.

Oh so the EU just sat on the sidelines and didn't in anyway egg on the situation. Righttttt. In almost every country, and especially these corrupt countries, the citizens are always unhappy with the government. Those in the West of Ukraine will aways be unhappy with a pro-Russian government. But that ain't the point. The point is, you have an elected Ukrainian government that has been brought down by the EU simply because it was upset that it didn't manage to bring Ukraine under it's sphere of influence.

So well done to Baroness Ashton and the EU Foreign Ministers. Except they've now prodded the Russian bear. Oops.


To excuse such international wrong doings simply because "the US did it in the past" is absolutely terrible. Provide some links as to how the EU and not the Ukrainian citizens are responsible for this, and then justify how some other country doing something similar in the past excuses Russia for doing the same? As you said whenever someone brings up the Native American argument "We should be learning from the past, not repeating it" Yet here you are revelling in it simply because it's ~Controversial~ to the EU.

I have stated ideally that I would like to see a referendum on the status of the East of Ukraine and the Crimea... however from what my impression appears to be, the US and EU have ruled this out stating that the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine (the EU calling for respect to sovereignty - HA!) must be respected. That to me rules out a referendum which leaves little else for Putin to do other than to liberate the East of Ukraine who clearly regard themselves as majority Russian and are refusing to accept the new pro-EU/US government in Kiev.

Those Russian flags across the East of Ukraine have been raised by the people there, not the Russian military.

[The Don]

Oh so the EU just sat on the sidelines and didn't in anyway egg on the situation. Righttttt. In almost every country, and especially these corrupt countries, the citizens are always unhappy with the government. Those in the West of Ukraine will aways be unhappy with a pro-Russian government. But that ain't the point. The point is, you have an elected Ukrainian government that has been brought down by the EU simply because it was upset that it didn't manage to bring Ukraine under it's sphere of influence.

You're simply unbelievable. HOW did the EU bring down the Ukraine Government (which ordered the killing of its own citizens). Why do you think this? You are making this stuff up as you go along to somehow justify the anti-eu sentiment.



So well done to Baroness Ashton and the EU Foreign Ministers. Except they've now prodded the Russian bear. Oops.


What the hell are you on about?



I have stated ideally that I would like to see a referendum on the status of the East of Ukraine and the Crimea... however from what my impression appears to be, the US and EU have ruled this out stating that the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine (the EU calling for respect to sovereignty - HA!) must be respected. That to me rules out a referendum which leaves little else for Putin to do other than to liberate the East of Ukraine who clearly regard themselves as majority Russian and are refusing to accept the new pro-EU/US government in Kiev.

I'm lost for words. A revolt by the citizens of a country does NOT justify the armed invasion by another. And no, the EU and US did not rule this out, you're inferring that to somehow justify your warped opinion.



Those Russian flags across the East of Ukraine have been raised by the people there, not the Russian military.

If 60% of the population in Scotland starting raising the Spanish flag does this suddenly mean it's ok for Spain to begin a military invasion up north? What about if a large portion of the Falklands started raising the Argentinian flag, would you be ok with Argentina sending troops over? For some reason I doubt it.

Absolutely stupid argument, don't bother replying about the EU somehow being responsible for the Ukrainians revolting, blame the old government in Ukraine for that. Unless of course you have some sort of evidence that the EU + US somehow caused all of this. You are so transparent, if this entire situation was reversed between the EU/US and Russia, I'm sure you'd be making dozens of new threads about how terrible the EU/US are.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're simply unbelievable. HOW did the EU bring down the Ukraine Government (which ordered the killing of its own citizens). Why do you think this? You are making this stuff up as you go along to somehow justify the anti-eu sentiment.

Both the EU and US have colluded together since the EU-Ukraine deal was scrapped to help stir the **** in Ukraine. I remember it a few months ago before Christmas, and you can read articles on this page related to it - https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=xxxLUumlFITVtAaj1YDQBA#q=eu+involvement+ukraine

They've stirred the ****, got their revolution in Western Ukraine....... except Eastern Ukraine isn't going along with it.


What the hell are you on about?

It's not hard to work out is it. The UK, US and rest of the EU have been pushing for months to drag Ukraine away from the Russian sphere of influence and bring it into the western sphere of influence. They've failed, Western Ukraine has erupted in support 'Euromaiden' and Eastern Ukraine has said no thanks, we'd rather remain closer to Russia. And now we have a split.


I'm lost for words. A revolt by the citizens of a country does NOT justify the armed invasion by another. And no, the EU and US did not rule this out, you're inferring that to somehow justify your warped opinion.

You are again ignoring the fact that half of the country do not want a revolution and a government in favour of closer EU ties, half of the country wants closer ties with Russia. What's so hard to understand about that? It's only hard to understand if you have a Cold War mentality and watch BBC News.


If 60% of the population in Scotland starting raising the Spanish flag does this suddenly mean it's ok for Spain to begin a military invasion up north? What about if a large portion of the Falklands started raising the Argentinian flag, would you be ok with Argentina sending troops over? For some reason I doubt it.

If Britain refused to enter negotiations regarding a referendum or some kind of vote, then yes.

Ukraine was never a real country to begin with, the split is inevitable just as it has been in most multicultural countries. Differing groups within a country with a different political culture do not like being dominated by their opposites - much in the same way many Britons resent having our laws made by German, French and Belgian pencil pushers in Brussels. Or how the Christians in South Sudan resented having their laws made by a central Islamic government. Or how half of majority-Shia Bahrain resents having the minority Sunni group make it's laws.

I support self-determination. If the west is refusing to give half of Ukraine a voice, then Russia has no choice.


Absolutely stupid argument, don't bother replying about the EU somehow being responsible for the Ukrainians revolting, blame the old government in Ukraine for that. Unless of course you have some sort of evidence that the EU + US somehow caused all of this. You are so transparent, if this entire situation was reversed between the EU/US and Russia, I'm sure you'd be making dozens of new threads about how terrible the EU/US are.

Not at all, my position is pretty clear. No meddling in foreign affairs, I believe in national sovereignty (which you do not). If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to leave the Ukraine and join Russia and the west is refusing this, then Russia - as a direct neighbour - has a right to step into that area. I'd prefer a referendum as I said, but that seemingly isn't being allowed.

[The Don]

Both the EU and US have colluded together since the EU-Ukraine deal was scrapped to help stir the **** in Ukraine. I remember it a few months ago before Christmas, and you can read articles on this page related to it - https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=xxxLUumlFITVtAaj1YDQBA#q=eu+involvement+ukraine

They've stirred the ****, got their revolution in Western Ukraine....... except Eastern Ukraine isn't going along with it.



It's not hard to work out is it. The UK, US and rest of the EU have been pushing for months to drag Ukraine away from the Russian sphere of influence and bring it into the western sphere of influence. They've failed, Western Ukraine has erupted in support 'Euromaiden' and Eastern Ukraine has said no thanks, we'd rather remain closer to Russia. And now we have a split.



You are again ignoring the fact that half of the country do not want a revolution and a government in favour of closer EU ties, half of the country wants closer ties with Russia. What's so hard to understand about that? It's only hard to understand if you have a Cold War mentality and watch BBC News.



If Britain refused to enter negotiations regarding a referendum or some kind of vote, then yes.

Ukraine was never a real country to begin with, the split is inevitable just as it has been in most multicultural countries. Differing groups within a country with a different political culture do not like being dominated by their opposites - much in the same way many Britons resent having our laws made by German, French and Belgian pencil pushers in Brussels. Or how the Christians in South Sudan resented having their laws made by a central Islamic government. Or how half of majority-Shia Bahrain resents having the minority Sunni group make it's laws.

I support self-determination. If the west is refusing to give half of Ukraine a voice, then Russia has no choice.



Not at all, my position is pretty clear. No meddling in foreign affairs, I believe in national sovereignty (which you do not). If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to leave the Ukraine and join Russia and the west is refusing this, then Russia - as a direct neighbour - has a right to step into that area. I'd prefer a referendum as I said, but that seemingly isn't being allowed.

Not gonna bother replying, not sure why you're saying they aren't being allowed a referendum since they haven't been given a chance. Completely baseless arguments and making up facts as you go along. You keep saying that somehow the EU/US are behind the Ukraine revolution yet the best evidence you can come up with for this is a link to google search results. Nice one.

[Okeanos]

I don't know why you hate the EU so much, Undertaker, but your bias is evident and it is making you look very silly. You are being unbelievably simplistic - this isn't Russians versus Ukrainians, Ukraine is so much more complicated than that. Not everyone in 'the East' wants to be closer with Russia by the way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not gonna bother replying, not sure why you're saying they aren't being allowed a referendum since they haven't been given a chance.

Exactly. At the moment the new regime in Ukraine is implementing anti-Russian policies (http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/)which is why the autonomous Crimea is pulling away and refusing to accept the new central government in Kiev. That's why Russian flags are going up across the Crimea and across the east of the Ukraine.

The west has stated that they want Ukraine to remain together as far as I can see, that would seem to rule out a referendum. Indeed, the new regime in Kiev appears to be ruling out any co-operation with the Crimean regional government on the matter: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-crimea-referendum-future-014/


Completely baseless arguments and making up facts as you go along. You keep saying that somehow the EU/US are behind the Ukraine revolution yet the best evidence you can come up with for this is a link to google search results. Nice one.

Even the EU has had to deny that it provoked the protests, despite the fact it continued to egg this 'revolution' on even as molotov cocktails were bring thrown in Kiev and government buildings being burnt to the ground.

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/william-dunkerley-us-politician-agitators-stir-up-ukraine-334141.html
http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/mit-and-cia-stir-up-ukraine-on-eus-behalf/
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/720188

It's being stirred up just as the US, UK, EU and west in general stirred up the protests in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and Libya.


I don't know why you hate the EU so much, Undertaker, but your bias is evident and it is making you look very silly.

Have I not also criticised the United States?

The fact that this all began over an EU agreement that was turned down means I have to include the EU factor.

The protests themselves are called EUROMAIDEN. The clue is in the name.


You are being unbelievably simplistic - this isn't Russians versus Ukrainians, Ukraine is so much more complicated than that.

Yes, and that is what I am arguing. I said earlier that Ukraine cannot be considered a proper country.


Not everyone in 'the East' wants to be closer with Russia by the way.

Indeed. Did I claim they did?

[The Don]

No matter how you dress it up, this does not justify the armed invasion of a country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No matter how you dress it up, this does not justify the armed invasion of a country.

Usually that would be the case. However, the Ukraine is different in that the areas concerned are along badly drawn borders and that the people wanting independence are Russian people - many of them holding Russian passports. Ideally, both sides would go for a referendum - but this is the reality of geopolitics in that part of the world we're talking about here.

It's either that Ukraine accept the new regime in Kiev and remains unified, or the East of Ukraine somehow detatches itself from Ukraine with the help of Russia. As I support self-determination, if the west won't grant that self-determination option then Russia won't be doing a bad thing by providing it.

[The Don]

Usually that would be the case. However, the Ukraine is different in that the areas concerned are along badly drawn borders and that the people wanting independence are Russian people - many of them holding Russian passports. Ideally, both sides would go for a referendum - but this is the reality of geopolitics in that part of the world we're talking about here.

It's either that Ukraine accept the new regime in Kiev and remains unified, or the East of Ukraine somehow detatches itself from Ukraine with the help of Russia. As I support self-determination, if the west won't grant that self-determination option then Russia won't be doing a bad thing by providing it.

Don't be naive, loads of people hold russian passports because the kremlin have been giving them out left right and center, as what happened previously with Georgia, so that they could justify the armed invasion as 'protecting the russian minority' which is a complete lie. This also happened in 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2575421/Russia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Don't be naive, loads of people hold russian passports because the kremlin have been giving them out left right and center, as what happened previously with Georgia, so that they could justify the armed invasion as 'protecting the russian minority' which is a complete lie. This also happened in 2008. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2575421/Russia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html)

Hang on, i'm not claiming Russia is all motherhood and apple pie here. You mistake me for somebody who thinks that the Russian government is a gentle, kind and caring government. It's as sneaky as any other government around the world, especially in that part of the world. Brutal too.

What would your solution be then? Merge the Ukraine into the wonderful EU despite the wishes of half of the Ukraine?

[The Don]

Hang on, i'm not claiming Russia is all motherhood and apple pie here. You mistake me for somebody who thinks that the Russian government is a gentle, kind and caring government. It's as sneaky as any other government around the world, especially in that part of the world.

What would your solution be then? Merge the Ukraine into the wonderful EU despite the wishes of half of the Ukraine?

No, I think it should split. This does not mean I agree with the armed invasion!

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, I think it should split. This does not mean I agree with the armed invasion!

But how will it split if the European Union, United States and Ukraine central government don't want a split? A civil war is then risked. From my personal perspective, I really don't care what goes on in the Ukraine as it isn't in the interests of the United Kingdom...... but in the eyes of Russia, that's exactly what it doesn't want happening on it's borders hence why it's considering a pre-emptive invasion.

[Okeanos]

The fact that this all began over an EU agreement that was turned down means I have to include the EU factor. The protests themselves are called EUROMAIDEN. The clue is in the name.

The Ukrainian people did not turn it down, that is the point you keep missing.


Yes, and that is what I am arguing. I said earlier that Ukraine cannot be considered a proper country.

Ukraine is a proper country. Really, what are you basing these absurd statements on? Do you know anything about Ukraine other than what you've seen on the news in the last few weeks?

[The Don]

But how will it split if the European Union, United States and Ukraine central government don't want a split? A civil war is then risked. From my personal perspective, I really don't care what goes on in the Ukraine as it isn't in the interests of the United Kingdom...... but in the eyes of Russia, that's exactly what it doesn't want happening on it's borders hence why it's considering a pre-emptive invasion.

Again, you're inferring that. There are far more peaceful ways to go about this, and getting permission from the Duma for military use in Ukraine and not just Crimea seems to suggest that they are going to push further than simply the East. Anyway, we're arguing semantics now, you can say what you want, but the interim government hasn't be around for long and the official elections haven't happened yet so it's not as if you know for a fact that a split couldn't have been achieved diplomatically as opposed to the rash actions Russia has taken. Russia are most certainly the 'bad guys' right now (whether or not they are looking out for their own interests).

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Ukrainian people did not turn it down, that is the point you keep missing.

The Ukrainian people in the west of the country.

In any case, is that an excuse for throwing molotov cocktails? I don't start throwing petrol bombs at Whitehall, Downing Street and the Palace of Westminster when I don't get my own way.


Ukraine is a proper country. Really, what are you basing these absurd statements on? Do you know anything about Ukraine other than what you've seen on the news in the last few weeks?

Ukraine isn't a proper country. It's no more a proper country than Belgium, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are proper countries. Ukraine is in desperate need of a split, as are most multicultural countries. The East and West of the Ukraine are totally incompatible with one another hence why it's been so unstable in the post-Soviet era.


Again, you're inferring that. There are far more peaceful ways to go about this, and getting permission from the Duma for military use in Ukraine and not just Crimea seems to suggest that they are going to push further than simply the East.

I am under no doubt that if Russia do go in they'll go past the East for a short period to destroy any Ukrainian military installations in a similar manner as they did a few years back in Georgia. That's standard warfare.


Anyway, we're arguing semantics now, you can say what you want, but the interim government hasn't be around for long and the official elections haven't happened yet so it's not as if you know for a fact that a split couldn't have been achieved diplomatically as opposed to the rash actions Russia has taken. Russia are most certainly the 'bad guys' right now.

The central government are ruling out co-operation with the regional government, it's plain to see. Do you really think the EU and US are going to let the Ukraine split which will mean half of the country slipping from their sphere of influence and into the hands of Russia? I very much doubt it. Crimea itself is very important strategically which is why Russia won't let go either of one of it's last warm-water naval bases. Ontop of all of that, the central government in Kiev will not want to let go of the Crimea/the East due to gas and oil reserves located there.... as well as access to the sea. Bankrupt Ukraine needs the cash. The EU and US rolled the dice and took a chance, and it hasn't worked out as they may have wished (all of Ukraine moving from the Russian sphere of influence into the western sphere).

Again, from my own view - I regard any scenario that keeps the Ukraine out of the EU as in the interests of the UK. And that's all I really care about at the end of the day.

[Okeanos]

The Ukrainian people in the west of the country.

Ukraine isn't a proper country. It's no more a proper country than Belgium, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are proper countries. Ukraine is in desperate need of a split, as are most multicultural countries. The East and West of the Ukraine are totally incompatible with one another hence why it's been so unstable in the post-Soviet era.

It's pretty clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. As I have already said, this isn't an east versus west issue. The vast majority of Ukrainians support these protests, even Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east and south. Ukraine is not in need of a split, nobody in Ukraine, Russia, the EU or the US wants that. You are being too simplistic; you see that some people (mostly in Crimea and the far east of Ukraine) want to be closer with Russia so you're imagining the whole eastern half of the country wants to break away from the west, this is not the case.

How would you define a 'proper country'?

[Kardan]

Why do Russia think they are solving anything by invading? If Ukraine wants to split itself, fair enough, but I'm not sure how Russia is making anything better by being aggressive.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's pretty clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. As I have already said, this isn't an east versus west issue. The vast majority of Ukrainians support these protests, even Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east and south.

Where is your evidence for this? The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not seen any polling that suggests otherwise, indeed it was because of the East that the deposed President was elected in the first place.

I am hearing and reading now that Ukraine military bases along with the Ukraine naval forces are deserting in favour of Russian forces..... the takeover of Crimea seems to have happened without a fight. The lack of any resistance and the reluctance of the Ukrainian armed forces to make a move suggests to me that there's a lack of support for Ukraine and Kiev on the ground. Those Russian tricolours aren't being raised across the East of Ukraine for nothing.


Ukraine is not in need of a split, nobody in Ukraine, Russia, the EU or the US wants that. You are being too simplistic; you see that some people (mostly in Crimea and the far east of Ukraine) want to be closer with Russia so you're imagining the whole eastern half of the country wants to break away from the west, this is not the case.

I have never claimed everyone, however it does appear to be the majority OR THAT the majority in the east at least do not want to support the new regime in Kiev. Either way, separation is inevitable.


How would you define a 'proper country'?

One that has a single monoculture that is strong enough to make the people of that state a single people.

EG: Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina for example are proper countries unlike Belgium, Spain(?), the former Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Libya which are not.

False countries only really ever hold together when they are under a dictatorship. Once that hardman is removed - as we've seen in countless examples including in Europe with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - the country falls apart as you cannot have a functioning democracy without a demos (a single people).

[Okeanos]

Where is your evidence for this? The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not seen any polling that suggests otherwise, indeed it was because of the East that the deposed President was elected in the first place.

I am hearing and reading now that Ukraine military bases along with the Ukraine naval forces are deserting in favour of Russian forces..... the takeover of Crimea seems to have happened without a fight. The lack of any resistance and the reluctance of the Ukrainian armed forces to make a move suggests to me that there's a lack of support for Ukraine and Kiev on the ground. Those Russian tricolours aren't being raised across the East of Ukraine for nothing.

The Ukrainian people (from all regions) are my evidence, if you bothered to read and listen to what they are saying rather than repeating what you hear on RT or Sky News then you might be better informed.

There is resistance in Crimea, 25% of its population is Ukrainian after all. That said, it is hardly surprising that most people in the Crimea support Putin - it was part of Russia until the 50s after all. The Ukrainian armed forces have been instructed to do nothing because that is exactly what Putin wants - the age old Soviet tactic of provokatsiya is being employed to try and force the Ukrainians to respond militarily so the Russians can use that as an excuse come down hard.


I have never claimed everyone, however it does appear to be the majority OR THAT the majority in the east at least do not want to support the new regime in Kiev. Either way, separation is inevitable.

The pro-Russian people in the East are not a majority and separation certainly is not inevitable.


One that has a single monoculture that is strong enough to make the people of that state a single people.

EG: Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina for example are proper countries unlike Belgium, Spain(?), the former Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Libya which are not.

False countries only really ever hold together when they are under a dictatorship. Once that hardman is removed - as we've seen in countless examples including in Europe with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - the country falls apart as you cannot have a functioning democracy without a demos (a single people).

Completely wrong, seriously where do you get this rubbish? I can't think of a single country which has a 'monoculture', the UK certainly doesn't - after all there are more than ten indigenous languages spoken in Britain today and we are and have always been an ethnic and cultural blend going right back to pre-Roman times.

Explain why Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina are 'proper' countries but Belgium, Spain, North and South Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and Libya are not? I bet you can't. Your belief in a 'single people' is facile, every country in the world has at last one minority group - there is no such thing as a country where everyone is ethnically, culturally and linguistically the same.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Ukrainian people (from all regions) are my evidence, if you bothered to read and listen to what they are saying rather than repeating what you hear on RT or Sky News then you might be better informed.

I have been watching the pro-western BBC AND Sky News too as a matter of fact.

Do not accuse me of bias, just watching BBC is a form of bias too. I watch and read all the channels.


There is resistance in Crimea, 25% of its population is Ukrainian after all. That said, it is hardly surprising that most people in the Crimea support Putin - it was part of Russia until the 50s after all. The Ukrainian armed forces have been instructed to do nothing because that is exactly what Putin wants - the age old Soviet tactic of provokatsiya is being employed to try and force the Ukrainians to respond militarily so the Russians can use that as an excuse come down hard.


Well yes, I don't dispute that.


The pro-Russian people in the East are not a majority and separation certainly is not inevitable.

The areas in the East where there is a majority of Russian people then, you'd force them to remain a part of the Ukraine even if they wish not to be? Aaaaahhh democracy western style, aslong as the people are siding with the west then that's okay then. You keep claiming that the majority in the East do not want seperation, yet where is your evidence for this? No polls have been taken so there's no way of knowing for sure other than looking at the situation on the ground which is that government buildings are hoisting up the Russian tricolour.

Do you agree with the notion of a referendum being held on whether the East should remain with the Ukraine?


Completely wrong, seriously where do you get this rubbish? I can't think of a single country which has a 'monoculture', the UK certainly doesn't - after all there are more than ten indigenous languages spoken in Britain today and we are and have always been an ethnic and cultural blend going right back to pre-Roman times.

That is some of the biggest bullcrap ever told about Britain and i'm sick of it. I didn't mention ethnic background but that's certainly one characteristic of a nation - and Britain has experienced, until the 1950s, very little immigration apart from an invasion or two in a thousand years. Britain is actually ethnically one of the most untouched nations in history owing to it's status as an island nation much like Japan. This kind of garbage you have spouted is routinely repeated in support of mass immigration and it's simply not true. You can see a debunking of this argument in this video from 2:25 to 3:40......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehGhwfd4sM

In terms of culture, yes the United Kingdom is a monoculture. Sure there are different sub regional cultures from Yorkshire to Wales, but broadly enough people believe in Britishness enough for it to remain under the same political and legal system. That is why it works, it survives by consent. There are signs of this breaking down mind you with Scottish independence, but broadly speaking it remains a monocultural state for the time being.


Explain why Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina are 'proper' countries but Belgium, Spain, North and South Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and Libya are not? I bet you can't. Your belief in a 'single people' is facile, every country in the world has at last one minority group - there is no such thing as a country where everyone is ethnically, culturally and linguistically the same.

The countries I mentioned which are proper nation states contain a people within that consider themselves a part of one another, culturally similar enough to operate within the same political & legal system. This is very strong in France and the same in Germany (which unified late on) as well as the others I mentioned. Those which I said could not be considered proper countries are not proper countries for the reason that most of their borders were imposed by politicians and are purely artificial to mark long gone spheres of influence. The badly drawn borders between Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are a key example of this whereby the British and French drew invented borders across the map. Iraq and Syria are the worst, being drawn directly across the dividing line between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of the Assad family in Syria, what I am saying is coming into fruitation: they are disintegrating states.

Follow any of the political crisises in these countries and you'll come to see what I am saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9311_Belgian_political_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Saudi_Arabian_protests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9126968/Libya-fears-of-disintegration-as-tribal-leaders-declare-semi-autonomous-region.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-violence-grows-iraq-faces-threat-of-disintegration-20140215-32slz.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10069577/William-Hague-Syria-facing-disintegration.html

Yugoslavia is the key example of how throwing people together in false countries can go horribly wrong, as after WWI politicians threw the diverse states of the Balkans together in a new 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' (totally invented) and left them to get along with it..... with disasterous consquences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia It's often said that Yugoslavia is a prototype of a federal Europe, and I agree. Belgium is another example of a fake state that was created after a war, and although it's survived for a couple of hundred years it is on it's last legs as even with a federal system it's at breaking point.

Borders and countries are not simply invented as many on the left may think in line with their internationalism, they [borders] are there to reflect dividing lines between differing cultures as if one if rational you can see that a parliament drawn from both the UK and Saudi Arabia wouldn't work as we are complete opposites. Of course though, when borders are invented it turns out to be a disaster rather than the utopia that was intended.

[The Don]

You keep explaining why Russia are doing this, that's simply the reasoning behind it and does not excuse their behaviour but merely explains it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You keep explaining why Russia are doing this, that's simply the reasoning behind it and does not excuse their behaviour but merely explains it.

I have explained why I think Russia is acting rationally. A friendly pro-Russian government has been violently overthrown on it's borders and within it's sphere of influence. The new government is pro-western which could mean an end to Russian naval bases in the Crimea. The new situation in Ukraine could lead to a Civil War between the Russian population of Ukraine and those in the west of Ukraine. The new government in Kiev has voided laws which allowed the use of Russian as an official language in Russian areas (http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/). The west and the new government in Kiev seem to not want to have a referendum held on independence for the Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

Whether you agere with Russia going in or not - again, I personally am indifferent provided it benefits Great Britain - that's the reality of the situation. The US, UK and EU pushed this situation in Ukraine and it hasn't worked out how they hoped as Russia has now stepped in. Tough luck.

[The Don]

I have explained why I think Russia is acting rationally. A friendly pro-Russian government has been violently overthrown on it's borders and within it's sphere of influence. The new government is pro-western which could mean an end to Russian naval bases in the Crimea. The new situation in Ukraine could lead to a Civil War between the Russian population of Ukraine and those in the west of Ukraine. The new government in Kiev has voided laws which allowed the use of Russian as an official language in Russian areas (http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/). The west and the new government in Kiev seem to not want to have a referendum held on independence for the Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

Whether you agere with Russia going in or not - again, I personally am indifferent provided it benefits Great Britain - that's the reality of the situation. The US, UK and EU pushed this situation in Ukraine and it hasn't worked out how they hoped as Russia has now stepped in. Tough luck.

No, the new government has repealed laws and restored the previous constitution. You're lying about the referendum (where are your sources for this?) If our government started implementing laws that the previous Ukraine one did I would hope there would protests here (as in Ukraine), are you suggesting the protestors are wrong for removing the president? The corrupt man who stole a ridiculous amount of money from Ukraine citizens and ordered the murder of unarmed protestors. I would say they did what was best for Ukraine, not Russia which is what they should've done. Either way, as I've said plenty of times, this does not justify Russia invading, Crimea was pretty peaceful before Russia stormed in (and no, russian flags being raised still doesn't make this acceptable).

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, the new government has repealed laws and restored the previous constitution. You're lying about the referendum (where are your sources for this?) If our government started implementing laws that the previous Ukraine one did I would hope there would protests here (as in Ukraine), are you suggesting the protestors are wrong for removing the president? The corrupt man who stole a ridiculous amount of money from Ukraine citizens and ordered the murder of unarmed protestors. I would say they did what was best for Ukraine, not Russia which is what they should've done.

...and the previous constitution did not allow for Russian to be used as a language. Even western politicians have been criticising this repeal.

As for the referendum claim, that's the impression I am getting. Hague and others have stated that the Ukraine must have it's territorial borders maintained, and the central government in Kiev is refusing to co-operate with the regional government in the autonomous Crimea. If Kiev won't co-operate, then where does that leave the Russians in the Ukraine?

As for the President, again you mistake me as a supporter of his. Whoever gets in in the Ukraine is going to be corrupt and despotic, that's the way the country is. That's the way Russia is and always has been. It's nothing new. This strange utopianism you support following the violent revolution in Kiev reminds me very much of the Arab Spring how you all thought that by overthrowing these corrupt and dictatorial governments, western democracy was going to come flooding into the Middle East and simply fall from the sky. It doesn't work like that. I guarantee that Ukraine will be just as corrupt and backward in 5 years times, by which time you lot will have moved onto another country in supporting their 'uprising' which will again result in failure and disappointment just as the Arab Spring has done.


Either way, as I've said plenty of times, this does not justify Russia invading, Crimea was pretty peaceful before Russia stormed in (and no, russian flags being raised still doesn't make this acceptable).

Crimea is peaceful now. They've de facto handed themselves over to Russia it appears.

[The Don]

Excluding Egypt how did the Arab Spring movement leave those countries worse off? If Ukraine tries to join the EU it will have to meet a certain criteria which will remove most of the corruption, which has happened in other countries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Excluding Egypt how did the Arab Spring movement leave those countries worse off?

Libya is now a fragmented state that is ruled by tribal factions and is split between the west and the east. Al-qaeda is rife in Libya now. Syria is now a warzone along ethnic and religious lines with Al-qaeda in control of huge swathes of the country. Iraq is continuing down the path of a failed state with Al-qaeda increasingly active and Iran exercising control over the Shia areas of Iraq. Bahrain remains in a state of protests and conflicts with the government even more paranoid than ever before - and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is becoming a failed state with the military back in control as the country is incapable of being a democracy.

The only good thing in my opinion about the Arab Spring has been the breakdown of the false borders in the Middle East and the potential for a long-needed Kurdish state to be declared over the next few years. The Middle East however will still remain controlled by despots, the military and corruption and brutal government tactics will remain rife.


If Ukraine tries to join the EU it will have to meet a certain criteria which will remove most of the corruption, which has happened in other countries.

Which we will have to pay for which is exactly what I do not want.

In any case, Ukraine joining the EU will simply mean the swapping of rule from Moscow to rule from Berlin and Brussels. And yet ironically 'sovereignty' is what Hague and other western leaders keep banging on about.

[The Don]

Libya is now a fragmented state that is ruled by tribal factions and is split between the west and the east. Al-qaeda is rife in Libya now. Syria is now a warzone along ethnic and religious lines with Al-qaeda in control of huge swathes of the country. Iraq is continuing down the path of a failed state with Al-qaeda increasingly active and Iran exercising control over the Shia areas of Iraq. Bahrain remains in a state of protests and conflicts with the government even more paranoid than ever before - and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is becoming a failed state with the military back in control as the country is incapable of being a democracy.

The only good thing in my opinion about the Arab Spring has been the breakdown of the false borders in the Middle East and the potential for a long-needed Kurdish state to be declared over the next few years. The Middle East however will still remain controlled by despots, the military and corruption and brutal government tactics will remain rife.



Which we will have to pay for which is exactly what I do not want.

In any case, Ukraine joining the EU will simply mean the swapping of rule from Moscow to rule from Berlin and Brussels. And yet ironically 'sovereignty' is what Hague and other western leaders keep banging on about.

If you define rule as follow some legislation then sure. Ukraine would undeniably be better off moving towards the EU, you only need to look at the graph i posted on your profile the other day about employment rates to see that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you define rule as follow some legislation then sure. Ukraine would undeniably be better off moving towards the EU, you only need to look at the graph i posted on your profile the other day about employment rates to see that.

Ukraine should be aiming for independence and be neither pro-EU or pro-Russian. That would be the only way for Ukraine to be a sovereign nation that gets the best of both worlds. A balanced foreign policy.

As for EU membership, well of course EU membership is good for all these tinpot countries - i'd be tempted to sign up too if I was an Eastern European country or somebody living in one. You get wads of cash thrown at you (from the stupid British, Dutch and German taxpayers), you get new roads built for you, infrastructure and you get free movement so you can leave: as so many do. But again, I am not concerned about the interests of Ukraine. I am interested in British interests - if Russia manages to pull Ukraine away from joining the EU then that will be a good thing for the United Kingdom and I would be happy with such an outcome.

[Okeanos]

The areas in the East where there is a majority of Russian people then, you'd force them to remain a part of the Ukraine even if they wish not to be? Aaaaahhh democracy western style, aslong as the people are siding with the west then that's okay then. You keep claiming that the majority in the East do not want seperation, yet where is your evidence for this? No polls have been taken so there's no way of knowing for sure other than looking at the situation on the ground which is that government buildings are hoisting up the Russian tricolour.

Do you agree with the notion of a referendum being held on whether the East should remain with the Ukraine?

You are assuming that all ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers think alike and want the same thing. Most people in the east do not want to separate, if you want evidence then I suggest you ask them. Read their tweets, read what they're posting on blogs and on various news websites. I have no problem with the eastern regions having a referendum, but only after Ukraine has been given a chance to form a unity government which means waiting until after elections in May.



That is some of the biggest bullcrap ever told about Britain and i'm sick of it. I didn't mention ethnic background but that's certainly one characteristic of a nation - and Britain has experienced, until the 1950s, very little immigration apart from an invasion or two in a thousand years. Britain is actually ethnically one of the most untouched nations in history owing to it's status as an island nation much like Japan. This kind of garbage you have spouted is routinely repeated in support of mass immigration and it's simply not true. You can see a debunking of this argument in this video from 2:25 to 3:40......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ehGhwfd4sM

In terms of culture, yes the United Kingdom is a monoculture. Sure there are different sub regional cultures from Yorkshire to Wales, but broadly enough people believe in Britishness enough for it to remain under the same political and legal system. That is why it works, it survives by consent. There are signs of this breaking down mind you with Scottish independence, but broadly speaking it remains a monocultural state for the time being.



The countries I mentioned which are proper nation states contain a people within that consider themselves a part of one another, culturally similar enough to operate within the same political & legal system. This is very strong in France and the same in Germany (which unified late on) as well as the others I mentioned. Those which I said could not be considered proper countries are not proper countries for the reason that most of their borders were imposed by politicians and are purely artificial to mark long gone spheres of influence. The badly drawn borders between Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are a key example of this whereby the British and French drew invented borders across the map. Iraq and Syria are the worst, being drawn directly across the dividing line between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of the Assad family in Syria, what I am saying is coming into fruitation: they are disintegrating states.

Follow any of the political crisises in these countries and you'll come to see what I am saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9311_Belgian_political_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Saudi_Arabian_protests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9126968/Libya-fears-of-disintegration-as-tribal-leaders-declare-semi-autonomous-region.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-violence-grows-iraq-faces-threat-of-disintegration-20140215-32slz.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10069577/William-Hague-Syria-facing-disintegration.html

Yugoslavia is the key example of how throwing people together in false countries can go horribly wrong, as after WWI politicians threw the diverse states of the Balkans together in a new 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' (totally invented) and left them to get along with it..... with disasterous consquences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia It's often said that Yugoslavia is a prototype of a federal Europe, and I agree. Belgium is another example of a fake state that was created after a war, and although it's survived for a couple of hundred years it is on it's last legs as even with a federal system it's at breaking point.

Borders and countries are not simply invented as many on the left may think in line with their internationalism, they [borders] are there to reflect dividing lines between differing cultures as if one if rational you can see that a parliament drawn from both the UK and Saudi Arabia wouldn't work as we are complete opposites. Of course though, when borders are invented it turns out to be a disaster rather than the utopia that was intended.

Britain has always been a land of immigrants. Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norwegians, Normans, Huguenots, Jews and Romani people have all made their home here. That video is just another uninformed bigot taking a selective view of history to prop up his own beliefs, not proof of anything. I don't think you understand what 'culture' is, you're talking about politics and the legal system - that is not culture. Scotland and Ireland have developed quite different legal and political systems to England and Wales, the UK is clearly not a 'monoculture'.

Nation states are not the only type of country, and for your information Britain, America, France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway are NOT nation states - do you even understand what a nation state is? All borders are artificial and imposed by politicians at sometime or other, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Yugoslavia was not an invented concept, since before the time of the Ottoman Empire there were pan-Slav nationalist ideas of uniting the region. You do realise that the people of the former Yugoslavia are ethnically and linguistically the same - their identity issues are the result of religious and minor cultural differences.

I've been told that you have a reputation for making things up in these types of debates, and I can see that reputation is well deserved. You are just another anti-European armchair politician, I have to wonder whether you believe what you're posting - I think you're trying to be controversial because you like the attention.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are assuming that all ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers think alike and want the same thing. Most people in the east do not want to separate, if you want evidence then I suggest you ask them. Read their tweets, read what they're posting on blogs and on various news websites. I have no problem with the eastern regions having a referendum, but only after Ukraine has been given a chance to form a unity government which means waiting until after elections in May.

How can Ukraine form a unity government, or how can the eastern parts of the Ukraine go along with this when the central government in Kiev is refusing to play ball with the government in the autonomous Crimea?


Britain has always been a land of immigrants. Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norwegians, Normans, Huguenots, Jews and Romani people have all made their home here. That video is just another uninformed bigot taking a selective view of history to prop up his own beliefs, not proof of anything. I don't think you understand what 'culture' is, you're talking about politics and the legal system - that is not culture. Scotland and Ireland have developed quite different legal and political systems to England and Wales, the UK is clearly not a 'monoculture'.

Oh yes, somebody is a bigot simply because you disagree with them, great debating there against the very intelligent Douglas Murray. In any case, yes that was many years ago - NOTHING has been seen on this scale in terms of mass immigration before, the the statistics prove it. Nobody argues against immigration, it's mass immigration that we 'bigots' like myself and Douglas Murray have a problem with. In any case, this is another debate.

As for the culture, I don't think you understand it my friend. Culture affects politics. Indeed, even with a monoculture, acts such as devolution can create seperate political cultures that can divide people: the people of Britain and Canada may be culturally similar for example, but our political culture is entirely different. You are confusing the political and legal system with what a culture is - culture influences the political and legal system, ie if you have an Islamic country you will have completely different ideas on what conservatism and liberalism mean compared to a western Christian country such as Britain.


Nation states are not the only type of country, and for your information Britain, America, France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway are NOT nation states - do you even understand what a nation state is? All borders are artificial and imposed by politicians at sometime or other, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Yes they are nation states, what are you even talking about? And borders are not artificial, sure politicians will have a say in exactly where they fall but often they are forced to place them (if they are sensible) along the correct cultural lines hence why a country such as Germany has had such a hard time defining what exactly constitutes a German (to what extent) that has caused so much bloodshed. It is also why the Netherlands refrained after the way from annexing huge swathes of German territory when they had the chance - because they knew that annexing territory with completely different people living there would cause future problems not just in relations with Germany but also domestically.

The German nation is a political reality as is the French nation as is the British nation as is the Swedish nation and as is the Kurdish nation - except the Kurds are being kept apart by artificial borders. In the Kurdish situation, the borders need to be corrected so they naturally go along cultural and ethnic lines just as Franco-German borders today reflect the dividing line between those two cultures/nations.


Yugoslavia was not an invented concept, since before the time of the Ottoman Empire there were pan-Slav nationalist ideas of uniting the region. You do realise that the people of the former Yugoslavia are ethnically and linguistically the same - their identity issues are the result of religious and minor cultural differences.

There are ideas of uniting Europe into one country and there have been for two hundred years. Simply because the ideas exist does not mean those ideas are widespread or that they mean that Yugoslavia was a real nation because it was not ... as you de facto admit concerning cultural and religious reasons. Yugoslavia was thrown together and was a disaster, as a federal or united Europe would be.

We have seen this in the disaster that is the Euro project, whereby the Germans are going to have to pay for the southern European countries much like they did with East Germany - except that they don't want to pay for southern Europe as they do not feel they are the same people as the people of Greece, whereas they did feel that reuniting Germany was reuniting two parts of the same people kept apart by false borders. You can see the same thing between northern and southern England the way the south subsidies the north... it works because we feel one of the same whereas it doesn't work between Germany and Greece because they do not.


I've been told that you have a reputation for making things up in these types of debates, and I can see that reputation is well deserved. You are just another anti-European armchair politician, I have to wonder whether you believe what you're posting - I think you're trying to be controversial because you like the attention.

I'm anti-EU, not anti-European. Europe isn't the European Union - that may come as a shock to you.

[Okeanos]

Not gonna argue with you, you're making things up and pretending to understand things which you evidently do not. Bigots will be bigots.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not gonna argue with you, you're making things up and pretending to understand things which you evidently do not. Bigots will be bigots.

You are the bigot because like so many on your side of the debate you are so utterly intolerant of other opinions.

Shouting racist and bigot doesn't work anymore mate in 2014.

[The Don]

Yeh, removing Russian as an official language justifies invasion /S. Literally have nothing more to say on this topic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeh, removing Russian as an official language justifies invasion /S. Literally have nothing more to say on this topic.

I'm not saying I believe it does, i'm giving the rationale behind it.

Above all this is about keeping NATO away from the Crimea.