Russia & Crimea

[pap]

Absolutely correct.

 

However, the worrying precedent is the Nazis in Sudetenland. If the West really cannot offer a robust coherent response, the message to Putin and his hawks is that they can think about recovering the likes of Poland or the Baltic states.

 

Alps, I love your words, despite the fact you sometimes use them to wound me. There's respect from this end, if nowt else.

 

However, there is much that is wrong (or omitted) here. First off, you either respect self-determination or you don't. After Versailles, the message was very much "self-determination for everyone, unless you're German". We practice something similar today; you have the right to self-determination, as long as it suits the West's interests. Crimea is an example, Palestine (and the fact that they don't) is another, the Basque Country, Catalunya and even Scotland to an extent. I appreciate that Scotland has a referendum coming up, but given the scare stories so far, seems fairly apparent that Westminster doesn't want them going anywhere. Self-determination as applied is a nonsense. The same principles need to be applied universally, or we should forget the whole thing.

 

The other big point I'd make is that I find it unlikely that this is the prelude to the takeover of Poland or the Baltic states. NATO are already entrenched in much of Eastern Europe, both in terms of bases and in some cases, sites for the "National" Missile Defense system.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

International Law should be upheld, but we lost our right to lecture on it when our Labour government broke international law to invade Iraq.

 

I was definitely pro-Ukraine a few weeks ago, but the more I read, I think the Russians may have a point. The legitimate pro-russian governent were removed illegitimately in what was essentially a revolution. How legitimate are the current Ukrainian government?

 

Crimea was part of Russia at one point and the majority of people living there are Russian and clearly want to be part of Russia. So is this any different to Britain invading the Falklands?

 

I don't profess to have the answers, but the situation is complex and therefore not easy to resolve. Military action, even if it was feasible, wouldn't solve these issues.

 

Ultimately its Ukraine's fault for deep sixing NATO membership back in 2010(?). If they'd joined up then NATO would have been obliged to provide military assistance in the event of any 'invasion' by hostile forces but the pro Russian leader at the time didn't want that protection...I wonder why?

[hypochondriac]

Ukraine just need to forget about Crimea, move their forces to the border, hold elections and join the EU. A pro west government will be more likely now they have go shot of the Russians in that region.

 

The UK should not get involved but the west should concentrate on helping what is left of Ukraine plus offer financial assistance.

 

Exactly this. The UN need to stop with silly sanctions and be realistic about this. If this happened then the problem should be solved.

[alpine_saint]

Take a look at a map of the USSR.

 

Forget Armenia, Azerbajan and Georgia. They are surrounded by sea.

 

Belarus to the West and Kazakhstan to the South are in alliance to Russia, China is currently on good terms.

 

The Baltic states and Ukraine are whopping great marching routes for NATO, in the institutionally-paranoid Russian eyes. But Ukraine is much bigger.

 

I expect Putin to spend a significant amount of his time intimidating these states.

[manji]

Russia are simply protecting thier borders. There is a pro -Russian majority in half of Ukraine and most of Crimea. The hypocrisy of the West is astounding. How many countries has the USA invaded (15 since 1983, not including CIA **** stirring in Egypt, Pakistan,Burma ,Ukraine and many many more)? If US or Uk do it they are defending thier freedom.

[alpine_saint]

International Law should be upheld, but we lost our right to lecture on it when our Labour government broke international law to invade Iraq.

 

How remiss of me. I forgot the basis of international law is "two wrongs make a right" whilst ignoring the way both the UK and US turned back from armed intervention in Syria recently....

 

So is this any different to Britain invading the Falklands?

 

Shoot, did I miss something ?

[pap]

How remiss of me. I forgot the basis of international law is "two wrongs make a right" whilst ignoring the way both the UK and US turned back from armed intervention in Syria recently....

 

Shoot, did I miss something ?

 

Yep. On Syria, the fact that the West's and its allies were supporting "our Al Qaeda allies" (never gets old, that one).

 

Also, there was no public appetite for intervention in Syria, largely because of the dishonesty over Iraq.

 

Earlier, I made remarks about not seeing this as some Red Dawn good vs evil debate. Those remarks were largely aimed at you. You don't seem to have too many problems criticising people for having a pop at the West, but by the same token, you completely discount events which have led up to this current crisis, and ostensibly see no problem with the way the West is prosecuting its agenda over the rest of the world. Not in my name, Alps.

[Saintandy666]

There appears to be very little we can do over this and Russia knows it, hence it is doing it. However, we have to make sure that Russia knows (and I think it does) that any encroachment on NATO land would be an entirely different matter. But as I said, I don't think Russia would dare touch NATO land.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I don't at all approve of how Putin has handled this affair, I don't suppose many do. A referendum was always the obvious solution to the problem but conducting one without bipartisan agreement, on your own terms, tewnty minutes after what amounts to a invasion is clearly illegitimate. This is certainly not how responsible states are supposed to conduct themselves in this day and age.

 

But appalling as he undoutably is Putin does have a point damn him. The facts of the matter are that the Crimea was historically a part of Russia until quite recently and I see few disputing the fact that the clear majority of the local population still consider themselves to be Russian. It's very difficult to avoid drawing comparisons with the Nazi annexation (or Anschluss) of Austria back in 1936 because the parallels are all there. However dangerous as his behaviour is I don't believe Putin is another Hitler and we can only hope is assurances today that this act is the limit of his territorial ambitions regarding the Ukraine are worth something. In any case the notion of a western military intervention to restore the status que in the Crimea remains utterly out of the question.

 

If anyone on here wants to accuse me of appeasement and failing to learn from the mistakes of the 1930's then I'm sure there is a good answer to that charge ... I just can't quite think what that would be at the moment.

[pap]

I don't at all approve of how Putin has handled this affair, I don't suppose many do. A referendum was always the obvious solution to the problem but conducting one without bipartisan agreement, on your own terms, tewnty minutes after what amounts to a invasion is clearly illegitimate. This is certainly not how responsible states are supposed to conduct themselves in this day and age.

 

But appalling as he undoutably is Putin does have a point damn him. The facts of the matter are that the Crimea was historically a part of Russia until quite recently and I see few disputing the fact that the clear majority of the local population still consider themselves to be Russian. It's very difficult to avoid drawing comparisons with the Nazi annexation (or Anschluss) of Austria back in 1936 because the parallels are all there. However dangerous as his behaviour is I don't believe Putin is another Hitler and we can only hope is assurances today that this act is the limit of his territorial ambitions regarding the Ukraine are worth something. In any case the notion of a western military intervention to restore the status que in the Crimea remains utterly out of the question.

 

If anyone on here wants to accuse me of appeasement and failing to learn from the mistakes of the 1930's then I'm sure there is a good answer to that charge ... I just can't quite think what that would be at the moment.

 

In my view, Charlie, you've learned from the mistakes of the 1930s, and besides; we are not the power now that we were then. We've recently had the discussion about Britain's entry into that war, and whether you think we got involved at the right time or not, few would dispute that the victory was Pyrrhic, coming at a huge cost to our world standing and future opportunity.

 

Unfortunately, the United Kingdom seems to be banging the drum as much as anyone here. I honestly don't know what we're playing at.

[Barry Sanchez]

Barry, if this were possible, then I agree with you that now might be a good time to do it, because, whilst I doubt we’re on the verge of WWIII, I wouldn’t be too surprised if all this ends up in Cold War II.

 

No we are not as we are prepared to sell out and let a Nation all but die to keep Germany warm, we deserve a clap.

[Minsk]

I don't at all approve of how Putin has handled this affair, I don't suppose many do. A referendum was always the obvious solution to the problem but conducting one without bipartisan agreement, on your own terms, tewnty minutes after what amounts to a invasion is clearly illegitimate. This is certainly not how responsible states are supposed to conduct themselves in this day and age.

 

But appalling as he undoutably is Putin does have a point damn him. The facts of the matter are that the Crimea was historically a part of Russia until quite recently and I see few disputing the fact that the clear majority of the local population still consider themselves to be Russian. It's very difficult to avoid drawing comparisons with the Nazi annexation (or Anschluss) of Austria back in 1936 because the parallels are all there. However dangerous as his behaviour is I don't believe Putin is another Hitler and we can only hope is assurances today that this act is the limit of his territorial ambitions regarding the Ukraine are worth something. In any case the notion of a western military intervention to restore the status que in the Crimea remains utterly out of the question.

 

If anyone on here wants to accuse me of appeasement and failing to learn from the mistakes of the 1930's then I'm sure there is a good answer to that charge ... I just can't quite think what that would be at the moment.

 

Good post. (Below is not aimed at you.)

 

There should absolutely not be any military intervention from us or NATO over the Crimea. If there were it would effectively be military action to force a region to go back to a country the majority of voted not be a part of any longer. Yes, the vote was rushed. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was partially rigged. But make no mistake, if this current vote was made null and void and another held in six months the outcome (if not the exact result) would be the same.

 

Also, for those saying Russia invaded Crimea - they did not. They had troops already legitimately and legally based there. Yes, they reinforced those troops - and I am certain that many of them operated outside of their agreed area of responsibility - but they did not invade per se.

 

I also hope Putin was truthful with his words that Russia does not want any more territory from Ukraine. However, I do know for a fact that much of eastern Ukraine would happily see a shift of the border to move them into Russia - as would other southern parts of Ukraine, such as Odessa.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

In my view, Charlie, you've learned from the mistakes of the 1930s, and besides; we are not the power now that we were then. We've recently had the discussion about Britain's entry into that war, and whether you think we got involved at the right time or not, few would dispute that the victory was Pyrrhic, coming at a huge cost to our world standing and future opportunity.

 

Unfortunately, the United Kingdom seems to be banging the drum as much as anyone here. I honestly don't know what we're playing at.

 

We might indeed be 'banging the drum' as you put it - but it seems to me that making a noise is just about all the US and the EU will do because the so called sanctions announced yesterday are next to meaningless. The Crimea is back in the embrace of old 'Mother Russia' and its there to stay I reckon.

 

As for my favourite subject - WWII - I agree both the fortunes and the reputation of the British Empire (especially in Asia) took a hell of a battering during the war, a beating that it never managed to recover from. But with not very much hindsight the old Empire was doomed anyway I suppose. In broader terms I think the stand we took (for a whole series of reasons) against the unparalleled evil of Fascism earned this nation a kind of of moral credit that we have traded on ever since to a degree.

 

Our 'Victory in Europe' was a costly one all right - but the way I look at it is that is was not half as costly as defeat would have been.

[svetigpung]

should GB do something ? absolutely NO

 

we didn't do such a top job in northern Ireland , where we were "protecting" our peoples.

 

what would we have said to Russia if they had protested our military involvement in another country?

 

fotget WWII , this is a more relevant comparison

[alpine_saint]

Yep. On Syria, the fact that the West's and its allies were supporting "our Al Qaeda allies" (never gets old, that one).

 

Also, there was no public appetite for intervention in Syria, largely because of the dishonesty over Iraq.

 

Earlier, I made remarks about not seeing this as some Red Dawn good vs evil debate. Those remarks were largely aimed at you. You don't seem to have too many problems criticising people for having a pop at the West, but by the same token, you completely discount events which have led up to this current crisis, and ostensibly see no problem with the way the West is prosecuting its agenda over the rest of the world. Not in my name, Alps.

 

So f**king what ? What does that prove except to demonstrate that the west tries to support the injured party in these issues. (As it did in Bosnia and Kosovo when it sided with the Muslims)

 

And I am glad you've invoked that offensive slogan "not in my name". If any phrase sums up better the smug, self-contented, self-centred, arrogant, patronising "we know better / have higher morality / are more intelligent" mentality of the left, I dont know what it is.

 

The only way forward now imo is to draw a line under Crimea, accept that it has returned to its historical homeland with massive popular support, push the rump Ukraine into holding democratic elections, and get the new Government to run referenda on EU and NATO membership, and those two institutions should fast-track membership if the results are "yes".

 

Probably makes sense for Europe to come up with a new energy strategy too.

Edited 19 March, 2014 by alpine_saint

[pap]

So f**king what ? What does that prove except to demonstrate that the west tries to support the injured party in these issues. (As it did in Bosnia and Kosovo when it sided with the Muslims)

 

And I am glad you've invoked that offensive slogan "not in my name". If any phrase sums up better the smug, self-contented, self-centred, arrogant, patronising "we know better / have higher morality / are more intelligent" mentality of the left, I dont know what it is.

 

Yes, yes - Alps. We're the good guys; you keep thinking that.

 

It's not like there are over a million deaths in Iraq alone that our "policy" is responsible for. If you're happy to be associated with that, fair play to you guv. I'm not.

[alpine_saint]

Yes, yes - Alps. We're the good guys; you keep thinking that.

 

It's not like there are over a million deaths in Iraq alone that our "policy" is responsible for. If you're happy to be associated with that, fair play to you guv. I'm not.

 

What is the connection between Iraq and Ukraine, except "Evil West" in your bizarre chop-logic ? Really funny how you lot go all mouse-like when Kosovo or Bosnia is mentioned.

 

Why dont you drop the slogans and cliches ?

[Barry Sanchez]

should GB do something ? absolutely NO

 

we didn't do such a top job in northern Ireland , where we were "protecting" our peoples.

 

what would we have said to Russia if they had protested our military involvement in another country?

 

fotget WWII , this is a more relevant comparison

 

 

What relevant comparison? Give one.

[pap]

What is the connection between Iraq and Ukraine, except "Evil West" in your bizarre chop-logic ? Really funny how you lot go all mouse-like when Kosovo or Bosnia is mentioned.

 

Why dont you drop the slogans and cliches ?

 

Let's compare the invasions, shall we?

 

Iraq; shoot anything that moves. 1,000,000 dead as result of conflict in a country that had no WMD, nothing to do with 9/11, and very few "ethnic Americans" to roll in for. Eleven years later, it's a bloody sectarian mess and a cause celebre for anyone looking to recruit extremists to the fold. It represents the abandonment of any moral international authority that the US/UK had left. . We'll almost certainly leave it worse than we found it.

 

Alp's view: Booyah! We're the good guys, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

 

Crimea: One person reported dead so far. MPs vote to join Russia, ratified by the general public, largely because the "government" of agitants and neo-Nazis in Kiev were taking aim at anything remotely Russian.

 

Alp's view: Those evil Russian bastards, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

[alpine_saint]

Let's compare the invasions, shall we?

 

Iraq; shoot anything that moves. 1,000,000 dead as result of conflict in a country that had no WMD, nothing to do with 9/11, and very few "ethnic Americans" to roll in for. Eleven years later, it's a bloody sectarian mess and a cause celebre for anyone looking to recruit extremists to the fold. It represents the abandonment of any moral international authority that the US/UK had left. . We'll almost certainly leave it worse than we found it.

 

Alp's view: Booyah! We're the good guys, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

 

Crimea: One person reported dead so far. MPs vote to join Russia, ratified by the general public, largely because the "government" of agitants and neo-Nazis in Kiev were taking aim at anything remotely Russian.

 

Alp's view: Those evil Russian bastards, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

 

Nope, lets not compare invasions. Different nations, different histories, different situations. You carry on with your lazy cliches.

 

BTW, its Seumas Milne that finds a way to blame the west for everything, and in so doing damages his credibility himself.

[pap]

Nope, lets not compare invasions. Different nations, different histories, different situations. You carry on with your lazy cliches.

 

BTW, its Seumas Milne that finds a way to blame the west for everything, and in so doing damages his credibility himself.

 

Nice. Getting picked up on my spelling on one of my supposed left-wing icons. Guess that probably means I'm not hanging off his every word.

 

Sorry Alps, spelling mistake or not, you're a relentless apologist for the US and UK. That being the case, you can probably only be about 10% effective on the topic, rising to 80% if we collectively agree to treat you as the "topic jester".

[Hamilton Saint]

When the United States government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its geopolitical or commercial interests, it declares that it does not recognise the concept of international law, and does not accept the jurisdiction of the international court in the Hague.

 

When the Russian government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its own interests, the U.S. government accuses it of violating international law, and appeals to the Hague.

 

What we have here is a continuation of Cold War behaviour, with the use of different nomenclature - dominant nations exercising power in areas they consider to be of "strategic importance". They act with inpunity because they can.

[Barry Sanchez]

Let's compare the invasions, shall we?

 

Iraq; shoot anything that moves. 1,000,000 dead as result of conflict in a country that had no WMD, nothing to do with 9/11, and very few "ethnic Americans" to roll in for. Eleven years later, it's a bloody sectarian mess and a cause celebre for anyone looking to recruit extremists to the fold. It represents the abandonment of any moral international authority that the US/UK had left. . We'll almost certainly leave it worse than we found it.

 

Alp's view: Booyah! We're the good guys, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

 

Crimea: One person reported dead so far. MPs vote to join Russia, ratified by the general public, largely because the "government" of agitants and neo-Nazis in Kiev were taking aim at anything remotely Russian.

 

Alp's view: Those evil Russian bastards, and if you don't agree, you are Seamus Milne.

 

 

Iraq has always been a sectarian mess, the middle East is, they were held together by dictators hence the West support, and of course Oil.

[pap]

Iraq has always been a sectarian mess, the middle East is, they were held together by dictators hence the West support, and of course Oil.

 

You're technically correct, of course. Iraq (the political entity) is less than 100 years old, a result of the map-changing that occurred after the First World War.

 

However, it also contains a region considered the cradle of civilisation and was once home to Babylon, the New York of the ancient world.

[pap]

When the United States government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its geopolitical or commercial interests, it declares that it does not recognise the concept of international law, and does not accept the jurisdiction of the international court in the Hague.

 

When the Russian government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its own interests, the U.S. government accuses it of violating international law, and appeals to the Hague.

 

What we have here is a continuation of Cold War behaviour, with the use of different nomenclature - dominant nations exercising power in areas they consider to be of "strategic importance". They act with inpunity because they can.

 

Great post, as usual Hamilton.

 

I think you've eloquently expressed the double standards at play here. Putin got a bigger clap, tho

[View From The Top]

When the United States government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its geopolitical or commercial interests, it declares that it does not recognise the concept of international law, and does not accept the jurisdiction of the international court in the Hague.

 

When the Russian government acts unilaterally to advance or "protect" its own interests, the U.S. government accuses it of violating international law, and appeals to the Hague.

 

What we have here is a continuation of Cold War behaviour, with the use of different nomenclature - dominant nations exercising power in areas they consider to be of "strategic importance". They act with inpunity because they can.

 

Totally.

[JackFrost]

I spoke to a couple of friends today, one's Lithuanian and the other is Russian. They largely confirmed my suspicions of the situation.

 

Both were delighted at the results of the Crimean referendum and both can't believe how the story is being reported over here.

 

You've got MPs from all sides of the UK Parliament claiming the referendum is illegal/illegitimate and done "in the shadow of Russian guns" whilst European MEPs and the international observers who observed the referendum are saying it was free, fair and within international law.

 

The whole thing boils down to Putin demonstrating that Russia is a world power, and showing the US/UK/EU are completely powerless to stop or police them. The sanctions we imposed recently were absolutely pathetic (Rifkind all but said so himself in Parliament a couple of days ago) and apparently half of the individuals whose overseas assets we've supposedly frozen. . . don't actually have any assets overseas or anywhere where we can freeze them.

 

Putin's f**ked the western world off and we're actually spending our entire time obsessing about spewing meaningless rhetoric and making it look like we're doing something, whilst doing precisely nothing.

 

If Putin saw the Ukraine debate in the UK parliament the other day, it must have been the funniest thing he's seen in years

[pap]

I spoke to a couple of friends today, one's Lithuanian and the other is Russian. They largely confirmed my suspicions of the situation.

 

Both were delighted at the results of the Crimean referendum and both can't believe how the story is being reported over here.

 

You've got MPs from all sides of the UK Parliament claiming the referendum is illegal/illegitimate and done "in the shadow of Russian guns" whilst European MEPs and the international observers who observed the referendum are saying it was free, fair and within international law.

 

The whole thing boils down to Putin demonstrating that Russia is a world power, and showing the US/UK/EU are completely powerless to stop or police them. The sanctions we imposed recently were absolutely pathetic (Rifkind all but said so himself in Parliament a couple of days ago) and apparently half of the individuals whose overseas assets we've supposedly frozen. . . don't actually have any assets overseas or anywhere where we can freeze them.

 

Putin's f**ked the western world off and we're actually spending our entire time obsessing about spewing meaningless rhetoric and making it look like we're doing something, whilst doing precisely nothing.

 

If Putin saw the Ukraine debate in the UK parliament the other day, it must have been the funniest thing he's seen in years

 

Good post, JackFrost.

 

I wonder where your friends, or indeed the likes of Minsk on here, place the Eurasian Union in the equation. How big a political project is this for Putin?

 

The West has managed to gain some degree of permanent sovereignty over many former satellite states with the stroke of the pen through the prism of the EU. Is the Eurasian Union a counterbalance to the European Union?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Union

[pap]

Some interesting stuff from the BBC, of all places.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26653295

 

Ukraine TV boss hounded by far right members of Parliament and forced to resign under duress. Video.

 

These are the people we might be putting our sons and daughters on the line for.

 

*sigh*

[Minsk]

The rest of the EU don't seem to be as upset over this as the UK. Germany certainly isn't too bothered.

 

Mrs Minsk has told me many stories of right-wing Ukranians in Kiev, and elsewhere in Ukraine, attacking and beating people who they stop at random and who can't, or won't, sing the national anthem in Ukranian (i.e. those whose primary language is Russian). This has been ongoing for the past few weeks.

 

Kind of gives some credence to Putin's actions re Crimea.

[buctootim]

The rest of the EU don't seem to be as upset over this as the UK. Germany certainly isn't too bothered.

 

Mrs Minsk has told me many stories of right-wing Ukranians in Kiev, and elsewhere in Ukraine, attacking and beating people who they stop at random and who can't, or won't, sing the national anthem in Ukranian (i.e. those whose primary language is Russian). This has been ongoing for the past few weeks.

 

Kind of gives some credence to Putin's actions re Crimea.

 

Thats Russian media disinformation - they're being told Russians are in danger and being murdered, attacked etc but oddly no evidence or individuals interviewed. Neither media 'side' come out smelling of roses from this bit some of the Russian coverage is laughable.

[Minsk]

Thats Russian media disinformation - they're being told Russians are in danger and being murdered, attacked etc but oddly no evidence or individuals interviewed. Neither media 'side' come out smelling of roses from this bit some of the Russian coverage is laughable.

 

It didn't come from media sources. It came from friends/relatives of friends who live in Ukraine.

 

Other than that, I agree that all media is biased and somewhat unreliable.

[svetigpung]

What relevant comparison? Give one.

 

Barry , what is the reason for us being in N.Ireland ?

Officially its to protect the protestants that were under attack from the naughty irish catholics. The protestants that we put in ireland in the first place.

 

Seems exactly the same scenario to me as that in Crimea now. Or how do you see it different?

[Barry Sanchez]

The far right groups in Ukraine are seen an awful lot more than the actual reality is, its easy to fall in to that trap of saying all the current Ukrainian Government and its supporters are all extreme far right, convenient in fact.

Both are backward as far as human rights go but I have not seen Ukraine enter another Country.

[Tokyo-Saint]

You've been watching the wrong movies then Barry.

[Barry Sanchez]

Barry , what is the reason for us being in N.Ireland ?

Officially its to protect the protestants that were under attack from the naughty irish catholics. The protestants that we put in ireland in the first place.

 

Seems exactly the same scenario to me as that in Crimea now. Or how do you see it different?

 

No they are not at all, check your history, I could bore you with Irish history.

[Barry Sanchez]

You've been watching the wrong movies then Barry.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26468720

 

For balance lovebug.

[buctootim]

Barry , what is the reason for us being in N.Ireland ?

Officially its to protect the protestants that were under attack from the naughty irish catholics. The protestants that we put in ireland in the first place.

 

Seems exactly the same scenario to me as that in Crimea now. Or how do you see it different?

 

Thats turning history on its head. The name Scot came from the Latin term for Irish raiders of Roman England, who later formed the Dal Riata kingdom in western Scotland - which is why Gaelic is spoken there now - its wasn't the language of the 'original' 'Scots' - the Picts. Much of the Scottish 'settlement' of northern Ireland was ethnic Irish returning 'home' - hence the similarities in the names with slightly different spellings. And the army was deployed to NI in 1969 to protect the Catholics from the proddies, not the other way around.

 

The Russians deliberately settled areas with their own people in order to be able to quell resistance and expand their empire both in Soviet times and before - just as the Chinese are doing to Tibet and Eighur.

Edited 20 March, 2014 by buctootim

[Barry Sanchez]

Thats turning history on its head. The name Scot came from the Latin term for Irish raiders of Roman England, who later formed the Dal Riata kingdom in western Scotland. Much of the Scottish 'settlement' of northern Ireland was ethnic Irish returning 'home' - hence the similarities in the names with slightly different spellings. And the army was deployed to NI in 1969 to protect the Catholics from the proddies, not the other way around.

 

The Russians deliberately settled areas with their own people in order to be able to quell resistance and expand their empire both in Soviet times and before - just as the Chinese zare doing to Tibet and Eighur.

 

Buffer zones I believe they are called, it always tickles me when people on here harp on like they know something from a quote.

[Barry Sanchez]

Thats turning history on its head. The name Scot came from the Latin term for Irish raiders of Roman England, who later formed the Dal Riata kingdom in western Scotland. Much of the Scottish 'settlement' of northern Ireland was ethnic Irish returning 'home' - hence the similarities in the names with slightly different spellings. And the army was deployed to NI in 1969 to protect the Catholics from the proddies, not the other way around.

 

The Russians deliberately settled areas with their own people in order to be able to quell resistance and expand their empire both in Soviet times and before - just as the Chinese zare doing to Tibet and Eighur.

 

Do you refer to the Cruthins? A very controversial argument there to be had ha ha!

[buctootim]

Do you refer to the Cruthins? A very controversial argument there to be had ha ha!

 

Its just one big, long extended family fight as far as I can work out You should read P J O'Rouke's take on it in 'Holidays in Hell'. Its really dated now but a funny read.

[Halo Stickman]

The Russians deliberately settled areas with their own people in order to be able to quell resistance and expand their empire both in Soviet times and before - just as the Chinese are doing to Tibet and Eighur.

 

Quite right, Tim, and if the link I posted last week to the Holodomor Famine is anything to go by then the Russians were also not adverse to eliminating the local population beforehand.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Barry Sanchez]

Its just one big, long extended family fight as far as I can work out You should read P J O'Rouke's take on it in 'Holidays in Hell'. Its really dated now but a funny read.

I will look it up for sure.

The Irish question is one that has always interested me hugely, its sadly an issue I can never see fully resolved.

[svetigpung]

oh no , please don't bore me Barry. and I know the general history of Eire.

Bur surely they are both the result of old empires refusing to let go. The army is being used to protect , to influence , to govern what used to belong to the nation.

I see no difference.

[buctootim]

oh no , please don't bore me Barry. and I know the general history of Eire.

Bur surely they are both the result of old empires refusing to let go. The army is being used to protect , to influence , to govern what used to belong to the nation.

I see no difference.

 

Not really. Russia wants to dissect Ukraine, annexe the parts where they have managed to successfully establish a Russian majority. Britain as a whole would probably like to get out of NI and unite Ireland but the majority want to remain British and you cant 'disinherit' people.

[Barry Sanchez]

oh no , please don't bore me Barry. and I know the general history of Eire.

Bur surely they are both the result of old empires refusing to let go. The army is being used to protect , to influence , to govern what used to belong to the nation.

I see no difference.

 

You obviously dont and the British were sent in to stop tensions and protect the Nationlist community, only after a period of time did that community see it as an occupation force.

 

I refer you to Brookes speech in 1990, learn something today.

 

I could seriously bore you in the history of Northern Ireland.

[Bearsy]

I could seriously bore you on the history of Northern Ireland.

 

don't sell urself short barry, you could seriously bore me on almost any subject

[Barry Sanchez]

don't sell urself short barry, you could seriously bore me on almost any subject

 

Cheers Bearsy, the main thing is you have to teach these people, it is easy to spout of, copy and paste on an internet forum without actually knowing what you are posting, it easier and an awful lot quicker to actually know your ****.

[Bearsy]

there is truth in that i spose, i know everything bout nothing + nothing bout everything. If someone cornered me asking bout e.g. this situation i would prob just go Crimea river yo, but that would be to cover my embarrassment bout not even knowing who Crimea is

[Minsk]

Not really. Russia wants to dissect Ukraine, annexe the parts where they have managed to successfully establish a Russian majority. Britain as a whole would probably like to get out of NI and unite Ireland but the majority want to remain British and you cant 'disinherit' people.

 

And the majority of Crimean people want to be Russian.