Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 shot down 295 dead.

[romeoh]

What's Israel got to do with what Russian backed Rebels have done? In any case they have shot down a Libyan plane in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

Different scenario in that it was during wartime and that both pilots ignored instructions by the Israeli aircraft to divert. You'll be quite happy to notice that the US still condemned Israel for making the decision to down the plane.

As for being involved in the dispute of course we are as international airlines from all over the world fly over Ukraine and Russia. It wouldn't be ideal if war broke out between the 2 as it would make travelling between Asia & Europe very difficult for commercial airlines. QANTAS only stopped flying through there once they started stopping at Dubai; the direct route from Dubai to London goes about 400 miles south of Ukraine. As far as Malaysian Airlines are concerned the airway was declared safe, there were no known SAMS in the area until shortly before the downing and unfortunately for them they diverted slightly north to avoid a thunderstorm to the south. They are very much a victim of this atrocity.

Many other airlines (British airways, Air France, Cathay, China, Taiwan, Korea, Pakistan, some Etihad routes, FAA issued notices etc) stopped flying over that area some months ago because of safety concerns. Ukraine, who were responsible for monitoring the route's safety, had a financial incentive to keep flights continuing over their area. So who would trust that?
Of course Malaysian airlines are the victims, but plenty of airlines had stopped flying over the area. Sensible precautions in a critical area?

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

So basically you want to instigate WW3 against a country with the greatest land mass on Earth and a motherload of nukes?

That's exactly what is flawed about the way the West is behaving towards Russia at the moment. Ignoring their bullshit and doing what's right in another country with the agreement of another country doesn't equal instigating ww3.

The USSR had the greatest land mass on earth and a motherload of nukes for 40 years, and that didn't stop the West standing up to them during that time- and in fact whenever they did, russia backed off.

The current American approach of issuing them ultimatums, demands, and threats and then doing nothing when they ignore them is actually far more likely to lead to a global war in the long run.

 

[romeoh]

That's exactly what is flawed about the way the West is behaving towards Russia at the moment. Ignoring their bullshit and doing what's right in another country with the agreement of another country doesn't equal instigating ww3.

The USSR had the greatest land mass on earth and a motherload of nukes for 40 years, and that didn't stop the West standing up to them during that time- and in fact whenever they did, russia backed off.

The current American approach of issuing them ultimatums, demands, and threats and then doing nothing when they ignore them is actually far more likely to lead to a global war in the long run.

But how is it the business of America?

 

[slicedndiced]

This! Obama has been a weak leader, and I don't see him doing anything that will scare Putin. Putin knows this. Unfortunately, I don't see anything happening besides Putin remaining in control.

Now, it will be interesting who the next US President will be once Obama is out.

Sarah Palin?

She can see Russia from her balcony you know.

 

[QuietB]

Sarah Palin?

She can see Russia from her balcony you know.

Too funny. It's times like these you realise how fortunate we really are.

 

[Ripper]

So you think it would be ok for example if the good folks of Tasmania just suddenly decided that they wanted to be part of New Zealand? Of course not and no country should ever be expected to secede territory because some residents decide they want to align themselves with another country. Russia should respect Uktraine's sovereignty. The Russian backed rebels are the aggressors here, not the Ukranians.

Western Australia has voted to secede once already. If we decided to act on it , and Australia ignored the democratic vote ,it would be like Australia deciding to bomb us and call us "insurgents".

 

[JackNah_8]

Sarah Palin?

She can see Russia from her balcony you know.

haha Sarah Palin..omg...

Palin and McCain made a great team, it's no wonder why Obama won.

Actually Hilary Clinton would be ruthless, but americans won't vote for her.

 

[Chameleon75]

Western Australia has voted to secede once already. If we decided to act on it , and Australia ignored the democratic vote ,it would be like Australia deciding to bomb us and call us "insurgents".

The afl won't allow it. Tv rights to important to be jepodised by some pesky separatists.

 

[QuietB]

The afl won't allow it. Tv rights to important to be jepodised by some pesky separatists.

It is the AFL's best chance at making Australian football an international game

 

[slicedndiced]

That's exactly what is flawed about the way the West is behaving towards Russia at the moment. Ignoring their bullshit and doing what's right in another country with the agreement of another country doesn't equal instigating ww3.

The USSR had the greatest land mass on earth and a motherload of nukes for 40 years, and that didn't stop the West standing up to them during that time- and in fact whenever they did, russia backed off.

The current American approach of issuing them ultimatums, demands, and threats and then doing nothing when they ignore them is actually far more likely to lead to a global war in the long run.

I was a little facetious in my initial reply to you.

However, we send in the "troops", secure the site.

And then basically isolate them from any meaningful support and supply lines.

Seriously. What do you propose next??

All I can see coming from your proposal is all out war, based upon a few dickheads, (from whatever side), killing a few hundred people. ( I truly do not mean to be flippant in that regard).

However, what you are advocating is unthinkable and all in the name of proving a point in how "tough" "we" are.

 

[Ripper]

Sarah Palin?

She can see Russia from her balcony you know.

Sorry can't let that go, it is a urban myth she said that.

The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska":
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp#JYaDGDRPx5b6urO0.99

 

[slicedndiced]

Sorry can't let that go, it is a urban myth she said that.

Of course!

It doesn't make her any less of a cretin.

 

[Ripper]

Of course!

It doesn't make her any less of a cretin.

Well you could make fun of her with something more accurate. US politics is in a real mess , You would think that they could put up someone better than all the misfits of the last 20 years. If anything Palin is the cream of the crop and that's not saying much.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's exactly what is flawed about the way the West is behaving towards Russia at the moment. Ignoring their bullshit and doing what's right in another country with the agreement of another country doesn't equal instigating ww3.

The USSR had the greatest land mass on earth and a motherload of nukes for 40 years, and that didn't stop the West standing up to them during that time- and in fact whenever they did, russia backed off.

The current American approach of issuing them ultimatums, demands, and threats and then doing nothing when they ignore them is actually far more likely to lead to a global war in the long run.

You clearly aren't thinking about this rationally - that's fine because a terrible atrocity has been committed against innocent people not involved in any way with the crap going on on the ground there but acting on your emotions leads to things not being thought through and having terrible unintended consequences.

Putting troops on the ground in a country already on the verge of civil war (if not there already) that has already been used as a pawn by both Russia and the US over the last year and expecting it not to erupt into a full scale war perhaps escalating to nuclear war is extremely short-sighted.

People are demonising Putin here and he is not doing himself any favours by trying to cover up the crime but you're acting like he and/or the Russian's ordered the plane be shot down. How is Russia's relationship with the Ukrainian rebels any different to any number of alliances the US has engaged in over the last 70 years most notably the Central American death squads and dictators, the Shah's torturers hell even their current alliances with terrorists in Syria and other middle eastern countries.

How is the shoot down of this plane (apparently mistakenly shot down by the rebels thinking it was a Ukrainian plane) any different to any number of similar acts across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq etc where US fighter planes and armed drones have bombed any number of innocent groups including numerous wedding parties over the last decade? Innocent people are dying around the world everyday at the hands of warmongers and terrorists and it is sickening and truly sad but sometimes life sucks and there's not a whole lot that can be done unless you want to descend into mass conflagration. Demanding some sort of misguided retaliation to appease your own sense of justice isn't going to change what happened.

Bringing the Cold War into it shows just how short sighted you're being - the world was on the brink of nuclear war at least once during that period and numerous countries around the world were used as pawns on "the grand chessboard" and hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people died - you want to go back to that?

 

[Norwood1878]

Absolutely appalling how Putin isn't taking responsibility for this. For those who are unaware back in the late 80's in the Persian Gulf the US Warship Vincesses accidentally shot down Iran Air 655 with a similar death toll to MH 17. The difference in this scenario was that the battleship was involved at the time in a battle with Iranian military forces and was under attack. They attempted to contact the aircraft on 3 different frequencies as it approached the warship but for some reason the Iranian pilots did not respond (they may have thought the warning was for another aircraft). Within 1 hour of realising their mistake the US admitted liability and didn't attempt to blame others and eventually paid compensation of $100 million USD at the time to the Iranian government.

Compare this to Putin's response in blaming Ukraine for defending their sovereignty as the cause for this appalling disaster and not the rebels that his military had provided with high tech weaponry beyond their capabilities. Russia has military radar nearby and spy satellites galore - rest assured if it wasn't their fault we'd know about it now and they are just disgracefully trying to cover their arses. Blaming "the west" for this incident is absolutely appalling and disgusting. Putin can't sweep this one under the carpet and hopefully Russia can come out of this for the better and moved towards a free and open society.

IA 655 was flying with it's identity transponder on, which identified the plane as civilian. The US has never apologised or admitted mistakes and only settled before Iran took them to the International courts.
You seem quite content to push your narrative that holds Russia solely responsible and seem to advocate for regime change.

 

[JackNah_8]

Palin: I predicted Obama's win would trigger a Russian invasion into Ukraine
Plenty of people criticized Sarah Palin as a foreign policy lightweight in 2008. But do the developments in Ukraine vindicate the former Republican vice presidential candidate?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...i-predicted-obama-win-would-trigger-russian-/

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Sorry why are people still talking about Palin except as a historical oddity? She was an idiot to point and laugh at in the maelstrom of idiots in the US political system and her 15 minutes is up. Let her spend the rest of her life doing the rounds on the hillbilly lecture circuits earning a few hundred thousand a pop and the rest of us can move on.

 

[Norwood1878]

So you think it would be ok for example if the good folks of Tasmania just suddenly decided that they wanted to be part of New Zealand? Of course not and no country should ever be expected to secede territory because some residents decide they want to align themselves with another country. Russia should respect Uktraine's sovereignty. The Russian backed rebels are the aggressors here, not the Ukranians.

It's not about secession though is it? It's about not wanting to be apart of the corrupt EU which crushes democracy. Are you just as strong in your opposition when the US interferes in other countries affairs.
I could name dozens of coups in the last 60 years that either directly or indirectly implicate the USA as described on the CIAs website.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It's not about secession though is it? It's about not wanting to be apart of the corrupt EU which crushes democracy. Are you just as strong in your opposition when the US interferes in other countries affairs.
I could name dozens of coups in the last 60 years that either directly or indirectly implicate the USA as described on the CIAs website.

Exactly. The cynical person would also say it's about expanding NATO to Russia's doorstep and restricting their access to and distribution of natural resources.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I was a little facetious in my initial reply to you.

However, we send in the "troops", secure the site.

And then basically isolate them from any meaningful support and supply lines.

Seriously. What do you propose next??

All I can see coming from your proposal is all out war, based upon a few dickheads, (from whatever side), killing a few hundred people. ( I truly do not mean to be flippant in that regard).

However, what you are advocating is unthinkable and all in the name of proving a point in how "tough" "we" are.

A lot of what I was wrote was motivated by how angry I feel about this, but I do have some reasons why I thought it would work fine.

- the debris field has a limited size (say 15km across) in a rural area, and investigators in sufficient numbers would only need to be on site for a limited amount of time. There is no particular reason for separatists to cause trouble there, particularly if the troops on site were from random countries rather than Ukraine. If a UN resolution was passed demanding unimpeded access to the crash site, and Ukraine supported it, they would have a legal basis to be there.

- In practical terms, absent a russian armored division crossing the border or the provision of serious, well trained artillery, 300-400 top tier soldiers could police a 15km2 rural area against poorly trained separatists for a week without extreme difficulty. The longer they were there, the greater chance that someone would do something silly and the greater issue logistics would become, but once they were there it would be overwhelmingly in everyone's interests to steer clear of the area, let them get on with the job and get them out of there as soon as possible. Russia could certainly dislodge them if they wanted, but that would be an insanely risky and pointless thing for them to do, especially if it was clear that they were only going to be there for a limited time if left alone, and especially if they were from an assortment of different countries with the risk of a conflict with NATO if they were interfered with. I think the most likely outcome is a few idiot separatists would try their luck and get killed, but provided they were gone within a specific period of time, russia would steer clear.

- So with UN resolution and with the agreement of Ukraine, and with a limited mission, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be feasible. Whether its worth the risk is a whole different question - I suspect if you took a straw poll amongst soldiers, or random members of the public, the answer would be an overwhelming yes, even acknowledging it might result in further casualties. I don't even think that is about proving anything, a bunch of entirely innocent australian nationals, including women and children have been murdered in a horrific way, and it is right and rational that we'd take risks to ensure their bodies are recovered and the crime committed is properly investigated.

The underlying point I'm making is that the West needs to reorient its approach from the ridiculous 'Russia must take steps to ensure the crash site is secure' stance they've taken so far, which is never going to succeed and is based around the frankly idiotic belief that the guilty parties will actively assist in the investigation into themselves, and replace that with a more realistic 'we are doing xyz to ensure the crash site is secure, and Russia will be running the risk of war if they interfere.'

 

[awaremind]

The funny thing is it sounds like the people on here who hate Putin so much here wish the USA had a president that was more like him and that Russia had a backing down hand wringer.

 

[awaremind]

Exactly. The cynical person would also say it's about expanding NATO to Russia's doorstep and restricting their access to and distribution of natural resources.

I think the master plan is to split Russia up into a number of smaller weaker states, apparently the first step is to surround them as much as possible with missile defence systems, analogous to Russia having missiles on Cuba.

 

[Norwood1878]

 

[GarnerSmash]

The French signed contracts with Qatar to supply natural gas. Don't think it would be all that difficult for the Middle East to build a direct pipeline to Europe (one has already been proposed but Syria curtailed it due to their friendship with Russia). If the whole of western Europe and the UK agreed to get on board and buy gas from the Middle East I can see it happening and that would truly leave Putin & Russia up s**t creek (they need the money as much as Europe needs the gas in winter). This incident could be the instigator for something like that to happen.

The Europeans would find themselves in a spot of bother if they tried to freeze Russia out of the gas market. There are two proposed gas lines in the, ah, pipeline from Azerbaijan but they are more for the south east/baltic region and Italy, with the former terminating in Austria, but these will not have the capacity to support Europe's gas needs. If a proposal was put forward by the major Euro players to build more to meet their needs then I would suspect the next winter would be very cold indeed as the Russian supply dwindles and Russian activities would escalate around Azerbaijan.

Ukraine are in the difficult position of having Russian gas running across their land by various pipes which service Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Italy and southern Germany (15% of euro consumption). Gazprom also operate the North Stream and South Stream pipelines which provide gas to all the big players in Europe but the Russians want a compliant Ukraine so that they can guarantee supply through to Europe through all avenues. The Ukrainians want to shake off the yoke of reliance on Russian gas (Gazprom reckons they owe them 4.5 billion Euros) and to supply the 15% of Europe with their own gas that Gazprom currently supply, hence this whole dispute. Russia don't play fair, and they won't play fair with this either. Many euro nations have contracts with Gazprom for supply until 2025-2030 and Europe is only going to hungrier for that supply. Russia will not give up any of that without a flight and I doubt anyone will stand up to them anyway. Besides, the recipient countries have invested heavily in a financial sense already in the North and South lines (Gazprom maintained 51% ownership) so I doubt they will now walk away from that for moral reasons.

I also find it interesting looking at the map of the south stream on the Gazprom website. Anyone else notice something interesting? http://www.gazprom.com/f/posts/85/290063/south-stream-map-en.jpg

 

[QuietB]

I think the master plan is to split Russia up into a number of smaller weaker states, apparently the first step is to surround them as much as possible with missile defence systems, analogous to Russia having missiles on Cuba.

Does that even matter? The USA would have missile coverage of the whole globe already without needing anything in the Ukraine wouldn't they?

I think that the whole military strategic territory thing will fade pretty quickly. Some guy can do untold damage from an office anywhere on the planet already. Why does he/she need to be on anyone's doorstep?