Breaking news: Malaysian Airliner shot down over Ukraine

[telemann.livejournal.com]

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 with 295 people aboard crashed on Thursday in eastern Ukraine near the Russian border, an area roiled by fighting between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian officials said the plane might have been shot down, possibly by a Russian-made antiaircraft system. Eastern Ukraine has been roiled for months by a violent pro-Russian separatist uprising in which a number of military aircraft have been downed. But this would be the first commercial airline disaster to result from the hostilities. Despite the turmoil in eastern Ukraine, the commercial airspace over that part of the country is a heavily trafficked route and has remained open.



New York Times with more information, video and analysis.


The incident touched off immediate finger-pointing between Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government. Eastern Ukraine separatist leader Alexander Borodai told Reuters that Ukrainian military forces shot the jet down, but Kiev denied involvement and labeled the incident a "terrorist act." The President of Ukraine on behalf of the State expresses its deepest and most sincere condolences to the families and relatives of those killed in this terrible tragedy," said a statement released by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko's office. "Every possible search and rescue effort is being made." Separatist groups reportedly blocked Ukrainian officials from the scene, and later said the "black box," or flight data recorder, had been sent to Moscow. KT McFarland, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, and a Fox News national security analyst said the attack was most likely the work of Russian separatists, not the Russian or Ukrainian armies.

Source.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Your questions constantly ignore the NATO component.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Yes. NATO. An alliance created against a threat which is no more. An alliance which has constantly broken its promises to stop expanding. A defensive alliance which has been expanding and invading for the last 24 years. An alliance where USA, UK and Germany are the only credible military powers (France not being part of NATO military structure). You think something like Slovakia or somesuch limitrophe "state" could be a voice in determination of world politics and balance of power?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Meh, until Russians stop aggressive expansion, the threat is still sort of there.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

But Russia is not expanding. We are well within our sphere of interests as it was agreed upon in Tehran and Yalta. We are not threading on your interests and place in the scheme of things. Russia is not communist anymore so, there is no reason even for US trade with, say Lithuanian governorship to be less that with a "state" of Lithuania. You would even save money if you stop propping up all these squealing little things.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Crimea was not an expansionist effort by Russian military forces?

total bullshit

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

The spheres of influence and control in Europe were divided between the victors in WWII during Tehran and Yalta conferences, with some later adjustments. Within those agreements that never were repudiated we are well inside our own territory.
Plus both the people of Russia and of Crimea always saw Crimea as part of Russia.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It does not matter how the people of Russia saw it.
If the people of Crimea had a referndum--a real one, not one that happened WHILE OCCUPIED, then it might carry weight.

The troops rolled into Crimea *BEFORE* they held a referendum and that is, and was, unacceptable.

Of course some sort of retaliatory sanctions had to be put in place.

I really dont care about the WW2 spheres of influence agreements. It's the 21st century, not the 20th century. Invading your neighboring country with UNMARKED military is a no-no. Full stop.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

It was probably the only way to ensure that they had a referendum, actually, as the Kievan government did not recognize their right to even have a referendum.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Let's be clear here: you support sending unmarked military across national boundaries?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

If you knew anything, you would know that vast majority of population in Crimea are ethnic Russians. And what do you think, would they want to be part of Russia or Ukraine? Referendum is not really needed to figure the results.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's not a response to my question.

I don't think that sending unmarked military troops into a foreign country is a proper way for a government to behave.

Sending in military troops to a foreign country is bad enough--but the fact that they were unmarked meant that they were CLEARLY there to cause trouble--NOT to do some good in broad daylight.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

You were saying that the referendum passed only because there were Russian forces.
If the people of Crimea had a referndum--a real one, not one that happened WHILE OCCUPIED. ADD?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Cause armed men in masks wearing unmarked military uniforms never intimidates anyone, right??

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Don't you understand that Crimea Russians would vote to unify with Russia regardless anything? You keep contradicting yourself, so can have the discussion with yourself - you do need me or anybody else.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You've successfully avoided the issue.

Sending unmarked, masked, military soldiers into a foreign country is NOT OK.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Leaving them "unmarked" was probably somewhat underhanded - although avoidance of detection is a generally acceptable ruse of warfare. Plus no state of war existed then or now, so there can be no claims of violation of rules of warfare as stipulated by various international treaties. Just like when US had send undercover commando teams to Iraq prior to invasion.
As to sending our forces to Crimea per se - at that moment we had a right to hold a number of troops there (not restricted to naval personnel). Apparently the numbers actually there never exceeded the numbers allowed under treaties.
Nevertheless, I doubt that the presence of our troops had influenced the outcome of the referendum.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yes. NATO. An alliance created against a threat which is no more.

Ukraine would disagree.


An alliance which has constantly broken its promises to stop expanding.




This notion is very interesting, and certainly mentioned a lot in Russia, but, well, players of the time have said, there wasn't any such promise made. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html) NATO challenged this version of history, with a fact sheet on the subject. (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_109141.htm) And it doesn't make logical sense, how could you expect a country to sign away its rights in perpetuity by a Superpower?

A defensive alliance which has been expanding and invading for the last 24 years.and invading for the last 24 years.

Not so much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Operations). Sure I understand Russian anger over intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, and Afghanistan.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Well, the threat of world communism against which NATO was created is no more.
And why do USA and NATO actually need to concern themselves with whatever happens in Ukraine or with Ukraine?

Even if no written declarations to stop expanding were made, such promises were implied in many oral statements and official releases in mid-90s.

And if we start counting promises to Russia broken by the Western states and governments we can actually start with you cheating us out of spoils of WWI.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And why do USA and NATO actually need to concern themselves with whatever happens in Ukraine or with Ukraine?

Actually it matters for a lot of reasons.

And if we start counting promises to Russia broken by the Western states and governments we can actually start with you cheating us out of spoils of WWI.

Wow, talk about red herrings!

Even if no written declarations to stop expanding were made, such promises were implied in many oral statements and official releases in mid-90s.

Like the one that Russia agreed to protecting the integrity of Ukraine? Russia broke the Budapest Memorandum that it signed in 1994. This Memorandum guaranteed to Ukraine "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” in exchange of Ukraine giving up it's third-largest nuclear arsenal.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Ukraine had nukes??

Learn something new every day....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Soviet era ICBMs, sure.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Yes. NATO. An alliance created against a threat which is no more.

The threat still exists. Just because Communism has died, doesn't mean the Russians do not want empire. The Russian have ALWAYS wanted empire. Putin, the tsars, the Soviet Presidium - none of them are any different.

When - and that is WHEN, not IF - Putin or his successor declares himself God-Emperor of all the Russias and once again invades Europe, NATO will still be quite relevant.

Some of us still remember the massacres of Königsberg.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

You say "wanted empire" like it is a bad thing :).
All the nations have generally prospered when in large empires.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

You say "wanted empire" like it is a bad thing :).

To those the Russians wish to enslave and conquer, it is a bad thing.

All the nations have generally prospered when in large empires.

That's false. Historically, only the conquerors have truly benefited.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

"That's false. Historically, only the conquerors have truly benefited."
Tell me about it. That is exactly why there is no European integration at the moment and the people of Zimbabve are enjoying a prosperous and just rule of President Mugabe after glorious liberation from opressive British conquerors.
If the "liberated" countries are so fine and wonderful - why do ex-colonials try to wiggle their ways into their past metropolias?