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

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Well, if you look on the Iraq situation I don't think general populace there lives in less terror and misery there now, than they were in for example 1990. The same goes for Syria where US/EU insistence on deposing Assad as a matter of principle only prolongs the civil war for civilians.

Another point - USSR sent troops to Hungary in 1956 and installed a government we wanted. US did the same in Iraq. Which country people lived better, say, 5 years after an invasion?

How could our control over (lets be totally sci-fi) over even the whole of Russian Empire as of 1914 could trouble USA? Any total global war would be fought by weapons with reach over 10 000 km, a movement of our borders 200-300 km to the West cannot endanger your country any more than say our building of a 2-3 extra boomer subs.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

a movement of our borders 200-300 km to the West cannot endanger your country any more than say our building of a 2-3 extra boomer subs.

NATO would disagree with that assessment, as would the United States, a signatory to the treaty.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

You think an armor division in Minsk is more dangerous to USA than an armor division in Pskov?
For ICMB and strategic bombers it makes even less difference because if they fly they will fly by a shortest rout which is transpolar. I.e. an for ICBMs based in Russia altitude is more important in terms of flytimes to US than longitude.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Annexing countries is against the Rules. That's why Iraq couldn't take Kuwait.

The breakup of Yugoslavia demonstrates how bad Russian destruction of sovereignty was.

If Russia wants to participate in things like the international economy, they need to focus on fixing their own messes and leave former soviet vassals alone. Or else, they sit in economic sanctions and let the U.S. and China be the world's major players.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Oh. don't start about breakup of Yugoslavia. I probably would not have happened if USA and NATO did not stick its oar in and just left their government alone to restore order.

Why is it OK for USA to meddle with their neighbors politics and have a sphere of influence but not OK for Russia?
Anyhow, it was all nicely dived and agreed upon in Tehran and Yalta and its NATO that goes back on its word.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

In Tehran and Yalta, I don't think the US ever agreed that the Soviets should take totalitarian control of Eastern Europe, but only play an overseeing role, in the way the US did with Western Europe. We never agreed to the Berlin Wall.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And even then, they weren't treaties in any legal sense of the word. I seriously doubt the United States Senate would have ever agreed to such terms, had they been known. Also, there was never a formal treaty signed to conclude WW2 in 1945; and the lack of one was a bit of a legal issue for German reunification process to move forward, I believe.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

And we never did take "totalitarian control". They had to toe some lines but they also had quite a lot of leeway - look on Tito or Ceausescu policies in 1960-70. Berlin wall was built by GDR government by their own will.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I don't want to debate history as much as point out that the countries of Eastern Europe should be free countries to trade and deal as they please, and are not mere satellites of Russia. Dealing with the West and not towing the Russian line should not be seen as cause for invasion and annexation.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

And why on earth should US meddle in our relations with Ukraine or Moldova or Poland?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Berlin wall was built by GDR government by their own will.

*eyerolls forever*

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Check the sources. It was GDR decision.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately "restoring government order" included genocidal crimes against humanity, so again, rules.

Sphere of influence is fine, annexation is not.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Whatever they did you had neither UN SC nor our blessing to mess in Eastern Europe.
And you call rules the things that were unilaterally imagined by some Western countries. I really doubt that Yugoslavia had any say in formulation of these rules for alleged violations of which it was destroyed. And again Europe now bears the costs of US lack of foresight - note how Kosovo turned into a major drugs transshipment area.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

The genocide stopped - the drug trade is anywhere that a market can operate. NATO didn't annex the area.

[mudryikot.livejournal.com]

Yes, you did not annex the area. You imposed some puppet governments and then drawn borders between countries according to your own wishes and not wishes of people who lived there or had interests there. Just like British drawing up India-Pakistan border.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I probably would not have happened if USA and NATO did not stick its oar in and just left their government alone to restore order.

Slovenia disagrees with you.

Anyhow, it was all nicely dived and agreed upon in Tehran and Yalta and its NATO that goes back on its word.

*laughs* There was no such specification by treaty. It was informal and wasn't even honored in the Cold War. Especially not by Russia.