What principles were modern Britain founded upon? The right to self determination, freedom and to not be ruled by a nation in Europe, or Europe itself (as was attempted by n azi occupied and controlled Europe during WW2), only for those same principles to be completely undermined by the EUSSR, by the British politicians involved in promoting and supporting E.U hegemony over every member states sovereignty, not by Russia.
Very good, thank you.
1. Right to self determination as it applies to a nation is not available to Ukraine according to putler, because it is on russias door step. And if Ukraine WANTS to decide something - their government suddenly become naztees. One principle down.
2. Freedom to not be ruled by some other nation or entity. See item 1. I have NO bloody idea why you would tollerate russias direct interventions in Ukraine, given that this is your countries founding principle, but... Another principle down.
3. I would argue, that you largely take for granted "rule of law", which is being trampled by russia left and right IN Ukraine.
So you argue, that your ability to have business with a country, which DOES NOT respect your nations founding principles (and thats why UK is agreeing to the sanctions), should be protected no matter what. I can only be happy, that you are in the minority...
Also, as I mentioned previously there are numerous factors which point toward the coup that overthrew Yanukovych was largely supported and partially orchestrated by NATO states, primarily the U.S. The 5billion dollars invested in Ukraine by the U.S to promote "democracy" (at the end of a petrol bomb, bullet by a neo n azi maybe?). Nulands telephone conversation. The attitude toward Ukraine pre-and post coup by NATO member states, for example only after the coup government was installed the IMF and involved EU members offered Ukraine a substantial loan to save Ukraine's failing economy. NATO's stance toward the Ukrainian civil war, its willingness to openly threaten Russia should Russia intervene militarily, although Ukraine is not a member state of NATO, even though the coup government has been in power for a very short time and has even been blatantly lying to the media about the situation in East Ukraine. Don't forget the situation in East Ukraine being completely ignored by the Western powers, a situation in which the Ukrainian coup government is firing artillery at its own populace, the VERY narrative used to excuse a "humanitarian intervention" in Libya, which overthrew Gaddafi, killed civilians, provided wealth and weaponry to jihadi's who are now cutting the heads off of American journalists in Iraq.
What factors? Where? Please share some sources about those 5 billion dollars please. I'm damn interested. And you will pardon my skepticism, if you rely on putler controlled sources.
And what attitude would you expect towards Ukraine, given that old-corrupt-president with criminal history was replaced by much more west-friendly leadership?
And as for Nuland call - so... both US and russia is meddling in Ukraine. I'd say it balances out, in the end - pupulace decides who wins. However - if you compare reactions to the "loss of influence": west simply carry on (thats what happened when pro-russian Yanukovich was elected), russia instead annexes part of the country, starts idiotic propaganda war and incites civil war. Thats adequate?
And again - your ass does not feel it, but there are MORE than enough educated people, who KNOW, that the same "WE MUST PROTECT RUSSIANS" scenario is applicable to at the very least 3 baltic states, all members of nato. IGNORING a conflict on such a basis is what was tried with naztee Germany before WW2, IT DID NOT WORK. You may be ignorant, but don't ask everyone else to be so.
As for intervening militarily - I read NUMEROUS times, that NATO ruled this option as not possible. Can you please cite your sources? Otherwise I'm calling you a liar.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-ukraine-crisis-rasmussen-idUSKBN0GB16R20140811 :
Asked if NATO, a U.S.-dominated, 28-nation alliance, could get involved militarily in Ukraine if Russian forces did invade, Rasmussen said it was a hypothetical question.
"However, we are not considering military operations. If the Russians were to intervene further in Ukraine, I have no doubt that the international community would respond determinedly, notably through broader, deeper, tougher economic sanctions that would isolate Russia further," he said.There's a saying, judge a man by his actions not by his words, when it comes to government you judge both and based on what I see, I see a blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the "national" interests of our NATO nations and the Western led U.N, intervening all over the world is acceptable, but then we all witness NATO's hypocritical lambasting of Russia's attempts to protect its own national interests right on its own fucking borders, these actions and inactions, words and then silence on different aspects of the conflict contribute to the bigger picture, its not all about the media, its about everything.
Please identify the last time NATO went to war to protect some national interests, similarly to russias actions in Ukraine (e.g. incitement of civil war, annexation of land). I can't find it. I am not speaking about US, they DEFINITELY do shit, but again - that is relevant to Ukraine HOW?
Russia's attempts to protect its own national interests right on its own fucking borders This deserves a special mention: you consider Crimea being part of russia? Or do you consider russia explaining to Ukraine what it should do "russia own borders"? Can you also point me to the source of the shit your are smoking? I would get some for me too.
There is much information, facts on the ground which can be determined by getting your information from multiple sources and then making your own mind up. Propaganda is usually very easy to spot, and I don't deny its use by either the West or Russia, and any other interested party. However unfortunately there are many in the West, Europe and especially East Europe, propagandised by their own governments to write off anything any media source other than its own and allied media outlets decide to disseminate. This unfortunately encourages the removal rational objectivity and replaces it with emotional opinion based thinking and perception. The heart so often fools the mind, how many times will our governments rally around false flags and disasters of their own spawning to get us to support their goals in their own shady agendas. Essentially people are shooting the messenger before the letter has even been opened, and everyone who does so, at least when considering from an opposing perspective/view/probablity is non the wiser.
I didn't offer Molly to suck lemons, I told Molly to suck lemons, because he might as well.
You are quite naive, if you think you have the sole right to determine, who is right and who is wrong, placing labels like that.
Eastern europeans incidentally have A LOT more experience in dealings with russia, so ask yourself: is this "brainwash" or personal experience? A source of facts... what is amazing to me is how you still believe you are getting "facts" from the russian sources... They were proven to fabricate them time and time again...
http://www.stopfake.org/en/russia-s-top-100-lies-about-ukraine/The guy who currently rules russia was part of repressive structures of CCCP, is blatantly speaking about "creating slav world" and "saving russians abroad". During his reign a man was poisoned with polonium in UK, with MORE than enough fingers pointing at russia and its refusal to cooperate speaks VOLUMES in itself. THIS is the country you advocate as being a source of info needed to be objective and with which you are willing to do business with.
Poll