Am i right in saying the eastern part of the country has less Ethnic Ukrainians due to the Ukrainian famine and later Russian immigration?

Ukrainian navy chief has defected.

Can I just throw one out there - this would not have happened on Bush's watch. With Obama in the White House, Putin is feeling free to have a go. Whoever replaces the idiot supposedly leading America today has got a tough job on his (her?) hands.

Anyway, can't blame the Ukrainian navy for not wanting to fight, they'd get obliterated in literally hours.

Apparently Putin has defied the US and Russian troops have not departed.

I understand that, I was referring to the aspect of one country invading another with regards to current international borders and sovereignty in the name of "defense of ethnic Russians".

Defense from what?

I don't see Ukrainians going out and mob bashing the Russians (or are they now?).

All I see, is the previous President they just ousted was pro-Russian and they're worried the new one won't be and that they'd lose their grip on things like the Black Sea base etc.

That was the reason for my comments mainly, not so much about the citizens, but Russians bullshit excuse.

-PB

They can take the town of Pripyat for all I care

They might actually have people in that place for the first time in more than 25 years

Pretty much sums it up.

so the Australian government and many if not most Australian large companies are doing business with an illegitimate regime. no doubt some of your favourite brands are among them.

what are these "other considerations" you vaguely speak of?

Got to make money while they're still buying.

russia, belarus and ukraine all trace their ancestry to kievan rus, they're kinfolk, if there's any trouble you can be sure it's instigated and funded by outside parties

who would you suggest?

Exactly. Cheap and sinister. Typical Russian imperialism

Undoubtedly. I can only speak for myself, but have had an active policy of boycotting Syrian products (especially jams) for some time now.

Other considerations - 'legality' - whether such an action is legal according to international law, irrespective of its morality, 'capability' - whether a successful invasion and transition to democratic governance is possible (in terms of troops, numbers, money etc), 'consequences' - simple enough (e.g. the DPRK is by far, the most sinister regime on Earth and yet a war with them would be prohibitively expensive. They have nuclear weapons, a deluded and starving population, and can obliterate Seoul in one night.

Certain things are helpful in making a decision. A democratic movement in the said country, access and support of democratic nations, etc.

you're boycotting Syrian jam? R U Syria's?
why wont you boycott Chinese products then?

Beautiful to see the holy Christian flag of Saint Andrew flying over the fleet!

Shame on the West for supporting the militant/terrorists that shot their way into office ignoring the legitimate elections that recently took place. Research this further as this is what your Western media doesn't want you to know - they want your attention to be on cold war fears that no longer exist!

God bless the Holy Christian Russians in their efforts to restore peace and order to this nation currently being destroyed by the new world order dogs of the west.

No I am not Syrian. But I happen to enjoy Middle-Eastern jam. As for boycotting Chinese products, well, that is impossible. The Reds have taken over.

simple test of intellect, you missed my pun

so, you wont boycott anything that inconveniences your personal life in any way?
you sound like a real hardcore activist

At least I can make a basic moral distinction between democracies and non-democracies. I stake out a position for myself instead of indulging in juvenile ten cent whataboutism.

Yes, I am very Syria's.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/times-russia-condemned-the-use-of-force-without-un-approval

](*,) ](*,)

so arming and funding islamic militants to conduct violence including mass rapes and killings of local Christians in Syria, Libya and Egypt is ok with your morals in the name of democracy?

Fuck off you clown. If at any point I expressed support for jihadist scum, I apologise, it certainly wasn't my intention. The Jihadists are there in Syria precisely because the Syrian opposition found no ready support from the West.

so let me get this straight,
the jihadists just appeared out of nowhere to support the Syrian opposition to Assad because the west wouldnt intervene with ground troops?

furthermore, you've ignored my point on Libya specifically. you do realise the rebels were armed, trained and funded by western interests and since Gaddafi was overthrown (violently raped and hacked to death without trial) the previously secular country is now under Sharia law?

how does that reconcile with your democratic morals?

Im going to give you some information which you probably never considered and has been effectively hidden from the populace in general, so prepare your mind. All governments and major international organisations such as banks and religions have been infiltrated by an invisible world government of shape shifting reptilians whose ultimate goal is a one world government destroying all national sovreignty. Do some more research and once you're aware of the Agenda and the methods used to implement it it's much easier to make sense of global events. You're welcome.

sounds far fetched

Why would they bother taking over an insignificant territory with no resource wealth or tactical significance?

I love conspiracy theories. And speaking of reptilians, have you seen the clip of Justin Bieber in Court when the judge is reading out his charges? Justin's eyes change for a couple of seconds, scary stuff :d

There is only 1 one world government I want to live in. Robot president Nixons DOOP. Led by the fearless Zapp Brannigan.

You clearly know nothing and have read even less on the issue. The vast majority of the Syrian opposition in its initial stages were defectors from the Baath army, local self-defence militias, and the feeble remnants of the Muslim brotherhood which was annihilated in the 80's. The vast majority of which were committed to a civil state, and loosely secular in nature. The opposition's diaspora leadership is almost exclusively secular. Now, given that they got no tangible support from the West for 2 or so years, the only mechanism by which they could attain access to weapons was through certain Arab nations which have no scruples about supporting (and even insist on) Islamism.

Given such a reality, why are we surprised that the Islamists have the ascendancy? The moderates have no response to the taunt;

"Where is the West now? Your people are being killed, and they don't care. The West hate Muslims. Only we look after the interests of the Muslims. etc etc."

Logic 101.

As to Libya, I'm tempted to say that you've discredited yourself by referring to Gaddafi's Libya as 'secular'; a ridiculous claim if only one had the eyes to see Gaddafi's support for Jihadists, and international gangsterism. Gaddafi's Libya was a gangster mafia state; wholly owned by the Gaddafi family. I make no apologies for applauding the scumbags removal.

As to the nature of the Libyan opposition, well, that is another issue altogether. In the next struggle, I support Libyan democrats against Libyan theocrats, and make no apologies for doing so.

1/10 terrible troll :lol:

-PB

question, did the western interests tied directly to the United States provide support to the Syrian opposition in the forms of arms shipments or not?