Don't they still have allegiance to Her Majesty?

Nice one - You will be putting up a link next to do with Lee Rigby's killing, in order to prove that all Muslims are evil, wicked terrorists....

To give some context to the Russian psyche where Crimea is concerned, consider how huge WWII is in the British psyche. We lost over 400,000 people in that war. Russia (not USSR) are estimated to have lost c. 14 million. Russian military losses in Crimea were more than total British losses in the war. Crimea was then part of Russia then - Khrushchev only gave it to Ukraine in 1954 as an autonomous part of the USSR . Khrushchev, not surprisingly, was from Ukraine!

Now if Britain or the US where in Russia's shoes what might their attitude be?

Similar to us going to war over the Falklands IMO

Pretty reasonable article: www.standard.co.uk/comment/evgen ... 76234.html

Pretty reasonable article: www.standard.co.uk/comment/evgen ... 76234.html

And when Ukraine was given independence following the breakup of the USSR a referendum was held in Crimea in which the voters elected to be part of the new Ukraine.

If Crimea wishes to now join Russia then it should do this through a proper referendum in line with the constitution of Ukraine. If in such circumstances it votes to join Russia then of course the West should, and I believe would, respect that decision. However it is not appropriate for Russia to simply drop passports into Crimea, announce them to be Russian citizens and then annex the territory to 'protect its citizens'. I very much doubt that you would consider it reasonable for the US to invade and annex the UK to protect those of us who share an ethnic and cultural bond with the American people.

The fact is that Russia is a declining power. For 20 years it has seen its perceived sphere of influence decline as its neighbours have clamoured to join the West - through NATO and the EU. On major international issues such as Iraq and Yugoslavia it found its views completely ignored by the West. Its economy is enormously unstable, based on volatile and finite oil and gas sales. Its Slavic population faces demographic disaster due to a low birth rate and competition with its internal Muslim population that has a far high birth rate and which will constitute a majority in 30 years. Its military is poorly trained and despite recent advancements, remains way behind the capabilities of the West.

This act of an aggression, as with Georgia in 2008, is an attempt by the wounded bear to reassert some semblence of control over its neighbour. It reveals the fundamental weakness of Russia, in that it has to use force to keep its neighbours close to it, whereas say the USA does not have to invade Poland to keep it as a member of NATO.

Your refer to Ukraine as Russia's backyard and therefore there is some legitimacy in Russian actions. Just because Ukraine is a neighbour of Russia doesn't give it a right to decide whether or not Ukraine can join the EU and NATO. This is solely a question for the Ukrainian people to decide. If the Ukrainian people cannot decide, then the East and West should separate into two countries to better reflect the ethnic and cultural realities. Do you think that it would be acceptable for France to invade the UK if we tried to leave the EU on the grounds that Britain is its neighbour?

See my faslane analogy above. What would Britain do in those circumstances?

Your rant is all well and good, but this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of the situation but about whether the West is being hypocritical. You need to answer the question, not one you would prefer. I believe Iraq was a sovereign state, one along way from the UK, with few ethnic Brits, one that posed no threat to the uk whatsover and yet we joined an invasion despite our one leading legal authority saying it wouldbe illegal. Maybe the West is not being hypoctical because it thinks Russia are pussyfooting about - is that you view?

But, but, but, at least we have democracised Iraq and made it a so much safer country in which to live.

Thursday!

rlhttp://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/officials-attacks-kill-iraqi-capital-22787366rl

February!

rlhttp://world.time.com/2014/03/01/u-n-iraq-killed-february/rl

Possibly a bit like yours appears to be other[/i people to kill yet more people and be killed'.

Afghanistan is a big success story, though.

Russians did well there too. And the British before that ...

How many gave been killed in Crimea since Russia intervened? On the other hand how many died in Kiev's civil unrest? I suppose you' d rather have waited until the bloody clashes begin before intervention?

Quote: Dally "So you believe in the principle of appeasement (except where it involves appeasing Russia)!'" Just when I think your responses can't get any stupider you up your game. Congratulations for spectacularly missing my point. There has been no ethnic cleansing in Ukraine to appease. There is no reason for the Russians to send in troops - unsurprisingly in fact Russian troops on Ukranian soil seems to be actually precipitating the possibility of ethnic violence. The Ukranian people have chucked out their president - let's see what happens next and what sort of country they produce. Troops are an absolute last resort in any situation - because it never, ever ends well. www.cracked.com/article_20771_5- ... -real.html What the Russians are doing is number 4 on the list. As comically trsansparent today as it was in this example. You are wandering aound in circles on this thread like a confused pensioner, Western hypocrisy, weak Obama, unsafe world, we should be allied with Russia, moral breakdown, homosexual devients, etc.. etc.

Quote: Dally "So you believe in the principle of appeasement (except where it involves appeasing Russia)!'" Just when I think your responses can't get any stupider you up your game. Congratulations for spectacularly missing my point. There has been no ethnic cleansing in Ukraine to appease. There is no reason for the Russians to send in troops - unsurprisingly in fact Russian troops on Ukranian soil seems to be actually precipitating the possibility of ethnic violence. The Ukranian people have chucked out their president - let's see what happens next and what sort of country they produce. Troops are an absolute last resort in any situation - because it never, ever ends well. www.cracked.com/article_20771_5- ... -real.html What the Russians are doing is number 4 on the list. As comically trsansparent today as it was in this example. You are wandering aound in circles on this thread like a confused pensioner, Western hypocrisy, weak Obama, unsafe world, we should be allied with Russia, moral breakdown, homosexual devients, etc.. etc.

Just to rewind this all back a bit - Why did the Ukranians in Kiev choose to overthrow their elected leader, rather than wait for an election, where they could have simply voted him out?

It seems to me that some of these more backward nations (Egypt being another recent example) don't seem to grasp the concept of democracy.

Quote: Dita's Slot Meter "Just to rewind this all back a bit - Why did the Ukranians in Kiev choose to overthrow their elected leader, rather than wait for an election, where they could have simply voted him out? It seems to me that some of these more backward nations (Egypt being another recent example) don't seem to grasp the concept of democracy.'" www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... victorious One viewpoint and some insight into the President they got rid of. Complicated does not even come close.

Quote: Dita's Slot Meter "Just to rewind this all back a bit - Why did the Ukranians in Kiev choose to overthrow their elected leader, rather than wait for an election, where they could have simply voted him out? It seems to me that some of these more backward nations (Egypt being another recent example) don't seem to grasp the concept of democracy.'" www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... victorious One viewpoint and some insight into the President they got rid of. Complicated does not even come close.

I assume you're sending Titan to intervene – if you can't join up yourself.