Backbone but no brains.

One Hyde Park is a British development funded by Qatari money. It is partnered with the Mandarin Oriental hotel. The record sale was to a Ukranian billionaire.

Russia have far more right to "invade" Russia than the UK Govt has to "take back" One Hyde Park. It's pretty much as ignorant as a Londoner wanting to bomb Leeds because of the 7/7 attacks.

Yes. Absolutely 100% I would.

I'm talking of the whopping big and expensive building – one among many (and they're increasing) – that, rumour has it, are actually ways of laundering eastern European mafioso dosh, as opposed to the others that are being bought by Hong Kong sources at equally daft prices (thus helping to drive up property costs further) and are then not even lived in, as they're simply there as an investment.

Think how many people you could house in any of those?

And if it's the Ukranian mafia instead of the Russian variety – perhaps that's a reason to support the Russkis.

So you believe in the principle of appeasement (except where it involves appeasing Russia)!

Can we take back Australia, after all there are more English speakers than Aborigines and their army isn't amazing, and they are getting a bit too big for their boots?

No...anyone?

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!

[urlhttp://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/officials-attacks-kill-iraqi-capital-22787366[/url

February!

[urlhttp://world.time.com/2014/03/01/u-n-iraq-killed-february/[/url

Possibly a bit like yours appears to be: 'grunt, grunt – let's how how macho we are by sending some[i 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.

Another obvious piece of hypocrisy from the West - how come the E.U and U.S supported Kosovo attempts at breaking away from Serbia yet won't allow the same for Crimea breaking away from Ukraine?

I still can't wrap my head around the fact our government happily supports a new regime in Ukraine that violently ousted a democratically elected president - if anybody dared do the same in a Western democracy I'm pretty sure troops would be gunning down protesters and and many others would be rounded up and given life imprisonment!

Also regarding RT. Obviously it's biased towards the Russian states viewpoint but our media is so skewed the other way you have to watch both versions of the story to attempt to scramble some truth out of it all.

In my view a democratically elected, albeit corrupt government that leaned towards Russia was violently ousted by a surge of popular anger harnessed by corrupt Neo-Liberal Elites who lean towards the West and opportunist Neo-Nazi's. First we side with Al-Qaeda in Syria now we are helping Neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, you couldn't make this madness up.

Also, regarding the sniper killings in Kiev.

The new regime wants the deposed President charged with war crimes over the killings in Kiev. As far as I'm aware they have offered no evidence to support these allegations. Russia however produced a tape where Western political leaders discuss the probability of the attacks actually having been arranged by current members of the new regime. Russia has demanded the shootings be investigated but Ukraine's government has fallen silent about the incident since the leaked tape emerged.

I also notice that the tapes never really got much coverage on TV over here.

I was watching RT the other day and there was footage of one of their reporters showing a bullet hole in a window where he alleges he was sniped at whilst trying to film the confrontation in the city centre. He also had footage (shown) of one of the protesters running away from the confrontation with a sniper rifle in his hand.

Why did people riot when the poll tax was introduced rather than just wait to vote Labour in the next election?

Democracy is more than just an elected dictatorship where citizens vote for a government that is then able to act as it wishes for 4-5 years. The purpose of democratic government is to uphold individual liberty and represent its citizens. Governments must represent the electorate at all time, not merely at election time. When a government departs from the promises that it was elected on or aligns itself against public opinion or acts in a way that threatens individual liberty it loses it legitimacy and right to govern.

The government in Egypt was passing illiberal laws that were persecuting minorities, eroding women's rights, undermining the freedom of the press amongst other things. It was implementing the beginnings of a dictatorship. The Egyptians who had only recently given their lives to overthrow one dictatorship were not keen on seeing it replaced with a new one. Unlike many British commentators they actually grasp the concept of democracy i.e. as a guarantor of freedom and rule of the people, rather than fetishing putting a cross in a box.

Iraq was not a sovereign state. A nation is only sovereign in any meaningful sense of the word when it is governed by the people. Iraq was governed by a dictatorship that massacred hundreds of thousands of its own citizens, supported terrorism and had launched a series of brutal wars against its neighbours. One legal authority said the war was illegal, others said it was legal. The UN did not pass a resolution condemning the invasion and indeed after Saddam was removed from power it passed a resolution legitimising the invasion. There is no case to suggest it was an illegal war.

Ukraine on the otherhand is led by a government approved by an elected parliament. The previous president was ejected from power by the elected parliament, as its is prerogative under the Ukrainian constitute. Given that it is led by a democratic government which will be either approved or removed in the upcoming elections, it is a sovereign nation in the truest sense of the word. Ukraine does not threaten its neighbours nor does it sponsor terrorism.

Therefore the West is not being hypocritical at all. In both Iraq and Ukraine it is standing up for democracy.

Ah, Iraq. Yes, certainly nobody can dispute the title of the world's most democratic country with which that country has now been endowed.