Firstly how can we legitimately back the new regime when they overthrew a democratically elected government? I'm sure the President was corrupt to the core but I believe our own government is also corrupt to the core so can I now use force to overthrow Cameron's regime?

Secondly how can John Kerry and others keep a straight face when they scold Russia for interfering in a sovereign nation? All we've seem to do in the past ten years is get involved in the affairs of other sovereign states, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

Surely I can't be the only poster sick to the back teeth of the hypocrisy shown by our so called leaders?

Didn't the Ukrainian parliament remove the President?
I don't believe any force was used. The democratically elected parliament acted to remove one government and replace it with another.


Whilst there is some hypocrisy, and they should as professional politicians have chosen better words, the alternative is that we say and do nothing.
Ukraine needs "big" nations on its side. Despite our world position and power not being what it once was we are still a relatively powerful country and I'd rather we used our influence and power to help nations like Ukraine.
And the US is a nation (probably the only nation) who can still frighten Russia if it really wanted to.

Days of rioting and violent confrontation between protesters and police that left around 100 dead, the fact that live rounds were reportedly fired by both sites. Government buildings stormed, a democratically elected President fleeing the country in fear of his life. Now protesters calling for 'revolutionary justice' upon the former president and his political aides. How can you suggest that the President was democratically removed? The vote you mentioned was just a formality after the event.

Apparently we signed something to say the UK guarantees Ukraine's borders. So Camoron can start a war with Russia far more legitimately than Blair did with Iraq. I'm off to start polishing me boots.

China are backing Russia, so I guess that's us out of the sabre rattling equation.

Quisling. We can take 'em all.

It seems that quite a lot of the 'rebels' are from fascist or far-right nation it's parties, including some now installed in government.

Let's see what happens.

Yes there is hypocrisy. Let's suppose Scotland gains independence but the rest of the UK secures an 300 informal lease on Faslane and a 40 mile radius area around it. The base is staffed by English who settle there and Scots. In 60 years time a violent revolution overthrows the Scottish government and the streets of Glasgow are full of armed militias of various political factions, many of then spouting anti-English rheotoric. No what do you think the Westminster government's response would be? We are currently led to believe it would be to respect Scottish sovereignity and negotiate with someone and not to secure the third generation English folks safety and the base!

Watching an old Who Wants to be a Millionaire on Challenge TV last night and one of the questions was which country is known as the Mother of Russia? Answer: Ukraine. So, no historic interests there then.

On a wider point, I recall posting on here when Obama was elected it would make the world a more dangerous place as he would be a weak leader.

So you'd prefer a president who takes instructions from his god and waltzes his troops into any old non-christian country at the drop of a hat, because that makes the world a safer place ?

Well Russia has just tested a ICB missile, arguably to stick two fingers up to threats of sanctions, etc.

Russian stock market fell by 11% after the troops moved in and Rouble is falling also. As Putin and his bully boy oligarch chums are only interested in siphoning off as much cash out of Russia as they can he's just devalued his own and his mates assetts considerably. If he keeps losing his backers money then Putin will be the one with the polonium glow as his organs disolve.
Here's hoping.

Obama's indecisiveness significantly weakens the USA.

All this 'red line' over Syria and 'there will be costs' over Ukraine. It's all just empty threats. He knows it and everyone else knows it.

Saw a video a few days ago posted where Obama was taking the mickey out of Romney during one of the presidential debates because Romney suggested Russia was still the biggest threat (or words to that effect). He's probably not taking the michael now.

Personally, I think the biggest hypocrite in this whole thing is Putin, who spouts nonsense about looking after the rights of Russians, while at the same time he goes about persecuting minorities in his own country, simply because he is a homophobe.

Maybe he doesn't wish Russia to make the same mistakes and suffer the same moral decline as the West?

... So homosexuality = moral decline??

Some people consider so.

Well Russia didn't suffer from flooding. They got the Winter Olympics and a slightly larger country.
Obviously Putin's is the way to go.

Its well known that those who rail against homosexuality are actually doing so to hide the fact that they themselves are attracted to people of the same sex - Putin is a prime example and I'd hazard a guess that you are having difficulties surpressing your own sexual urges?

That lazy old, childish chestnut! It's irrelevant whether or not I am gay. I have no control over other people's thoughts.

Because absolutely the best way to stop anyone siezing all the money in your bank account is to fire a missile at the country where your bank is and where you park your superyacht and where you own all your property and where all your rich countrymen like to party it up, etc...etc...etc.

It's more a case of showing how weak and inept Obama et al are - they are always playing catch up with Putin. He's constantly got them on the run.

Well, apparently the test was planned months ago anyway

As was all this trouble in Ukraine