cont'd ...

Dear SteeleRedux,

It is worth remembering that -
"Substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons, including the
"delivery systems," were stationed in the Ukrainian
territory when the Soviet Union collapsed, and were under
the control of the newly emerged Ukraine. The "western powers"
were anxious to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons
and wanted to destroy them. As Russia was regarded as a
"reliable", big power, it was put to the Ukrainians that
they should surrender their nuclear weapons to Russia to
deal with the destruction."

"This was regarded as a reduction of nuclear danger to all
"western powers." As it did nothing to reduce the danger to
Ukraine, Ukraine was guaranteed its security in return for
their willingness to surrender peacefully their arsenal.
Yes. Ukraine did hand over their nuclear arsenal to Russia."

"Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV
program in Moscow that reminded in threatening tone
that Russia "was the only power able to destroy
New York and other American cities, leaving behind
only radio active ashes?"

"It is worth noting that it was shown at the same time as
the invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops."

Russia culpable? - you betcha!

Foxy you have to break your addiction to MSM as they are cunsumate liars. Russia always had a military base in Crimea. They have not invaded the Ukraine.

It is the West that wants to put Missile defence bases in the Ukraine. It is the West that has broken a long standing agreement that dates back to the cold war of Russia leaving East Germany on the proviso of no nukes in Poland etc.

Russia and China do not need war as they can win the peace by having their own BRICS bank free of Western Central Banker's debt. Do you not yet understand how global power plays work ?

SR,

No, the information you have provided does not support in any way "he related how it took our defense chiefs nearly three days to talk Abbott out of putting up to 3,000 armed Australian troops on the ground in the Ukraine."

All there you have provided, or that I could find, indicates that Australia's intention was to contribute unarmed, personnel to an international effort to secure the site consisting mostly of police personnel with a possibility of "some" military personnel. Note that 90 unarmed police were sent over and no troops.

As for 3,000 armed Australian troops on the ground in the Ukraine, all I can say is that it sounds like another flimsy beat up and that either Carr was lying or you were.

SM,

We all know that Abbott if champing at the bit to involve Australia in international disputes...for electoral advantage.

Paul Kelly:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/leader-for-a-more-dangerous-world/story-e6frg74x-1227022252877

"Abbott’s every instinct is to deploy Australian military and police assets and he needs to be persuaded by his advisers from such options."

"Abbott said later there was “very strong circumstantial evidence” the plane was shot down by Russian-backed rebels using equipment “supplied by Russia.” He wants to know “the precise circumstances,” who gave the orders, if possible bring individuals to trial but, if not, take action against Russia. He said the world believes Russia has a “heavy degree of responsibility” for the atrocity.

In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site in conjunction with 1000 Dutch troops. Nothing better testifies to his outrage at the event and his keenness to deploy Australian assets in a cause that affected Australians. This option remained on the table for a few days.

It was never going to be viable. Yet debate around this idea continued before the Prime Minister was talked around and decided it was too dangerous and inappropriate an option. Putting Australian troops into that highly charged situation would have been far too risky.

Yet it offers insights into Abbott’s approach to military issues: he is impatient with limitations relating to logistics and deployment. When Australians are involved Abbott wants to make a difference as soon as possible."

Dear Arjay,

Russia maintained a naval base in Crimea as part
of an agreement when the Ukraine gained its
independence from the Soviet Union. As was the
case with a naval base in Lithuania (Kalingrad),
which was a part of Lithuania. As in Kalingrad,
the Russians occupied the whole region, and
insisted on an "agreement" for unobstructed
military traffic from Russia to Kalingrad through
Lithuanian lands. In the case of Crimea - they simply
occupied the entire peninsula an area half the size
of Tasmania. It appears now they are attempting to
link Crimea via coastal areas of Ukraine being
occupied by Russian separatists.

Those are the historical facts emanating from the
respective occupied regions.

Historically Russia has always persisted in expansionism
by occupying productive lands to sustain their empire
of "Greater Russia." If they want something they simply
take it and the West has never made a serious attempt
to stop them. Putin denies that There are Russian
tanks in the Ukraine despite the satellite photographs
that clearly shows movement across the borders and pictures
of the tanks. Sanctions won't work with Russia. They will
simply take what they need - as was the case of Soviet
expansion after World War II resulting in the "cold war."
Meaning - "we won't do anything if you don't do anything."

As George Bernard Shaw once said in a cynical way, "The
only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn
anything from history."

Dear Poirot,

Thank you for the words from the Australian which is very much a right leaning newspaper, and to have that assessment from Paul Kelly really does give weight to Bob Carr's perspective.

This was also a frightening concession;

“THE cycle of events means Tony Abbott is now vesting a huge amount of time, energy and cabinet deliberations in his prime ministerial role as national security guardian, a task that fuses his moral fervour with political gain.”

I'm not quite sure what I am more afraid of, Abbott's 'moral fervour' or his 'fervour for political gain', especially when there are Australian lives at stake.

Dear SM,

Given Paul Kelly's words I am prepared to concede the 3,000 may have been Bob referring to the combined forces planned on being dispatched. I did not write any of this down nor as yet has there been any audio of the event posted. But regardless I think the point still stands, Abbott wanted to put a serious number of armed Australian troops into a war zone, into harm's way and with a grave risk of inflaming tensions in the area.