ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +
MARCH 2014

Western Ukrainians took to the streets protesting a recent deal by their (legally?) elected pro Russian president with Russia.  Their government resigned.  The protesters and their western supporters demanded the President's resignation and early elections.  The President, supported by Putin, said no.  Violence escalated until a few dozen protesters were shot, whereupon the President fled.

An interim, western (pro Euro) government was formed.  It promptly put out "wanted" notices for the ex-president for murder.  Crimea was taken over by Russian soldiers posing as "patriots", and a vote on the region's future as part of Russia is planned for mid March 2014.   The Euro-US bloc objects to partition, saying it is against all sorts of treaties that the Russians have signed.  Putin has retorted that the constitution of the UN did not stop the partition of Serbia. 

I have spoken before on the issue of creating new states.  If the people of a state have irreconcilable differences, (or even distaste) what should be done?  Majority (democratic) rule is not always the answer.  Secession has happened in Serbia, Sudan, Pakistan, Singapore, Israel, Chechen, Timor to name a few.  It is a better solution than the continuing killing that goes on.  But there are powerful interests that resist secession.  Politicians seem to take it as a personal insult if some of their subjected population should want independence of their rule.  Examples are Scotland, Kurdistan, Basque, Canada, and (from time to time) various states of the USA.

How can we object to a peaceful plebiscite by Crimeans on partition?  And if the vote is for partition, how can we object?


This blog is a guess at the fate of a Malaysian airliner Boeing 777 that went missing.

Consider the following geopolitical facts:
So the facts indicate that flight MH370 was flying somewhere inside a sector centred on Kuala Lumpur, with a maximum range that would take it to Kazakhstan in the North, in an arc stretching down through a few other "?stans", through Iran and the Indian ocean down into the South Indian ocean. All are inside the range determined by the fuel.

Based on the 9/11 experience, a gang of at least five seems to be required to take over an aircraft.  Since installing lockable cabin doors, fewer than five might be needed.

So my explanation.  A group of about five or less Muslims were trained and advised on covert procedures.  They took over the aircraft (protesting something?).  They flew to Iran expecting a hero's welcome.

They did not meet the welcome they expected.  The Iranians were trying to be friends to the West.  If the facts were revealed, they would have had (as good global citizens) to immediately return the hostages, and arrest and execute the Hijackers.

But remember.  Iran is a leader of revolutionary Islam.  How could the Iranian people allow trial of those heroes?

OK.  So here is the solution.  Iran should tell the world