Russian Women Discussion
RWD News From the Front => Russian Front Discussion => Topic started by: fathertime on January 04, 2015, 12:44:31 PM
-
I was reflecting on the timeline of the current crisis. If I recall after Russia took over Crimea, there was a window where the Western nations could have for various reasons accepted the seizure (while holding nose), as I would have suggested. Instead we (The West) began to impose sanctions, and threats. Had we accepted what Russia had done, and immediately encouraged Ukraine to do the same, while supporting the Eastern regions, would it have ended there? Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine? Or is Russia merely imposing costs on the Western interference, and ratcheting up the costs by increasing their boundaries in the Eastern parts of Ukraine? It appears that some of the posters familiar with the situation are accepting that Crimea is likely Russian now. If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals? I've noticed the more we have intervened the larger the region Russia has moved towards (imposed costs). Further long-term costs are potentially on the international stage regarding less trading in dollars and a stronger alliance between Russia and China.
Just another way to look at the situation!
Fathertime!
-
Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine?
Yes.
If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals?
No. In fact, it would have emboldened Russia even more than it is right now. The fact is, Crimea was seized contrary to international law, including memoranda and treaties Russia had agreed to honour. I don't doubt the majority of Crimeans would have voted, in a legal referendum, to join Russia. The manner in which the action took place is the issue, not the outcome.
-
As I mentioned recently, the position of Crimea might be the key to solving the conflict.
Russia has as much desire to take te Donbass area as the people there have to join Russia, which means only as last resort.
But as soon as this would be solved, attention would shift to Crimea meaning that continuation is necessary until either Crimea is completely independent from Ukrainian resources, or is recognized by all to be Russian.
A return of Crimea to Ukraine is as likely as Yanukovich being re-elected president.
-
Yes on the return of Crimea. However, Russia should not be rewarded for flouting international law. Plus, Crimea is going to be used as a staging ground for Russia to destabilize and interfere in Ukraine. For those reasons, sanctions need to remain in place.
-
Yes on the return of Crimea. However, Russia should not be rewarded for flouting international law. Plus, Crimea is going to be used as a staging ground for Russia to destabilize and interfere in Ukraine. For those reasons, sanctions need to remain in place.
If you feel the cost of human lives is worth it, keep the sanctions.
-
The cost of human lives will not be lessened by removing sanctions.
-
The cost of human lives will not be lessened by removing sanctions.
On the contrary, a complete resolution of the situation will save many human lives. That is, if you consider russian lives to be human.
-
The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.
Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.
-
The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.
Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.
Political interference may not stop just as Western interference will not stop. Yet I am certain that when played right a recognition of Crimea would be the right incentive to stop the civil war and maintain the integrity of Ukraine.
In a situation woth more friendly relations Crimea would be the perfect place to establish a zone of liberal trade and visa-free visiting, making it an area that could attract wide interest.
But as usual I am for a postive scenario where the need to have enemies in the world is absent.
-
A plan for Crimea was discussed yesterday, with timely input by Mendy, starting here:
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18230.msg386588#msg386588
-
Yes.
No. In fact, it would have emboldened Russia even more than it is right now. The fact is, Crimea was seized contrary to international law, including memoranda and treaties Russia had agreed to honour. I don't doubt the majority of Crimeans would have voted, in a legal referendum, to join Russia. The manner in which the action took place is the issue, not the outcome.
From what I've read, and many have acknowledged here, Russia had the ability to swoop right in and simply seize large parts of E. Ukraine while the country was in chaos (if they wanted to), and yet they chose not to, but they did choose to in Crimea. If their goal from the onset was to completely control regions in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine, why didn't they just do it all at once, instead of going about it in a way that is bound to be far less effective? It could be contended that they are merely imposing costs as the conflict goes based on each step we take.
Order of things from this POV might be:
1. Western influence helps take down Pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine
2. Russia retaliates by seizing Crimea
3 Western nations strike back by supporting Ukraine and sanctions on Russia
4. Russia retaliates by helping to create more havoc in Eastern Parts of Ukraine.
If this is the stance Russia has taken, then we have control to end this....or we have the option to take it further but it appears Russia will continue to retaliate.
Fathertime!
-
The cost of human lives in Donbas (which I assume is what you were referring to) will not be changed by accepting Crimea as part of Russia.
I think that statement is not an absolute..
Russian interference in Ukraine's internal matters will not stop merely because Crimea is accepted as part of Russia.
Maybe, maybe not. I think that Russia will always attempt to maintain some influence. But had we accepted Crimea at first, that may have stopped the sequence. It appears what we have done has exacerbated the situation.
Fathertime!
-
As I mentioned recently, the position of Crimea might be the key to solving the conflict.
Russia has as much desire to take te Donbass area as the people there have to join Russia, which means only as last resort.
But as soon as this would be solved, attention would shift to Crimea meaning that continuation is necessary until either Crimea is completely independent from Ukrainian resources, or is recognized by all to be Russian.
A return of Crimea to Ukraine is as likely as Yanukovich being re-elected president.
In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas. Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is.
-
The OP persists in showing his ignorance--be it deliberate misrepresenting,ignorance or just plain id.....c is another question.
Fact are that Russia was extremely active in interfering and attempting to control Ukraine prior to Maidan.
In the immediate aftermath Russian provocateurs were extremely active in attempting to raise discontent all over Ukraine-- that is fact --not some wild highly unlikely explanation of what occurred.
None of this was some spontaneous piece of opportunism--it was planned and implemented long before the demise of Yanukovych.
Any idea that the east was a local uprising is clearly ridiculous-- events prove that-- and despite that we have posters in this thread still trying to tell us that black is white!!
As far as Crimea situation-- currently the Russians are busy making Sevastopol a closed city within the Crimea-with it's own borders. Many potential explanations-- perhaps they are thinking they will lose Crimea and be able to keep Sevastopol?
If this thinking is on the Russian agenda--it is interesting in itself-they are smelling defeat and still think they can negotiate to their advantage.
As for comments her about ending the war--it would end the second Russia removes its troops from Ukrainian territory and respected the borders that it agreed to protect for Ukraine.
-
As far as Crimea situation-- currently the Russians are busy making Sevastopol a closed city within the Crimea-with it's own borders. Many potential explanations--
Jay I think you are hyperventilating again. If Russia is up to something in Sevastopol it could be Nuclear. The chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back within 5 years is extremely slim. If I were a betting man I would certainly bet against that.
Soviet Russia beat the Nazi's there and prior to that they beat the combined efforts of Britain, France and Turkey and yet you really think that Ukraine by herself is going to get the barnacles out of there? Or do you want to start WWIII like lordtiberius does?
-
The OP persists in showing his ignorance--be it deliberate misrepresenting,ignorance or just plain id.....c is another question.
Apparently the set events I've proposed does set well with poor lonely (and sometimes ignorant) JayH! I'm not surprised although I'm not seeing the timeline disputed.
Fact are that Russia was extremely active in interfering and attempting to control Ukraine prior to Maidan.
In the immediate aftermath Russian provocateurs were extremely active in attempting to raise discontent all over Ukraine-- that is fact --not some wild highly unlikely explanation of what occurred.
None of this was some spontaneous piece of opportunism--it was planned and implemented long before the demise of Yanukovych.
Although some of these statements may be at least be in part true, I don't think they are relevant to the point I made earlier. Of course Russia would have planned for all contingencies and attempted to exert influence over Ukraine, as the nation is/was very important to them. Duhhhhhh!
Fathertime!
-
Jay I think you are hyperventilating again. If Russia is up to something in Sevastopol it could be Nuclear. The chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back within 5 years is extremely slim. If I were a betting man I would certainly bet against that.
Soviet Russia beat the Nazi's there and prior to that they beat the combined efforts of Britain, France and Turkey and yet you really think that Ukraine by herself is going to get the barnacles out of there? Or do you want to start WWIII like lordtiberius does?
Not close to what I was saying here.
My point here was that Russia could be preparing alternatives for itself-- to get what is most important to it at the negotiating table.
There have been discussions going on for some time between US and Russia over Ukraine(months not days)-- as you may guess I am underwhelmed at the idea of conceding anything to Russia--but realities say that anything that stops the loss of Ukrainian lives needs consideration.
To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea.That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war. Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level. The only thing that a bully will respond to is self preservation-- and that is the issue that needs driving into Russian heads is that they are are going to lose here--one way or another.
-
"In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas. Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is."
Seriously? You think the conflict has noting to do with Russia or Ukraine and you want to blame it on let me guess - Liechtenstein?? Yup, certainly looks like that way, why there's not a bit of evidence that Russia wants to acquire more territory like it did with Crimea, oh and Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well, not a bit, but Liechtenstein, they're definitely behind the whole thing, and RT has lots of videos that say this, so it must be true, because they've repeated this over and over and over and over and over... ... yeah Liechtenstein that's the ticket!
-
From what I've read, and many have acknowledged here, Russia had the ability to swoop right in and simply seize large parts of E. Ukraine while the country was in chaos (if they wanted to), and yet they chose not to, but they did choose to in Crimea. If their goal from the onset was to completely control regions in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine, why didn't they just do it all at once, instead of going about it in a way that is bound to be far less effective? It could be contended that they are merely imposing costs as the conflict goes based on each step we take.
Order of things from this POV might be:
1. Western influence helps take down Pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine
2. Russia retaliates by seizing Crimea
3 Western nations strike back by supporting Ukraine and sanctions on Russia
4. Russia retaliates by helping to create more havoc in Eastern Parts of Ukraine.
If this is the stance Russia has taken, then we have control to end this....or we have the option to take it further but it appears Russia will continue to retaliate.
Fathertime!
You are assuming Russia thought that using proxies would be far less effective. But it isn't. Russia could overtake Ukraine militarily, but it would not be able to maintain that without significant human, and financial, capital.
Unlike Crimea, nowhere else in Ukraine does a majority population (anywhere in Ukraine) support Russia. It would make the US invasion of Iraq look like a cake walk.
-
"In my understanding this conflict has nothing to do with certain areas. Russia and Ukraine are not interested in keeping fighting, but somebody else is."
Seriously? You think the conflict has noting to do with Russia or Ukraine and you want to blame it on let me guess - Liechtenstein?? Yup, certainly looks like that way, why there's not a bit of evidence that Russia wants to acquire more territory like it did with Crimea, oh and Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well, not a bit, but Liechtenstein, they're definitely behind the whole thing, and RT has lots of videos that say this, so it must be true, because they've repeated this over and over and over and over and over... ... yeah Liechtenstein that's the ticket!
If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else. The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.
-
If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else. The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.
No it would not have. There is no "goal" to "defeat" Russia. Moreover, Russia is defeating itself.
-
Doll, you need to speak with some Ukrainians. They see Crimea differently from you. You're brainwashed. Americans do not want to defeat Russia. Ukrainians want to defeat Russia. There are Russian invaders in their country. Russia wants Donbas, just like they wanted Crimea. Barbaric.
-
You are assuming Russia thought that using proxies would be far less effective. But it isn't. Russia could overtake Ukraine militarily, but it would not be able to maintain that without significant human, and financial, capital.
Interesting, so if i'm reading you right you are saying that the Russian use of proxies has been effective.
Unlike Crimea, nowhere else in Ukraine does a majority population (anywhere in Ukraine) support Russia. It would make the US invasion of Iraq look like a cake walk.
Unlike many others here, from the beginning, I thought a large scale invasion wasn't very likely. Reason being, that I felt an occupation of a large part of Ukraine was not very feasible. It may be that the Russians feel their hand is being forced with the sanctions and are going to continue to help stir up trouble so long as the West continues to ratchet up. I continue to hold that they are not backing down, so throwing them a bone or two seems like a good way to move forward, and minimize the damage...although that doesn't necessarily have to happen today or tomorrow. Of course another option is to never stop the current way of handling things and take our chances that something doesn't get much more ugly, but I think it likely would.
Fathertime!
-
Fathertime: Your theory perhaps fails to fully recognise Russian strategy, which historically, in general terms, has often been very good (terrible executioners but great strategists). Crimea excepted, a simple military walk-in-takeover, which as you say, militarily, was relatively simple, would not be as saleable to the nationalistic audience.
The current quagmire of Eastern UA is working very well for RU strategists (again, great strategists, terrible executioners) because it is allowing, perhaps even fuelling, the demonization, of "these crazy UA people" in RU circles and convincing the same that USA is far more involved than it probably is - perhaps even allowing time for the latter to become more so.
On the nationalistic bent, it is interesting to observe even my wife and some of her friends, who are all quite well educated, most having lived and worked abroad for many years (quite similar to some we've seen here), clam up and admit that the only real feeling in the sickness of their stomach is that America is somehow at the bottom of this and then in the same breath admit that the fact they feel this way points to them not having matured much beyond soviet thinking even yet....
I contend the current "strategy" is near perfect - the execution is extremely expensive in human capital but I don't think that was ever a consideration, nor has it ever been in Russian military history.
-
To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea. That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war. Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level. The only thing that a bully will respond to is self preservation-- and that is the issue that needs driving into Russian heads is that they are going to lose here--one way or another.
You are completely deluded. When Ukraine began to win against the separatists in E. Ukraine Russia sent in their regular Army guys and there was a massacre of Ukrainian soldiers. Poroshenko immediately pressed for a cease-fire and that brings us to where we are today.
Yet you persist in thinking that Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea. Completely delusional thinking.
-
Fathertime: Your theory perhaps fails to fully recognise Russian strategy, which historically, in general terms, has often been very good (terrible executioners but great strategists). Crimea excepted, a simple military walk-in-takeover, which as you say, militarily, was relatively simple, would not be as saleable to the nationalistic audience.
The current quagmire of Eastern UA is working very well for RU strategists (again, great strategists, terrible executioners) because it is allowing, perhaps even fuelling, the demonization, of "these crazy UA people" in RU circles and convincing the same that USA is far more involved than it probably is - perhaps even allowing time for the latter to become more so.
On the nationalistic bent, it is interesting to observe even my wife and some of her friends, who are all quite well educated, most having lived and worked abroad for many years (quite similar to some we've seen here), clam up and admit that the only real feeling in the sickness of their stomach is that America is somehow at the bottom of this and then in the same breath admit that the fact they feel this way points to them not having matured much beyond soviet thinking even yet....
I contend the current "strategy" is near perfect - the execution is extremely expensive in human capital but I don't think that was ever a consideration, nor has it ever been in Russian military history.
Hey I/O, You bring up some great points, and may be right. Clearly history has shown that Russia is willing to lose men in battle if that is what they need to do get what they want...whereas here in the states we start losing support pretty quick when our soldiers start dying. So based on how I've read your post, this time that is elapsing is a necessary part of Russia's strategy as it allows the populace to ferment so to speak, and then at some point will be or support the 'catalyst' when they go in 4-square with the populace fully behind the move. Interesting.
Fathertime!
-
when they go in 4-square
That may or may not happen.
-
If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else.
Classic example of victim Russian mentality.
The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.
Never underestimate the power of global capitalism.
-
You are completely deluded. When Ukraine began to win against the separatists in E. Ukraine Russia sent in their regular Army guys and there was a massacre of Ukrainian soldiers. Poroshenko immediately pressed for a cease-fire and that brings us to where we are today.
Yet you persist in thinking that Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea. Completely delusional thinking.
I am deluded--I dont think so--given I never said what you alledge--read what I said-- "escalated" --meaning in the context of YOUR WW3 comment-- escalated = meaning more than Ukraine involved--really-- you said it--I commented in that context.Nowhere did I say"Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea." I expressed no view on that issue.Read the sequence of posts.
Really AC-- you have looked at a post and added 2 + 2 to = 33 about 1/2 a dozen times now--is it necessary to spell every comment out to you? I don't think it is-- but please read the words in context.
Your comments on actions are not accurate either-fact is the Russians have got the coffin home in far greater numbers-fact not fiction.The action you refer to was where Ukrainian troops that were encircled and were slaughtered when they thought they had a truce.
As far as Crimea situation-- currently the Russians are busy making Sevastopol a closed city within the Crimea-with it's own borders. Many potential explanations-- perhaps they are thinking they will lose Crimea and be able to keep Sevastopol?
If this thinking is on the Russian agenda--it is interesting in itself-they are smelling defeat and still think they can negotiate to their advantage.
As for comments her about ending the war--it would end the second Russia removes its troops from Ukrainian territory and respected the borders that it agreed to protect for Ukraine.
Jay I think you are hyperventilating again. If Russia is up to something in Sevastopol it could be Nuclear. The chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back within 5 years is extremely slim. If I were a betting man I would certainly bet against that.
Soviet Russia beat the Nazi's there and prior to that they beat the combined efforts of Britain, France and Turkey and yet you really think that Ukraine by herself is going to get the barnacles out of there? Or do you want to start WWIII like lordtiberius does?
Not close to what I was saying here.
My point here was that Russia could be preparing alternatives for itself-- to get what is most important to it at the negotiating table.
There have been discussions going on for some time between US and Russia over Ukraine(months not days)-- as you may guess I am underwhelmed at the idea of conceding anything to Russia--but realities say that anything that stops the loss of Ukrainian lives needs consideration.
To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea.That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war. Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level. The only thing that a bully will respond to is self preservation-- and that is the issue that needs driving into Russian heads is that they are are going to lose here--one way or another.
You are completely deluded. When Ukraine began to win against the separatists in E. Ukraine Russia sent in their regular Army guys and there was a massacre of Ukrainian soldiers. Poroshenko immediately pressed for a cease-fire and that brings us to where we are today.
Yet you persist in thinking that Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea. Completely delusional thinking.
In case you are not following--Related New Topic--
Birukov: «Cyborgs» destroyed Russian Special Forces group, militants and wounded two warlords
«Cyborgs» destroyed more than 50 militants who stormed the Donetsk airport. An advisor to the Minister of Defence Yutiy Birukov wrote about it on his Facebook page.
«Information from the Donetsk airport, 20:56 Monday (Kyiv time — ed.): all in all the rumours about a Russian Special Forces group are not rumours. Few dozens of «astronauts» had arrived and led organisms into an attack.
Now, if Russians will speak of us as of an inhospitable nations, don’t be surprised. According to an intercepted separatists’ radio conversation, 27 soldiers of the Russian Special Forces will go home this morning, in cosy body bags. About 25-30 of the locals organisms have also ended their life journey. Two warlords (that’s if one can call such scam a warlord) are wounded,» — wrote Birukov.
http://en.inforesist.org/birukov-cyborgs-destroyed-russian-special-forces-group-militants-and-wounded-two-warlords/
-
Five more loads of humiliated Russian tourists leave Ukraine! :clapping:
http://en.inforesist.org/5-vehicles-with-the-cargo-200-went-to-russia-from-the-luhansk-region/
-
I am deluded--I dont think so--given I never said what you alledge--read what I said-- "escalated" --meaning in the context of YOUR WW3 comment-- escalated = meaning more than Ukraine involved--really-- you said it--I commented in that context.Nowhere did I say"Ukraine could dislodge the Russian regular Army and special forces which are stationed all over Crimea." I expressed no view on that issue.Read the sequence of posts.
Really AC-- you have looked at a post and added 2 + 2 to = 33 about 1/2 a dozen times now--is it necessary to spell every comment out to you? I don't think it is-- but please read the words in context.
Your comments on actions are not accurate either-fact is the Russians have got the coffin home in far greater numbers-fact not fiction.The action you refer to was where Ukrainian troops that were encircled and were slaughtered when they thought they had a truce.
Jay I think I will let Robocop deal with you from now on. You really are deluded because you want to escalate this war and bring NATO into it and have them invade Crimea? Is that what you really want? That would indeed be the start of WWIII. Cuckoo!! :cluebat:
-
Jay I think I will let Robocop deal with you from now on. You really are deluded because you want to escalate this war and bring NATO into it and have them invade Crimea? Is that what you really want? That would indeed be the start of WWIII. Cuckoo!! :cluebat:
Like I said-- your comprehension skills are only marginally better that some or the truly deluded here.
If you are incapable of asking a question that does not attempt to attribute views not being expressed -- and when answered in the hypothetical you extend from there--in this case --the major point you miss is that in fact--I was advocating a way to avoid WW3.
To point out the even more obvious-- where did I say anything about Nato invading the Crimea? the answer--I did not.
If you choose to insist on believing lies--more fool you-- stick to the stupid yes it is/no it isnt type crap of the forum fools.
-
Like I said-- your comprehension skills are only marginally better that some or the truly deluded here.
If you are incapable of asking a question that does not attempt to attribute views not being expressed -- and when answered in the hypothetical you extend from there--in this case --the major point you miss is that in fact--I was advocating a way to avoid WW3.
To point out the even more obvious-- where did I say anything about Nato invading the Crimea? the answer--I did not.
If you choose to insist on believing lies--more fool you-- stick to the stupid yes it is/no it isnt type crap of the forum fools.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Blah blah blah blah. Yet here is the quote of General Jay, who claims he would call Putin's bluff.
To answer the question you allude to-- the Russians can and would be defeated in an escalated war-- including removing them from Sevastopol and the Crimea.That answer applies to a nuclear war or a more localised restricted war. Putin is bluffing-- and I would call his bluff--at any level.
-
Five more loads of humiliated Russian tourists leave Ukraine! :clapping:
http://en.inforesist.org/5-vehicles-with-the-cargo-200-went-to-russia-from-the-luhansk-region/ (http://en.inforesist.org/5-vehicles-with-the-cargo-200-went-to-russia-from-the-luhansk-region/)
Let us all cheer for people dying, hurrah hurrah.
-
But only for the invaders! :clapping:
-
The illicit invaders have earned their fate.
-
But only for the invaders! :clapping:
The illicit invaders have earned their fate.
May both of you share their fate.
-
Sooner or later we all will. No big deal.
They earned their fate by their actions.
BUT ours will be marked graves unlike theirs.
-
Sooner or later we all will. No big deal.
They earned their fate by their actions.
BUT ours will be marked graves unlike theirs.
Sure no big deal at all. I do hope everyone around you will be truly happy you died and not bother to mark your grave. After all that is what you wish for.
-
ROTFLMFAO!
You sure love to twist things around. :wallbash:
I've earned a marked grave and folks will mourn my passing.
Quite unlike the ones stacked like firewood in the trailers marked Cargo 200! They have died for a fictional reality that Putin alone sees.
-
ROTFLMFAO!
You sure love to twist things around. :wallbash:
I've earned a marked grave and folks will mourn my passing.
Quite unlike the ones stacked like firewood in the trailers marked Cargo 200! They have died for a fictional reality that Putin alone sees.
You have earned nothing at all. In fact you are clearly the lowest form of life around here.
I guess that due to the all and mighty Hollywood doctrine in which you so firmly believe any enemy death is to be cheered.
Only brainless Americans can truly believe such a thing.
You will never see me cheer for any loss of life in a war zone, regardless of which side they are on.
But I do cheer for people like you dying, as they deserve to become extinct like the barbaric dinosaurs they are.
-
You truly don't have a clue about much at all. :rolleyes:
-
You truly don't have a clue about much at all. :rolleyes:
The one who is clueless are you. If you can cheer about people dying, there is no hope for you.
-
You have earned nothing at all. In fact you are clearly the lowest form of life around here.
I guess that due to the all and mighty Hollywood doctrine in which you so firmly believe any enemy death is to be cheered.
Only brainless Americans can truly believe such a thing.
You will never see me cheer for any loss of life in a war zone, regardless of which side they are on.
But I do cheer for people like you dying, as they deserve to become extinct like the barbaric dinosaurs they are.
Hypocrite-- you have shown zero compassion or empathy for Russian scum killing good Ukrainians and now you have the temerity to lecture others on morality?
When you start respecting others--you may get some from others-- and you talk of the brainless!! You have wasted countless forum space in denying the bleeding blind obvious. :wallbash:
-
Hypocrite-- you have shown zero compassion or empathy for Russian scum killing good Ukrainians and now you have the temerity to lecture others on morality?
When you start respecting others--you may get some from others-- and you talk of the brainless!! You have wasted countless forum space in denying the bleeding blind obvious. :wallbash:
Tell where I have cheered about Ukrainians dying?
As for wasting forum space... how many posts did you make?
-
When the time comes that midget mongoloid prez better hope he gets buried in an unknown unmarked grave, otherwise his tombstone is sure to get p*ssed on and vandalised.
-
When the time comes that midget mongoloid prez better hope he gets buried in an unknown unmarked grave, otherwise his tombstone is sure to get p*ssed on and vandalised.
Do you really thing they would do that to your grave?
-
The one who is clueless are you. If you can cheer about people dying, there is no hope for you.
Surprising, isn't it? People cheering for the death of other human beings. Many forum members have family that are Russian and these guys would cheer at the thought of them dying.
Reminds me of images like this.
(http://cdn.ph.upi.com/collection/pv/upi/7058/0f48f86719d8e5ebb33c078a47f13793/Anti-American-attacks-protests-in-Middle-East_1_1.jpg)
-
It's not so much about the cheering for the dead ones as it is the Ukrainian lives spared because of their deaths.
If they had stayed in Russia and not invaded Ukraine they'd be breathing.
-
It's not so much about the cheering for the dead ones as it is the Ukrainian lives spared because of their deaths.
If they had stayed in Russia and not invaded Ukraine they'd be breathing.
Are you saying the Russians fighting have a say in where they go?
-
According to the Kremlin they volunteered to be there..
And everyone knows that they wouldn't lie! :rolleyes:
-
According to the Kremlin they volunteered to be there..
And everyone knows that they wouldn't lie! :rolleyes:
I take it you don't want to answer my question.
-
It's not so much about the cheering for the dead ones as it is the Ukrainian lives spared because of their deaths.
If they had stayed in Russia and not invaded Ukraine they'd be breathing.
And if you father had used a condom someone else would breathe your air.
Every loss of life in such a conflict is tragic, regardless if it is a boy from Lviv who got drafted to fight for Ukraine or a mercenary who chose to be there for the money it would bring his family. You can say that those who actively chose to participate took the risk, just as American soldiers going to Iraq take it. Still that does not give you the right to feel happy about their death.
-
And if you father had used a condom someone else would breathe your air.
And yet another personal attack.. I haven't said anything about you one way or the other..
You need to calm down and take a breather. :rolleyes:
-
And yet another personal attack.. I haven't said anything about you one way or the other..
You need to calm down and take a breather. :rolleyes:
As long as you cheer about russian deaths, I will continue to attack you.
-
And yet another personal attack.. I haven't said anything about you one way or the other..
You need to calm down and take a breather. :rolleyes:
If you had Russian family, wouldn't you take all the cheering for death and suffering of Russians a little personal as well? I am surprised this even has to be asked. Like I said, some of you guys remind me of the groups calling for American deaths.
-
Then have at it because it won't stop until they leave Ukraine for Ukrainians.
I tend to cheer for the home team. :clapping: :clapping:
-
My wife has family in Russia. That doesn't change the facts of the invasion.
-
Then have at it because it won't stop until they leave Ukraine for Ukrainians.
I tend to cheer for the home team. :clapping: :clapping:
I lived in Ukraine for roughly a year and a half. I love the place and hope for the best. I do not cheer for any more deaths or suffering.
It certainly isn't a game to me.
-
Then have at it because it won't stop until they leave Ukraine for Ukrainians.
I tend to cheer for the home team. :clapping: :clapping:
So be it. You will find out what you do wrong.
-
My wife has family in Russia. That doesn't change the facts of the invasion.
Well, hopefully they will suffer a lot so they can get their act straight, eh? Maybe even die! That will teach them for being born Russian.
-
In guess that you missed where I said that I don't cheer for the deaths of the Russians as much as I like/cheer for the fact that they won't cause any more Ukrainian deaths.
There is a direct correlation
-
In guess that you missed where I said that I don't cheer for the deaths of the Russians as much as I like/cheer for the fact that they won't cause any more Ukrainian deaths.
There is a direct correlation
Nope, I didn't miss anything including all the cheering for the economic collapse of Russia which will affect your family and many others.
-
In guess that you missed where I said that I don't cheer for the deaths of the Russians as much as I like/cheer for the fact that they won't cause any more Ukrainian deaths.
There is a direct correlation
If somethign happens to your family they will not be able to cause Ukrainian deaths. That should make you happy.
-
Nope, I didn't miss anything including all the cheering for the economic collapse of Russia which will affect your family and many others.
That will hasten the end of the war. The more economic problems in Russia the less they can spend on the invasion.. It's pretty simple..
If and when the Russians get tired of these problems the sooner that they will change the course of their government. Another Maidan may well shake things up in the Kremlin.
-
That will hasten the end of the war. The more economic problems in Russia the less they can spend on the invasion.. It's pretty simple..
If and when the Russians get tired of these problems the sooner that they will change the course of their government. Another Maidan may well shake things up in the Kremlin.
Ok then, I hope your family suffers greatly so they can change their government to what we think is best for them.
-
That will hasten the end of the war. The more economic problems in Russia the less they can spend on the invasion.. It's pretty simple..
If and when the Russians get tired of these problems the sooner that they will change the course of their government. Another Maidan may well shake things up in the Kremlin.
A full scale invasion and taking over of Ukraine will also end the war.
As for a Maidan in Russia, why should people blame the government for sanctions that the EU and US take? More hardship will only rise the support.
-
My family enjoys the change in the direction of the UA government, thank you.
They want Ukraine to chart it's own course in the world and not be directed by the Kremlin.
-
My family enjoys the change in the direction of the UA government, thank you.
They want Ukraine to chart it's own course in the world and not be directed by the Kremlin.
Do they believe that being directed by the EU is the same as chart it's own course?
-
A full scale invasion and taking over of Ukraine will also end the war.
As for a Maidan in Russia, why should people blame the government for sanctions that the EU and US take? More hardship will only rise the support.
Isn't that what is happening? From other forums, I have been hearing more American resentment blow back. Luckily, many Russians can differentiate politics from the average person unlike many here.
-
As for a Maidan in Russia, why should people blame the government for sanctions that the EU and US take?
Except for the minor detail that their governments actions have lead to these sanctions.. But it's easier to pass the blame where the Kremlin would rather it be huh? LOL.
" Ignore the man behind the curtain." :crackwhip:
-
That will hasten the end of the war. The more economic problems in Russia the less they can spend on the invasion.. It's pretty simple..
If and when the Russians get tired of these problems the sooner that they will change the course of their government. Another Maidan may well shake things up in the Kremlin.
So who do you think will tire of war first, Russians with economic problems or Ukrainians freezing?
-
Isn't that what is happening? From other forums, I have been hearing more American resentment blow back. Luckily, many Russians can differentiate politics from the average person unlike many here.
While America may be involved, in this case I blame Brussels more for the whole affair.
It is not a coincidence that the Euro has been losing a lot of vaue as well lately.
And guess what? It does not make any difference to daily life.
-
Except for the minor detail that their governments actions have lead to these sanctions.. But it's easier to pass the blame where the Kremlin would rather it be huh? LOL.
" Ignore the man behind the curtain." :crackwhip:
The actions were entirely logical for the Russian population. In fact even if they do not agree with the actions, most Western politicians can understand them.
-
By your definition then it's OK to attack your brother or family? :arguing: After all UA was the 'little brother' and you sanction the attack on UA by 'big brother' Russia. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
By your definition then it's OK to attack your brother or family? :arguing: After all UA was the 'little brother' and you sanction the attack on UA by 'big brother' Russia. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
If your little brother stabs you in the back because his gilfriend told him, should you sit and bleed to death?
-
Little brother was only walking out to door to explore the neighborhood when big brother did the back stabbing.
-
Little brother was only walking out to door to explore the neighborhood when big brother did the back stabbing.
Not at all. He just took an advance on his pocket money to date his new girl.
-
Not at all. He just took an advance on his pocket money to date his new girl.
LMAO, No that was the other brother that took the cash and ran out the door. Yanku was his name.. :crackwhip: Afterwards he gave little brothers cash to big brother and hid in his room.
-
LMAO, No that was the other brother that took the cash and ran out the door. Yanku was his name.. :crackwhip: Afterwards he gave little brothers cash to big brother and hid in his room.
It was the same little brother, before his girlfriend started telling him to do evil things.
-
No GF, he was tired of their advise/help. n He decided to go solo to avoid problems. Then big brother didn't like the idea of self determination.
-
No GF, he was tired of their advise/help. n He decided to go solo to avoid problems. Then big brother didn't like the idea of self determination.
Nope. the gf was involved. Self determination he had a long time.
-
Then have at it because it won't stop until they leave Ukraine for Ukrainians.
I tend to cheer for the home team. :clapping: :clapping:
Problem is that you cheer the fairy tales in Facebook, not the field game where the real performance is going on hidden from your eyes. By summer we'll see the real score.
Don't be supprised :)
-
And right back at you Belvis! :D
-
From what I've read, and many have acknowledged here, Russia had the ability to swoop right in and simply seize large parts of E. Ukraine while the country was in chaos (if they wanted to), and yet they chose not to, but they did choose to in Crimea. If their goal from the onset was to completely control regions in the Eastern Regions of Ukraine, why didn't they just do it all at once, instead of going about it in a way that is bound to be far less effective? It could be contended that they are merely imposing costs as the conflict goes based on each step we take.
Taking the region is one thing. Maintaining control is a completely different matter. Russia would have had to have dealt with a hostile population, and become even more of a pariah on the world stage than they are right now. That is why they did not invade Ukraine directly.
The goal is not to control region directly but rather, by proxies. Have they succeeded? Yes and no. Yes, in that the destabilization ensures Kyiv is focused on the war, and not on improving the country. No, because the region in turmoil has no power in Kyiv.
Order of things from this POV might be:
1. Western influence helps take down Pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine
2. Russia retaliates by seizing Crimea
3 Western nations strike back by supporting Ukraine and sanctions on Russia
4. Russia retaliates by helping to create more havoc in Eastern Parts of Ukraine.
If this is the stance Russia has taken, then we have control to end this....or we have the option to take it further but it appears Russia will continue to retaliate.
At some point, the sanctions will become too much for Russia, if the price of oil stays low, which will be the case at least until autumn.
-
Interesting, so if i'm reading you right you are saying that the Russian use of proxies has been effective.
To date in Donbas, yes, it has been. However, attempts to spread the conflict have not been successful.
Unlike many others here, from the beginning, I thought a large scale invasion wasn't very likely. Reason being, that I felt an occupation of a large part of Ukraine was not very feasible. It may be that the Russians feel their hand is being forced with the sanctions and are going to continue to help stir up trouble so long as the West continues to ratchet up. I continue to hold that they are not backing down, so throwing them a bone or two seems like a good way to move forward, and minimize the damage...although that doesn't necessarily have to happen today or tomorrow. Of course another option is to never stop the current way of handling things and take our chances that something doesn't get much more ugly, but I think it likely would.
On this we disagree. I think the best course is to continue sanctions until Russia is willing to stop funding terrorism in Donbas.
-
Fathertime: Your theory perhaps fails to fully recognise Russian strategy, which historically, in general terms, has often been very good (terrible executioners but great strategists). Crimea excepted, a simple military walk-in-takeover, which as you say, militarily, was relatively simple, would not be as saleable to the nationalistic audience.
The current quagmire of Eastern UA is working very well for RU strategists (again, great strategists, terrible executioners) because it is allowing, perhaps even fuelling, the demonization, of "these crazy UA people" in RU circles and convincing the same that USA is far more involved than it probably is - perhaps even allowing time for the latter to become more so.
On the nationalistic bent, it is interesting to observe even my wife and some of her friends, who are all quite well educated, most having lived and worked abroad for many years (quite similar to some we've seen here), clam up and admit that the only real feeling in the sickness of their stomach is that America is somehow at the bottom of this and then in the same breath admit that the fact they feel this way points to them not having matured much beyond soviet thinking even yet....
I contend the current "strategy" is near perfect - the execution is extremely expensive in human capital but I don't think that was ever a consideration, nor has it ever been in Russian military history.
I agree with all of the above.
-
On this we disagree. I think the best course is to continue sanctions until Russia is willing to stop funding terrorism in Donbas.
It appears your belief is that Russia will give in, and pull out when the going gets rougher...my belief is they will dig in. harden their tactics, and escalate and the body bags will mount.
Fathertime!
-
It appears your belief is that Russia will give in, and pull out when the going gets rougher...my belief is they will dig in. harden their tactics, and escalate and the body bags will mount.
Fathertime!
Then they will face even more sanctions.
-
Hypocrite-- you have shown zero compassion or empathy for Russian scum killing good Ukrainians and now you have the temerity to lecture others on morality?
When you start respecting others--you may get some from others-- and you talk of the brainless!! You have wasted countless forum space in denying the bleeding blind obvious. :wallbash:
It seems to me that YOU JayH, have behaved like the hypocrite and 'wasted forum space'. Your limited brain has failed to conceive that ultimately there will have to be a give on both sides to reach an agreement...and yeah your cheering for dead bodies is odious...and continues to further discredit whatever else you mutter about.
Fathertime!
-
Then they will face even more sanctions.
That may well be.
Fathertime!
-
Problem is that you cheer the fairy tales in Facebook, not the field game where the real performance is going on hidden from your eyes. By summer we'll see the real score.
Don't be supprised :)
Belvis, they don't understand the whole picture like you and I do.
-
If there are more sanctions that will be it- you know how stubborn Russians are. At that point they will no care at all.
Europe does not want any more (or any) sanctions. People are tired.
-
European leaders have stated the reason for sanctions is to change policy, not punish the Russian people. So, if behaviour changes, the sanctions may be lifted. If not, they won't be.
The Russian hinterlands may support Putin, but in time, the sanctions will have an effect because of the whammy of low oil prices.
-
European leaders have stated the reason for sanctions is to change policy, not punish the Russian people. So, if behaviour changes, the sanctions may be lifted. If not, they won't be.
The Russian hinterlands may support Putin, but in time, the sanctions will have an effect because of the whammy of low oil prices.
That is not the effect of the sanctions. Without sanctions the low oil prices would have effect as well.
The reason the EU is hesitant about sanctions is that they have been hit hard as well by the sanctions so far.
-
European leaders have stated the reason for sanctions is to change policy, not punish the Russian people. So, if behaviour changes, the sanctions may be lifted. If not, they won't be.
The Russian hinterlands may support Putin, but in time, the sanctions will have an effect because of the whammy of low oil prices.
Of course- not to punish
:D
-
There are statements by EU leaders suggesting more sanctions not be imposed now, despite Russian recalcitrance. That suggests the intent is not to punish.
-
My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.
-
That is not the effect of the sanctions. Without sanctions the low oil prices would have effect as well.
The reason the EU is hesitant about sanctions is that they have been hit hard as well by the sanctions so far.
The low oil prices have an effect, yes. The EU may be hit by sanctions, but for the most part, they seem willing to accept that.
-
The low oil prices have an effect, yes. The EU may be hit by sanctions, but for the most part, they seem willing to accept that.
And so is Russia.
-
My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.
Tell her I offer my apologies for offending her, and that I understand someone who has directly suffered from the conflict would have such feelings. It does not change my position, but I respect hers.
-
And so is Russia.
But at some point, Russia will not be willing to accept that double whammy. For what purpose? For Crimea, a region it will be subsidizing for a generation, at least? For Donbas? I don't think so.
-
Tell her I offer my apologies for offending her, and that I understand someone who has directly suffered from the conflict would have such feelings. It does not change my position, but I respect hers.
She thanks you for your graciousness. Would that Russia could exhibit the same.
-
She thanks you for your graciousness. Would that Russia could exhibit the same.
I am too hoping there can be a breakthrough that will allow Ukraine to start healing the wounds that this conflict has caused. It will take a long time.
-
It seems to me that YOU JayH, have behaved like the hypocrite and 'wasted forum space'. Your limited brain has failed to conceive that ultimately there will have to be a give on both sides to reach an agreement...
There is always some bending and giving. For example, Japan upon surrendering was allowed to keep its emperor. And the allies gave Nazis a trial before hanging them.
You are like a dog with a bone.
-
European leaders have stated the reason for sanctions is to change policy, not punish the Russian people. So, if behaviour changes, the sanctions may be lifted. If not, they won't be.
The Russian hinterlands may support Putin, but in time, the sanctions will have an effect because of the whammy of low oil prices.
Sine the EU is going down this path, the most likely way to change policy is to try to get the Russian people to turn against Putin, so I believe the sanctions are indeed to 'punish' the Russian people in the hopes they will blame their leadership. Despite the EU leaders obligatorily stating differently, I don't see how it can't be seen as punishment.
There are statements by EU leaders suggesting more sanctions not be imposed now, despite Russian recalcitrance. That suggests the intent is not to punish.
Maybe the sanctions aren't and future sanctions are not producing the effects intended?
Fathertime!
-
There is always some bending and giving. For example, Japan upon surrendering was allowed to keep its emperor. And the allies gave Nazis a trial before hanging them.
You are like a dog with a bone.
It is your prerogative to take the mental shortcut and think that this current situation is analogous to the Japanese or Nazi's.
You are like an grumpy old man who hasn't visited the toilet yet this week. :)
Fathertime!
-
That's GROSS!
-
Sine the EU is going down this path, the most likely way to change policy is to try to get the Russian people to turn against Putin, so I believe the sanctions are indeed to 'punish' the Russian people in the hopes they will blame their leadership. Despite the EU leaders obligatorily stating differently, I don't see how it can't be seen as punishment.
Fathertime!
Ever since Putin showed to be a trong leader the West has tried to change the regime. However the people they have tried to put forward have not captured the attention of the Russian population. One reason may be that Russians do not just get behind someone because he puts his face in the newpaper.
As for the current choice Navalny, can anyone outside of Russia (sorry Mendy) tell me what his ideology is, what his background, and why people should put trust in a person convicted for corruption to fight it.
There will be change, and Putin will arrange his defeat in a future election. But those taking over will not be the ones put forward by the West, but someone given a chance within the power structure that exists today.
-
Ever since Putin showed to be a trong leader the West has tried to change the regime.
Hey Shadow, I certainly don't disagree, as this is not the first time this has been raised in different locations around the world. Can you provide an example or two regarding Putin? In what ways has the West undermined Putin prior to this latest episode in Ukraine?
Thanks,
Fathertime!
-
You are like an grumpy old man who hasn't visited the toilet yet this week. :)
Believe me, you are a surrogate for a toilet. I feel better already.
-
Belvis, they don't understand the whole picture like you and I do.
Probably nobody can understand the whole picture. But at least we have access to first-hand info from the field, that makes harder manipulating us.
I remember as we saw the world during SU, they resemble me soviet citizens :)
-
Believe me, you are a surrogate for a toilet. I feel better already.
I don't believe you feel better actually.
It is best we confine you to toilet talk since you haven proven to be a little rusty (and crusty) on talking about the subject at hand! :D
Fathertime!
-
Hey Shadow, I certainly don't disagree, as this is not the first time this has been raised in different locations around the world. Can you provide an example or two regarding Putin? In what ways has the West undermined Putin prior to this latest episode in Ukraine?
Thanks,
Fathertime!
1. Constant pointing at a perceived lack of freedom of press
2. Constant rumurs of elections being fraudulent
3. On every untimely death of a publicly known person or journalist allegations of involvement of Putin
4. On every legal action against a publicly known person allegations of involvement of Putin
5. Putting forward several 'candidates' for presidency who got themselves arrested to obtain publicity
6. Painting nationalisim in Russia as 'Putins desire to return to Soviet times'.
Just a number of things that constantly enhaced the image of Putin as the 'new Tzar' and prepared Russia for retaking their role as 'enemy nr 1 of the free West', which was set in motion last year.
I certainly do not consider Putin to be holy, and he has knowingly put all negative attention on himself. However he is in no way alone, there is a team around him that has been working together for a long time, ant that is planning and educating the future.
Russia knows they have the option to retire Putin if the situation gets out of control. Retiring Putin may for the West seem like an opening for a new friendly area, for the Russians it will only be a return to the time where the power was invisible.
-
My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.
I 've not lived under her circumstanses but first- I don't care if she is disgusted by me, next- Russia didn't start it.
Let her blame Petro
-
Probably nobody can understand the whole picture. But at least we have access to first-hand info from the field, that makes harder manipulating us.
I remember as we saw the world during SU, they resemble me soviet citizens :)
\
Belvis, yes we can see the picture. Who gains from a long lasting conflict?
Then you know the whole picture.
Yes, The Americans resemble Soviet people- they believe news and you tube!!!!!!!
-
My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.
I'm glad your fiancee is safe. As for her being disgusted because I see no pleasure in people dying or suffering, that is her choice and has no bearing on my life nor my beliefs. I hope your/her public statement of outrage helps.
-
For Lugansk Fiancee from Russia with love))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gv7VqFzJWzg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gv7VqFzJWzg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv7VqFzJWzg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv7VqFzJWzg)
-
Your youtube link to a resident of Luhansk who has lost her home and her city, likely forever, is appalling.
-
\
Belvis, yes we can see the picture. Who gains from a long lasting conflict?
Then you know the whole picture.
Yes, The Americans resemble Soviet people- they believe news and you tube!!!!!!!
You see the picture from your tower.
The American people in no way resemble the Soviet people. Further, most Americans don't care about the conflict in Ukraine.
-
You see the picture from your tower.
The American people in no way resemble the Soviet people. Further, most Americans don't care about the conflict in Ukraine.
Actually tey do. During the inauguration of Obama I recall MrsShadow telling how it reminded her of Soviet leader installations.
The blind allegiange to the nation, putting the coutry above oneself and strong military symbolism were things that looked like the Soviet Union.
There are huge differences without any doubt, but when you see such displays on TV there is a strong resemblence.
-
Actually tey do. During the inauguration of Obama I recall MrsShadow telling how it reminded her of Soviet leader installations.
Given that almost half of Americans did not vote for Obama and many of those will never accept him as their president, and that the House of Representatives have tried to stymie almost everything he has proposed, including the appointment of his cabinet, I think the comparison is stretching it to an extreme.
The blind allegiange to the nation, putting the coutry above oneself and strong military symbolism were things that looked like the Soviet Union. There are huge differences without any doubt, but when you see such displays on TV there is a strong resemblence.
You can't take what you see on television and assume it represents reality on the ground. There is a lot of criticism of America, and its actions, among Americans. There never was in the USSR, unless you wanted to be jailed. Yes, Americans support their military, but they don't support all their country's military actions.
-
Actually tey do. During the inauguration of Obama I recall MrsShadow telling how it reminded her of Soviet leader installations.
The blind allegiange to the nationPresident, putting the coutry above oneself and strong military symbolism were things that looked like the Soviet Union.
There are huge differences without any doubt, but when you see such displays on TV there is a strong resemblence.
I would change blind allegiance to the nation to blind allegiance to the President. We have our own sheeple here in that regard who thinks that Obama walks on water and anytime someone criticizes Obama he resorts to implied racial insults.
In that regard he is very similar to Doll and Belvis getting upset when someone insults Putin. Of course the big glaring difference and the weakness in your theory is that in the USA there are multiple media outlets and multiple opinions. Mostly the USA is divided on red/blue lines whereas in Russia there is no real opposition.
-
We have our own sheeple here in that regard who thinks that Obama walks on water and anytime someone criticizes Obama he resorts to implied racial insults.
You mean Muzh. He has stated he no longer supports Obama, and hasn't since before the last election.
-
For Lugansk Fiancee from Russia with love))
Are you fluent in German, Doll? (it often seems you don't understand English, so I doubt it)
-
Hey Shadow, I certainly don't disagree, as this is not the first time this has been raised in different locations around the world. Can you provide an example or two regarding Putin? In what ways has the West undermined Putin prior to this latest episode in Ukraine?
Inside Russia he may be perceived as 'strong'. However, to the West/NATO nations he's just considered devious or more of a pain in the a$$ than anything else.
Western media like to build him up for news copy/sound bite but at the end of the day he's really no more of a threat militarily or geopolitically than Hussein or Gaddafi.
In other words; Putin's not so strong as there is simply a power vacuum inside Washington right now. This will change somewhat in the following year as a result of the power shift in Congress but basically nothing will happen until the administration changes.
Once leadership in/for the West is reestablished Putin's 15 minutes will be up.
Brass
-
Your youtube link to a resident of Luhansk who has lost her home and her city, likely forever, is appalling.
Where is the link? I would like to watch it.
-
In other words; Putin's not so strong as there is simply a power vacuum inside Washington right now. This will change somewhat in the following year as a result of the power shift in Congress but basically nothing will happen until the administration changes.
Once leadership in/for the West is reestablished Putin's 15 minutes will be up.
Brass
Amen! Boy do I ever agree with this post!
:clapping:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIi4a7ri-dc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIi4a7ri-dc)
-
Wagenknecht is just a cuckoo bird who likely gets financed by the real Fascist ringleader, Herr Putler.
I still have not seen the video of a woman who lost her home in Lugansk.
-
Your youtube link to a resident of Luhansk who has lost her home and her city, likely forever, is appalling.
When she call my writing disgusting then let her listen.
And keep your labels to yourself, Boe
It is NOT appalling in my eyes.
At least all this board is calling to Russia's defeat - talk to them
-
I find it appalling that you would make light of a victim of war in such a manner, for no reason other than political point scoring.
-
You see the picture from your tower.
The American people in no way resemble the Soviet people. Further, most Americans don't care about the conflict in Ukraine.
They are (it is MY vision again) more "Soviet" than Russians 50 years ago
Brainwashed and blind
Again- please, add something like IMHO to your postings
-
I find it appalling that you would make light of a victim of war in such a manner, for no reason other than political point scoring.
What? A link to Bundestag is now appalling?
Give me a break
this victim needs to know who is giving her a hard time
I am sick of blaming Putin in everything
Russia doesn't want war in Ukraine
-
I find it appalling that you would make light of a victim of war in such a manner, for no reason other than political point scoring.
I do NOT care what you are finding, ok?
-
Inside Russia he may be perceived as 'strong'. However, to the West/NATO nations he's just considered devious or more of a pain in the a$$ than anything else.
Hey Brass, All your comments in the post are provocative.
If Putin isn't consider strong then who on earth is? The head of a powerful nuclear state with more territory and natural resources than any other nation has some pretty good qualifications....and having so much support among with his people to boot...That said, there must be a reason that you say is not strong. What is it?
Western media like to build him up for news copy/sound bite but at the end of the day he's really no more of a threat militarily or geopolitically than Hussein or Gaddafi.
We executed Hussein and Gaddafi...In my opinion those nations/leaders must have posed a geopolitical threat in some way, and Putin does too, a lot more than those nations that just don't have the ability to do much harm..but again their must be a reason you say this, I'd be curious what the reasoning is. Of course I do agree our media builds up and furthers must narratives to sell.
In other words; Putin's not so strong as there is simply a power vacuum inside Washington right now. This will change somewhat in the following year as a result of the power shift in Congress but basically nothing will happen until the administration changes.
Once leadership in/for the West is reestablished Putin's 15 minutes will be up.
Brass
The way this is written it appears you are saying that our Western leadership will have the power to force Russia to evict Putin. Although I'm in the minority here, it seems to me that Obama hasn't been doing THAT badly....things could be much much worse. In 2016/17 we may wind up with another Democrat with similar foreign policy strategies. The general election is much different than these congressional votes. I would hope the issue in Ukraine would be settling down, but if we do get another Obama'like person in the whitehouse, how do you think that will affect the issues in Ukraine?
Fathertime!
-
At some point, the sanctions will become too much for Russia, if the price of oil stays low, which will be the case at least until autumn.
How do you know that? It may and it may not, who knows?
I understand many here revel in the fact that Russia suffer under low oil prices. Well, so do we here in Norway. The krone (NOK) is drastically reduced. But I Guess we too have to suffer a little to further the interests of The Empire.
Back to Russia. Oil prices are low yes, and getting lower every day. The US dollar on the other hand is strengthening and as most of us here knows, oil is priced in us dollars which Russia uses to buy massive quantities of gold, which is at least partly used for trade With the Chinese who also are loading up on gold, unlike the western countries. Anyone here thought of gold perhaps becoming a very important commodity in the near future?
I mean, oil suddenly collapse, currencies going crazy, Euro-crisis, US debt of 17,5 trillion, rise of neo-fascism in Europe, racial tensions in USA, etc. Seems to me Things are getting more and more shaky until one single event sets it all off and Things get really nasty.
Nothing to Cheer about for any of us....
-
How do you know that? It may and it may not, who knows?
I understand many here revel in the fact that Russia suffer under low oil prices. Well, so do we here in Norway. The krone (NOK) is drastically reduced. But I Guess we too have to suffer a little to further the interests of The Empire.
Back to Russia. Oil prices are low yes, and getting lower every day. The US dollar on the other hand is strengthening and as most of us here knows, oil is priced in us dollars which Russia uses to buy massive quantities of gold, which is at least partly used for trade With the Chinese who also are loading up on gold, unlike the western countries. Anyone here thought of gold perhaps becoming a very important commodity in the near future?
I mean, oil suddenly collapse, currencies going crazy, Euro-crisis, US debt of 17,5 trillion, rise of neo-fascism in Europe, racial tensions in USA, etc. Seems to me Things are getting more and more shaky until one single event sets it all off and Things get really nasty.
Nothing to Cheer about for any of us....
Very pertinent post...one correction though..our national debt is not 17.5 trillion....it is approximately 18.1 now!
It is an interesting phenomenon that often times it seems that nations do things against their own interests, but in our (The USA) interests. The low oil prices are ok for me personally (at least at the pump), but it seems to be signifying a certain economic weakness also, which isn't good. I read that Russia is sending more oil to market than anytime in recent times.
Fathertime!
-
They are (it is MY vision again) more "Soviet" than Russians 50 years ago
Brainwashed and blind
Again- please, add something like IMHO to your postings
Americans, unlike Soviets, have the right to speak their views, and many do. Frequently.
If Americans were brainwashed, there would be monolithic opinions, or a majority agreement with government views. That is not the case, and it is not an opinion. That is reality.
-
What? A link to Bundestag is now appalling?
Give me a break
this victim needs to know who is giving her a hard time
I am sick of blaming Putin in everything
Russia doesn't want war in Ukraine
You are suggesting to her that some Marxist politician has a lock on the truth. It is an opinion, nothing more. To play it for cheap political points is what I object to
-
I do NOT care what you are finding, ok?
You don't have to care. But it won't stop me from stating my opinion. Your post was insensitive to an extreme.
-
How do you know that? It may and it may not, who knows?
I understand many here revel in the fact that Russia suffer under low oil prices. Well, so do we here in Norway. The krone (NOK) is drastically reduced. But I Guess we too have to suffer a little to further the interests of The Empire.
Back to Russia. Oil prices are low yes, and getting lower every day. The US dollar on the other hand is strengthening and as most of us here knows, oil is priced in us dollars which Russia uses to buy massive quantities of gold, which is at least partly used for trade With the Chinese who also are loading up on gold, unlike the western countries. Anyone here thought of gold perhaps becoming a very important commodity in the near future?
I mean, oil suddenly collapse, currencies going crazy, Euro-crisis, US debt of 17,5 trillion, rise of neo-fascism in Europe, racial tensions in USA, etc. Seems to me Things are getting more and more shaky until one single event sets it all off and Things get really nasty.
Nothing to Cheer about for any of us....
It is common sense.
I never stated I cheer about the hardship Russians face.
-
If it was not Crimea, it would be anything else. The goal is to defeat Russia which won't happen.
Doll, it is not necessary for the West to defeat Russia. The Kremlin is doing that well enough on their own, just as it did to itself last time.
If Russia had kept it's nose out of Ukraine's business there would not be an issue today. Ukraine would have been free to promote it's democracy and eventually rid itself of corruption. Ukraine did not need Russia and there is no justification for Russia to invade Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. It's borders were well established and recognized by the rest of the world. It is Russia that created the problems and needs to be held accountable for the damages they have caused.
The lame excuse that Putin used to 'protect Russian speakers' was applied on a larger scale, I can't wait until he wants to start in California and Alaska. Bring it on!
-
[size=78%]http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972103540001/west-in-a-bind-over-russian-sanctions/?intcmp=HPBucket&playlist_id=922779230001#sp=show-clips (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3972103540001/west-in-a-bind-over-russian-sanctions/?intcmp=HPBucket&playlist_id=922779230001#sp=show-clips)[/size]
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30679176 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30679176)
Interesting...the Fox news guy, has hit on many of the points I've been expressing for a while! Seems to feel a wider conflict could open up if this continues.
Fathertime!
-
France wants to lift sanctions if Russia cooperates on peace talks. That is a big if.
-
The low oil prices are ok for me personally (at least at the pump), but it seems to be signifying a certain economic weakness also, which isn't good.
Fathertime!
It is interesting to ponder how quickly we get big changes at the world stage, such as with the currencies. For most Americans, they're not used to think in anything other than dollar terms. You get reduced gas prices at the pumps, we get practically no reduction.... because the NOK is much lower now. Gold is around 1200 when it was at 1900 in 2011, but in kroner, gold is Close to an all-time high. The Russians have lost on their rouble, but get more value for their oil in dollars which they can buy gold and roubles at a great discount. The trouble People say they're in isn't as great as we are led to believe. Putin is signing trade deals and currency swaps With several countries like China, India, Turkey, hey, even New Zealand, haha. Seems like those Russkies ain't as dumb as we thought....
-
And if you father had used a condom someone else would breathe your air.
Every loss of life in such a conflict is tragic, regardless if it is a boy from Lviv who got drafted to fight for Ukraine or a mercenary who chose to be there for the money it would bring his family. You can say that those who actively chose to participate took the risk, just as American soldiers going to Iraq take it. Still that does not give you the right to feel happy about their death.
I'd like to ask you a simple question. What do you consider life? Actually, a living person.
I'll wait for your answer.
-
It is interesting to ponder how quickly we get big changes at the world stage, such as with the currencies. For most Americans, they're not used to think in anything other than dollar terms. You get reduced gas prices at the pumps, we get practically no reduction.... because the NOK is much lower now. Gold is around 1200 when it was at 1900 in 2011, but in kroner, gold is Close to an all-time high. The Russians have lost on their rouble, but get more value for their oil in dollars which they can buy gold and roubles at a great discount. The trouble People say they're in isn't as great as we are led to believe. Putin is signing trade deals and currency swaps With several countries like China, India, Turkey, hey, even New Zealand, haha. Seems like those Russkies ain't as dumb as we thought....
The deals with China are on China's terms, not Russia's, so, not a great win for Russia.
None of the other countries can really replace the EU currently, in terms of market size. I also don't eat any food grown in China, and would not recommend others do so.
I don't think anyone has said Russians are dumb. It is always better for a country to diversify its market as much as possible, but those markets, realistically, can't replace the EU, at least, not currently, without pain.
-
The deals with China are on China's terms, not Russia's, so, not a great win for Russia.
None of the other countries can really replace the EU currently, in terms of market size. I also don't eat any food grown in China, and would not recommend others do so.
I don't think anyone has said Russians are dumb. It is always better for a country to diversify its market as much as possible, but those markets, realistically, can't replace the EU, at least, not currently, without pain.
Whose terms are best, I don't know. But I strongly believe Beijing has a great interest in seeking allies like Russia as they are also getting more surrounded by the empire driven politically by the Wolfowitz doctrine.
I agree the EU can't be replaced just like that. It takes time. I would also be careful eating Chinese Foods, but then Russia apparently is in full swing upping it's own Food Production. Of course, that too takes time to Complete. So it's painful for Russia and also for Europe. The only ones not in pain (at the moment) are the hawks in Washington.
-
The APNC is a failure, and in any event, did not target countries surrounding China, so it has no effect on China.
Russia will not be food independent for years, if ever.
-
Whose terms are best, I don't know. But I strongly believe Beijing has a great interest in seeking allies like Russia as they are also getting more surrounded by the empire driven politically by the Wolfowitz doctrine.
The First paragraph of the Wolofowitz Doctrine in WIKI:
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992) authored by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Policy)Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz) and his deputy Scooter Libby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby). Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times) on March 7, 1992,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine#cite_note-1) and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialist) as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism) and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status....
.I'm glad we have some people willing to leak....who the hell knows what dastardly crap they haven't been able to leak?Fathertime!
-
My Lugansk fiancee, now living with me in Lviv, has read this entire thread and is disgusted by the pro-Putin bloviating of Shadow, Live from Ukraine, Belvis , and Doll. None of you has been subjected to what she has been, driven from her home by Russian mercenaries and Chechen gunmen, and escaping the horror that is present day Lugansk by the skin of her teeth, in June. She would gladly target the invaders and annihilate them, if she had the wherewithal.
Hmmmm, I was not aware there is skin on one's teeth!!!! Maybe some plaque or food particles and hopefully plenty of enamel!!!! ;)
An acquaintance in Lugansk apparently has better 'skin' on his teeth, he is alive and still functioning.
-
Hey Brass, All your comments in the post are provocative.
No more so than the comments from those that would blindly idolize such an individual.
If Putin isn't consider strong then who on earth is? The head of a powerful nuclear state with more territory and natural resources than any other nation has some pretty good qualifications....and having so much support among with his people to boot...That said, there must be a reason that you say is not strong. What is it?
There is a difference between a 'strong leader' and a totalitarian despot, Putin falls under the latter.
You, like a few others on this forum are basing your beliefs/arguments on a faulty premise. Other than a David Koresh or Hitleresque like ability to impress the gullible with tales of Russian superiority/invincibility and daring do, what you perceive to be 'strong leadership' is just good propaganda or advertising. Something the Russians have always been good at.
The cult of Putinism is showmanship and opportunism, nothing more.
He is not the head of a "powerful nuclear state", this is a fallacy. The Russian military, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons systems are out of date, defective and Russia is incapable of a preemptive or first strike. If the Kremlin were insane enough to authorize a launch, tactical or strategic, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.
Yes, he is a regional power but as I've mentioned in the past, Russia's military is no match for NATO and Putin knows this.
Russia's natural resources are abundant. However, Russia's ability to extract them has always been limited. Further, as is becoming abundantly clear, they are a two trick pony (oil and natural gas) and we already know how that's been working out for them recently.
We executed Hussein and Gaddafi...In my opinion those nations/leaders must have posed a geopolitical threat in some way, and Putin does too, a lot more than those nations that just don't have the ability to do much harm..but again their must be a reason you say this, I'd be curious what the reasoning is. Of course I do agree our media builds up and furthers must narratives to sell.
Yes, we did execute them (edit: Or in Gadafi's case our action brought about his murder). After giving their military ability/strength far more credibility than was warranted at the time, which is my point in regards to the Russian military. I've delved into this very subject over several topics already.
The way this is written it appears you are saying that our Western leadership will have the power to force Russia to evict Putin. Although I'm in the minority here, it seems to me that Obama hasn't been doing THAT badly....things could be much much worse. In 2016/17 we may wind up with another Democrat with similar foreign policy strategies. The general election is much different than these congressional votes. I would hope the issue in Ukraine would be settling down, but if we do get another Obama'like person in the whitehouse, how do you think that will affect the issues in Ukraine?
Nope. I'm saying what the West/NATO has done in allowing Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine has led Putin (and by extension the Russian people) to believe they can bully neighboring countries with impunity. Like an errant child, the longer we allow this criminality to continue, the tougher it'll be to correct it when we (the west) are forced to deal with it ... and sooner or later we (NATO) are going to have to deal with Putin's Russia.
Brass
-
Very well said Brass.
-
I agree, very well said Brass. As Obama correctly has also said, Russia is no more than a regional power giving grief to their close neighbors, but because Obama has shown historic weakness as a US President.
Herr Putler isn't really so strong, he just knows the West, which should be led by the USA right now, is very weak. So he got lucky and drew a strong hand. Let's wait and see what he does when a real leader uses similar strong language as Putin, but with the backbone and ability to back it up.
-
There is a difference between a 'strong leader' and a totalitarian despot, Putin falls under the latter.
If what you are saying is true and Putin is a despot, then by definition he has total control of his country and every aspect of it. Meaning would be alone in making the decision to launch nuclear weapons....I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot.
He is not the head of a "powerful nuclear state", this is a fallacy. The Russian military, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons systems are out of date, defective and Russia is incapable of a preemptive or first strike. If the Kremlin were insane enough to authorize a launch, tactical or strategic, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.
A couple people here have said similar things regarding Russia's military and nuclear arsenal. I don't believe any person posting here has the ability to know that information with certainty. There are many writings out there that contradict these statements. My belief is Russia does have the ability to launch and deliver nukes. I believe that if we were to launch at Russia, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.
Nope. I'm saying what the West/NATO has done in allowing Putin's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine has led Putin (and by extension the Russian people) to believe they can bully neighboring countries with impunity. Like an errant child, the longer we allow this criminality to continue, the tougher it'll be to correct it when we (the west) are forced to deal with it ... and sooner or later we (NATO) are going to have to deal with Putin's Russia.
Brass
How would you suggest we manage what Russia is doing currently? We (the US) also 'bully' nations, although we have found ways to do it without using our military as much, but we can and do pull the military out of the hat when we need to. What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?
Fathertime!
-
But I strongly believe Beijing has a great interest in seeking allies like Russia
China seeking Russia as allies on equal terms? Gimme a break! More like the subject of a future vassal state...
About a hundred years ago all the European powers ganged up on China and refer to it as the 'sick man of Asia'. Now that Russia is all isolated and vulnerable, why wouldn't China want to turn the table and treat Russia as the 'sick man of Europe'?
-
I don't believe you feel better actually.
So you are one of those people who believe they know what other people are feeling.
It is best we confine you to toilet talk since you haven proven to be a little rusty (and crusty) on talking about the subject at hand! :D
You are the one who introduced the word "toilet."
Regarding the subject at hand, I consider your position of capitulation to be provably wrong. Please show me an example of where capitulation to an aggressor has helped the non-aggressive country. If you can cite such an example having parallels with Ukraine, I will listen.
Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:
1. Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there. Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.
2. Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.
3. Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.
4. Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).
5. Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.
-
So you are one of those people who believe they know what other people are feeling.
Not always, but in this particular case I know you were not being truthful.
You are the one who introduced the word "toilet."
Are you still crying over your spilled toilets?
Regarding the subject at hand, I consider your position of capitulation to be provably wrong. Please show me an example of where capitulation to an aggressor has helped the non-aggressive country. If you can cite such an example having parallels with Ukraine, I will listen.
1. It is interesting that you had to put that subjective modifier in the example you insist upon.
2. I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there.
3. Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances.
4. I do not accept that the capture of Crimea was the beginning of the conflict...which makes the whole idea of aggressor/non-aggressor somewhat moot...from my perspective.
Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:
1. Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there. Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.
2. Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.
3. Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.
4. Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).
5. Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.
Stick to your position implies that this was your position all along. I don't recall you saying earlier you were going to accept Crimea being a part of Russia....I know I did, and you probably through a fit...although I'd have to go back and re-read the threads to say for sure.
You are entitled to take a new position now. There are a more than a few holes/assumptions in your latest position...the ante certainly hasn't gone down.
Fathertime!
-
I was reflecting on the timeline of the current crisis. If I recall after Russia took over Crimea, there was a window where the Western nations could have for various reasons accepted the seizure (while holding nose), as I would have suggested. Instead we (The West) began to impose sanctions, and threats. Had we accepted what Russia had done, and immediately encouraged Ukraine to do the same, while supporting the Eastern regions, would it have ended there?
Absolutely not.
Crimea was just one part of the strategy. Putin would still like a land bridge from the mainland to Crimea, and so does he want more? Yes, but he doesn't want to pay for it. Instead, the idea was for "rebels" (Russian fighters in Ukrainian clothing) to strip it away from Kyiv, with his support, but not with him paying the full freight.
Unfortunately the spirit of Neville Chamberlain will always be with humanity, but the West should have stood up for Georgia in 2008. Had that happened, Crimea would not have happened. War was not necessary and Russia would have backed down. They were not the power then that they are now.
Would have Russia continued to support and foment in Eastern Ukraine? Or is Russia merely imposing costs on the Western interference, and ratcheting up the costs by increasing their boundaries in the Eastern parts of Ukraine?
Has Russia fed the bear in Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia? Patterns tell a story.
Fact: unless his people stop him, Putin will continue to hound Ukraine until they join the Eurasian Customs/Trade Union.
It appears that some of the posters familiar with the situation are accepting that Crimea is likely Russian now. If that had been accepted from the beginning (as perhaps it should have been), would this crisis already be water on the bridge, with Ukraine relatively peaceful, and slowly moving towards western ideals? I've noticed the more we have intervened the larger the region Russia has moved towards (imposed costs). Further long-term costs are potentially on the international stage regarding less trading in dollars and a stronger alliance between Russia and China.
No, it should not have been. As Bo said earlier, the majority (but nowhere near the hilarious percentage as reported by the election commission) of Crimean residents would have voted to join Russia in a legal referendum. Putin acted quickly to seize the prize while the moment was ripe, and it allowed him to win at the expense of Ukraine via the loss of base and port rentals for the Black Sea fleet, and for gas transit rights. It saved him from negotiations, and was both an ego, and a financial move by Putin.
Had you been in the Kremlin during those Security Council meetings leading up to the annexation, you'd have heard President Putin receive reports from various government ministers on how much the RF would save if no longer bound to making those port and base rental payments. On the other hand, until the annexation was already under way, very little thought was given to how much it would cost to absorb a region with outdated infrastructure, pensioners with pensions below the average Russian pensioner, and the costs of governing a region that already depended on handouts from Kyiv.
As for the stronger alliance between Russia and China, that was in the works long before the more recent war and sanctions. I reported on the Medvedev trip to China in September 2010 when both nations agreed to open talks for a very large and expanded gas deal for China's CNPC. Then, one of my most memorable train trips was as a member of the press pool with then-President Medvedev in April 2011 when he traveled to China where Chinese President Hu Jintao hosted the leaders of BRICS at Sanya in the Hainan province.
One of the deals signed during that trip was a very large oil and gas deal slated to begin in 2015. All Putin did, and the Chinese wisely renegotiated the deal in their favour after Crimea because they knew that Moscow needed the cash, was continue what Medvedev had already started.
Understand that the three countries that Russia feels are their biggest potential customers, and this has been their feeling long before recent troubles, are China, India and North Korea. Each of those nations represent unique marketing advantages for Russian resources, Russian engineering expertise, and the long-term growth models for each of those nations is huge. Russia is not, regardless of what you hear in the news, "turning toward China." They were turned long ago--the West is just now figuring it out.
Russia will also maintain relations with countries which they feel are a "check and balance" against the West. Prime examples are Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The Russians have always seen Syria as a protector of Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, and Syria has held ancient Christians as a protected minority, unlike other Middle East nations.
As to challenging the dollar, this idea has been around for more than a decade. In fact, soon after assuming the presidency in 2008, Medvedev announced plans to develop Moscow into a prime financial centre for Europe and Asia. The groundwork for the infrastructure, the Moscow International Business Centre, was laid back in 1992. The first high-rise tower was completed in 2001 but then the project stood still for a while due to the economy. It was during those years that WalMart leased space there to launch their Russian operation. WalMart never opened any stores however, and eventually made a quiet exit from Russia.
(http://russianreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/moscow-2-019-city-centre-a-ed.jpg)
The Moscow International Business Centre, locals call it "Moscow City," is just a stone's throw away from the former homes of Leonid Brezhnev, and yours truly. I have very fond memories of living in that area.
There is another reason for Russia's close ties to China: Siberia. If you look at the map of Asia, Russia dominates it. In fact, 77% of Russia lies in Asia, only 23% in Europe. Look at China on the map. Now considers China's population of 1.4 Billion, and then compare that to Russia's population of 144 million. Russia covers a sixth of the earth's land mass, but her population is very small. Vladimir Putin knows full well the wisdom of holding your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Russia and China have long-standing border disputes and have fought over territory. A new female poster here recently made the claim that Russia has no China-towns. I laughed. It might seem silly when citizens of a country make claims that display their ignorance on a public forum. Take a ride on the Trans Siberian someday. The further east one travels, the more you wonder if somehow you slept through a border crossing. China is moving into Siberia, both by legal and by "illegal alien" means, and Moscow recognizes this. Mr. Putin & Company are very aware that it would be foolish not to develop economic relations at very high levels with such a neighbor. Crimea and the idea that somehow Russia is just now "turning East" has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with this.
I could go on for hours, but will not, about the development of economic ties to China, and that by nature includes the lucrative (for Russia) North Korean market, for which China will help foot the bill.
Side note: Sony Pictures got hacked by a country that bans most citizens from using the internet? Not only am I highly doubtful, but it would not surprise me if someday we learned that a neighboring country, one with a culture of home-grown hackers, may of had a hand in helping them on that project.
By the way, I love Mongolia and adore the people. They are the "half-way house" between much of Russia and China, and a very unique and strong-willed people. There are more horses than people, and are great musicians unique hand crafted instruments and a traditional "throat singing" and so what if they love horse meat? They also use the Cyrillic alphabet. If you get a chance, make the trip of the Trans Siberian and take the train down into Mongolia. Like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc, Mongolian ladies are off the charts beautiful.
As evidenced by a popular weekly entertain television show, the Mongolians also have a sense of humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EUT1KmAMY
-
Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:
1. Maintain a stalemate in both a) eastern Ukraine (forcing Russia to pay for housing and feeding the homeless there and rebuilding a bombed out Detroit) and b) Crimea (forcing Russia to subsidize the largely Russian population there. Ukraine should receive defensive weapons, intelligence and training from the West to repel attempted breakouts by rebels or Russian regulars.
2. Rebuild the economy in the remainder of Ukraine.
3. Continue to supply electricity and water to Crimea provided Russia keeps the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine.
4. Develop other supplies of gas (e. g., shale formation in its West).
5. Eventually capitulate regarding Crimea but only upon receiving abundant concessions from Russia such as guaranteed gas supply, reconstruction of eastern Ukraine, etc. One problem, Russia did not abide by its past agreement when Ukraine relinquished its nukes.
Some comments to your strategic plan:
1. Maintaining a stalemate on your terms means the incorporating of Donbass into Russia. There will be no way back. Will Russia take the cost of that? If Ukraine refuses to pay the check Russia will pay, but then no claims on possesion of Donbass will be accepted. Crimea is a part of Russia mentally and formally though still requires the economic recovery after Ukraine's times. One doesn't need to force Russia to subsidize the population there, it is the obligation of Russian state :)
2. It will be impossible to rebuild the economy of Ukraine. There will be another economy with the emphasis on agricultural sector. Large part of Ukrainian industry will die because Russian markets are closing, and EU seems does not want to replace them.
3. Russia will keep the gas pipeline flowing to Ukraine, with no discount. No sense to break the good business. If Ukraine is interested in money, they will supply electricity and water to Crimea. If not, Russia will arrange the new infrastructure for Crimea, no doubts.
4. Good wishes. The reality is that all west companies withdrawed the contracts to search shale gas in Ukraine. I don't know the reasons for that, political or econimical considerations prevailed.
5. I dare to tell that Russia is ready for abundant concessions such as guaranteed gas supply and reconstruction of eastern Ukraine. I suspect Russia will insist on these concessions :)
-
Thanks for weighing in Mendeleyev,
A few take aways for me:
It appears that from your perspective, had G. Bush stood up stronger in 2008, this recent event would have been less likely.
You feel the majority of people in Crimea did lean towards Russia
You believe that this latest episode would have continued even if Crimea had been accepted as Russian right away
The Russia/Chinese alliance has been strengthening regardless of the latest events.
Russia will continue to hound Ukraine until they join their Euroasian trade union.
RE Mongolia....Thanks for the comments...for me I've had a fascination for Mongolia and watched quite a few documentaries on the region. Rugged life on the steppe, I hope to visit...There is scientific evidence that 1/200 people alive today is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan...around 16 million MALE descendants...he got around a bit.
Fathertime!
-
The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking South Ossetia would have strong consequences.
In Lybia they should have told the rebels that they were not to expect help.
In Syria they should have allowed Assad to arrange his own business.
In Ukraine they should have let them sign the treaties with Russia and wat for the next election to turn things around.
If only they are firm enough to practive what they preach, there would be less conflicts in the world today.
-
The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking South Ossetia would have strong consequences.
In Lybia they should have told the rebels that they were not to expect help.
In Syria they should have allowed Assad to arrange his own business.
In Ukraine they should have let them sign the treaties with Russia and wat for the next election to turn things around.
If only they are firm enough to practive what they preach, there would be less conflicts in the world today.
Reading more of the LEAKED Wolfowitz doctrine, before it was sanitized is rather telling regarding all of our Mideast moves: Here is an excerpt of the portion pertain, both the original version and the later sanitized version:
Middle East and Southwest Asia[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfowitz_Doctrine&action=edit§ion=7)]The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.[/size]In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.
[/size]...
[/size]The April 16 release was more circumspect and it reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel as well as its Arab allies.[/size]In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_Military_Edge) that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel.[/i]
Of course none of this was originally meant for public consumption...just a little secret policy taking place in all our names....what else was secretly going on that our media wouldn't be able to report directly on?
Fathertime! [/size]
[/font]
-
Hmmmm, I was not aware there is skin on one's teeth!!!! Maybe some plaque or food particles and hopefully plenty of enamel!!!! ;)
An acquaintance in Lugansk apparently has better 'skin' on his teeth, he is alive and still functioning.
A very ancient analogy; for your further edification and enlightenment, since you seem a little deficient in full knowledge of English:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-byt1.htm
-
If what you are saying is true and Putin is a despot, then by definition he has total control of his country and every aspect of it.
Yeah, I'd say that sums it up nicely.
Meaning would be alone in making the decision to launch nuclear weapons...
Yep, the Russian command and launch authority is built along the same lines as the U.S. with the same verification and chain of command protocols. However, your statement is over simplified, a decision to launch a preemptive or first strike (as opposed to a retaliatory launch) is for all practical purposes a declaration of war, no?
I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot.
I hope I don't need to point out the fallacy in your conclusion, do I?
A couple people here have said similar things regarding Russia's military and nuclear arsenal. I don't believe any person posting here has the ability to know that information with certainty. There are many writings out there that contradict these statements. My belief is Russia does have the ability to launch and deliver nukes. I believe that if we were to launch at Russia, the response would be overwhelming, devastating and final.
Okidoki, you go right ahead and hold on to that.
How would you suggest we manage what Russia is doing currently?
Increase sanctions, Arm Ukraine, Re-deploy significant NATO military assets to Europe and immediate deployment of a NATO protection force to Ukraine to intervene if Ukraine should ask for assistance.
However, "managing" Russia is not NATO's role. The Russian government has committed numerous criminal acts, invaded two neighboring countries, broken several international treaties, is becoming increasingly aggressive in the Arctic and European regions and making threatening statements regarding the deployment of strategic nuclear assets.
NATO countries need to bring as much pressure economically and diplomatically as well as militarily that can be brought to bear on Putin's Russia.
We (the US) also 'bully' nations, although we have found ways to do it without using our military as much, but we can and do pull the military out of the hat when we need to. What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?
The ol' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, eh? :P
Brass
-
Yeah, I'd say that sums it up nicely.
Yep, the Russian command and launch authority is built along the same lines as the U.S. with the same verification and chain of command protocols. However, your statement is over simplified, a decision to launch a preemptive or first strike (as opposed to a retaliatory launch) is for all practical purposes a declaration of war, no?
I'd say that any preemptive or first strike is a hell of a lot more than declaring war.
I hope I don't need to point out the fallacy in your conclusion, do I?
Actually yes, I do need you to point out the fallacy in the conclusion that I wrote regarding whether Putin is a Despot or not...I've concluded that he isn't, and you have asserted he is, we can disagree on this but show me where the fallacy exists.
Increase sanctions, Arm Ukraine, Re-deploy significant NATO military assets to Europe and immediate deployment of a NATO protection force to Ukraine to intervene if Ukraine should ask for assistance.
However, "managing" Russia is not NATO's role. The Russian government has committed numerous criminal acts, invaded two neighboring countries, broken several international treaties, is becoming increasingly aggressive in the Arctic and European regions and making threatening statements regarding the deployment of strategic nuclear assets.
NATO countries need to bring as much pressure economically and diplomatically as well as militarily that can be brought to bear on Putin's Russia.
I hope I'm characterizing your ideas when I say you are prescribing that we basically increase/intensify all we have been doing.
If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons. I don't see this particular issue as worth the risk....a different time and a different place, but not over Ukraine, a historically entwined country with Russia...a place they will fight over more so then most any other.
The ol' "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, eh? :P
Brass
Oh come on now..that question was fair enough! I understand you don't accept the premise that we (The USA) couldn't be wrong in some of our earlier interventions, but not everybody thinks that way. So I will ask again, even if it is only rhetorical.
[/size]What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?[/size] [/b]
[/size][/b]
[/size][/b]
[/size]Fathertime!
-
1. It is interesting that you had to put that subjective modifier in the example you insist upon.
2. I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there.
3. Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances.
4. I do not accept that the capture of Crimea was the beginning of the conflict...which makes the whole idea of aggressor/non-aggressor somewhat moot...from my perspective.
Fathertime!
You know, I was starting to read your responses and then you do this bullshit.
You bitch and moan that people do not engage you in discussions and instead they attack you.
Re-read your response to Gator and then state ask yourself again why some people may "attack" you.
That was bullshit and you know it. If you cannot answer the question, say so. It is more dignified.
-
You know, I was starting to read your responses and then you do this bullshit.
You bitch and moan that people do not engage you in discussions and instead they attack you.
Re-read your response to Gator and then state ask yourself again why some people may "attack" you.
That was bullshit and you know it. If you cannot answer the question, say so. It is more dignified.
Thank you for reading my responses then!
There was NO way for me to answer this question the way it was phrased on a couple levels (aggressor/non aggressor and 'the parallels' which is subjective)...but you are right I could have just said that...through experiencing many of Gator's recent posts towards me I've come to feel that he will not discuss in good faith...so I discuss with those that do.
Fathertime!
-
I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington
-
I'd say that any preemptive or first strike is a hell of a lot more than declaring war.
I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.
Actually yes, I do need you to point out the fallacy in the conclusion that I wrote regarding whether Putin is a Despot or not...I've concluded that he isn't, and you have asserted he is, we can disagree on this but show me where the fallacy exists.
You've based your conclusion Putin isn't a despot by reasoning incorrectly that he isn't independently capable of launching a nuclear strike when in fact he is just as capable (as ineffective as it would be) as his counterparts in Washington/London/Paris, etc.. Further, of all the people in Russia he is, by virtue of his very position, the one person responsible for making that decision just as all the leaders of countries who have nukes hold that responsibility.
"I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot."
Look up 'argument from personal incredulity' I don't "believe" therefore "he is not".
I hope I'm characterizing your ideas when I say you are prescribing that we basically increase/intensify all we have been doing.
If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons. I don't see this particular issue as worth the risk....a different time and a different place, but not over Ukraine, a historically entwined country with Russia...a place they will fight over more so then most any other.
You give Russia's ability to wage war on a global scale far too much credibility. Russia's increasingly aggressive actions should not be attributed to a belief that they are somehow on an equal military/economic footing with the west, they're not. Russia's continuing abhorrent actions of late are a result of inaction and lack of leadership in the west.
History shows us trying to appease aggressor nations doesn't work.
Oh come on now..that question was fair enough! I understand you don't accept the premise that we (The USA) couldn't be wrong in some of our earlier interventions, but not everybody thinks that way. So I will ask again, even if it is only rhetorical.
What if Russia decided to manage (and continually try to ratchet up) us during one of our many misdoings?
What if covers a lot of ground. Besides, your loaded question is framed in a way that presupposes Russia has not already tried such a venture.
Syria would be the most recent example of Russia trying to 'manage' and 'ratchet up' a situation. I suggest you look in on the going ons there.
For the most part though Putin's Russia no longer has credibility on the world stage. Putin is the face of Russia and other world leaders see him as a pariah.
Brass
-
One of the items I find most interesting is that 35% of the Russian federal budget is being applied to military spending. This expenditure is the mark of a country with a warlike mentality. Could you imagine the push back in the US or one of the Western Countries if the budget called for such a percentage of expenditures?
While it is commonly known that 90% of the Russian military is outdated, the only reason for such as massive rebuilding effort is to bring weapons systems to be compatible with today's standards.
Russia is a country that cannot create its own infrastructure. So, instead, it chooses to spend all discretionary money on military upgrades. I would be aghast if I were a Russian citizen and realized what my country was doing. Of course, I might be brainwashed and then I wouldn't think anything of it.
-
I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington
Good article.
Russia's sub fleet preparedness was discussed a couple of months ago here if you're interested...
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18025.msg379721#msg379721
Brass
-
One of the items I find most interesting is that 35% of the Russian federal budget is being applied to military spending. This expenditure is the mark of a country with a warlike mentality. Could you imagine the push back in the US or one of the Western Countries if the budget called for such a percentage of expenditures?
While it is commonly known that 90% of the Russian military is outdated, the only reason for such as massive rebuilding effort is to bring weapons systems to be compatible with today's standards.
Russia is a country that cannot create its own infrastructure. So, instead, it chooses to spend all discretionary money on military upgrades. I would be aghast if I were a Russian citizen and realized what my country was doing. Of course, I might be brainwashed and then I wouldn't think anything of it.
They have been in a major rebuilding of the military for some years now and are about half way through it--one can only guess what it is about.
The propaganda machine has been actively creating siege mentality since 2012-"the world is against us and only we can save ourselves"
When you put the different pieces together it is when it really gets worrying!
It is part( only A part) of the reason I am advocating total support to Ukraine to take the Russians on- in a more even contest.Russia will never leave Ukraine alone while the current regime and attitudes are in place-- and Ukraine removing them from Ukrainian territory could be the catalyst for desperately needed change in Russia -and perhaps a greater interest in the welfare of the Russian people by their government and not wasting money they don't have on the military.
-
I just found this link, which might be of interest for those discussing military matters:
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/us-concerned-about-russian-submarines-with-nuclear-armed-cruise-missiles-near-washington
Following links from that page--interesting reading-- and summary!!
Remarks by President Obama and President Komorowski of Poland in a Joint Press Conference
Quote
I am also convinced that the success of Ukraine, its democratic and independent nature, combined with overcoming the economic crisis and political crisis on the ground, combined with deep modernization of the Ukrainian society and state, will have a huge influence on the shaping of the attitudes of people within the Russian society. That is difficult not to notice today that the Russian public opinion has fully supported the aggressive behavior of President Putin in Crimea. The point is that public opinion in Russia could stand on the side of the prospects for the modernization of Russia, and not at the reconstitution of any zone of influence and any dreams of empire.
END QUOTE
Full Article--
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/03/remarks-president-obama-and-president-komorowski-poland-joint-press-conf
-
I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.
He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.
You've based your conclusion Putin isn't a despot by reasoning incorrectly that he isn't independently capable of launching a nuclear strike when in fact he is just as capable (as ineffective as it would be) as his counterparts in Washington/London/Paris, etc..
Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:
Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike. There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition, Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things. If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming. Although the presidency in Russia is stronger than ours, by definition Putin is not a despot as he doesn't have absolute power....there is a legislature and judiciary.
"I don't believe this is entirely accurate, which would mean he is not a despot."
Look up 'argument from personal incredulity' I don't "believe" therefore "he is not".
Well then I will rephrase the statement :
"I don't believe this is not accurate, which would mean he isn't a despot."
You give Russia's ability to wage war on a global scale far too much credibility. Russia's increasingly aggressive actions should not be attributed to a belief that they are somehow on an equal military/economic footing with the west, they're not. Russia's continuing abhorrent actions of late are a result of inaction and lack of leadership in the west.
I don't know where you have come up with war on a global scale. I didn't say or think that to begin with. Russia can't win a global war, but they don't need to.
They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm. If they are backed into a corner, and they have a crazy leader like many suggest then that is a VERY bad combo. If they have an angry disgraced leader he may choose to go down his own way rather than like Khadafi. It is not every country that can do what Russia can do, given that fact, a wider berth is in order, even if we don't like it....With all the maneuvering of ready to launch nuclear weapons going on, any sort of accident can happen, and ruin our planet. You suggest we have a lack of leadership in the west, but if the suggestions you give would be what a strong leader does, then I'm ok with us having a "Weak" leader...although I know that is EXTREMELY unpopular here!
What if covers a lot of ground. Besides, your loaded question is framed in a way that presupposes Russia has not already tried such a venture.
Syria would be the most recent example of Russia trying to 'manage' and 'ratchet up' a situation. I suggest you look in on the going ons there.
Brass
Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly. WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world! Anyway, that is another subject.
All in all, thanks for stating your viewpoints, you bring up good points although I don't agree with all of them.
Fathertime!
-
The West should have been more frim indeed.
In 2008 they should have warned Georgia that attacking South Ossetia would have strong consequences.
Shadow, you might wish to inform Vladimir that it was Georgia who attacked first.
Prior to the presidential election, United Russia paraded several generals around who claimed that the plans for attacking Georgia were drawn up during the prior term (of Putin) and the military was ordered to be ready. In August war broke out at the generals on the campaign trail claimed that it was a preemptive strike.
In 2012, Vladimir himself on television Q and A claimed it was a preemptive strike. Mr. Putin says that the FSB had uncovered a plot by Georgia to plant terrorists in Abkhazia in advance of the Sochi Olympics. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Abkhazia was already a disputed province, already had Russian troops based in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia, and he didn't bother explaining how the Georgian government was going to accomplish this, nor where the supposed terrorists would hide while in those Russian-protected regions.
As to South Ossetia specifically, one would have to grossly ignorant not to understand the months of attacks on Georgian villages across the disputed border, at which Russian peace keeping troops were stationed, was a provocation and attempt to goad Georgia into responding. Further, Russia had warned Georgia not to continue the pursuit of someday becoming a potential NATO member.
Then, there was the little tiff between Putin and Medvedev in 2010. Watching Putin travel around the country and in his speeches taking credit for war in Georgia, Medvedev snapped back that no, it was he who gave the orders. Putin's handlers responded to that by reminding Medvedev that the plans for attacking Georgia had been hatched prior to his assumption of the presidency.
There is a lot of history here prior to 2008. Not only did Moscow warn Georgia against approaching NATO, but one must remember that even today Putin is convinced that Georgia trained, recruited and harbored Islamic terrorists to operate inside Chechnya. True, Georgia and Chechnya share much Caucasus's history, Georgia has been an officially Christian state since the year 337. Chechnya has been primarily Muslim for centuries. The two aren't exactly "best friends forever" material so could have reason to doubt Putin's suspicions.
There is a pattern with the man and it goes like this: Deny, blame the other guy, then eventually take credit.
Again, you seem to know more about the sequence of events than even Vladimir, so I'd suggest that you contact the Kremlin and set him straight.
-
He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.
We'll revisit this.
Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:
Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike. There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition, Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things. If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming.
Although the presidency in Russia is stronger than ours, by definition Putin is not a despot as he doesn't have absolute power....there is a legislature and judiciary.
Well then I will rephrase the statement :
"I don't believe this is not accurate, which would mean he isn't a despot."
You're back peddling. We are talking about the authority to launch. Not the mechanics behind it. That authority and decision lies with the leaders, as first in the chain of command, and no one else.
Well so far you've opined Putin's not a despot because he can't launch nucs and Russia has a legislature and judiciary. None of which is relevant/criteria in determining if despotism exists or not in the first place. Several despots have had nucs, legislature and judiciary - Joseph Stalin for example.
I don't know where you have come up with war on a global scale. I didn't say or think that to begin with. Russia can't win a global war, but they don't need to.
They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm. If they are backed into a corner, and they have a crazy leader like many suggest then that is a VERY bad combo. If they have an angry disgraced leader he may choose to go down his own way rather than like Khadafi. It is not every country that can do what Russia can do, given that fact, a wider berth is in order, even if we don't like it....With all the maneuvering of ready to launch nuclear weapons going on, any sort of accident can happen, and ruin our planet. You suggest we have a lack of leadership in the west, but if the suggestions you give would be what a strong leader does, then I'm ok with us having a "Weak" leader...although I know that is EXTREMELY unpopular here!
You are the one arguing that a worst case scenario would be an escalation to the point of a nuclear strike....
..".If we do this and Russia just ratchets up more and more, then we have to accept this is going to be a very big war and when/if Russia starts losing they could take the last step which would be tactical nuclear weapons"....
..."They have submarines and 1000's of nuclear weapons (you claim they are a bunch of duds)they can do us (the US) and the world great harm"....
...These descriptions of Armageddon you like to conjure is war on a global scale, my friend. You can't have it both ways.
Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly. WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world! Anyway, that is another subject.
Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin. ;)
Brass
-
Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin. ;)
Brass
You must be losing it or something if making a strong argument against our involvement in Syria makes me Putin. That is ridiculous...but Ok...I'm Putin then. :rolleyes:
Well so far you've opined Putin's not a despot because he can't launch nucs and Russia has a legislature and judiciary. None of which is relevant/criteria in determining if despotism exists or not in the first place. Several despots have had nucs, legislature and judiciary - Joseph Stalin for example.
That is true, although Putin is no Stalin....yet....and hopefully he isn't in a position where millions are dead...the legislative/judiciary is stronger than it was under stalin...that makes a difference if somebody is a despot or not.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991 (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991)
You're back peddling. We are talking about the authority to launch. Not the mechanics behind it. That authority and decision lies with the leaders, as first in the chain of command, and no one else.
It is a given that the leader has the authority to launch....but he is NOT the only one that has to agree to the launch for it to happen.....yes we are off track with this argument as it relates to despotism.
You are the one arguing that a worst case scenario would be an escalation to the point of a nuclear strike....
Brass
Can you think of scenario worse than nuclear stikes?
...These descriptions of Armageddon you like to conjure is war on a global scale, my friend. You can't have it both ways.
"Like" to conjure war and Armageddon? That is ridiculous. In part the responses are to your earlier assertion that Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch as their missiles are outdated and faulty. Which apparently you feel gives us the ability to go marching into Russian troops and kill em all and assume it ends there. I don't think it will reach that point where we are actively participating to that degree...but if we did, I don't see Russia backing down...not in Ukraine...so (if you assume that is true) what might be the next logical step? Is this place, under the totality of circumstances leading up to the battle worth the risk?
Fathertime!
-
2. I've decided that you are not going to 'listen' regardless so I'm not interested in providing you examples, although there are some out there.
3. Even if there was NEVER a time in history of time where an olive branch or a lopsided settlement worked, that wouldn't disprove that it could work this particular time, under the right circumstances.
You don't have an example, do you. So just say it. A man of integrity would. We know from past episodes at RWD you are not such a man.
Stick to your position implies that this was your position all along. I don't recall you saying earlier you were going to accept Crimea being a part of Russia....I know I did, and you probably through a fit...although I'd have to go back and re-read the threads to say for sure.
All along I thought Crimea was sovereign territory of Ukraine, yet I see no way that Russia would ever walk away now that it has annexed it. Some time ago I expressed an opinion that Russia should pay Ukraine a princely sum for seizing it (remember, some accused me of being in the 19th C.). Russia the aggressor and bully will not pay. Even if Russia were to offer time-discounted compensation for Ukraine's rental revenues, I am not certain that Ukraine would accept it if it meant dismissing its claim for return of Crimea.
You OTOH proposed a win-win solution in which Russia could keep everything it seized provided it promised not to take more from Ukraine. What a bunch of horseshit.
-
Some comments to your strategic plan: ........................
To clarify, Donbass is never incorporated into Russia. And Russia pays all costs for rebuilding what the Russian supported rebellion destroyed.
Nice try in twisting my thoughts to favor Russia.
As far as new energy sources, who knows in this wild market what will prove feasible in the near future (the price is expected to reach $33/bbl soon). The Saudiis may be willing to sell oil to Ukraine, including delivery, for less money (on a BTU or kilocalorie basis) than Russia's natural gas. The world now has 1-2 million bbl/day of excess supply and more supply is still coming on line.
-
You don't have an example, do you. So just say it. A man of integrity would. We know from past episodes at RWD you are not such a man.
Ha! Just as I thought still upset and never intended on discussing issues in good faith...Glad I didn't buy your bologna! Your own lack of integrity earlier got called out a few months back, and you have never been the same since... ;)
All along I thought Crimea was sovereign territory of Ukraine, yet I see no way that Russia would ever walk away now that it has annexed it. Some time ago I expressed an opinion that Russia should pay Ukraine a princely sum for seizing it (remember, some accused me of being in the 19th C.). Russia the aggressor and bully will not pay. Even if Russia were to offer time-discounted compensation for Ukraine's rental revenues, I am not certain that Ukraine would accept it if it meant dismissing its claim for return of Crimea.
You OTOH proposed a win-win solution in which Russia could keep everything it seized provided it promised not to take more from Ukraine. What a bunch of horseshit.
So now you admit you have changed your position although in that recent post you pretended like this was your position all along regarding Crimea. Maybe you can try to chuckle your way out of that one too! :blowkiss:
I see no reason to claim I took a different position regarding a potential win-win....It has never come to pass as the countries have taken the other option and decided to fight it out instead...eventually an end to fighting in the manner I suggested may come to pass...or maybe not.
Meanwhile I stick to my position that it is best for Ukraine to:
:D
Fathertime!
-
Fathertime, you are the supreme cockwomble.
-
Fathertime, you are the supreme cockwomble.
In a way I'm delighted you have such intense feelings towards me, and have the need to show them! ;D
Fathertime!
-
Although I don't claim to be a nuclear protocol expert some things are public knowledge:
Neither Putin or Obama is independently capable of launching a nuclear strike. There are safeguards in place for the express purpose of not having one madman make a split second loco decision. In addition, Military commanders have to cooperate regarding strike packages, launch codes among other things. If this isn't being legally done, then cooperation will not be forthcoming.
Fathertime!
Fathertime, as is often the case you don't know what your talking about ( at least in the case of the protocols and procedures concerning our ICBM's) I know nothing about what the Russian protocols are, but spent the better part of my career in the Air Force ICBM world (as a civilian engineer). I was part of the initial team that installed the first flight (10ea) of Minuteman I missiles plus the Launch Control Center at Malmstrom AFB at Great Falls, Montana. Then followed the additional wings of Minuteman II and III missiles. Following that I transferred to Vandenberg AFB and was on the launch team for Atlas F, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper (MX), and Small Missile (Midgetman) missile test launches. I probably actively participated in 40 or so launches over my 23 years at VAFB.
So, having worked on the weapon system from one end to the other for many years, it irks me when some writer (or blogger) makes ridiculous statements that demonstrate he/she doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
I order to avoid even remotely approaching any classified data, let me steer you to some government sources that will help you understand something about the topic of how our ICBM's are controlled.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123409922
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule
http://www.wired.com/2011/01/death-wears-a-snuggie/
There are two high level requirements that were of primary focus in the design of the weapon system.
1. Maximun probablility that a launch order will be successfully executed. This is from the time the President gives the order until first stage ignition. This includes all the redundancies as well as all the safeguards to prevent deliberate attempts to prevent a launch.
2. Maximum probability that an inadvertent launch will not occur either by malfunction, accident, or by deliberate means.
These two requirements are reviewed constantly and the weapon system has gone through continuous upgrades to ensure both of the requirements are 100% met.
As you will read in the links I have provided, once the president gives a war plan order to initiate a launch, there is no one that personally gets involved until the messages and codes are authenticated at each Launch Control Center (I think they are now called MAF's). At least one of the Air Force sources describes the process of first Enabling the missiles, and then the process of multiple 'key turns' by different officers (at the same time) to launch. There is also a description of the 'Inhibit' command.
So in summary Mr. Fathertime, your statement about a single president not having the ability to launch a nuclear response is inaccurate. In reference to your comment about the possibility of a madman having the capability, please note the officer that was fired when he asked the question. Any human interference in carrying out the order of the president would cause our nation and our enemies to question whether MAD is really a functional deterrent.
Now on the humerous side................. I don't think our current president was even in ROTC let alone served in the military. Maybe not even a boy scout. How does that make you feel about half the country voting for someone with a community organizer background that has the sole power to initiate a nuclear attack? :D
Perhaps in future elections we should all think about the awesome responsibility (and powers) of our president before we go to the polls.
-
Fathertime, as is often the case you don't know what your talking about ( at least in the case of the protocols and procedures concerning our ICBM's) I know nothing about what the Russian protocols are, but spent the better part of my career in the Air Force ICBM world (as a civilian engineer). I was part of the initial team that installed the first flight (10ea) of Minuteman I missiles plus the Launch Control Center at Malmstrom AFB at Great Falls, Montana. Then followed the additional wings of Minuteman II and III missiles. Following that I transferred to Vandenberg AFB and was on the launch team for Atlas F, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, Peacekeeper (MX), and Small Missile (Midgetman) missile test launches. I probably actively participated in 40 or so launches over my 23 years at VAFB.
So, having worked on the weapon system from one end to the other for many years, it irks me when some writer (or blogger) makes ridiculous statements that demonstrate he/she doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
I order to avoid even remotely approaching any classified data, let me steer you to some government sources that will help you understand something about the topic of how our ICBM's are controlled.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123409922 (http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123409922)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule)
http://www.wired.com/2011/01/death-wears-a-snuggie/ (http://www.wired.com/2011/01/death-wears-a-snuggie/)
There are two high level requirements that were of primary focus in the design of the weapon system.
1. Maximun probablility that a launch order will be successfully executed. This is from the time the President gives the order until first stage ignition. This includes all the redundancies as well as all the safeguards to prevent deliberate attempts to prevent a launch.
2. Maximum probability that an inadvertent launch will not occur either by malfunction, accident, or by deliberate means.
These two requirements are reviewed constantly and the weapon system has gone through continuous upgrades to ensure both of the requirements are 100% met.
As you will read in the links I have provided, once the president gives a war plan order to initiate a launch, there is no one that personally gets involved until the messages and codes are authenticated at each Launch Control Center (I think they are now called MAF's). At least one of the Air Force sources describes the process of first Enabling the missiles, and then the process of multiple 'key turns' by different officers (at the same time) to launch. There is also a description of the 'Inhibit' command.
So in summary Mr. Fathertime, your statement about a single president not having the ability to launch a nuclear response is inaccurate. In reference to your comment about the possibility of a madman having the capability, please note the officer that was fired when he asked the question. Any human interference in carrying out the order of the president would cause our nation and our enemies to question whether MAD is really a functional deterrent.
Now on the humerous side................. I don't think our current president was even in ROTC let alone served in the military. Maybe not even a boy scout. How does that make you feel about half the country voting for someone with a community organizer background that has the sole power to initiate a nuclear attack? :D
Perhaps in future elections we should all think about the awesome responsibility (and powers) of our president before we go to the polls.
I would say that you know a weee bit more than I about the exact procedures of a nuclear missile launch....although I doubt you know it all...but thanks for the both the links and the explanation. There is a lot of stuff that us *the public* which I would consider you a part of as well...wouldn't know...so I hold out the hope that it takes a little more than a President waking up and deciding to launch...reminds me of the movie The Dead Zone with Martin Sheen....
If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.
Fathertime!
-
http://youtu.be/Tj9M34DzAKo
-
If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.
Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran would all hope people in the free world will give them a free pass to accomplish their goals. If we do that, they will continue with their nuclear ambitions and increase their stockpiles.
Putin doesn't want to destroy Russia in a mutual destruction nuclear world so I don't think it will happen but Iran, China, and North Korea are watching the West's reaction to a nuclear armed nation with ambitions of conquest. What we do may determine what they do.
-
I would say that you know a weee bit more than I about the exact procedures of a nuclear missile launch....although I doubt you know it all...
but thanks for the both the links and the explanation.
There is a lot of stuff that us *the public* which I would consider you a part of as well...wouldn't know...so I hold out the hope that it takes a little more than a President waking up and deciding to launch...reminds me of the movie The Dead Zone with Martin Sheen....
If indeed it only takes the president (or Putin) to wake up and decide he wants to launch nuclear weapons and nothing can stop him, then I do find that surprising and appalling and more of a reason to give Putin and Russia a little wider berth in the current situation.
Fathertime!
Your right, I don't know the launch codes. Nor would I want to. :D
In fact, unless things have changed, only the President has them.
Naturally the mechanism for the communication of the launch codes and war plan specifics are all encrypted and classified. Bits and pieces to the process are hinted at in the various links. An oversimplification of the explanation is to imagine that once the president has issued the order, the specifics of the order are propagated throughout the digital, encrypted system without the requirement for human intervention. It is exactly what is needed if you want to be assured that the order will be reliably carried out. Computers are much more reliable than humans. :D
The system has always had this architecture and I believe it is also applied to many weapon systems. The basic system architecture has never been classified, only the specifics. If you are concerned about it, I am surprised you never researched how our control of our weapons are accomplished.
Just remember that the system is very well designed to make sure a launch order from the president cannot be prevented from being implemented and it also is very well protected from inadvertent launch by accident, system failures or deliberate attempts by humans.
As much as it scares you, it has always been implemented this way. You are watching and being influenced by too many movies and science fiction. If you have a weapon system it is for a purpose! You want it to operate reliably and not subject to inadvertent or deliberate actions by terrorists or others, etc.
Another thing to remember (unclassified) is this is a solid propellant missile. Once the fuse is lit, it is on the way to the destination. There is no recall command as in the case of the old bomber fleet. This places a lot more responsibility on the president and the military. You don't give the 'retaliate' command unless your are certain that a first strike is in process. There are a lot of political considerations before the president would issue the launch command. In some circles during the cold war there were arguments that we should allow a nuke from Russia to land in the US before launching a retaliatory attack. I have no idea what the thinking is now in DOD and the Presidents administration at the moment. It would be all Top Secret and we will never know (hopefully). The important thing to me/us is that we are prepared and will not be caught will our pants down if the political decision is to retaliate to a first strike attack.
-
Good article.
Russia's sub fleet preparedness was discussed a couple of months ago here if you're interested...
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18025.msg379721#msg379721
Brass
Thanks Brass.
-
Shadow, you might wish to inform Vladimir that it was Georgia who attacked first.
Prior to the presidential election, United Russia paraded several generals around who claimed that the plans for attacking Georgia were drawn up during the prior term (of Putin) and the military was ordered to be ready. In August war broke out at the generals on the campaign trail claimed that it was a preemptive strike.
In 2012, Vladimir himself on television Q and A claimed it was a preemptive strike. Mr. Putin says that the FSB had uncovered a plot by Georgia to plant terrorists in Abkhazia in advance of the Sochi Olympics. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that Abkhazia was already a disputed province, already had Russian troops based in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia, and he didn't bother explaining how the Georgian government was going to accomplish this, nor where the supposed terrorists would hide while in those Russian-protected regions.
As to South Ossetia specifically, one would have to grossly ignorant not to understand the months of attacks on Georgian villages across the disputed border, at which Russian peace keeping troops were stationed, was a provocation and attempt to goad Georgia into responding. Further, Russia had warned Georgia not to continue the pursuit of someday becoming a potential NATO member.
Then, there was the little tiff between Putin and Medvedev in 2010. Watching Putin travel around the country and in his speeches taking credit for war in Georgia, Medvedev snapped back that no, it was he who gave the orders. Putin's handlers responded to that by reminding Medvedev that the plans for attacking Georgia had been hatched prior to his assumption of the presidency.
There is a lot of history here prior to 2008. Not only did Moscow warn Georgia against approaching NATO, but one must remember that even today Putin is convinced that Georgia trained, recruited and harbored Islamic terrorists to operate inside Chechnya. True, Georgia and Chechnya share much Caucasus's history, Georgia has been an officially Christian state since the year 337. Chechnya has been primarily Muslim for centuries. The two aren't exactly "best friends forever" material so could have reason to doubt Putin's suspicions.
There is a pattern with the man and it goes like this: Deny, blame the other guy, then eventually take credit.
Again, you seem to know more about the sequence of events than even Vladimir, so I'd suggest that you contact the Kremlin and set him straight.
Putin is as clever in revising as anyone else. When I will lead the peace talks about Ukraine I will remind him.
-
Your right, I don't know the launch codes. Nor would I want to. :D
In fact, unless things have changed, only the President has them.
Naturally the mechanism for the communication of the launch codes and war plan specifics are all encrypted and classified. Bits and pieces to the process are hinted at in the various links. An oversimplification of the explanation is to imagine that once the president has issued the order, the specifics of the order are propagated throughout the digital, encrypted system without the requirement for human intervention. It is exactly what is needed if you want to be assured that the order will be reliably carried out. Computers are much more reliable than humans. :D
The system has always had this architecture and I believe it is also applied to many weapon systems. The basic system architecture has never been classified, only the specifics. If you are concerned about it, I am surprised you never researched how our control of our weapons are accomplished.
Just remember that the system is very well designed to make sure a launch order from the president cannot be prevented from being implemented and it also is very well protected from inadvertent launch by accident, system failures or deliberate attempts by humans.
As much as it scares you, it has always been implemented this way. You are watching and being influenced by too many movies and science fiction. If you have a weapon system it is for a purpose! You want it to operate reliably and not subject to inadvertent or deliberate actions by terrorists or others, etc.
Another thing to remember (unclassified) is this is a solid propellant missile. Once the fuse is lit, it is on the way to the destination. There is no recall command as in the case of the old bomber fleet. This places a lot more responsibility on the president and the military. You don't give the 'retaliate' command unless your are certain that a first strike is in process. There are a lot of political considerations before the president would issue the launch command. In some circles during the cold war there were arguments that we should allow a nuke from Russia to land in the US before launching a retaliatory attack. I have no idea what the thinking is now in DOD and the Presidents administration at the moment. It would be all Top Secret and we will never know (hopefully). The important thing to me/us is that we are prepared and will not be caught will our pants down if the political decision is to retaliate to a first strike attack.
What you say could be all be true, and in addition to the president giving the order AT LEAST one other high ranking official has to agree. That makes a lot more sense then having ONE PERSON make decide the fate of the world. In my opinion having the fire order be a reasonable one, is worth the minor delay. I would think that the high ranking officials would think this way also, and have a little top secret 'procedure book' of some sort that you wouldn't know about. As trustworthy and reliable as Obama is, I still don't like the idea of him solely giving an order and that is all it takes to launch. Putin with the same sole power isn't a good thought either....
I haven't claimed to be an expert on nuclear protocol, but getting the missiles in the air rapidly (to me) is not as important as getting them in the air for VERY good reason...so I really have my doubts about the president solely deciding this. I would think top flight governments would have a more redundant system in place.
Fathertime!
-
Your own lack of integrity earlier got called out a few months back...
To refresh your memory (and this is in the archives):
1. Soon after you joined RWD, you sent me a PM, requesting we talk on the phone about a fellow RWD member who had berated both of us in separate topics.
2. We talked, and you closed by asking me to tag team with you against the RWD member. I refused saying such was juvenile and not how RWD is suppose to operate.
3. Time passed, and in another matter you and I debated against each other and in that discussion you not only disclosed to the forum the subject of our private talk, you embellished lied about what I said to you.
So who violated the integrity of a private call? You, sir, are the violator. Who lied? You, sir, are the liar.
....and you have never been the same since....
You are correct. I made a personal vow then to ignore you. I broke my vow and engaged with you because I consider your "win-win" proposal idiotic. And look at what happened. I take full responsibility for this week's mess as I should have known better than to interact with you. I know not to disturb a skunk yet did it anyway. Now I must bathe away the stench.
-
Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran would all hope people in the free world will give them a free pass to accomplish their goals. If we do that, they will continue with their nuclear ambitions and increase their stockpiles.
Putin doesn't want to destroy Russia in a mutual destruction nuclear world so I don't think it will happen but Iran, China, and North Korea are watching the West's reaction to a nuclear armed nation with ambitions of conquest. What we do may determine what they do.
Hey Billyb! You bring up a good point...I'd say there needs to be the right balance between how tough we are/act and being willing to negotiate and make the best of a bad situation. From my POV Obama is walking that fine line pretty well right now.
Fathertime!
-
To refresh your memory (and this is in the archives):
1. Soon after you joined RWD, you sent me a PM, requesting we talk on the phone about a fellow RWD member who had berated both of us in separate topics.
2. We talked, and you closed by asking me to tag team with you against the RWD member. I refused saying such was juvenile and not how RWD is suppose to operate.
3. Time passed, and in another matter you and I debated against each other and in that discussion you not only disclosed to the forum the subject of our private talk, you embellished lied about what I said to you.
So who violated the integrity of a private call? You, sir, are the violator. Who lied? You, sir, are the liar.
That is YOUR sanitized version of the events...YOU brought up the phone call and misrepresented some of the contents of it, all during a political discussion...and you did it out of anger....OF COURSE I corrected your embellishments...I think it is hilarious that even on this post you have embellished your role further! :ROFL:
Fathertime!
-
You must be losing it or something if making a strong argument against our involvement in Syria makes me Putin. That is ridiculous...but Ok...I'm Putin then. :rolleyes:
I haven't posted that you are Putin. Let's refresh your memory...
I hope your Mr. Putin keeps that in mind.
He is just as much YOUR Putin as he is mine.
We'll revisit this.
Russia has given assistance to the regime in Syria, as they are friendly. WE and (McCain)should NOT be trying to fund 'rebels and overthrow that regime...we should not be promoting wars it is NOT our business and leads to paranoia by other nations that don't want to abide by the US rules of the world! Anyway, that is another subject.
Riiiight. Like I was saying your Putin. ;)
Do you understand the context of what you were discussing now?
I'll explain further...
You are contracted is You're (pronoun, verb). ie. You are Putin/You're Putin
Your (possessive adjective). ie. Your Putin as in your candidate/horse/house, etc.
I hope this clears it up for you.
That is true, although Putin is no Stalin....yet....and hopefully he isn't in a position where millions are dead...the legislative/judiciary is stronger than it was under stalin...that makes a difference if somebody is a despot or not.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991 (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/putins-no-stalin-8991)
Again you are becoming confused with the subject of what it is we're actually discussing. I did not state Putin was Stalin. What I gave you was Stalin as an example of a despot having/possessing nucs, legislature and judiciary.
It is a given that the leader has the authority to launch....but he is NOT the only one that has to agree to the launch for it to happen.....yes we are off track with this argument as it relates to despotism.
Good, I'm glad you understand now. I've noted Calmissle has also clarified the procedure with you ( and with his expertise far more eloquently than I).
Can you think of scenario worse than nuclear stikes?
Deflective question. It is you who subscribes to the doomsday scenario. I don't.
"Like" to conjure war and Armageddon? That is ridiculous. In part the responses are to your earlier assertion that Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch as their missiles are outdated and faulty.
I have never stated "Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch". What I have stated on numerous times over several topics is that Russia does not have the ability to launch a winnable preemptive or first strike. The response to a strategic attack would be overwhelming, destructive and final. There is a difference.
Which apparently you feel gives us the ability to go marching into Russian troops and kill em all and assume it ends there. I don't think it will reach that point where we are actively participating to that degree...but if we did, I don't see Russia backing down...not in Ukraine...so (if you assume that is true) what might be the next logical step? Is this place, under the totality of circumstances leading up to the battle worth the risk?
You're attributing feelings to me I haven't made known or even intimated and I've already answered this question.
Brass
-
I haven't posted that you are Putin. Let's refresh your memory...
As I've already explained..Putin is yours as much as he is mine...the contraction issue notwithstanding!
Again you are becoming confused with the subject of what it is we're actually discussing. I did not state Putin was Stalin. What I gave you was Stalin as an example of a despot having/possessing nucs, legislature and judiciary.
Putin doesn't meet the qualifications as a despot...he doesn't have to total power necessary....Stalin did meet the qualifications.
Good, I'm glad you understand now. I've noted Calmissile has also clarified the procedure with you ( and with his expertise far more eloquently than I).
Although Calmissile id a good job of discussing the nuclear protocol from what he knows...That doesn't include that there are protocols that he is not aware of. I don't think it is convincing that our country would have a protocol that allows for a president to simply decide to fire missiles without provocation...During an actual live exchange I'll concede he probably does (as he should)...but not preemptively and without a real-time threat in progress.
I have never stated "Russia is completely incapable of ANY nuclear launch". What I have stated on numerous times over several topics is that Russia does not have the ability to launch a winnable preemptive or first strike. The response to a strategic attack would be overwhelming, destructive and final. There is a difference.
You have said a little more than this regarding Russia's abilities, and by logical extension ability to fire missiles, like this:[/size] Western media like to build him up for news copy/sound bite but at the end of the day he's really no more of a threat militarily or geopolitically than Hussein or Gaddafi. Brass
But that is unimportant for the moment. There will be no 'winners' if nukes fall. What it would take us to make it 'overwhelming, destructive, and final" would be ruinous on a global scale. Like it or not Russia is our equal in that respect.
You're attributing feelings to me I haven't made known or even intimated and I've already answered this question.
Brass
[/size]
[size=78%]
My apologies if I attributed feelings that you don't have. Based on your prior posts, among other things,you are calling for direct military intervention in Ukraine from NATO which of course includes us...The way that plays out is a whole lot of killing....or maybe you see it playing out differently.
Fathertime!
-
Hey Billyb! You bring up a good point...I'd say there needs to be the right balance between how tough we are/act and being willing to negotiate and make the best of a bad situation. From my POV Obama is walking that fine line pretty well right now.
Fathertime!
I think there shouldn't have been a need for balance. We shouldn't have gone this far. A tough initial response by the West is what was needed but didn't happen. Russians respect those who are tough. Putin viewed sanctions as actions of the weak.
After Yanukovych left office, Putin claimed Russian citizens were in danger in Ukraine. Some of us knew this was BS and should've called him on it. Obama should have sent American troops to Ukraine on a humanitarian mission to protect those Russians in danger and Putin probably would've backed off knowing we called his bluff.
There is some debate on what conditions America and a few European nations must honor the Budapest Memorandum and come to Ukraine's defense in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nukes. Obama could've taken the high road and honored that Memorandum telling Putin we have no choice but to liquidate your forces if you choose to enter Ukraine. Putin wants to win and does care about Russian lives so he won't enter a war he can't win.
All these current problems in Ukraine and Russia could've been over a long time ago if we took a hard stance but the West decided on sanctions that Putin views as a weak response by weak leaders. As a response to sanctions Putin does something crazy by hurting his own nation when creating sanctions that limit trade with the West and arrests oligarchs which in turn scares investors and their money out of Russia. With each step in sanctions the West applies, Putin doesn't back off but gets Russia more involved in Ukraine and wants to show he will defy the West. He's committed and he would face humiliation if he backs down now, especially if he backs down to weak leaders.
Ukrainian people has shown a willingness to defend their country but even with all their patriots, their military is so weak that they can't get rid of a few thousand rebels and Russian soldiers. They need training and weapons. The rebels and a handful of Russian soldiers aren't winning either. They aren't strong enough to march to Kiev. When the weather gets better, Putin may decide on a full invasion realizing sanctions will never end so he might as well get this over with or, he may decide to make the conflict in Ukraine last for years while continuing to claim Russia is not contributing to any of the problems Ukraine is experiencing. Bowing down to sanctions is the last thing I expect from Putin. Weak actions from weak leaders will not discourage him but it will 100% piss him off.
-
BB-- you have lost the plot-your retrospective comments do not meet what was happening.
Your comments on the military is just plain wrong--if Russian regulars had not reinforced the hired mercenaries-& Russian troops already in Ukraine back in July they would have been defeated back then.
Sanctions are proving much more effective than anyone thought possible-- you write as you might have back 6-8 months ago when there were many unknowns-- and now many of your comments miss the mark--like previously when I made that exact same point to you.
-
Your comments on the military is just plain wrong--if Russian regulars had not reinforced the hired mercenaries-& Russian troops already in Ukraine back in July they would have been defeated back then.
The Ukrainian military always had and still has numerical superiority over the rebels and Russian troops but they can't gain ground so Poroshenko had to agree to a cease fire to buy time to enlist help from the West. Ukrainian soldiers may have the spirit to fight but they are poorly led, poorly trained and poorly equipped. They can't beat a smaller force on their home turf. Remember Poroshenko's first day in office? He say he would get the rebels out in 24 hrs or something to that tune. He greatly overestimated his military's abilities and readiness. Overestimating one's abilities can get a lot of people killed. Poroshenko to his credit realized his military's capabilities. You should too. The Ukraine's military is not capable of securing it's country against a much smaller force. They need serious help.
Sanctions are proving much more effective than anyone thought possible
Sanctions never worked with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. They surely won't work with a major power like Russia. Sanctions will only delay the inevitable. Hurting Russia's economy isn't the goal of the sanctions. The goal of the sanctions is to get Russia to back off Ukraine and give back Crimea. It's not working. Sanctions rarely hurt the leaders of the nations that it's applied to. Putin and his cronies will always live the good life. The people will suffer and they will either hate Putin, which hasn't happened on a large scale, or acquire a desire to kill you. If you get killed by a rebel during a visit to Ukraine, some of our Russian members may feel joy and feel that you deserved it. They hate many of the things you've written here. When enough Russians get angry and have the desire to kill or see Westerners suffer, Putin will have the green light for war. Unlike the small, uncooperative nations previously mentioned, Russia has the option of war as a way to lift sanctions and inflict major economic damage to those applying the sanctions.
-
BB-- you have lost the plot-
Like I said BB-- virtually every thing you comment on has been covered ad nauseum on this forum-- best you read it. :)
Oh btw-- you think I am disgusted with Russia? Ask a few of our Ukrainian posters on this forum what they think of Russia today-- try Sirlitz of MsA for starters- I consider my comments moderate compared to how many Ukrainians I know feel about Russia today---like I said to you previously-- your comments are from a bygone age.
-
Sanctions never worked with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. They surely won't work with a major power like Russia. Sanctions will only delay the inevitable. Hurting Russia's economy isn't the goal of the sanctions. The goal of the sanctions is to get Russia to back off Ukraine and give back Crimea. It's not working
Billy, actually they are working. The Western sanctions are primarily aimed at certain individuals and companies, and on lines of credit.
In fact, Putin's sanctions/bans of Western products are among the most effective when it comes to impacting Russian consumers.
-
Billy, actually they are working. The Western sanctions are primarily aimed at certain individuals and companies, and on lines of credit.
In fact, Putin's sanctions/bans of Western products are among the most effective when it comes to impacting Russian consumers.
The sanctions by themselve would have had little effect. However the move of pressuring the oil price was genius.
-
Like I said BB-- virtually every thing you comment on has been covered ad nauseum on this forum-- best you read it. :)
Oh btw-- you think I am disgusted with Russia? Ask a few of our Ukrainian posters on this forum what they think of Russia today-- try Sirlitz of MsA for starters- I consider my comments moderate compared to how many Ukrainians I know feel about Russia today---like I said to you previously-- your comments are from a bygone age.
Those guys who visited charlieHebdo were also just doing a moderate protest.
-
. Putin viewed sanctions as actions of the weak.
. Bowing down to sanctions is the last thing I expect from Putin. Weak actions from weak leaders will not discourage him but it will 100% piss him off.
You said this 8 months ago and have been proven correct...to this point....
Fathertime!
-
Billy, actually they are working. The Western sanctions are primarily aimed at certain individuals and companies, and on lines of credit.
You are right that sanctions are primarily aimed at certain individuals and companies in Russia but lets not fool ourselves. Average Russians who aren't targeted or rich are feeling serious pain from the sanctions and they are more likely to direct their anger at the West instead of Putin. Doesn't matter if Putin is feeding them propaganda, reality is the West is the guilty party applying the sanctions that's hurting their quality of life. Take away people's money and food, they can get vicious. Putin needs his citizens angry at the West to accomplish his goals.
Obama recently lifted the sanctions against Cuba realizing Cuba will never give back what they stole. Ironically Obama, who has shown he has no faith in sanctions working against small time Cuba, wants Putin and citizens of the free world to believe sanctions will work on big bear Russia. Go figure. North Korea and Iran will eventually get nukes and the ballistic missiles to deliver them. Putin knows the song and dance Iran and North Korea plays very well and to the same tune he will eventually gain control over Ukraine once again. America didn't gain it's freedom from the British Empire without the support of France and their weapons. Ukraine won't know freedom until the West is willing to give them real support and weapons. The West needs to get Putin to realize lots of Russians will die if he proceeds with his goals.
-
As I've already explained..Putin is yours as much as he is mine...the contraction issue notwithstanding!
You've explained nothing of the sort. What you did was misunderstand an article of speech in an overzealous attempt to deliberately misconstrue my comment. ;)
Putin doesn't meet the qualifications as a despot...he doesn't have to total power necessary....Stalin did meet the qualifications.
Repeating the mantra won't make it correct. He meets all the criteria for being a despot including the two invalid reasons you erroneously tried to pass off as proof he wasn't a despot up thread.
Although Calmissile id a good job of discussing the nuclear protocol from what he knows...That doesn't include that there are protocols that he is not aware of. I don't think it is convincing that our country would have a protocol that allows for a president to simply decide to fire missiles without provocation...During an actual live exchange I'll concede he probably does (as he should)...but not preemptively and without a real-time threat in progress.
Already explained to you by multiple members. Feel free to rationalize all the protocols into existence you need to if it helps you sleep at night. Just don't try and pass your fears off as fact when discussing them with me.
You have said a little more than this regarding Russia's abilities, and by logical extension ability to fire missiles, like this:...
Yes I have. Do you find my comment inconsistent in some way to anything else I've posted or my position on the issue?
But that is unimportant for the moment. There will be no 'winners' if nukes fall. What it would take us to make it 'overwhelming, destructive, and final" would be ruinous on a global scale. Like it or not Russia is our equal in that respect.
It's unimportant*period* and not really relevant as a rebuttal as well but whatever.
Nope. Another unwarranted assumption on your part. Russia is not NATO's equal with strategic assets and hasn't been since the early 90's. MAD is not an option for your Mr. Putin. I suspect he probably does as much rationalizing as you do on this issue though based on his off the cuff we have nucs so don't mess with us comments.
My apologies if I attributed feelings that you don't have. Based on your prior posts, among other things,you are calling for direct military intervention in Ukraine from NATO which of course includes us...The way that plays out is a whole lot of killing....or maybe you see it playing out differently.
I've also stated several times that if Russia doesn't deviate from it's path of unprovoked aggression and breach of the peace with it's neighboring countries that a shooting war is unavoidable.
Brass
-
The Ukrainian military always had and still has numerical superiority over the rebels and Russian troops but they can't gain ground so Poroshenko had to agree to a cease fire to buy time to enlist help from the West. Ukrainian soldiers may have the spirit to fight but they are poorly led, poorly trained and poorly equipped. They can't beat a smaller force on their home turf. Remember Poroshenko's first day in office? He say he would get the rebels out in 24 hrs or something to that tune. He greatly overestimated his military's abilities and readiness. Overestimating one's abilities can get a lot of people killed. Poroshenko to his credit realized his military's capabilities. You should too. The Ukraine's military is not capable of securing it's country against a much smaller force. They need serious help.
Sanctions never worked with North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. They surely won't work with a major power like Russia. Sanctions will only delay the inevitable. Hurting Russia's economy isn't the goal of the sanctions. The goal of the sanctions is to get Russia to back off Ukraine and give back Crimea. It's not working. Sanctions rarely hurt the leaders of the nations that it's applied to. Putin and his cronies will always live the good life. The people will suffer and they will either hate Putin, which hasn't happened on a large scale, or acquire a desire to kill you. If you get killed by a rebel during a visit to Ukraine, some of our Russian members may feel joy and feel that you deserved it. They hate many of the things you've written here. When enough Russians get angry and have the desire to kill or see Westerners suffer, Putin will have the green light for war. Unlike the small, uncooperative nations previously mentioned, Russia has the option of war as a way to lift sanctions and inflict major economic damage to those applying the sanctions.
Great post and a voice of reason. Ukrainian soldiers have the will to fight but they need better training and weapons. The USA the UK and France should be ashamed at having signed the Budapest memorandum yet being so unwilling and slow to give real aid.
So far it looks to be Canada and Great Britain who are doing the most. Considering the historical nature of Churchill during WWII this is something to be admired and applauded.
Sanctions are very good along with the unexpected drop in oil prices, but BB is correct that they really only piss-off Putin and that his hands are not tied. He could invade and be all the way to Moldova within a week if he wanted to, and all because of the West not living up to their treaty obligations.
-
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18671.msg387363#msg387363 (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18671.msg387363#msg387363)
Thanks for the link, Изумруд. I think the Americans will do fine, but it is unfortunate that monies that could be spent on something more productive will be wasted on this project.
-
http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18671.msg387363#msg387363 (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=18671.msg387363#msg387363)
Thanks for the link, Изумруд. I think the Americans will do fine, but it is unfortunate that monies that could be spent on something more productive will be wasted on this project.
Yes Boe, absolutely!
-
The sanctions by themselve would have had little effect.
You very obviously do not live in Russia. The price of oil has less to do with finding certain foods at the market, while the reverse sanctions by Putin has very much to do with everyday products.
-
You've explained nothing of the sort. What you did was misunderstand an article of speech in an overzealous attempt to deliberately misconstrue my comment. ;)
Repeating the mantra won't make it correct. He meets all the criteria for being a despot including the two invalid reasons you erroneously tried to pass off as proof he wasn't a despot up thread.
He does not meet all the criteria to be a despot repeating the mantra that he is a despot doesn't make it true....he does not have absolute power.
Already explained to you by multiple members. Feel free to rationalize all the protocols into existence you need to if it helps you sleep at night. Just don't try and pass your fears off as fact when discussing them with me.
The fact remains that you, nor any member here know for sure what all the protocols are....so no one here can say with certainty what they are....
Yes I have. Do you find my comment inconsistent in some way to anything else I've posted or my position on the issue?
It doesn't matter if your comment is 'consistent' when it is consistently wrong. You have stated that Russia is no more a threat then Ghadafi or Saddam....you are incorrect, but you are consistent. ;)
Nope. Another unwarranted assumption on your part. Russia is not NATO's equal with strategic assets and hasn't been since the early 90's. MAD is not an option for your Mr. Putin. I suspect he probably does as much rationalizing as you do on this issue though based on his off the cuff we have nucs so don't mess with us comments.
Russia has the ability to destroy the planet 3 times over but we can 6 times over...what is the difference? They are our equal in that respect and blinding yourself to that fact doesn't make it go away.
your Mr. Putin.
He is as much YOUR Mr. Putin, as he is mine! When discussing the issues with me you can refer to him as OUR Mr Putin.
I've also stated several times that if Russia doesn't deviate from it's path of unprovoked aggression and breach of the peace with it's neighboring countries that a shooting war is unavoidable.
Brass
"With it's neighboring countries" entails a lot more than solely what is happening in Ukraine...and you are also stating unequivocally that the aggression is/was unprovoked. Screaming past Russia, and talking in absolutes is sure to get us in an avoidable shooting war ...especially in Ukraine.
Fathertime!
-
You very obviously do not live in Russia. The price of oil has less to do with finding certain foods at the market, while the reverse sanctions by Putin has very much to do with everyday products.
For example, Putin banned EU apples. However, I hear the Poles sold their apples to Belarus who them shipped them to Russia, at a much higher cost of course. Who is going to know whether the apple was grown on a tree in Poland or Belarus?
A Mercedes_Benz is another matter. What is happening with luxury cars? Lexus deliveries have skyrocketed?
-
And that is one of Putin's issues now with Belarus, and Kazakhstan, as he suspects they are both allowing this sort of thing to happen. It is happening, and that has widened the cracks of that Eurasian relationship.
-
And that is one of Putin's issues now with Belarus, and Kazakhstan, as he suspects they are both allowing this sort of thing to happen. It is happening, and that has widened the cracks of that Eurasian relationship.
And if you got to Vienna with Shadow you can purchase some Dutch clothes given to poor Poles who are now selling them in Vienna.
-
And that is one of Putin's issues now with Belarus, and Kazakhstan, as he suspects they are both allowing this sort of thing to happen. It is happening, and that has widened the cracks of that Eurasian relationship.
I think that the Eurasian Union, or whatever name they take moving forward is DOA.
-
Much like the Kremlin.. The heart is still beating but the EEG is flat lined! :clapping:
-
The sanctions by themselve would have had little effect. However the move of pressuring the oil price was genius.
That genius is having significant side effects. It is destroying the US shale oil industry and any European states with any significant oil industry left may also close their doors soon.
-
The banks are appearing to be more and more precarious here.
Some of the current antics:
1. Closing unused credit cards. Forcing people to reapply with greatly increased % repayments.
2. 100% spread between buy and sell prices for Euro and USD. (clearly they don't want to sell them).
3. Not refilling bankomats when they get empty.
4. Asking people for a reason why they want to withdraw their cash.
We have seen examples of all these locally.
Some banks have also stopped giving credit for home loans under any conditions.
-
You very obviously do not live in Russia. The price of oil has less to do with finding certain foods at the market, while the reverse sanctions by Putin has very much to do with everyday products.
That is true but the price of oil impacts two things directly or indirectly:
1. The Russian budget which then feeds into pensions and govt salaries as well as business contracts.
2. Impacts on the exchange rate which then impact prices of imported goods.
The price of milk has risen by more an 50% in the last 6 months here. (It's about 70 rubles a litre here) Eggs area also up a lot. Yet both are domestically produced and not impacted by sanctions of either side directly. But, they are impacted by the fall in the relative buying power of the ruble.
-
Russia has historically imported a significant amount of diary products. One of the reasons for those price increases are increased pressure on local supply.
-
From what I saw here it was primarily cheese, yogurt and UHT treated milk that was imported - not fresh.
-
Ukraine is now blocking the transit of eggs from Turkey across its territory if bound for Russia-- so that will lead to shortage and price hike.
Just another link in a chain.
-
Russia has historically imported a significant amount of diary products. One of the reasons for those price increases are increased pressure on local supply.
Dear Diary,
No milk today. No Morozhene either. Oh, Crap.
-
I eat some ice cream and yogurt sometimes, but am allergic to most diary products. (Sheep and goats milk are fine, for some reason). That being said, I have not been a bug Russian milk consumer but can remember the late 1990s and early 2000s when cousin Natasha had coupons to buy milk for the children. As we were older, my wife would save our coupon allotment for Natasha. I have not heard about the need for milk coupons for years now.
Perhaps the single biggest event that changed Russian agriculture and farming was the arrival of McDonald's. Although they have since sold most land and factory holdings (as a planned move), when they first arrived, Russia simply could not produce products in the amounts, and of consistent quality, to supply early Western restaurants. Much of the development of certain products and the creating of distribution systems is due to Mickey D. Today, except for ketchup which is made by John Kerry's wife at a factory in the Baltics, almost 100% of McDonald's products are local.
Companies like Kroshka-Kartoshka (Little Potato) were plagued with inconsistent potato size and quality in their early days. The CCCP had just not understood how consumers value a consistent product from location to location, and Kroshka had to help farmers learn how to grow the kind of potatoes that their chain could use. Today, no matter which city, you can expect a high quality potato of uniform size at their restaurants.
Over the last several years Kroshka-Kartoshka has implemented a regular program similar to the "undercover boss" idea, and the company reports that quality is up since instituting those visits. The company says that 70% of Kroshka-Kartoshka customers are regular repeat clients (like myself), and they are still in the process of teaching employees the importance of consistent and quality product from location to location. According to company executives, one of the biggest issues is when employees over-stuff a baked potato for one customer, and then under-stuff for another.
-
I think that statement is not an absolute..
Maybe, maybe not. I think that Russia will always attempt to maintain some influence. But had we accepted Crimea at first, that may have stopped the sequence. It appears what we have done has exacerbated the situation.
Fathertime!
The classical liberal response to a belligerent is to appease, compromise and
offer money, land, virgins, special laws anything the tyrant wants for peace.
It's never worked and there are countless examples though out history to
prove it.
-
However the move of pressuring the oil price was genius.
Are you suggesting some politician or group of them was responsible for this?
It didn't happen
-
The classical liberal response to a belligerent is to appease, compromise and
offer money, land, virgins, special laws anything the tyrant wants for peace.
It's never worked and there are countless examples though out history to
prove it.
True. Giving Hitler what he asked for didn't keep him from demanding more. He re-militarized the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain and France didn't oppose him. He annexed Austria and Britain and France didn't oppose him. Next he demanded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with him and was assured that if Britain acceded to his annexation of the Sudetenland it would buy peace and be the last territory Hitler would take. But the next year Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. When Britain and France did nothing in response Hitler planned his invasion of Poland.
-
True. Giving Hitler what he asked for didn't keep him from demanding more. He re-militarized the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain and France didn't oppose him. He annexed Austria and Britain and France didn't oppose him. Next he demanded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with him and was assured that if Britain acceded to his annexation of the Sudetenland it would buy peace and be the last territory Hitler would take. But the next year Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. When Britain and France did nothing in response Hitler planned his invasion of Poland.
You know the history Larry on how the West reacts to aggression and so does Putin.
-
The classical liberal response to a belligerent is to appease, compromise and
offer money, land, virgins, special laws anything the tyrant wants for peace.
It's never worked and there are countless examples though out history to
prove it.
Agreed.
What are your thoughts on how to handle current situation?
I understand how you guys feel about Obama(I dont see him and his admin like a lot of you fwiw)--but--the way I read his current position is to continue a non provocation position on Russia at this time,
-
The classical liberal response to a belligerent is to appease, compromise and
offer money, land, virgins, special laws anything the tyrant wants for peace.
It's never worked and there are countless examples though out history to
prove it.
Our US envoy to the UN says Putin's peace plan is more like an occupation plan. Putin is hoping the West would agree to it in exchange for him stop his aggression. Putin want to be rewarded for bad behavior.
http://news.yahoo.com/russias-peace-proposal-ukraine-occupation-plan-u-205318652.html
-
Our US envoy to the UN says Putin's peace plan is more like an occupation plan. Putin is hoping the West would agree to it in exchange for him stop his aggression. Putin want to be rewarded for bad behavior.
http://news.yahoo.com/russias-peace-proposal-ukraine-occupation-plan-u-205318652.html
Hitler promised Chamberlain that the Sudenland was going to be his last land grab, and it wasn't. Everybody knows that when you reward a greedy person they only get more and more greedy. Putin is a very greedy man who has enriched himself to the detriment of his own people. He won't stop thru sanctions or diplomacy. In fact when I think of Putin I think of a famous movie with Martin Sheen as a deranged President pushing the Nuclear button. Now just think of Putin pushing that button.
-
Hitler promised Chamberlain that the Sudenland was going to be his last land grab, and it wasn't. Everybody knows that when you reward a greedy person they only get more and more greedy. Putin is a very greedy man who has enriched himself to the detriment of his own people. He won't stop thru sanctions or diplomacy. In fact when I think of Putin I think of a famous movie with Martin Sheen as a deranged President pushing the Nuclear button. Now just think of Putin pushing that button.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo)
Superb scene in a very good movie...although I think of it more like if LT was president! ;)
-
Speaking of which...the Nuclear clock was moved up and currently stands at 11:57. The closest they have ever been is 11:58.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0122/Doomsday-Clock-now-reads-11-57 (http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0122/Doomsday-Clock-now-reads-11-57)
Fathertime!
-
Our US envoy to the UN says Putin's peace plan is more like an occupation plan. Putin is hoping the West would agree to it in exchange for him stop his aggression. Putin want to be rewarded for bad behavior.
http://news.yahoo.com/russias-peace-proposal-ukraine-occupation-plan-u-205318652.html
More double-speak from Putler. As Mende stated if his troops and weapons are not there, he has no need to concern himself with any peace plan or anything else in Ukraine.
-
What are your thoughts on how to handle current situation?
It's a terrible mess. Ukraine is in a terrible situation, their economy is in the tank,
they have no money, their credit is nonexistent, their armaments and munitions
are Russian, they have layers and layers of corruption, their infrastructure is out
dated in many ways, I could go on and on. They are in a horrible mess.
If they want to continue governing themselves they need to overhaul everything
and brutally weed out corruption that robs them of productively helping themselves.
They need to look at all their various resources and leverage them to foreign investors
and make themselves attractive to foreign investment. Ukraine has a large and well
educated work force. Any manufacturer would love to build things there. Labor is
cheap, they have decent ports, rivers, rail, many raw materials and excellent farmland.
It's corruption that keeps foreign investment away.
They need help, but they need to show that they are willing to help themselves in order
to get others to spend the money for all the things they vitally need.
Some might say that they have begun addressing some of these things but they need
to get serious because their continued existence as an independent self governing
country will cease to exist if they don't.
-
It's a terrible mess. Ukraine is in a terrible situation, their economy is in the tank,
they have no money, their credit is nonexistent, their armaments and munitions
are Russian, they have layers and layers of corruption, their infrastructure is out
dated in many ways, I could go on and on. They are in a horrible mess.
If they want to continue governing themselves they need to overhaul everything
and brutally weed out corruption that robs them of productively helping themselves.
They need to look at all their various resources and leverage them to foreign investors
and make themselves attractive to foreign investment. Ukraine has a large and well
educated work force. Any manufacturer would love to build things there. Labor is
cheap, they have decent ports, rivers, rail, many raw materials and excellent farmland.
It's corruption that keeps foreign investment away.
They need help, but they need to show that they are willing to help themselves in order
to get others to spend the money for all the things they vitally need.
Some might say that they have begun addressing some of these things but they need
to get serious because their continued existence as an independent self governing
country will cease to exist if they don't.
Very good post. Likely the best post of the week. Ukraine is certainly not only fighting an enemy militarily, they are fighting for their very existence in an economic sense. It's unknown if they will survive without Russia either taking more portions thru conquest, or by causing them so much financial pain that they say "uncle" and Poroshenko convinces the nation that the only way forward is to accept the trade union with Russia.
If they don't seize this opportunity now to rid themselves of the corruption in order to get the financial aid and foreign investments for the benefit of their economy and future, will they ever?
-
Some might say that they have begun addressing some of these things but they need
to get serious because their continued existence as an independent self governing
country will cease to exist if they don't.
Some RWD members point to Russia's declining economy and question whether Russia can continue to fund the separatists in Ukraine without reducing public services in Russia. The Ukrainian economy is far, far worse.
In conflicts such as this, history shows that corrupt war lords and their gangs tend to prevail, at great cost to the innocent citizens. I imagine corruption is rampant on the separatist side, although I have read no evidence other than some anecdotal reports. I wonder how much of the Ukrainian military is patriotic and how much is corrupt. Corruption weakens patriotism - I observed such with ARVN in Vietnam.
-
Gator- Russia cannot afford this war and the consequences-FULL STOP. However--Putin will stop paying pensions in Russia before he stops any war.
Ukraine's economy--sure it has problems and that is why they were so desperate to rid themselves of the Russians drowning them -- and want to look west to create a future.
Also a fact-- because of Russia attempt to invade and control--Ukraine will get real aid from the west to help rebuild the country-- and that will give Ukraine a cornerstone to build the country.
Please stop looking backwards about corruption--many steps have been taken and are being taken to address the historic issues.
The military--when Russia invaded Crimea there was a new government a few days old-- and the military( & bureaucracy) were hopelessly compromised with Russian sympathisers-- as those in positions of authority tried to punt on where their personal bread would be best buttered-- it took time to sort out the patriots from the pretenders( in fact it is still going on. In the military it took time but gradually people that wanted a Ukraine-and believed in Ukraine have come in to control of Ukraine's future-these people are true patriots.
Since Maidan( and of course before) many-the polls show huge majority so we can say most-now believe in a free and in dependant Ukraine and they have shown and are showing they are prepared to fight for it.
That is today-- not yesterdays news or attitudes.
The free & democratic world should be helping Ukraine in every way possible to defend themselves.
-
Ohferchrissake,
That sounds like one of those commercials with the big eyed puppy dogs while playing sad music and begging for money! You were more true to form when you were salivating over pushing Babushka in front of a bus or pouring acid into Russian eyes. What happened? Did you get religion?
-
Whoa, Steamer ......
Most Russian Babushki that I am familiar with would have no problem standing their ground. It would be the bus that would be run over if a Babushka would be pushed in front of it.
(http://www.russianlife.com/default/cache/file/9404E089-5056-A32F-D594FA6D546EB0C6.jpg)
-
Gator- Russia cannot afford this war and the consequences-FULL STOP. However--Putin will stop paying pensions in Russia before he stops any war.
Ukraine's economy--sure it has problems and that is why they were so desperate to rid themselves of the Russians drowning them -- and want to look west to create a future.
Also a fact-- because of Russia attempt to invade and control--Ukraine will get real aid from the west to help rebuild the country-- and that will give Ukraine a cornerstone to build the country.
Please stop looking backwards about corruption--many steps have been taken and are being taken to address the historic issues.
The military--when Russia invaded Crimea there was a new government a few days old-- and the military( & bureaucracy) were hopelessly compromised with Russian sympathisers-- as those in positions of authority tried to punt on where their personal bread would be best buttered-- it took time to sort out the patriots from the pretenders( in fact it is still going on. In the military it took time but gradually people that wanted a Ukraine-and believed in Ukraine have come in to control of Ukraine's future-these people are true patriots.
Since Maidan( and of course before) many-the polls show huge majority so we can say most-now believe in a free and in dependant Ukraine and they have shown and are showing they are prepared to fight for it.
That is today-- not yesterdays news or attitudes.
The free & democratic world should be helping Ukraine in every way possible to defend themselves.
Wow! So most or all the corruption in Ukraine has been ripped right from the very fabric of the country where it was so prevalent? Outstanding!
-
Wow! So most or all the corruption in Ukraine has been ripped right from the very fabric of the country where it was so prevalent? Outstanding!
It is improving as fast as they can. The lustration was a good start. You expect it all to be done overnight? Let's give them an opportunity and then evaluate how well they have done. How well has Russia done lately in eliminating corruption?
-
Wow! So most or all the corruption in Ukraine has been ripped right from the very fabric of the country where it was so prevalent? Outstanding!
:deadhorse: :cluebat:
Your constant negative trailing my comments about anything positive in Ukr is a pia. Like so many of yesterdays people on forums you constantly hark back to how it was--without bothering to either know--or admit that progress is being made .
Fact is--giant steps have been taken--no one said the problem is solved.
Comparisons with Russian kleptocracy is a measure of how far it has come-Russia getting worse--Ukraine making concerted attempt to set new standards.
-
It is improving as fast as they can. The lustration was a good start. You expect it all to be done overnight? Let's give them an opportunity and then evaluate how well they have done. How well has Russia done lately in eliminating corruption?
It's systemic and it's to the core. I don't expect it to be done overnight or even in the next 10 years but I'm calling bullshit on Jay's proclamations. Is Russia eliminating corruption? What has Russia's corruption got to do with stopping it in Ukraine?
-
:deadhorse: :cluebat:
Your constant negative trailing my comments about anything positive in Ukr is a pia. Like so many of yesterdays people on forums you constantly hark back to how it was--without bothering to either know--or admit that progress is being made .
Fact is--giant steps have been taken--no one said the problem is solved.
Comparisons with Russian kleptocracy is a measure of how far it has come-Russia getting worse--Ukraine making concerted attempt to set new standards.
Ah well, sit down, have a seat and get over yourself. When you make stupid claims and wild accusations expect to be called out on them. I suppose the day will never come where you see things as they are rather than the way you want them to be.
Also, back to reality for you just a moment. I do not constantly trail your comments with negativity. I don't find you important or interesting enough to do so. I just call them like I see them, when I see them. Deal with it. Try as you may and you can cheer lead Ukraine all you wish. Help you effing self but, you are not now nor have your ever been the shining beacon or voice of Ukraine. Get a grip dude
-
Ah well, sit down, have a seat and get over yourself. When you make stupid claims and wild accusations expect to be called out on them. I suppose the day will never come where you see things as they are rather than the way you want them to be.
Also, back to reality for you just a moment. I do not constantly trail your comments with negativity. I don't find you important or interesting enough to do so. I just call them like I see them, when I see them. Deal with it. Try as you may and you can cheer lead Ukraine all you wish. Help you effing self but, you are not now nor have your ever been the shining beacon or voice of Ukraine. Get a grip dude
You never know when to shut up-- the evidence is above.
It is your stupid out of date comments that I take exception to-- you and the Kremlin have something in common--keep repeating innacuracies & lies and some are silly enough to believe it. :cluebat:
-
Wow! So most or all the corruption in Ukraine has been ripped right from the very fabric of the country where it was so prevalent? Outstanding!
They are working on it, and getting help to do it:
http://www.international.gc.ca/international/support-ukraine-soutien.aspx?lang=eng
If you read that link you will see that Canada and other countries are not just giving immediate economic help to Ukraine, but they are also helping to clean up the corruption in govt, helping organize social organizations and organizing future developments for Ukraine. Note how they seized assets of Yanukovich and his regime and their families. And that they imposed sanctions against other unnamed Ukrainians as well, not just Russian companies or individuals.
I agree it would be a stretch to believe that the new govt would be able to eliminate all the corruption in Ukraine by themselves, but there are many countries monitoring the situation with the new govt and helping them to do this. Believe it or not it might actually be happening, Canada and other countries wouldn't just be throwing money blindly at Ukraine without knowing that it wasn't just going to end up in a few govt official's pockets.
-
You never know when to shut up-- the evidence is above.
It is your stupid out of date comments that I take exception to-- you and the Kremlin have something in common--keep repeating innacuracies & lies and some are silly enough to believe it. :cluebat:
Yeah I was wondering how long it would take a pea brain to attempt to demonize me for disagreeing with him. Exactly 2 posts. So now I am in cahoots with the Kremlin because I point you out for the idiocy you spew. More evidence that when anyone calls you a moron they underestimated you ;D
-
You never know when to shut up-- the evidence is above.
It is your stupid out of date comments that I take exception to-- you and the Kremlin have something in common--keep repeating innacuracies & lies and some are silly enough to believe it. :cluebat:
You have already grumbled last week that ANYTHING said has to be positive as it pertains to Ukraine, or it is an attack on them, or words to that affect...so there goes your dwindling credibility. People are entitled to give their viewpoints, regardless of your ridiculous attempts to demonize them....when instead you had the opportunity to explain yourself...because very few are going to take your cheerleading at face value.
He is right, you sure don't speak for anybody but yourself.
Fathertime!
-
They are working on it, and getting help to do it:
http://www.international.gc.ca/international/support-ukraine-soutien.aspx?lang=eng
If you read that link you will see that Canada and other countries are not just giving immediate economic help to Ukraine, but they are also helping to clean up the corruption in govt, helping organize social organizations and organizing future developments for Ukraine. Note how they seized assets of Yanukovich and his regime and their families. And that they imposed sanctions against other unnamed Ukrainians as well, not just Russian companies or individuals.
I agree it would be a stretch to believe that the new govt would be able to eliminate all the corruption in Ukraine by themselves, but there are many countries monitoring the situation with the new govt and helping them to do this. Believe it or not it might actually be happening, Canada and other countries wouldn't just be throwing money blindly at Ukraine without knowing that it wasn't just going to end up in a few govt official's pockets.
I wish Ukraine well. I really do and I hope for the best. But, the idea that someone, even Canadians can wave an ink pen and corruption in Ukraine vanishes is a fantasy. It's permeated into everything and has been a system hundreds of years in the making. It's not going to suddenly dissipate because the top crook got kicked to the curb. If there was an actual plan to end it, it will be years or tens of years before it is at an acceptable level.
-
+1
-
I wish Ukraine well. I really do and I hope for the best. But, the idea that someone, even Canadians can wave an ink pen and corruption in Ukraine vanishes is a fantasy. It's permeated into everything and has been a system hundreds of years in the making. It's not going to suddenly dissipate because the top crook got kicked to the curb. If there was an actual plan to end it, it will be years or tens of years before it is at an acceptable level.
Nobody can wave an ink pen and change the corruption but the people are trying. Poroshenko is a good leader and not corrupt. Things are progressing at a faster pace than thought possible. My wife worked with the government for some time helping weed out corruption in the financial areas and continues to do so. She sees were they are making progress and everyone realizes this may be their last chance to do so.
-
Russia cannot afford this war and the consequences-FULL STOP.
What do you mean they can't afford a war? Even when countries are devastated during WW2, there's no better time to advance new technology, and ramp up the speed of manufacturing. Governments don't have to pay for war now, they can pay later. Besides, many older Russians are used to not getting paid for their work. Putin increase the military budget by 30% this year. NATO seems to be penny pinching compared to Russia.
Russia's newest tank comes out this year. They also have a new 5th generation fighter. Every time you laugh at the ruble, Russia moves weapons and armies to new locations. 70 new aircraft are heading to Crimea.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-adds-70-new-aircraft-military-district-around-crimea-301960
-
Gator- Russia cannot afford this war and the consequences-FULL STOP. However--Putin will stop paying pensions in Russia before he stops any war.
"Posted by: BillyB
« on: Today at 07:04:57 PM » Insert Quote
Quote from: JayH on Today at 03:16:33 PM
Russia cannot afford this war and the consequences-FULL STOP. "
BB--I think more appropriate if you included the full sentence to put what I said in context.
But- my point remains-- the consequences of the Russian invasion will be felt long and hard in Russia long into the future.The cost today in $ terms- he cant afford either-it will have massive detrimental affect on the Russian budget. Alreading reneging on Crimean and Transinistra promises- soon he will start cutting wages and if he continies--be unable to pay- full stop. The military is likely to get very interested in the decison making process when they stop being paid--or get pay cut! I dont think today's Russians will respond too well when not getting paid!!
What do you mean they can't afford a war? Even when countries are devastated during WW2, there's no better time to advance new technology, and ramp up the speed of manufacturing. Governments don't have to pay for war now, they can pay later. Besides, many older Russians are used to not getting paid for their work. Putin increase the military budget by 30% this year. NATO seems to be penny pinching compared to Russia.
Russia's newest tank comes out this year. They also have a new 5th generation fighter. Every time you laugh at the ruble, Russia moves weapons and armies to new locations. 70 new aircraft are heading to Crimea.
BB--Putin DOES NOT HAVE 30% to increase military spending--at some point in the next year Russia will run out of money-if he cannot run over Ukrainians soon and then attempt to negotiate a truce/peace in the attempt to hang on to his gains his own internal crisis will run him over( or over him !)
In the news today--many tanks being sent to Rostov from st Petersburg-alledgedly WW2 variety-- this war goes up a level or two and all this Russian equipment will finish up looking like all that Iraqi hardware on the Kuwait-The Highway To Death
-
I will take at least a decade, maybe two, to weed out corruption in Ukraine. It is ingrained and endemic. Plus, for all the lustration laws, to date, the oligarchs have not been touched.
-
I wish Ukraine well. I really do and I hope for the best. But, the idea that someone, even Canadians can wave an ink pen and corruption in Ukraine vanishes is a fantasy. It's permeated into everything and has been a system hundreds of years in the making. It's not going to suddenly dissipate because the top crook got kicked to the curb. If there was an actual plan to end it, it will be years or tens of years before it is at an acceptable level.
I'm just an average Joe and my attitude is wait and see. The professional investors likely feel the same way --"Let's wait and see if Ukraine really is doing something about corruption". Meanwhile the ship is sinking. Most of us certainly wish them well but none of us are magicians. Not sure if David Copperfield could pull off this.
The most corrupt types in Ukraine are likely Svengali like characters who could impress the greatest skeptic that their hands are clean and the money will go where it is supposed to. Next thing you know at least half the money disappears.
-
I wish Ukraine well. I really do and I hope for the best. But, the idea that someone, even Canadians can wave an ink pen and corruption in Ukraine vanishes is a fantasy. It's permeated into everything and has been a system hundreds of years in the making. It's not going to suddenly dissipate because the top crook got kicked to the curb. If there was an actual plan to end it, it will be years or tens of years before it is at an acceptable level.
Of course it will take time to curb the corruption, no one said it was non existent now. Jay just mentioned that steps were being taken to address it and I showed some proof that the Ukrainian govt is getting help from other countries in doing this. Which is smart on their part, because like Taz said, they are only going to have one chance to prove that they really do want to change the reputation of the Ukrainian govt.
-
Of course it will take time to curb the corruption, no one said it was non existent now. Jay just mentioned that steps were being taken to address it and I showed some proof that the Ukrainian govt is getting help from other countries in doing this. Which is smart on their part, because like Taz said, they are only going to have one chance to prove that they really do want to change the reputation of the Ukrainian govt.
+1
-
the consequences of the Russian invasion will be felt long and hard in Russia long into the future.The cost today in $ terms- he cant afford either-it will have massive detrimental affect on the Russian budget.
Do you think Putin is dumb? Putin factored in the good and bad and feels it's worth moving forward with his goals. The Value of Ukraine is worth more than the damage of sanctions. Putin also gets to make NATO look weak and take away a potential trading partner(Ukraine) from them. After Putin takes Ukraine under it's wings, he will set up elections to show the world Ukraine unanimously voted in another puppet President and the EU will go back to doing business with Russia. That's if Putin chooses to stop at Ukraine. Russia is far better off now than the USSR was at near defeat from the Nazis. If USSR can get stronger during a war, Russia can get stronger. Germany also became a world power quickly after getting devastated and bankrupt during WW1. They got stronger early during WW2. It doesn't make sense but history shows countries can get stronger during wars.
-
Yeah I was wondering how long it would take a pea brain to attempt to demonize me for disagreeing with him. Exactly 2 posts. So now I am in cahoots with the Kremlin because I point you out for the idiocy you spew. More evidence that when anyone calls you a moron they underestimated you ;D
Welcome to the group, comrade. ;)
-
I will take at least a decade, maybe two, to weed out corruption in Ukraine. It is ingrained and endemic. Plus, for all the lustration laws, to date, the oligarchs have not been touched.
I agree, it is crazy how ingrained at all levels it is. I honestly don't know how people get anything done there. The amount of patience needed is phenomenal.
-
Do you think Putin is dumb? Putin factored in the good and bad and feels it's worth moving forward with his goals. The Value of Ukraine is worth more than the damage of sanctions. Putin also gets to make NATO look weak and take away a potential trading partner(Ukraine) from them. After Putin takes Ukraine under it's wings, he will set up elections to show the world Ukraine unanimously voted in another puppet President and the EU will go back to doing business with Russia. That's if Putin chooses to stop at Ukraine. Russia is far better off now than the USSR was at near defeat from the Nazis. If USSR can get stronger during a war, Russia can get stronger. Germany also became a world power quickly after getting devastated and bankrupt during WW1. They got stronger early during WW2. It doesn't make sense but history shows countries can get stronger during wars.
I have already outlined how Ukraine can get stronger in the middle of this war.
For Russia--it is all downhill.
BB-- again-- even if Putin was able to get to the Polish border--it will only be temporary. One way or another Ukraine will push Russia out of Ukraine-- sooner or later that will happen.
The easiest way is for the west to help now-that will save millions of Ukrainian lives-- and save the west a much higher cost at some future time in putting Russia back in it;s box.
Guys keep throwing up the WW2 and USSSR-- anything positive applies equally to Ukraine who was a cornerstone of the USSR and particularly in the defence of Russia itself-- so think about that before throwing it at us repeatedly.
Last year--Putin attempted to hijack the WW2 memorial days as Russian--much to the chagrin of many Ukrainian veterans and their families--probably helped turn many into Ukrainian nationalists.
-
Welcome to the group, comrade. ;)
Zdravstvuj ;D
Welcome to bizarro world , eh? Out is in, up is down, black is white, etc.
-
. My wife worked with the government for some time helping weed out corruption in the financial areas and continues to do so. She sees were they are making progress and everyone realizes this may be their last chance to do so.
Tell your wife that we say THANK YOU for her efforts!! :clapping:
-
I agree, it is crazy how ingrained at all levels it is. I honestly don't know how people get anything done there. The amount of patience needed is phenomenal.
Bear in mind that it's not just UA that's got serious problems with corruption. Russia has it just as bad and K-Stan is in the same boat from what I've seen. But they're not in the news (for this) right now like Ukraine is.
-
I agree, it is crazy how ingrained at all levels it is. I honestly don't know how people get anything done there. The amount of patience needed is phenomenal.
Old Soviet relics are hard to kill. ;)
-
I have already outlined how Ukraine can get stronger in the middle of this war.
For Russia--it is all downhill.
BB-- again-- even if Putin was able to get to the Polish border--it will only be temporary. One way or another Ukraine will push Russia out of Ukraine-- sooner or later that will happen.
Please allow me to pen the ending for your fantasy....
"And the word lived happily ever after". :rolleyes:
Fathertime!
-
I see very few benefits for Russia's ownership of Donbas and Crimea. Before the war, Russia already had a military base in Crimea. Ownership of Donbas will be a costly area of rehabilitation for Russia. Citizens there will see their western neighbor gradually prospering while they flounder in Donbas. And like I said, the Russian annexation and invasion make the world less willing to do business with Russia. Putin seems not to care about that, but it's bad for his country. Putin is ruining Russia.
-
An interesting article from Straford
An Escalation in Ukraine Would Add to Putin's Concerns
February 2, 2015 | 23:21 GMT
Analysis
Several developments over the weekend related to the Ukraine crisis indicated that the standoff between Russia and the West could soon reach a turning point. Fighting continued between Ukrainian security forces and Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine while the latest round of peace talks in Minsk collapsed in a matter of hours. Shortly after the talks failed, the leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic announced that a general mobilization of up to 100,000 fighters would occur within two weeks. Meanwhile, a report from The New York Times published on Sunday suggested that the United States is seriously considering providing the Ukrainian military with lethal weapons. The United States is characterizing this as a defensive move, but the pro-Russian rebels and Russian government are not likely to agree.
All of these events point to an acute risk of escalation in the conflict over Ukraine. The main question is where this escalation will lead. During the crisis, which has dragged on for more than a year now, there have been several ebbs and flows, as demonstrated by numerous declarations and breaches of cease-fires that occurred while political dialogue between various representatives continued. One thing that is clear is that all options remain on the table in this evolving standoff, including the potential for a larger military conflict.
There are two broader perspectives from which to view the crisis in Ukraine. One is that of the West, which sees the origins of the conflict in Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine — illegal and illegitimate responses to what was considered a democratic revolution in Kiev in February 2014. The West regards Russia's actions as a violation of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty and believes that the appropriate response are sanctions against Russia and the backing of a pro-Western government in Kiev. The other view is that of Russia, which sees the February 2014 uprising as an illegal coup d'etat orchestrated by the West. The annexation of Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian insurgency are viewed as legitimate reactions that had substantial support from the local population and were an appropriate response to a conflict the West started as a means of containing and weakening Russia.
What is a Geopolitical Diary? George Friedman Explains.
Russia's view of the West's intentions existed long before the uprising in Kiev. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has witnessed what it perceived as deliberate efforts at containment by the West. One was the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet bloc in the late 1990s and early 2000s; with the inclusion of the Baltic states, the Western military alliance expanded to within 161 kilometers (100 miles) of St. Petersburg. Another was the wave of "color revolutions" that swept the former Soviet space in the mid-2000s, most notably the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which brought Western influence even closer to the Russian heartland. The 2014 uprising in Ukraine was, from Moscow's perspective, merely the latest chapter in the same story of the West's attempts to contain Russia in the former Soviet borderlands.
This thinking has framed Russia's actions in Ukraine. If Ukraine is aligned with the West it poses an existential threat to Russia, so Moscow feels that it must do whatever is necessary to prevent this alignment. Following the Orange Revolution, Russia used several tools, including energy cutoffs and political connections in Ukraine, to undermine the pro-Western government in Kiev and eventually got a Russian ally in power in 2010. However, the current iteration of Moscow's standoff with the West has left the Russian economy isolated by Western sanctions just as it is reeling from a dramatic drop in oil prices. Meanwhile, the United States and NATO have increased their military presence and commitment to countries in Central Europe, with plans to pre-position equipment and forces in the Baltic states, Poland and Romania. Now the West is signaling its intentions to increase military assistance to Ukraine significantly.
This leaves Russia in a difficult position. A weakening economy puts Russian President Vladimir Putin under pressure at home, and although most Russians oppose a direct, overt military intervention in Ukraine, being seen as capitulating to the West on an issue as strategic as Ukraine could have dire consequences. The issue is particularly delicate given Putin's limitations within the Kremlin as he juggles different power circles' interests.
These circumstances lend greater importance to the intensification of fighting in key areas such as the Donetsk airport and Mariupol. These moves could be meant to demonstrate Russia's capabilities in degrading Ukraine's forces on the battlefield while steering the negotiations over Ukraine's future toward a diplomatic settlement. But the United States and Russia's neighbors cannot discount the possibility that these actions are precursors to a wider Russian military offensive. The West has increased its support to Kiev since the crisis started, and the Times report about possible U.S. weapons sales to Ukraine shows that Russia cannot assume that the West's commitment will not grow. Therefore, Putin could be calculating that if any major military action is to be launched, it would be best to do it before the West increases its presence and assistance in Ukraine and nearby states.
This is not to say that a broader war is looming or inevitable. There are a number of possible outcomes in the range between a negotiated settlement and a full-scale military conflict over Ukraine. The conflict could continue for a long time. But the fact remains that Putin must survey his options, and continuing with the current tactics might not be one of them.
-
I agree with the disconnect outlined in the article between the Western perspective and the perceived NATO threat by Russia. But I disagree with Freidman's assessment that Putin is under significant pressure at home to do more than he is doing either for the economy or in escalating a military situation. The one thing I do believe is that the longer the Ukrainian situation plays out, the stronger Ukraine becomes as a national entity and the harder it will be to dislodge the current government, something that seems to have been a goal at the onset of the Russian response.
While Putin did not have many cards to play, I believe he misplayed his hand from the onset. Russia is now forced to align itself with Cuba and North Korea in order to play war games. Quite frankly, no one else will play with him or with Russia. Russia has lost much more than it has gained by obtaining a couple of useless acres on its border or in the Black Sea.
-
Russia could acquire some industry in Donbas, manufacturing, and coal. Certainly not worth the damage to Russia's reputation.
-
These circumstances lend greater importance to the intensification of fighting in key areas such as the Donetsk airport and Mariupol. These moves could be meant to demonstrate Russia's capabilities in degrading Ukraine's forces on the battlefield while steering the negotiations over Ukraine's future toward a diplomatic settlement. But the United States and Russia's neighbors cannot discount the possibility that these actions are precursors to a wider Russian military offensive. The West has increased its support to Kiev since the crisis started, and the Times report about possible U.S. weapons sales to Ukraine shows that Russia cannot assume that the West's commitment will not grow. Therefore, Putin could be calculating that if any major military action is to be launched, it would be best to do it before the West increases its presence and assistance in Ukraine and nearby states.
Thanks Steamer, I read the story and this is the line that stuck out to me. According to the author *and the way I read it* is that the US is speaking to Russia through these public statements. We may give Ukraine a few arms, to signal to Russia that greater help MAY be on the way...this is to slow down Russia's movements. The action may be exposed as a US bluff, if Putin moves forward and the US stops escalating.
Fathertime!
-
Russia's view of the West's intentions existed long before the uprising in Kiev. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has witnessed what it perceived as deliberate efforts at containment by the West. One was the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet bloc in the late 1990s and early 2000s; with the inclusion of the Baltic states, the Western military alliance expanded to within 161 kilometers (100 miles) of St. Petersburg. Another was the wave of "color revolutions" that swept the former Soviet space in the mid-2000s, most notably the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which brought Western influence even closer to the Russian heartland. The 2014 uprising in Ukraine was, from Moscow's perspective, merely the latest chapter in the same story of the West's attempts to contain Russia in the former Soviet borderlands.
This thinking has framed Russia's actions in Ukraine. If Ukraine is aligned with the West it poses an existential threat to Russia, so Moscow feels that it must do whatever is necessary to prevent this alignment.
This is the point I've been trying to make. Russia views all these moves by the US and NATO as a continuing plot to contain Russia. Losing Ukraine will be an existential threat to Russia and they are not going to let that happen. Russia is willing to fight about this and the US is just going to give this lip service (and maybe a few guns). I expect the poop to hit the fan soon and Ukraine will be the biggest loser.
-
This is the point I've been trying to make. Russia views all these moves by the US and NATO as a continuing plot to contain Russia. Losing Ukraine will be an existential threat to Russia and they are not going to let that happen. Russia is willing to fight about this and the US is just going to give this lip service (and maybe a few guns). I expect the poop to hit the fan soon and Ukraine will be the biggest loser.
And of course Russia needs to be contained. Look at it's history present and past. Are you blind?
-
And of course Russia needs to be contained. Look at it's history present and past. Are you blind?
Nope. What do you expect to happen when you threaten a country's existence? Thanks? Roll over and play dead? Not going to happen. What the US, EU or anyone else thinks doesn't matter, it's how Russia perceives all this that determines how Russia will respond. I think you need to find a new enemy.
-
This is the point I've been trying to make. Russia views all these moves by the US and NATO as a continuing plot to contain Russia. Losing Ukraine will be an existential threat to Russia and they are not going to let that happen. Russia is willing to fight about this and the US is just going to give this lip service (and maybe a few guns). I expect the poop to hit the fan soon and Ukraine will be the biggest loser.
Well, Russia better do something soon. Or they will have won so much they'll be devastated. (When I was growing up, my father would comment on my mother's shopping. She liked to go in big for sales on items. He used to say "Honey, you'll save us so much money, we'll be broke.")
-
Nope. What do you expect to happen when you threaten a country's existence? Thanks? Roll over and play dead? Not going to happen. What the US, EU or anyone else thinks doesn't matter, it's how Russia perceives all this that determines how Russia will respond. I think you need to find a new enemy.
Yet Ukraine is supposed to roll over and play dead? :rolleyes:
-
Yet Ukraine is supposed to roll over and play dead? :rolleyes:
Oh no, the problem is no one invaded them. Trust me, when Russia goes full on attack there will be no doubt in anyones mind. Especially Ukraines.
-
And of course Russia needs to be contained. Look at it's history present and past. Are you blind?
Best solution will be to orchestrate the breakup of RF into multiple sovereign tiny republics. Then encourage these republics to be constantly at each other's throat thus keeping them all weak.
Ooooops better not say this out too loud. Read somewhere there is a law making this suggestion a criminal offence!
:ROFL:
-
Losing Ukraine will be an existential threat to Russia and they are not going to let that happen.
Doesn't Ukraine have a voice in deciding how it wants to be aligned? A sovereign country has the right to choose its own path, and Ukraine wants to develop a Western style economy not subordinated to Russia.
Russia is willing to fight about this....
Comparable to the domineering, controlling husband not wanting his wife to divorce him, so he becomes more abusive to her. Maybe if the husband had been more understanding and helpful, his wife would not leave him. Russia lost Ukraine a long time ago, and Ukraine is not coming back, especially after this bloody war.
-
Oh no, the problem is no one invaded them. Trust me, when Russia goes full on attack there will be no doubt in anyones mind. Especially Ukraines.
I think you are being served too much propaganda with your corn flakes in the mornings. :)
There is irrefutable proof that regular Russian troops are in East Ukraine and have military hardware supplied by Russia. You think Russian 'volunteers' just walk off with advanced military weapons? Give me a break!
You deny that Russia invaded Crimea prior to their phony referendum?
With all the testimony from the Russian terrorists taking credit for downing MH17, and all the photo evidence, you deny that the rocket launcher that brought it down came from Russia?
-
To your point, this is pretty interesting read.
"Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have employed at least 21 weapons and vehicles that were not previously found in the country, according to an arms research company, bolstering claims that Russia has equipped the rebels. [/size]The weapons—all but one of which came from Russia—include man-portable air defense systems (MANPADs), rocket launchers, anti-tank munitions, and small arms, according to a[/color][/size] [/color][/size]report (http://armamentresearch.com/Uploads/Research%20Report%20No.%203%20-%20Raising%20Red%20Flags.pdf)[/color][/size] [/color][/size]by Armament Research Services (ARES). MANPADs of Polish origin were also observed in Ukraine."[/color]
More here:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-eastern-ukraine-flooded-with-russian-made-weapons/?
Sorry about the formatting issues. For some reason there are problems not matter how I post text into this forum regardless of what browser I use. There is no way I can clean it up not matter what I've tried. The forum changes the HTML tags.
-
Trust me, when Russia goes full on attack there will be no doubt in anyones mind. Especially Ukraines.
Russia would win no doubt, about as quick as Nazis conquering Poland. However, a large invasion would cause too much repercussion on the world stage. Instead, Putin opted for a stealth invasion using proxies, mercenaries, volunteers and limited regular troops, and giving them unlimited arms. Putin denies, denies, denies.....knowing that he may convince some blockheads that he is not behind the conflict in Ukraine. Reading your posts, Putin is correct. And he has no reason to believe his plan will fail.
-
Nope. What do you expect to happen when you threaten a country's existence? Thanks? Roll over and play dead? Not going to happen. What the US, EU or anyone else thinks doesn't matter, it's how Russia perceives all this that determines how Russia will respond. I think you need to find a new enemy.
+266
Fathertime!
-
What do you expect to happen when you threaten a country's existence?
Except that no one was ever threatening Russia's existence.
-
To say that Ukraine has not been invaded is blind madness. Too many videos and photos, from citizens to journalists, and there will never be enough for those defending/excusing the invasion.
Look at the older tanks and rocket launchers and you'll see Novorossiya emblems or flags. The newer stuff, just like Crimea, was apparently purchased off the shelf at the local Army (new) Surplus store. Which is funny if you've ever been to one in the FSU.
-
To say that Ukraine has not been invaded is blind madness. Too many videos and photos, from citizens to journalists, and there will never be enough for those defending/excusing the invasion.
That's like calling the US "advisors" in Afghanistan an invasion. A presence sure but invasion?
-
Far more Russian in Ukraine than the US had advisors in Afghanistan. Looks like Russia is ready to go "all in" now.
http://www.interpretermag.com/moscow-readying-a-massive-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-golts-says/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831620/NATO-says-Russian-troops-Ukraine.html
-
You deny that Russia invaded Crimea prior to their phony referendum?
Why phony? Because you don't like the result?
Here is the recent survey poll made by Ukrainian agency:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2015/02/4/7057470/
(http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/0/f/0f80744-82.jpg)
I'll translate:
82% of Crimeans supports completely reunification of Crimea with Russia;
11% of Crimeans supports conditionally;
And only 7% doubts or against reunification.
Don't challenge the will of people :)
-
Polling people is very problematic in Russia. I can assure you the Tatars had no desire to be reunified with Russia. There was also polling done before the invasion and there was not a strong desire to be part of Russia.
Any reasonable person knows this was instigated by Russia. I was there, I saw it with my own eyes. After Russia invaded, then a referendum was made. There was NO OPTION on the ballot to remain part of Ukraine.
Basically the choices were:
Do you want to be Russia's bitch but be a quasi-separate entity?
or
Do you want to be totally part of Russia?
There was no option other than those options on the referendum. Keep in mind that when this was done it was totally under the guidance/control of Russia or its local puppets. They oversaw the voting and when you look at the stats, there is no way that almost 100% of all Tatars voted for the referendum which is what it would have taken to get the voting results they claimed.
Don't forget that the one Russian puppet internally owed (and his companies) over $140,000,000 to Ukrainian banks that conveniently weren't ever repaid after Russia stole Crimea. There was no popular uprising here that was strongly supporting Russia. It was totally the opposite situation of Kiev where thousands of people, on their own accord, were out protesting against Yanukovich.
My in-laws in Crimea absolutely hate the changes that have taken place. Russian carpet baggers have taken over almost everything. Shut Ukrainians (even if ethnic Russians) out of their businesses. All disagreement with Putin is totally shutdown (big surprise there). Forums I used to post on no longer allow ANY posts of dissent against the current situation. So the only viewpoint you can hear/see is ONLY in support of Putin and his cronies. Corruption is even worse there than Russia and that is hard to believe as Russia is one of the most corrupt countries I have been in. Press freedom is non-existent. All the social media sites are controlled by the Kremlin if based in Russia such as VK.com, Odnoklassniki, etc. They have direct access to all your account info and private messages and posts.
-
Why phony? Because you don't like the result?
Here is the recent survey poll made by Ukrainian agency:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2015/02/4/7057470/
(http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/0/f/0f80744-82.jpg)
I'll translate:
82% of Crimeans supports completely reunification of Crimea with Russia;
11% of Crimeans supports conditionally;
And only 7% doubts or against reunification.
Don't challenge the will of people :)
When Chechnya and Dagestan hold referendums and vote overwhelmingly to leave Russia (and no little green men holding weapons will be needed) will you say the same thing?
-
TAZ, give us the link to Crimean forums. please.
-
Search for the ones in Sevastopol. I can't access them from where I am at.
-
When Chechnya and Dagestan hold referendums and vote overwhelmingly to leave Russia (and no little green men holding weapons will be needed) will you say the same thing?
Sure, I respect the will of people. Do you? :)
-
I would respect the will of the people if it isn't at gun point or the end of a tank barrel.
As we say in the US, elections have consequences. Sadly those consequences extend beyond our own borders. The world is suffering in a lot of ways because the US elected such a inept President as Obama.
If Crimea wants to be part of Russia, then then Ukraine needs to be compensated. Russia and Crimea will continue to pay a huge price for this though not as likely has high as they should have. Crimeans basically can only travel to very few countries. They likely will never be able to get visas to the EU or the USA.
They will suffer under far more corruption and oppression than they thought they might have been under with Ukraine. I truly hope in 5 year or so, they will look back and see what a fiasco this was. Ukraine could be on its way to closer ties with the West, more open and less corrupt government and much more freedom of speech. Crimea is ONLY a good place to be if you are one of the Russian carpet baggers or part of the Russian ruling class.
-
If Crimea wants to be part of Russia, then then Ukraine needs to be compensated.
No haggling here, sorry. Crimea was paid by Russians with hundreds of thousands of soldiers over XVIII-XX centeries. Ukraine has got it free of charge, so no compensations.
-
No haggling here, sorry. Crimea was paid by Russians with hundreds of thousands of soldiers over XVIII-XX centeries. Ukraine has got it free of charge, so no compensations.
Well, gee. I guess we better give Alaska back then...or better yet Russia should just submit its lands to Mongolia since they were conquered at one time by them. Nice justification there genius. :rolleyes:
-
Koenigsberg had its population completely relocated so that Russia could claim that the indigenous people are Russians. So, now, Kaliningrad Oblast is bullet proof from an ethnic uprising. I see the same thing happening in Crimea.
-
Sure, I respect the will of people. Do you? :)
1st of all no you won't. Putin and Russia have shown through two brutal wars that they will not let the will of the people to leave Russia stand in Chechnya.
2nd of all the Crimean referendum was conducted at gunpoint and is therefore illegal per International law. Even Girkin has come out and admitted that it was a farce. Tatars in particular knew they should stay home. One who did not stay home was found tortured and murdered.
All of that being said I'm sure that Ukraine and the EU would give up on Crimea (at least for the time being) if Russia would get out of E. Ukraine, but they won't. Putin is going to eventually suffer a very humiliating defeat and it seems that the Russian people need to be humbled as well in order to give up their nationalistic and prejudiced nature towards their neighbors. Just think of Putler ending his life in a bunker somewhere. Scoff now but it will happen within 5 years and he brought this destiny upon himself.
-
Well, gee. I guess we better give Alaska back then...or better yet Russia should just submit its lands to Mongolia since they were conquered at one time by them. Nice justification there genius. :rolleyes:
There is no doubt that eventually the Chinese and possibly Mongolia as well as the Kazakh's (descendants of Genghis Khan) are going to eventually get hegemony over Russia. Most likely it will occur initially thru economic means and eventually if need be thru military means. Russia has brought this ultimate collapse upon themselves through the hubris of one little man.
-
No haggling here, sorry. Crimea was paid by Russians with hundreds of thousands of soldiers over XVIII-XX centeries. Ukraine has got it free of charge, so no compensations.
I don't know about the 18th C, yet in just one war the Russians lost 200,000 men (Crimean War of 1853-56).
That war has many parallels with what is happening in Ukraine today.
Russia was covetous of warm seaports on the Black Sea, part of the Ottoman Empire. Russia had been advancing towards the Black Sea for over 100 years, first defeating the Cossacks and then the Tartars. Emboldened by this success, and also in a long dispute with the Ottomans about protection of Orthodox Christians [same as ethnic Russians in Ukraine?], Russia advanced and occupied part of the sovereign territory of the Ottoman Empire. [sound familiar?].
Diplomats went into action and diplomatic solutions proposed, yet all failed [sound familiar?]. Turkey declared war, and quickly had to retreat before the much stronger Russian forces [sound familiar?].
Europe had big balls [sound unfamiliar?], so after diplomacy failed, Britain, France and Sardinia came to the defense of the Ottomans to fight what became known as the Crimean War.
Russia lost this war, yet as we know never lost its desire for the Black Sea, and that lust evidently continues today.
-
To say that Ukraine has not been invaded is blind madness.
One thing I've noticed in the western press releases and even the US govt. when speaking about Ukraine is that they never speak of fighting Russian troops. It's always about helping Ukraine fight the Russian backed separatists or supplying weapons to fight Russian backed separatists. It's never just Russians. Why?
-
That's like calling the US "advisors" in Afghanistan an invasion. A presence sure but invasion?
You haven't been listening carefully at home. The war in Afghanistan is just that, a WAR. Invasion? Obvious.
One thing I've noticed in the western press releases and even the US govt. when speaking about Ukraine is that they never speak of fighting Russian troops. It's always about helping Ukraine fight the Russian backed separatists or supplying weapons to fight Russian backed separatists. It's never just Russians. Why?
Again fairly obvious...for diplomatic reasons. Although President Obama is changing his language on this and seems to be more comfortable in identifying who the real troops are.
-
Nope. What do you expect to happen when you threaten a country's existence? Thanks? Roll over and play dead? Not going to happen. What the US, EU or anyone else thinks doesn't matter, it's how Russia perceives all this that determines how Russia will respond. I think you need to find a new enemy.
Now you understand why Ukraine is fighting Russia?
-
You haven't been listening carefully at home. The war in Afghanistan is just that, a WAR. Invasion? Obvious.
How about the countless other situations where the US puts advisors in, are those invasions?
-
Why phony? Because you don't like the result?
Here is the recent survey poll made by Ukrainian agency:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2015/02/4/7057470/ (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2015/02/4/7057470/)
(http://img.pravda.com/images/doc/0/f/0f80744-82.jpg)
I'll translate:
82% of Crimeans supports completely reunification of Crimea with Russia;
11% of Crimeans supports conditionally;
And only 7% doubts or against reunification.
Don't challenge the will of people :)
Sorry, those numbers do not add to the official tally of 114% voting for the reunification. ;)
-
Now you understand why Ukraine is fighting Russia?
Ukraine is fighting other Ukrainians.
-
Ukraine is fighting other Ukrainians.
:ROFL: Wow, you really are eating up Putin's crap! Let me guess. Your married to a woman from Russia?
-
Again fairly obvious...for diplomatic reasons. Although President Obama is changing his language on this and seems to be more comfortable in identifying who the real troops are.
And the media is in on it too. Quite a conspiracy!
-
Ukraine is fighting other Ukrainians.
Bullshit
-
Ukraine is fighting other Ukrainians.
For a long time my 15-yo brainwashed stepson would say the same. He no longer says such.
The correct statement would be:
Ukraine is fighting some Ukrainians, a lot of mercenaries not from Ukraine, and regular Russian troops, all supported by armor, heavy artillery and rockets.
-
For a long time my 15-yo brainwashed stepson would say the same. He no longer says such.
I am seriously glad to read this! :thumbsup:
Congratulations to him on finally being able to see that RT's point of view is not the only one.
-
Ukraine is fighting other Ukrainians.
Then why do some of the dead "Ukrainians" hold Russian passports? :rolleyes:
-
One thing I've noticed in the western press releases and even the US govt. when speaking about Ukraine is that they never speak of fighting Russian troops. It's always about helping Ukraine fight the Russian backed separatists or supplying weapons to fight Russian backed separatists. It's never just Russians. Why?
Most media outlets subscribe to the, I'll use the term 'media balanced reporting card'. They try to report all sides of the story using either the PC or neutral stance in an effort not to offend anyone or condemn/favor one viewpoint over another.
Case in point; Some moron in the Toronto school system thought it'd be wonderful to have our traitor buddy Edward Snowden speak by internet to students on matters of national security.
The irony in this is sublime and the public/parent outcry was immediate and severe. However, CTV news balances the story to read that...
..."“Many are calling him criminal, some are using the term hero, but I don’t think that negates us from having him as a speaker,”...
...and reporting that one commenter thought it was condoning Snowden's actions while another was pleased to have such an interesting individual speak via Livestream. Further, that someone commented it might be an idea to have someone from the government speak on behalf of same while another thought it was legitimizing Snowden's actions and not something he wanted his son exposed to.
All very balanced and fair reporting, yes? However, according to the article Snowden's appearance "sparked debate" when it'd be more accurate to report the overwhelming majority of parents and community went ballistic having their children lectured to by a wanted criminal taking refuge in a country hostile to Canada... but that isn't balanced reporting you see.
We are our own worst enemy sometimes. :rolleyes:
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-addresses-toronto-school-from-russia-1.2216706#ixzz3QpDI4QDY
-
I am seriously glad to read this! :thumbsup:
Congratulations to him on finally being able to see that RT's point of view is not the only one.
Still a way to go. However, he no longer admires Putin and prefers to remain silent on the conflict in Ukraine. My entire household avoids the subject.
-
Most media outlets subscribe to the, I'll use the term 'media balanced reporting card'. They try to report all sides of the story using either the PC or neutral stance in an effort not to offend anyone or condemn/favor one viewpoint over another.
I'm impressed! You and Mende both managed to tap dance around this like a couple of pro's. Bravo!
-
I'm impressed! You and Mende both managed to tap dance around this like a couple of pro's. Bravo!
Are you impressed that the Western outlets allow for balanced reporting? Or are you impressed that Russia screens and slants every article and news report that is released?
Please, we really want to know what impresses you.
-
I'm impressed! You and Mende both managed to tap dance around this like a couple of pro's. Bravo!
Sorry, if that answer wasn't to your liking. I'll be more direct...
Most western main stream media outlets are now reporting that there are Russians in Ukraine as the evidence to support reporting same is compelling and I'm satisfied conclusive. It's pretty well only the Russians who are still claiming that Russian military formations are not in Ukraine.
Further, I don't accept your premise that just because a media source is reporting "separatists" vice "Russian regulars" that that's in itself conclusive evidence there weren't Russian regulars present or involved.
So, whether or not your comment that Obama hasn't stated that Russians are in Ukraine is accurate; I have no idea because I haven't looked. However, just about every one of his representatives has. Just from todays news...
..."(Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to NATO said on Wednesday that Russian soldiers were present in eastern Ukraine in a command role and to operate advanced military equipment, but that another large-scale Russian intervention did not appear imminent."...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/us-ukraine-crisis-nato-usa-idUSKBN0L81S220150204
Whaddya think, are representatives of the administration lying just because POTUS isn't chanting there are Russians in Ukraine like a mantra, or what?
Is this what you base your cynicism on- the media or POTUS didn't mention Russian soldiers are in Ukraine today so they must not be there?
Brass
-
I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and I ran across this article. It appears that Russia is possibly lowering the threshold in which they will use nuclear weapons. Well the way they probably see this is just another consequence of USA worldwide interference on one hand, and then USA interference when Russia is trying to interfere. They appear to be willing to do whatever it takes, and we are not, will not be, and should not be.
The US interference of the Russian interference is going to wind up having ramifications worldwide. It would be very easy to let Russia have it's way with Ukraine, as they pretty much always have. Doing this doesn't mean that they can do this to other countries in Europe...this was a unique situation. Just my opinion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-idUSL6N0VE2RV20150204 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-idUSL6N0VE2RV20150204)
Fathertime!
-
Well gee, that settles it. Let them take Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and put up the Berlin Wall again.
While we're at it, might as well give South Korea to the North because of threats of nuclear war, and let Iran control the Middle East.
-
The US interference of the Russian interference is going to wind up having ramifications worldwide. It would be very easy to let Russia have it's way with Ukraine, as they pretty much always have. Doing this doesn't mean that they can do this to other countries in Europe...this was a unique situation. Just my opinion.
At least you are finally coming clean. You claiming that Russia can have their way with Ukraine, because according to you they always have...yeah that's a good reason to let Putler get his way!!! :cluebat:
-
Well gee, that settles it. Let them take Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and put up the Berlin Wall again.
While we're at it, might as well give South Korea to the North because of threats of nuclear war, and let Iran control the Middle East.
This seems like a hysterical post. Nobody agreed to all these other places, and I feel it is a weak argument as it pertains to Ukraine. The Western nations should face the reality of the situation, this particular battle likely goes nuclear if it continues to escalate and Western nations get too involved...I feel that has always been on the table for this unique situation and continue to call for doing what it takes to settle it even if it is hard to swallow. I suppose we will continue to go through the motions (and I hope that is all it is), but the continued fighting will be very harmful to the Ukrainians involved...hopefully not the rest of the world.
Fathertime!
-
I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and I ran across this article.
I just happened to be browsing the internet this evening and ran across this opinion piece on CNN.
I was browsing the internet this morning and found this little article over at the Huffington Post that I agreed with.
Did you really "just happened to be browsing the internet" and found all these gem articles, or were you deliberately looking for these articles so Mendeleyev can continue to school you on the subject of international politics?
BTW have you paid him the tuition fees yet?
-
At least you are finally coming clean. You claiming that Russia can have their way with Ukraine, because according to you they always have...yeah that's a good reason to let Putler get his way!!! :cluebat:
I don't think that I've posted in any other way...this has always been a part of the line of thinking and I think I've portrayed that POV here right along, much to other's dismay.
Fathertime!
-
I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and I ran across this article. It appears that Russia is
The US interference of the Russian interference is going to wind up having ramifications worldwide. It would be very easy to let Russia have it's way with Ukraine, as they pretty much always have. Doing this doesn't mean that they can do this to other countries in Europe...this was a unique situation. Just my opinion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-idUSL6N0VE2RV20150204 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/04/ukraine-crisis-russia-nuclear-idUSL6N0VE2RV20150204)
Fathertime!
You are so misguided. It didn't work with Crimea. If there was a significant response with very punitive actions, there would have been less chance of the issues currently in E. Ukraine.
While I don't want a nuclear war and I doubt it will go there. My suggestion would be give nukes back to Ukraine and see what Russia really wants to do. We gutted their defenses and Putin is trying to olay the trump card in his deck.
If the West rolls over on Ukraine, he will not stop there. He is hoping he can hold out until oil goes back up so the sanctions will be less effective. In the meantime he'll keep waging his invasion of Ukraine until the price becomes too high militarily. No amount of sanctions is going to stop him. No amount of negotiations are going to work UNTIL he has secured all the territory he wants and only so he can consolidate his gains!
I really wish the US had mandatory military service for all so they would know what it is like to serve. You will get a better idea of war and understand what is involved. At the same time you'll quickly learn you don't want to engage in it unless you need to but by God once you do, do it to WIN! A very quick war normally limits the casualties on both sides. The long drawn out wars cause massive loss of life. We could help stop this war in a week or 2 if we sent serious defensive weapons and support to Ukraine.
Once Putin realizes the cost will be tremendous to push on, he will stop.
-
Did you really "just happened to be browsing the internet" and found all these gem articles, or were you deliberately looking for these articles so Mendeleyev can continue to school you on the subject of international politics?
BTW have you paid him the tuition fees yet?
If I were to quote each time you used the term 'midget' or mongoloid, it would take up an entire page. So why are you complaining that I'm using the same phrases? I just happened to like to browse the internet! :-*
Fathertime!
-
You are so misguided. It didn't work with Crimea. If there was a significant response with very punitive actions, there would have been less chance of the issues currently in E. Ukraine.
While I don't want a nuclear war and I doubt it will go there. My suggestion would be give nukes back to Ukraine and see what Russia really wants to do. We gutted their defenses and Putin is trying to olay the trump card in his deck.
If the West rolls over on Ukraine, he will not stop there. He is hoping he can hold out until oil goes back up so the sanctions will be less effective. In the meantime he'll keep waging his invasion of Ukraine until the price becomes too high militarily. No amount of sanctions is going to stop him. No amount of negotiations are going to work UNTIL he has secured all the territory he wants and only so he can consolidate his gains!
With this set of circumstances I can see it reaching the point of nuclear war. I don't see Russia sitting by and watching their troops getting routed in Ukraine... They are taking what they want and we aren't stopping him, and I don't think we will...maybe the western countries have already made that decision and it is only a matter of time and saving face...but we have imposed a $ cost.
Fathertime!
-
This seems like a hysterical post. Nobody agreed to all these other places, and I feel it is a weak argument as it pertains to Ukraine. The Western nations should face the reality of the situation, this particular battle likely goes nuclear if it continues to escalate and Western nations get too involved...I feel that has always been on the table for this unique situation and continue to call for doing what it takes to settle it even if it is hard to swallow. I suppose we will continue to go through the motions (and I hope that is all it is), but the continued fighting will be very harmful to the Ukrainians involved...hopefully not the rest of the world.
Who is "we"??? You and the propaganda minister for the Kremlin? Why don't you come clean and admit that you are a paid blogger for Russia? Obviously you're not here because of the women, you've got a Latina. So why are you here? I know, it's not "nice" of me to ask. But stop using "we". There is no we. Furthermore unless Putin really has completely lost all his marbles he doesn't want Mutually Assured Destruction (use of Nuclear weapons). It's going to hurt him a lot, but the sooner he gives up his aspirations of taking Ukraine; the better for Russia and the Russian people. He may get half of Ukraine temporarily, but that is really the key word. A Republican President will not stand for it. So get ready to get your arse kicked Putin, it's coming one way or another (and you asked for it, you arrogant midget).
-
Who is "we"??? You and the propaganda minister for the Kremlin? Why don't you come clean and admit that you are a paid blogger for Russia? Obviously you're not here because of the women, you've got a Latina. So why are you here? I know, it's not "nice" of me to ask. But stop using "we". There is no we. Furthermore unless Putin really has completely lost all his marbles he doesn't want Mutually Assured Destruction (use of Nuclear weapons). It's going to hurt him a lot, but the sooner he gives up his aspirations of taking Ukraine; the better for Russia and the Russian people. He may get half of Ukraine temporarily, but that is really the key word. A Republican President will not stand for it. So get ready to get your arse kicked Putin, it's coming one way or another (and you asked for it, you arrogant midget).
I'm afraid you continue to be mistaken...I seriously don't think WE are going to be dispensing retribution onto Putin the way you think. I think the better option for US is to do what we are doing now. Leadership in Ukraine can decide what is the best option for their people, given the circumstances and few resources they are currently receiving....and what is likely to happen if they receive too much more.
Yeah sure, I'm a paid blogger for Russia! :rolleyes: There are a lot of us here in the USA, we happen to have our opinions regarding what is best, and that makes us paid Russian bloggers...
Fathertime!
-
This seems like a hysterical post. Nobody agreed to all these other places, and I feel it is a weak argument as it pertains to Ukraine. The Western nations should face the reality of the situation, this particular battle likely goes nuclear if it continues to escalate and Western nations get too involved...I feel that has always been on the table for this unique situation and continue to call for doing what it takes to settle it even if it is hard to swallow. I suppose we will continue to go through the motions (and I hope that is all it is), but the continued fighting will be very harmful to the Ukrainians involved...hopefully not the rest of the world.
Fathertime!
Right. . . Because Russia is going to explode a nuclear bomb beside its own border. Very likely.
This is not a unique situation, other than the fact Ukraine is in Europe, and Europe has not had many wars since the end of WWII.
Mendy is correct. This can't be settled the way you envision, without Ukraine giving its sovereignty to Russia. And at least half of Ukrainians, likely more, are not ready to do that. If anything, they are moving in the opposite direction, thanks to Putin.
-
Right. . . Because Russia is going to explode a nuclear bomb beside its own border. Very likely.
[/quote
That doesn't have to be the case...I don't where you came up with that thought.
This is not a unique situation, other than the fact Ukraine is in Europe, and Europe has not had many wars since the end of WWII.
Mendy is correct. This can't be settled the way you envision, without Ukraine giving its sovereignty to Russia. And at least half of Ukrainians, likely more, are not ready to do that. If anything, they are moving in the opposite direction, thanks to Putin.
If these comments are correct, a lot of Ukrainians are willing to give up their sovereignty...I didn't think that was the case.
Well if we wind up 'giving' the Ukrainians weapons you gotta wonder how many will wind up in Russian hands...but just so long as we are charging Ukraine for it I guess it is a good deal for us and our businesses...maybe not for Ukrainians though.
You may wind up correct that this can no longer be settled the way I was envisioning...but maybe that is the best we can realistically hope for at this point...much better than a massacre...or wider war.
Fathertime!
-
There will not be a wider war, because Russians will not support their sons going to fight for Ukrainian territory. If it is a small number of units, where deaths can be hidden, and mercenaries, that's one thing. If military units are routinely fighting Ukrainians, particularly if they are well equipped, and young Russians are coming home in body bags more often, the war will not continue.
In any event, Putin doesn't want these territories. They are not profitable. He wants Ukraine to bear the cost of them, and for Ukraine to not have trade with the EU. Russia doesn't want to have to support Ukraine economically.
-
Another good piece in the Financial Times about the cost of not arming Ukraine -
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b91cdfc-ac78-11e4-9d32-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3Qqw8q36Q
-
And another...
The rape of Ukraine: America stands by
..."If we won’t provide military materiel to Ukraine now, we deserve the contempt with which Putin regards us."...
http://nypost.com/2015/02/02/the-rape-of-ukraine-america-stands-by/
...True enough.
Brass
-
I'm impressed! You and Mende both managed to tap dance around this like a couple of pro's. Bravo!
You are tap dancing.
I do the Waltz, Foxtrot, and Swing. Pretty darn well, too. But tap dance? Nope.
Now, kindly point out exactly where you came up with the idea that I tap danced. Don't be shy, use quotes, please.
-
FT, when will you understand that Ukraine is not the end game? Ukraine is just in the target sights at the moment. The new Eurasian Union, in Mr. Putin's view, includes territory that formerly had been conquered and subjugated by the Imperial Russian Empire. No, Ukraine is just the immediate target.
Appeasement, which is what you advocate no matter how many fancy paint jobs you try to plaster on the pig, is just extending the ultimate agony. That is not fair to freedom minded Ukrainians today, nor ultimately to good but misled Russians.
Do you think that the man would make side jokes about Belarus and Kazakhstan? Just in case you are wondering, he doesn't really have a genuine sense of humour. When he does use humour, it is generally targeted, and almost always a form of bitch-slap at the object.
-
FT, when will you understand that Ukraine is not the end game? Ukraine is just in the target sights at the moment.
Every time you forget to say that it is YOUR PERSONAL opinion.
I am sure Americans will consume your "truth" but for Russian reader it is just funny.
Уж очень стараетесь- прям и кожи вон. Переигрываете.
All your "truths" are not worth more than a nickel.
-
All your "truths" are not worth more than a nickel.
And you think your Kremlin feed "truths" are worth more than a nickel?
:cluebat:
-
And you think your Kremlin feed "truths" are worth more than a nickel?
:cluebat:
Pleeeeease- where Kremlin is and where Mendy is hahaaaaaaaaaaaa
Просветитель земли обетованной (Менделеев)
Хоть бы фамилию уж не позорил.
-
Now, kindly point out exactly where you came up with the idea that I tap danced. Don't be shy, use quotes, please.
[/size] "[/size]Again fairly obvious...for diplomatic reasons. Although President Obama is changing his language on this and seems to be more comfortable in identifying who the real troops are."
-
Quite honestly, I can't see the reason for your post, Steamer.
I thought his statement was fairly accurate. Obama has been inching ever closer to naming the troops and units in Ukraine. Keep in mind that the US has always had intelligence assets that the governmental powers choose not to reveal. My sources on Capital Hill tell me that there was never any doubt as to who shot down Flight 17. They also tell me that there is direct knowledge about which units and which troops are participating in Eastern Ukraine.
However, there are bigger fish to fry than a regional conflict with Ukraine. For thirty years, the participants of the Great Game were disinterested. Now the Game is back and the newer players are making slow moves to feel out their opponents.
I am the first to state that Russia has very few game pieces to play. But Russia is playing those pieces and pretty soon the US will make its first move. It should be pointed out that the last time the Game was played, Europe was not half as powerful in its ability to respond as it is now.
On another note, I was not surprised that the Germans slapped down Greece and left Greece's banks to fend for themselves. Immediately Putin invited the new government of Greece to visit in May.
-
I thought his statement was fairly accurate. Obama has been inching ever closer to naming the troops and units in Ukraine.
It sounds like a cop out.
-
It sounds like a cop out.
Where are you finding these disconnected one sentence responses - immaterialsmartasscomments-r-us.com?
It appears you're simply copy/pasting them from the internet to this forum when you read a post you don't like. They don't make sense.
Do you have anything pertinent to add to this discussion?
Brass
-
Do you have anything pertinent to add to this discussion?
Sure but nothing that you'd listen to. Pearls before swine.
-
Sure but nothing that you'd listen to. Pearls before swine.
Wow such a snappy come back.. :rolleyes:
-
Wow such a snappy come back.. :rolleyes:
4Q2
-
He gave himself away. Look up Theocratic War strategy. ;)
Brass
-
With this set of circumstances I can see it reaching the point of nuclear war. I don't see Russia sitting by and watching their troops getting routed in Ukraine... They are taking what they want and we aren't stopping him, and I don't think we will...maybe the western countries have already made that decision and it is only a matter of time and saving face...but we have imposed a $ cost.
Fathertime!
Ay, ay, ay!
First, Putler is showing signs of desperation and is instituting the North Korea Syndrome. You know what that is, no?
Second, if any Western country goes to Ukraine would be to help them maintain territorial sovereignty, as in defending their homeland. And since there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, why would you say that Putler's troops would be routed? Are you saying that the West will use Ukraine as a stepping stone to invade Russia?
Are you serious?
-
Second, if any Western country goes to Ukraine would be to help them maintain territorial sovereignty, as in defending their homeland. And since there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, why would you say that Putler's troops would be routed? Are you saying that the West will use Ukraine as a stepping stone to invade Russia?
Which would more than likely elicit a response similar to this...
(http://kevinspraggettonchess.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/funny-picture-putin-ukraine-border.jpg?w=550)
Brass
-
:ROFL:
-
Ay, ay, ay!
First, Putler is showing signs of desperation and is instituting the North Korea Syndrome. You know what that is, no?
Hola Muzh!
Well I thought it was obvious that Russia was going to use the the nuclear card if they had to. That is one of their big cards to play and since they are playing for keeps, it is no joke/bluff, from my standpoint. Now to make matters worse, many of the nations we have tried to bludgeon with sanctions are teaming up and supporting each other. This doesn't have to happen...we can let Ukraine fight it's own battle...as there is too much for us at stake to get as involved as some would like.
Second, if any Western country goes to Ukraine would be to help them maintain territorial sovereignty, as in defending their homeland. And since there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, why would you say that Putler's troops would be routed? Are you saying that the West will use Ukraine as a stepping stone to invade Russia?
Are you serious?
I'm not one of the people saying that Russian troops aren't in Ukraine...I think they probably are. Given that, the question you ask is moot.
Fathertime!
-
I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and found this article discussion how sanctioned states are teaming up and undermining the 'weapons of finance' that the US has been trying to employ. I think that Russia probably thinks (correctly) that eventually Ukraine (if it were allowed to participate with Western powers) would probably be another nation in the block that would be acting contrary to Russian interests....and they are probably right.
Anyway here is the link:
http://www.doverpost.com/article/20150124/BUSINESS/301249987/-1/news (http://www.doverpost.com/article/20150124/BUSINESS/301249987/-1/news)
Fathertime!
-
FT,
Oh dear. I shall be compelled to exist upon this planet for another 150 years if it takes this long for opinion writers to catch up with reality. Some days I seem to have the patience of Job, but on other days my eyes roll and suffer headaches from the numbness. This article gives me a headache, if for no other reason than my cats could have done better.
The premise seems to be that due to sanctions, Mr. Putin has been forced to look East, as in places like North Korea, to either raise money or to move money around world markets.
Really, North Korea?
The author is apparently unaware of the financial state of North Korea, itself under international economic sanctions. The fact that two beleaguered nations have found solace in a lonely corner of the world while bartering services with each other is not exactly the stuff that heralds economic breakthroughs. That the author of an article would think it to be economic genius, is well, worthy of a migraine.
To add insult to blindness, the author simultaneously adopts the tired, and very dumb, line that "the sanctions aren't working" but then turns around and tries to make a case that Russia needs to trade with North Korea because the sanctions are working. Hello, earth to article writer...
Newsflash to the article author: if the sanctions are not working, then it would be kind of dumb for ministers of parliament to tell the populace that they need to "eat less" and to suffer on behalf of the Motherland. If the sanctions are not working, then what kind of idiot does that make the president of a country who blames those sanctions on the evil West?
While not a rocket scientist, neither am I a fool. No one can claim me to be a stranger to the inside of supermarkets, and I have been known take part in conversations on the street. Only fools who blithely blather on about the sanctions not working, obviously have not been to Russia as of late.
The ignorance of history is appalling: does this writer really believe that only as of late have Russia and North Korea discussed the use of alternative currencies to the dollar? Even as recently as Mr. Putin's trip to several Asian countries in November 2013 (see the Mendeleyev Journal for trip coverage and photos), and that was prior to Western sanctions and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this discussion was already taking place between Russia and North Korea (with the assistance of China).
Obviously oblivious (don't ya just luv that play on words) to the author is the fact that branching out from the dollar has been a stated goal of the Russian government since 2006 and toward that end was the building of the high rise development known as Moscow's International Business Centre.
(http://russianreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/international-business-centre-d.jpg)
By 2008, then-president Medvedev had begun to speak of turning Moscow into a world financial centre, and introducing other currencies to compete with the dollar. For an opinion writer to try and tie those somehow to current sanctions is amateurish at best.
-
The ignorance of history is appalling: does this writer really believe that only as of late have Russia and North Korea discussed the use of alternative currencies to the dollar? Even as recently as Mr. Putin's trip to several Asian countries in November 2013 (see the Mendeleyev Journal for trip coverage and photos), and that was prior to Western sanctions and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this discussion was already taking place between Russia and North Korea (with the assistance of China).
Obviously oblivious (don't ya just luv that play on words) to the author is the fact that branching out from the dollar has been a stated goal of the Russian government since 2006 and toward that end was the building of the high rise development known as Moscow's International Business Centre.
By 2008, then-president Medvedev had begun to speak of turning Moscow into a world financial centre, and introducing other currencies to compete with the dollar. For an opinion writer to try and tie those somehow to current sanctions is amateurish at best.
Mendy, I do think the article has some merit.
From the article:
When in comes to the weaponization of finance, US foreign policy goes like this: The US imposes sanctions (or other coercive economic measures) on "rogue states" (aka states that are acting contrary to the US' interests) which should then force that state to change its behavior if it wishes to have the sanctions lifted or to have access to US capital markets again. (The best example here is the US imposing sanctions on Russia following the annexation of Crimea.)
The US has been pushing their will through the use of our financial system. That is why countries, like Switzerland, are opening up details on bank accounts of American citizens. They are not doing so because they were asked nicely.
There is no doubt that replacing the US dollar as the world currency is a detriment to the US and will be responded too.
BRICS countries has it's own monetary fund now. The IMF is another tool used for personal gain. How much land has been sold in Ukraine now? Part of their loan requirements were to open up more to foreign investments which has led to more and more land grabs from big companies.
I wonder what will be left for Ukrainians when all is said and done?
-
FT,
Oh dear. I shall be compelled to exist upon this planet for another 150 years if it takes this long for opinion writers to catch up with reality. Some days I seem to have the patience of Job, but on other days my eyes roll and suffer headaches from the numbness. This article gives me a headache, if for no other reason than my cats could have done better.
:D
The premise seems to be that due to sanctions, Mr. Putin has been forced to look East, as in places like North Korea, to either raise money or to move money around world markets.
Really, North Korea?
The author is apparently unaware of the financial state of North Korea, itself under international economic sanctions. The fact that two beleaguered nations have found solace in a lonely corner of the world while bartering services with each other is not exactly the stuff that heralds economic breakthroughs. That the author of an article would think it to be economic genius, is well, worthy of a migraine.
Well Mendeleyev, while you focused on North Korea aspect, I noted the other countries involved such as India, China, Iran. These are all significant nations.
Excerpt:
"Over the longer term, though, others will diversify away from reliance on the dollar and US-dominated institutions, particularly in East Asia, where China has the muscle and the motive to create its own institutions, and where there is less dollar-denominated debt to complicate the process," he wrote.
The Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS bank, and the Silk Route Maritime and Overland initiatives are all already existing examples of that, Bremmer noted.
Another layer to what's going on is that over the past several months several non-Western countries (including Russia, Iran, China, India, and North Korea) have been publically strengthening their military, energy, and economic relationships among each other.
Among other issues, getting overly involved in affairs across oceans and imposing financial sanctions liberally is moving this process forward more swiftly.
Fathertime!
-
Mendy, I do think the article has some merit.
From the article:The US has been pushing their will through the use of our financial system. That is why countries, like Switzerland, are opening up details on bank accounts of American citizens. They are not doing so because they were asked nicely.
There is no doubt that replacing the US dollar as the world currency is a detriment to the US and will be responded too.
BRICS countries has it's own monetary fund now. The IMF is another tool used for personal gain. How much land has been sold in Ukraine now? Part of their loan requirements were to open up more to foreign investments which has led to more and more land grabs from big companies.
I wonder what will be left for Ukrainians when all is said and done?
Something to keep in mind is that the U.S. financial markets is a weapon. The dollar is the worlds reserve currency and will remain so until there is a one world currency. There is no danger of Russia, India, Brazil starting a new one to overtake the dollar. It's not going to happen.
As an example, the sanctions on Russia right now is crushing it's financial sector. The sanctions are intended to. It's a global economy and it is all driven by the U.S. markets. Most economies the world over are tied in some form or fashion into Wall St.. That is no accident and is by design. Basically it's a tool of the international banking cartels used to inflict their will on the world stage. The U.S. gets to shoulder all of the blame of those actions
-
I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and found this article discussion how sanctioned states are teaming up and undermining the 'weapons of finance' that the US has been trying to employ....blah....blah
Do your homework before subscribing to something you read.
First, examine the writer of the article:
I'll wager Elena Holodny is Russian based on her name, her appearance, the fact she speaks Russian, much of what she writes is about Russia, and her articles tend to tilt in favor of Putin ("Putin spokesman on Asperger's claim: 'That is stupidity not worthy of comment'," "Putin just invited the new Greek prime minister to Moscow," etc.). She may even receive payments from Russia's propaganda arm.
Second, examine the substance of the article:
You wrote, I happened to be browsing the internet this evening and found this article discussion how sanctioned states are teaming up and undermining the 'weapons of finance' that the US has been trying to employ.
Six states are sanctioned by the US other than Russia:
•Myanmar
•Côte d'Ivoire
•Cuba
•Iran
•North Korea
•Syria
Do you tremble :'( thinking these sanctioned states could somehow affiliate their juggernaut economies and jeopardize the financial stability of the world?
This list speaks volumes about how Russia's misadventures have reduced its friends to the scum of the earth. Russia's place in the world is declining, and they did it to themselves. If Russia did not have oil, it would be as significant as Botswana.
And you find no fault with Russia. Truly your commentary is wasting our time. Mendeleyev should not exert any more effort to help you until you show some signs that you are capable of clear thinking.
-
I agree with Gator. There are many countries in the world with which the U.S. does not agree, but which are not subject to sanctions. A year ago, there were significant differences between Russia and the U.S. on several issues, yet Russia was not under sanctions. Moreover, the fact the EU is on board with these sanctions, and even more, is significant.
On land, Ukrainian agricultural land cannot be sold to foreigners, at least, not huge tracts of land. It can be leased long term.
-
Really, North Korea?
North Korea is extremely important to Russia as is Iran and China because they are extremely dangerous. It's best Putin strengthen economic ties with these countries and create alliances. Even if there is little economic benefit, there could be a huge benefit for Putin if he gets in a war with the West. If Russia's allies decide to pursue their goals in Asia and the Middle East, that will divert the attention and resources of the West elsewhere since those areas are more important to the West than Ukraine.
Look how the events unfolded during WW1 and WW2. If Putin can get the West to believe WW3 is very possible with his alliances of dangerous nations, they are more likely to give up Ukraine than risk losing their way of life with total destruction of their countries. If the West doesn't back off, Putin has friends that can create mayhem all over the world.
-
Gator I hold it is you that isn't thinking clearly or completely. The list of sanctioned nations doesn't account for the fact that unsanctioned nations are working with them, as many nations don't want the threat of sanctions to impact their design making to the extent it might currently. Much of the world's population are moving in a direction that will harm our interests and I contend we are making this happen with our meddling.
So now you are upset and telling Mendeleyev he shouldn't discuss this because it upsets YOU that the viewpoint is counter to your silly rosy one. I'm happy he has shown the meddle, instead of throwing tantrums as you have done in the past.
Fathertime!
-
Something to keep in mind is that the U.S. financial markets is a weapon. The dollar is the worlds reserve currency and will remain so until there is a one world currency. There is no danger of Russia, India, Brazil starting a new one to overtake the dollar. It's not going to happen.
Hard to say FP. As of right now, I would agree, but things can change. We were lucky to bring down the whole world during the last economic fiasco. Otherwise who knows whom could have landed on top. Hong Kong and Singapore are tech hubs now. I can see more and more investments following that route to be honest.
-
The presence of foreign corporations in the agricultural sector and the size of agro-holdings are both growing quickly.19 In recent years, more than 1.6 million hectares (ha) have been signed over to foreign companies for agricultural purposes.20
The largest land deals involve 405,000 ha to a company listed in Luxembourg, 444,800 ha to Cyprus-registered investors, 120,000 ha to a French corporation, and 250,000 ha to a Russian company.
China signed an agreement for 3 million ha of prime farmland in Eastern Ukraine in September 2013 but it is unclear if this deal will go forward with the change of government. According to media reports, this deal is now “disputed.”22 If it is implemented, the agreement would give China control over an area roughly the size of Belgium that accounts for 5% of all arable land in Ukraine.23
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf (http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf)
Does anyone know if Ukraine plans on privatizing agriculture so it can be legally owned? I quoted my past post here because according to the pdf link, they mentioned IMF and Worldbank were pushing for more privatization in order to bring in foreign investment.
-
Those companies lease the land. They can't own it, legally.
-
No, the US will do things like charge a 30% witholding tax on outgoing
transactions until compliance is met. See Swiss banking. If that isn't sanctions I don't know what is.
I have no issue with that. People should not be allowed to hide money abroad.
-
Those companies lease the land. They can't own it, legally.
I'll take your word for it since I have no clue. haha Still, that is a lot of land that is being controlled by foreign companies even if by lease. I would imagine these are rather long term leases at that.
-
Gator I hold it is you that isn't thinking clearly or completely. The list of sanctioned nations doesn't account for the fact that unsanctioned nations are working with them, as many nations don't want the threat of sanctions to impact their design making to the extent it might currently.
You were the one who wrote "sanctioned nations." Please write clearly if you attempt to make a point. However, part of writing clearly is thinking clearly, something beyond you.
Much of the world's population are moving in a direction that will harm our interests and I contend we are making this happen with our meddling.
Three points:
1. The difference between the West and Putin is one word, control. If the US were interested in control, we would have done what the Soviets did in Europe after WWII. Do you think the other countries mentioned such as India and China would trust Russia?
2. Also, why would China take steps that would "harm" its customers? China's economy has improved dramatically not because of being a gas station (Russia) but because they take raw materials, add value to them and sell the finished products to the West (Japan's model). The correct policy for world posterity is global economic growth, not control.
3. India and China are under no threat of being sanctioned.
So now you are upset and telling Mendeleyev he shouldn't discuss this because it upsets YOU that the viewpoint is counter to your silly rosy one. I'm happy he has shown the meddle, instead of throwing tantrums as you have done in the past.
That's not it. Mendy is a far better writer than me; it is his profession. He is able to use more compassion and elegance in pointing out that you are a blockhead, even suggesting the possibility there is hope for you. I, OTOH, know both your darkside and your lack of depth. You are hopeless, so hopeless that you do not recognize your failings.
-
I have no issue with that. People should not be allowed to hide money abroad.
Well, the fact still remains the US pushed it's agenda on a sovereign nation through fines and taxes. In any case, I see this type of actions as a slippery slope. Where does it become too much?
-
I agree with Gator. There are many countries in the world with which the U.S. does not agree, but which are not subject to sanctions. A year ago, there were significant differences between Russia and the U.S. on several issues, yet Russia was not under sanctions. Moreover, the fact the EU is on board with these sanctions, and even more, is significant.
On land, Ukrainian agricultural land cannot be sold to foreigners, at least, not huge tracts of land. It can be leased long term.
Ironically, this last statement is also true in Russia. Because of this, and a lack of capital for local investment, much of the land in Russia still remains fallow. One of our endeavors in Russia was to create an experimental farm which had breeding stock and would inseminate cows for dairy herds, etc. We could only buy sufficient farmland to feed the dairy herd we were using for the farm, no more. Fortunately we perfected title on the land we had or it would probably already be under review for redistribution. I no longer have a financial interest in this endeavor.
Great tracts of farmland in Russia are not developed because there aren't any investors to put the land into production. The land is still owned by the State, the same situation it was in under the Soviet Union. This is the stilted growth and infrastructure created by the current system of government. The end result: Buy grains and meat from other countries. Pay for it with oil revenue. In essence, Russia is a large gas station that does trade through oil distribution.
-
Well, the fact still remains the US pushed it's agenda on a sovereign nation through fines and taxes. In any case, I see this type of actions as a slippery slope. Where does it become too much?
Aren't the fines levied against Swiss banks not Switzerland. Sometimes part of the fines are paid to other countries including Switzerland.
... the Swiss bank [UBS] admitted to fraud and bribery in connection with efforts to rig the interest rates and agreed to pay $1.5 billion in fines to regulators in the United States, UK and Switzerland.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-ubs-libor-idUSBRE8BI00020121219
Regarding 30% withholding tax on transactions with foreign bank accounts, I agree with Boethius. A US citizen is required to report all income. Some large fat cats do not. If the cheating fat cats do not want to pay taxes, renounce their US citizenship.
-
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf (http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Brief_Ukraine.pdf)
Damn it, I was trying to quote the link I posted earlier and accidentally modifed that post.
Here was my question again:
Does anyone know if Ukraine plans on privatizing agriculture so it can be legally owned by foreigners? I quoted my past post here because according to the pdf link, they mentioned IMF and Worldbank were pushing for more privatization in order to bring in foreign investment.
-
Aren't the fines levied against Swiss banks not Switzerland. Sometimes part of the fines are paid to other countries including Switzerland.
How are the Swiss banks suppose to remain legal under Swiss law and give up the goods on it's customers? I think, in this day and age, an attack on a nation's banks is an attack on the country.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-ubs-libor-idUSBRE8BI00020121219 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-ubs-libor-idUSBRE8BI00020121219)
Regarding 30% withholding tax on transactions with foreign bank accounts, I agree with Boethius. A US citizen is required to report all income. Some large fat cats do not. If the cheating fat cats do not want to pay taxes, renounce their US citizenship.
Screw sovereignty if you and others think it is the right thing to do.
-
Two separate things, LFU:
1. Privatization: The Ukrainian government has allowed almost all land to become privately held. Through graft and corruption there is a concentration of land held by a few.
2. Foreign investors, as Bo stated, are not allowed to hold large tracts of land. There are companies, particularly in Poland, that would like to own land in Ukraine but are not allowed to do so. Anyone driving from Ukraine to Poland will see a significant change of development between the two countries, with Poland having modernized its farming operation.
-
If the reforms required by the EU hold in the Rada, I could see a time in the very near future where there would be a run on farming in Ukraine. I spent a significant amount of time in the Mykolaiv area reviewing old farming infrastructure left over from SU days.
-
How are the Swiss banks suppose to remain legal under Swiss law and give up the goods on it's customers? I think, in this day and age, an attack on a nation's banks is an attack on the country.
They don't have to do business in the U.S. The U.S. has no jurisdiction in Switzerland.
Screw sovereignty if you and others think it is the right thing to do.
See above. BTW, it is not just Switzerland caught in this. Canadian banks have to hand over information as well. The difference is, Americans with Canadian bank accounts are already paying tax on those accounts.
-
If the reforms required by the EU hold in the Rada, I could see a time in the very near future where there would be a run on farming in Ukraine. I spent a significant amount of time in the Mykolaiv area reviewing old farming infrastructure left over from SU days.
Appreciate the info posted up thread, jone. It certainly looks like there will be a run on farming which is why I was asking those questions. While the investment and upgrades in tech would be immensely helpful, you still have to worry about it being overly dominated by the big corps.
-
Yes, I agree. I don't think non Ukrainians should be allowed to buy farmland. They are not in Canada.
-
They don't have to do business in the U.S. The U.S. has no jurisdiction in Switzerland.
You can't get away from the US financial markets. It is impossible, which is why the whole world crashed when we did. To say they don't have to do business isn't realistic.
See above. BTW, it is not just Switzerland caught in this. Canadian banks have to hand over information as well. The difference is, Americans with Canadian bank accounts are already paying tax on those accounts.
Yes, the US is pushing for this to be the norm and is getting their way.
-
I don't really have an issue with American tax cheats being discovered. Canada has a self reporting system now for foreign holdings. It just doesn't have the clout of the US to force compliance by foreign banks.
-
I don't really have an issue with American tax cheats being discovered. Canada has a self reporting system now for foreign holdings. It just doesn't have the clout of the US to force compliance by foreign banks.
It also screws legally abiding citizens trying to use foreign banking services.
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/09/22/tax-evasion-crackdown-has-intense-impact-on-expats-survey-finds/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/09/22/tax-evasion-crackdown-has-intense-impact-on-expats-survey-finds/)
-
You were the one who wrote "sanctioned nations." Please write clearly if you attempt to make a point. However, part of writing clearly is thinking clearly, something beyond you.
Don't blame me if you couldn't figure out the logical conclusion of what was written...I clearly mentioned non-sanctioned nations is who they were working with... It twas YOU that glossed over that and instead plucked out off nations never mentioned like Myarmar..in order to make a pointless point.
3. India and China are under no threat of being sanctioned.
Actually that is not entirely true...many nations are always under the threat of sanctions. If China were to make a strong military move they could be sanctioned, and your inability to see/consider this indicates the extent of your blindness.
That said, the US might have a difficult time trying to sanction a country we have become so dependent on. A country that is smartly buying up assets throughout the world, while we spend resources dithering in Ukraine.
1. The difference between the West and Putin is one word, control. If the US were interested in control, we would have done what the Soviets did in Europe after WWII. Do you think the other countries mentioned such as India and China would trust Russia?
:ROFL:
Considering how knowledgeable you seem to think you are, the misunderstanding of world issues is breathtaking. It isn't and wasn't ever a case of trusting!
That's not it. Mendy is a far better writer than me; it is his profession. He is able to use more compassion and elegance in pointing out that you are a blockhead, even suggesting the possibility there is hope for you. I, OTOH, know both your darkside and your lack of depth. You are hopeless, so hopeless that you do not recognize your failings.
You only think you know darksides because you put your own on display here, and I am now happy I was able to provoke it merely by having strong opinions about our role in Ukraine and how I thought/think this should be handled! :D [/size][size=78%] [/size]
Fathertime!
-
Hard to say FP. As of right now, I would agree, but things can change. We were lucky to bring down the whole world during the last economic fiasco. Otherwise who knows whom could have landed on top. Hong Kong and Singapore are tech hubs now. I can see more and more investments following that route to be honest.
I don't have any doubt that the dollar will fail and it will eventually change into a one world currency but, nothing will take place between the dollar and a one world currency. The day of reckoning is coming when the dollar dies and when it does, 2008 will be a trip to Disneyland for the globe
-
Fathertime!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qnnCQo_Gs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qnnCQo_Gs)
-
Swiss banks and tax dodges/criminal activity-
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc-files-expose-swiss-bank-clients-dodge-taxes-hide-millions
-
I was browsing the internet this morning and found a couple links discussing EGYPT and Russia abandoning the US dollar.
The second link is Jen Psaki, denying this will happen because“We provide a great deal of security assistance to the Government of Egypt,”
[/size][/color]
[/size]It is interesting how security assistance (Military) is so entwined with financial benefits such as using the US dollar. Those who control finance can then feed their military which feeds their financial capacity, which feeds their military, which feeds their financial capacity.... and so on and so on. Not the only factor of course, but always plays a role. [/color]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s- (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s-dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/)
[/size][size=78%]dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s-dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/)[/size]
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/02/11/us-believe-egypt-russia-will-end-dollar-usage/ (http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/02/11/us-believe-egypt-russia-will-end-dollar-usage/)
(http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/beta/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AN_USA_US-State-Department-Spokesperson-Jen-Psaki-Photo-from-public-domain-300x300.jpg)
Fathertime!
-
I was browsing the internet this morning and found a couple links discussing EGYPT and Russia abandoning the US dollar.
The second link is Jen Psaki, denying this will happen because“We provide a great deal of security assistance to the Government of Egypt,”
It is interesting how security assistance (Military) is so entwined with financial benefits such as using the US dollar. Those who control finance can then feed their military which feeds their financial capacity, which feeds their military, which feeds their financial capacity.... and so on and so on. Not the only factor of course, but always plays a role.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s- (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s-dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/)
[size=78%]dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/09/putin-says-russia-and-egypt-actively-discussing-replacing-u-s-dollar-in-their-trade-agreements/)[/size][/color]
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/02/11/us-believe-egypt-russia-will-end-dollar-usage/ (http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/02/11/us-believe-egypt-russia-will-end-dollar-usage/)
(http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/beta/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AN_USA_US-State-Department-Spokesperson-Jen-Psaki-Photo-from-public-domain-300x300.jpg)
Fathertime!
And what are they going to use?
The (quickly flunking) Euro? Or the (useless) Rubble?
Bwa hahahahahahaha
-
And what are they going to use?
The (quickly flunking) Euro? Or the (useless) Rubble?
Bwa hahahahahahaha
Well Muzh today this story just hit the wire regarding Egypt:
Egypt ends US arms 'monopoly' with French jet fighter deal
http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-ends-us-arms-monopoly-french-jet-fighter-212939915.html (http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-ends-us-arms-monopoly-french-jet-fighter-212939915.html)
Here are a few selected quotes:"Egypt no longer wants to be "blackmailed" in its relations with the United States, said Zayyat, an expert with the Cairo-based National Centre for Middle East Studies.""The contract (with France) is an implicit message to the United States signifying that Egypt will no longer count exclusively on US weapon supplies," said retired Egyptian army general Mohammed Mujahid al-Zayyat."Egypt will continue to buy weapons from the Americans but it will also buy them from Russia, and this was clear during Putin's visit to Cairo," said Arab affairs expert Mathieu Guidere.I had a little difficulty with the formatting here so the quotes all bunched up.[/font]
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnhmg82x6fo
-
Mendy, wrong move to post this video- Russians are not b^$(*tching , they're calm (though Putin is evel hahahaha)
Exactly what I said before- Russia is used to it.
-
Sooooo calm that they have resorted to hoarding Ikea furniture to preserve their wealth.
:ROFL:
-
Sooooo calm that they have resorted to hoarding Ikea furniture to preserve their wealth.
:ROFL:
I am commenting Mendy's video. Don't remember they talked about Ikea.
-
Then why aren't you back in Russia to endure the hardship alongside your fellow compatriots?
Finding dirt a bit hard to swallow after getting used to dining on tender scotch fillet steak? :cluebat:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxWEGfxcAY4&list=PLVJpWogZhhzRfsAYwd-p_v8No4UWS5qyu&index=2
-
Then why aren't you back in Russia to endure the hardship alongside your fellow compatriots?
Finding dirt a bit hard to swallow after getting used to dining on tender scotch fillet steak? :cluebat:
First- I answered this question many times
Second- it is none of your business
Last- I am planning on returning to Russia.
-
This is one of the comments on this video exactly what I said many times)
the West still does not understand Russians at all:-) you have absolutely no idea....all those medias waiting, when Russians will finally get scared only make me laugh.....EU citizens should get scared, because this will fall hardest on them and they are not used to hardships like Russians are
-
Finding dirt a bit hard to swallow after getting used to dining on tender scotch fillet steak? :cluebat:
I am living very modestly here. My older son and his family eat much better
Why steak is "scotch"?
You have no clue how many poor people live in the US. I mean- they live "modestly". When I shop groceries I can watch people thinking heard when they see prices for beef. Didn't see many people buying NY steaks for %11.00 a pound. Forget file minion which is more than $15.00 a pound.
They (most Americans) shop for simple food ( and a lot of frozen junk)
-
Doll:
Mendy, wrong move to post this video- Russians are not b^$(*tching , they're calm (though Putin is evel hahahaha)
It was not a wrong move. It was journalism. I understand that is not common in your past, but over time you will become used to it.
In free countries Doll, all sides of an issue are shown. Some of those interviewed had no concerns, but others were cutting back.
A propaganda piece would have edited out whatever did not fit the theme of the interviewer. This piece showed both sides. That is honest journalism.
-
Doll:
It was not a wrong move. It was journalism. I understand that is not common in your past, but over time you will become used to it.
In free countries Doll, all sides of an issue are shown. Some of those interviewed had no concerns, but others were cutting back.
A propaganda piece would have edited out whatever did not fit the theme of the interviewer. This piece showed both sides. That is honest journalism.
Mendy, old Soviet relics are hard to die.
-
(http://pp.vk.me/c624416/v624416929/20e64/Je8fq3DSHL4.jpg)
Just noticed a piece in one of Russia's main Orthodox publications about the sanctions and their impact on the Lenten fast. For those who read Russian, the link is: http://www.pravmir.ru/pochyom-postitsya-v-krizis-infografika/
Nothing earth shattering in the article, other than the observation that sanctions, especially those reverse sanctions ordered by the Kremlin, are having a continual impact on daily life.
-
While browsing the internet this evening, I ran across a story that has an effect on many of us. Exxon/Mobil has lost roughly 1 billion dollars because of the back and forth sanctions. The stock price of both Exxon/Mobil and Chevron have suffered.
http://news.yahoo.com/exxonmobil-says-russia-sanctions-cost-1-bn-153817351.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma (http://news.yahoo.com/exxonmobil-says-russia-sanctions-cost-1-bn-153817351.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma)
Fathertime!
-
Certain EU countries are preparing to give up their part in Western sanctions. Those nations are Greece, Cyprus and Hungary.
The Russian food safety ministry, Россельхознадзор (Rosselkhoznadzor), will re-certify food products from those three countries as okay for export to Russia next month. Despite claims of self-reliance, Russian food production has not taken hold as the government had projected, and this will help ease some, but not all, of the shortages created by Russia's declaration of "reverse sanctions."
Rosselkhoznadzor has also announced a new agreement to dramatically increase imports of seafood from Chile. Fish tops beef and chicken on most Russian tables, and this will help ease the shortage of seafood products that had previously been supplied by Finland and the Baltic states. Even with access to several large bodies of water, Russia has never been able to develop and maintain a modern and self reliant seafood industry.
-
while browsing the internet i found this article about Russia talking to Nicaragua now...thinking of supplying them with fighter jets. the article states that is a way for Russia to begin to strike back against what it perceives as US interference in it's backyard...so it is going to start interfering in our backyard.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-flexing-muscles-central-america-152100125.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-flexing-muscles-central-america-152100125.html)
Russia is flexing its muscles in Central America
(Krasimir Grozev)A Serbian MiG-29Russia has once again started to flex its muscles in a bid to rebuild its influence in the Central American state of Nicaragua, McClatchy DC reports.
Moscow may strike a possible arms deal with Nicaragua that would provide the Central American country with fighter jets.
Although details of the deal have not been revealed, there are rumors in local papers from both countries that suggest that Russia could provide MiG-29 fighter aircraft............
-
In a congressional hearing on March 12, 2015, General John Kelly, the head of US Southern Command, said that (http://www.southcom.mil/newsroom/Documents/SOUTHCOM_POSTURE_STATEMENT_FINAL_2015.pdf) "Russia is using power projection in an attempt to erode U.S. leadership and challenge U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere ... Russia has courted Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to gain access to air bases and ports for resupply of Russian naval assets and strategic bombers operating in the Western Hemisphere."
The Russians have learned from the best about how to stir up crap on the other side of the world. It won't be too long before we're having troubles in central and south America.
-
The Russians have learned from the best about how to stir up crap on the other side of the world. It won't be too long before we're having troubles in central and south America.
Right. Because they never did this before.
-
Right. Because they never did this before.
Sure they did but we raised it to an art form.
-
I suggest you read the histories of Ukraine during NEP (which was copied in other republics), and Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in the immediate postwar period. Focus on how the elections they were promised were manipulated by the Soviets. They had the art form before the US knew an art form existed (though I disagree that any of this is an art form).
-
The Russians have learned from the best about how to stir up crap on the other side of the world. It won't be too long before we're having troubles in central and south America.
As a retaliatory measure, we can expect a variety of different consequences, obviously none of which is good for us. Overall we (The US) will be trying to put out brush fires in our own backyard for the foreseeable future now.
Fathertime!
-
As a retaliatory measure, we can expect a variety of different consequences, obviously none of which is good for us. Overall we (The US) will be trying to put out brush fires in our own backyard for the foreseeable future now.
Fathertime!
I don't think so.
It is such a different world from when the US pols told us they had to quell brush fires from our backyard.
There is a new boogieman in the room.
-
Those McClatchy reporters must be wet behind the ears. Russia/Putin has been at this game for a decade. Putin was exploiting the demise of the Monroe doctrine loooonnng before this.
-
I don't think so.
It is such a different world from when the US pols told us they had to quell brush fires from our backyard.
There is a new boogieman in the room.
You may be right, but it is no sure thing. Russia is visiting Colombia this week, one of our strongest allies in the region...I was under the impression that we had Colombia pretty much in our pocket...
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Russian-Foreign-Minister-Continues-Latin-America-Tour-20150325-0012.html (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Russian-Foreign-Minister-Continues-Latin-America-Tour-20150325-0012.html)
Russian Foreign Minister Continues Latin America Tour
Russia’s foreign minister seeks to strengthen ties with Latin American regional integration blocs. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is currently in Colombia, will continue his four day tour of Latin America on Wednesday. Lavrov visited Cuba prior to his stop in Colombia and will move on next to Nicaragua and Guatemala. During his official visit to Colombia, Lavrov expressed interest in..........
Fathertime!
-
Russian price inflation rose to 16.9 percent in March, its highest level since 2002, as the country adapts to a sharply weakened ruble and the impact of politically motivated food import bans.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-inflation-surges-to-13-year-high-as-ruble-crisis-stings/518699.html (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-inflation-surges-to-13-year-high-as-ruble-crisis-stings/518699.html)
Alexi Kudrin, Russia's former Minister of the Treasury and still a close family friend to Mr. Putin, is now warning that Russia's frantic buying of the ruble on FOREX exchanges may have seriously threatened the country's strategic reserves.
-
Certain EU countries are preparing to give up their part in Western sanctions. Those nations are Greece, Cyprus and Hungary.
I can only speak with some expertise re Greece and Cyprus- having lived in Cyprus for a long time.
Greece is in a BAD -economically - way and owes a shed load of money to the EU - having falsified accounts - to get in the Eurozone. It has elected a left of centre - anti-EU austerity measures - coalition and Greece is 'welcome' to borrow mony from Russia - who can't afford to lend it ... THIS is the only card the Greeks have in negotiations - short of crashing out of the Euzozone - which they don't want.
Cyprus invested in Greece and the EU bailed her banks out by enforcing a 'haircut' - taking a chunk from everyone who had more than 100k Euros - affecting many former FSU folk who had entrusted their funds with Cypriot banks and formed many offshore companies WAY before joining the EU and the Eurozone.
Neither nation is pleased with the austerity measures in place and Cyprus has JUST eneded currency controls.
Cyprus has a right of centre, pragmatic President who wants to walk the middle path and keep all his options open. There is an Orthodox Christian 'bond' between the nations, but Cyprus has been 'occupied' by Turkish forces since 1974 - the Turkish Cypriots call it the 'Peace Operation'.. itis a similar situation to Crimea.... and Greece and Cyprus voted for Ukraine's UN resolution.
Neither wants to leave the EU, really and China is more likely to lend money - knowing they will likely never see it returned.
Sanctions were renewed against Russia in March - for a further six months.
NOTHING can change until mid-Septemeber.
-
Russian price inflation rose to 16.9 percent in March, its highest level since 2002, as the country adapts to a sharply weakened ruble and the impact of politically motivated food import bans.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-inflation-surges-to-13-year-high-as-ruble-crisis-stings/518699.html (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-inflation-surges-to-13-year-high-as-ruble-crisis-stings/518699.html)
Alexi Kudrin, Russia's former Minister of the Treasury and still a close family friend to Mr. Putin, is now warning that Russia's frantic buying of the ruble on FOREX exchanges may have seriously threatened the country's strategic reserves.
Mendy,
You should point out that the inflation rate quoted is adjusted as an ANNUAL rate, not a monthly rate of inflation.
-
Thank you for that correction, Jone. You are right.
-
It looks like Russia has helped give renewed life to the Falklands issue between The United Kingdom and Argentina. From what I've been reading Great Britain is in the process of attempting to extract undersea oil from under the Argentinian continental shelf...using The Falklands as an excuse. If there are indeed vast resources in that area,the United Kingdom shouldn't be entitled to receive the potentially massive proceeds because of a sparsely inhabited set of disputed islands off the Argentinian coastline and nearly 8000 miles away from the United Kingdom.
http://news.yahoo.com/falklands-spat-heats-between-britain-argentina-173310205.html;_ylt=AwrXoCHUHSdVCwsAsRrQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- (http://news.yahoo.com/falklands-spat-heats-between-britain-argentina-173310205.html;_ylt=AwrXoCHUHSdVCwsAsRrQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--)
Fathertime!
-
It looks like Russia has helped give renewed life to the Falklands issue between The United Kingdom and Argentina. From what I've been reading Great Britain is in the process of attempting to extract undersea oil from under the Argentinian continental shelf...using The Falklands as an excuse. If there are indeed vast resources in that area,the United Kingdom shouldn't be entitled to receive the potentially massive proceeds because of a sparsely inhabited set of disputed islands off the Argentinian coastline and nearly 8000 miles away from the United Kingdom.
Hi fathertime
1/ It's the United Kingdom - not Great Britain ...
2/ the licences are issued by the FALKLAND ISLAND's Govt... not the British Government
3/ The FALKLANDs are a dependency of the UK and they have cost the UK far more to protect than any possible income... Do TRY to understand the principle ofthe right of the islanders to enjoy freedom from occupation from a nation that has no claim and for whom the islanders have made it QUITE clear they want no part of ....
4/ Licences were granted to private enterprises - many who have failed to make a return on their investment.
The irony of the Kremlin 'stirring the pot' whilst claiming Crimeans had the right of'self determination' is not lost on most of us .... ;D
-
Hi msmobyone,
3/ The FALKLANDs are a dependency of the UK and they have cost the UK far more to protect than any possible income...
I really don't think that is an accurate statement....so far they believe there is 60 BILLION barrels of oil in the vicinity. UK stands to gain a lot directly and indirectly because of this. Argentina around zilch. Interesting the South American nations are banding together on this one, and have banned "The Falklands" flagged ships in their ports.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100537413 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100537413)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/uk-falklands-oil-idUKTRE81F1LA20120216 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/uk-falklands-oil-idUKTRE81F1LA20120216)
Do TRY to understand the principle ofthe right of the islanders to enjoy freedom from occupation from a nation that has no claim and for whom the islanders have made it QUITE clear they want no part of ....
Well obviously Argentina doesn't agree that it has no claim. The UK's military has been stronger and that is the crux of their stronger claim. Aside from that, UK has populated the islands with a few 1000 in the interim, in part to help strengthen their claim....nevertheless Argentina has never agreed with it, and that being the case may decide to continue to make the UK fight or expend resources in order to hold the land.
Fathertime!
-
I don't think so.
It is such a different world from when the US pols told us they had to quell brush fires from our backyard.
There is a new boogieman in the room.
Muzh, Did you see what Obama said today at the Summit of Americas today? I thought it was quite a public admission regarding the meddling we have been guilty of. It certainly appears we are now cognizant of the growing Chinese competition to our hegemony over the region.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/04/10/obama-days-of-us-meddling-with-impunity?videoId=363811438&videoChannel=1 (http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/04/10/obama-days-of-us-meddling-with-impunity?videoId=363811438&videoChannel=1)
Fathertime!
-
This debate about the Falklands is not dissimilar to that over those small, uninhabited islands in the China Sea (Spratlies, etc.) - when the smell of oil is in the air, neighbouring nations suddenly discover 'historical' reasons why the should claim sovereignty over them :-\.
-
Hi msmobyone,
I really don't think that is an accurate statement....so far they believe there is 60 BILLION barrels of oil in the vicinity. UK stands to gain a lot directly and indirectly because of this. Argentina around zilch. Interesting the South American nations are banding together on this one, and have banned "The Falklands" flagged ships in their ports.
HI fathertime,
this will be one of the easiest ripostes I ever made...
1/ I include the cost of lives lost - 900 plus
2/ I think you need to check out the UK's defence budget and costings re the RE-TAKING of the Falkands - militarily - and the on-going costs of defence.
3/ Argentina's attempt to close ports to UK shipping is more of a propaganda news item than reality.... Supply ships and military ones visit S.American ports..
http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2014/12/08/uk-ship-in-chile-revives-falklands-controversy-with-argentina/ (http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2014/12/08/uk-ship-in-chile-revives-falklands-controversy-with-argentina/)
and Argentina has 'fits' ...
Well obviously Argentina doesn't agree that it has no claim. The UK's military has been stronger and that is the crux of their stronger claim.
Fathertime, I invite you to check out the 'validity' of Argentina's 'claim' - you are posting 'silly'.. Argentina's 'claim' is laughably tenuous.
ANY chance of a negotiation for 'joint sovereignty' disapated - for generations - with the invasion of '82
The 1982 invasion came about because the military Junta were deeply unpopular and needed a diversion - The UK had 'pulled' the last ship patrolling the region and Argentina thought this meant the UK wouldn't defend dependents
I beleive Pres. Putin would have had the Falklands Factor in his mind when arranging the 'return' of Crimea - as Thatcher went from likely to be removed - deep economic woes - to national hero...
-
HI fathertime,
this will be one of the easiest ripostes I ever made...
1/ I include the cost of lives lost - 900 plus
2/ I think you need to check out the UK's defence budget and costings re the RE-TAKING of the Falkands - militarily - and the on-going costs of defence.
Hola Msmobyone!
The 'costs' of the colonization of the Falklands won't be large compared to the potentially 10's of billions for UK Companies when/if they get the full benefit of the oil. From what I read, it has been known for some time that oil existed there.
3/ Argentina's attempt to close ports to UK shipping is more of a propaganda news item than reality.... Supply ships and military ones visit S.American ports..
http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2014/12/08/uk-ship-in-chile-revives-falklands-controversy-with-argentina/ (http://panampost.com/panam-staff/2014/12/08/uk-ship-in-chile-revives-falklands-controversy-with-argentina/)
and Argentina has 'fits' ...
I had mentioned FALKLANDS Flagged ships not being accepted to dock....UK ships perhaps there is less unification on that issue, as the UK still has some residue clout.
Fathertime, I invite you to check out the 'validity' of Argentina's 'claim' - you are posting 'silly'.. Argentina's 'claim' is laughably tenuous.
Actually it is the UK's claim that is laughably tenuous....expelling the original South American settlers, and colonizing an island nearly 8000 miles away, just because they 'saw it' isn't much of a claim....but their military has been strong enough to keep it.. If indeed they reap the oil resources and their nearby nations receive no benefit, we shall see if repercussions ensue.
ANY chance of a negotiation for 'joint sovereignty' disapated - for generations - with the invasion of '82
The 1982 invasion came about because the military Junta were deeply unpopular and needed a diversion - The UK had 'pulled' the last ship patrolling the region and Argentina thought this meant the UK wouldn't defend dependents
I beleive Pres. Putin would have had the Falklands Factor in his mind when arranging the 'return' of Crimea - as Thatcher went from likely to be removed - deep economic woes - to national hero...
Was there ANY indication that the UK was going to permit joint sovereignty with Argentina? I didn't read anything insinuating that was even on the table for the UK prior to 1982.
When Putin pointed this out recently, it merely demonstrated that many Western nations have very little room to speak about how sinful Russian acquisitions are. It probably plays well in defeated nations that continue to be subjugated to the ill effects (like competitive disadvantage or loss of resources) as a result of the colonization of yesteryear.
Fathertime!
-
Hola Msmobyone!
The 'costs' of the colonization of the Falklands won't be large compared to the potentially 10's of billions for UK Companies when/if they get the full benefit of the oil. From what I read, it has been known for some time that oil existed there.
I say, Good Morning, Fathertime.. you don't hear much Spanish spoken on the islands - save for a period of temporary occupation in 1982 and Spanish control ...;)
I suggest you may be reading highly dubious sources of 'info' ... France, Spain, UK and Argentina have all claimed the islands, but one nation has consistently claimed and even removed usurpers - long before Argentina's creation.
I had mentioned FALKLANDS Flagged ships not being accepted to dock....UK ships perhaps there is less unification on that issue, as the UK still has some residue clout.
Indeed you did. I was careless in this respect.
Actually it is the UK's claim that is laughably tenuous....expelling the original South American settlers, and colonizing an island nearly 8000 miles away, just because they 'saw it' isn't much of a claim....but their military has been strong enough to keep it.. If indeed they reap the oil resources and their nearby nations receive no benefit, we shall see if repercussions ensue.
Oh dear, now you are being careless.
1/ as prevously pointed out - The Islands have cost FAR more than revenues received and many previous oil / gas explorations have resulted in a lot of costs with no return. Companies like Noble are 'risk takers' - paying for the rights to search in the eastern med... where Turkey 'insists' that Cypriot waters are her responsibility via the internationally unrecognised 'Turish Rep of Northern Cyprus'
2/ IF it transpires that the region is rich in reserves and can be profitably tapped - Argentina has NO say in the matter and has only her previous leaders to blame - as the Brits might have agreed to joint sovereignty - prior to the invasion of 1982.
Was there ANY indication that the UK was going to permit joint sovereignty with Argentina? I didn't read anything insinuating that was even on the table for the UK prior to 1982.
GLAD you asked ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9141841/Falkland-Islands-was-nearly-shared-by-Britain-and-Argentina.html
When Putin pointed this out recently, it merely demonstrated that many Western nations have very little room to speak about how sinful Russian acquisitions are. It probably plays well in defeated nations that continue to be subjugated to the ill effects (like competitive disadvantage or loss of resources) as a result of the colonization of yesteryear.
Fathertime!
it is noted that you seem to support Russia's TWICE - aanexation of Crimea - twice breaking treaties which promised her integrity - to the Ottoman Empire and subsequently, Ukraine - yet fail to note the irony in the Kremlin's double standards ...
-
I say, Good Morning, Fathertime.. you don't hear much Spanish spoken on the islands - save for a period of temporary occupation in 1982 and Spanish control ... ;)
I suggest you may be reading highly dubious sources of 'info' ... France, Spain, UK and Argentina have all claimed the islands, but one nation has consistently claimed and even removed usurpers - long before Argentina's creation.
Buenos dias Msmobyone!
Argentina was created around the same time all the other land masses were created...people lived there 1000's of years ago....it was conquered and colonized like many other areas by European nations. Peoples from the region populated the falklands before the UK, it was the UK's military might that has secured the islands, not some divine right above anybody elses...they ejected the inhabitants and claimed it as theirs. There is nothing 'right' about that...Argentina has a rightful claim to the area but not the ability to enforce it.
Oh dear, now you are being careless.
1/ as prevously pointed out - The Islands have cost FAR more than revenues received and many previous oil / gas explorations have resulted in a lot of costs with no return. Companies like Noble are 'risk takers' - paying for the rights to search in the eastern med... where Turkey 'insists' that Cypriot waters are her responsibility via the internationally unrecognised 'Turish Rep of Northern Cyprus'
2/ IF it transpires that the region is rich in reserves and can be profitably tapped - Argentina has NO say in the matter and has only her previous leaders to blame - as the Brits might have agreed to joint sovereignty - prior to the invasion of 1982.
I don't see the carelessness in pointing out the weakness in the United Kingdom's claim. Thanks for the article regarding the negotiations in the 1970's....as can be seen it was fruitless for the Argentine's and likely wasn't going to change, so they took action in their own hands and made the UK fight...when the time is right they may do it again. I doubt the Argentinians believe the negotiations were in good faith, as it shouldn't be difficult to allow for joint sovereignty and dual citizenship.
it is noted that you seem to support Russia's TWICE - aanexation of Crimea - twice breaking treaties which promised her integrity - to the Ottoman Empire and subsequently, Ukraine - yet fail to note the irony in the Kremlin's double standards ...
It is very obvious that Russia has double standards...what many here refuse to recognize is that the Western nations also have double standards. Imposing costs on land taken is something I can support...which is why I think sanctions are a reasonable way to go about this...in addition costs (although minimal) should continue to be imposed on the UK for the Falklands issue which has not be resolved in what many feel is an adequate way. :)
Fathertime!
-
Buenos dias Msmobyone!
Good day to you, Fathertime ;)
Argentina was created around the same time all the other land masses were created...people lived there 1000's of years ago....it was conquered and colonized like many other areas by European nations. Peoples from the region populated the falklands before the UK, it was the UK's military might that has secured the islands, not some divine right above anybody elses...they ejected the inhabitants and claimed it as theirs. There is nothing 'right' about that...Argentina has a rightful claim to the area but not the ability to enforce it.
Now, I know you are losing the plot.. the islands were mostly unihabited. FACT.. The UK's claim long predate's Argentina's existence as an entity.
I don't see the carelessness in pointing out the weakness in the United Kingdom's claim.
So, you didn't read points 1/ and 2/ or ... :deadhorse:
Thanks for the article regarding the negotiations in the 1970's....as can be seen it was fruitless for the Argentine's and likely wasn't going to change, so they took action in their own hands and made the UK fight...when the time is right they may do it again. I doubt the Argentinians believe the negotiations were in good faith, as it shouldn't be difficult to allow for joint sovereignty and dual citizenship.
Your opinion re the right of self-determination of folk who have lived there for generations - before any possible value was associated with the islands - is 'noted' ... ;D
It is very obvious that Russia has double standards...what many here refuse to recognize is that the Western nations also have double standards. Imposing costs on land taken is something I can support...which is why I think sanctions are a reasonable way to go about this...in addition costs (although minimal) should continue to be imposed on the UK for the Falklands issue which has not be resolved in what many feel is an adequate way. :)
Fathertime!
OK, based on your 'rationale' we should be sanctioning the USA, the traditional sea-faring nations -Spain, France, Portugal and the UK...Tibet for the Golden Horde..
-
Good day to you, Fathertime ;)
Buenas Tardes Msmobyone!
Now, I know you are losing the plot.. the islands were mostly unihabited. FACT.. The UK's claim long predate's Argentina's existence as an entity.
Mostly uninhabited means they were partially inhabited. Even now the islands are mostly uninhabited...a couple 1000 people isn't very many. When 2000 people would potentially have control of 60 billion barrels of oil there is something wacky about that...although I hold that it is the UK that a fix on that particular resource.
OK, based on your 'rationale' we should be sanctioning the USA, the traditional sea-faring nations -Spain, France, Portugal and the UK...Tibet for the Golden Horde..
Well the USA and other nation are not going to be sanctioned at this time, but when you consider the great wealth certain nations have obtained, in part because of the colonization and reaping of resources it does seem pretty hypocritical to jump up and down and apply sanctions and threaten war over these things.
There is no ultimate right for the UK to have effective control over the islands. As long as the UK is willing to fight for them, they can keep them entirely as their own entity, and be the benefactor of it's resources. It will continue to create rancor in the region, and there may come a day of reckoning for the greed displayed. A sharing of revenues from the resources would suffice in my opinion, but that doesn't appear on the table at this time.
Fathertime!
-
Mostly uninhabited means they were partially inhabited. Even now the islands are mostly uninhabited...a couple 1000 people isn't very many. When 2000 people would potentially have control of 60 billion barrels of oil there is something wacky about that...although I hold that it is the UK that a fix on that particular resource.
:)) You keep on missing the POINT ... From WHERE were these people ? France, UK, Spain... ANSWER .. they are anglo-saxons on the Falklands .. they WANT to be BRITISH dependants... the 'oil / gas' is just the latest 'byatch' from a nation that didn't exists while the limeys were populating the island. The4 islands were NOT populated when discovered by successive Europeans ...
Well the USA and other nation are not going to be sanctioned at this time, but when you consider the great wealth certain nations have obtained, in part because of the colonization and reaping of resources it does seem pretty hypocritical to jump up and down and apply sanctions and threaten war over these things.
Is it not correct and just to 'threaten' when one rogue nation decides to re-write borders in the late 20 th / 21st C using military might ? Otherwise, Europe will return to it's old ways and constant wars.
There is no ultimate right for the UK to have effective control over the islands. As long as the UK is willing to fight for them, they can keep them entirely as their own entity, and be the benefactor of it's resources. It will continue to create rancor in the region, and there may come a day of reckoning for the greed displayed. A sharing of revenues from the resources would suffice in my opinion, but that doesn't appear on the table at this time.
Fathertime!
Is this the ranting of an irrational poster or someone who likes to argue for the sake of it .. I'm just not sure.
The UK are PROTECTING the islanders - who have repeatedly voiced their preference - based on their lineage - which is NOT Argentine..
Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or Germany ..
-
Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or
Germany ..
Not quite, as the majority population of Kaliningrad is ethnically Russian. Most of the Caucasus, however, . . .
-
Not quite, as the majority population of Kaliningrad is ethnically Russian. Most of the Caucaus, however, . . .
EXACTLY, right....Kaliningrad is only 'ethnically Russian' as a result of post WWII ethnic cleansing ..
''wiki warning ''
By the end of the war, Königsberg was heavily damaged by Allied bombing in 1944 and during its siege in 1945. The city was captured and annexed by the Soviet Union. Its German population was expelled, and the city was repopulated with Russians and others from the Soviet Union. Briefly Russified as Kyonigsberg (Кёнигсберг), it was renamed "Kaliningrad" in 1946 in honour of Soviet leader Mikhail Kalinin. It is now the capital of Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast, an area completely cut off by land from the rest of Russia.
-
But aren't the Falklands ethnically majority British?
-
But aren't the Falklands ethnically majority British?
The difference being the Brits didn't try to ethically cleanse the islands and call a 'referendum' a la Junta of '82...
The USSR kicked out the majority Germanic population from K'grad...
-
Argentina has a rightful claim to the area but not the ability to enforce it.
I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?
-
I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?
Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.
-
Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.
AK , lol your close to ''us'' , maybe australia should anexxe you guys , lol
given the number of kiwis here, it might be a long term mutual beneficial strategy for both of us lol
SX
-
By this demented train of thought, Alaska should annex Siberia then Japan and China.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
mike , maybe putin is thinking of a new version of global monopoly, land on it and steal it , not buy it
SX
-
Maybe. That makes more sense then attacking w/o any reason.
-
mike , maybe putin is thinking of a new version of global monopoly, land on it and steal it , not buy it
SX
Let him try to land on Poland and get the full force of the USA and NATO up his rear-end as he makes tail.
-
:) ) You keep on missing the POINT ... From WHERE were these people ? France, UK, Spain... ANSWER .. they are anglo-saxons on the Falklands .. they WANT to be BRITISH dependants... the 'oil / gas' is just the latest 'byatch' from a nation that didn't exists while the limeys were populating the island. The4 islands were NOT populated when discovered by successive Europeans ...
Is it not correct and just to 'threaten' when one rogue nation decides to re-write borders in the late 20 th / 21st C using military might ? Otherwise, Europe will return to it's old ways and constant wars.
It is obvious what the people on the islands want NOW....UK has stacked the island that way. How about we find another small island close to the UK and plop a few hundred Argentinians on it. If they vote to be an 'Argentinian' possession then, that vote has to be respected. Right? ...and a little later if we find 60billion barrels of oil then the UK does not get any benefit from it, except a little extra pollution in the general area.
The point being that nations like the UK are still benefiting (somewhat unjustly) from these little sparsely populated outposts they set up. There are dual claims to the islands and I don't see one as any greater than the other. If UK is going to take such a hard line with these faraway islands then they deserve some pushback and to be called out as Russia did recently.
Is this the ranting of an irrational poster or someone who likes to argue for the sake of it .. I'm just not sure.
The UK are PROTECTING the islanders - who have repeatedly voiced their preference - based on their lineage - which is NOT Argentine..
Based on your analogies.. Kaliningrad should be handed back to to Poland or Germany ..
What is all this moaning about 'irrational poster' and 'arguments'?...I though we were discussing a point, not making a big argument. If you don't want to discuss that point, it is ok, but it is not a requirement that everybody agree with your viewpoint about the UK's colonization of the world in the past.
Fathertime!
-
I don't get you here FT, what rightful claim does Argentina have to the Falklands? Proximity? If proximity was a rightful claim the entire world would be under one nation now. Everything is close to something, yanno?
The Argentinian claim is not based solely on proximity, although the UK being 8000 miles away doesn't benefit their cause. When I said "rightful claim" that is not to say they are the only one with a claim, but that their claim is not to be discounted or brushed off as being without merit, as has been the case.
Fathertime!
-
Is this another cost Russia is imposing on the West or would they have further armed Iran anyway?
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html (http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html)
Fathertime!
-
Is this another cost Russia is imposing on the West or would they have further armed Iran anyway?
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html (http://news.yahoo.com/iran-expects-delivery-russian-missiles-085655813.html)
Fathertime!
You do understand what all of this is leading to?
-
You do understand what all of this is leading to?
Yes. When the USA has a real President in 2017 and Putin's many bluffs are called the USA will get to test out some new advanced weapons systems and the Russian military will be decimated.
-
Except us, Hawaii, Guam, Mauritius, the Seychelles ... and a fair few others scattered around the oceans.
Shame on me for not recognizing your little island nation ;D but wait, you're still close enough to someone that might want to claim it. Your probably just not big enough :)
-
It is obvious what the people on the islands want NOW....UK has stacked the island that way.
:)))
STILL not read up on the island's history, I see. Tell us - please - the basis of Argentina's 'claim'...
How about we find another small island close to the UK and plop a few hundred Argentinians on it. If they vote to be an 'Argentinian' possession then, that vote has to be respected. Right? ...and a little later if we find 60billion barrels of oil then the UK does not get any benefit from it, except a little extra pollution in the general area.
You may be confusing the removal of the indiginous population of the Crimea by the Russian Empire and twice breaking treaties...
You 'analogy' sucks as:
1/ it bases the premise of the UK's claim to knowing - 180 years ago - that the islands might possess oil / gas
2/ when the Argentine's invaded - Costas Mendez - the then Foreign Minister - proposed a 'vote' on sovereignty - based on the recently planted population.
True and just claims are based on historical presence... Argentina was not EVER 'present' save for the 3 months occupation in '82....
The point being that nations like the UK are still benefiting (somewhat unjustly) from these little sparsely populated outposts they set up.
:D 'unjust'.. 'benefit' .. generations chose to toil on these often inhospitable islands and if they 'benefit' from some profitable finds of oil/ gas - 'well done' to their ancestors....
There are dual claims to the islands and I don't see one as any greater than the other.
Luckily, for the islanders - your ' support ' for a bogus 'claim' is as weakly 'fought' as the campaign to 'profit' from something to which Argentines were sent to die for by an unpopular Junta..
If UK is going to take such a hard line with these faraway islands then they deserve some pushback and to be called out as Russia did recently.
You miss the most important point , here.. The UK didn't take a 'hard' line ... people died to restore the right of the islanders to choose their destiny.
In the case of Crimea.. the planted ones - who's previous leaders removed the indigious population - 'voted' after a military take-over by a nation that had agreed the terms of a recent - 20 yr old - treaty that stated Crimea was part of Ukraine - promising to protect that nation's integrity - while it became at Nuclear non-proliferation state...
What is all this moaning about 'irrational poster' and 'arguments'?...I though we were discussing a point, not making a big argument. If you don't want to discuss that point, it is ok, but it is not a requirement that everybody agree with your viewpoint about the UK's colonization of the world in the past.
'Irrational' - refers to 'colonisation' - as if the UK ethnically cleansed unpopulated islands - and predilection to repeat the proposterous and inaccurate - with a tendancy to bizarre analogies to 'prove' a point...
-
:) ))
STILL not read up on the island's history, I see. Tell us - please - the basis of Argentina's 'claim'...
YOU are free to do some additional reading on the subject After reading a few resources, I've concluded that Argentina has just as much a rightful claim to the islands as the UK. They are not fighting about it out of the blue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute)
Back when the UK and other nations were colonizing the world they created a lot of outposts, most of which are gone today. In the case of the Falklands, 8000 miles away and sparsely populated and stacked with Brits, it continues to seem to me that allowing for dual sovereignty would have solved this problem. Since there are potentially billions of barrels of oil in the region, and Argentina was fighting over the islands well before this was known, it goes to show their basis is elsewhere. If the UK and it's companies are the only beneficiary's of the wealth in the region it will be rightfully seen as another example of pillaging worldwide resources to benefit the few. The resource revenues should be shared, as should the costs. Completely dismissing the Argentinian claims will continue to create resentment, and rightfully so.
Here is a little piece on the subject and the final paragraph says it all:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/2012/feb/02/who-first-owned-falkland-islands (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/2012/feb/02/who-first-owned-falkland-islands)
In truth, both sides have some substantial points, enough to keep diplomats busy and the military planners anxious – both sides are weaker militarily than they were. But whichever country wins the latest Battle of the Falklands, the lawyers always win.
-
YOU are free to do some additional reading on the subject After reading a few resources, I've concluded that Argentina has just as much a rightful claim to the islands as the UK.
'Resources' ..You mean like someone's blog or Wiki - which by concept tries to be 'unbiased' ? :)
I repeat - please tell us the basis of Argentina's 'rightful claim' ..
Back when the UK and other nations were colonizing the world they created a lot of outposts, most of which are gone today. In the case of the Falklands, 8000 miles away and sparsely populated and stacked with Brits
:))) This is the sort of comment that makes your contention risible.. 'stacked' with Brits... You DO realise the island is only 'stacked' because of the military personnel necessary to 'dissuade' the Argentines from further attempts at occupation?!
Prior to the military Junta's diversionary attempt at gaining popularity most people had never heard of the islands.
it continues to seem to me that allowing for dual sovereignty would have solved this problem.
Possibly so, but it is not what the people who have lived there for many generations want .... and before Argentina existed . You fail to grasp the concept of the right of self-determination, which the Argentines were quite happy to'adopt' - having militarily occupied the islands.
Since there are potentially billions of barrels of oil in the region, and Argentina was fighting over the islands well before this was known, it goes to show their basis is elsewhere.
THANK YOU... You have turned full circle. Argentina's 'claim' is based on proximity and having once been Spanish colony - as were the islands. I have been consistently pointing out that the UK claim is based on having consistently had a presence there - long before the existence of Argentina.
If the UK and it's companies are the only beneficiary's of the wealth in the region it will be rightfully seen as another example of pillaging worldwide resources to benefit the few. The resource revenues should be shared, as should the costs. Completely dismissing the Argentinian claims will continue to create resentment, and rightfully so.
Once again, you ignore that what has been explained to you up thread..... In other words - I waste my time trying to patiently help a closed mind ...
DO tell us about these 'British companies' ? ;)
Please let's go back to the subject of this thread and we can leave the matter of sovereignty - until the next time Argentina tries to conquer them - for that is the only scenario that might change the status of the islands - especially having tried to take them by force.
I suggest that your dream of sharing the resources of the world is a fine concept .. and you would be better off protesting about nations that waste their resources and use their wealth to expand their borders....
-
^ I'm not surprised that you admire Mobiwan; you are like twins, separated at birth.
-
^ I'm not surprised that you admire Mobiwan; you are like twins, separated at birth.
:))
Hello, TomT
You are most welcome to expand on the basis for your assertion.. do TRY and make it relevant - not 'personal' ...
-
'Resources' ..You mean like someone's blog or Wiki - which by concept tries to be 'unbiased' ? :)
I repeat - please tell us the basis of Argentina's 'rightful claim' ..
:) )) This is the sort of comment that makes your contention risible.. 'stacked' with Brits... You DO realise the island is only 'stacked' because of the military personnel necessary to 'dissuade' the Argentines from further attempts at occupation?!
Prior to the military Junta's diversionary attempt at gaining popularity most people had never heard of the islands.
Possibly so, but it is not what the people who have lived there for many generations want .... and before Argentina existed . You fail to grasp the concept of the right of self-determination, which the Argentines were quite happy to'adopt' - having military occupied the islands.
THANK YOU... You have turned full circle. Argentina's 'claim' is based on proximity and having once been Spanish colony - as were the islands. I have been consistently pointing out that the UK claim is based on having consistently had a presence there - long before the existence of Argentina.
Once again, you ignore that what has been explained to you up thread..... In other words - I waste my time trying to patiently help a closed mind ...
DO tell us about these 'British companies' ? ;)
Please let's go back to the subject of this thread and we can leave the matter of sovereignty - until the next time Argentina tries to conquer them - for that is the only scenario that might change the status of the islands - especially having tried to take them by force.
I suggest that your dream of sharing the resources of the world is a fine concept .. and you would be better off protesting about nations that waste their resources and use their wealth to expand their borders....
There are dual claims to the islands. I don't feel the need to regurgitate the Argentinian claim, aside from providing links which you aren't choosing to either read, or give any consideration to....a UN committee recently ruled in favor of Argentina, and discounted the British 'implanted population" and referendum *Final Link*. Obviously the UK has had the more powerful military if not for that, they would not have the claim that has held out. One reason why there is justifiable resentment/distrust in developing nations is precisely this sort of thing...a potential resource dominated by a powerful 1st world country far far from home. I think Russia was right to call out this situation and expose a bit of British hypocrisy...I recognize the situations aren't analogous but they are in the same vein. You may think my mind is closed on the subject, but based on what I've read of yours, I'm CERTAIN yours is. If the UK wants to take a hard line like this they deserve to be called out, despite having to toe a delicate line due to the strength of the UK many of the South American nations agree with the Argentinian stance.
Perhaps coincidentally the British are also claiming a sizable section of Antarctica based on their minor island 'possessions' i.e. The Falklands, which overlaps an earlier Argentinian claim...seems fair they are only about 10000 miles away from the Antarctic. How many South American nations are making claims up in the Arctic circle? ZERO of course.
[size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica)[/size]
[/size][size=78%]http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/tag/falklands-oil-gas/ (http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/tag/falklands-oil-gas/)[/size]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html)
Fathertime!
-
There are dual claims to the islands. I don't feel the need to regurgitate the Argentinian claim, aside from providing links which you aren't choosing to either read, or give any consideration to..
I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.
IF you bothered to research who is a member of your UN committee, you'd understand who the 24 members were - includes RF, China, Nicuagua, Bolivia, Venuzuela, Costa Rica, Hondoras, Paraguay, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, and Guatamala ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the majority would side against a former colonial power - rather than 'for' Argentina.
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gacol3271.doc.htm
''Further by the text, the Special Committee — formally the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — would have the Assembly reaffirm the need for both parties to take due account of the interests of the Territory’s population. ''
1/ the people already decided
2/ do you notice any irony in the former title of the committee? ;) hint: ''formally the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples ''
Perhaps the solution lies in the Islands declaring independence ?;)
I think Russia was right to call out this situation and expose a bit of British hypocrisy...
Having just military taken over Crimea and creating the circumstances for a referendum, and losing a UN gen assly vote 100:11 and having to use their veto to block a Security Council vote on Ukraine's motion you'll 'get' why I'm now mocking you, again ...
I recognize the situations aren't analogous but they are in the same vein.
already covered, upthread and you didn't offer a valid risposte ..
You may think my mind is closed on the subject, but based on what I've read of yours, I'm CERTAIN yours is. If the UK wants to take a hard line like this they deserve to be called out, despite having to toe a delicate line due to the strength of the UK many of the South American nations agree with the Argentinian stance.
Hence the UN Committee of 24's 'conclusion'...
YES.. closed - as there is nothing to 'negotiate' ... the Islanders keep pointing out that they want NOTHNG to do with Argentina and their 'claim' is baseless - and I will keep asking YOU to point out what it is. You know why I ask, so why avoid answering?
Perhaps coincidentally the British are also claiming a sizable section of Antarctica based on their minor island 'possessions' i.e. The Falklands, which overlaps an earlier Argentinian claim...seems fair they are only about 10000 miles away from the Antarctic. How many South American nations are making claims up in the Arctic circle? ZERO of course.
Oh Dear FT, you have a fondness for 'waking onto punches', it seems.
May I point you in the direction of the Antarctic Treaty System..?
The first Argentine set foot on the Antarctic in 1902.. do check back and find out who was there, LONG before....
Get back to us, when you look at two of the initial signatories ...HINT: Argentina and Chile... The UK / US / USSR were also initial signatories...
As for the Arctic, please point out which nation - other than Denmark, Russia, Norway, Canada and the US are making claims? The UK, the 'dreaded colonialists' are not players. Those rights went to Canada
-
Ditto on you and your Muzh. Too bad he pissed his pants when somebody interrupted his virtual world fantasy.
Yo Rubickcube, I asked you nicely to keep me away from this lover's quarrel.
-
I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.
IF you bothered to research who is a member of your UN committee, you'd understand who the 24 members were - includes RF, China, Nicuagua, Bolivia, Venuzuela, Costa Rica, Hondoras, Paraguay, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, and Guatamala ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the majority would side against a former colonial power - rather than 'for' Argentina.
I was of course aware that the UK felt the committee was biased against them. One reality is that the world is made up of around 200 countries and obviously quite a few of the developing countries (which compose a majority population) have a say in how things are run. This particular UN committee has decided the UK needs to work this out with Argentina and not have a 'take it or leave it' attitude. Having a couple 1000 residents there (many military) appears to be an implanted population to the UN committee.
Oh Dear FT, you have a fondness for 'waking onto punches', it seems.
May I point you in the direction of the Antarctic Treaty System..?
The first Argentine set foot on the Antarctic in 1902.. do check back and find out who was there, LONG before....
Walking into punches...If that is the metaphor we are using I guess you just ran into a haymaker.
Towards the bottom this link shows that Argentina made a claim in 1904 after which the British made a claim overlapping their's in 1908....using the Falklands as the basis of their claim. Of course none of these claims make a difference in that the world doesn't recognize these claims...nor should they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica)
I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.
Here is the Argentinian claim, I've read it and agree with it:
The Argentine government alleges that it has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it as recently as December 2012.[66] It considers the archipelago part of the Tierra del Fuego Province, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:
That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1810,[67] a principle known as uti possidetis juris.
That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.
That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.
That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.[68][69][70] :34–35
That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.[71][72][73]
That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.[74][75]
That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[76][not in citation given]
That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.[76][77][not in citation given]
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[76][77]
That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.[76]
That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.[78]
That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.[79]
-
I was of course aware that the UK felt the committee was biased against them. One reality is that the world is made up of around 200 countries and obviously quite a few of the developing countries (which compose a majority population) have a say in how things are run. This particular UN committee has decided the UK needs to work this out with Argentina and not have a 'take it or leave it' attitude. Having a couple 1000 residents there (many military) appears to be an implanted population to the UN committee.
Sighs,
How many of the committee are members of the OAS? Who's viewpoint is already known to the UK .. 12.. plus Russia and China = 14 out of 24.
Having watched you play 'devil's advocate' on behalf of the Kremlin - are you detecting any irony in your counter stance .. re self-determination for Crimeans ? :) .....
Walking into punches...If that is the metaphor we are using I guess you just ran into a haymaker.
Hardly, Sir ! You have failed to respond to the knockout blow - re the Antarctic - and the 'Referee' just disqualified you for 'aiming a blow at me' - having already awarded me the contest ; )..
You have tried to avoid the FACT - as to why the UK has a presence in Antarctica - could we deal with this 'oversight' of yours ?
Towards the bottom this link shows that Argentina made a claim in 1904 after which the British made a claim overlapping their's in 1908....using the Falklands as the basis of their claim. Of course none of these claims make a difference in that the world doesn't recognize these claims...nor should they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica)
As I quoted from said page and read it - thoroughly -..This is unfortunate for you.
AGAIN.. the UK claim to the Falklands and outlying islands is longer-standing and based on BEING THERE - consistently and MOST importantly - were based on the islanders wishes to remain a dependency of the UK - IF you had actually checked - the matter of joint sovereignty has failed as a result of the Islanders wishes several times last century...
Here is the Argentinian claim, I've read it and agree with it:
The Argentine government alleges that it has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it as recently as December 2012.[66] It considers the archipelago part of the Tierra del Fuego Province, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:
That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1810,[67] a principle known as uti possidetis juris.
Ahem, please tell us which state recognised Argentina's claim to the Falklands ? IF you check - the 'independence' and continental land shelf of Argentina come much later - and DO NOT include the Falklands ..
That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.
...and this lack of objectivity on behalf of the Spanish - 'helps' your contention exactly, how ? The UK is used to this - Gibraltar ?
That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.
''Some points about the Nootka Sound Convention. Article VI" It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."
1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.
2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.
3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention
4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power),rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:
Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.
(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)
5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.
6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands.''
That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.
- see above
That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.
- see above
That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.
How 'interesting'..;)
1/ In 1841, General Rosas - leader of Buenos Airies Provence - which became 'Argentine Convention' offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to Barings Bank in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer
2/ In 1850, the Arana-Southern Treaty otherwise known as the Convention of Settlement was signed between Britain and Argentina. It has been argued by several authors on both sides of the dispute that Argentina tacitly gave up her claim by failing to mention it and ceasing to protest over the Falklands. Between December 1849 and 1941, the Falklands were not mentioned in the President's Messages to Congress.
That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).
That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.[76][77][not in citation given]
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[76][77]
All the above negated by Argentina's occupation of the islands - as previously pointed out
That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.
Ooops, the conditions for self-determination - the would satisfy the UN - have already begun - all I alludes to in an earlier post - you must have missed it - hint - a form of independance.
That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.
Some 'news' for you : Argentina announced its claim without consultation with the United Kingdom and despite the fact that the United Kingdom has administered the area, for the most part peacefully, for over 180 years. In the years 1990 to 2005 fishing and mineral resources in the area were administered by joint commissions between Argentina and the United Kingdom, Argentina unilaterally withdrew from these organisations in 2005 to pursue a more aggressive stance in its claim to the Falkland Islands. At any one time Argentina usually has a single vessel patrolling the undisputed area of its claim, the vessels do not enter the exclusive economic zone of the United Kingdom although there have been reports of Argentine warships threatening vessels on the Falkland side of the border by radio.
Under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 59 disputed and overlapping claims have no legal force until the dispute is resolved between the opposing parties.
That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.
Whoever wrote this should know that it's the United Kingdom and has been since the Act of Union in 1706 ... the UK was at war with both France and Spain - are the British there, now ?
Sources:
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/COMMENTS/PW080313.HTM
Wiki
On a parting note :
Two opinion research companies ran a poll in 2012..on the island's future .. 1700 - 1800 polled
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/04/10/falklands-war-britain-and-argentina/ (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/04/10/falklands-war-britain-and-argentina/)
They 'forgot' to ask the people LIVING there .. something you, the UN and Buenos Airies would do well to remember ...
-
Regarding the Falklands: I think I've said what I wanted to say, and don't feel the need to speak further on it...Clearly we don't agree on this, nor does UK and Argentina, and all the people on their respective side of the issue.
Fathertime!
-
Regarding the Falklands: I think I've said what I wanted to say, and don't feel the need to speak further on it...Clearly we don't agree on this, nor does UK and Argentina, and all the people on their respective side of the issue.
Fathertime!
You don't have to agree. The flag flying there is the Union Jack, and the World recognizes that as the legitimate flag which should be flying there. End of story.
-
You don't have to agree. The flag flying there is the Union Jack, and the World recognizes that as the legitimate flag which should be flying there. End of story.
No, the world does NOT agree, but yes the flag does wave there for now. Obviously the story NEVER ends actually. If you looked at the world 150 years ago, vs now, the changes have been dramatic....150 years from now I don't doubt the changes will be dramatic once again...weather the human race hasn't blown itself up by then or not.
Fathertime!
-
weather the human race hasn't blown itself up by then or not.
I'm going to assume you meant "whether", and that part we can agree on. ;)
-
I'm going to assume you meant "whether", and that part we can agree on. ;)
that was quite a silly mistake...and I looked at it for a moment when I typed it and said yup that is the right version....major brain fart there.
Fathertime!
-
Well, now we have left the Falklands ;) Can we get back to Russia ?
I know I want to get back there...in the three weeks I've been away the rouble has appreciated 25 percent against the Pound Sterling.
From a Russian perspective, prices in the food shops are still rising and tourist companies and their host nations are suffering.
A week at a 5 star Hotel in Antalyia is £180 in Russia - incl. flights and meals and £460 from from UK
IF you have a job in Russia, bargains are to be had.
-
As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran. It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine. There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html)
“The public announcement of the possible sale of S-300 to Iran is no more than a political gesture aimed at the U.S. to motivate it in restraining its arms transfers to Ukraine,” says Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.“In any case deliveries of S-300s to Iran will remain a bargaining chip between Moscow, the United States and Israel in talks on a wide range of issues.”
Fathertime!
-
As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran. It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine. There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html)
“The public announcement of the possible sale of S-300 to Iran is no more than a political gesture aimed at the U.S. to motivate it in restraining its arms transfers to Ukraine,” says Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.“In any case deliveries of S-300s to Iran will remain a bargaining chip between Moscow, the United States and Israel in talks on a wide range of issues.”
Fathertime!
Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?
Larry1!
-
Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?
Larry1!
Did something in my post prompt this question? I couldn't possibly know what we are selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine. Do you know something about this?
Fathertime!
-
Did something in my post prompt this question? I couldn't possibly know what we are selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine. Do you know something about this?
Fathertime!
Why yes:
It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine. Fathertime!
-
Oooops...
:ROFL:
-
Why yes:
I have responded to your question despite it not making sense as to the link or comments I posted.
It appears that Russia is willing to sell defensive weapons to Iran, as a cost/response to what it perceives as too much Western interference in Ukraine.
Fathertime!
-
Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?
Larry1!
What's up with the name calling?
-
It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.
These are the key words you guys should focus on. This was standard cold war stuff back in the day. If the US has too much free time and starts to bother Russia they begin arming our enemies elsewhere to take some of the focus off of Russia.
-
ft As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran. It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine. There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference.
interference
/ɪntəˈfɪər(ə)ns/
noun
noun: interference; plural noun: interferences
the action of interfering or the process of being interfered with.
"concerns about government interference in church life"
synonyms:
intrusion, intervention, intercession, involvement, impinging, encroaching, trespass, trespassing, obtrusion;
strange how it is ukraine that is actually asking for this help & involvment by the west in its sovereign lands & actively requesting russia and its citizens to dessist in its sovereign lands
yet russia who has no legal right to any input into ukraine decisions and is being asked to butt out is fantastically manipulating the propoganda here .
almost truly unbelievable if where not fact
SX
-
interference
/ɪntəˈfɪər(ə)ns/
noun
noun: interference; plural noun: interferences
the action of interfering or the process of being interfered with.
"concerns about government interference in church life"
synonyms:
intrusion, intervention, intercession, involvement, impinging, encroaching, trespass, trespassing, obtrusion;
strange how it is ukraine that is actually asking for this help & involvment by the west in its sovereign lands & actively requesting russia and its citizens to dessist in its sovereign lands
yet russia who has no legal right to any input into ukraine decisions and is being asked to butt out is fantastically manipulating the propoganda here .
almost truly unbelievable if where not fact
SX
I agree, just like I think if Iran asks Russia for help the US and other countries shouldn't get involved.
-
I agree, just like I think if Iran asks Russia for help the US and other countries shouldn't get involved.
involvement is fine , when its called diplomacy and done correctly to express a perspective, or valid point of view
it should however stop when requested by the country concerned
SX
-
involvement is fine , when its called diplomacy and done correctly to express a perspective, or valid point of view
it should however stop when requested by the country concerned
SX
Diplomacy is great. I have a problem with sanctions being used to coerce behavior or threats of attack. You can't meddle in the affairs of other nations and then say others shouldn't do the same.
-
Diplomacy is great. I have a problem with sanctions being used to coerce behavior or threats of attack. You can't meddle in the affairs of other nations and then say others shouldn't do the same.
AGREE , it aplies to all
question is how long has russia or the US been meddling in ukraine ? who started the game off ?
russia would be guilty first going on past history
SX
-
AGREE , it aplies to all
question is how long has russia or the US been meddling in ukraine ? who started the game off ?
russia would be guilty first going on past history
SX
No doubt Russia has been involved, in Ukraine, long before US involvement. I think Russia has always been actively pulling strings in the background.
That is probably why they see the US involvement as a threat to them, personally. Steamer hit the point up thread. I would be inclined to believe the same as I don't think the US would be involved if it wasn't to keep Russia in check.
Ukraine is a proxy war as far as I see it. Hopefully the US will be the lessor of two evils. I still think the bigger obstacles is within the country itself, namely the corruption. It's stifling... That is if they can ever settle this war with Russia.
-
LFU
yes i agree you above ,
ukraine has lots of issues all of which are taking second place to the curent war,
that situation is how mr putin wants it to be at present imo ,
im optimistic in time ukraine will improve, the younger genration will help to drive it i hope given what we have seen on the ground there
SX
-
I agree, just like I think if Iran asks Russia for help the US and other countries shouldn't get involved.
or Syria,
Fathertime!
-
Diplomacy is great. I have a problem with sanctions being used to coerce behavior or threats of attack. You can't meddle in the affairs of other nations and then say others shouldn't do the same.
Sure you can. sanctions should always be explored before war IMHO. Once war breaks out sanctions are a given. Sanctions are a tool for avoiding war. Sometimes works, sometimes not. Before and when applying sanctions on any country the history of the regime in power should always be the first consideration and priority. Russia supplying Iran with modern warfare has the propensity to make them both pariah nations to the world or rather, Russia joining Iran with that status.
Begging and pleading a regime to bend to your will often gets you nowhere as Obama could testify.
-
May be time to revisit the Falklands issue. It appears the a court in Argentina has ordered the seizure of all drilling assets in The Falklands....it appears they are of course British/Western based companies. We shall see if anything develops, but the point being that Argentina may not lay down for Western (Former)imperialistic nations, reaping resources, without more symbolic/actual actions. Since they are not able to stand up militarily, (and that is all that REALLY matters) they may try to impose costs in any way they can.
http://news.yahoo.com/argentine-judge-orders-seizure-falklands-drillers-assets-171707707--finance.html (http://news.yahoo.com/argentine-judge-orders-seizure-falklands-drillers-assets-171707707--finance.html)
Argentine judge orders seizure of Falklands drillers' assets
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - An Argentine judge ordered the seizure of assets of oil drilling companies operating in the disputed Falklands Islands on Saturday, as rhetoric heats up before October elections.
Lilian Herraez, a federal judge in Tierra del Fuego, ordered the seizure of $156 million, boats and other property....
Fathertime!
-
Lilian Herraez, a federal judge in Tierra del Fuego, ordered the seizure of $156 million, boats and other property....
Tierra del Fuego? You're kidding, right? Couldn't they find a judge in Buenos Aires to issue an order like this? Or are they worried that people actually know where Buenos Aires is, could find the judge, and convince them to change his/her mind?
-
Tierra del Fuego? You're kidding, right? Couldn't they find a judge in Buenos Aires to issue an order like this? Or are they worried that people actually know where Buenos Aires is, could find the judge, and convince them to change his/her mind?
Well if Argentina had it's way, The Falklands would fall under the jurisdiction of the Tierra del Fuego province, as it is a stone's throw away...whereas Buenos Aires is on the other end of the country.
Fathertime!
-
Well if Argentina had it's way,
Isn't that as likely as say... world poverty ending tomorrow? ::)
-
Well if Argentina had it's way, The Falklands would fall under the jurisdiction of the Tierra del Fuego province, as it is a stone's throw away...whereas Buenos Aires is on the other end of the country.
Please, invite me to watch you throw a stone 500 kilometres - that would be well worth the price of admission. As you say - "IF Argentina had its way..." Unfortunately for them, it won't.
-
Please, invite me to watch you throw a stone 500 kilometres - that would be well worth the price of admission. As you say - "IF Argentina had its way..." Unfortunately for them, it won't.
[/quote
YOU asked why the judgement was in Tierra del Fuego, and I told you why....now you are just being silly and argumentative. Obviously I don't throw stones even 1 kilometre, it is an expression. The point being that Tierra del Fuego is the closest providence to The Falklands. I don't think they will have their say either, right now, but they continue to make a point that resonates with some, instead of letting the issue die out completely.
Fathertime!
-
May be time to revisit the Falklands issue. It appears the a court in Argentina has ordered the seizure of all drilling assets in The Falklands...
1/ What has this to do with this thread
2/ I note you frequently state that other contributors just like a good argument
Argentina is closer to the islands than the UK - so what ... They have no legit claim and seizing assets of those legitimately going about business is just for domestic consumption
If you had made a thread about the Kremlin proposing legislation to counter the seizure of assets of countries that legally seize Russia govt property - for failing to compensate Lukos shareholders - following losing their legal argument at an arbitration Court and failing to respect the award to the plaintiff - I could understand - it would have more mileage
-
1/ What has this to do with this thread
2/ I note you frequently state that other contributors just like a good argument
Argentina is closer to the islands than the UK - so what ... They have no legit claim and seizing assets of those legitimately going about business is just for domestic consumption
If you had made a thread about the Kremlin proposing legislation to counter the seizure of assets of countries that legally seize Russia govt property - for failing to compensate Lukos shareholders - following losing their legal argument at an arbitration Court and failing to respect the award to the plaintiff - I could understand - it would have more mileage
:welcome:
\
Just was giving an update on the situation a couple months ago, and pointing out what I see as the continued hypocrisy of western nations, and some of their supporters, although you in particular are generally fair-minded from my pov. :)
Fathertime!
-
Hi FT
Did you think paying me a compliment would let you off the hook ;D
-
Hi FT
Did you think paying me a compliment would let you off the hook ;D
hahaha...that is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I said that! Although I can't help but find you likable despite our disagreement on this particular subject.
Fathertime!
-
If our market continues to plummet, that could have a very serious impact on our ability to get others to go along with our geopolitical policies, and our sanctions would be less effective. Our paper wealth dropped by about 1 trillion dollars this week. The contrarian viewpoint is that our dollar which is wonderfully high right now, is heading for a rather big fall shortly....man I sure hope not. I'm guessing some people are chuckling in Russia, over this turn of events.
Fathertime!
-
I'm guessing some people are chuckling in Russia, over this turn of events.
They're not exactly chuckling due to the continued fall of the ruble as their stock market is also falling, the fact that the Kremlin has billions invested in the US Treasuries themselves, and continued plunge of oil prices.
-
Whoever is chuckling is far removed from the realities of war.