Is Russia winning the colder war?

[fathertime]

According to this guy Russia (Putin) is.   


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-is-winning-the-oil-war--katusa-020428723.html


Some central points:


 Russia is involved in a 30-40 year plan.


There is no danger of a Collapse and the Ruble is recovering.


China is working with Russia.


Russia is winning the war of energy and resources.


The atrocities will worsen now that the US has sent funds.


If Ukraine joins NATO it might be a smaller Ukraine


Fathertime!

[Shadow]

Winning or losing is not important. What is important is how much Russia is needed as 'the enemy'.
Proponents of the renewed Cold War seem to believe that the growth in prosperity of the post-War time can return if people forget their local troubles and unite against an external enemy.
The dualistic upbringing means that a stable enemy that can be feared and seems to be poweful enough to cause damage is needed.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the proposed enemies (Iran, Saddam, Bin Laden, Khadaffi, Assad, Al Qaueda, North Korea, IS) are all to small or unstable to cause ongoing concern, reason why so many have embraced Russia as the renewed enemy of the 21st century.

the main question is if Russia will be willing to play this game, or if they will truly become what they are made out to be, an enemy that endangers Western power.

[Boethius]

I don't believe the US, or the West, wants a new Cold War.  There would have been no conflict this year had Russia not invaded Crimea and funded a war in Eastern Ukraine.

[Shadow]

I don't believe the US, or the West, wants a new Cold War.  There would have been no conflict this year had Russia not invaded Crimea and funded a war in Eastern Ukraine.

there would also not be any conflict if the EU had not represented a trade agreement to the Ukrainian people as EU membership.
And could you give link to an invasion in Crimea, I missed that one.

[LiveFromUkraine]

I don't believe the US, or the West, wants a new Cold War.  There would have been no conflict this year had Russia not invaded Crimea and funded a war in Eastern Ukraine.

I believe the US wants to stop the threat to the US dollar being replaced as the world reserve and will start a cold war in order to do that.  Russia is a big proponent to getting away from the US dollar and that is a big threat.  That would be catastrophic to the US if the demand for the US dollar diminishes.

[Boethius]

I doubt a cold war would stop other countries from turning from the dollar.

The EU did not misrepresent the Association Agreement.  If I understood it, anyone who reads did as well.

As for invasion -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/28/Dont-forget-about-Russias-invasion-Crimea/
 
 
 

[LiveFromUkraine]

I doubt a cold war would stop other countries from turning from the dollar.

The EU did not misrepresent the Association Agreement.  If I understood it, anyone who reads did as well.

As for invasion -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/28/Dont-forget-about-Russias-invasion-Crimea/

I think weakening one of the bigger proponents could stop progress towards that outcome.


BRICS have started their own "IMF" fund and it will not be in US dollars. 

[Shadow]

I doubt a cold war would stop other countries from turning from the dollar.

The EU did not misrepresent the Association Agreement.  If I understood it, anyone who reads did as well.

As for invasion -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/28/Dont-forget-about-Russias-invasion-Crimea/

As I was asked many times if Ukraine really denied membership of the EU before all the conflict began, a lot of people seemed to have misunderstood.
As for the link, it is to an opinion piece, it is not in any way evidence of any kind of invasion.

[jone]

As I was asked many times if Ukraine really denied membership of the EU before all the conflict began, a lot of people seemed to have misunderstood.
As for the link, it is to an opinion piece, it is not in any way evidence of any kind of invasion.

Shadow,

You're dealing (double dealing) in semantics.  Even Putin agrees that he sent troops (without identification) to Krim.    You're trying to ask Bo for evidence of an invasion.  I don't know any other word for it.  Play your word games elsewhere.

Either that, or we'll have to include you on Sandro's Double Dealer list.

[Shadow]

Shadow,

You're dealing (double dealing) in semantics.  Even Putin agrees that he sent troops (without identification) to Krim.    You're trying to ask Bo for evidence of an invasion.  I don't know any other word for it.  Play your word games elsewhere.

Either that, or we'll have to include you on Sandro's Double Dealer list.

The people who call the inclusion of Crimea in Russia after a calid referedum an invasion are dealing in semantics and playing games. I just keep them honest.

If you wish to misrepresent the events, do that elsewewhere in a place where people listen to you without using their own mind because they consider you an expert.

[fathertime]

I don't know about winning either Shadow. How about "Not losing"?


Good point LFU, from what i've read, the reserve currency status of the dollar is worth around 1.5 Trillion annually, our federal budget is around 3 Trillion.  Losing the reserve status (which will probably happen at some point)would either force more taxes or cuts across the board, especially military....probably all of the above..


He who controls the money usually gets his way, right now we(USA) control much of the money....and indirectly/directly use that money to bludgeon those that would try to change that....I wish I was alive 500 years from now to see how it plays out...just like we can read about what happened to Romans.


Fathertime!

[Chelseaboy]

There were videos taken by Ukrainian people, and shown by a pro-Russian member on here actually living in Crimea, of many Russian attack helicopters flying into Crimea from Russia long before the illegal referendum took place.

A referendum where the option to remain part of Ukraine was not given...which may well account for the low turn-out of voters.

[Shadow]

There were videos taken by Ukrainian people, and shown by a pro-Russian member on here actually living in Crimea, of many Russian attack helicopters flying into Crimea from Russia long before the illegal referendum took place.

A referendum where the option to remain part of Ukraine was not given...which may well account for the low turn-out of voters.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the options, or the turnout. But at least your brain is clean.

Edit: I am reguarly seeing NATO planes above my house. Does that mean there is a NATO invasion going on here?

[jone]

Shadow:

You have a convenient memory.

1.  The parliament was taken over at night by armed soldiers.

2.  A politician, who's popularity previously was at 4% of the voting public was installed by a forced vote as the head of the parliament.

3.  The parliament voted unanimously - 78 votes out of a hundred to hold a referendum that did not include remaining with Ukraine as part of the ballot.

4.  This entire period, from the time that the parliament was taken over by armed soldiers, little green men (from Russia) were flown in to existing Russian encampments (which were there as part of a treaty with Ukraine.)

You can call it what you want, but it in my mind that is a forced annexation / invasion. 

If the US did this to Cuba, using Guantanamo Bay as the launching point,  I would STILL call it an invasion. 

You, sir, have a convenient memory.

[Shadow]

Shadow:

You have a convenient memory.

1.  The parliament was taken over at night by armed soldiers.

2.  A politician, who's popularity previously was at 4% of the voting public was installed by a forced vote as the head of the parliament.

3.  The parliament voted unanimously - 78 votes out of a hundred to hold a referendum that did not include remaining with Ukraine as part of the ballot.

4.  This entire period, from the time that the parliament was taken over by armed soldiers, little green men (from Russia) were flown in to existing Russian encampments (which were there as part of a treaty with Ukraine.)

You can call it what you want, but it in my mind that is a forced annexation / invasion. 

If the US did this to Cuba, using Guantanamo Bay as the launching point,  I would STILL call it an invasion. 

You, sir, have a convenient memory.

The convenient memory is all yours.
1. Please specify the exact choices on the ballot and what they meant.
2. If a autonomous province declares independence but has no military yet to ensure not being attacked, are they not allowed to hire forces?

Twist as much as you want, the truth remains even it if is suppressed by ongoing rewriting.

[jone]

It is you Shadow, who fail to recall the specific events.  Those of us who were around when it unfolded, all recall the takeover of the parliament.  (I noticed in your reply, you ignored that.)

Any referendum happened after the government was clearly in control of the Russians. Who cares what the referendum said or what the vote was? 

That, good sir, is AN INVASION.  Planned (for probably around ten years) and executed.

Anything you say on this Board does not refute the fact that the entire operation was executed by a change of government that occurred at gunpoint.

You say that you are a neutral party.  But a neutral party looks at things objectively.  You have not.  That does not make you out to be a liar, just someone who chooses to ignore the facts.

Your claim of no invasion is false.

You could make the claim that the people wanted the Russians there.  That is a totally different discussion.  It would not excuse the Russian invasion of Crimea.

[Shadow]

It is you Shadow, who fail to recall the specific events.  Those of us who were around when it unfolded, all recall the takeover of the parliament.  (I noticed in your reply, you ignored that.)

Any referendum happened after the government was clearly in control of the Russians. Who cares what the referendum said or what the vote was? 

That, good sir, is AN INVASION.  Planned (for probably around ten years) and executed.

Anything you say on this Board does not refute the fact that the entire operation was executed by a change of government that occurred at gunpoint.

You say that you are a neutral party.  But a neutral party looks at things objectively.  You have not.  That does not make you out to be a liar, just someone who chooses to ignore the facts.

Your claim of no invasion is false.

You could make the claim that the people wanted the Russians there.  That is a totally different discussion.  It would not excuse the Russian invasion of Crimea.

So now the referendum is already not interested. Guess that your earlier claim of there not being a choice to join Ukraine did not hold up.
As for the parliament change, the parliament voted to change the government, much like they did in Kiev. Hypocritical double standard do apply.

If you wish to debate that this was organized by Russia as a response to a threat on their security, I will agree. I will even agree to this being a scenario that was planned long before and waiting to be needed.
However using the word invasion is semantics, to make what happened seem unlawful.

[AC]

You say that you are a neutral party.  But a neutral party looks at things objectively.  You have not.  That does not make you out to be a liar, just someone who chooses to ignore the facts.

How do you know if he is a neutral party?  He is apparently some sort of computer expert, and he travels frequently to Moscow.  You were suggesting that the FSB monitors this forum...

[Shadow]

How do you know if he is a neutral party?  He is apparently some sort of computer expert, and he travels frequently to Moscow.  You were suggesting that the FSB monitors this forum...

I would not call once in 3 years frequent 

[Gator]

Winning or losing is not important. What is important is how much Russia is needed as 'the enemy'.
Proponents of the renewed Cold War seem to believe that the growth in prosperity of the post-War time can return if people forget their local troubles and unite against an external enemy.

The prosperity of the mid-20th C resulted from the aftermath of WW II, not because of a Cold War.   The "postwar economic boom" hit a deep recession in the 1970s and again in the early1980s while the Cold War was still raging. 

BTW, how well did Cold War strategy work for the USSR and the Russian Republic?  Answer:  political and economic collapse.

....the main question is if Russia will be willing to play this game, or if they will truly become what they are made out to be, an enemy that endangers Western power.

Russia does not have the economy to endanger the West, so it can only be a perceived threat rather than a real one, just like in the 1960s.  You do recall the reverse effect on the USSR of trying to match the West? Repeat:  Economic and political collapse. 

Shadow, the US does not want a cold war.  As before, it would be a waste of money.  We want our peace dividend that was delayed by Al Qaeda, et al. 

[Hammer2722]

Shadow, anyone with half a brain cell would know that your thoughts on this are no where near neutral or objective so lets call a spade a spade.....Jeez!!!!

[Shadow]

Shadow, anyone with half a brain cell would know that your thoughts on this are no where near neutral or objective so lets call a spade a spade.....Jeez!!!!

I do not call myself neutral here, and nobody is objective. However when I see people echoing the revisionist media I tend to try correcting them, which makes it look like I am the one brainwashed. Remember that nowadays anything you read more than 245 hours after it happened has been spun around to fit the political agenda of whoever writes it.

Once again, I have from the beginning told people that the action in Crimea was planned by Russia to safeguard their Sevastopol base. It was unavoidable giving the circumstances. Also I have told anyone in the Donbass region from the very start that their hopes of getting the same treatment were futile and they would always end up as remaining part of Ukraine. As for all of the political issues around it, they interest me in so far that I see how a minor conflict is used to respark old sentiments, hoping this will be enough to let people forget their own trouble.

[Gator]

I do not call myself neutral here, and nobody is objective. However when I see people echoing the revisionist media I tend to try correcting them, which makes it look like I am the one brainwashed. Remember that nowadays anything you read more than 245 hours after it happened has been spun around to fit the political agenda of whoever writes it.

Once again, I have from the beginning told people that the action in Crimea was planned by Russia to safeguard their Sevastopol base. It was unavoidable giving the circumstances. Also I have told anyone in the Donbass region from the very start that their hopes of getting the same treatment were futile and they would always end up as remaining part of Ukraine. As for all of the political issues around it, they interest me in so far that I see how a minor conflict is used to respark old sentiments, hoping this will be enough to let people forget their own trouble.

Some others might consider your position reasonable.  Pragmatic is a better word.    Yet, the following is absurd.
 

However using the word invasion is semantics, to make what happened seem unlawful.

I can infer only that you deem Russia's actions lawful.  Some support you.  Russia got 10 countries to support its Crimea actions at the UN:  Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.   Fine company you keep. 

[Shadow]

Some others might consider your position reasonable.  Pragmatic is a better word.    Yet, the following is absurd.
 

I can infer only that you deem Russia's actions lawful.  Some support you.  Russia got 10 countries to support its Crimea actions at the UN:  Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.   Fine company you keep.

What I have mentioned is that there were legal possibilities in pace that were used. If Russia would have allowed the Donbass area to 'connect' that would have been unlawful. Regardless of who recognizes it (Google does) the legal procedures to make it possible were followed.  One can point at pressure being used or not enough time given, but reality is that what happened was within the legal possibilities.

[Boethius]

As for the parliament change, the parliament voted to change the government,
much like they did in Kiev. Hypocritical double standard do apply.

The Rada was changed by elected officials who changed their allegiances.  The composition of the Rada before the last election did not change.  That was not the case in Crimea.
The result is irrelvant.  The rule of law was not followed.