Ukraine is losing the war

[LiveFromUkraine]

What are WE doing?  Why were we 'brokering' leadership changes in Ukraine, before Yanukovich's departure ?  We KNEW this would be a major problem with Russia.  This was/is NOT our business.  Obama admitting to US involvement, doesn't exclude the possibility we were involved earlier...if anything it makes me more suspicious. 


Fathertime!

We have Nuland on tape discussing who should be president.  Obama didn't need to admit anything.  We already knew it.  haha

[Doll]

                         










.

"Fuck the EU! - Exactly!" - Victoria Nuland & Geoffrey Pyatt

[Doll]

We have Nuland on tape discussing who should be president.  Obama didn't need to admit anything.  We already knew it.  haha

haha- agree with yoou

[fathertime]

So tell me what the up side is for the U.S.

There is an upside for the USA.  A weakened Russian state will further enable the USA to intervene in other foreign conflicts with a weaker counterbalance no longer able to get in the way as effectively.


Damaging other currencies (Eurasian union) viability is also an additional possible motive...as keeping the dollar as the only global currency is rather important for us.


Fathertime!

[fathertime]

                         










.

"Fuck the EU! - Exactly!" - Victoria Nuland & Geoffrey Pyatt

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that we (The U.S.) had WAYYYYYY too much involvement in Ukraine.  This is Russia's neighbor and (as evidenced on this tape) KNEW that this was going to stir up a hornets nest, yet we did meddle.  We have had some knuckleheads find themselves on tape (Nuland) but it is very likely that many other conversations took place that weren't caught on tape.  It is also arrogant to say 'Fvuk the E.U., as if it is ONLY our decision, half a world away. 


Fathertime!   

[Boethius]

There is a huge difference between brokering a change in leadership as a result of a crisis and creating that crisis.


If the US was so intent on controlling Ukraine, it could have done so much more efficiently, and easily, over the 20 odd years of Ukrainian independence than has been done.  That is why I don't believe in all these conspiracy theories about US involvement.  If the US had really wanted to be involved, pro US politicians would have been elected in Eastern Ukraine shortly after Ukraine's independence, and would have remained in power.  Yanukovych would never have have made it to the stage in Ukrainian politics.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Ukraine's impending debt restructuring...

Default or debt restructuring in 2015 is now inevitable. Some of the recent proposals have focused on simply extending the nation's bond maturities. Foreign currency denominated bonds (Ukraine's eurobonds) are of particular concern (chart below). But Ukraine has other FX denominated debt outstanding - including USD-based bonds issued domestically as well as debt to the IMF

http://soberlook.com/2015/02/ukraines-impending-debt-restructuring.html



Being in debt and not able to pay up makes one wonder who really is in control of Ukraine. 

[Boethius]

When you remove a president who stole over 20% of the annual budget, and take into account this has been occurring since before independence, you can hardly be surprised.  The difference with Yanukovych is, his theft was far more open, and far deeper than past politicians.


Now tell me that the US needed Maidan to control Ukraine.

[LiveFromUkraine]

When you remove a president who stole over 20% of the annual budget, and take into account this has been occurring since before independence, you can hardly be surprised.  The difference with Yanukovych is, his theft was far more open, and far deeper than past politicians.


Now tell me that the US needed Maidan to control Ukraine.

If this is in response to me, I never said US needed Maidan to control Ukraine.  It doesn't matter what Yanu did, the only thing that matters is how Ukraine will be able to pay it's bills or what will they have to do in order to restructure.

[Boethius]

OK. But you tend to believe the US was behind this.  I don't.  Because the US doesn't need Ukraine, and if it did, it could have achieved the same thing far more easily in other ways.

[LiveFromUkraine]

OK. But you tend to believe the US was behind this.  I don't.  Because the US doesn't need Ukraine, and if it did, it could have achieved the same thing far more easily in other ways.

I never said the US needed Ukraine.  I don't think they want Ukraine nor do I think EU wants them.  They most definitely don't want to pay the bill that comes with Ukraine. 

[Boethius]

So then why would they have been behind Maidan?


The problem of both Russia and Ukraine is that the former Soviet elite still control the countries, politically.  That is why both are mired in corruption.

Here is an article I read to my better half today -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945788/Boxer-viciously-beats-female-neighbour-fed-cats-going-toilet-door-Russia.html


His response?  This is the micro level of what is occurring in Ukraine, and, to a lesser degree, Russia, daily. 

[LiveFromUkraine]

So then why would they have been behind Maidan?

I don't know if they were behind Maidan, I do think they were involved.  We already talked about this.  haha  I have always maintained that a weakened Russia is enough for US to be involved.   Russia was already considered a threat before this happened. 


Romney didn't just pull that comment out of thin air during the presidential elections.


The world sees that Russia will not be pushed to back down.  No doubt Russia has been seen as a threat for quite some time and a strong, independent Russia is a serious threat.


Now, who knows what will happen when Ukraine opens up to more foreign investment.  As of right now, I don't see it as a reason for US involvement but still have my eye on what will happen.  Sometimes we need to watch and see what unfolds to understand the reasoning.

The problem of both Russia and Ukraine is that the former Soviet elite still control the countries, politically.  That is why both are mired in corruption, and both are largely failed states.

I agree, which makes me wonder if Ukraine will ever fully recover

Here is an article I read to my better half today -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945788/Boxer-viciously-beats-female-neighbour-fed-cats-going-toilet-door-Russia.html


His response?  This is the micro level of what is occurring in Ukraine, and, to a lesser degree, Russia, daily.

Terrible.  It reminds me of that video of the politician's son who beat that woman in a restaurant.  What did your husband mean by micro level?  That this is normal behavior happening right now.  I understood this type of behavior happened when I lived there but never was witness to it nor felt in danger.

[Doll]

Hey Doll, you said you were going to work over 2 hours ago.
Yet you are still online now posting Putinist turd.

So your real occupation is being a Kremlin Troll! 

the kids are having test, I am not supposed to help them.
Now it is my lunch break.
Any more questions?

[AkMike]

Yeah.. What's for lunch?

 Dirt? 

[Boethius]

What did your husband mean by micro level?

At the individual level, among the average individual(s). 

[mendeleyev]

Russia Direct, a propaganda arm of Kremlin owned media, recently issued a 5 page talking points paper on control of Ukraine. Maxim Kharkevich, a  professor from Moscow State Institute of International Relations, explains how the Cold War never ended properly, and thus the Soviet Union was broken up prematurely. In his five points, he hints that some countries really should never have been sovereign states at all. This is not the first time Kharkevich has spoken on the issue, and he follows the Kremlin line of thinking that had not the CCCP come to a premature end, Ukraine would still belong to Russia.

The author cites the Yalta-Potsdam agreements as an example of how the world powers came together and divided up Europe. He, and he speaks for the Kremlin by virtue of this publication, appears to believe that since there was no "Yalta-Potsdam" agreement at the end of the Cold War, that the Soviet Union really didn't break up officially. Instead, the boundaries of what is Russia, and what is no longer Soviet, remains an open question. Naturally, the Kremlin knows best how all that territory should be divided, and since in his view the world court did nothing to stop the breakup of Yugoslavia, there is no legal authority to decide such disputes. To which, he writes that "Russia has taken upon itself the role of gatekeeper of the post-Soviet space."

Therein lies the rub: Russia knows best, and any former Soviet Republic that desires to link with Western institutions such as the EU, or even NATO, is violating international norms, or at least the wishes of Moscow. What the author never acknowledges, and Russians are blind to this fact, is that there are reasons why many of the former Soviet pact no longer desire, or even fear, being under the thumb of Moscow.

There are so many holes in his reasoning that if one folded up the paper and tried to create a paper airplane, the thing probably would not fly.


http://www.russia-direct.org/archive/april-monthly-memo-five-step-program-fixing-ukraine-crisis

[jone]

I read this thread with great dismay.

1st:  The US did not see Russia as a threat in the way that LFU seems to think they did.  Instead, the US foreign policy team has uneasily been watching the abrogations of freedoms in Russia for the past and recent years.  The Russian armed forces are NOT a threat to the United States government.  Frankly, the Obama Presidency has stated frequently that the United States did not see a military threat to the United States anywhere in the world.  Including Russia.  The belligerent activities by Russia come because Russia sees Europe and the United States as a threat.  (Russia sees China as a threat too, but less so than the other two entities.)

2nd:  The Ukrainian people have lived with great unrest since before the Orange Revolution.  The simple fact that the country could not elect a government/leader with a majority should tell plenty about the unrest.  Even today most Ukrainians are dissatisfied with their government.   There is great dissatisfaction with the general mobilization.  But Ukrainians see Russia as a Real and Present Danger.  The idea that Ukraine was being influenced by its trading partners is not something that I saw while spending a summer there, two summers ago.    The only country that had significant interests there was Russia.  And most Ukrainians saw that Russia had a very heavy hand in dealing with Ukraine.  I liken the Ukrainian / Russian situation to be a divorce.  I also see it as one country wants to leave the marriage and the other country says:  "You can't leave.  You have to stay.  I will use physical force if you try to leave.  But if you stay, I will treat you very well - just like I always have done."

3rd:  Russia tipped the balance from a pluralistic society in Ukraine, to a majority (Western) society in Ukraine.  Russia did so by removing Crimea, which voted heavily towards Russian favoritism.  It also has prevented Eastern Ukraine from voting, which has a similar voting (ethnic) make up.  Finally, by creating armed resistance to the existing government, Russia has polarized Ukraine against it.  It is the same as if a former husband beat his now ex-wife.  There is no situation where the ex-wife would want to go back to such a marriage.  Neither does the Ukrainian people.

For those people who say that the US was involved?  It could possibly be so.  But the true test of whether Ukraine shifted away from Russia was one at the gut level of the Ukrainian people.  They were tired of living with the corruption and low living standards remaining from a post-Soviet society.  They looked on with envy while other nearby countries embraced Western standards of anti-corruption. 

Russia's greatest fear is that Ukraine will succeed.  Unfortunately, Russia's actions have now spurred both Europe and the United States to insure that the changes in Ukraine will succeed through aid and development.  It is far cheaper for the US and Europe to donate enough money to Ukraine to develop a Western style economy than it is to fight another war on European soil.  Unfortunately, Russia has yet to figure that out. 

Anyone watching the presser today between Merkel and Obama can read the handwriting on the wall:  There is a big economic support package coming from the West for Ukraine.  It is coming together through the IMF and through direct aid.  And it will be big.  Too much political capital has already been spent for it not to happen.

[Doll]

[Doll]

Victoria Nuland Admits: US Has Invested $5 Billion In The Development of Ukrainian, "Democratic Institutions"
International Business Conference at Ukraine in Washington - National Press Club - December 13, 2013

Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs

 US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: “Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ” Nuland said the United States will continue to “promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

[LiveFromUkraine]

I read this thread with great dismay.

1st:  The US did not see Russia as a threat in the way that LFU seems to think they did.  Instead, the US foreign policy team has uneasily been watching the abrogations of freedoms in Russia for the past and recent years.  The Russian armed forces are NOT a threat to the United States government.  Frankly, the Obama Presidency has stated frequently that the United States did not see a military threat to the United States anywhere in the world.  Including Russia.  The belligerent activities by Russia come because Russia sees Europe and the United States as a threat.  (Russia sees China as a threat too, but less so than the other two entities.)

That is your opinion but certainly not facts even if you want to present it as such.   

The facts are that even Romney said Russia was a threat.  You can look pass that but he didn't pull that out of his ass and now everyone is saying he was right.  I also doubt Romney had special information that the current Administration wasn't privy too. 

No one said a threat has to be a direct military threat.    If you are dismayed by this conversation, I suggest not reading it or laying down in case you faint.

[Boethius]

We've discussed that $5 billion ad nauseum.  $5 billion over 23 years, used primarily for funding schools and institutions devoted to independent, democratic institutions and research.


Would you be happier if Ukrainians had no such institutions, and were mired in third world standards of education and civil life? 

[Photo Guy]

Yes, most Ukrainians WANT democracy. Most of the world wants democracy. The elections last year in Ukraine revealed that most Ukrainians want democracy. Is 'democracy' a bad word in Russia?  Are Ukrainians able to think for themselves? 'Yes'.

[krimster2]

> We've discussed that $5 billion ad nauseum.  $5 billion over 23 years, used primarily for funding schools and institutions devoted to independent, democratic research.

When I lived in Sevastopol, my daughter attended an “elitny” school that with USAID funding was being structured in accordance with EU educational guidelines

Sevastopol was also the beneficiary of energy efficient street lighting and other energy conservation measures funded by USAID

Crimea received agricultural grants from USAID, I met its director on a flight into Simferopol one time, and they were providing new seedstock

As a business owner there were numerous USAID funded programs that I personally came into contact with. 

And let’s not forget the hundreds of millions of $$ the US gave to repair Chernobyl.

Overall, I think these programs were positive, but just a “drop in the bucket” compared to what the country needed to make a meaningful change, so although they didn’t do any harm, they also didn’t really do enough good to really make a real difference.  The people needed to make the changes themselves, and the only people energetic enough to go and do something were simply interested in enriching themselves, and everyone else sat paralyzed...

On the other hand, it always struck me how much the West was doing for Ukraine compared to how little Russia was doing (especially in relation to Chernobyl), but yet Russia considers Ukraine to be “theirs”, so while the USA influences with money, Russia influences with military force (and manages to blame the USA for doing so!)




   

[lordtiberius]

Anyone watching the presser today between Merkel and Obama can read the handwriting on the wall:  There is a big economic support package coming from the West for Ukraine.  It is coming together through the IMF and through direct aid.  And it will be big.

show me