News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[mheslep]

...
...the fact that George W. Bush did absolutely nothing when Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, ...

When Russia invaded Georgia in the summer of 2008, incurring over a thousand Georgian casualties, the US made many repeated statements and actions emphasizing that Georgia was a sovereign state whose territory must be respected, that Georgia was not simply another Russian appendage, to include:

• Statement by the US UN Ambassador in the UN security council.

  "This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," ..."The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone,"..."We must condemn Russia's military assault on the sovereign state of Georgia ... including the targeting of civilians and the campaign of terror against the Georgian population,"

• With Russia-US talks ongoing about missile defense to be installed in Poland, Gates said:

  “If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the U.S.-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come.”

• President gave multiple Rose Garden speeches strongly condemning the Russia invasion, also alluding to EU allies objections.
• Relief supplies were flown into Georgia via several US Navy and Airforce cargo plane flights.
• A small team of Pentagon officials went to Georgia during the invasion, was on the ground.
• "Cancelled outright" or withdrew from "several [cooperative US-Russia] military exercises that were to have included Russian forces."
• A US destroyer (USS McFaul) and three other US ships were dispatched to the Black Sea and docked or anchored off the port of Batumi, delivering tons of supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/15policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/un.georgia/
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=39317

 

[Naty1]

Peter Glover, Breitbart, 7 March 2014

"The reason [for Russia’s military intervention] is part of the Kremlin's long-term and officially stated (if you bother to look for it) great game: energy imperialism. That is, recovering Russia's global superpower status via the the chief weapon at its disposal: its oil and energy clout... The blueprint for all this was formally laid down in May 2009, when a Kremlin security document, approved and published by the Russian Security Council, explicitly sanctioned the use of military force in pursuit of the goal of returning Russia to "energy superpower" status..."

 

[Dotini]

What Bush did or didn't do in '08 means nothing. It was all empty gestures and wind, which were canceled when Hillary pushed her reset button.

Now, Kerry and Lavrov, Obama and Putin, have spent hours and hours on end negotiating. They seem agreeable except on one key point - the legitimacy of the revolutionary government in Kiev. So far, so good; except the clock is ticking on the Crimean referendum.

 

[mheslep]

What Bush did or didn't do in '08 means nothing. It was all empty gestures and wind, which were canceled when Hillary pushed her reset button.

US diplomacy/aid means nothing, or just diplomacy under Bush means nothing? In Georgia, or in Ukraine, or nowhere? What is the basis for that statement? Consider what Georgian leaders have said on the subject of US diplomacy.

 

[Dotini]

US diplomacy/aid means nothing, or just diplomacy under Bush means nothing? In Georgia, or in Ukraine, or nowhere? What is the basis for that statement? Consider what Georgian leaders have said on the subject of US diplomacy.

US diplomacy vis a vis Georgia was contained in a small box.
http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/iht093008.html

 

[Crazymechanic]

@Czcibor yes I know about the Tupolev that crashed in Russia , that was a polish government plane and it crashed while landing in Russia in kinda thick fog etc.
Ofcourse the first thing that came into my mind when I heard it was "KGB"
So many high ranking people who are enemies of the Kremlin on one plane.Also the plane was landed in a lonely military airfield and many other interesting facts.
But because of any lack of info that would point towards it , I would decline to speculate on such events.

And about the snipers , I never said I do believe there are some great conspiracies under them , I just laid down the cards and said who would most likely benefit from such actions and to whom those actions would be bad or unwanted.
Russia doesn't want to start the blooshed , it's not in their interssts , they just want to take their part and go through all of this with as little dead bodies as possible because tat would paint them in an even worse light in the internation media.

I mean it's like when you drive drunk and you get stopped by the police , now your already in trouble , what would you rather do? Try to communicate your way out of this somehow or with the smallest possible punishment or would you rather start to insult and beat the police officer then steal his car and then run over some pedestrians?

But just as I said , we will never know for sure.Even if someone kinda " helped" the plane to land the way it did , we will probably never know his name.

Even though I always am kinda skeptical to such accusitions but ofcourse one has to think baout all the possibillities and then judging by the evidence at hand choose the most plausible outcome.

 

[Crazymechanic]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


read this article , I must say when i saw it first I couldn't believe my eyes, never expected to see such an opinion on CNN.
Maybe their not that bad after all.

 

[Astronuc]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


read this article , I must say when i saw it first I couldn't believe my eyes, never expected to see such an opinion on CNN.
Maybe their not that bad after all.

Yes, but from the Editor's note: "Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his."

There are some important differences between the Crimean situation and the campaigns of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan - primarily, Russia appears ready to annex Crimea, whereas the US did not annex all or parts of Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia, whereas elements of Iraq and Afghanistan were threatening the security of the US and other nations.

 

[voko]

Ukraine is not a threat to Russia

The Russian assumption is that the current Ukrainian regime will be inherently pro-Western and anti-Russian, quite possibly making Ukraine a Nato member. That is a serious threat (or so it is perceived in Moscow) to Russia's Black Sea fleet even if it fully relocates to Novorossiysk. The changing balance of power will undoubtedly affect Russia's politics in the nearby Caucasus region.

whereas elements of Iraq and Afghanistan were threatening the security of the US and other nations.

Of the US? In what way?

 

[DennisN]

The Russian assumption is that the current Ukrainian regime will be inherently pro-Western and anti-Russian, quite possibly making Ukraine a Nato member. That is a serious threat (or so it is perceived in Moscow) to Russia's Black Sea fleet even if it fully relocates to Novorossiysk. The changing balance of power will undoubtedly affect Russia's politics in the nearby Caucasus region.

And a political/economical "threat" too, I think;

Russia has been planning for the so-called Eurasian Union by 2015

and

Ukraine seeking observer status in Eurasian Economic Union - Yanukovych (Interfax Ukraine, 19 December 2013).

And my guess is Russia would very much like to have an Ukraine in the Eurasian Union in the future, rather than in the EU.

 

[mheslep]

NATO is an observably a defensive organization. That is, we know, the Kremlin knows, and everybody knows the Kremlin knows, that NATO does not offensively take over and fly its flag over other countries. For example, the now defunct missile installation project for Poland about which Russia gnashed its teeth was an ABM project, i.e. missile defense. The project never contained any notion of an offensive missile installation that might attack Russia.

NATO is only a threat to Russia in that NATO would obstruct Russian attempts to annex/invade/terrorize/subvert NATO member nations.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

When Russia invaded Georgia in the summer of 2008, incurring over a thousand Georgian casualties, the US made many repeated statements and actions emphasizing that Georgia was a sovereign state whose territory must be respected, that Georgia was not simply another Russian appendage, to include:

Maybe some misunderstanding, my point is that Sarah Palin (and the rightwing) is trying to blame Obama (besides bad weather) for what's happening in Ukraine, with maybe FOX/Palin making the "smartest" move of them all, by claiming that Obama was responsible for what happened 2008 in Georgia – by doing nothing. Besides this 'little' lie; Sarah Palin also "knew" way back in 2008 that Obama's "grandiose failure" in Georgia would lead to the 2014 Ukraine crisis.

Most folks know that GWB did less about Georgia than Obama has already done regarding Ukraine, where GWB's position basically was:

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."​

This makes the FOX/Palin claim just another "grandiose joke".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Stephen Cohen on CNN GPS:

"We are two steps away from a Cuban missile crisis and three steps from war with Russia"​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03j9URLL3ns
http://www.youtube.com/embed/03j9URLL3ns

Well, if Russians only get this kind of information (the light version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsX9OkSCNng
http://www.youtube.com/embed/zsX9OkSCNng

And this is to be solved by martial arts experts (with Russian oil in the hair):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl8rgWUgmR8
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nl8rgWUgmR8

Murphy's Law may still hold...

 

[SteamKing]

AFAIK, Sarah Palin didn't invade the Ukraine, and she didn't cause the government there to fall.

If you read mheslep's post #253, you will see that a number of things were done by the Bush Administration to signal its disagreement with Putin's actions in Georgia, including taking the rare step to send naval ships deep into the Black Sea to deliver supplies.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

AFAIK, Sarah Palin didn't invade the Ukraine, and she didn't cause the government there to fall.

Are you sure? She can see Russia from her house... [note: this is a joke]

If you read mheslep's post #253, you will see that a number of things were done by the Bush Administration to signal its disagreement with Putin's actions in Georgia, including taking the rare step to send naval ships deep into the Black Sea to deliver supplies.

Looks like we are talking past each other, this is the "logic":

• According to FOX/Palin, nothing was done about the 2008 Georgia crisis.
• According to FOX/Palin, the man responsible for this was Obama.
• We all know that GWB was President at the moment.
• Therefore the "nothingness" FOX/Palin is talking about falls back on GWB.

Do you get it??

Personally, I think Putin lives in an isolated bubble of "Yes Men" and super-hyped nationalism, and what has been done or not in the past will probably have very little influence on the decisions taken in this kind of 'atmosphere'. Perhaps...

 

[jim hardy]

It's admittedly "cool" in some circles to hammer Palin and Fox but it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[mheslep]

In the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances treaty of 1994 the US and the UK pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" so that Ukraine might rid itself of nuclear weapons. Given the light US response to the Russian incursion thus far, and the lack of popular support shown by "140310075746" in the US, it may be that the US should consider withdrawing from a treaty that carries far larger commitments: NATO. Article 5 is the signature part of NATO, stating "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Thus a theoretical invasion of Poland or Finland obligates the US and others to war. NATO members visibly have relied on this agreement for decades.

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

Yes, signed agreements are what they are... personally I think this can't be solved by military force, in any direction, without the risk of blowing the heads of us all in the end...

If Putin does not wake up from his little "La Belle au bois dormant" and realize that both Stalin and Communism is dead, the only way to get this in right direction is by stock markets and finance. The Russian export is approx 550 USD Billion and EU accounts for 53%.

Angela Merkel and EU just have to call Putin and tell him that the sweet days are over; we are going to find new and nicer friends to play with, and of course the Istanbul Strait and Øresund has to be closed until Putin behaves like the nice boy he really is (to ship oil meanwhile, he can drill a hole in the Murmansk ice).

I'm absolutely convinced that he will come crawling to "Mamma Merkel" for consolation and new business plans within a few days. Merkel and EU only have to show that they are serious about this (which Moscow & Putin don't believe at the moment).

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Viktor Yanukovych's luxury mansion Mezhyhirya (with "Gold Toilets" etc) is estimated to have cost more than $75 million U.S. dollars.

When Yanukovych fled the country, he didn't want anyone to get "the full excessive picture", so he dumped some 200 folders of documents in a lake behind the former residence. Sadly, the stubborn documents refused to sink and have been fished out and dried (with help from the presidential sauna).

The whole thing, 9504 documents, is now available on line at YanukovychLeaks.org, and among the papers are receipts for payment of $115,000 for a shooting range and $2.3m for a tea room.

Yanukovych will (probably) throw a great tea party for whole of Ukraine once he gets back...?

This man is a genius!

 

[SteamKing]

In the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances treaty of 1994 the US and the UK pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" so that Ukraine might rid itself of nuclear weapons. Given the light US response to the Russian incursion thus far, and the lack of popular support shown by "140310075746" in the US, it may be that the US should consider withdrawing from a treaty that carries far larger commitments: NATO. Article 5 is the signature part of NATO, stating "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Thus a theoretical invasion of Poland or Finland obligates the US and others to war. NATO members visibly have relied on this agreement for decades.

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else. In order for a treaty to have the force of law in the U.S., it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Starting with the Clinton administration and continuing into the Bush administration, it was felt that drafting a formal treaty with the Ukraine would not be worthwhile, since such a treaty would be unlikely to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The U.S., the U.K., and the Russian Federation agreed to the guarantee of the security of the Ukraine, but as a practical and political matter, there is little possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. intervening with military forces to stop Russia.

The memorandums were drafted before Putin came to power. After Putin came to power, he knew that both the Ukraine and Georgia had petitioned NATO for membership, or a least for a process to be considered for membership, which was deferred by a vote of NATO members in 2008. If the Ukraine or Georgia were admitted to NATO, either could claim Article 5 protection in case of attack. Since neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are NATO members, the Article 5 talk is moot.

IMO, this is one reason Putin moved against Georgia in 2008, not long after the NATO meetings that year: it was a rather obvious signal to the west that Putin would not tolerate having former Soviet republics become NATO members.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else. In order for a treaty to have the force of law in the U.S., it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

Someone needs to inform Iran!

()

 

[mheslep]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else.

Thanks, you're right; that agreement was not a treaty in the legal sense you fairly describe.

The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

Right, and so far that assurance has been a fiction. If that assurance had not been given the Ukraine might still have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

...The U.S., the U.K., and the Russian Federation agreed to the guarantee of the security of the Ukraine,

Yes, so established.

... but as a practical and political matter, there is little possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. intervening with military forces to stop Russia.

There are numerous other actions besides a military attack that might thwart Russia*; furthermore I doubt military action would resolve anything in the best interest of Ukraine at this point. Russia is a state-actor; unlike non-state actors (terrorists), Russia has an economy and borders. It is sensitive to economic and border action.

The memorandums were drafted before Putin came to power. After Putin came to power, he knew that both the Ukraine and Georgia had petitioned NATO for membership, or a least for a process to be considered for membership, which was deferred by a vote of NATO members in 2008. If the Ukraine or Georgia were admitted to NATO, either could claim Article 5 protection in case of attack. Since neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are NATO members, the Article 5 talk is moot.

Yes Ukraine is not in NATO and that misses the point. Ukraine has called for action in regards to the assurance in the Memorandum. The failure to receive sufficient support, and general lack of interest by the US public, calls into question whether the A5 obligation would be met should NATO members be threatened by Russia, or whether for "practical and political" reasons A5 will also be ignored should the time come. I suspect the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Hungarians do not currently see discussions about A5 obligations to/for them as moot.

...it was a rather obvious signal to the west that Putin would not tolerate

So I agree that a "signal" from a powerful country should be taken into account for security planning. But it stops there. The world has seen many signals from thugs but such should have no bearing on the rights of peoples living near the Russian border.

...having former Soviet republics become NATO members.

Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania are all NATO members and former Soviet republics.

*
Former Georgia President Saakashvili

If Russia keeps up the heat on Crimea, Mr. Saakashvili says, then the West should hit the Putin circle with sanctions. "It would be the same" reaction as in Ukraine. "The last time I was in Miami, it was full of rich Russians. If you tell them you can no longer come here and you have to freeze in Moscow, then they will turn on Putin." Western governments have "much more leverage than they realize. They just need to apply it."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else.

Right, and so far that assurance has been a fiction. If that assurance had not been given the Ukraine might still have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

The last thing any sane person on this globe wants is U.S. to engage in a military conflict with Russia. That would be the end of everything. Having that said; I must ask you guys what you think about this tricky situation.

Yes, the "paper" signed in 1994 does not stipulate any legal commitments regarding 'support' in a case of crisis, but it does obligate the signees to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", which Russia has now broken, and in this case "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments".

Now, in 1991 Ukraine inherited the third-largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world from the Soviet Union, i.e. they had lot of "toys" like this:

They gave it all up for the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances (and we can be pretty sure Putin would not have done what he did if these "toys" were still located in Ukraine).

If UK and U.S. in current situation says – "Hehe, tough luck sonny, this piece of paper is useless, it means nothing, it's fiction!" – how is UK and U.S. ever going to convince any other country to give up their nuclear weapons, or plans to get nuclear weapons, if they now see Ukraine in this situation, 'abandoned' by the signees?

Will there be anyone (like Iran) repeating Ukraine's mistake? Not likely huh?

It looks like UK and U.S. (and the rest of the civilized world) has to do everything they can – except military force – to help Ukraine, without hesitating...

There are numerous other actions besides a military attack that might thwart Russia*;

If Russia keeps up the heat on Crimea, Mr. Saakashvili says, then the West should hit the Putin circle with sanctions. "It would be the same" reaction as in Ukraine. "The last time I was in Miami, it was full of rich Russians. If you tell them you can no longer come here and you have to freeze in Moscow, then they will turn on Putin." Western governments have "much more leverage than they realize. They just need to apply it."

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Crazymechanic]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin? he amy have his preferances but he is not dumb , he wouldn't put his amry into Ukraine just for a few oil and gas deals , there is great western influence in Ukraine and some of the poeple in power are also not the nicest folks around , but somehow that skips the western media.

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .
Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.

I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.
This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

 

[lisab]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin? he amy have his preferances but he is not dumb , he wouldn't put his amry into Ukraine just for a few oil and gas deals , there is great western influence in Ukraine and some of the poeple in power are also not the nicest folks around , but somehow that skips the western media.

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .
Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.

I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.
This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

Good points. But I would suggest this is more EU vs Russia issue, than US vs Russia.

The world view that puts the CIA behind every blade of grass in the world, controlling how people think and what they do...it's a bit sophomoric, not to mention unrealistic, IMO. (Note - I'm NOT saying your post is like this -- but I've seen this world view in some people.)

 

[OmCheeto]

zip!

As I said before, my Rooski friend will say no more until after this is all over.

But every day, I tell him, after 5 minutes of listening to him; "Holy dermo, you need to write a book!"

 

[Crazymechanic]

Yes lisab there are definitely poeple who overestimate the role of the CIA and then there are poeple who deny their actions even those whoe are openly documented into the CIA's factbook, and then there are those who think the CIA is just another name for a hockey club...

Being a crackpot definitely isn't healthy but being wise means understanding the real influence of agendas and agencies around the world , being wise is the ability to distinguish between total fiction and madmans dreams and the reality which more or less is still influenced by people and agendas which are everything except democratic in their understanding and inner workings.

This is probably the biggest problem , also the reason why so many poeple get ridiculed and laughed at , everyone knows someone is doing something and something is not right but then there are a bunch of folks who just go on and say that " hey , Putin made a bomb , Osama took that bomb and gave it to Bush and Bush blew up the world trade center so that Silverstein could have 7 billion from insurance " (pun intended)

But just because many or some of them get totally nuts on this matter doesn't mean their assertion that CIA or other organizations and intelligence agencies haven't tried or carried out foreign affairs that include government overthrowns via secretly trained rebels , is not true , it is.

We just have to look closely and then we can tell fact from fiction.

There is a saying that the only thing the devil really wants is for everyone to think his not real, now we can't prove this about the devil but many people use this method to keep themselves operational and under the radar.Also this has been a part of Russian and soviet propoganda for many decades.The very storytelling that if someone went missing for anti communist actions , nothing bad could have probably happened to him , rather than being somewhere in a secret prison he just went missing into the local forest with his dog.

 

[Czcibor]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

Maybe. Or maybe after vassalizing Ukraine it would look for next targets. If West does nothing why should he stop?

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin?

I wouldn't express it so brutally but:
-it seems that he just effectively sacrificed influences in Ukraine to annex Crimean peninsula instead (which looks like a serious error)
-Stalin would be a bit too strong, but good old fashion XIXth century imperialist - yes

Tusk (Polish prime minister) tries to build a coalition to make natural gas purchase a part of common EU policy. If he succeed instead of dealing weak single states, Russia would have to negotiate gas prices with the EU. That could be interesting. (and if it works I think that calling Putin "stupid" would be fully justifiable)

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .

What makes you think so? Do you think that they would too order to shoot to protesters?

Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.
I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.

Maybe or maybe not. The invasion could have been a reaction on unexpected downfall of Yanukovych. I wouldn't be surprised if his calculation were indeed different - fear. Fear that if Ukrainians can overthrow a corrupted despot, the same thing can happen next time in Russia. So fighting it (even if from international policy it does not look profitable) would be the only way.

This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

Their dream is becoming country like those they see in the west (low corruption, functioning democracy, open borders, affluence), which effectively means joining the EU.

 

[Crazymechanic]

I must say Czcibor that you stand on a perfektionists position.

What makes you think so? Do you think that they would too order to shoot to protesters?

Yes I do think they would if necessary or use other means better or more suitable for that particular case.
There is an old but simple rule which takes into account human psychology.It goes something like this " Those who are in power have done , are doing and will do everything possible to keep that power in their hands as long as possible and with various different means at their disposal"

The only thing that changes are the methods used by different governments which differ because the mentality of the poeple living in different parts around the world also differs.But the basic need or rush towards control , influence and power is the same around the world , want proof? Look at history.

In the past 100 or more years US hasn't seen any serious uprising or protest against the government except the uprising of black poeple back in 1960's and some others, definitely not one like in Ukraine or elsewere, but ask yourself the question , what would the orders be to the US secret service and security organizations and agencies if there would happen a sudden large scale mass protest against the White house with americans , atleast some radical groups from various parts of the US together vandalizing and storming the streets of Washington DC? What do you honestly think , what would say Obama do?
Would he just hand out free healtcare to eac of the protesters , give them money and resign himself and his whole staff and then go fishing in Canada? Or would he rather...

 

[Czcibor]

I must say Czcibor that you stand on a perfektionists position.

You are presumably the first person in my life who said so. Thanks :D
Perfectionist? Or maybe saw Russian mending a few times too many in my country and would prefer to choose to defend Ukrainian freedom instead of risking to have soon to fight for my own country? Or maybe in geopolitical game there is simply risk of loosing all credibility if giving up without all fight?

It was not a rhetoric question: if West do nothing, why Putin should not try occupying next country soon?

Yes I do think they would if necessary or use other means better or more suitable for that particular case.
There is an old but simple rule which takes into account human psychology.It goes something like this " Those who are in power have done , are doing and will do everything possible to keep that power in their hands as long as possible and with various different means at their disposal"

The only thing that changes are the methods used by different governments which differ because the mentality of the poeple living in different parts around the world also differs.But the basic need or rush towards control , influence and power is the same around the world , want proof? Look at history.

In the past 100 or more years US hasn't seen any serious uprising or protest against the government except the uprising of black poeple back in 1960's and some others, definitely not one like in Ukraine or elsewere, but ask yourself the question , what would the orders be to the US secret service and security organizations and agencies if there would happen a sudden large scale mass protest against the White house with americans , atleast some radical groups from various parts of the US together vandalizing and storming the streets of Washington DC? What do you honestly think , what would say Obama do?
Would he just hand out free healtcare to eac of the protesters , give them money and resign himself and his whole staff and then go fishing in Canada? Or would he rather...

Honestly? What orders would be given after masses become aware of such rampant corruption and abuses of power?
-Quickly pack baggages
-Load some civilian looking helicopter
-Pray that military units during rebelling would be somewhat disorganized what would prevent them from intercepting that helicopter

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

Yes, but some of the trouble here is that there seems to be different interpretations of "neutral". If we rewind the tape; all the people of Ukraine wanted, was better relations with EU, and an end of the terrible corruption in Ukraine, but Putin obviously didn't like this version of "neutrality". In Putin's world "neutrality" equals – You can do anything you want, as long as you do what I tell you!

Of course EU should have acted much smarter; they should for example not have let Sweden's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt run around Eurosquare like a new "Charles XII", shouting about "Quislings" and stuff.

And EU should of course have include Putin in the negotiations with Ukraine, where they should have given him full guaranties for that Ukraine would never be a member of EU, without Russia's approval, and that Ukraine would never ever be a member of NATO, in any case.

This could maybe have opened up new and real opportunities for everybody involved... perhaps.

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin? he amy have his preferances but he is not dumb , he wouldn't put his amry into Ukraine just for a few oil and gas deals , there is great western influence in Ukraine and some of the poeple in power are also not the nicest folks around , but somehow that skips the western media.

I can't tell you exactly what I think* about Putin (because it would violate the forum rules ), I can only provide these quotes, from high-rank officials:

• Madeleine Albright – "Russian president is delusional"
• Angela Merkel – "[he] ...lives in a world of his own"

*But talking about "western suspicious rat experiments" in a press conference, and denying that he has anything to do with the invading troupes in Crimea... doesn't look 100% 'healthy' to me...

Does this mean this man is sick/nuts? Well, from our perspective it looks like this conclusion could maybe be drawn, but from the Russian perspective many (most?) would say that this is terrible mudslinging, as they see Putin as the best and brightest that has happened to Russia in decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIX-hOzyWkY
http://www.youtube.com/embed/kIX-hOzyWkY

To me this is much closer to Stalin than Gorbachev, don't you think?

We have to remember that this guy throws political opponents and folks he doesn't like in jail, in parody trials, and critical journalists lose their lives in 'accidents', and Putin looks at EU as a bunch decadent loser, and the 'nickname' is Gayrope.

In a Russian perspective, what Putin has done in Crimea is certainly not crazy or dumb, but brave and patriotic. There's only one problem; this "brave patriotism" did work in 1968, but it doesn't work today, and this is what the old KGB agent Vladimir Putin obviously has gotten wrong.

So Putin has already lost, because the resolution to this will not be a "New Prague" and a 'nice & cozy' little "Cold War" (that could boost Putin's popularity even more), but two alternatives of: Russian Financial Meltdown vs. WW3 (bye bye Putin in both cases).

He obviously doesn't realize what he has done... and that could maybe be characterized as "living in a world of his own"...

And who can blame him, with all this silly walks...?

About the not-so-nice-folk-SS in Ukraine: They are a minority and a consequence of previous regime, and as soon as Ukraine becomes a working democracy, the fertile soil for this kind of elements will disappear, hopefully completely.

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .
Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.

Yeah, but the problem is that Putin is using a Russian calculator from 1945, which is sadly missing the "Financial Refactoring" button.

Ukraine can't possible get worse leaders than the bunch of criminals that has ripped off the whole country for personal gains. Poland's economy is twice of what it was in 1991, Ukraine's is half of what it was in 1991...

I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.
This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

Agreed, the everyday people are the ones suffering, and the truth is that "Napoleon" and his precursors has been using Ukraine as "nuclear buffer zone" against West/NATO, where it was planned that they should take the major blow in case of "total mayhem".

Let's do it right this time, and concentrate on other/nicer/better things than these lethal "toys"...


P.S: Getting old territories back again? Well, with this "logic" Berlusconi, in his heydays, could have invaded a major part of Europe to get "old territories back again"...

 

[Czcibor]

About the not-so-nice-folk-SS in Ukraine: They are a minority and a consequence of previous regime, and as soon as Ukraine becomes a working democracy, the fertile soil for this kind of elements will disappear, hopefully completely.

I think that this "SS" is a partially bit misunderstanding. Yes, they revere Stefan Bandera, who was a WW2 war criminal. But they respect him not for war crimes, but for fight for Ukrainian independence (against, pending on changing situation, Germans, Russians and Polish). In the same way Russians don't worship Stalin for his war crimes but for defeating Hitler. Or Western leaders from WW2 are neither revere for their carpet air raids nor for involvement in mass murdering of Cossacks.

Ukraine can't possible get worse leaders than the bunch of criminals that has ripped off the whole country for personal gains. Poland's economy is twice of what it was in 1991, Ukraine's is half of what it was in 1991...

https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...:POL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

I would say that not half, but rather 20% less than in 1991. But conclusion is the same.

 

[mheslep]

In the same way Russians don't worship Stalin for his war crimes but for defeating Hitler.

I get the point, but I'm still curious: what's the significant difference? Better to have our own mass murdering megalomaniac rather than the other guy?

 

[Czcibor]

I get the point, but I'm still curious: what's the significant difference? Better to have our own mass murdering megalomaniac rather than the other guy?

Significant difference? Not much except of scope. I rather point out here that there is a psychologically convenient tendency to treat WW2 as good vs. evil, and be outraged that some countries instead of allying with "good" Stalin, consider as their national hero someone who was instead allied with Hitler.

 

[Crazymechanic]

speaking about tendencies , I must say many folks here have a overly simplified understanding of what Russia or Putin or the KGb actually is or was , I guess the western propoganda has done a great harm in trying to make communist hating patriots out of you guys , because now you have left your critical thinking somewhere behind.

All the respect Devils Avocado but I think your opinion on Putin is quite honestly naive at best.
Think baout it for a while , all these pro guys that were with him back in the KGB times and more of them backing him now , do you think their all fools , do you think he literally runs the country on his own , don;'t you think there are like a ton of poeple walking the Kremlin corridors making up plans and advising him on any matter ,
Now don't tell me you fell for his argument that there are no troops from Russia and then you thought that instead of lying to your face while smiling he was just nuts?
But mayeb he wants you to think that he is nuts , just like a criminal wants you to think that the other guy did it ?

Quite hoenstly I am really amazed at the kindergarden level discussion that is going on here , I mean I'm not a physics genius and have been pointed wrong here many times and I accept that from people who are smarter and more experienced than me in this field but I thought they would be smarter at politics looks like I was wrong.

 

[mheslep]

Significant difference? Not much except of scope. I rather point out here that there is a psychologically convenient tendency to treat WW2 as good vs. evil, and be outraged that some countries instead of allying with "good" Stalin, consider as their national hero someone who was instead allied with Hitler.

Agreed 're psychological (political?) tendencies. And of course the US and UK allied with Stalin. But I don't believe there was a difference in scope between Hitler and Stalin.

 

[Crazymechanic]

it wasn't about scope back then , it was about reason.Hitler had the " wrong" one, Stalin had the " right" one. +Everything went so that it will always look like germany took the USSR by surprise and invaded a sovereign country so Stalin had every reason top do whatever was needed along with some mass genocides and other stuff along the way.

otherwise if they wouldn't be resttriced by their ideologies and countries , I do believe Stalin would have been great friends with Hitler , they both were fans of classical architecture and I must say they both ordered great classical style buildings in their countries to be made.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

speaking about tendencies , I must say many folks here have a overly simplified understanding of what Russia or Putin or the KGb actually is or was ,

Okay, so why don't you tell us what it was? A kindergarten for bear hunting he-men??

I guess the western propoganda has done a great harm in trying to make communist hating patriots out of you guys , because now you have left your critical thinking somewhere behind.

Prepare for big surprise. I consider myself a "left wing maniac", or at least, this is what I am in a "U.S. perspective", or put this way: All Swedes are communists! We pay way to much taxes, to be considered perfectly normal (at least if you ask any GOP'er).

How about real communism? Well, it was a sweet dream of "ultimate solidarity" that sadly got kidnapped by megalomaniac mass murders and now it is dead. There's nothing we can do about that.

But besides a "semi-communist", I'm also pragmatic, and I definitely prefer a crappy Big Mac over a shaky Kalashnikov in my face. No doubt about that.

Communism and Capitalism is old, very old, and personally I think it's maybe time for something "newer & fresher”, much of the old stuff is beginning catch some peculiar 'odor'...

I wonder if a global law prohibiting (megalomaniac) men to be in any political top position could be the solution... too much testosterone is the root of all evil? Maybe we should let the women have a go at it, for once in history?? I dunno...

All the respect Devils Avocado but I think your opinion on Putin is quite honestly naive at best. Think baout it for a while , all these pro guys that were with him back in the KGB times and more of them backing him now , do you think their all fools ,

Absolutely not, but they are all* running the same Russian calculator from 1945, and this – in our perspective – makes them all a bunch of "Cold War" nostalgic fools.

*Note: Most definitely there are very smart Russian politicians/advisers who do know that the latest move by Putin is not the smartest, but you (and your family) have to have a pretty good life insurance to ventilate this kind of opinion in current Russian 'climate' – they just have look out through the window to see what happens to protesters against the Crimean invasion. It's called peer pressure, aka "management by fear", and my guess is that Sergey Lavrov could tell you a lot more about this right now... if you don't believe me, check out German history.

do you think he literally runs the country on his own ,

No, and this is what hopefully going to save us all in the end. As everywhere else, people with money ultimately run the business (i.e. not the ones running in the Kremlin corridors, they are just like any other dysfunctional member of Congress), and once the OAO Moskovskaya Birzha is starting to drop shockingly and the oligarchs can no longer go to Cannes, Paris or L.A. to party, you will see some 'bizarre' activities in Crimea. Trust me.

Now don't tell me you fell for his argument that there are no troops from Russia and then you thought that instead of lying to your face while smiling he was just nuts?

So you are saying that in a situation that could ultimately end in a global nuclear war, that would ruin this planet and put an end to humanity, this guy is running "practical jokes" on the telly?

How about Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov? Is he joking too?? He looked like he just came from his mother's funeral... no smile in this part of the universe... (I can guess why, he had no choice but to confirm previous "practical joke" and then he got struck by a more 'sophisticated brain pain').

But mayeb he wants you to think that he is nuts , just like a criminal wants you to think that the other guy did it ?

I'm not saying he's nuts, that was Albright & Merkel. But he has broken international laws and treaties, so "criminal" seems fair indeed.

Quite hoenstly I am really amazed at the kindergarden level discussion that is going on here ,

No worries mate! We're all just a bunch of amateurs ventilating our contemporary global angst.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

otherwise if they wouldn't be resttriced by their ideologies and countries , I do believe Stalin would have been great friends with Hitler , they both were fans of classical architecture and I must say they both ordered great classical style buildings in their countries to be made.

Please tell me this is a joke, right?

 

[mheslep]

...germany took the USSR by surprise and invaded a sovereign country so ...

Stalin first invaded sovereign countries by surprise, Poland and Finland.

 

[lisab]

Please, let's not get into a Stalin vs Hitler quagmire.

 

[DennisN]

Please, let's not get into a Stalin vs Hitler quagmire.

I agree: Mitchell and Webb - Stalin Vs Hitler (arguing the moral toss)

 

[Czcibor]

speaking about tendencies , I must say many folks here have a overly simplified understanding of what Russia or Putin or the KGb actually is or was , I guess the western propoganda has done a great harm in trying to make communist hating patriots out of you guys , because now you have left your critical thinking somewhere behind.

All the respect Devils Avocado but I think your opinion on Putin is quite honestly naive at best.
Think baout it for a while , all these pro guys that were with him back in the KGB times and more of them backing him now , do you think their all fools , do you think he literally runs the country on his own , don;'t you think there are like a ton of poeple walking the Kremlin corridors making up plans and advising him on any matter ,
Now don't tell me you fell for his argument that there are no troops from Russia and then you thought that instead of lying to your face while smiling he was just nuts?
But mayeb he wants you to think that he is nuts , just like a criminal wants you to think that the other guy did it ?

Quite hoenstly I am really amazed at the kindergarden level discussion that is going on here , I mean I'm not a physics genius and have been pointed wrong here many times and I accept that from people who are smarter and more experienced than me in this field but I thought they would be smarter at politics looks like I was wrong.

To be honest: maybe you are the naive one here who unrealistically assume that political decisions are being made according to the best calculation provided by best experts? (Strong efficient markets hypothesis moved to political science :D ) Instead of being also mixture of fear, pride, internal interests of people within organization, maintaining legitimacy for internal politics purposes and schematic thinking?

Face it: from purely rational perspective of Russian state, Sochi Olympics was not worth 50 bln $ for its image. (Maybe it was worth as chance for high level corruption and showing off for internal purposes)

Actually, if you mention that "kindergarten level", in such high rationality of decision making (but more in business context) I believed during my kindergarten and primary school.

 

[Borek]

Get back on topic or the thread will be locked.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

It looks like Crazymechanic has moved permanently to 'Russia'... :) I just wanted to say this, hope it is okay?

That calculator they have is not from 1945 trust me on that one.
I can tell you a hint for this.After the USSR broke , the first most influential and also successful business man were no others than the same people who worked for the KGB before.

If the calculator is from 1945, 1961 or 1968 doesn't matter that much, because it is broken in exactly the same way; i.e. "capytalism" usually do not work that well if you are threatening or indicating that you are ready, willing & able to wage war against your dear and crucial customers, that for the moment provide 53% of your earnings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xneZp5Ycm24
http://www.youtube.com/embed/xneZp5Ycm24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlrEGqGACSk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nlrEGqGACSk

 

[DevilsAvocado]

To be honest: maybe you are the naive one here who unrealistically assume that political decisions are being made according to the best calculation provided by best experts? (Strong efficient markets hypothesis moved to political science :D ) Instead of being also mixture of fear, pride, internal interests of people within organization, maintaining legitimacy for internal politics purposes and schematic thinking?

Thanks Czcibor, very good point. :thumbs:

 

[Czcibor]

Concerning Putin's logic:

According to the pool in last months thanks to both Sochi Olympics and invasion on Crimean, Putin's approval rating rose by 10 percentage points. It makes sense from this perspective.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Concerning Putin's logic:

According to the pool in last months thanks to both Sochi Olympics and invasion on Crimean, Putin's approval rating rose by 10 percentage points. It makes sense from this perspective.

Well... ehh uhm... Putin & Co has studied the first paragraph in the "Megalomaniac Dictatorship Handbook", which state:

Hurry! Acquire an external "cruel enemy" (preferably 'Nazis', if you are not one yourself) that you can blame for all that is wrong in your country! Then you will become a National Hero and Saint!​

And if you control all media 100% the pools will of course be more 'favorable'...

But, this is only the first few "Days of Glory", because now the ruble has started to wobble, and the MICEX Index is on its lowest in four years, and things hasn't even started to get rough for Putin.

And on top of this, today (Saturday) 50,000 Russian protesters rallied in Moscow against Crimea action!

Protesters carry Ukrainian and Russian flags in Moscow, on March 15, 2014, during a rally against Russia's recent intervention in Crimea (AFP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov)

Russian punk band kitty Riot members Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova attended the anti-war rally in Moscow, ahead of a referendum on Crimea.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/50000-protest-crimea-action-in-moscow
Marchers carried placards reading "Putin, get out of Ukraine" and others comparing Russia's move on Crimea with the Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland as Europe rushed headlong into World War II.

Here's also a short video.


Putin, get out of Ukraine! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[DennisN]

It seems it is a really delicate moment right now;

Russia vetoed a UN security council motion declaring the Crimea referendum invalid.

China abstained, 13 others voted in favour.

Ukraine says it repelled a detachment of Russian troops in southern Ukraine, north of Crimea.

Russian foreign ministry says it is considering the requests of Russian speaking Ukrainians for Russian protection from persecution.

France says next stage of sanctions against Russia will be on military co-operation.

4.10pm GMT

Russia said Saturday it was reviewing “many requests” for protection from people in Ukraine, reports AFP.

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/15/ukraine-crisis-fatal-clashes-as-tensions-rise-before-crimea-vote-live

 

[OmCheeto]

...

...

putin, get out of ukraine! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

за россию и украину (za roseeoo ee ookraeenoo = in russia and ukraine)
без путина (vez pooteena = without putin)

My Russian is really bad.

Does that not say; "Get Putin out of the Ukraine and Russia" ?