Ukraine Crisis - Page 12

On December 17 2013 01:24 PaleMan wrote:
not me, not EU, not USA - NATURE itself says it

heterosexual relationship can produce life, gay relationship not

On December 17 2013 01:41 PaleMan wrote:


i don't know how it is in Ukraine but amount of gay clubs in Saint-Petersburg and Moscow makes me feel like minority

On December 17 2013 01:45 Cheerio wrote:


So if heterosexual people can't produce life (or don't want to) they should be treated as inferior too?

On December 17 2013 01:47 PaleMan wrote:


nope cause nobody treats gays as inferior, got it?

On December 17 2013 01:48 Cheerio wrote:

so why do you need a law prohibiting them to demand equality if nobody treats gays as inferior?

On December 17 2013 01:44 zeo wrote:

But you are just giving these people 50 ways to derail the thread. You could have the best argument in the world and without a shadow of a doubt show that those people protesting are wrong and the typical response on this forum would be to quote what you said about gay people and bury the parts of the thread that make them feel uncomfortable in pages and pages of derails.

You tell someone that John McCain got a medal from the military in Libya for spreading freedom on the same day that same military declared Sharia law and the first thing they will say is 'hur der no evul dick-tator, job wel dun'

Don't feed the troll for fucks sake

On December 17 2013 01:50 PaleMan wrote:


because nobody treats gays as inferior
nothing to demand?

On December 17 2013 01:46 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:


U might be focusing this too much on this. I'm almost sure that most of those whom u saw in a clubs just wants to try something new in terms of "feelings", just like some ppl uses drugs to get something new from this life. Besides, than more gays u got in ur city, than more pretty and free girls u gonna eventually try, bright future for some reason :D

On December 17 2013 02:04 PaleMan wrote:


nice man, i like it

On December 16 2013 18:44 zeo wrote:

"Ukraine should be left alone to sort this problem out by themselves, and the sovereignty of the country should not be undermined by US politicians coming to Kiev and threatening the country with sanctions if they don't hand over their country" = some Serbian guy using anti-US rhetoric

On December 16 2013 21:01 zeo wrote:

I think you are forgetting that Ukraine has a huge ass border with Russia. I wonder if the people protesting in Kiev have a grasp of the consequences of propping up a russophobic puppet regime right on Russia's doorstep.
It's easy for people from Stockholm and London to go on about 'muh freedom' but they won't be the ones on the doorstep of a hostile nuclear power, ask Cuba what life is like next to the US. They also need to know that when half the county calls for independence because they don't want to be a part of a country that isn't on Russia's side, guess who will be more than happy to roll in the tanks to 'protect the will of the people'?

EDIT: also, joining NATO would be textbook 'going full retard'

On December 17 2013 02:43 Cheerio wrote:

So what's your point? Ukraine should not elect the president it wants or join NATO because Russia might attack? Fuck you too.

On December 17 2013 03:32 zeo wrote:

No that is not what I said. I said the people of Ukraine need to do what is best for their country, in 2004 Viktor Yanukovych who was democratically elected to office was 'revolutionized' out and replaced by Viktor Yushchenko. That guy ruled for five years and what did he do? Really you think there is no reason he got 1.11% percent of the vote in 2012?

Now this guy wants a revolution to come to power again, your country has a big loom of bankruptcy over its head and people are being tricked into sending everything into chaos, you need $15 billion right now just so the country won't default. Who has the money? Not the EU certainly. Russia has the money. Your president did what was in the best interest of the people, not 'I want to get into the EU just so its easier for me to move out of the country'

EDIT: I would say both the ruling parties in Ukraine and the so-called "opposition" are simply two mafias fighting for control, but ultimately Yanukovych did what was in the best interests of the people.

On December 17 2013 03:32 zeo wrote:

No that is not what I said. I said the people of Ukraine need to do what is best for their country, in 2004 Viktor Yanukovych who was democratically elected to office was 'revolutionized' out and replaced by Viktor Yushchenko. That guy ruled for five years and what did he do? Really you think there is no reason he got 1.11% percent of the vote in 2012?

On December 17 2013 03:32 zeo wrote:
Now this guy wants a revolution to come to power again, your country has a big loom of bankruptcy over its head and people are being tricked into sending everything into chaos, you need $15 billion right now just so the country won't default. Who has the money? Not the EU certainly. Russia has the money.

On December 17 2013 03:48 Cheerio wrote:

Sure that was not what you said, and off to the change of topic we go. Ok.
1) The tale that Ukraine democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych in 2004 is one big lie. There were massive frauds at the primary elections, which were documented and proved in court. The reelections proved to be much fairer ones. That's a fact.
2) During 4 years of Yushchenko presidency the state budget almost tripled. Not saying that was entirely President's achievement, but clearly you can't rule him out of that entirely. Also this was done without heavy loans and without spending foreign currency reserves. Once Yanukovich took over the budget stagnated with heavy deficits. Foreign currency reserves evaporated (around 30 billion dollars). Huge loans are taken just to postpone the default.

Seriosly man, when it's about Ukraine you don't know what you are talking about. Go educate yourself and then come back.

It has long been obvious that the defeat of the incumbent, Viktor Yushchenko, who has painted himself into the anti-Russian nationalist corner, would produce a political rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia. Mr. Yanukovych is committed to non-alignment (meaning no application for NATO membership) while Ms. Tymoshenko promises to submit to popular referendum any decision to join a military alliance (in practice ruling out NATO membership, which, as revealed by a long series of opinion polls, is opposed by a solid majority of Ukrainians). What seems much less widely appreciated is the prospect of this geopolitical shift being magnified by Ukraine's imminent national bankruptcy (Article from 2010) —casting Russia in the role of "Abu Dhabi" to Ukraine's "Dubai" in the sense of easing the financial distress of a closely related neighbor.

In October 2009, the IMF suspended the latest planned disbursement of $3.8 billion (€2.6 billion) from its $17 billion rescue loan to Ukraine, citing the need to wait for the presidential election campaign to run its course before the Ukrainian authorities would be in a position to pursue responsible economic policies. In the meantime, the IMF has quietly helped keep Ukraine's funding crisis at bay by a series of expedients, culminating in approval for a drawdown of $2 billion of the Ukrainian central bank's foreign-exchange reserves to meet this month's $900 million payment for imported Russian gas.

From now on, however, the cupboard is bare. Total austerity will be the only way to preserve Ukraine's reserves and prevent another run on the currency—which would be ruinous, given the mountain of public and private debt denominated in foreign currency (exceeding 100% of GDP at the start of the crisis). The newly elected president, and whatever government emerges from the presidential election, will have to abandon their election promises by slashing public spending (the budget deficit reached around 12% of GDP in 2009, largely financed by printing money) and passing on higher energy costs to domestic consumers. Failure to cut spending will lead to widespread defaults. Already, the state-owned energy and railway companies (Naftohaz and UkrZaliznytsya) have been unable to meet their contractual obligations on foreign loans and entered into restructuring negotiations with their creditors.

This would be a daunting task even for a leader elected on a tide of national unity and with a popular mandate to face up to the crisis. But no such political capital can be generated by Ukraine's presidential election. The reason for this goes deeper than the country's well-known East-West divisions. A no less fundamental problem is the lack of functional institutions. As things stand, control over the executive is divided between the president and the legislature. This is the real cause of Ukraine's chronic political chaos—not the personal rivalries of the leading politicians and the business groups that finance them.

The only solution is radical constitutional reform to cement the supremacy of the parliament as the sole institution in which the country's deep internal divisions can be accommodated and managed. Amending the constitution requires two-thirds parliamentary majorities, which could only result from a coalition of the main political forces based in the center and east of the country (and now led, respectively, by Ms. Tymoshenko and Mr. Yanukovych). But after slugging out the battle for the presidency, those two leaders will transfer their struggle to the parliament—quite likely precipitating an early parliamentary election. This is not exactly the ideal environment for getting the IMF program back on track and staving off financial collapse.

Yet this analysis still does not capture the full extent of Ukraine's plight. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the country miraculously escapes its political trap with the emergence in the next few weeks of a strong leader in control of both the presidency and the parliament, and hence able to take decisive policy action. Even then, with IMF loan disbursements renewed and with some recovery in battered investor confidence, Ukraine would face massive external financing gaps. A recovery in the price of Ukraine's exports (mainly ferrous metals and bulk chemicals) would be offset by the closely correlated moves in the prices of its (energy) imports—and any temporary decoupling of those prices is unlikely to be in Ukraine's favor, given the surge in Chinese steel production.

Above all, Ukraine has $37 billion in external debt falling due in 2010. Even assuming, in this miracle scenario, that half of that could be refinanced (despite the bitter taste left by recent defaults), the financing gap would remain above $10 billion in 2010—rising to $15-$24 billion in 2012-13 as the IMF disbursements first cease and then themselves start falling due for repayment.

The only plausible way to plug these gaps is to tap the huge savings of the Russian government. Will Ukraine ask for such assistance from Russia and, if it did, how would Russia respond?

Fears for Ukraine's sovereignty mean that a Russian bailout will always be regarded by Ukraine's mainstream political class as a last resort. But a national insolvency would be seen as an even greater threat to sovereignty than being bailed out by Russia and, most important of all, would jeopardize the power and wealth of Ukraine's entire political and business establishment.

Mindful of its humiliation in Ukraine's 2004 Orange Revolution, the Russian leadership will respond cautiously. Nevertheless, Russia will now be sucked into the Ukrainian crisis—motivated by potential geopolitical gains and asset-acquisition opportunities on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a natural interest in doing what it can to prevent a financial and economic debacle in Ukraine, for the sake of regional stability and given the importance of bilateral trade and still strong economic links between the two countries.

Is this prospect a good thing or a bad thing? There will be strong views on either side, with much crowing and hand-wringing. One way or another, Russia bailing out Ukraine should be seen as a natural development—as natural as, for example, the response of the U.S. to the Mexican peso crisis in 1994.

On December 17 2013 04:44 maybenexttime wrote:

Slavery, colonization of Africa and other parts of the world, Leopold II's (king of Belgium) genocide in Congo, the Holocaust, forced sterilization in Scandinavia (was it Sweden?), pedophile political party in the Netherlands and Green Party founded by pedophiles in Germany. So sophisticated.

On December 17 2013 05:12 PaleMan wrote:


thats what i talking about

history of western civilisation(s) is a history of crimes against humanity

Russia is not saint too, but it looks much better