|
|
On March 03 2014 16:00 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyXShow nested quote +
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
Money is rarely the driving force after war. The driving force is ideology and pride. War has always been a huge financial burden.
In fact, this morning the Russian stock exchange lost 11% (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RTS.RS). The Russian rouble is trading at a new low level.
|
On March 03 2014 15:50 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 15:36 unigolyn wrote:On March 03 2014 15:15 r.Evo wrote:
I'm amazed by the warmongering in here. People are calling getting neutral observers into the area spineless and some 'muricans are like "If we had Bush we'd just roll in there and party!" That was one troll. But please, don't let that get in the way of your anti-american soapboxing. The goals here should be to get as neutral as possible eyes on the ground and to prevent further escalation. You don't just mobilize your shit and start shooting at Russian troops. No one has suggested anything of the sort. Sure they did. It looks to me like 90% of US posters here say something along the lines of "Obama shows weakness" / "he is not handling the situation firmly enough".
I'm unsure as to how that translates into "let's start world war 3".
|
On March 03 2014 16:23 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 16:00 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyX
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
That quote couldn't be more realistic to be honest. See, here's what I don't get. Even though they're still recovering from the Soviet collapse and 1998 collapse, basically Russia's back in the saddle. Russia can do whatever they want with Ukraine and all Obama can do is a truffle shuffle and more threats in response. Still, even with imperial movements, their restraint seriously surprises me. For example, I need not even say what the US would do in Putin's shoes in this scenario, but to give a hint it would most likely involve lots of booms and ratatatata. But Russia could get away with so much more, it's absurd and doesn't make sense from the standpoint of modern-era politcs that they don't do so, but it's good. The world needs less war and hegemonic imperialism.
Actually no, Russia cannot do much more, even actions it does are stretching their possibilities. Because what else could they do ? Their restraint is result of real world restrictions, not necessarily internal.
|
On March 03 2014 16:23 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:For example, I need not even say what the US would do in Putin's shoes in this scenario, but to give a hint it would most likely involve lots of booms and ratatatata.
The US would never be in Putin's shoes, because the US is not in the business of annexing its neighbors.
But Russia could get away with so much more, it's absurd and doesn't make sense from the standpoint of modern-era politcs that they don't do so, but it's good. The world needs less war and hegemonic imperialism.
Putin isn't insane, why would he do "so much more", when he can get exactly what he wants without spending blood and treasure?
Are you seriously implying that Putin's Russia is a nice counterbalance to the "hegemonic imperialism" of the US?
|
On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Show nested quote +Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source.
The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago.
|
The office of President Oleksandr V. Turchynov announced the two appointments on Sunday of two billionaires — Sergei Taruta in Donetsk and Ihor Kolomoysky in Dnipropetrovsk — and more were reportedly under consideration for positions in the eastern regions. The strategy is recognition that the oligarchs represent the country’s industrial and business elite, and hold great influence over thousands of workers in the east. Officials said the hope was that they could dampen secessionist hopes in the east and keep violent outbreaks http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine.html?hp
|
On March 03 2014 17:22 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 15:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 14:21 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 14:09 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 10:41 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
I think that's a terrible idea. Ethnic self-determination is not a basic right. The right to use your language and preserve your culture both as individuals and as groups is.
I think a lot of EU countries would be very unhappy with the idea of changing borders based on the ethnic makeup of the population.
The only way it could be acceptable if Ukraine allowed a referendum and Crimea decided to leave.
This might change if Ukraine persistently ignores the rights of the Russian minority but there's not much evidence of that as yet. I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians  ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out. How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection. And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention? Except first question, what has rest of your post have to do with my post ? Just asking you for your feel on things
As for how I know that. Because of what current government stated in regards to the Crimean situation and the fact that even more enlightened countries have issues with letting territories voluntarily go.
statements like 'we dont like Russia annexing part of our country'?
EDIT: Also are you not contradicting yourself, recently you stated there were no attacks on anyone and now that there were confrontations in Kharkov ? Also there were disturbances in Crimea prior to Russian involvement.
No I am not. There were confrontations in Kharkiv, which is our friend whose dad may or may not work for Metalist reported. But contrary to the claims of the Russian government, they did not involve any Nazis -- well, unless you accept zeo's definition that everyone involved in Maidan is a Nazi. As far as I can see, not one article has been posted about neo nazis actually executing any kind of nazi-race project -- the most provocative thing we have is a BBC interview of some Nazis patrolling Kiev and upon being interviewed by BBC responding in perfect Russian. But there were scuffles in East Ukraine, unlike Crimea -- yet Kharkiv doesnt want Russian troops, and neither does the rest of East Ukraine. But in Crimea were the only confrontation was a couple of guys reading about the Maidan getting beat up by people -- that were posted by friend zeo earlier -- there has been no reports of violence against Russians. You want to get my feel on things by asking loaded rhetorical questions ?
Since you keep referring to the government in Kiev as Nazis why not, a little rhetoric cuts both ways.
Before Russia got directly involved the Ukrainian government officials were already calling the uprising in Crimea terrorists and implicitly suggesting what they think should be done with them.
Source please?
I was referring to your absolute statement that there were no attacks (you did not limit it to nazis, but maybe context was unclear).
You are right and I apologize for stating things in an unclear fashion. My response is to the Putin line of rhetoric that Nazis are invading Crimea and exterminating Russians therefore Russia has a right to invade Ukraine.
|
On March 03 2014 17:24 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 15:49 r.Evo wrote:
3 random posts suggesting/supporting military action and 3 more calling the whole "We need neutral observers" spineless/weak when it's literally the biggest action anyone with a say in the western world has suggested so far. I even ignored the super-troll. It's still spineless and weak. Vague talk about "dialog" is exactly what's not needed right now. There's nothing to negotiate, Russia has staged a de facto invasion of a sovereign, democratic nation. They've installed a puppet governor in Crimea who promptly asked for them to invade. They're on Ukrainian soil, telling the Ukrainian army to disarm. This sort of action is unacceptable, and should result in immediate sanctions.
What sanctions do you propose? If the choice is between "We condemn your actions" and "We want OSCE monitoring" the latter is a lot more action because it is some form of action.
It's not warmongering. Calling for a harsher diplomatic tone is not remotely the same as saying we need to start bombing Russia. The fact that we're calling for "escalation" is entirely in your head. We're calling for strong sanctions against an obviously criminal act of aggression, not hedging your bets so you can keep burning Russia's fossil fuels and winning brownie points with idiot voters by closing your zero-emission nuclear plants.
...re-read the quotes. Mobilizing troops? Asking NATO and EU troops to move against Russia? That's the epitome of escalation aka warmongering. NATO doesn't exist to mobilize troops in the defense of a non-member state. The EU doesn't exist to protect a non-member state.
Talk about figuring out how to send troops with the goal of peacekeeping? Great. Anything beyond that is utterly insane.
Show nested quote +e: Bonus, someone suggesting that trying to talk instead of escalating equals Chamberlain policy pre-WW2 (while misquoting his speech) and calling Putin Hitler. Putin is certainly trying really, really hard to make history rhyme. Comparing Crimea to the Sudetenland is completely appropriate, since the casus belli is literally identical.
Do you genuinely believe that by comparing Putin to Hitler you're making an effort to de-escalate the situation? Shit like that is framing the issue in a way that says "We need to kill those guys right now before we have another 50+ million dead!" - it's plain and simply insane. It's building up fear that's not needed and pushing buttons that shouldn't be pushed. No single NATO or EU member is in any way shape or form at the risk of being attacked by Russia.
What is needed right now are actual western observers verifying wtf is going on where exactly and, if anything, small amounts of troops with a very clear anti-riot and peacekeeping focus. As it stands all that needs to happen are small escalations between Ukrainian and Russian people in other areas and Russia can move further with the exact same reasoning that is already tolerated by everyone who matters.
Any western focus that doesn't say "You're right Russia, we'll send some people to make sure no civilians kill other civilians in Ukraine, too!" (...while making sure that it isn't Russia that ends up "protecting" more areas) is bound to fail at this stage.
|
On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago.
What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday.
If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself.
|
On March 03 2014 17:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +The office of President Oleksandr V. Turchynov announced the two appointments on Sunday of two billionaires — Sergei Taruta in Donetsk and Ihor Kolomoysky in Dnipropetrovsk — and more were reportedly under consideration for positions in the eastern regions. The strategy is recognition that the oligarchs represent the country’s industrial and business elite, and hold great influence over thousands of workers in the east. Officials said the hope was that they could dampen secessionist hopes in the east and keep violent outbreaks http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine.html?hp Those sneak junta fascist Nazis in Kiev are really showing some Machiavellian levels of genius, appointing Kolomoysky, of Russian and Jewish heritage to be mayor of one of the Eastern centers of power.
You can always interpret it as them seeing writing on the wall and trying anything they can. In complex situations there are no simple counterarguments that can sway someone who does not already share your view.
Anyway I understand the pragmatic rationale, but appointing two corrupt oligarchs seem contrary to the goals of the Maidan protest. Are there really no popular people who are not obviously corrupt, that they could appoint ? Maybe my cynical interpretation above is not completely wrong.
|
Estonia's President Ilves raises Visa concerns with Russia in light of handing them out to Berkut, reversing prior moves towards Visa liberalisation with Russia.
|
On March 03 2014 17:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 17:22 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 15:57 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 14:21 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 14:09 Sub40APM wrote:On March 03 2014 13:55 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 13:31 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 12:58 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 12:47 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2014 11:35 mcc wrote:
[quote]
I am not suggesting redrawing borders based on ethnicity. I am suggesting redrawing borders where there are reasonable regions that do not want to be part of one country any longer. I would say there would be rather very few such regions in EU. There are few because the principle is that borders don't change (basically ever). It's not a reasonable project and there's usually lots of opposition from EU countries. For example the EU as a whole was very much opposed to redrawing Macedonia and Albania along ethnic lines, even though there seemed to be plenty of will from the Albanian minority in Macedonia. BTW, you are using Croatia and Slovenia as an example but that's one of the reasons why the Bosnian war turned out to be as bloody as it was. The lesson that had been learned was that it was crucial to have your nationality as a majority on as big a territory as possible, because any final settlement would be based on the demographic status quo. The moment you allow for referenda there's going to be a huge pressure to change the ethnic mix before they happen. That is true, I was actually thinking about it after I posted. I still think it is better to allow the referendum, but it is pretty complex problem and I doubt we can know beforehand what is the better solution with any high degree of certainty. If there was a referendum I would rather it happened after Ukraine has stabilized. BTW when I said Ukraine as a whole should agree I didn't mean it in the sense of taking part in a vote. An ideal process would look like something that's happening in Scotland now: obviously the UK strongly prefers Scotland staying, but they agreed to have a referendum anyway. IF there's a strong persistent will from a region to leave the country than it's probably best for the whole country to accommodate. But it should not be mandated from the outside. I certainly think there are exceptions. Indeed, this isn't so much a rule, as a superficial risk assessment on which scenario is less likely to turn bad. I understood what you meant, but rest of Ukraine will not agree with the separation voluntarily. And as I previously posted it would require sizable peacekeeping force (and I do not mean Russians ) to prevent exactly the scenario that you pointed out. How do you know that? Again on one side we have these potential nazis doing these potentially horrible crimes while on the other side we have an actual one party, one leader state actually invading another sovereign country based on the need to protect a specific race of people that so far dont seem to need protection. And if they do need protection against horrible Nazis, why is Russia only invading Crimea, literally the one place where prior to the Russian moves there was 0 disturbances? Why arent the Eastern Ukrainian leaders -- who are still sitting in their positions -- begging for Putin's intervention as well -- after all as our friend from Kharkiv said there literally were confrontations over there and yet he also seems opposed to Russian invasion. And why did the Party of Regions -- after holding an 'all eastern Ukrainian summit' after Yanukovich fled explicitly declare that they dont want Russian intervention? Except first question, what has rest of your post have to do with my post ? Just asking you for your feel on things
As for how I know that. Because of what current government stated in regards to the Crimean situation and the fact that even more enlightened countries have issues with letting territories voluntarily go.
statements like 'we dont like Russia annexing part of our country'?
EDIT: Also are you not contradicting yourself, recently you stated there were no attacks on anyone and now that there were confrontations in Kharkov ? Also there were disturbances in Crimea prior to Russian involvement.
No I am not. There were confrontations in Kharkiv, which is our friend whose dad may or may not work for Metalist reported. But contrary to the claims of the Russian government, they did not involve any Nazis -- well, unless you accept zeo's definition that everyone involved in Maidan is a Nazi. As far as I can see, not one article has been posted about neo nazis actually executing any kind of nazi-race project -- the most provocative thing we have is a BBC interview of some Nazis patrolling Kiev and upon being interviewed by BBC responding in perfect Russian. But there were scuffles in East Ukraine, unlike Crimea -- yet Kharkiv doesnt want Russian troops, and neither does the rest of East Ukraine. But in Crimea were the only confrontation was a couple of guys reading about the Maidan getting beat up by people -- that were posted by friend zeo earlier -- there has been no reports of violence against Russians. You want to get my feel on things by asking loaded rhetorical questions ? Since you keep referring to the government in Kiev as Nazis why not, a little rhetoric cuts both ways. Show nested quote +
Before Russia got directly involved the Ukrainian government officials were already calling the uprising in Crimea terrorists and implicitly suggesting what they think should be done with them.
Source please? Show nested quote +
I was referring to your absolute statement that there were no attacks (you did not limit it to nazis, but maybe context was unclear).
You are right and I apologize for stating things in an unclear fashion. My response is to the Putin line of rhetoric that Nazis are invading Crimea and exterminating Russians therefore Russia has a right to invade Ukraine.
I am not calling them nazis, I call part of that government nazis, which they are.
Will try to found those quotes again. I don't think even Putin was claiming that there were already attacks on any large scale, I think they officially phrased it as preemptive action , or did I miss something ?
|
On March 03 2014 17:27 AA.spoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 16:00 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyX
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
Money is rarely the driving force after war. The driving force is ideology and pride. War has always been a huge financial burden. In fact, this morning the Russian stock exchange lost 11% (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RTS.RS). The Russian rouble is trading at a new low level.
There are always people who stand to profit from wars. Sometimes immensly, for example corporation called haliburton in iraq had people making lots of money. Now if these people have any power or infulence over starting a profitable war...
|
On March 03 2014 17:34 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 16:23 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:For example, I need not even say what the US would do in Putin's shoes in this scenario, but to give a hint it would most likely involve lots of booms and ratatatata. The US would never be in Putin's shoes, because the US is not in the business of annexing its neighbors. Show nested quote +But Russia could get away with so much more, it's absurd and doesn't make sense from the standpoint of modern-era politcs that they don't do so, but it's good. The world needs less war and hegemonic imperialism. Putin isn't insane, why would he do "so much more", when he can get exactly what he wants without spending blood and treasure? Are you seriously implying that Putin's Russia is a nice counterbalance to the "hegemonic imperialism" of the US?
Neighbor or a country on the other side of the world makes no difference, so I don't get what point you're trying to make. What matters is the location of interest. With a location of interest, what would the US (or at least the Bush administration) do in this situation? Also, Russia hasn't annexed anything in Ukraine (yet), so let's not jump to conclusions.
I see you're from Estonia so anything to do with USSR and Russia is a very touchy subject for you. Btw, random question, is it Estonia or Latvia that celebrates the SS and other Nazi German military divisions from WW2?
I hate to be a smartass, but the US did annex much of its southern neighbor. In addition, it killed of most of the native peoples of its current territory. In terms of organized states, we have ever had only 2 neighbors, not 9001 like Russia. We had a war with British Canada and conquered half of Mexico. Today, Canada is tightly under the US's influence and Mexico is a clusterfuck. We have absolutely no interest at all in annexing anymore of our neighbors lol.
Are you seriously implying that Putin's Russia is a nice counterbalance to the "hegemonic imperialism" of the US?
Not specifically Russia and not specifically a balance to the US, but more precisely a balance overall. I don't care if it was Russia or a future EU or whoever balancing with the US. There are many examples throughout history, but having one place with unbridled power in a given domain is usually not good. The US was uncontested in much of the 90s due to the Soviet collapse and basically took former Soviet spheres of influence and made it pretty uncontested to carry out large-scale military options in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and even a scenario as grossly unjustified as Iraq for a couple decades.
Today, the US cannot even do half the things it was able to do in the 1990s/early 2000s due to a rising China and resurgent Russia. You may not agree with this given your nationality (I can only imagine Russia is to you as Nazism is to Russians), but balance isn't a bad thing, unless you want the US to eat up everything include your own tiny homeland on the Baltic hehe. It would be preferable to to China or even Russia, but any sort of hegemonic influence infringes on a nation's sovereignty to make decisions for itself any way you spin it.
For example, the US spent 12 years with complete trade embargo on Iraq and 8 years of war only to get a despotic regime that likes Iran more than us and a couple oil development deals and arms contracts. We did all that we possibly could in the case of Iraq and it was still pretty meh. Actually, Iran, who once feared Iraq and its "evil" secular society and ideals, won the most from the Iraq War and is in a relatively advantageous position in the Mideast. :/ Now, the Arab countries and Israel are wary and fearful of them in the manner of the Semitic-Persian struggle that has been going on for millenia.
But the fact of the matter is, nowadays, the US completely lacks the power and influence it had in the past that it would need to enact complete trade/finance embargoes on Iran. We have a few sanctions slapped on them, but they're still growing well economically. If we still had that ability, we'd do it in a heartbeat given the concerns over Iran's nuclear programs and ACTUAL future nuclear weapons.
As an American, a pattern of American global dominance wouldn't be unappealing if I didn't care about other nations' sovereignty and avoiding the very grave horrors of war. I realize I'm the opposite of the stereotype of my countrymen. However, in light of current events, while I am much against Russian incursion in Ukraine, the current situation is far more preferable to extremely bloody options a la Bush's way of doing things. In addition, If the scaling down that seems to have been suggested by the Kremlin takes effect, it will be a huge relief, which means NO annexation.
On March 03 2014 17:29 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 16:23 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 03 2014 16:00 Sub40APM wrote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/russia-vladimir-putin-the-west-104134.html?hp=t1#.UxQjH8G3NyX
Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.
Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.
Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.
Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.
All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.
That quote couldn't be more realistic to be honest. See, here's what I don't get. Even though they're still recovering from the Soviet collapse and 1998 collapse, basically Russia's back in the saddle. Russia can do whatever they want with Ukraine and all Obama can do is a truffle shuffle and more threats in response. Still, even with imperial movements, their restraint seriously surprises me. For example, I need not even say what the US would do in Putin's shoes in this scenario, but to give a hint it would most likely involve lots of booms and ratatatata. But Russia could get away with so much more, it's absurd and doesn't make sense from the standpoint of modern-era politcs that they don't do so, but it's good. The world needs less war and hegemonic imperialism. Actually no, Russia cannot do much more, even actions it does are stretching their possibilities. Because what else could they do ? Their restraint is result of real world restrictions, not necessarily internal.
Specifically in terms of the Ukrainian scenario, they are getting everything they want with no effort. So yes, I agree they couldn't do much more.
|
On March 03 2014 17:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 17:43 Sub40APM wrote:The office of President Oleksandr V. Turchynov announced the two appointments on Sunday of two billionaires — Sergei Taruta in Donetsk and Ihor Kolomoysky in Dnipropetrovsk — and more were reportedly under consideration for positions in the eastern regions. The strategy is recognition that the oligarchs represent the country’s industrial and business elite, and hold great influence over thousands of workers in the east. Officials said the hope was that they could dampen secessionist hopes in the east and keep violent outbreaks http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine.html?hpThose sneak junta fascist Nazis in Kiev are really showing some Machiavellian levels of genius, appointing Kolomoysky, of Russian and Jewish heritage to be mayor of one of the Eastern centers of power. You can always interpret it as them seeing writing on the wall and trying anything they can. In complex situations there are no simple counterarguments that can sway someone who does not already share your view. Anyway I understand the pragmatic rationale, but appointing two corrupt oligarchs seem contrary to the goals of the Maidan protest. Are there really no popular people who are not obviously corrupt, that they could appoint ? Maybe my cynical interpretation above is not completely wrong.
Yes, if you start with the belief that Ukraine is run by Nazi Fascists of course this is just the desperate maneuvers of extremists. And everyone knows that if there is one thing that Nazi extremists are known for, its pragmatism.
many of the Russian tabloids are packed with patriotic fervour and pro-Kremlin columns. One of the country's most popular papers, Komsomolskaya Pravda, claimed that Vladimir Putin was "one step away from becoming the leader of the world, the chief figure embodying independence from American hegemony". One Russia, One Putin, One People!
|
On March 03 2014 17:54 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago. What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday. If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself.
Of course I mean the nonsense about Cold War legacy being threatened. I read it again and all the really stupid stuff was Rubio's. Graham with his noose was also funny.
|
On March 03 2014 18:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +many of the Russian tabloids are packed with patriotic fervour and pro-Kremlin columns. One of the country's most popular papers, Komsomolskaya Pravda, claimed that Vladimir Putin was "one step away from becoming the leader of the world, the chief figure embodying independence from American hegemony". One Russia, One Putin, One People!
I'm sure American newspapers were filled with anti-American sentiment before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Grasping at straws much?
|
On March 03 2014 18:14 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 17:54 Ghanburighan wrote:On March 03 2014 17:37 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 16:24 Ghanburighan wrote:This might explain why Merkel agreed to kick Putin out of G8 (seemingly going against Steinmeier). Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. Source. The quotes from the Republicans are as funny as quotes of Russian officials few days ago. What do you mean? 'Cancel Sochi' refers to the G8 meeting planned in Sochi that has already been cancelled. 'Revisit the missile shield' probably refers to the request by Poland for additional securities in light of Russian aggression. "Kick out of G8' was also done yesterday. If you mean Rubio's : 'The very credibility of the post-Cold War world and borders is at stake here' you need to explain yourself. Of course I mean the nonsense about Cold War legacy being threatened. I read it again and all the really stupid stuff was Rubio's. Graham with his noose was also funny.
I asked you to explain why that is silly. I haven't seen Rubio's speech, so I don't know the context, but I would assume this refers to the pre 2014 state where Russia was a partner to NATO and a member of G8 such that conflicts of interests were solved at high level diplomatic meetings. Also, regarding borders, the main issue is the territorial integrity of Ukraine (UN charter, 97 RU-UKR agreement, 94 Budapest memorandum).
|
On March 03 2014 18:04 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2014 17:56 mcc wrote:On March 03 2014 17:43 Sub40APM wrote:The office of President Oleksandr V. Turchynov announced the two appointments on Sunday of two billionaires — Sergei Taruta in Donetsk and Ihor Kolomoysky in Dnipropetrovsk — and more were reportedly under consideration for positions in the eastern regions. The strategy is recognition that the oligarchs represent the country’s industrial and business elite, and hold great influence over thousands of workers in the east. Officials said the hope was that they could dampen secessionist hopes in the east and keep violent outbreaks http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/ukraine.html?hpThose sneak junta fascist Nazis in Kiev are really showing some Machiavellian levels of genius, appointing Kolomoysky, of Russian and Jewish heritage to be mayor of one of the Eastern centers of power. You can always interpret it as them seeing writing on the wall and trying anything they can. In complex situations there are no simple counterarguments that can sway someone who does not already share your view. Anyway I understand the pragmatic rationale, but appointing two corrupt oligarchs seem contrary to the goals of the Maidan protest. Are there really no popular people who are not obviously corrupt, that they could appoint ? Maybe my cynical interpretation above is not completely wrong. Yes, if you start with the belief that Ukraine is run by Nazi Fascists of course this is just the desperate maneuvers of extremists. And everyone knows that if there is one thing that Nazi extremists are known for, its pragmatism. Show nested quote +many of the Russian tabloids are packed with patriotic fervour and pro-Kremlin columns. One of the country's most popular papers, Komsomolskaya Pravda, claimed that Vladimir Putin was "one step away from becoming the leader of the world, the chief figure embodying independence from American hegemony". One Russia, One Putin, One People!
I think you lack the ability to spot sarcasm or I am. So to clarify, second part of my post was not sarcastic and was meant as serious question. Can the Ukrainian government actually really not pick someone better than two corrupt oligarchs ?
|
Russian assets tumbled and the central bank hiked interest rates on Monday as markets took fright at the escalating tensions with neighboring Ukraine. Investors were ditching all Russian assets alike - the rouble, stocks and bonds. The Ukrainian hryvnia after the curbs imposed on deposit withdrawals last week, Ukrainian eurobonds fell sharply. Russia's central bank unexpectedly raised its key lending rate - the one-week repurchasing agreement - to 7 percent from 5.5 percent, the central bank. It did not mention Ukraine in its statement, but said the decision to raise rates was aimed at preventing "risks to inflation and financial stability associated with the recently increased level of volatility in the financial markets". The rouble was down 2 percent to 36.41 against the dollar and it was also down 1.2 percent to 50.10 against the euro, trading at all-time lows. The rouble-denominated MICEX index of Russian shares tumbled 9.1 percent to 1,314.8 points and the dollar-denominated RTS .IRTS collapsed 10.3 percent to 1,137.1 points. Market players, fearing broader consequences, were selling stocks, including major blue chips. Gazprom (GAZP.MM) losing more than 10 percent. Shares in state banks Sberbank (SBER.MM) were down 8.1 percent and VTB (VTBR.MM) fell 11 percent. Source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
