| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
On March 07 2014 20:15 Cheerio wrote: as a rule of thumb, whenever you see someone in Crimea dressed like this + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://bbb-news.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/RSSPoster_PRO/cache/a450b_article-2571309-1BF82BF800000578-950_634x488.jpg) it's a Russian ![[image loading]](http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2014/03/01/20/39/416-DH22R.St.138.jpeg) PKP machine gun is only used in Russia, so either they are Russians or they are arming Crimeans | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:07 zezamer wrote: PKP machine gun is only used in Russia, so either they are Russians or they are arming Crimeans Yea, u can easily find PKP machine gun in any typical "hunter shop" in Crimea to buy aswell as all his uniform. That's what Crimea is! | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
Doesn't seem to me like a normal occurrence, if they were "invading" the country... | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:08 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Yea, u can easlity find PKP machine gun in any typical "hunter shop" in Crimea to buy aswell as all his uniform. That's what Crimea is! So in the picture posted by Cheerio, every member of the squad has military radio's. Can you also buy them from some shop at Crimea ? They are expensive. | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:08 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Yea, u can easlity find PKP machine gun in any typical "hunter shop" in Crimea to buy aswell as all his uniform. That's what Crimea is! So you buy automatic weapons for hunting in Crimea? That makes it sound just like America ! | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:23 zezamer wrote: So in the picture posted by Cheerio, every member of the squad has military radio's. Can you also buy them from some shop at Crimea ? They are expensive. This guy could be a member of radioelectronic enthusiastic circle, or maybe he's a genius and made it using guides. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:23 zezamer wrote: So in the picture posted by Cheerio, every member of the squad has military radio's. Can you also buy them from some shop at Crimea ? They are expensive. that was sarcasm | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:25 Ramong wrote: So you buy automatic weapons for hunting in Crimea? That makes it sound just like America ! U never know whom u can find in Crimea's praerie, it coult be Yeti, Reptiloids or ever Dart Sidius, so u basicly got to be prepared for evertything while hunting! | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
I infer from the word (verb) "to invade" that it implies some kind of action, which has to do with: a) the movement of someone or something from one place to another, and b) that this movement is accompanied with some form of hostility, aggression, and conquest I imagine that in the case of Russia, this would mean that they (the Russian army) would be trespassing the borders between Russia and Ukraine, and that this trespassing would be accompanies with hostile or aggressive behavior. Is this the case? Or rather has this been the case? Does Russia meet these conditions? If so then I can, indeed use the word "invade" properly. So for those that are unsure if these what I have inferred about the word "to invade" is correct see spoilers below, there i checked with merriam webster and the online dictionary reference to see if my inference were accurate or not. + Show Spoiler + 1: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force 2: to enter (a place) in large numbers 3: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted According to the online dictionary.reference.com "invade" is used in 5 ways 1.to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2.to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3.to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4.to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5.to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. So according to the 8 definitions above, I confirm that there are at least 2 condition before one can factually say that "Russia invaded Ukraine". These are: 1) Russia has to have acted in the form of "to enter" or to "intrude"; 2) this action has to be accompanied with a certain negative quality, which one can denote as "hostile" or "aggressive", "conquest". So to properly use this word I ask whether, someone can proof that Russia indeed meets these conditions? So lets can we find the answer the following questions: Did Russia's army go from one physical place to another, and did it trespassed border with no legality? (yes or no) Were these actions accompanies with some form of "Hostility", "aggressiveness"? (yes or no?) Did the Russian army inflict illegitimate harm to innocent bystanders or participants? (yes or no?) Are there people who were killed by the hands of Russian troops, for no legitimate reason? (yes or no?) Are there reports of Russia killing Ukraine or harming them or incarcerating them without any legitimate grounds? (yes or no?) According to the sources I found, I'm led to conclude that the situation is: uncertain, unsure, there is ambiguity or to put it more strongly it seems that the situation is equivocal. Why? Because Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine where it states that Russia is allowed to have up to 26.000 troops in Crimea. Russia currently has about 16.000 Troops stationed. On the other hand there are some report that claim that Russian " troops are swarming all over the peninsula". (see spoilers for more details) + Show Spoiler + "Russian troop movements on the Crimean Peninsula are permitted under a 1997 Partition Treaty signed between Russia and Ukraine, as long as there are not more than 25,000 Russian troops." "At present, the Russians have about 16,000 troops on the peninsula, which means a further increase of troops would be permitted." "After Ukraine became independent in 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, Russian President Boris Yeltsin entered into an agreement with Ukraine to base Russia’s Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol under a lease until 2017. That lease recently was extended to 2042, although the Kiev interim government is attempting to abrogate that agreement." Source: http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/ "Some sources have pointed out that the Russian military units are restricted to their bases, although there are persistent reports that Russian troops are swarming all over the peninsula." Meantime, there is concern on Capitol Hill that Russian troop movements were not anticipated by the U.S. intelligence community, resulting in impending oversight hearings to find out why. According to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, there was debate within the intelligence community about whether Russian troops were on the move in Crimea, prompting public allegations that the Obama administration was caught by surprise." Source:http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/ Other sources corroborating the that Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine, at the same time, they highlight that movements of Russian troops were detected. + Show Spoiler + "Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports that they are from Russia." Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508 On a different note, i would like to present, some background information about the current members of the government. i don't know if this has already been reported: + Show Spoiler + "The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government." "Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector" Source: Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508 "The most prominent of the ultra-nationalist groups is the Pravy-Sektor, or Right Sector, whose leader now has called on Chechen Islamic militant chief Dokku Umarov to launch attacks in Russia. Right Sector also opposes Russian influence in Ukraine. Its leader, Dmitry Yarosh, had threatened to send members to the Crimea to defend against Russian military intervention. While Right Sector was involved in demonstrations that toppled Yanukovych, Yarosh, has let it be known that his group will resume violent demonstrations if the new interim government doesn’t deliver on the changes it promised. Yarosh, however, was selected as a member of the National Security and Defense Council, which is part of the new interim government. Right Sector and other ultra-national groups, such as Euromaidan, Patriot of Ukraine and White Hammer, are comprised mainly of males in their 20s and 30s who wear dark clothing and masks and are very aggressive during demonstrations. The groups were directly involved in the beginning of demonstrations in January and occupied the Ukrainian presidential building and other government buildings. One report said demonstrators hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols on toppled memorials and destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died fighting German occupation during World War II. The report said “sieg heil” salutes and the Nazi Wolfangel symbol was being displayed prominently in demonstrations in Maidan Square in Kiev, and neo-Nazi groups had established “autonomous zones” around the city. Right Sector in particular is said to have wide support from the people throughout Ukraine." My own take on this: + Show Spoiler + If we examine the events that preceded WW2, we can see striking similar patterns, for example with the fascist take over of Italy and Germany seem awful similar to that of what is happening now in Kiev. Furthermore, it has come to light that snipers were, see (Zerohedge, and RT ) used to justify the government take over, if anybody is familiar with military and secret ops history, then one can draw parallels between the tactics applied in Ukraine and the tactics applied in Venezuela, see John Pilger. In the case of Venezuela the perpetrators (the snipers and those that authorized the snipers) were from a faction (NEOCONS i.e., Wolfowitz doctrine) of the United States government that sought to "dethrone" Chavez. For me then, if this sniper story is true, than one must necessary re-frame whether Russia is the aggressor or responding to an aggression, and that means that one should speak of a "coup d'etat" or instead of a "revolution", but i guess the name it will be given will be decided by those that win, i can already predict that the losers will be the people of Ukraine, the people around it and to a certain extend the people in Europe, as Europe is heavily depended on the gas coming from Russia, through Ukraine. Economic Background to the Conflict Other interesting facts about current government are their connections with the IMF. This, undoubtedly means that the Ukraine people, will have to pay for the conditions set forth by IMF, which anyone who has studied this institution, in the context of international economics and policy making, will know that the IMF follows a strict neoliberal agenda (i.e., privatization, deregulation, structural reforms, etc) as a sociological remark, i would like to highlight close connection between members of the IMF and members of DAVOS . The people in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland should undoubtedly be able to tell us how "wonderful" IMF conditions are. And people from South America, Africa, and Asia might remember the IMF as the "Washington Consensus". Now that I think about it its rather funny, if things weren't so sad that it is happening again, "The chickens came back to roost" meaning that after 30 years or more of legal (and illegal) plundering outside of Europe it is happening now inside of Europe. UPDATE 2-EU offers Ukraine $15 bln, but help hinges on IMF deal + Show Spoiler + European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the assistance, to be discussed by European Union leaders at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, would require widespread reforms by the new Ukrainian government and the signing of a deal between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund. "The package combined could bring an overall support of at least 11 billion euros over the next couple of years, from the EU budget and EU-based international financial institutions," said Barroso. "It is a package designed to assist a committed, inclusive and reforms-oriented Ukrainian government." While the EU's $15 billion offer is likely to be warmly received in Kiev, it is still contingent on the government striking a deal with the IMF on a longer-term aid package. After years of bad relations between Ukraine and the IMF, the indications are that an agreement can be struck, although it will still require some harsh economic medicine for Ukraine. Sources http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/eu-ukraine-support-idUSL6N0M227R20140305 Ukrainian people will bear brunt of IMF deal with tough austerity + Show Spoiler + It’s very simple. The IMF will refuse to provide the money unless the Ukrainian government, for want of a better term, signs up to these measures. So therefore it’s impossible, unless you comply. The IMF will essentially not give you $15 billion up front. It will give you a few hundred million next month, and keep on going over the course of the loan time. There will be a drip-feed of this money. If you don’t basically pass your homework, then ultimately their invigilators are going to turn around and say “Aha, no more money for you,” and that’s going to be the problem. There is a critical political crisis in Ukraine and nobody wants to talk maturely about the economy, and that is very worrying. If you end up in a situation with an EU trade zone agreement, then there’s going to be a huge catastrophic problem for the east of the country because the industrial heartlands there are suddenly going to find themselves unable to export their goods to Russia and further east where they prove popular at the moment. So thus, there has essentially been an investor strike. People are terrified about putting their money forward in order to manage to build new businesses, create jobs, and so on. And that’s a problem because foreign direct investors, they’re giving Ukraine a wide berth, because who wants to go into a country that’s essentially bankrupt and politically chaotic. This looks more like a European version of Rwanda from an investor's standpoint, say 10 or 15 years ago. And that’s an absolutely ghastly situation to have. Source: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-people-imf-austerity-864/ more background info concerning the economic dimension of this conflict http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/obama-renews-request-for-imf-resources-amid-ukraine-loan-talks.html http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/04-03-2014/127019-russian_ruble_ukraine-0/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ukraine-seeks-15-billion-rescue-from-imf-2014-03-03 Disclaimer:+ Show Spoiler + I assume that the mainstream media on both sides are propagandistic in nature, so I rely on my own logic to determine which is false or true, I base this primary on international law, and historical actions, I see these events not in isolation but as a continuation of governmental - economical and business - policy. In other words I look at this from a geopolitical point of view, and in fact I do care what is morally just or not, since that in my opinion depends for a large part on psychological factors. So if anyone attacks me because they dislike the sources I use, I will not respond, on the other hand if someone can point out to the fallacies or weakness of the content of these sources, then I will respond, and adjust my views according to the facts at hand. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:07 zezamer wrote: PKP machine gun is only used in Russia, so either they are Russians or they are arming Crimeans I am pretty sure Russia is doing both. But unless the militia is very well trained (for a militia), the way those guys act tells me they are Russians. In some video posted here, when the unarmed Ukrainian unit was trying to retake a base, the difference between some of the guys guarding the base was just screaming that one is not like the other  Two guys shooting AKs and screaming and in general behaving like one would expect militiamen to behave and in contrast third guy, quiet and composed with some semblance of military discipline (and different apparel). | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On March 07 2014 18:30 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Was it even a matter of discussion that the soldiers in Crimea are Russian? What proof is needed? From the outset, Russia moved soldiers into Crimea. Anyways, thanks for the informative link. Also, France has historically had good relations with Russia, post-Napoleon era. Even DeGaulle was uncharacteristically independent of US influence for European leaders (to a degree that even the CIA was against him) and solidified France's resolve as a (mostly) 'fair' country on such issues. Thus it doesn't surprise me that France has no issue continuing their arms deal with Russia. Well, the topic just came up in a number of consequent posts. So from this day forth you may refer to me as Ghanburidamus. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
12:27: Ukrainian border guards say Russia now has 30,000 soldiers inside Crimea. Serhiy Stakhov, an aide to the head of the border guards service, tells Reuters the figure is an estimate and includes both troops who arrived since last week and Russia's Black Sea Fleet, permanently based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Source That would put them above the number they are legally allowed to have due to treaty. Not that they're supposed to be running around the country-side laying siege to Ukrainian military bases or holding border crossing under their control in the first place... | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On March 07 2014 21:37 Saji wrote: + Show Spoiler + When I look at the news, I see that the predominant image that is being projected by western mainstream media unto me (us) is that Russia is the aggressor, in the form that Russia has invaded Crimea (Ukraine). But is this factual? Can this claim be supported by facts? So that leads me to ask myself, whether:Russia invade Crimea? Or is the word "invade" used as a rhetorical devise by the media and by government & politicians for their own agenda? I infer from the word (verb) "to invade" that it implies some kind of action, which has to do with: a) the movement of someone or something from one place to another, and b) that this movement is accompanied with some form of hostility, aggression, and conquest I imagine that in the case of Russia, this would mean that they (the Russian army) would be trespassing the borders between Russia and Ukraine, and that this trespassing would be accompanies with hostile or aggressive behavior. Is this the case? Or rather has this been the case? Does Russia meet these conditions? If so then I can, indeed use the word "invade" properly. So for those that are unsure if these what I have inferred about the word "to invade" is correct see spoilers below, there i checked with merriam webster and the online dictionary reference to see if my inference were accurate or not. + Show Spoiler + 1: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force 2: to enter (a place) in large numbers 3: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted According to the online dictionary.reference.com "invade" is used in 5 ways 1.to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939. 2.to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. 3.to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home. 4.to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream. 5.to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family. So according to the 8 definitions above, I confirm that there are at least 2 condition before one can factually say that "Russia invaded Ukraine". These are: 1) Russia has to have acted in the form of "to enter" or to "intrude"; 2) this action has to be accompanied with a certain negative quality, which one can denote as "hostile" or "aggressive", "conquest". So to properly use this word I ask whether, someone can proof that Russia indeed meets these conditions? So lets can we find the answer the following questions: Did Russia's army go from one physical place to another, and did it trespassed border with no legality? (yes or no) Were these actions accompanies with some form of "Hostility", "aggressiveness"? (yes or no?) Did the Russian army inflict illegitimate harm to innocent bystanders or participants? (yes or no?) Are there people who were killed by the hands of Russian troops, for no legitimate reason? (yes or no?) Are there reports of Russia killing Ukraine or harming them or incarcerating them without any legitimate grounds? (yes or no?) According to the sources I found, I'm led to conclude that the situation is: uncertain, unsure, there is ambiguity or to put it more strongly it seems that the situation is equivocal. Why? Because Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine where it states that Russia is allowed to have up to 26.000 troops in Crimea. Russia currently has about 16.000 Troops stationed. On the other hand there are some report that claim that Russian " troops are swarming all over the peninsula". (see spoilers for more details) + Show Spoiler + "Russian troop movements on the Crimean Peninsula are permitted under a 1997 Partition Treaty signed between Russia and Ukraine, as long as there are not more than 25,000 Russian troops." "At present, the Russians have about 16,000 troops on the peninsula, which means a further increase of troops would be permitted." "After Ukraine became independent in 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, Russian President Boris Yeltsin entered into an agreement with Ukraine to base Russia’s Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol under a lease until 2017. That lease recently was extended to 2042, although the Kiev interim government is attempting to abrogate that agreement." Source: http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/ "Some sources have pointed out that the Russian military units are restricted to their bases, although there are persistent reports that Russian troops are swarming all over the peninsula." Meantime, there is concern on Capitol Hill that Russian troop movements were not anticipated by the U.S. intelligence community, resulting in impending oversight hearings to find out why. According to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, there was debate within the intelligence community about whether Russian troops were on the move in Crimea, prompting public allegations that the Obama administration was caught by surprise." Source:http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/ Other sources corroborating the that Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine, at the same time, they highlight that movements of Russian troops were detected. + Show Spoiler + "Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports that they are from Russia." Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508 On a different note, i would like to present, some background information about the current members of the government. i don't know if this has already been reported: + Show Spoiler + "The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government." "Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector" Source: Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508 "The most prominent of the ultra-nationalist groups is the Pravy-Sektor, or Right Sector, whose leader now has called on Chechen Islamic militant chief Dokku Umarov to launch attacks in Russia. Right Sector also opposes Russian influence in Ukraine. Its leader, Dmitry Yarosh, had threatened to send members to the Crimea to defend against Russian military intervention. While Right Sector was involved in demonstrations that toppled Yanukovych, Yarosh, has let it be known that his group will resume violent demonstrations if the new interim government doesn’t deliver on the changes it promised. Yarosh, however, was selected as a member of the National Security and Defense Council, which is part of the new interim government. Right Sector and other ultra-national groups, such as Euromaidan, Patriot of Ukraine and White Hammer, are comprised mainly of males in their 20s and 30s who wear dark clothing and masks and are very aggressive during demonstrations. The groups were directly involved in the beginning of demonstrations in January and occupied the Ukrainian presidential building and other government buildings. One report said demonstrators hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols on toppled memorials and destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died fighting German occupation during World War II. The report said “sieg heil” salutes and the Nazi Wolfangel symbol was being displayed prominently in demonstrations in Maidan Square in Kiev, and neo-Nazi groups had established “autonomous zones” around the city. Right Sector in particular is said to have wide support from the people throughout Ukraine." My own take on this: + Show Spoiler + If we examine the events that preceded WW2, we can see striking similar patterns, for example with the fascist take over of Italy and Germany seem awful similar to that of what is happening now in Kiev. Furthermore, it has come to light that snipers were, see (Zerohedge, and RT ) used to justify the government take over, if anybody is familiar with military and secret ops history, then one can draw parallels between the tactics applied in Ukraine and the tactics applied in Venezuela, see John Pilger. In the case of Venezuela the perpetrators (the snipers and those that authorized the snipers) were from a faction (NEOCONS i.e., Wolfowitz doctrine) of the United States government that sought to "dethrone" Chavez. For me then, if this sniper story is true, than one must necessary re-frame whether Russia is the aggressor or responding to an aggression, and that means that one should speak of a "coup d'etat" or instead of a "revolution", but i guess the name it will be given will be decided by those that win, i can already predict that the losers will be the people of Ukraine, the people around it and to a certain extend the people in Europe, as Europe is heavily depended on the gas coming from Russia, through Ukraine. Economic Background to the Conflict Other interesting facts about current government are their connections with the IMF. This, undoubtedly means that the Ukraine people, will have to pay for the conditions set forth by IMF, which anyone who has studied this institution, in the context of international economics and policy making, will know that the IMF follows a strict neoliberal agenda (i.e., privatization, deregulation, structural reforms, etc) as a sociological remark, i would like to highlight close connection between members of the IMF and members of DAVOS . The people in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland should undoubtedly be able to tell us how "wonderful" IMF conditions are. And people from South America, Africa, and Asia might remember the IMF as the "Washington Consensus". Now that I think about it its rather funny, if things weren't so sad that it is happening again, "The chickens came back to roost" meaning that after 30 years or more of legal (and illegal) plundering outside of Europe it is happening now inside of Europe. UPDATE 2-EU offers Ukraine $15 bln, but help hinges on IMF deal + Show Spoiler + European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the assistance, to be discussed by European Union leaders at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, would require widespread reforms by the new Ukrainian government and the signing of a deal between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund. "The package combined could bring an overall support of at least 11 billion euros over the next couple of years, from the EU budget and EU-based international financial institutions," said Barroso. "It is a package designed to assist a committed, inclusive and reforms-oriented Ukrainian government." While the EU's $15 billion offer is likely to be warmly received in Kiev, it is still contingent on the government striking a deal with the IMF on a longer-term aid package. After years of bad relations between Ukraine and the IMF, the indications are that an agreement can be struck, although it will still require some harsh economic medicine for Ukraine. Sources http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/eu-ukraine-support-idUSL6N0M227R20140305 Ukrainian people will bear brunt of IMF deal with tough austerity + Show Spoiler + It’s very simple. The IMF will refuse to provide the money unless the Ukrainian government, for want of a better term, signs up to these measures. So therefore it’s impossible, unless you comply. The IMF will essentially not give you $15 billion up front. It will give you a few hundred million next month, and keep on going over the course of the loan time. There will be a drip-feed of this money. If you don’t basically pass your homework, then ultimately their invigilators are going to turn around and say “Aha, no more money for you,” and that’s going to be the problem. There is a critical political crisis in Ukraine and nobody wants to talk maturely about the economy, and that is very worrying. If you end up in a situation with an EU trade zone agreement, then there’s going to be a huge catastrophic problem for the east of the country because the industrial heartlands there are suddenly going to find themselves unable to export their goods to Russia and further east where they prove popular at the moment. So thus, there has essentially been an investor strike. People are terrified about putting their money forward in order to manage to build new businesses, create jobs, and so on. And that’s a problem because foreign direct investors, they’re giving Ukraine a wide berth, because who wants to go into a country that’s essentially bankrupt and politically chaotic. This looks more like a European version of Rwanda from an investor's standpoint, say 10 or 15 years ago. And that’s an absolutely ghastly situation to have. Source: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-people-imf-austerity-864/ more background info concerning the economic dimension of this conflict http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/obama-renews-request-for-imf-resources-amid-ukraine-loan-talks.html http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/04-03-2014/127019-russian_ruble_ukraine-0/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ukraine-seeks-15-billion-rescue-from-imf-2014-03-03 Disclaimer:+ Show Spoiler + I assume that the mainstream media on both sides are propagandistic in nature, so I rely on my own logic to determine which is false or true, I base this primary on international law, and historical actions, I see these events not in isolation but as a continuation of governmental - economical and business - policy. In other words I look at this from a geopolitical point of view, and in fact I do care what is morally just or not, since that in my opinion depends for a large part on psychological factors. So if anyone attacks me because they dislike the sources I use, I will not respond, on the other hand if someone can point out to the fallacies or weakness of the content of these sources, then I will respond, and adjust my views according to the facts at hand. Great post Saji, it is clear that you looked at all the facts and came to your own conclusion (or inconclusion). Sadly thinking rationally with one's own head is becoming a very rare occurrence here. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 07 2014 22:55 zeo wrote: Great post Saji, it is clear that you looked at all the facts and came to your own conclusion (or inconclusion). Sadly thinking rationally with one's own head is becoming a very rare occurrence here. Rich, coming from the biggest putin-song-singer in the thread. About Sajis post: you missed a part there. Because Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine where it states that Russia is allowed to have up to 26.000 troops in Crimea. Yep. As do for example americans in airforce bases in germany. But what do you think will happen if those american soldiers suddenly run rampant across west germany? Armed soldiers, blocking our barracks? That is an act of aggression, and the only reason why there were no dead people is because ukrainian soldiers were "forced" no hide away their weapons. There was no bloodshed, yes, but NOT because of the russians, quite the opposite. In fact, a "foreign army blocking your military installations" is quite high on the "act of war list", i'd say. Again. The only reason there is no war, is because ukrainian (again, NOT russian) soldiers refused to do fight back (good decision, before someone's trying to picture me wrong there). | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On March 07 2014 22:24 Saryph wrote: Source That would put them above the number they are legally allowed to have due to treaty. Not that they're supposed to be running around the country-side laying siege to Ukrainian military bases or holding border crossing under their control in the first place... What are you talking about? Yesterday the parliament in Crimea decided to annex the region to Russia. The referendum is purely symbolic and doesn't change the decission. Since Crimea is now a part of Russia, they can plant as many soldiers there as they want. They have already affirmed that ukrainian soldiers are in violation of russian territorial integrity and therefore has to stand down and leave the occupation of Russia or there will be sanctions levied against them! | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On March 07 2014 23:13 radiatoren wrote: What are you talking? Yesterday the parliament in Crimea decided to annex the region to Russia. The referendum is purely symbolic and doesn't change the decission. Since Crimea is now a part of Russia, they can plant as many soldiers there as they want. They have already affirmed that ukrainian soldiers are in violation of russian territorial integrity and therefore has to stand down and leave the occupation of Russia or there will be sanctions levied against them! I find sarcasm amusing, but there are so many people with idiotic views in this thread that sometimes I get confused whether I am reading sarcasm or stupidity. (I know you're being sarcastic.) | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 07 2014 23:18 Saryph wrote: I find sarcasm amusing, but there are so many people with idiotic views in this thread that sometimes I get confused whether I am reading sarcasm or stupidity. (I know you're being sarcastic.) The sad part is, i think he called it. It would not surprise me in the slightest. | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
It is an Ukrainian invasion! Just look at all the Ukrainian soldiers in Crimea. /sarcasm off To the few who can't decide if this is an invasion or not. If you have foreign troops blocking vital infrastructure and refusing the national government to even enter that region then it is an invasion. The people on Crimea and in Ukraine should just be happy that it hasn't been violent, yet. | ||
| ||
BSL
RO32 Group A
n0maD vs perroflaco
TerrOr vs ZZZero
MadiNho vs WolFix
DragOn vs LancerX
ZZZero.O189
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Team League
OSC
BSL
Sterling vs Azhi_Dahaki
Napoleon vs Mazur
Jimin vs Nesh
spx vs Strudel
IPSL
Artosis vs TBD
Napoleon vs TBD
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs YSC
Sharp vs sSak
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs PianO
hero vs Rain
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
