|
|
Tatars seek safety in Western Ukraine (1:25)
March 26 - Crimean Tatars, frightened by Russian annexation of their homeland, flee to Western Ukraine in search of safety. Deborah Lutterbeck reports. ( Transcript )
source
(Reuters) - Ukraine won a $27-billion international financial lifeline on Thursday, rushed through in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, as Moscow's economy minister spoke of the cost of military action in its former Soviet neighbor.
The International Monetary Fund announced agreement on a $14-18 billion standby credit for Kiev in return for tough economic reforms that will unlock further aid from the European Union, the United States and other lenders over two years.
The IMF deal, to be approved by the global agency's board next month, was a political boost for the pro-Western government that replaced ousted Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovich last month, prompting Moscow to seize the Black Sea peninsula.
"The financial support from the broader international community that the program will unlock amounts to $27 billion over the next two years," an IMF statement said.
The Ukraine crisis has triggered the most serious East-West confrontation since the end of the Cold War a quarter-century ago, deepening the slump in Ukraine's battered economy, centered on coal and steel production, gas transit and grain exports.
Without IMF-mandated austerity measures, the economy could contract by up to 10 percent this year, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk told parliament, explaining why his government had bowed to the Fund's conditions.
"Ukraine is on the edge of economic and financial bankruptcy," he said.
source
A 10% contraction is crazy. IMF help doesn't seem that bad considering the circumstances.
edit:
(Reuters) - U.S. and European security agencies estimate Russia has deployed military and militia units totaling more than 30,000 people along its border with eastern Ukraine, according to U.S. and European sources familiar with official reporting.
The current estimates represent what officials on both sides of the Atlantic describe as a continuing influx of Russian forces along the Ukraine frontier, the sources said.
The 30,000 figure represents a significant increase from a figure of 20,000 Russian troops along the border that was widely reported in U.S. and European media last week.
But U.S. and European security sources noted that these estimates are imprecise. Some estimates put current troop levels as high as 35,000 while others still suggest a level of 25,000, the sources said.
However, the sources said that U.S. and European government experts believe that there has been, and continues to be, a steady and noticeable buildup in the total number of Russian forces along the Ukrainian border, though some military units have rotated in or out of the area.
U.S. and European security sources said that the Russian force deployed along the Ukraine border includes regular military including infantry and armored units and some air support.
Also deployed are militia or special forces units comprised of Russian fighters, wearing uniforms lacking insignia or other identifying markings, similar to the first Russian forces to move into Crimea during Russia's recent military takeover there.
source
|
Russian Federation88 Posts
|
On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo
I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes.
Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well.
|
On March 27 2014 22:19 m4ini wrote:I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes. Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well.
nope, you learn that you could also do that something just because now, there's a precedent.
|
On March 27 2014 22:39 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2014 22:19 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes. Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well. nope, you learn that you could also do that something just because now, there's a precedent.
Got to agree here, you do it especially when there are no consequences of your action. While the military intervention in Kosovo was called for, acknowlegding its independence so rapidly, was not. This is my opinion at least, since now it has become a fucking brothel of Europe and no one from its former supporters seems to give a damn what is going on there.
|
On March 27 2014 23:04 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2014 22:39 xM(Z wrote:On March 27 2014 22:19 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes. Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well. nope, you learn that you could also do that something just because now, there's a precedent. Got to agree here, you do it especially when there are no consequences of your action. While the military intervention in Kosovo was called for, acknowlegding its independence so rapidly, was not. This is my opinion at least, since now it has become a fucking brothel of Europe and no one from its former supporters seems to give a damn what is going on there.
Yeah and I agree. But that distinction would only further highlight the degrees between staying in a national unity state, federalisation, staying as an independent state under a country, various other degrees of independence and forms of annexation to another country. In theory they sound very interchangeable, but the practical differences are significant for international relations.
|
On March 28 2014 00:08 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2014 23:04 Roman666 wrote:On March 27 2014 22:39 xM(Z wrote:On March 27 2014 22:19 m4ini wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo I guess it makes people sleep better, pointing at other countries mistakes. Fun part is, in civilized countries you learn in kindergarden already that just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right if you do it as well. nope, you learn that you could also do that something just because now, there's a precedent. Got to agree here, you do it especially when there are no consequences of your action. While the military intervention in Kosovo was called for, acknowlegding its independence so rapidly, was not. This is my opinion at least, since now it has become a fucking brothel of Europe and no one from its former supporters seems to give a damn what is going on there. Yeah and I agree. But that distinction would only further highlight the degrees between staying in a national unity state, federalisation, staying as an independent state under a country, various other degrees of independence and forms of annexation to another country. In theory they sound very interchangeable, but the practical differences are significant for international relations.
They could federalize like Bosnia is currently, or like Crimea was, before the biggest hoax of the current decade that took place almost two weeks ago. When I think about it, that particular thing comes to my mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Times_Yes
|
On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo
NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion.
Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think).
It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...).
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...).
It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for.
Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing.
Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained.
Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D
|
On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D
Again, what others do wrong does not make your wrongdoings right. Really the "But <insert country here>" argument is on the level of my 4 yr old kid, when he does something bad and says "<insert name here> did the same".
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 28 2014 01:05 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D Again, what others do wrong does not make your wrongdoings right. Really the "But " argument is on the level of my 4 yr old kid, when he does something bad and says " did the same".
Ye, it's like answering question about "Why did you fail, dude?" - "But he failed too!".
I agree here.
If someone interested tho.
webtv.un.org
|
On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D
And it isn't ?
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 28 2014 01:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D And it isn't ?
You can pm me with arguments why are we totalitarian country, i don't wanna argue here.
|
On March 27 2014 17:52 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2014 11:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Not mutually exclusive, extremism can exist without calls for violence, I can have the extremest view that "all tall people are evil violent people, who are stupid" that statement in itself isn't a call for violence against tall people and wouldn't be gagable in a public venue. But if i followed up by calling for people to kill all the tall people that would be a call for violence against them. And quite a few nations follow this, the idea that something is unpleasant isn't the same as something is violent, and the government specifically shouldn't be silencing it's people over what could be considered subjective. In the US speech is protected even further, in the US you literally can write a book or make a speech saying we should kill all the tall people and as long as you aren't saying "do it right now" (and as long as a 'reasonable person' doesn't think you're trying to get all the tall people killed right now without directly saying it) you'll win your day in court. It will definitely go to court but you'd win in the US you have to be judged to have been inciting imminent violence for hate speech or violent speech to be bannable. Do you even live on planet earth? Im honestly surprised someone with internet use is making such an absurd comment. I dont know what planet you live on, but writing what your recommended in private emails which are not so private aka NSA will without a doubt get you arrested let alone making a speech or a book. Come back to planet Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
That ruling is still operative.
I don't know what planet you live on but apparently it is one where you can mock people based on your own ignorance.
this legislation is aimed at silencing dissenting voices, especially bloggers. using the us as a shining example is idiotic. rich / powerful people can afford freedom of speech in it, but if you're a blogger / journy reporting on govt / coorp abuse you're shit out of luck. hence the juxtaposition of us' terrible free-press record against an entire issue of reason devoted to holocaust denial.
Mostly false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint#Prior_restraint_in_the_United_States
The idea that only rich and powerful people in the US can exercise free speech is absurd.
Just as an example, how long were Occupy camps allowed to illegally exist? Hardly a gathering of the rich and powerful despite many rich and powerful people sympathizing with them and getting involved. For months and months and months they were allowed to shit up public parks and the other places they were camping, harass and intimidate local businesses and residents, have their drum circles and mic checks.
The idea that if you are reporting on "corporate abuse" you are "shit out of luck" is absurd.
Just as an example, the movie Gasland is a piece of shit full of half-truths, distortions, deceptions, and outright lies, but it was still produced and distributed free of restriction.
How many articles about BP oil spill were not allowed to be published? How many journalists were harassed by the government for publishing articles about that?
Enron?
Any of the thousands of pieces of opinion and "reporting" published daily in newspapers and magazines and on blogs on message boards on Twitter, like your quite frankly libelous link, regarding the Koch brothers?
The idea that if you are a blogger you do not have free speech protections in the US is absurd. Dick Durbin's numerous idiotic comments on the subject aside, judges including at the federal level have ruled that bloggers have the same free speech protections as everyone else.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/17/local/la-me-ln-blogger-1st-amendment-20140117
Now if you're a journalist reporting on the Obama Administration it is a different story. So you're only mostly ignorant and only mostly saying things that are stupidly untrue. It is a disgrace the way the Obama Administration has acted towards journalists. But again, no prior restraint attempts. Not even the Obama Administration has tried to force articles to not be published. Here's a quick list of stories the government desperately did not want reported over the last ten years I remember that it did not stop from being published:
2006 Warrantless eavesdropping (NYT)
2006 Terrorist Financing Tracking Program (NYT)
2010 Multiple stories resulting from Bradley Manning leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law)
2012-present Multiple stories resulting from Edward Snowden leaks (NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel, eventually almost every publication in the world concerned with politics and law)
Basically if you think free speech is failing in the US then you should want the Obama Administration out of power.
Now then I hope you two have been lifted somewhat out of your lamentable ignorance caused by your preconceptions and arrogance.
|
This is why I hate that Crimean Crisis thread was not allowed. I posted news of one of the Right Sector leaders being killed and noone even cares because we have geopolitics now. I hope moderators at least learned their lessons from this thread.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 28 2014 01:43 Cheerio wrote:
This is why I hate that Crimean Crisis thread was not allowed. I posted news of one of the Right Sector leaders being killed and noone even cares because we have geopolitics now. I hope moderators at least learned their lessons from this thread.
Wasn't there discussion about Biliy's death before you posted it? I'm pretty sure that someone posted it even before you, so noone reacted on post.
And same was with Timoshenko's speech as well.
On March 28 2014 01:46 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 01:30 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 28 2014 01:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D And it isn't ? You can pm me with arguments why are we totalitarian country, i don't wanna argue here. well i just want to know your opinion.
I'm not feeling that my rights are getting killed here in general.
|
On March 28 2014 01:30 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 01:28 ImFromPortugal wrote:On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D And it isn't ? You can pm me with arguments why are we totalitarian country, i don't wanna argue here.
well i just want to know your opinion.
|
On March 28 2014 01:43 Cheerio wrote:
This is why I hate that Crimean Crisis thread was not allowed. I posted news of one of the Right Sector leaders being killed and noone even cares because we have geopolitics now. I hope moderators at least learned their lessons from this thread.
While it may sound harsh, I do not care for a nationalist bandit being shot dead in a fire exchange with law enforcement when trying to avoid apprehension. More decent people die everyday. That is why I did not pick up the subject because there is nothing to pick up for me here.
|
On March 28 2014 00:59 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 00:51 Acertos wrote:On March 27 2014 21:23 likeasu wrote:
- why crimea?
- becausovo NATO tried to stop an etnic cleansing and responded to an invasion. I don t think it is an argument for another invasion. Yesterday I went to a conference held by Alexandra Goujon, political specialist teaching in Science Po Paris speacialized in Russia and the european countries on its borders. I dont think she is biased and an important thing is that she went to Ukraine and Kiev and talked to different people (which she admitted herself isn t rly relevant but helpful to understand the way some ukrainians think). It was in French so I will to try translate it and put the same pictures and documents she showed (about etnicity, voting during the last elections for each regions, the orange revolution etc...). It doesn't matter, what did NATO try to do or responded for. Thing is that precedent was created and everyone here agrees with this point. That's the thing. Btw, UN was voting right now for resolution about territorial integrity of Ukraine. ~100 voted yes, ~10 voted no, ~58 abstained. Meanwhile, Turkey closed even youtube, not speaking about twitter. And someone says that Russia is totalitarian country? :D
See the fun part is, a court ruled it illegal and lifted the ban. Not to mention that there's civil unrests in turkey because of that. It's a retard on the top-position, people want to get rid of him. See the difference to russia? Hint, the difference is not the dictatorship (which is remarkebly similar), but the people.
About kosovo: it was illegal, no doubt there. Was it necessary or legitimate? Lets just say, if russians find mass graves over and over again, sometimes with more than 800 russians in them, i will support russias decision. As for now, no. It's actually extremely different. And the argument "but look at kosovo nao!" is none, since nobody knows how the world works in crimea a couple of years from now.
People kinda forgot why the kosovo conflict erupted. It didn't have to do with 213 americans living there. Zeo, being a serbian, should now what reports led to the airstrikes.
So, no. I don't really see similarities between those two "wars" other than that both were illegal, but one legitimate. And that's not the crimean one.
|
one's not a war and has no bombing of innocent civilians and the embassies of other nations so they're not similar at all
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
