EPTUkraine Crisis - Page 466
| 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 | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
I loved the "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love What's Happening in Russia" article. The best way to deal with tragedy is with satire. Kinda reminds me of my favourite Russian authors - Ilf and Petrov, who mocked the beginnings of the Soviet system in a great novel "The 12 Chairs". Regarding Polish FM Sikorski, it was interesting how he spoke of the *first* signs of tension between Russia and Ukraine when he mentioned the August trade "war" between Russia/Ukraine (where Russia blocked virtually all Ukrainian imports as punishment for pursuing EU talks). Which leads me to... a *Really* good read (2 pages) from August 2013 on Russia-Ukraine relations this summer. It does a good job foretelling the situation we have now. http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Alert_Ukraine_trade.pdf Last paragraph of article: Yet, Moscow’s actions might prove, once again, self-defeating. The trade dispute may have made Ukrainian oligarchs sit up and count how many millions they would personally loose from disrupted trade relations with Russia, but it is also sure to have sparked visions of the even worse prospects of being isolated and left to rely on such a ruthless partner. Russian tactics are also a reminder to many in the EU that the EU-Ukraine relationship is underpinned by serious geopolitical considerations and is about more than just the political and trade issues of the day between Brussels and Kiev. It is also a reminder that time is of the essence, and although Ukraine might be able to hold out - and not give up on the Association Agreement - for a few months, it may not be strong enough to resist sustained pressure in the medium or long run. In other words, following the latest trade spat, it looks as if Russia is doing its best to ensure that Ukraine and the EU will indeed be compelled to sign the Association deal in Vilnius edit: Another good read on Russia/Ukraine. link. I disagree with Vladimir needing Russia to be *poor*, but overall paints an accurate picture. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
lol, this is actually hilarious. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
Would be great if someone can give out the names to those Eastern European politicians and their titles >.< | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
Russian politicians (and even a Spiegel article : link) keep claiming that the West betrayed Russia, by expanding NATO eastward. This is at the very least, a gross overstatement, and from what I can tell simply untrue. I've done some research on this subject and here is what I got: Russia claims that this happened during talks concerning German reunification in 1990. At the time NATO troops where in W. Germany, while Soviet troops where in E. Germany. This link talks about the full context of the statement that Russia uses in reference to NATO expanding east (click the link on the side bar to find the relevant page). The exact quote in question is from US Secretary of State Baker, saying "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,". However, this was said in the context of German reunification and what that meant for Germany's NATO status: If Germany where to join NATO, would "NATO's jurisdiction for forces" move to E. Germany where Soviet troops were stationed? This was the point of discussion, not NATO expansion in E. Europe. Furthermore, it seemed like NATO expansion to E. European countries was never really a topic of discussion during these meetings. Gorbachev could have tried to ask for guarantees that NATO never expand to former Soviet/Communist countries, but he never did. More sources: you can click the link to the relevant page on the side bar http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On May 01 2014 07:30 Mc wrote: So I'd like to clear up the lie/misinformation concerning the West's "promise" to Russia to not expand NATO Eastward. Russian politicians (and even a Spiegel article : link) keep claiming that the West betrayed Russia, by expanding NATO eastward. This is at the very least, a gross overstatement, and from what I can tell simply untrue. I've done some research on this subject and here is what I got: Russia claims that this happened during talks concerning German reunification in 1990. At the time NATO troops where in W. Germany, while Soviet troops where in E. Germany. This link talks about the full context of the statement that Russia uses in reference to NATO expanding east (click the link on the side bar to find the relevant page). The exact quote in question is from US Secretary of State Baker, saying "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,". However, this was said in the context of German reunification and what that meant for Germany's NATO status: If Germany where to join NATO, would "NATO's jurisdiction for forces" move to E. Germany where Soviet troops were stationed? This was the point of discussion, not NATO expansion in E. Europe. Furthermore, it seemed like NATO expansion to E. European countries was never really a topic of discussion during these meetings. Gorbachev could have tried to ask for guarantees that NATO never expand to former Soviet/Communist countries, but he never did. More sources: you can click the link to the relevant page on the side bar http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf East European countries wouldn't be looking to join NATO if it wasn't for the way Russia has been treating them. Who knew an aggressive/unstable neighbor would make people look for protection. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 01 2014 07:30 Mc wrote: So I'd like to clear up the lie/misinformation concerning the West's "promise" to Russia to not expand NATO Eastward. Russian politicians (and even a Spiegel article : link) keep claiming that the West betrayed Russia, by expanding NATO eastward. This is at the very least, a gross overstatement, and from what I can tell simply untrue. I've done some research on this subject and here is what I got: Russia claims that this happened during talks concerning German reunification in 1990. At the time NATO troops where in W. Germany, while Soviet troops where in E. Germany. This link talks about the full context of the statement that Russia uses in reference to NATO expanding east (click the link on the side bar to find the relevant page). The exact quote in question is from US Secretary of State Baker, saying "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,". However, this was said in the context of German reunification and what that meant for Germany's NATO status: If Germany where to join NATO, would "NATO's jurisdiction for forces" move to E. Germany where Soviet troops were stationed? This was the point of discussion, not NATO expansion in E. Europe. Furthermore, it seemed like NATO expansion to E. European countries was never really a topic of discussion during these meetings. Gorbachev could have tried to ask for guarantees that NATO never expand to former Soviet/Communist countries, but he never did. More sources: you can click the link to the relevant page on the side bar http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf Even if there were signed treaties and everything else, NATO still would have expanded. For one, the US loves expanding its influence and hegemony and expanding into the former Soviet sphere was more than expected, especially to the detriment of Russia. For two, some of these countries, at least the Baltics and Poland, feared Russian retaliation and considering the US is the only non-Russian country that isn't a toy poodle that has any interest in European affairs and has been opposed to Russia for the last century, the choice is very obvious to join NATO. Common interests align to bring their entrance to NATO, without a shadow of a doubt. + Show Spoiler + But to hell with Europe and Russia for the time being. What about the Far East? The US doesn't know in the slightest fuck what it's going to do with China. While terribly underdeveloped and in many ways unadvanced, it has an infinite population, a system of what is practically 'slave labor' that has led to infinite economic growth, and heavy militarization that is completely overwhelming for the entire Far East. Maybe the US has accepted it can do nothing about China, whereas it has an army of toy poodles in Europe to back it with action against Russia? Sooner or later, China's probably going to get pushy, and they have lots of reason to. I literally have no idea what the US can do in that scenario. EDIT: Sorry for getting off topic. I was reading a lot about China today. | ||
|
marigoldran
219 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 01 2014 11:37 marigoldran wrote: Russia' behavior encourages its neighbors to want to join NATO and the EU. Even if Putin takes East Ukraine, West Ukraine will be running towards the West as fast as their corrupt little shoes can carry them. We're going to have a situation similar to East and West Germany or North and South Korea. You're speaking as if NATO's expansion happened in 2014. "Russia's behavior" as seen today is a very recent phenomenon, as in since 2008 in the (EU-approved, mind you) action against Saakashvili. In the 90s and early 2000s, which accounted for most of NATO's expansion, Russia was not even a functioning country. There was no "behavior" to speak of. By the time "Russia's behavior" came into existence, everyone who is in NATO was already in it, except maybe Albania, which is hardly relevant in regards to fears of Russia and whatever else, as opposed to places like Latvia. The reasons I previously stated were far and away the primary motivations for the 1990-2004 expansion, in a period when Russia was about as aggressive as Luxembourg (yes, some exaggeration, but the point is "Russia's behavior" as it is today is far different from back then). In any case, "Russia's behavior" wasn't even a thing back then, so it's a null point of discussion. It's like saying Japan conquered China before WW2 because China was threatening Japan, which wasn't something that was happening in 1930s just because it's happening in the 2010s. Considering the variables in a given time span is extremely important. It's fallacious to try to extrapolate the current variables to a previous time, where they may have been very different. Anyways, the only country that is affected by Russia in some way or another that isn't in NATO in the current "Russian behavior" world is Ukraine and maybe Georgia. But you stated it as it will probably turn out. The eastern provinces will turn to Russia, and the usurpers in Kiev will beg to join NATO for the obvious reason of being able to hold onto their throne. I wonder when they're going to pay for their gas, though. On April 30 2014 18:51 Mc wrote: @Judicator Rising gas prices have worked miracles. I think Russia would have seen the "boom" of the 2000's regardless of who was in power at the top. @Ghanburighan I don't really think that there ever was really a chance of any opposition taking over Putin, even when support was hovering at 50%. But now, he has done a good job cementing himself as dictator for probably at least another decade.. edit: Ghan, you never really stated that the opposition has a chance of taking over. Not if it was Gorby or Yelstin. lol On April 30 2014 18:44 Ghanburighan wrote: *Sigh* You're describing the status quo. Please look up the parties in the duma and their creation. They're all just puppets of One Russia. Quite honestly, the only thing I was able to find out was that the Russian Communist Party and LDPR were founded years before United Russia or its predecessors (Unity and Fatherland). I guess somehow these parties who are in clear ideological and political opposition to United Russia are in addition somehow puppets to a party that came long after them. Alright. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Important because high level contact with the US has been suspended: | ||
|
Mc
332 Posts
The point of E. European countries joining NATO is *not* obsolete since Russia defenders keep using this to justify Russia's "fear of encirclement". That Russia was 'betrayed' by the West and thus it is more understandable that Russia acts so "defensively" when faced with the threat of more NATO. Obviously, countries can choose to do what they want but that doesn't mean NATO has to let them join. My point was that Russia's defence of "...but they promised" is invalid because they never promised. It seems as if this was mostly Yeltsin trying to save face years after the fact, so he didn't look so weak by not only losing the USSR but having a bunch of it join NATO. Russia saying this isn't surprising but some European politicians even refer to this when defending Russia which is total BS! @JudicatorHammurabi You are right to say that Russia was a sad puppy during the time of NATO expansion in E. Europe and at the time "Russia's behavior" wasn't outwardly aggressive. But take a chill pill dude - you are being way too nit-picky with @marigoldran. Read his statement more carefully before blowing up on him  All he said was "Russia' behavior encourages its neighbors to want to join NATO and the EU". He didn't specify which countries exactly and what time period. Furthermore, his statement is true regardless. Just because Russia was weak and non-aggressive during the 90's doesn't mean it wasn't reasonable to think that it would be likely to return to more aggressive behaviour in the future. It turned out that E. Europeans (who know Russia *very well*) were right- Russia did become aggressive again. Concerning gas prices: And finally you said Russia wouldn't have a boom in the 2000s if Yeltsin or Gorby were in power. I can't say they wouldn't do something to rape the Russian economy more, but my point is that it wasn't Putin's genius economic policy that led to Russia's economy booming in the 2000s, it was primarily gas prices booming from the very beginning of his administration. Maybe you agree with me .... ? | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On May 01 2014 15:00 Mc wrote: @Nyxisto The point of E. European countries joining NATO is *not* obsolete since Russia defenders keep using this to justify Russia's "fear of encirclement". That Russia was 'betrayed' by the West and thus it is more understandable that Russia acts so "defensively" when faced with the threat of more NATO. Obviously, countries can choose to do what they want but that doesn't mean NATO has to let them join. My point was that Russia's defence of "...but they promised" is invalid because they never promised. It seems as if this was mostly Yeltsin trying to save face years after the fact, so he didn't look so weak by not only losing the USSR but having a bunch of it join NATO. Russia saying this isn't surprising but some European politicians even refer to this when defending Russia which is total BS! @JudicatorHammurabi You are right to say that Russia was a sad puppy during the time of NATO expansion in E. Europe and at the time "Russia's behavior" wasn't outwardly aggressive. But take a chill pill dude - you are being way too nit-picky with @marigoldran. Read his statement more carefully before blowing up on him All he said was "Russia' behavior encourages its neighbors to want to join NATO and the EU". He didn't specify which countries exactly and what time period. Furthermore, his statement is true regardless. Just because Russia was weak and non-aggressive during the 90's doesn't mean it wasn't reasonable to think that it would be likely to return to more aggressive behaviour in the future. It turned out that E. Europeans (who know Russia *very well*) were right- Russia did become aggressive again. Concerning gas prices: And finally you said Russia wouldn't have a boom in the 2000s if Yeltsin or Gorby were in power. I can't say they wouldn't do something to rape the Russian economy more, but my point is that it wasn't Putin's genius economic policy that led to Russia's economy booming in the 2000s, it was primarily gas prices booming from the very beginning of his administration. Maybe you agree with me .... ?For some reason, I interpreted that as "Former Communist countries are being pushed to join NATO even though they were already in NATO for a while now", not realizing that no time period or nations was specified. I need sleep. But I have a vested interest in seeing peace and prosperity in Ukraine, and even to some degree in Russia and these other countries. I don't like that that is not happening. And yes, yes I agree with you. Speaking of oil, in the past year, the price of petro on the barrel has seen a net gain from a year ago. This is expected to increase. I hope Putin decides to finally make some intelligent use of this money and re-constructs other parts of the Russian industries and economy. The energy industry is too fickle. Tech and engineering are infinitely more reliable and increasingly profitable. Some of these Russians like to speak about "old soviet times", but seem to disregard the large emphasis on technology, manufacturing, and sciences during those times that Russia desperately needs today. Makes no sense. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
 Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On May 01 2014 17:55 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Really somber article posted on the NYT. Interim president Oleksandr Turchynov has admitted that the government has effectively lost control of some parts in the east. Is this implying that the Kievan government has given up on suppressing these insurrectionists? Perhaps, and fear of Russian intervention is without a doubt the overwhelming factor. Just as Babylon, that great center of culture and science, fell to ruthless Persian conquerors, so too is Ukraine being splintered by dastardly insurgents and Russian threats Source Ukraine is no Babylon but yes I assume the threat of Russian invasion is what is stopping the government from dealing with these separatists. | ||
|
pmp10
3331 Posts
On May 01 2014 18:46 Gorsameth wrote: Ukraine is no Babylon but yes I assume the threat of Russian invasion is what is stopping the government from dealing with these separatists. That didn't stop them before. They are simply realizing that they are powerless to stop it. Even news are reporting that Kiev government is helpless in the east and that it turns to conscription in desperation. With Donetsk gone it won't be long until revolution collapses like a house of cards. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
*** *** *** A poll including questions about the Ukraine crisis in Germany: Link to the Tagesschau (slide 14 onwards) | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On May 02 2014 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote: Note: unverified. Could be home-made. https://twitter.com/elocio/status/461927522981396481 *** Unless boots are not standard issue in Russian army, I say it is a fake. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On May 02 2014 07:37 Roman666 wrote: Unless boots are not standard issue in Russian army, I say it is a fake. Yeah the sneakers make it a bit suspect :p | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11527 Posts
On May 02 2014 06:21 Ghanburighan wrote: Note: unverified. Could be home-made. https://twitter.com/elocio/status/461927522981396481 *** https://twitter.com/markomihkelson/status/461955753159688192 *** https://twitter.com/_LonelyCow/status/461955655285604352 *** A poll including questions about the Ukraine crisis in Germany: Link to the Tagesschau (slide 14 onwards) There is no problem with legal Nazi marches. That is a part of free speech, letting people say something if you don't agree with it. I do not agree with the Nazis. I still think they should be allowed to demonstrate. Hopefully a lot more reasonable people will march against whatever the nazis are marching for, and hopefully the whole thing is organized well enough that the two groops are kept apart. This does not have anything to do with Ukraine either. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://pp.vk.me/c606726/v606726910/7f11/Saie75YFrYo.jpg)
