On May 07 2014 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I have to disagree. i also think the article is really spot on. There's a lot of anti-establishment / anti transatlantic stuff coming out of the public at the moment. Liberal values aren't exactly on the rise here and in Europe in general, which is really sad.
I'm not saying that the US is getting a lot of love over here at all and yes, there's been anti transatlantic stuff coming out of the public lately but that's to be expected after all this NSA stuff happened. People are still pretty pissed about that but as a results it's been more of a Europe should stick together rather than a Europe (or Germany) should stick to Russia, which is what the article's about and that's cometplely off mark.
You're saying "Liberal values aren't exactly on the rise here". What do you make of the Sochi thing I mentioned? The law against gays that got heavy criticism all over Europe and the US? Is that not a liberal value for you? Or when the two lesbian singers (sorry forgot their names) got arrested in Russia? That was huge over here too. The article is completly right about the US not getting a lot of love recently but also completly off the mark when stating that Germany is in any way getting closer to Russia. Russia's just getting way more crap and it's really a "EU should stick closer together" than anything else
What about Sochi? Some athletes showed up in colorful jackets. What a response! The whole thing should have been boycotted altogether. Pussy riot got as much love here as feminism in general, and I've heard people defending Russia's homophobic legislation dozens of times. "They're just protecting families and traditional values!" and stuff along those lines. Officials and intellectuals defend liberal values, a large group of the public, mostly the not so well educated, do not. The ridiculous numbers populist right-wingers like Front National get in our neighbour countries underline this. I think a lot of the support Russia gets in Europe stems from the fact that a large part of the population feels alienated with the social changes that have happened over here over the last two or three decades.
On May 07 2014 05:34 Nyxisto wrote: I have to disagree. i also think the article is really spot on. There's a lot of anti-establishment / anti transatlantic stuff coming out of the public at the moment. Liberal values aren't exactly on the rise here and in Europe in general, which is really sad. It's no coincidence that Moscow is trying to get cozy with Europe's right wing parties. In his Crimea annexation speech as well as during his TV-Interview Putin repeatedly mentioned that the "common people of Europe understand him".
But that's not because of russia. That doesn't even neccessarily mean that "people" want to be closer to russia. That only means, "people" want to distance themselves from america. And that's, other than your opinion, not really sad. Germany never was really "liberal", and that's mainly because of the politicians. In fact, we're pretty far from liberal. Obviously nowhere near russia or other (sorry) 3rd world countries, but not even close to as "liberal" as people want to make it sound like.
That public opinions shift away from the US is neither bad nor surprising, the US pretty much tried their hardest to do so. It's not because of their values, that opinions changed. It's rather their lack of those values.
Edit: your explanation is btw not entirely correct, neither are polls. Round about a half of german citizens lived under russia's supervision, and they didn't mind so much. Iirc, somewhere around 15-20% even want the wall back (east-germans). Those people support russia no matter what (edit2: maybe not no matter what, that was a bit overdone - but certainly they don't have a problem with what is happening now). It looks like it shifted because now west-germans start to rethink. I don't think it's a good thing though, just to make that clear - i'm just saying, you don't see the real picture just by looking at polls, since they're inherently flawed.
To be clear, I get the feeling that Merkel is smart enough to be independent of such an influence, and what is causing a weak German response to Russia's actions is being bogged down by EU influence (all EU should agree on sanctions) and German-Russian economic ties.
Just as a sidenote, i actually do think that Merkel is pretty smart as well. You hear alot in germany that she's weak etc, but she plays the hand she gets pretty well, considering circumstances.
I don't wanna imagine what Schroeder would've been like in those times, even though it's pretty easy. Not to mention that it wasn't actually a weak response. It just wasn't as strong as the US would've liked (it's not their economy anyway, so might as well shout and call for the biggest sanctions possible). Russias economy is caving in already, just by those "weak measures" - if you have a rock on a cliff, you only need to nudge it to start a avalanche.
Russias economy was already in shatters before the sanctions, it wasn't needed to ruin europes etc economy (as much as people would've liked in other countries) to push russias economy over the edge.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I just think it's ridiculous.Who in his right mind would want to live in a country that needs a wall to keep its citizens in it. The relationship most Germans have with the US resembles the relationship a pubescent child has to its parents.No one really cares about the NSA stuff, if they did everyone would use open source software and encrypt their communication.People just use it to vent about the US. And that anti-Americanism is so popular right now is not really helping the situation as the moment, as the West shouldn't really be split up into two parts right now.
On May 07 2014 06:18 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I just think it's ridiculous.Who in his right mind would want to live in a country that needs a wall to keep its citizens in it. The relationship most Germans have with the US resembles the relationship a pubescent child has to its parents.No one really cares about the NSA stuff, if they did everyone would use open source software and encrypt their communication.People just use it to vent about the US. And that anti-Americanism is so popular right now is not really helping the situation as the moment, as the West shouldn't really be split up into two parts right now.
Yes and no. My parents use their pc's daily, my father is 75. Do you really think i could get him to use something new now? I don't really care either if they check what porn i watch or whatever - it's the fact that they think they need to, in the first place. If you don't value and.. (hegen und pflegen, dunno the english word) relationships, why have a cozy one? As a stupid analogy, what do you think how many relationships ended because the guy spied in the dudettes phone?
People don't mind the surveillance so much (even though they vent because of it, i agree) - it's stuff like "fuck europe", "germany is a target" etc. That makes it incredibly easy for a dude to say "well fuck yourself then". And that's what happens at the moment.
edit: just as a sidenote, i'm indifferent about "splitting up into two" - it has pros and contras.
edit2: just saw your edit, it's not about keeping citizens in - it's keeping "westerners (and their values/politics) out"
Poroshenko (lead candidate for presidency), claims that "Today, in closed session ( of Parliament ), we obtained additional evidence that that happened, the events that took place in the House of Trade Unions it was a terrorist attack. It was the use of toxic substances ,".
This is some extreme stuff- I still believe that it was most likely a freak accident that caused the fire and subsequent deaths, but this brings doubt to my mind.
These leads to three options: 1.) Poroshenko starting conspiracy theories for political gain. 2.) Russian provocateurs were behind the deaths. 3.) Right-wingers were behind the deaths.
It doesn't seem wise to me for Ukraine to claim anything but "an accident in the heat of battle". Why draw more attention to the fact that pro-Ukraine protestors caused the deaths seemingly unwittingly of dozens of pro-Russians? But the other two options are a bit outlandish/unrealistic for me to believe.
I guess more information on this will come out in the following days...
Also this is a good first hand video of what took place outside the union building, before and during the fire : link
One of the things that people on TL have to realize that people are opportunistic and there will be guys out there to protect their interest much like how Ukraine's former president Yanukovich did for the country.
"Still, the biggest mistake some people make these days is when they claim that Yanukovich was a "Kremlin puppet". That, he most certainly was not. He pulled out of the deal with the EU because he was trying to manipulate both Brussels and Moscow at the same time, to get the best of two worlds, as they say. And only when the EU had offered a very modest amount of money, as a sweetener to the agreement, and Moscow outbid it, did he finally choose the better option, but with a view to come back to the table with Brussels at some point again. As one Russian official told me: "Yanukovich was double dealing behind Moscow's back and wanted to milk both sides... And then it all blew [up] in his face."
And the reason why USA/EU/Nato/ got involved is definitely NOT primarily for the "good of its people" or to "protect them against the Russian tyranny" but mainly for their own geopolitical gain.
See this video that gives details about the importance of the geopolitics regarding Eastern Europe for BOTH sides:
In the end, all parties involved are acting upon their own self-interest.
I would say though that if Euromaidan never happened and people never rose up against Yanukovich, Ukraine would have been mostly certainly been more stable and better economically due to Yanukovich's deal with Russia and the fact that they would have kept Crimea from annexation.
But this just adds another front to Russia and NATO's proxy war. But please do not blame any side for their doing, they are all simply acting according to logic.
On May 06 2014 21:07 PaleMan wrote: It's simple: we kill the batman there will be 2 Ukraines - one will be called Novorussia and will consist of south-east regions of current Ukraine other will be called Ukraine and will consist of Kiev + western regions
i will be satisfied with forementioned outcome
that's not going to happen without a real war which neither side wants except maybe some pro-russia militiamen and maybe some national front guys.
I've heard this argument in different forms countless times. That is exactly what the Kremlin keeps saying "the West is out to get us". US economic ties to Europe are strong and quiet independent of Russian economic ties. It's total BS. Russia exports basically only gas to Europe on a significant scale. The US exports no energy to Europe, and although it could in theory export LNG in the future, it hasn't been really "pushing" that option.\ Russian gas is *cheap*. LNG could be sold anywhere - I'm pretty sure Asia pays more for gas than Europe. Why not sell there? Why not sell to our close ally Japan that has an energy drought due to shutting down nuclear power plants.
How about the US is acting 'tough' on Russia because for the US there are no economic consequences (it's far, little economic ties), and it looks good politically (US is the just warrior, saving countries from evil Putin). Seems like it's win-win for the US. Couple that with some cold-war leftovers and it's not hard to see why the US responded with tough words and some sanctions against Russia.
Also it's an op-ed peace by Alexander Nekrassov, a "former Kremlin and government adviser".
I've heard this argument in different forms countless times. That is exactly what the Kremlin keeps saying "the West is out to get us". US economic ties to Europe are strong and quiet independent of Russian economic ties. It's total BS. Russia exports basically only gas to Europe on a significant scale. The US exports no energy to Europe, and although it could in theory export LNG in the future, it hasn't been really "pushing" that option.\ Russian gas is *cheap*. LNG could be sold anywhere - I'm pretty sure Asia pays more for gas than Europe. Why not sell there? Why not sell to our close ally Japan that has an energy drought due to shutting down nuclear power plants.
How about the US is acting 'tough' on Russia because for the US there are no economic consequences (it's far, little economic ties), and it looks good politically (US is the just warrior, saving countries from evil Putin). Seems like it's win-win for the US. Couple that with some cold-war leftovers and it's not hard to see why the US responded with tough words and some sanctions against Russia.
Also it's an op-ed peace by Alexander Nekrassov, a "former Kremlin and government adviser".
Fyi, China + Russia have been discussion natural gas transportation collaboration.
Please watch the video explaining the geopolitics. Russia's stance regarding the Ukraine issue is rather defensive rather than offensive. Putin is defending the interest of the Russian heritage for a potential Western invasion.
If you are speaking about economical ties, the European Union's main players are closely tied to NA. So ofc allies will help allies and you were even saying that its a win-win for the US.
So naturally Russia will have to act accordingly. This is just plain common sense.
@Xiphos I started watching the video but it's quiet amateurish and doesn't really discuss anything except the geographic/military concerns of an aggressive Russia.
Which is the point of video. Now if one can't understand the importance of Ukraine's position for Russia after understanding the fact what Russia have to do in order to protect it's culture, then there is nothing to be said but if you can't do the math on that one, then I can't help ya.
On May 07 2014 15:15 Xiphos wrote: Which is the point of video. Now if one can't understand the importance of Ukraine's position for Russia after understanding the fact what Russia have to do in order to protect it's culture, then there is nothing to be said but if you can't do the math on that one, then I can't help ya.
My original point was that the article is wrong. Which I still stand by, and you didn't seem to counter. I never stated that I don't understand Russia's concerns about NATO/Western encirclement or imply they don't exists.
It's funny how you say "... what Russia have to do in order to protect it's *culture*". Culture in theory shouldn't be dependent on politics, but you seem to be saying it is..... And maybe you're right Russian culture is dependent on a feeling of imperial greatness and power. So, Russia is ironically not only defending it's geopolitical/military concerns by actively destabilizing Ukraine, but it's defending it's "culture" as an aggressive anti-Western foreign power.
Everyone (I hope) knows that to some extent this is a struggle between East and West. It's an internal East-West struggle in Ukraine (both in geography and in culture). AND it's a struggle East-West between Russia and EU/USA. However, I disagree how much of the West cares about using Ukraine as a pawn. The US/Europe see Ukraine as a problem child which will just be annoying to deal with if it tries to go West. No real benefit for the West to have Ukraine "join". However, the West is forced to support Ukraine because : part of the country is aspiring to European values of democracy and it'd be hypocritical to deny them this right AND it needs to tell Russia not to interfere with the boundaries of E. Europe. So Europe, is almost unwillingly supporting Ukraine because it's "European" values tell it to do so (and responding to Russian aggression). I guess you could say Russia is also supporting the pro-Russian Ukraine "unwillingly", but it's intentions aren't democracy/freedom and stopping European aggression - it's intentions are as you pointed out (maybe unintentionally), defending "Russian culture" (i.e. imperialism, anti-West, etc.).
edit: I'm skipping over some of the other factors (like EU dependence on Russian gas), and Russian historical ties to Ukraine as part of its' "culture". It's for the sake of having a succinct argument, and I don't want to write an essay but a forum post
Mariupol's city hall has been retaken by the military:
The separatists apparently evacuated prior to the incursion by the military rather than stay and fight:
Ukraine crisis: Troops 'retake Mariupol city hall' Ukrainian government forces have retaken the city hall in the south-eastern port of Mariupol from pro-Russia separatists, reports say.
The rebels, who had seized the building last week, reportedly left early on Wednesday. The reason is not clear.
Ukraine crisis: Troops 'retake Mariupol city hall' Ukrainian government forces have retaken the city hall in the south-eastern port of Mariupol from pro-Russia separatists, reports say.
The rebels, who had seized the building last week, reportedly left early on Wednesday. The reason is not clear.
From what I've seen there are no armed anti-kiev people in Mariupol. Just large group of civilian protesters. So they can't really put up a fight vs. military.
disclaimer: EuromaidanPR is a quasi-propaganda website (lot's of unverified/exaggerated claims. Not intentional lies, but really poor journalism).
Either way, my question is what are your thoughts on on all these SBU operations? I never was convinced that the "leaked phone calls" of FSB agents were real. Maybe they were, but it's almost impossible to verify.
The material for the "dirty bomb" sounds unreal to me. I doubt the separatists would really be trying to get their hands on it, and that basically leaves Russia as the culprit. But would Russia really want to do that? I'm sure Putin has no qualms about that sort of action, but it just seems like it wouldn't do Putin no good to use such tactics.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that I have a suscpiscion that SBU might be faking it's "achievements" in order to fabricate success and counter Russian's propaganda war.
Any thoughts? Do you we have any definitive evidence that the phone calls were false/true? Any evidence of complete fabrications from the SBU side? Please only intelligent well argued responses (with sources if possible).
Do you remember what effects the use of chemical weapons had in Syria? Basically the idea is that if any kind of NBC weapons is used against the separatists, that would enable Russia to repeat Syrian scenario. Who actually used the bomb would not even matter.
And about SBU. So far I haven't seen anything big they've thrown out to be shown fabricated. They might be wrong when doing estimations, predictions, or on some minor stuff though.
@cheerio Concerning the dirty bomb, Russia can invade with or without a dirty bomb. The point of waiting to invade until X tragedy happens, is to justify the invasion in the eye's of the West. If a dirty bomb goes off on separatists, the West will not suspect Ukrainian government or nationalists. It will suspect Russia and sanctions will be even harsher against Russia.
I guess my doubts concerning the truthfulness of Ukrainian government/SBU were exaggerated. Small things - like "we found a package that *might* contain radioactive" materials is trying to counter Russian propaganda. I'd rather they just stick to facts, but given their position it's understandable for them to use half-truths and exaggerations. It's also understandable that they could jump to conclusions, given all the emotions clouding ones rational thoughts when your neighbour is trying to destroy your country.
Any thoughts on the intercepted calls though? I doubted them because there were so many and they seemed to be "too good, to be true". How do they intercept these calls? Is it the SBU forcing telecommunication companies to give up info? How easy it is to intercept cellphone conversations?
EPT
