|
|
On May 19 2014 12:33 Greem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 12:29 Xiphos wrote:On May 19 2014 12:07 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 09:49 Xiphos wrote:I think that Russia's plan is to destabilize Ukraine so much that EU would have go bankrupt for an Ukrainian acquisition so that the region have to turn to Russia for support when Russian finishes up stabilizing their economy and build oil transport road to Asia so that their economy can support Ukraine's. And also this in turn also bridges much closer to Transnisteria's hope for Russian's annexation. And from this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I404gXbNg, that place seems to be well organized and have a good industrial background. Its really depending on how much chaos Russia can create in Ukrainian and whether or not Germany, France and the rest of the Europe and even their American allies can absorb Ukraine or not. Interesting times ahead of us for sure. can you explain what makes you think EU interests in Ukraine ? I know Germany , France UK, doing alright, but what about the rest of Europe ? Lets not take in consideration smaller countrys, they're not the economic machines of EU but rather depend on succes of the region as a whole. How many billions they need to put in to bring Ukraine up, and for what ? If its recources, its easier just to buy them off someone then to build all the infrastrucutre to EU standarts in a country where things were stale since 1991. Ukraine got no real leader since its Independece. Country was pretty much divided politicaly, people were used to diferent kind of system , ties with Russia aren't just economical or political they are very deep cultural, and i dont see a reason why a country in development like Russia got some extra recources to fuel and Destabilize Ukraine. For what ? So later if they bring Ukraine into they economic zone fuel it back in. Im sure not economic expert, but i just dont see a logic behind your words. Ukraine is the place to keep Russia in check and the west wants to minimize Russia's territory as small as possible. I'm sorry i don't know why, im assumed you from Germany. West is quiet large definition. US wants that , yes, but the West ? What is there to gain for EU ? but i'm guessing since you're not from EU, you probably couldn't answer that properly. Can someone inteligent enough and with wide knowledge of economics, give some explanation on what exactly is there to gain for EU ? (When word inteligent is used im sure many will try answer, lets observe the human nature)
benefits of international trade. If you have an economics background, that is enough said. If you don't, google it, there are plenty of articles to explain it to you.
|
On May 19 2014 22:34 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 12:33 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 12:29 Xiphos wrote:On May 19 2014 12:07 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 09:49 Xiphos wrote:I think that Russia's plan is to destabilize Ukraine so much that EU would have go bankrupt for an Ukrainian acquisition so that the region have to turn to Russia for support when Russian finishes up stabilizing their economy and build oil transport road to Asia so that their economy can support Ukraine's. And also this in turn also bridges much closer to Transnisteria's hope for Russian's annexation. And from this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I404gXbNg, that place seems to be well organized and have a good industrial background. Its really depending on how much chaos Russia can create in Ukrainian and whether or not Germany, France and the rest of the Europe and even their American allies can absorb Ukraine or not. Interesting times ahead of us for sure. can you explain what makes you think EU interests in Ukraine ? I know Germany , France UK, doing alright, but what about the rest of Europe ? Lets not take in consideration smaller countrys, they're not the economic machines of EU but rather depend on succes of the region as a whole. How many billions they need to put in to bring Ukraine up, and for what ? If its recources, its easier just to buy them off someone then to build all the infrastrucutre to EU standarts in a country where things were stale since 1991. Ukraine got no real leader since its Independece. Country was pretty much divided politicaly, people were used to diferent kind of system , ties with Russia aren't just economical or political they are very deep cultural, and i dont see a reason why a country in development like Russia got some extra recources to fuel and Destabilize Ukraine. For what ? So later if they bring Ukraine into they economic zone fuel it back in. Im sure not economic expert, but i just dont see a logic behind your words. Ukraine is the place to keep Russia in check and the west wants to minimize Russia's territory as small as possible. I'm sorry i don't know why, im assumed you from Germany. West is quiet large definition. US wants that , yes, but the West ? What is there to gain for EU ? but i'm guessing since you're not from EU, you probably couldn't answer that properly. Can someone inteligent enough and with wide knowledge of economics, give some explanation on what exactly is there to gain for EU ? (When word inteligent is used im sure many will try answer, lets observe the human nature) benefits of international trade. If you have an economics background, that is enough said. If you don't, google it, there are plenty of articles to explain it to you.
That's not all, actually. The EU was born as a stability and security organisation (the first was the European Coal and Steel Community) which aims to reduce economic competition between countries (ie., eliminating barriers to trade, tariffs, and other disruptive mechanisms which can spiral out of control when there's consecutive retaliation) and to level the playing field such that companies can compete against each other under uniform rules. It fosters economic integration such that the costs of economic (let alone military) conflict far outweigh the benefits of business as usual. This leads to a peaceful and stable system which EU countries have enjoyed for years, leading to prosperity. The further the EU reaches (including the Ukraine), the larger the area of stability, and the more consumers and companies there are to trade and generate prosperity. As we see with regard to Russia, having state actors which are willing to disrupt trade for political gain (i.e., which are not properly integrated into international trade) leads to economic instability and lack of security for everyone in the region.
|
On May 19 2014 22:55 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 22:34 Cheerio wrote:On May 19 2014 12:33 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 12:29 Xiphos wrote:On May 19 2014 12:07 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 09:49 Xiphos wrote:I think that Russia's plan is to destabilize Ukraine so much that EU would have go bankrupt for an Ukrainian acquisition so that the region have to turn to Russia for support when Russian finishes up stabilizing their economy and build oil transport road to Asia so that their economy can support Ukraine's. And also this in turn also bridges much closer to Transnisteria's hope for Russian's annexation. And from this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I404gXbNg, that place seems to be well organized and have a good industrial background. Its really depending on how much chaos Russia can create in Ukrainian and whether or not Germany, France and the rest of the Europe and even their American allies can absorb Ukraine or not. Interesting times ahead of us for sure. can you explain what makes you think EU interests in Ukraine ? I know Germany , France UK, doing alright, but what about the rest of Europe ? Lets not take in consideration smaller countrys, they're not the economic machines of EU but rather depend on succes of the region as a whole. How many billions they need to put in to bring Ukraine up, and for what ? If its recources, its easier just to buy them off someone then to build all the infrastrucutre to EU standarts in a country where things were stale since 1991. Ukraine got no real leader since its Independece. Country was pretty much divided politicaly, people were used to diferent kind of system , ties with Russia aren't just economical or political they are very deep cultural, and i dont see a reason why a country in development like Russia got some extra recources to fuel and Destabilize Ukraine. For what ? So later if they bring Ukraine into they economic zone fuel it back in. Im sure not economic expert, but i just dont see a logic behind your words. Ukraine is the place to keep Russia in check and the west wants to minimize Russia's territory as small as possible. I'm sorry i don't know why, im assumed you from Germany. West is quiet large definition. US wants that , yes, but the West ? What is there to gain for EU ? but i'm guessing since you're not from EU, you probably couldn't answer that properly. Can someone inteligent enough and with wide knowledge of economics, give some explanation on what exactly is there to gain for EU ? (When word inteligent is used im sure many will try answer, lets observe the human nature) benefits of international trade. If you have an economics background, that is enough said. If you don't, google it, there are plenty of articles to explain it to you. That's not all, actually. The EU was born as a stability and security organisation (the first was the European Coal and Steel Community) which aims to reduce economic competition between countries (ie., eliminating barriers to trade, tariffs, and other disruptive mechanisms which can spiral out of control when there's consecutive retaliation) and to level the playing field such that companies can compete against each other under uniform rules. It fosters economic integration such that the costs of economic (let alone military) conflict far outweigh the benefits of business as usual. This leads to a peaceful and stable system which EU countries have enjoyed for years, leading to prosperity. The further the EU reaches (including the Ukraine), the larger the area of stability, and the more consumers and companies there are to trade and generate prosperity. As we see with regard to Russia, having state actors which are willing to disrupt trade for political gain (i.e., which are not properly integrated into international trade) leads to economic instability and lack of security for everyone in the region.
Posts like this make wish there was an up vote button so I could spam it.
|
According to Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, chloroform was found in the Unions Building in Odesa. They say it could cause the respiratory arrest of which 32 people there had died. According to earlier reports, many people were found there in weird poses (like sitting in a chair), which implied sudden death, and in rooms with closed windows. Firefighters stated it's very unlikely that people would die from smoke without even trying to open the windows.
|
Germany11787 Posts
Please don't make statements like that without any sources whatsoever.
|
|
|
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
|
@nunez
"an order to extremist groups to destabilize the situation in Ukraine; unlawful activity by Odessa regional authorities and police aimed at discrediting the current central government; unchecked actions by football fans and pro-Russia groups; and a provocation by radical individuals."
I hope that "provocation by radical individuals" includes provocation by the people who were throwing molotovs. But I agree the report didn't seem like it was taking seriously the anti-separatist's involvement in the fire.
By the way did you come up with any proof of this being an armed coup or a coup by nationalist thugs (as opposed to parliament turning on him) ? You didn't respond to my last post so that's why I'm asking.
edit: If you want to stop discussing this point with me, feel free to say that this is just your opinion and leave it at that.
|
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
|
On May 19 2014 22:55 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 22:34 Cheerio wrote:On May 19 2014 12:33 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 12:29 Xiphos wrote:On May 19 2014 12:07 Greem wrote:On May 19 2014 09:49 Xiphos wrote:I think that Russia's plan is to destabilize Ukraine so much that EU would have go bankrupt for an Ukrainian acquisition so that the region have to turn to Russia for support when Russian finishes up stabilizing their economy and build oil transport road to Asia so that their economy can support Ukraine's. And also this in turn also bridges much closer to Transnisteria's hope for Russian's annexation. And from this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I404gXbNg, that place seems to be well organized and have a good industrial background. Its really depending on how much chaos Russia can create in Ukrainian and whether or not Germany, France and the rest of the Europe and even their American allies can absorb Ukraine or not. Interesting times ahead of us for sure. can you explain what makes you think EU interests in Ukraine ? I know Germany , France UK, doing alright, but what about the rest of Europe ? Lets not take in consideration smaller countrys, they're not the economic machines of EU but rather depend on succes of the region as a whole. How many billions they need to put in to bring Ukraine up, and for what ? If its recources, its easier just to buy them off someone then to build all the infrastrucutre to EU standarts in a country where things were stale since 1991. Ukraine got no real leader since its Independece. Country was pretty much divided politicaly, people were used to diferent kind of system , ties with Russia aren't just economical or political they are very deep cultural, and i dont see a reason why a country in development like Russia got some extra recources to fuel and Destabilize Ukraine. For what ? So later if they bring Ukraine into they economic zone fuel it back in. Im sure not economic expert, but i just dont see a logic behind your words. Ukraine is the place to keep Russia in check and the west wants to minimize Russia's territory as small as possible. I'm sorry i don't know why, im assumed you from Germany. West is quiet large definition. US wants that , yes, but the West ? What is there to gain for EU ? but i'm guessing since you're not from EU, you probably couldn't answer that properly. Can someone inteligent enough and with wide knowledge of economics, give some explanation on what exactly is there to gain for EU ? (When word inteligent is used im sure many will try answer, lets observe the human nature) benefits of international trade. If you have an economics background, that is enough said. If you don't, google it, there are plenty of articles to explain it to you. That's not all, actually. The EU was born as a stability and security organisation (the first was the European Coal and Steel Community) which aims to reduce economic competition between countries (ie., eliminating barriers to trade, tariffs, and other disruptive mechanisms which can spiral out of control when there's consecutive retaliation) and to level the playing field such that companies can compete against each other under uniform rules. It fosters economic integration such that the costs of economic (let alone military) conflict far outweigh the benefits of business as usual. This leads to a peaceful and stable system which EU countries have enjoyed for years, leading to prosperity. The further the EU reaches (including the Ukraine), the larger the area of stability, and the more consumers and companies there are to trade and generate prosperity. As we see with regard to Russia, having state actors which are willing to disrupt trade for political gain (i.e., which are not properly integrated into international trade) leads to economic instability and lack of security for everyone in the region.
Why invest somewhere (don't bother to read all of it):
+ Show Spoiler +So for investors you have basically 4 rational factors to know if you want implant yourself in a country (from my economies class, these factors were found by nobel prizes, idk if they are right in English):
-Production cost:
_wage costs per unit (salary per person with productivity) EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
_work / labour flexibility (state of work security) EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
_tax system and subsidies (tax heaven or not, helpful country or not with subsidies or technology share) EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
_custom barriers (possibility or not to export after investing, depends on the market proximity)
_providers proximity
-Market potential:
_depend on the type of activity you want to invest into and if it's directed to the market you invest into or a foreign (and usually richer) one
_depend on the culture (incentive to buy or reject a product or service based on culture) IMPORTANT
_market saturation (state of competition, first investor in a market or not, etc...)
-Quality of institutions
_state of institutions (corruption, political instability, capacity to invest easily) EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
_state of financial institutions (stock exchange, banks, trusted, safe and powerful money providers) IMPORTANT
_public services (education, health, infrastructures, etc...)
-Environmental norms (can be extremely annoying for investors) IMPORTANT
These are the rational factors, with that you have to add factors which are difficult to evaluate, chauvinism, trend, the personal interests of the investors and trust (that one is hardcore to understand and modelize).
With all of that you have the main factors for investments in the long run in a specific place. And these long run investments are what every country is searching and doing shit for.
Yes the economy and the political situation are extremely linked. Currently our world economy is based on investment and every country in the world fights to attract investors even at the cost of their morals and / or their own people social situation. For poor and under developed countries it's extremely difficult to narrow the gap with rich countries rapidly while relying only on national (private or public) investments (to increase the supply and demand). Actually no one tries to rely on themselves and the ones that did for a long time, even with huge amount of natural resources are in deep shit like Algeria or even older India (was extremely protectionist and even if they were in a way better situation in 1949 look how behind they are from China).
Now for the shape of the Ukrainian economy we have:
+ Show Spoiler +-its current productive web (not sure if it's the right word) which is not so great but not bad with industry in the East and agriculture in the West, a few big companies that could grow big internationally but an overall lack of investments and foreign companies (not Russian ones)
-its technology gap: quite high in the industry, not so high in the agriculture, the agricultural sector has a huge potential but in the industry it will be difficult in the upcoming yrs
-its social situation: good with a young population, not rly well educated so capable of working for low wages and in bad conditions, fertility rates are a bit low but on the rise
All of that aren't the core problems and are recoverable from but these ones hit hard:
-its risk of inflation (very high with big dependence on Russian gaz)
-its political situation (well we all know about that)
-its capacity to attract investments from nationals (rly low with oligarchs, see below) and foreigners (not Russian) (extremely bad, with the main problem being the political one)
The last point is extremely important and imo it is foreign investment that will decide if the Ukrainian economy can recover and bloom in just a few years or if it will have to wait for another 30.
In Ukraine the economical situation is basically frozen. There is alot of corruption, the oligarchs have their big share of the pie and are happy with it. They don't want to invest it in their own country because it could lead to the end of their little dreamy life and because there is a chance it wouldn't even be profitable. The situation is all the more frozen that the oligarchs and the whole elite has ties with the the Russian elite which is also doing the same and not investing in their own country (like I said before Russia is only running because of its natural resources) hence a big incentive for the elite to spend their money oversees and milking the cow in their own country. This is why the pro Russians are stupid, closer ties with Russia means no change on an economic and political level.
Now closer ties with the EU, will bring for the economy of Ukraine a free-trade agreement which allows it to sell products while avoiding most of the European protectionism, a simplification of the trades (no more individual, country-to-country taxes rates but global ones for each product), the capacity for Europe to make life easier for Ukraine (by for example like with Africa allowing their own product to be taxed while not taxing theirs, also technology share, also unprofitable loans, basic help).
The help of the EU will come with conditions which will most likely be an easier capacity for EU companies to invest especially in the natural resources sectors AND big economic and democratic reforms which will slowly make corruption and the bad political situation fade and also make the labor market / work in general more flexible.
All of that are sure to be welcomed by investors and can be the key for growth in Ukraine. It's pretty idealistic because the oligarchs wouldn't be happy about that and would resist, provoking unrest again (seeing how they are supported by some parts of the population) but imo it would just be great for Ukraine.
(Wall of text, mix of what I learn at my school and my take on the Ukrainian economical situation)
|
On May 20 2014 02:17 nunez wrote:
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
1.) so you are suggesting that the "henchman of the junta" started the fire in Odessa
2.) You are implying that the nationalist thugs forced parliament to turn on Yanukovych by so far providing 1 image of a parliamentarian being heckled by protestors.
Let's just leave it at that then. I think your argument speaks for itself.
I'm done "debating" with you.
|
On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones?
|
|
|
On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt. Show nested quote +
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones?
lol. I actually know where to get contacts of people to get paid for what he is doing.
|
You mean the local GRU office in East Ukraine?
|
On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt. Show nested quote +
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones?
Nunez is not looking like a paid anything. He is sourcing and arguing from something near a nordic left-wing platform.
The left-wing in the nordic countries are relatively well-organized and likely mostly independent from Russian money. They share an ideological disgust of the way capitalism and especially the free market works, though it is not necessarily rooted in communism as the alternative and especially not the "authoritarian capitalism" Putin has build up. I see a lot about western hypocricy and media bias, some zero-sum geopolitical sphere rights being defended by Russia, but also how the real left wing in Ukraine has been caught between a russophile Ukrainian Communist Party and the aristocratic Party of Regions + the right wing. They are very self-conflicted on Russia and the separatists (They are as anti-war and as anti-corruption as you get!), but the clear and flaming antipathy towards right wing groups and their involvement in the current government in Kyiv is a big driving factor behind their views.
|
On May 20 2014 04:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones? Nunez is not looking like a paid anything. He is sourcing and arguing from something near a nordic left-wing platform. The left-wing in the nordic countries are relatively well-organized and likely mostly independent from Russian money. They share an ideological disgust of the way capitalism and especially the free market works, though it is not necessarily rooted in communism as the alternative and especially not the "authoritarian capitalism" Putin has build up. I see a lot about western hypocricy and media bias, some zero-sum geopolitical sphere rights being defended by Russia, but also how the real left wing in Ukraine has been caught between a russophile Ukrainian Communist Party and the aristocratic Party of Regions + the right wing. They are very self-conflicted on Russia and the separatists (They are as anti-war and as anti-corruption as you get!), but the clear and flaming antipathy towards right wing groups and their involvement in the current government in Kyiv is a big driving factor behind their views.
If I were recruiting, I'd pay double for that!
|
On May 20 2014 04:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones? Nunez is not looking like a paid anything. He is sourcing and arguing from something near a nordic left-wing platform. The left-wing in the nordic countries are relatively well-organized and likely mostly independent from Russian money. They share an ideological disgust of the way capitalism and especially the free market works, though it is not necessarily rooted in communism as the alternative and especially not the "authoritarian capitalism" Putin has build up. I see a lot about western hypocricy and media bias, some zero-sum geopolitical sphere rights being defended by Russia, but also how the real left wing in Ukraine has been caught between a russophile Ukrainian Communist Party and the aristocratic Party of Regions + the right wing. They are very self-conflicted on Russia and the separatists (They are as anti-war and as anti-corruption as you get!), but the clear and flaming antipathy towards right wing groups and their involvement in the current government in Kyiv is a big driving factor behind their views.
I'm aware that he's not being paid, I didn't mean it literally. Nevertheless this European college student - mid twenties "usa sucks" attitude is really annoying. We have our fair share of that here, too. If the US takes a look at your metadata they're the root of all evil, if Russia rolls over Crimea it's a "defense of their legitimate geopolitical interest, and everyone who disagrees is a Russophobe". It's like some kind of 2nd stage of puberty in Europe that hits you during your college years.
|
On May 20 2014 04:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones? Nunez is not looking like a paid anything. He is sourcing and arguing from something near a nordic left-wing platform. The left-wing in the nordic countries are relatively well-organized and likely mostly independent from Russian money. They share an ideological disgust of the way capitalism and especially the free market works, though it is not necessarily rooted in communism as the alternative and especially not the "authoritarian capitalism" Putin has build up. I see a lot about western hypocricy and media bias, some zero-sum geopolitical sphere rights being defended by Russia, but also how the real left wing in Ukraine has been caught between a russophile Ukrainian Communist Party and the aristocratic Party of Regions + the right wing. They are very self-conflicted on Russia and the separatists (They are as anti-war and as anti-corruption as you get!), but the clear and flaming antipathy towards right wing groups and their involvement in the current government in Kyiv is a big driving factor behind their views.
While I can understand (it is very hard to though) the left winger view on current govt in Kiev, he is completely dismissing/ignoring Russian nationalist and fascist policies. If he is so anti-right why he was silent as grave when people were discussing possiblity of mass deportations of Tatars from Crimea under current Russian administration.
|
On May 20 2014 04:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 01:01 nunez wrote:
everyone but the maidan thugs who lit the building on fire, fired at it, obstructed the firemen, beat people jumping from the flames to death and was cheering the massacre on are under suspicion by the ukraine govt.
i doubt the junta would suggest their henchmen are destabilizing ukraine. ;>
those aren't opposed.
Are you getting paid in Ruble or in krones? Nunez is not looking like a paid anything. He is sourcing and arguing from something near a nordic left-wing platform. The left-wing in the nordic countries are relatively well-organized and likely mostly independent from Russian money. They share an ideological disgust of the way capitalism and especially the free market works, though it is not necessarily rooted in communism as the alternative and especially not the "authoritarian capitalism" Putin has build up. I see a lot about western hypocricy and media bias, some zero-sum geopolitical sphere rights being defended by Russia, but also how the real left wing in Ukraine has been caught between a russophile Ukrainian Communist Party and the aristocratic Party of Regions + the right wing. They are very self-conflicted on Russia and the separatists (They are as anti-war and as anti-corruption as you get!), but the clear and flaming antipathy towards right wing groups and their involvement in the current government in Kyiv is a big driving factor behind their views.
At least the Finnish and Swedish far left is nothing like Nunez. They sometimes have russophilic positions, but their sources and ideology are different. I'd say he's probably a Russian immigrant, or misrepresenting his location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
