|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
On August 08 2014 10:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:42 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:37 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence. Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US. word choices, son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution Well, that's unfortunate and I just found it here as well: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007328Sorry, English isn't my native language and I didn't know there was such a term. I meant final solution as in complete/full. Not partial. I understand that you can read over it with English not being your first language, but seeing as the English term is a direct, literal, translation from German, I´d suspect the same holds for the term in Bulgarian? Anyway, it´s wildly offtopic and presumably any German solution to this crisis won´t focus on exterminating anybody. Insofar as I know, both Germany and the Netherlands are quietly politicking away, rather than flexing their muscles. Meanwhile NATO and the US increase threats... and the trade war is escalating quickly with the Russian sanctions.
To be honest, I've never heard of the "Final Solution" before. Yes, I know about the Holocaust and that my country, Bulgaria, has helped Israelis but I've never heard of the term.
And no, according to Wikipedia, the Bulgarian translation is much more direct. It's Окончателно решение на еврейския въпрос (Final solution to Israeli matter). It certainly specifies what it is about unlike English "Final Solution".
Either way, I apologise once again for misunderstanding. I think context was clear enough to convey I didn't imply anything related to Israelis. I've edited the post in question as well.
Edit: Also a piece of advice: stop being oversensitive with certain topics. Context was clear from the get-go. This is just nitpicky.
|
On August 08 2014 10:52 darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:46 Acrofales wrote:On August 08 2014 10:42 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:37 darkness wrote:On August 08 2014 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. oh god, i hope you only accidentally put germany and final solution in the same sentence. Why not? Do you think that US will solve this bullshit? Because I don't. Russia is too proud to surrender to US. word choices, son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution Well, that's unfortunate and I just found it here as well: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007328Sorry, English isn't my native language and I didn't know there was such a term. I meant final solution as in complete/full. Not partial. I understand that you can read over it with English not being your first language, but seeing as the English term is a direct, literal, translation from German, I´d suspect the same holds for the term in Bulgarian? Anyway, it´s wildly offtopic and presumably any German solution to this crisis won´t focus on exterminating anybody. Insofar as I know, both Germany and the Netherlands are quietly politicking away, rather than flexing their muscles. Meanwhile NATO and the US increase threats... and the trade war is escalating quickly with the Russian sanctions. To be honest, I've never heard of the "Final Solution" before. Yes, I know about the Holocaust and that my country, Bulgaria, has helped Israelis but I've never heard of the term. And no, according to Wikipedia, the Bulgarian translation is much more direct. It's Окончателно решение на еврейския въпрос (Final solution to Israeli matter). It certainly specifies what it is about unlike English "Final Solution". Either way, I apologise once again for misunderstanding. I think context was clear enough to convey I didn't imply anything related to Israelis. I've edited the post in question as well. Edit: Also a piece of advice: stop being oversensitive with certain topics. Context was clear from the get-go. This is just nitpicky.
I'm pretty sure people are just finding an excuse to troll / fuck with you. I don't think any mature person would be ragging on you like this with serious intent lol. I saw what you wrote and didn't bat an eyelash because I knew what you meant.
We may as well ban the German language and any translations from German while we're at it if people are going to be this ridiculous.
|
On August 08 2014 10:52 darkness wrote:
Edit: Also a piece of advice: stop being oversensitive with certain topics. Context was clear from the get-go. This is just nitpicky.
I know you didn't mean it that way, but subtly name-dropping "The Final Solution" is actually common enough that this sort of reaction to it is not out of the ordinary. That's why so many people are responding to a very unfortunate bit of wording.
For example: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/bw-strategy/46839-the-final-solution-the-ultimate-strategy
On August 08 2014 09:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:In other news, Ukraine has scrapped the cease-fire around the MH-17 crash site, which is just going to delay things more... Show nested quote +
KIEV: Ukraine on Thursday (Aug 7) scrapped a ceasefire around the crash site of downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, a day after international experts announced they were halting investigations there over continued fighting.
Ukraine's government said in a statement that the Dutch-led probe team was told that the ceasefire around the rebel-held site had been ditched until experts decide to return to resume their search for clues and remains.
International experts suspended their search for body parts at the MH17 crash site on Wednesday because of deteriorating security in eastern Ukraine, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said.
"It doesn't make sense to continue with the repatriation in this manner," the Dutch leader told a press conference in The Hague. Rutte said increasing tension between Kiev - which is battling pro-Russian separatists in the area - has made it too unsafe to continue with the search for victims' remains.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/ukraine-scraps-ceasefire/1301882.html
Interesting strategy: make unilateral rather than bilateral ceasefires, scrap them shortly thereafter.
|
On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution.
Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV?
|
On August 08 2014 10:30 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 10:05 darkness wrote:
I think Germany is the only reasonable nation because their approach includes more diplomacy, and Putin seems to get on with them better than with others. I still believe Russian politicians are less than humans, but if anything, it's Germany not US which may come up with the final solution.
At the moment, US wants to beat Russia until they back down. Russia doesn't want to back down because it'll look weak. Both are being stubborn. So, the best decision is to let talks with a more neutral/reputable nation for Russia such as Germany. Of course, Germany will have to represent the common interest of other countries as well. I'd not support some secret deal between them. ._. that phrasing
hahaha, that's great!
|
On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV?
Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this
|
On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this
No, it doesn't sound pretty accurate though.
|
On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this
No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it.
And since Yanukovich pledged himself to Russia before he fled, while the winning force was pro-EU, Putin was very angry at Ukraine and decided to punish it. This is your actual historical context.
|
On August 09 2014 01:42 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it.
Butbutbut evil CIA vampire gay nazi junta?
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
I don't really see the comparisons to East/West Berlin hold and neither have I seen anyone propose a direct war with Russia, as the comparison to the warfever of WW1 would suggest. Now we are going to reward Putin by improving the russian economy for taking over Crimea? I don't see any consequence in what he is proposing. Reconcilliation for something happening at the moment and during the last half year is a bit too early.
When we are dealing with the rest. Yes, USA has been pushing far too hard and aggressively because of their internal political situation. And particularly the US media had in a period covered the conflict with a bit too much counter-push. The problem for the media is that they want to stay objective and the easiest way to do that is usually to read about a situation from both sides view. Unfortunately the russian media have become an eccoing machine devoit of western perspective and with a very clear good/bad definition, not build on objective methodology of choosing what is important. Therefore it is not surprising that the western media have turned too far in the opposite direction.
And yes, Europe should not necessarily copy USAs approach on this. Europe has a completely different relation with Russia, but strenghtening the bonds with Russia at this time of ultra-nationalism and expansionistic rhetorics is probably not the best way to go about it. Wait for the situation in Ukraine to get back to normal and hope for some more democratic tendencies in Russia and start the process of normalisation at that time.
|
the article makes little sense. in 2013 Russia was integrated with the West as much as it wanted to, it sits on the NATO-Russia council, its in the G8, Obama made that clear 'reset' move, UN ruled that Georgia started the 2008 war and the West acted like it, EU specifically chose not to have a pan-European gas policy but rather a country specific gas policy to ensure Russia has a disproportionate amount of influence in its negotiations, EU makes almost 0 noises about the current counter insurgency campaign -- and the brutal nature of it -- that is still going on in Dagestan, the EU makes 0 noise about the money laundering of the Russian elite in the West, the EU has never blocked Russian strategic purchases of European core assets, the EU has armed and continues to arm Russia etc. What further integration with Russia was missing ? That following the Russian invasion and occupation of 3 Ukrainian provinces the EU didnt offer to pay Russia for the whole thing perhaps?
|
Rebels in Donetsk are surrounded, the city by now heavily depopulated, and are clamoring for a cease-fire. It'll be interesting to see how Russia responds to this. While I'm certainly unhappy that Ukraine's gone from bad to worse since Euromaidan due to the instability of political upheaval and destruction of civil war, I'll be pleased if the Kremlin doesn't decide to go Bush-style here.
DONETSK, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine's rebels are surrounded and ready to agree to a cease-fire to prevent a "humanitarian catastrophe," the insurgents' new leader said Saturday as conditions deteriorated in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, artillery thundering through deserted streets.
There was no immediate government response to the cease-fire statement. Ukrainian troops have made steady advances against the rebels in recent weeks.
"We are prepared to stop firing to bar the spread of the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Donbass (eastern Ukraine)," Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the so-called prime minister of the Donetsk separatists, said in a statement on a rebel website.
His motive for offering a cease-fire was not clear but his comments could be aimed at increasing the pressure on Ukraine to allow in a Russian aid mission.
Russia, which the Ukrainian government in Kiev and Western countries allege is supporting the rebels, has called repeatedly for a humanitarian mission into eastern Ukraine. But Kiev and the West suggest that could be just a pretext to send Russian forces into the region — and say about 20,000 of them have gathered just across the border.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko issued a statement late Saturday saying that Ukraine is prepared to accept humanitarian assistance in eastern Ukraine. But he said the aid must come in without military accompaniment, it must pass through border checkpoints under Ukrainian control and the mission must be international in character.
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/08/09/barricades-come-down-in-kiev
|
well there is this now
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/russia-bans-imports-eu-us-sanctions
Russian government officials have been told to draw up a list of western agricultural products and raw materials that will be banned or restricted for up to one year, according to the decree published on the Kremlin website.
Russia is Europe's second largest market for food and drink and has been an important consumer of Polish pig meat and Dutch fruit and vegetables. Exports of food and raw materials to Russia were worth €12.2bn (£9.7bn) in 2013, following several years of double-digit growth.
EU is making appeals, complaints and even suing Russia, hoping that the WTO would undo the ban on goods.
Poland is especially screwed and Greece is not far behind it.
|
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically.
|
On August 10 2014 06:38 LegalLord wrote:
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically.
But they're hurting the "wrong" countries. If they're trying to make retaliatory measures, then neutral nations should be the least affected. That's the problem with the choice for foodstuffs. Hurting the intended countries the least is counter-productive.
I've been thinking this since the late 2000s, but how I see it, Russia's economic plan during the 2000s was to become a functional country again, in the 2010s to assert some financial and economic muscle (which we've seen them do with some other European countries), and in the late 2010s/2020s, produce huge economic growth and developing the economy in a way such that they can hurt belligerents with them only minimally hurting Russia. The first two phases we've already seen transpire. The third phase, assuming it happens, is going to be a scary time for Russian enemies, but they seem headed down that route, especially as they're starting to open up larger-scale trade in Asia and basically anywhere else that's friendly/neutral with Russia.
But, right now is too soon for them to try to muscle against the combination of USA and US "allies" in Europe.
Very stupid move on the Kremlin's part, I would say.
But the Ukrainian government is even stupider. Their recent threat to cut off oil/gas supplies from Russia to the rest of Europe will piss off not just Russia, but everyone else in the continent. It would be a good "justification" for Russian intervention in Ukraine along with the "humanitarian" mission. It's almost like Poroshenko is trying to shoot himself in the foot.
|
Some numerical estimates on the agricultural ban:
These sanctions are aimed at an industry that is politically powerful far beyond its numbers. Chicken farmers in the US will squawk at the loss of about 1 percent of their revenues, and European dairy producers will bellow in anger. But the economic impact on the affected countries will be trivial. The US exports about $300 million in chicken to Russia (down substantially from a few years ago), which is essentially rounding error in US GDP. European net food exports to Russia are about 12 billion euros, or less than .1 percent of the EU’s 13 trillion Euro economy.
The impact on Russia’s people will be substantially greater. Russia imports about 35 percent of its food, about half of that from Europe and the US. Higher value, non-staples are disproportionately affected. This will lead to an appreciable increase in the cost of food, which represents a very large fraction of Russian household budgets. Whereas US consumers spend about 6.5 percent of their total expenditures on food, in Russia the figure is about 32 percent. A rise in food prices hits hard. A 10 percent increase, which is not unrealistic, cuts Russian living standards about 3 percent.
Source
|
On August 10 2014 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 06:38 LegalLord wrote:
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically. But they're hurting the "wrong" countries. If they're trying to make retaliatory measures, then neutral nations should be the least affected. That's the problem with the choice for foodstuffs. Hurting the intended countries the least is counter-productive. I've been thinking this since the late 2000s, but how I see it, Russia's economic plan during the 2000s was to become a functional country again, in the 2010s to assert some financial and economic muscle (which we've seen them do with some other European countries), and in the late 2010s/2020s, produce huge economic growth and developing the economy in a way such that they can hurt belligerents with them only minimally hurting Russia. The first two phases we've already seen transpire. The third phase, assuming it happens, is going to be a scary time for Russian enemies, but they seem headed down that route, especially as they're starting to open up larger-scale trade in Asia and basically anywhere else that's friendly/neutral with Russia. But, right now is too soon for them to try to muscle against the combination of USA and US "allies" in Europe. Very stupid move on the Kremlin's part, I would say. But the Ukrainian government is even stupider. Their recent threat to cut off oil/gas supplies from Russia to the rest of Europe will piss off not just Russia, but everyone else in the continent. It would be a good "justification" for Russian intervention in Ukraine along with the "humanitarian" mission. It's almost like Poroshenko is trying to shoot himself in the foot.
Well, the way I see it is this:
In the short run, there is no way the United States can be hurt by Russia's actions. The biggest thing that will hurt them is if the outcome of this crisis is the creation of Novorossiya.
The EU really can't afford these sanctions, and frankly if they had an out that would save face, they would take it. The economy of the EU has been steadily declining from their decision to impose sanctions. On top of that, I don't think that Germany and many of the other countries really want to have a long-standing conflict with Russia; I believe that earlier in this conflict Merkel said something about Russia being an ally but that they have a temporary disagreement. On top of that, Germany isn't too fond of the US, what with the NSA troubles they have been having. Trying to sink the EU isn't really in Russia's best interests.
Perhaps the intended target is the Eurozone. We've seen before how much of a problem Italy and Greece have caused when they defaulted a while back, so it's not too over-the-top to assume that that could happen again. Hurting Poland + Lithuania (non-Eurozone) also helps because it tests the commitment of NATO to its member countries. If NATO isn't willing to bail them out now, it undermines the organization. If they do, they will have to jump through some significant hurdles to do so. How popular do you expect the decision to import Polish apples would be in the US? If they don't, those countries may be forced to make a deal with Russia, undermining the entire sanction effort.
The other likely target is Ukraine itself. The time of the current government is running out, and the less money they have, the faster they will fail. The separatists aren't going to win by a decisive military victory; that much was pretty obvious from the very beginning. They will win if Ukraine can't continue to deploy their military. Sooner or later, the soldiers (and/or mercenaries?) will lose motivation to fight - a few hundred of them fled into Russia just a few days ago. Their threat to block the pipeline was probably made as a last resort because they really can't keep this up for too long.
|
On August 10 2014 09:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 06:38 LegalLord wrote:
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically. But they're hurting the "wrong" countries. If they're trying to make retaliatory measures, then neutral nations should be the least affected. That's the problem with the choice for foodstuffs. Hurting the intended countries the least is counter-productive. I've been thinking this since the late 2000s, but how I see it, Russia's economic plan during the 2000s was to become a functional country again, in the 2010s to assert some financial and economic muscle (which we've seen them do with some other European countries), and in the late 2010s/2020s, produce huge economic growth and developing the economy in a way such that they can hurt belligerents with them only minimally hurting Russia. The first two phases we've already seen transpire. The third phase, assuming it happens, is going to be a scary time for Russian enemies, but they seem headed down that route, especially as they're starting to open up larger-scale trade in Asia and basically anywhere else that's friendly/neutral with Russia. But, right now is too soon for them to try to muscle against the combination of USA and US "allies" in Europe. Very stupid move on the Kremlin's part, I would say. But the Ukrainian government is even stupider. Their recent threat to cut off oil/gas supplies from Russia to the rest of Europe will piss off not just Russia, but everyone else in the continent. It would be a good "justification" for Russian intervention in Ukraine along with the "humanitarian" mission. It's almost like Poroshenko is trying to shoot himself in the foot. Well, the way I see it is this: In the short run, there is no way the United States can be hurt by Russia's actions. The biggest thing that will hurt them is if the outcome of this crisis is the creation of Novorossiya.
How would that hurt the US? Russia has another region sucking oil money out of the central treasury. Crimea expects 3 billion in annual transfers. If you take the terrorist enclave at its maximum control thats 4 million people, so another couple billion. If you are talking about Putin's fantasy of restoring all of South and East then thats 20 million. Even more Russian rubles down the drain. For the Americans there is no way to be hurt except maybe emotionally and even then, not really, they arent particularly vested in EU's project to ensure they dont border instability
Sooner or later, the soldiers (and/or mercenaries?) will lose motivation to fight - a few hundred of them fled into Russia just a few days ago. Their threat to block the pipeline was probably made as a last resort because they really can't keep this up for too long.
Those soldiers retreated into Russia because Russian artillery was too much, then they all were sent back to Ukraine and went back to the front. Looking at the wave the Ukrainian Army has advanced in the last 2 months -- while getting paid almost nothing -- seems to suggest moral is pretty high.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On August 09 2014 01:42 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it. And since Yanukovich pledged himself to Russia before he fled, while the winning force was pro-EU, Putin was very angry at Ukraine and decided to punish it. This is your actual historical context.
No, ukrainian media controlled by oligarchs (who in turn controlled by EU and US cause they keep their funds and assets in the western structure) just told you that you should go to Maidan and jump there crying "Those who don't jump are russians".
And since most of the people are easily controlled by the media they went to Maidan and did what they did.
In the result - you have corrupted thief and criminal Poroshenko (i think he is on par with Yanukovich or even worse) and civil war.
GJ, exactly what US wanted from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
