|
|
On March 08 2014 02:38 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 02:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization. The first bit: the West is a colloquial IR term that generally refers to the United States and NATO (specifically Western & Central Europe), and was used to backdrop against the Communist "East". East vs. West is a pretty classic Cold War dichotomy. There has been some general expansion of the term recently to include Japan and South Korea, which means it'll go the way of other Cold War relics like First/Second/Third world differentiation and lose it's relevant meaning. The highlighted bit amuses the fk out of me, and reminds me of, oh, something something over a century ago. There is so much...arrogance in that one sentence, I'm impressed. surely arrogance would not obscure the fact that the russian govt is not exactly good for its people. i don't have an anti-russian as culture bias so much as i have one against their failed state that holds the people back.
And I have no love for Russia or it's government, but you just conflated the Europe as civilization and Russia as...a lack of civilization? There are enough negative connotations here.
as for the detailing of putin's interests in crimea. there's a specific trigger to his actions, and reason to choose crimea and the current ukraine political upheaval to act, but the overall theme is a stressing of nationalistic narrative and a theatre designed to focus the attention of russians internally to the international arena rather than what is happening at home.
Which I disagree with. You are correct, there are domestic economic and political concerns, most notably endemic corruption, that it distracts from, but to subscribe the entirety of Russian motives to nationalism is...both incorrect, given the plethora of other factors, and is a complete and utter shot in the dark. Black box of state decisionmaking here, uncertainty about motives and all.
I'm taking the academic stance which this thread appears to have been lacking, so I will say that the nuances are EXTREMELY important. And oversimplification is dangerous. Unless you make an elegant and parsimonious theory, of course, like a good positivist.
|
there's nothing happening 'at home'. they're just poor and a little brainwashed (but no more then westerners)
|
On March 08 2014 02:47 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 02:38 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 02:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization. The first bit: the West is a colloquial IR term that generally refers to the United States and NATO (specifically Western & Central Europe), and was used to backdrop against the Communist "East". East vs. West is a pretty classic Cold War dichotomy. There has been some general expansion of the term recently to include Japan and South Korea, which means it'll go the way of other Cold War relics like First/Second/Third world differentiation and lose it's relevant meaning. The highlighted bit amuses the fk out of me, and reminds me of, oh, something something over a century ago. There is so much...arrogance in that one sentence, I'm impressed. surely arrogance would not obscure the fact that the russian govt is not exactly good for its people. i don't have an anti-russian as culture bias so much as i have one against their failed state that holds the people back. And I have no love for Russia or it's government, but you just conflated the Europe as civilization and Russia as...a lack of civilization? There are enough negative connotations here.
Fact of the matter is, Russia isn't very civil.
|
On March 08 2014 01:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:29 nunez wrote:On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation. doubting western manipulation or are you talking about its extent? i don't know what some people's conception of 'the west' even is. is it a caricature of Imperialist Pig Americans or something out of the Jewish Illuminati playbook like you hear in ny bars? either way it's this shadowy figure that combats the russians or another opposing actor in a game of risk. sure, the cia is there in some capacity no doubt. but if you take sides based purely on a framework of west vs russia, you are not looking at the content of their respective influence. the west, for example, may wish for some positive reforms, while putin is engaged in teh old nationalism to combat internal weakness routine.
i was thinking about seemingly less nefarious, persistent financial backing through various agencies and more recently omidyar. beyond that is speculation, but modern history and leaked nuland call leaves a lot of leeway, and my bias should be apparent.
prescribing economical policies seems to be alpha omega when it comes to astroturfed revolutions, not democracy. neoliberal and imperial money (nevermind the currency) engenders violence and corruption, whether intentional or not is irrelevant. people fighting oppression are quickly marginalized by opportunists backed by foreign explotation skrill, and no progress is made. georgia springs to mind as a relevant example.
if you are conflating these economic policies with democracy then it's probably easier to make a favorable judgement call.
ominous descriptors comes with the territory i think.
|
On March 08 2014 01:04 Ghanburighan wrote:
haha, they've done it again!
|
On March 08 2014 02:55 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:43 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 01:29 nunez wrote:On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation. doubting western manipulation or are you talking about its extent? i don't know what some people's conception of 'the west' even is. is it a caricature of Imperialist Pig Americans or something out of the Jewish Illuminati playbook like you hear in ny bars? either way it's this shadowy figure that combats the russians or another opposing actor in a game of risk. sure, the cia is there in some capacity no doubt. but if you take sides based purely on a framework of west vs russia, you are not looking at the content of their respective influence. the west, for example, may wish for some positive reforms, while putin is engaged in teh old nationalism to combat internal weakness routine. . georgia springs to mind as a relevant example.
?
|
On March 08 2014 02:53 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 02:47 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 02:38 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 02:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization. The first bit: the West is a colloquial IR term that generally refers to the United States and NATO (specifically Western & Central Europe), and was used to backdrop against the Communist "East". East vs. West is a pretty classic Cold War dichotomy. There has been some general expansion of the term recently to include Japan and South Korea, which means it'll go the way of other Cold War relics like First/Second/Third world differentiation and lose it's relevant meaning. The highlighted bit amuses the fk out of me, and reminds me of, oh, something something over a century ago. There is so much...arrogance in that one sentence, I'm impressed. surely arrogance would not obscure the fact that the russian govt is not exactly good for its people. i don't have an anti-russian as culture bias so much as i have one against their failed state that holds the people back. And I have no love for Russia or it's government, but you just conflated the Europe as civilization and Russia as...a lack of civilization? There are enough negative connotations here. Fact of the matter is, Russia isn't very civil.
This is just being obtuse here, and you know it.
@ nunez: not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. I see buzzwords but little else?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the trigger is ukraine departing from a russian sphere, so it is not meere spontaneous nationalism. by nationalism i meant to describe a longer term trend in which the state's taking on the national mantle gives it power. as u have said state and nation are distinct but putin has made it an issue by stressing the russianness of crimea and characterising western ukraine as engaged in some kind of ethnic conflict against "russians" in crimea
|
On March 07 2014 20:08 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 19:23 vyyye wrote:
I have a mate who claims there is no evidence of any Russian troops being outside of their military bases (where they are allowed to be anyway) and that media just keeps mistaking pro Russian Crimean troops for Russians. Is there any actual evidence for actual Russian troops besieging Ukrainian bases? 3) There is a video of unarmed column of Ukraine Air Force personal marching to the Airport surrounded by people with weapons. The armed people yell with Ukrainian accents and seem to be wearing mismatched uniforms, so it looks they are Crimean self defense people, but that's not 100%.
If you are talking about the Belbek base where unarmed Ukrainian-Russians march against 'unnamed' troops...no one there has Ukrainian accents, they are all Russian speakers on both sides of that standoff
The evidence that there are actual Russian troops -- outside of the link that Ghanburighan posted where various individual sources are combined is the fact that these 'pro-Russian Crimean troops' are all armed with brand new Russia tactical kit and weapons, all are military age, and all are riding brand new Russian -- with Russian markings -- vehicles.
There is actually a good contrast between what 'local proRussian crimean troops' -- the ones with disorganized uniforms, older looking, and the actual Russian special forces guys.
|
@sub40 us backed georgian govt insanely corrupt. none of the freedom skrill reached it's inhabitants, good intentions aside.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the us is not saintly for sure but they'd prefer a south korea or japan as result rather than an annexed province.
if u r talking about the imf guys they r not evil they r just economists
|
|
|
On March 08 2014 03:00 oneofthem wrote:
the trigger is ukraine departing from a russian sphere, so it is not meere spontaneous nationalism. by nationalism i meant to describe a longer term trend in which the state's taking on the national mantle gives it power. as u have said state and nation are distinct but putin has made it an issue by stressing the russianness of crimea and characterising western ukraine as engaged in some kind of ethnic conflict against "russians" in crimea
If we're going to stick with realist power politics (I find that boring but its fine), yes. Russia has national interests in Ukraine, and the new regime threatens it. However "nationalism" is too vague a statement to be used as a justification, when there are a list of specific justifications and causes of concerns.
Putin has been stressing the Russian nature of the Crimea because the "ethnic" Russians in the Crimea specifically request it! And they are indeed "ethnically" Russian with close ties to Moscow, since the resettlement of Russian serfs and forced migration of the Crimean Tartars after the Crimean War. Additionally, I quoted a post in my wall-o-text. If the attempted repeal of the Ukrainian language law is of any indication, yes: they (and the residents of Eastern Ukraine/Crimea) have cause for concern. It is blown out of proportion, but there is an element of truth behind it. And jingoism is easy to build public support around, if you frame it as such.
I'm not disagreeing here, but you're oversimplifying it, when Russia has numerous causes of concern in the region.
|
On March 07 2014 21:37 Saji wrote:When I look at the news, I see that the predominant image that is being projected by western mainstream media unto me (us) is that Russia is the aggressor, in the form that Russia has invaded Crimea (Ukraine). But is this factual? Can this claim be supported by facts? So that leads me to ask myself, whether:Russia invade Crimea? Or is the word "invade" used as a rhetorical devise by the media and by government & politicians for their own agenda? I infer from the word (verb) "to invade" that it implies some kind of action, which has to do with: a) the movement of someone or something from one place to another, and b) that this movement is accompanied with some form of hostility, aggression, and conquest I imagine that in the case of Russia, this would mean that they (the Russian army) would be trespassing the borders between Russia and Ukraine, and that this trespassing would be accompanies with hostile or aggressive behavior. Is this the case? Or rather has this been the case? Does Russia meet these conditions? If so then I can, indeed use the word "invade" properly. So for those that are unsure if these what I have inferred about the word "to invade" is correct see spoilers below, there i checked with merriam webster and the online dictionary reference to see if my inference were accurate or not. + Show Spoiler +
1: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
2: to enter (a place) in large numbers
3: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted According to the online dictionary.reference.com "invade" is used in 5 ways
1.to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2.to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3.to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home.
4.to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5.to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
So according to the 8 definitions above, I confirm that there are at least 2 condition before one can factually say that "Russia invaded Ukraine". These are: 1) Russia has to have acted in the form of "to enter" or to "intrude"; 2) this action has to be accompanied with a certain negative quality, which one can denote as "hostile" or "aggressive", "conquest". So to properly use this word I ask whether, someone can proof that Russia indeed meets these conditions? So lets can we find the answer the following questions: Did Russia's army go from one physical place to another, and did it trespassed border with no legality? (yes or no) Were these actions accompanies with some form of "Hostility", "aggressiveness"? (yes or no?) Did the Russian army inflict illegitimate harm to innocent bystanders or participants? (yes or no?) Are there people who were killed by the hands of Russian troops, for no legitimate reason? (yes or no?) Are there reports of Russia killing Ukraine or harming them or incarcerating them without any legitimate grounds? (yes or no?) According to the sources I found, I'm led to conclude that the situation is: uncertain, unsure, there is ambiguity or to put it more strongly it seems that the situation is equivocal. Why? Because Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine where it states that Russia is allowed to have up to 26.000 troops in Crimea. Russia currently has about 16.000 Troops stationed. On the other hand there are some report that claim that Russian " troops are swarming all over the peninsula". (see spoilers for more details) + Show Spoiler + "Russian troop movements on the Crimean Peninsula are permitted under a 1997 Partition Treaty signed between Russia and Ukraine, as long as there are not more than 25,000 Russian troops."
"At present, the Russians have about 16,000 troops on the peninsula, which means a further increase of troops would be permitted."
"After Ukraine became independent in 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, Russian President Boris Yeltsin entered into an agreement with Ukraine to base Russia’s Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol under a lease until 2017. That lease recently was extended to 2042, although the Kiev interim government is attempting to abrogate that agreement." Source: http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/"Some sources have pointed out that the Russian military units are restricted to their bases, although there are persistent reports that Russian troops are swarming all over the peninsula."
Meantime, there is concern on Capitol Hill that Russian troop movements were not anticipated by the U.S. intelligence community, resulting in impending oversight hearings to find out why.
According to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, there was debate within the intelligence community about whether Russian troops were on the move in Crimea, prompting public allegations that the Obama administration was caught by surprise." Source:http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-russia-didnt-invade-ukraine-after-all/ Other sources corroborating the that Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine, at the same time, they highlight that movements of Russian troops were detected. + Show Spoiler +"Under the terms of its agreement with Ukraine, Russia is entitled to have 25,000 troops on the peninsula and currently has an estimated 16,000 deployed there. But these troops have to remain on base. Pro-Russian troops have been deployed across Crimea. Moscow insists they are local self-defence forces, but there are widespread reports that they are from Russia." Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508On a different note, i would like to present, some background information about the current members of the government. i don't know if this has already been reported: + Show Spoiler +"The nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) party has four posts in the government. Oleksandr Sych is deputy prime minister and Oleh Makhnitsky becomes acting chief prosecutor. It also runs the agriculture and ecology portfolios but its leader, who has been accused of anti-Semitism, is not in the government."
"Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC). A co-founder of Svoboda and labelled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of far-right paramilitary group Right Sector" Source: Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26415508"The most prominent of the ultra-nationalist groups is the Pravy-Sektor, or Right Sector, whose leader now has called on Chechen Islamic militant chief Dokku Umarov to launch attacks in Russia.
Right Sector also opposes Russian influence in Ukraine. Its leader, Dmitry Yarosh, had threatened to send members to the Crimea to defend against Russian military intervention.
While Right Sector was involved in demonstrations that toppled Yanukovych, Yarosh, has let it be known that his group will resume violent demonstrations if the new interim government doesn’t deliver on the changes it promised.
Yarosh, however, was selected as a member of the National Security and Defense Council, which is part of the new interim government.
Right Sector and other ultra-national groups, such as Euromaidan, Patriot of Ukraine and White Hammer, are comprised mainly of males in their 20s and 30s who wear dark clothing and masks and are very aggressive during demonstrations.
The groups were directly involved in the beginning of demonstrations in January and occupied the Ukrainian presidential building and other government buildings.
One report said demonstrators hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols on toppled memorials and destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died fighting German occupation during World War II.
The report said “sieg heil” salutes and the Nazi Wolfangel symbol was being displayed prominently in demonstrations in Maidan Square in Kiev, and neo-Nazi groups had established “autonomous zones” around the city.
Right Sector in particular is said to have wide support from the people throughout Ukraine." My own take on this: + Show Spoiler +If we examine the events that preceded WW2, we can see striking similar patterns, for example with the fascist take over of Italy and Germany seem awful similar to that of what is happening now in Kiev. Furthermore, it has come to light that snipers were, see ( Zerohedge, and RT ) used to justify the government take over, if anybody is familiar with military and secret ops history, then one can draw parallels between the tactics applied in Ukraine and the tactics applied in Venezuela, see John Pilger. In the case of Venezuela the perpetrators (the snipers and those that authorized the snipers) were from a faction (NEOCONS i.e., Wolfowitz doctrine) of the United States government that sought to "dethrone" Chavez. For me then, if this sniper story is true, than one must necessary re-frame whether Russia is the aggressor or responding to an aggression, and that means that one should speak of a "coup d'etat" or instead of a "revolution", but i guess the name it will be given will be decided by those that win, i can already predict that the losers will be the people of Ukraine, the people around it and to a certain extend the people in Europe, as Europe is heavily depended on the gas coming from Russia, through Ukraine. Economic Background to the Conflict Other interesting facts about current government are their connections with the IMF. This, undoubtedly means that the Ukraine people, will have to pay for the conditions set forth by IMF, which anyone who has studied this institution, in the context of international economics and policy making, will know that the IMF follows a strict neoliberal agenda (i.e., privatization, deregulation, structural reforms, etc) as a sociological remark, i would like to highlight close connection between members of the IMF and members of DAVOS . The people in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland should undoubtedly be able to tell us how "wonderful" IMF conditions are. And people from South America, Africa, and Asia might remember the IMF as the "Washington Consensus". Now that I think about it its rather funny, if things weren't so sad that it is happening again, "The chickens came back to roost" meaning that after 30 years or more of legal (and illegal) plundering outside of Europe it is happening now inside of Europe. UPDATE 2-EU offers Ukraine $15 bln, but help hinges on IMF deal + Show Spoiler +European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the assistance, to be discussed by European Union leaders at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, would require widespread reforms by the new Ukrainian government and the signing of a deal between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund.
"The package combined could bring an overall support of at least 11 billion euros over the next couple of years, from the EU budget and EU-based international financial institutions," said Barroso. "It is a package designed to assist a committed, inclusive and reforms-oriented Ukrainian government."
While the EU's $15 billion offer is likely to be warmly received in Kiev, it is still contingent on the government striking a deal with the IMF on a longer-term aid package.
After years of bad relations between Ukraine and the IMF, the indications are that an agreement can be struck, although it will still require some harsh economic medicine for Ukraine. Sources http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/eu-ukraine-support-idUSL6N0M227R20140305Ukrainian people will bear brunt of IMF deal with tough austerity + Show Spoiler + It’s very simple. The IMF will refuse to provide the money unless the Ukrainian government, for want of a better term, signs up to these measures. So therefore it’s impossible, unless you comply. The IMF will essentially not give you $15 billion up front. It will give you a few hundred million next month, and keep on going over the course of the loan time. There will be a drip-feed of this money. If you don’t basically pass your homework, then ultimately their invigilators are going to turn around and say “Aha, no more money for you,” and that’s going to be the problem. There is a critical political crisis in Ukraine and nobody wants to talk maturely about the economy, and that is very worrying.
If you end up in a situation with an EU trade zone agreement, then there’s going to be a huge catastrophic problem for the east of the country because the industrial heartlands there are suddenly going to find themselves unable to export their goods to Russia and further east where they prove popular at the moment. So thus, there has essentially been an investor strike. People are terrified about putting their money forward in order to manage to build new businesses, create jobs, and so on. And that’s a problem because foreign direct investors, they’re giving Ukraine a wide berth, because who wants to go into a country that’s essentially bankrupt and politically chaotic. This looks more like a European version of Rwanda from an investor's standpoint, say 10 or 15 years ago. And that’s an absolutely ghastly situation to have.
Source: http://rt.com/op-edge/ukraine-people-imf-austerity-864/ more background info concerning the economic dimension of this conflict http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/obama-renews-request-for-imf-resources-amid-ukraine-loan-talks.htmlhttp://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/04-03-2014/127019-russian_ruble_ukraine-0/http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ukraine-seeks-15-billion-rescue-from-imf-2014-03-03Disclaimer: + Show Spoiler + I assume that the mainstream media on both sides are propagandistic in nature, so I rely on my own logic to determine which is false or true, I base this primary on international law, and historical actions, I see these events not in isolation but as a continuation of governmental - economical and business - policy. In other words I look at this from a geopolitical point of view, and in fact I do care what is morally just or not, since that in my opinion depends for a large part on psychological factors. So if anyone attacks me because they dislike the sources I use, I will not respond, on the other hand if someone can point out to the fallacies or weakness of the content of these sources, then I will respond, and adjust my views according to the facts at hand.
1. I am curious that for someone who is thinking on your own you -- and has 'primarily relied on international law' and your own logic -- you couldnt conclude that while Russian bases are perfectly legal in Ukraine, Russian special forces coming onto Ukrainian bases and threatening Ukrainian soldiers with death unless they surrender, digging trenches in strategic areas on Ukrainian territory, taking possession of Ukrainian military hardware are not an invasion. The only reason this isnt a shooting war is because Ukrainian soldiers -- most of them who are from the local area and thus are also Russian -- are displaying god like levels of patience and heroism by neither shooting back at the invaders or betraying their oaths to Ukraine and simply switching sides (as is clearly the goal of all these provocations.)
2. What is there for the IMF to plunder in Ukraine? Its an economy on the level of Bolivia, the major state assets have already been 'plundered' by various oligarchs. There are only two major pieces of the Ukrainian economy that has not been privatized -- the energy sector, a massive Achilles heel for the Ukrainian economy that continues to follow energy patterns from the 1970s and the agricultural sector. Reforming them should be a priority because the first one is a wealth transfer from both Ukrainian tax payers and the Russian federation to Ukrainian oligarchs who run energy intensive businesses without paying their full costs and the second needs reforms because one of the best pieces of agricultural land in the world is being farmed with Soviet era methods while Western investors are routinely gouged and plundered
3. But lets say you are right and the IMF is just a neoliberal piracy group of doom -- what exactly is the Russian loan? The 15 billion offered to Ukraine by the Russian federation (a) could never be paid of at the present levels of both foreign imports and government debt (b) was contingent on transferring Ukrainian state assets - the gas network - to the Russian federation in case of default.
Finally more broadly, I have no idea how anyone can have a position that Ukraine does not need major macro economic reforms, again to repost this article: http://qz.com/180511/ukraine-unrest-stems-from-two-decades-of-squandered-post-soviet-independence/ the level of growth of Ukraine to the most comparable economy of the ex-Soviet block -- is embarrassing. Polish reforms began in the late 80s, at this point Ukraine in terms of reforms is behind even the Russian Federation and the penury of its people is ample evidence that whatever the evil IMF capitalist neo liberal bilderberg group might do, what has already occurred in Ukraine is grim enough.
|
On March 08 2014 03:11 nunez wrote:
@sub40 us backed georgian govt insanely corrupt. none of the freedom skrill reached it's inhabitants, good intentions aside.
They've just had another election where the most pro-American guy came in 3rd. This is a nice contrast to the previous situation in Georgia where the first president was removed by a blood civil war and the second president was an old soviet hold over who had no plans to leave.
|
On March 07 2014 21:32 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 21:23 zezamer wrote:On March 07 2014 21:08 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:On March 07 2014 21:07 zezamer wrote:On March 07 2014 20:15 Cheerio wrote:On March 07 2014 19:23 vyyye wrote:
I have a mate who claims there is no evidence of any Russian troops being outside of their military bases (where they are allowed to be anyway) and that media just keeps mistaking pro Russian Crimean troops for Russians. Is there any actual evidence for actual Russian troops besieging Ukrainian bases? as a rule of thumb, whenever you see someone in Crimea dressed like this + Show Spoiler +it's a Russian ![[image loading]](http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2014/03/01/20/39/416-DH22R.St.138.jpeg) PKP machine gun is only used in Russia, so either they are Russians or they are arming Crimeans Yea, u can easlity find PKP machine gun in any typical "hunter shop" in Crimea to buy aswell as all his uniform. That's what Crimea is! So in the picture posted by Cheerio, every member of the squad has military radio's. Can you also buy them from some shop at Crimea ? They are expensive. that was sarcasm
Cheerio and DaV1on, best comrades forever now, and all it took was a Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is hope for the future, even if its dim.
|
On March 07 2014 23:49 Ghanburighan wrote:
How on earth can they think that sending observers from the only country that stands to gain from the referendum will grant them legitimacy O_o
Because a lot of them still live in the Soviet era and dont understand how information is viewed. I wasnt joking when I thought that zeo should get a job with the Russian Ministry of Information, he is much better at it than the 50-60 year old men who run most Russian government agencies and were trained in the Soviet Institute.
|
@tolkien buzzword's a buzzword, ya bigot. i've previously used 'the west'-phrase, had to justify / attempt to be more precise, but guess i failed. tieing it to conspiracy is overboard. set of strings attached to money funnelled into opposition.
|
On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization.
I am not doubting the easily established facts, like that there are (and were long before the separation was announced) Russian soldiers in Crimea. I do not doubt many other things. What I definitely doubt is for example certainty about prospects of Ukraine if certain actions happen. Your phrasing is reasonably good, as it is generalized enough as not to say anything new. Who knew that Ukraine would be most likely better off if someone forced them to reform at least partially in the correct direction, which EU would force them to /sarcasm. The problem is that this is about as specific as you can get with this situation.
And as far as international politics are concerned, yes it is two-three shadowy figures dueling it out. I see no reason to believe that any of the big powers in this is in it due to actual ethical stance. Not as a major concern at least. West can claim the high horse, not because they are ethical or just in international relations, but because their internal politics are better (more civilized if you will) and they treat their citizens better and implementation (if successful in reasonable timeframe) of western governance would be a good thing, in Ukraine and in Russia.
I also still claim that you are misusing the word relativism. Relativism means that you do not see reasons to judge ethically, that all/most moral reasoning is valid.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the us supports all sorts of politically expedient dissident groups but that doesnt make these groups bad automatically. that involvement is just another actor in the arena not the sole actor
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://bbb-news.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/RSSPoster_PRO/cache/a450b_article-2571309-1BF82BF800000578-950_634x488.jpg)
