Ukraine

[roxxkatt]

well when your country spends more on military than next 27 countries combined and your government is led by 500+ people that are stupid enough to believe that wind farms slow down the wind and cant decide on a budget while paying themselves and shutting the government down, where else u gonna get the money from bro?

[Izor]

Got no idea where that kid is going with that. Probably the same direction as distension

[field]

Russia has always treated its neighboring countries as lackeys or vassals, putting them in tight spots and forcing them to choose sides in international affairs, even if those sides were highly undesirable to the countries in question. This is just a brief example of Russia dealing its stick to its neighbors, rather than its carrot. Putin has been restoring Soviet style policies into Russia ever since his election. He promised 8% economic growth per year, and the Russians have gladly accepted this in exchange for less freedoms.

Russia is a major player in Ukraine as Azov has already covered. It's a bit comical, though, that most people who argue against Russian and Ukrainian duality never seem to make a solid case of how Russian-Ukrainian relations benefit Ukraine more than they do Russia - and why EU-Ukraine relations are undesirable for Ukrainians.

Part of Russia's modus operandi is going to seem familiar to many: Poisoning political leaders, punishing neighbors for trade relationships with other countries through economic sanctions, punishing neighbors through security threats, and gas policies (e.g. cutting off gas supply from Russia to Ukraine, because Ukraine decided to negotiate with the EU). Familiar, yeah? It's right out of the American foreign policy playbook.

What's happening in Ukraine is that a pro-Russian minority (received around 30% of the vote more or less) has been oppressing the Ukrainian majority (which received around 49.9% of the vote), even signing treaties that legalized armed Russian presence on Ukrainian soil (the Russian armed presence at the moment is not illegal according to the treaties between Russia and Ukraine).

I do hope that Ukraine can avert this crisis without more blood being shed - and I do hope they either split into two federations or two countries, one that deals with Russia and one that deals with the EU. Of course, Ukraine stands to gain much more from the EU than they do with Russia, because EU policies are geared towards cooperation and partnership, rather than a slave-master relationship. While the country is split politically, the majority (even pro-Russians) have favored closer economic ties with the EU.

As far as the American response to this crisis (and similarly to Syria), well foreign policy is clearly not Obama's forte (and neither are his domestic policies). Though I am tired at the American hypocrisy and blatant lies -- I have serious objections on the competence of some of these PR analysts or whoever drafts speeches for politicians anymore. What should be done by Obama is not drawing anymore bogus red lines which he has no intention of enforcing -- and successfully making a mockery of the USA during the Syrian chemical weapons crisis. What he should do is offer diplomatic and monetary support to the revolution in Ukraine -- not direct involvement. And he should rally behind the EU -- yes, let them take the lead like they did in Libya.

[roxxkatt]

o i lost that izor guy
guess thats the texas education system for you though

[roxxkatt]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...increases.html

[Ephemeral]

Obama and foreign policy/overseas relationships? He lost his ‘best’ person when Hilary ran away after the embarrassment in Bengali. But perhaps Obama could sell a few more diplomat positions (going rate is raise $500k or more for the Democrats) to solve the issues in Ukraine This is from the guy who promised to change the role of money influencing politics?? LOL

http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=22420231

[Crescent Seal]

lol bengali

[Ephemeral]

Sorry my bad for posting at 6AM. Meant Benghazi of course
eph

[Exalt]

To all the people that constantly complain that the world hates the USA for our role as the world's police, I give a quote from Machiavelli: "It is best to be both loved and feared; but if one cannot be both, it is better to be feared than be loved."

And for the record, the large majority of people who really do think the world hates the USA haven't traveled the world and are from the USA. To put it plainly, I have, and the best way to put it is to look at how we view the rest of the world. Do we really hate any other country? No. We generally either like them or are neutral/don't care. Most of the world does generally like us. The only area that really does dislike the USA is the Middle East, and that feeling is mutual due to distrust on both sides.

As far as Ukraine goes, it is not a country we should "stand pat" on and "not be the world's police" due to geopolitical ramifications which most people simply don't understand. Putin put it plainly when he stated his agenda, which is to gain back the territory/political power of the old USSR. His intention is to land lock Ukraine, which would in essence make them another Soviet Union-esque satellite nation, due to them then being totally dependent on Russian trade (especially oil/gas). Russia saw their main man (deposed president of Ukraine) ousted, and their long-term political agenda to become a new geopolitical force had a wrench thrown in the gears by the people of Ukraine (who deposed an unpopular, corrupt government through revolution). Russia had to act based on their long-term agenda, which is a new non-socialist (although still corrupt) Soviet Union. It happened in Georgia in 2008, which nobody remembers or cared about, and now people are taking notice because Ukraine is a much bigger country. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, it will succeed in all the other former satellite nations as well (due to them being rightfully afraid, since Russia doesn't respect borders or international laws). Those countries will basically call up Russia and say "yes" to any/all demands, because they are powerless at that point to do anything else, and the USA/West clearly won't stand in the way if we fail in Ukraine.

I will let people read CNN or something if they really cared, but the USA cannot simply ignore the issue, and we cannot simply say "let the world handle it, it isn't our problem." No, the United Nations cannot help. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and has Veto power (not that the UN has ever been much more than a joke). There are few options in Ukraine regarding what the USA should do, but these are the few: 1. Keep talking, draw a fake line in the sand, do nothing after line is crossed (Syria). 2. Use NATO for military action in a "peacekeeping mission" to fortify not only Ukraine, but all the other bordering nations such as Hungary, Romania, etc (After a decade of war in two countries, nobody in the USA is in the mood for any kind of military action whatsoever, which it is ignorant to think the Kremlin didn't know this before their move on the Crimea). 3. Use sanctions, which the Kremlin already calculated before this entire ordeal and figured the risk was worth the reward. It won't work.

Really, the only option I see as being realistically able to work against Russia's future expansionist plans is option #2, and the US taxpayers won't want to do that, so I can't see it happening. What it would do would force Russia to confront the USA (which they don't want to do) if they planned on future expansion, and that would basically end it with the Crimea (which honesty, was owned by Russia for 300 years and "gifted" to Ukraine by Khruschev during the USSR in like 1950, so in a way it "is" Russian). Either way though, the Crimea area is so important to Ukraine because they are landlocked without it, and import/export trade is really what would be affected most (aside from the obvious). Russia wants all its old USSR satellite nations to basically bow to their whim, and the EU is a major contender to that idea. Russia doesn't want to those nations be able to choose for themselves, so they are doing what you see now. It was the same in Georgia in 2008. It will be the same in another few years as well. Maybe next time it will be Romania. Maybe Hungary. Maybe Estonia. It doesn't matter. The point is that if Russia succeeds in their basic "annex" of the Crimea from Ukraine, then they will not stop there. THEN it will end up becoming a real war, and that is the entire reason the US cannot be isolationists again, even after a decade in Iraq/Afghanistan. Shit like this is why WW2 happened.

Oh, and for the record, somebody ALWAYS has to be the world's policemen. The people of America got tired of it, and there is a vacuum there now. Russia saw it and wants to step in and take it. Do we want Russia to be our world's new policemen? Think really hard on that question. For all of America's faults (and yes, we have many), we do stand for tolerance and freedom. Yes, our country was oppressive in the past (slavery, women, blacks), but no longer. Russia is STILL oppressive (gays, as an example). China clearly doesn't want the responsibility of world's policemen, although they may eventually realize the West is powerless/weak and finally take over Taiwan or whomever. Everything has ramifications. If we don't do it, someone else will, because someone always has to do it. The problem is, if we don't, who will? Russia certainly wants to, and you see what their "peacekeeping" agenda is.

Oh, and this proves how weak the EU is, because they cannot agree on anything and they don't want/are unable to be the world's policemen. So take your pick. USA, Russia, or... MAYBE China if they actually wanted it (which I don't think they do).

[field]

Russian military presence in Crimea is legal according to pacts between Russia and Ukraine. The first step that needs to happen is for a new government to nullify these pacts, and then military action by the west can be invoked into the equation -- though I doubt it will ever be. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

No, someone doesn't need to always police the world. With America's policing, we have exceeded every single ethical & humanitarian scale on this planet -- and this should be a source of national shame instead of a prerequisite for patriotism. I recommend reading the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins for a comprehensive overview of what I'm speaking about.

For example, the United States overthrew democratically elected governments in the following countries: Guatemala, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Lebanon, South Africa, Vietnam, Grenada, and Pakistan. Along with wrecking havoc in many, many others. Sounds familiar? That's exactly what Russia did in Poland, the baltics, Finland, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Iran, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia (twice), Norway, Germany, Austria, Manchuria, Korea, Kuril and Afghanistan. Only the EU is managing to break this cycle of aggression by superpowers, and acting a a mediator between two opposing sides, promoting partnership, and fostering cooperation. That's what Ukraine needs. That, and a geographical split.

I say a geographic split because the election results in 2004 and 2010 are scary, especially for those Ukrainian nationalists who want to keep the country whole.

Here are the election results:



Why should Ukraine suffer from predatory Russian policies, when they can stand to gain much more from the EU.. equal treatment at the forefront?

[Exalt]

Why should Ukraine suffer from predatory Russian policies, when they can stand to gain much more from the EU.. equal treatment at the forefront?

This is exactly why Russia entered the Crimea. They see the EU as a real threat to their overall political agenda, which is to dominate their old satellite USSR nation-states, and the EU is giving those countries a much, much better option. Russia does NOT want this to happen whatsoever. Ukraine ousted their old political party, and that revolution was not only unexpected by Russia, but threatening to them. What do you think Moscow thinks when a nation like Ukraine can pull off a revolution to out an unpopular and corrupt government, much like their own? They don't want their former slave-nations to be able to choose the EU, so they are doing whatever is necessary to stop that. That's entirely what this is about.

[Azov]

I can't say I agree with that. Russia's interests in the Crimea has little to do with whether Ukraine leans toward the European Union. In fact, Moscow would love nothing more than to see Ukraine's archaic economy tore apart by the IMF's austerity. That would ultimately push the Ukraine further back into Russia's sphere of influence. In either event, Ukraine cannot survive without Russia, so no matter how it plays out, Russia doesn't have much to lose in that regard.

What the Crimea does have for Russia is a combination of centuries of history and power projection strategically and politically into the Middle East and the Mediterranean. That's mainly what it's about.

[field]

I can't say I agree with that. Russia's interests in the Crimea has little to do with whether Ukraine leans toward the European Union. In fact, Moscow would love nothing more than to see Ukraine's archaic economy tore apart by the IMF's austerity. That would ultimately push the Ukraine further back into Russia's sphere of influence. In either event, Ukraine cannot survive without Russia, so no matter how it plays out, Russia doesn't have much to lose in that regard.

What the Crimea does have for Russia is a combination of centuries of history and power projection strategically and politically into the Middle East and the Mediterranean. That's mainly what it's about.

If we were to analyze this situation from a Ukrainian perspective, it's very unfortunate to be stuck between two superpowers, both of which hold at least a part of the key to your prosperity.

Based on your last statement, surrendering a part of Ukrainian territory to Russia serves only Russia and not Ukraine. If Ukraine had any bargaining chips, this would be an automatic no-no. But Russia is the only one that has the bargaining power here; they supply Ukraine with oil and gas, and therefore can dictate what actions Ukraine takes.

The EU is merely an out, though Russia currently can put the Ukrainian economy in shambles, forcing them to accept austerity measures (like Greece), only to bring them back to the Russian sphere of influence.

But I never mix between the EU and the IMF. Two very different, very independent bodies. I'm a big fan of the EU model, but a bigger fan of their policies which do not include preying on weak countries. Rather, they are more geared towards partnerships and cooperation.

What Ukraine can do is default on its debt and refuse austerity measures imposed by the IMF. On the long run, Ukraine will get poorer - yes. But they will bounce back from poverty quicker than they would if they succumb to austerity measures. Case study: Argentina.

[Tone]

I dont understand these conversations and the news media -- there is no invasion of Crimea by Russia, it doesn't exist. The russians who are already-there are activated on high alert and made some movements. Crimea is allowed to have up to 50,000 Russians troops, and already has russian bases. thats the old deal between the two nations. There was no invasion. Putin has 16,000 additional troops massed at the border on the russian side of the water. Putin said there was no invasion, he wouldnt lie about that, he would lie about other things but not a lie about whether or not troops are in

there IS NO INVASION OF CRIMEA + THE US INVADED ARAB NATIONS KILLING UP TO 2 MILLION ARABS, LOW END IS 1 MILLION.

[Tone]

what a bunch of uninformed jackasses, discussing a non-existent invasion. You should be embarrassed and cringing right now.