Ukraine General

[ProfTournesol 956]

Losing its independence ? But Ukraine wasn't independent from Russia, and chose, because of the Russian reaction, to get closer from EU. Gallup polls are clear on that matter. Do you think Russia will not ask Ukraine to pay its debt or to pay its gas ?

[vilas 473]

Losing its independence ? But Ukraine wasn't independent from Russia, and chose, because of the Russian reaction, to get closer from EU. Gallup polls are clear on that matter. Do you think Russia will not ask Ukraine to pay its debt or to pay its gas ?

as a producer selling gas Russia has right to stop gas transfer if client doesn't pay, as we know - Ukraine was not paying in past,

plus EU is now (after Hollande) words openly saying about international government which is open depriving of sovereignty like USSR was,

on debts - why not confiscate stolen money which oligarchs have ?

debts are DUE to corruption and oligarchy, oligarchs has such money that they could finance whole Ukrainian military budget for 30 years of war

Edited July 22, 2015 by vilas

[John Kozak 14]

Oh, but there was an offer to support it before the coup. After the coup, there was a danger of NATO bases and installations in Ukraine, so Russia is creating a buffer zone.

I see Russian actions as a measure against expanding NATO.

Besides, by moving towards EU Ukraine will only lose its independence, and become a debt slave, like Greece and Serbia with "investors" taking all the capital away.

What you say are motives, not justification. Whatever are the goals - what justifies annexing part of another country?

[Dwarden 1124]

you forgot the cost of Crimea ports and bases , imagine if Ukraine asked Russia to pay that with standard market lease fee for such military installations ...

the cost would easily pay Ukraine gas usage by households ...

[oxmox 73]

The Pope, and actually Iam surprised about his speeches in the last weeks, said the following on June 6th in his speech in Kosovo about the global "atmosphere of war", which fits in general:

Many conflicts across the planet amount to "a kind of third world war being fought piecemeal and, in the context of global communications, we sense an atmosphere of war"

"Some wish to incite and foment this atmosphere deliberately," - he added, attacking those who want to foster division or profit from war through arms dealing.

as a producer selling gas Russia has right to stop gas transfer if client doesn't pay, as we know - Ukraine was not paying in past,

plus EU is now (after Hollande) words openly saying about international government which is open depriving of sovereignty like USSR was,

on debts - why not confiscate stolen money which oligarchs have ?

debts are DUE to corruption and oligarchy, oligarchs has such money that they could finance whole Ukrainian military budget for 30 years of war

Gas was drawn off and "friendship prices" by Russia were exploited, they sold it on the world markets for standard prices instead. Not only the Ukraine, also one or more of the baltic countries did similar things.

Why do you think why people like Tymoshenko got rich that fast.....

With the Maidan, mixed with naive hopes and an unexpected aftermath, they did shovel their own grave of really big economical problems since Ukraine was subsidized by Russia and was heavily integrated in trade with them ....most did protest against corruption and Oligarchs, not about the EU association agreement or Nato approach. Wheras EU and especially US representants did show up on the Maidan like it was a revolution in their own country, of course they did have their own interests and aims - "Jatzko is our men". The support of "color revolutions" by them isnt new.

The conclusion of all this is the fact that the current conflict could have been avoided if the US would not stick their nose in like they do it around the world for geopolitical interests which leads often just to chaos. And when it comes to Russia around the world, with the US actions in certain countries i.e. Iraq, Libya and now Syria, the Russians got kicked out from contracts and lost billions due to the regime changes.

The case with the crimea is definately a point for critique against Russia and nobody should treat a sovereign country like this.

But, the reaction of the Russians were foreseen and already studies existing about it in the 90´s - maybe the US did not expect it that they go that far. The Crimea was since the end of the cold war always a moot point, independence efforts by the ethnic russians were always be prevented. Its not the first time a referendum about a secesseion with a high amount of proponents was hold on the Crimea. So dont act surprised.

Edited July 22, 2015 by oxmox

[vilas 473]

all Crimean problem was created by USSR and Krushchev, cause in USSR and in times of colonial era, borders of states were painted artificially without any respect to ethnic divisions

[aleksadragutin 9]

What you say are motives, not justification. Whatever are the goals - what justifies annexing part of another country?

Ensuring survival of your own?

[mistyronin 1181]

Ensuring survival of your own?

I'm curious. In which case do you think that Russia would have to fear for its survival?

Even if NATO had bases surrounding all the country, with millions of tanks, planes, artillery, etc. Russia would still have almost 3,000 nukes, more than enough to blow most of the World.

IMO the annexation of Crimea and the troubles Russia is causing in the East of Ukraine are more a strategy to debilitate and control the Ukrainian politic life. Same that they do in Moldova and in Georgia.

[aleksadragutin 9]

as a producer selling gas Russia has right to stop gas transfer if client doesn't pay, as we know - Ukraine was not paying in past,

plus EU is now (after Hollande) words openly saying about international government which is open depriving of sovereignty like USSR was,

on debts - why not confiscate stolen money which oligarchs have ?

debts are DUE to corruption and oligarchy, oligarchs has such money that they could finance whole Ukrainian military budget for 30 years of war

Yes, the only reason EU supports Ukraine is so that it can, through corruption, expand their market and profit. Why did Ukraine import uniforms instead of making their own?

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

I'm curious. In which case do you think that Russia would have to fear for its survival?

Even if NATO had bases surrounding all the country, with millions of tanks, planes, artillery, etc. Russia would still have almost 3,000 nukes, more than enough to blow most of the World.

IMO the annexation of Crimea and the troubles Russia is causing in the East of Ukraine are more a strategy to debilitate and control the Ukrainian politic life. Same that they do in Moldova and in Georgia.

It's the same reason for invading Cuba. Only it was the US that were in danger back then.

[mistyronin 1181]

It's the same reason for invading Cuba. Only it was the US that were in danger back then.

The US didn't invade the Communist Cuba, and in no case they wanted to annex it. And in the 1963 the USSR started installing ballistic missiles in Cuba, the US hasn't installed any ballistic missiles in Ukraine.

If the US wanted to annex Cuba, they would have done when they took it from the Spanish.

[aleksadragutin 9]

The US didn't invade the Communist Cuba, and in no case they wanted to annex it. And in the 1963 the USSR started installing ballistic missiles in Cuba, the US hasn't installed any ballistic missiles in Ukraine.

If the US wanted to annex Cuba, they would have done when they took it from the Spanish.

You have doubts about NATO's agenda to expand into Ukraine? It was only a matter of time.

If the reason was not to annex or install a puppet government in Cuba, then what was?

Edited July 22, 2015 by aleksadragutin

[mistyronin 1181]

You have doubts about NATO's agenda to expand into Ukraine? It was only a matter of time.

NATO it is a organization of countries. It's not NATO who decides to expand, but the countries that request joining the alliance.

So it would be Ukraine which has to request joining it, and then it would be up to the NATO members to decide if it benefits them or not.

If the reason was not to annex or install a pupet government in Cuba, then what was?

I'm a bit lost, what are you referring? The fiasco of Bay of Pigs?

[oxmox 73]

If the US wanted to annex Cuba, they would have done when they took it from the Spanish.

The struggle between the US and Cuba started already longer than 150 years ago, there were even suggestions to "integrate" it as another US State especially from the Southern States (slavery & Co.). Cuba was always seen as a strategical important point to control the Carribbean, economical interests in addition i.e. sugar.

Spain did reject offers by the US to sell them Cuba and already in the early 19th century annexion plans/suggestions did exist (US Pres. John Quincy Adams)

After the american-spanish war, Cuba was occupied by the US and in addition Poerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines.

(source:wiki)

Edited July 22, 2015 by oxmox

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, the only reason EU supports Ukraine is so that it can, through corruption, expand their market and profit. Why did Ukraine import uniforms instead of making their own?

EU is made of the less corrupted countries in the world, and why on Earth would they want to corrupt Ukraine which is a poor country...that makes no sense, seems conspiracy theories are still very popular among pro Putin supporters.

[aleksadragutin 9]

NATO it is a organization of countries. It's not NATO who decides to expand, but the countries that request joining the alliance.

So it would be Ukraine which has to request joining it, and then it would be up to the NATO members to decide if it benefits them or not.

NATO is an organization under the control of the US, that is fighting for US interests under the paravan "organization of countries".

In the end it is Ukraine who decides, but it gets a little "push", from it's western partners. One of the reasons for supporting the coup was that the new government will move towards EU and eventually, NATO.

[mistyronin 1181]

NATO is an organization under the control of the US, that is fighting for US interests under the paravan "organization of countries".

The US has a lot of influence inside NATO, but it doesn't control it. Members joined voluntarily, they contribute with what they want and can exit it whenever they want.

In the end it is Ukraine who decides, but it gets a little "push", from it's western partners. One of the reasones for supporting the coup was that the new government will move towards EU and eventually, NATO.

A big part of the Ukrainian population, together with the majority of members of its parliament wanted a trading approach to the EU, but Yanukovich had another plans and even used violence against its opponents. That's why the majority of the sovereign Ukrainian parliament (even the members of his own party) ousted him democratically.

Of course that nowadays the EU is open to trade with Ukraine, why wouldn't it be?

[oxmox 73]

And in the 1963 the USSR started installing ballistic missiles in Cuba, the US hasn't installed any ballistic missiles in Ukraine.

The Cuba crisis did also arise because the US did install ballistic nuclear missiles on the boarder of the USSR inside Turkey and in Italy before, it did lead to a sudden race to install missiles with the critical point about the preemtive strike possibility. In addition the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba to overthrow the Government. The answer were sovjet nukes on Cuba more close to the US boarder.

Edited July 22, 2015 by oxmox

[aleksadragutin 9]

The US has a lot of influence inside NATO, but it doesn't control it. Members joined voluntarily, they contribute with what they want and can exit it whenever they want.

A big part of the Ukrainian population, together with the majority of members of its parliament wanted a trading approach to the EU, but Yanukovich had another plans and even used violence against its opponents. That's why the majority of the sovereign Ukrainian parliament (even the members of his own party) ousted him democratically.

Of course that nowadays the EU is open to trade with Ukraine, why wouldn't it be?

Yes, a big part of the population wants to move towards NATO, but a bigger part that voted for Yanukovich didn't want that. But a coup was made legit and now armed gangs rule and you have a civil war. You don't see anything odd about US and EU supporting this?

Edited July 22, 2015 by aleksadragutin

[mistyronin 1181]

The Cuba crisis did arise because the US did install ballistic nuclear missiles on the boarder of the USSR inside Turkey and in Italy before, it did lead to a sudden arms race. In addition the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba to overthrow the Government. The answer were sovjet nukes on Cuba.

I'm aware of how the Cuban Crisis developed :) But I fail to see your point.

Yes, a big part of the population wants to move towards NATO, but a bigger part that woted for Yanukovich didn't want that.

Ukraine joining NATO is something that a lot of Ukrainians want, including Poroshenko. But it's quite unlikely that the NATO members would accept Ukraine as today.

There is interest in cooperation, but not in allowing it to accede to the alliance.

But a coup was made legit and now armed gangs rule and you have a civil war.

If by "civil war" you mean the Russian provoked insurrection in the Donbass area (and recognized officially by its Russian perpetrators).

You don't see anything odd about US and EU supporting this?

The US and EU "supported" a democratic change of power in Ukraine (I think supported is a strong word, I'd go more for liked as they didn't actively do much).

Nowadays the US and EU are open to trade with Ukraine, and support the sovereignty of its land and are specially critics with Russian annexation of Crimea and the military involvement in the East.

The US and the EU also supported the Ukrainian Gov fight against the Ultra right-wing movements like Right Sector.

I don't see it particularly strange. In fact it's quite logic.

Edited July 22, 2015 by MistyRonin

[aleksadragutin 9]

I'm aware of how the Cuban Crisis developed :) But I fail to see your point.

The whole reason I even mentioned the crisis was to give you an example of a nuclear power being threatened by having enemy bases close to it's borders, since you said that Russia shoudln't be threatened by NATO bases in Ukraine.

[oxmox 73]

I'm aware of how the Cuban Crisis developed :) But I fail to see your point.

The point is just additional side infos since not everyone knows this part of the post history of the cuban crisis, there is sometimes silence about it.

And sorry, I thought aswell there are more readers here :).

There are also maybe similarities with the NATO expansion and the fear of Russia, isnt it in the interests of Russia to have a first strike option like other western countries ? Is this maybe a part of the "fear" which is at the end strategical calculation ?

Neverless, Russia can not expect to live forever on some kind of Island with buffer states around them like in sovjet times.

edit: yeah, aleksa did mention it already.

Edited July 22, 2015 by oxmox

[John Kozak 14]

Ensuring survival of your own?

If NATO is so bloody warmongery as you say, why do other countries like Ukraine/Belarus still exist?

[mistyronin 1181]

The whole reason I even mentioned the crisis was to give you an example of a nuclear power being threatened by having enemy bases close to it's borders, since you said that Russia shoudln't be threatened by NATO bases in Ukraine.

I'm afraid you didn't understood me well, or I didn't express myself properly. The message you quoted was an answer to our colleague oxmox.

On the Cuban Crisis my point is about Russia fearing for its survival:

I'm curious. In which case do you think that Russia would have to fear for its survival?

One thing is to feel threatened by having enemy bases close by, the other is fear for your survival.

I agree with you that Russia can feel threatened by "enemy" bases nearby.

But then the solution is to encourage the neighbor country and reach a deal with it, not invading and annexing part of it.

- - -

And sorry, I thought aswell there are more readers here :).

As you quoted me, I understood it as a direct interpellation. Excuse me if it was meant as a broad statement for everyone :)

Edited July 22, 2015 by MistyRonin

[aleksadragutin 9]

Ukraine joining NATO is something that a lot of Ukrainians want, including Poroshenko. But it's quite unlikely that the NATO members would accept Ukraine as today.

There is interest in cooperation, but not in allowing it to accede to the alliance.

If by "civil war" you mean the Russian provoked insurrection in the Donbass area (and recognized officially by its Russian perpetrators).

The US and EU "supported" a democratic change of power in Ukraine (I think supported is a strong word, I'd go more for liked as they didn't actively do much).

Nowadays the US and EU are open to trade with Ukraine, and support the sovereignty of its land and are specially critics with Russian annexation of Crimea and the military involvement in the East.

The US and the EU also supported the Ukrainian Gov fight against the Ultra right-wing movements like Right Sector.

I don't see it particularly strange. In fact it's quite logic.

Naming a coup "democratic revolution" does not change the fact that it is a coup that half of the country doesn't support.

Yes, by civil war I mean the current conflict in Ukraine, which actualy is a civil war.

The fact that NATO doesn't want Ukraine in it's current state is a proof that the Russian strategy worked.

Reading from past news, Right Sector was actualy figjting for a good cause. It's the government mafia that is the problem (which US and EU supports, as u said).

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

I'm afraid you didn't understood me well, or I didn't express myself properly. The message you quoted was an answer to our colleague oxmox.

On the Cuban Crisis my point is about Russia fearing for its survival:

One thing is to feel threatened by having enemy bases close by, the other is fear for your survival.

I agree with you that Russia can feel threatened by "enemy" bases nearby.

But then the solution is to encourage the neighbor country and reach a deal with it, not invading and annexing part of it.

Even if NATO had bases surrounding all the country, with millions of tanks, planes, artillery, etc. Russia would still have almost 3,000 nukes, more than enough to blow most of the World.

I was actualy refering to this.

I think it was hard to reach any deal after the coup.

[mistyronin 1181]

Naming a coup "democratic revolution" does not change the fact that it is a coup that half of the country doesn't support.

I'm afraid that is not true.

The Ukrainian parliament ousted Yanukovich with practically 3/4s of the votes. Hence at least it would be 3/4s of what the Ukrainians voted.

If that wasn't enough in the last year elections a broad majority voted to keep with that policies.

Yes, by civil war I mean the current conflict in Ukraine, which actualy is a civil war.

If you want to call a territorial conflict created and fueled by a neighbor country a civil war, then it's fine with me. Tho I don't agree with the semantics.

The fact that NATO doesn't want Ukraine in it's current state is a proof that the Russian strategy worked.

NATO didn't wanted Ukraine to join its ranks before. Hence seems that "the Russian strategy" changed nothing.

Well, one thing changed, now certain neutral countries are studying join NATO, and more troops will be deployed in NATO countries.

So seems that the Russian strategy achieved the opposite of what it wanted.

Reading from past news, Right Sector was actualy figjting for a good cause. It's the government mafia that is the problem (which US and EU supports, as u said).

I would like to suggest you to read the Right Sector goals and speeches. If you consider that neo-nazi authoritarian agenda a good cause, well... My politic point of view would be the exact opposite as yours then.