IGX

Fat Cat wrote:Then do it.

https://www.google.ru/search?q=blackwat ... 3&ie=UTF-8

I am "notably silent" because the debate is futile. This issue is similar to global warming politics: you choose to believe what seems feasible to you, while every detail of the matter is very complicated and cannot be understood without thorough research. You are asking for evidence, but what evidence would satisfy you, CIA meeting transcripts? Or recorded conversations between Omidyar and politicians involved? You know very well that evidence of this kind can only be circumstantial. But I am going to humor you and answer some of your points.

Fat Cat wrote:The situation which Ukraine is in with regard to the USA is in no way comparable to that of Russia. Russia, at this very moment, has large armed contingents operating on Ukrainian soil in Crimea and elsewhere. There is no parallel with regard to USA, China, or the EU and its laughable to suggest so. Do these other entities lobby for their interests? Yes. Interfere? Perhaps? Point guns and seize land? No.

That is if you only look at the latest events, which is what mass media is doing. In global politics time span is different. How many Russian military bases are near US borders? How many NATO bases are now situated near Russia? I know you will claim that one has nothing to do with the other, but USA successfully chopped off Kosovo from Serbia ten years ago. Of course, it was done for the sole purpose of defending poor Albanians, and placing one of the largest military bases in Europe over there is not related to the conflict. Russia taking the Crimea back is pretty much the same action. I know you believe it doesn't matter if USA "killed all the kittens in the world", but it is the same as accusing someone when he punched you and insisting that punches inflicted by you a minute ago don't matter.

But trying to cast this as Russia vs. the West is inane. Nobody is against Russia. Where are foreign troops beleaguering Russians? Nowhere? Where are Russians beleaguering foreigners? Ukraine, Georgia, etc.

The American dominance politics and East-West standoff has been addressed in numerous books. "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky is one I remember from the top of my head. I am sure you can come up with the list of publications that express opposite opinion, that the world is a harmonious place that is put out of balance by bad states like Russian, Iran etc. Georgia is a separate and complicated topic; once again, a part of the bigger play.

The USSR was a totalitarian Judeo-Bolshevist nightmare. If you can't acknowledge that much, you are morally adrift. That's not "being moralistic" that's having a grasp of history. Yes, many Soviet people and accomplishments were good, but the system was unalloyed evil. Don't take my word for it. Remember all the Russians who lined up to send the USSR into the dustbin of history because they new it was evil.

I may be morally adrift, but your argument reminds me of way teenagers tend to think: all or nothing, black and white. Nightmare? Let's see. Every elderly person was guaranteed a pension. Education, was free, labor legislation was protective - four weeks paid annual leave, paid maternity leave for (I think) eight months, plus keeping your job for another couple. Healthcare, though very geographically variable, was free too. Immunization was up to international standards. There were many other things available to people. After Russia became democratic mortality skyrocketed, many diseases previously eradicated returned (tuberculosis, for example). Education went to the dump, social security evaporated overnight. I I not going to take your word for anything related to USSR: I grew up and lived there until the age of 26. It is not and was not as simple as you imagine. [/quote]

There is no "brawl". There is a unilateral use of international force by Russia. Again, there are NO other combatant nations. Where are the American troops? The European troops? Only Russia.

Once again, adjust your time span: the brawl is ongoing. There are American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and plenty of them or their allies along Russian borders.

[quote"]Your meaning here is unclear, but if the USA wanted to wipe out Russia, it had the chance and didn't after WWII when we had all the nukes. Soviet, and now Russian, politicians have continued the tired pattern of perpetuating their authoritarian regimes by casting the USA as villain when history clearly illustrates otherwise, and despite our many real faults.[/quote]

You just don't get it: nobody wants to obliterate anybody, they need an enemy. Both USA and Russia kept their populations scared of each other and were able to do whatever they wanted in the name of security, justice and freedom: participate in wars, increase policing and so on. A lot of Russians are thrilled by the fact that Crimea is taken back, while it doesn't make a slightest difference to their lives. Just like Europeans and Americans are enraged by Bad Russia. In the meantime both populations forget about real problems in their countries.

On the contrary, Putin is incredibly, laughably weak. He had all of Ukraine in his pocket, and now he can barely hold on to Crimea. He wasted billions fostering Olympic goodwill only to squander it in a matter of days. He has driven the Russian economy into recession, no mean feat for an already anemic nation. He is terrified of internal dissent to the extent that he has eliminated the free press. How utterly sad that you think this is what strong leadership looks like.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Russian economy is the eighth largest economy in the world, ranked as high income economy by the World Bank, and it is not in recession. There are many factors that determine economic growth besides political. Free press Western style in Russia is alive and well, despite of what your media is trying to portray. His popularity at present is at its peak.

I want to reiterate my position. I am not an apologist of Russia and don't defend its actions. Neither I would defend similar actions of any other country. I am simply presenting the opposing argument and trying to put things into perspective, as I see it. The war is always bad, no matter what you think. May be I am a pessimist, but I am a believer in Orwell's theories of social order. The world is ruled by politicians and money. Conflicts are profitable for both, while ordinary people fall for the humanitarian rhetoric. There are no good or bad politicians: by the time they get to the level to be noticed they have sold, traded and betrayed everything decent they ever had. The very objective of being a politician is power. Ukrainian conflict is nothing new or special, just another move in the power game, while both opposing parties are trying to present their pieces as white.

Wild Bill wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:Then do it.

https://www.google.ru/search?q=blackwat ... 3&ie=UTF-8

Okay Bill, I accept that Blackwater is operating in Ukraine, and since a google search is acceptable proof, you have accepted that large contingents of Russian military are operating in Ukraine. See, I was right all along.

Smet wrote:You really don't know what you're talking about. Russian economy is the eighth largest economy in the world, ranked as high income economy by the World Bank, and it is not in recession. There are many factors that determine economic growth besides political. Free press Western style in Russia is alive and well, despite of what your media is trying to portray. His popularity at present is at its peak.

You can't eat popularity. And apparently I do know what I am talking about.

Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said that Russia's economy grew just 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2014, compared to activity in the same period last year. But it contracted 0.5 percent versus the final three months of 2013, after seasonal adjustment, Russian news agencies quoted Ulyukayev as telling parliament.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/bus ... 73422.html

I get completely why historically Russia would want its buffer states. Over a few three hundred years Russia has been invaded from the west any number of times, with the distance and the winters key parts of eventually tossing the raiders out. Russians kept help but see NATO encroaching on them, with their loud rock & roll and missile shields. They want that distance back.

Another aspect of this:

As Russia threatens Crimea, one of the Ukraine’s main export routes for the millions of tonnes of grain the country exports every year, there is more at stake than regional sovereignty.

The cost of the loaves on our tables could shoot up should supplies from Europe’s breadbasket be effectively choked off in the Crimea’s strategic port of Sevastopol or the Black Sea port of Odessa, experts have warned. Ukraine is of vital importance to global food supply, ranking only behind the US by some estimates in global grain production.

However, the Ukraine’s grain has the shortest distance to travel on average before it is shipped to international markets, making it especially critical to meeting short-term global food supply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... rices.html

This will, presumably, increase demand (and foreign and domestic prices) for US grain.

Only one year remained befor next elections
All this shit only to throw Yanukovich one year earlier
And now they already lost territories and it seems will lose more.

And all because E.U. wanted that agreement to be signed now. Not a year later.

_

JUST KEEP YOUR DAMN COMMUNISM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC AND WE'LL GET ALONG JUST FINE

Thats right! We don`t want your Obama socialism in Europe!

GIVE US BACK SNOWDEN AND WE'LL CALL IT A DAY. WHOLE OR A PIECE AT A TIME.

nafod wrote:I get completely why historically Russia would want its buffer states. Over a few three hundred years Russia has been invaded from the west any number of times, with the distance and the winters key parts of eventually tossing the raiders out. Russians kept help but see NATO encroaching on them, with their loud rock & roll and missile shields. They want that distance back.

That's retarded. Historically all of Russia is Mongolian territory. Should they be asking for it back? The past is the past and cannot be used as justification for crimes today.

Fat Cat wrote:

nafod wrote:I get completely why historically Russia would want its buffer states. Over a few three hundred years Russia has been invaded from the west any number of times, with the distance and the winters key parts of eventually tossing the raiders out. Russians kept help but see NATO encroaching on them, with their loud rock & roll and missile shields. They want that distance back.

That's retarded. Historically all of Russia is Mongolian territory. Should they be asking for it back? The past is the past and cannot be used as justification for crimes today.

As Sam Kinison said about wife beating, understanding is not agreeing. If you understand where the Russians are coming from, you'll know just how far they'll go on their end. In short, they are willing to give up a lot to gain control of that territory, either directly or by having the Ukraine be a client state. Either keeps it out of the evil NATO horde's grasp.

Some truth to what you say, but that's why I would streamline Ukraine's entry into NATO. It keeps it from becoming a pawn to Russian kleptocrats.

Fat Cat wrote:Historically all of Russia is Mongolian territory.

Not all Russia :)


Just to clarify... not all of Russia. Novgorod wasn't conqured, just paid tribute.
Pskov didn't even paid tribute. They did successfull sally, and Mongols who already was tired after others cities just gone.

Fat Cat wrote: It keeps it from becoming a pawn to Russian kleptocrats.

and became a pawn of western kleptokrats :)

I think one of Putin's achievemnts that since now on Ukraine never join Nato.

Don't know who that man, bu i like the pic :))

Unexpected...

"businesman" from Khazakstan Ermek Taichibekov, who known by idea of Khazakstan to join to Russia, set a prize 1 million rubles (1$ ~ 35rubles) for the head of Kolomoyskiy.
Kolomoiskiy - one of the boses in new Ukrainian Government. I don't even know what good or bad that Kolomoiskiy did.

Wild Bill wrote:

Fat Cat wrote: It keeps it from becoming a pawn to Russian kleptocrats.

and became a pawn of western kleptokrats :)

I think one of Putin's achievemnts that since now on Ukraine never join Nato.

How so? He can't stop Kiev government from entering NATO.

He can. And what more important he stop Nato from joining Kiev.
Imho of course.

Wild Bill wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:Historically all of Russia is Mongolian territory.

Not all Russia :)


Just to clarify... not all of Russia. Novgorod wasn't conqured, just paid tribute.
Pskov didn't even paid tribute. They did successfull sally, and Mongols who already was tired after others cities just gone.

The khan will consider your plea when your tribute reaches Ulan-Bator.

Wild Bill wrote:He can. And what more important he stop Nato from joining Kiev.
Imho of course.

How? He's pretty busy saving tigers and snow leopards, and he has no authority over either the Kiev government or NATO. He couldn't stop Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, etc.

What can i say. I hope that Nato will think twice before joining Ukraine after that show.

I think Putin has pretty well guaranteed that Ukraine will join NATO.