Jump to content

Ukraine


Queen Victoria

Recommended Posts

Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to "Subvert Ukraine"

“After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via “Europe”).

LMAO!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LMAO!

Just what I thought. Europe's like a poodle on Obamas lap. For the same reason they want Turkey into the EU (which is btw historically insane, Turkey belongs to Asia, except West Instanbul). Divide & conquer, just like the Romans did.  ::)

BTW, why do they need so long to evaluate the flight recorder of MH 17? In the past it was usually done in 2 days ... it's been over a month now. Well, nasty conspiracy theories.  ;D

Your thoughts? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

My only thought is that I'd prefer American imperialism over Russian imperialism anytime. Not that I like any of those, but judging from current situation in Europe that's basically the choice you have to make.

And as for Ukraine, I think it's going to end up with Russia either taking the easternmost parts of Ukraine or leaving them in a permanent state of unrest that will undermine any attempts of Ukraine to get closer to EU or NATO.

I wonder if it's really in Russia's best interest to antagonize the West while having China as a neighbour.

And EU could become a much more influential player if it really got united, but it's not happening anytime soon and I'm not even sure if that's possible. Perhaps after a few generations pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only thought is that I'd prefer American imperialism over Russian imperialism anytime. Not that I like any of those, but judging from current situation in Europe that's basically the choice you have to make.

F-U.

Given the choice I'd shoot down a yankee as quickly as Poutine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Smithsonius

Just what I thought. Europe's like a poodle on Obamas lap. For the same reason they want Turkey into the EU (which is btw historically insane, Turkey belongs to Asia, except West Instanbul). Divide & conquer, just like the Romans did.  ::)

BTW, why do they need so long to evaluate the flight recorder of MH 17? In the past it was usually done in 2 days ... it's been over a month now. Well, nasty conspiracy theories.  ;D

Your thoughts? :)

Neither the US or Russia are on the best of terms with pretty much most of Europe at the moment for one reason or another and one of the latest attempts at military support for a US instigated war (Airstrikes in Syria) was shot down, so to speak, in the British parliament and it looks pretty dodgy for supporting actions in Iraq too, though I suspect from the recent rhetoric that the PM is looking for a back door solution to getting the UK militarily involved in that particular shit storm.

Turkey is unlikely to be able to join the EU anytime soon since probably it's biggest roadblock to membership is that it is still technically occupying part of Cyprus and the resultant unresolved issues relating to it. Since it has been argued that the two countries are technically at war in effect, it would mean that Turkey cannot join till the issues are resolved. I believe there is some kind of EU rules around not being able to become an EU member when at war with another member.

As for MH17 and the black boxes, they've already said they won't tell you whether a missile destroyed it and/or who fired it, but can provide telemetry that can indicate whether an explosion may have occured in/near the aircraft. None of the teams involved in the investigation have come out to challenge the initial release by the Ukrainians that preliminary findings suggested it was downed by explosive decompression as a result of being hit by shrapnel either. Malaysian officials are apparently visint the Dutch team leading the investigation in the next week or two I read, so maybe they'll be announcing anything new then. Also the wreckage is still strewn across the Ukrainian countryside, so I'm guessing that might make it an ever so slightly more complicated process when it comes to comparing the telemetry and the plane itself.

And as for Ukraine, I think it's going to end up with Russia either taking the easternmost parts of Ukraine or leaving them in a permanent state of unrest that will undermine any attempts of Ukraine to get closer to EU or NATO.

I wonder if it's really in Russia's best interest to antagonize the West while having China as a neighbour.

The new front pretty much confirms Russian involvement at this point and I wouldn't be surprised if the intent is to force a land corridor between the Crimea and Russia along the coast. It'll also stall the Ukrainian advances on Luhansk and Donetsk since it'll force the redployment of govt. troops to stem the advance, wouldn't be surprised if it's also been done to give the separatists there the opening to fall back to other cities nearer the border and/or dig in and reinforce positions.

On the flip side, the Ukrainian parliament is now pushing through legislation to open the way to full NATO membership. My guess would be that the idea will be to fast track it's membership, since it was already NATO affiliated, in order to allow NATO forces to potentially be deployed to the region, by invite from the new member, thus allowing them to respond militarily without getting caught up in the UN security council roundabout, basically bringing in external forces by using NATO membership to bypass the UN and any potential vetoes.

I reckon China has a strong interest in not getting involved in any way that might draw attention to themselves. The last thing China will want is to antagonise the many minority groups that are already focused on their own independence from China. The same reason why they've been rather quiet over the US events with rioting in Ferguson, the last thing they want to do is potentially encourage/incite any kind of escalation on home soil. They'd be much more likely to use the opportunity of the conflict to make some kind of territorial move against Taiwan/South Korea/Japan than take action in the West and even that I reckon is unlikely, but it would be more within their sphere of influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably the best to leave Turkey out of Europe for historical, financial, geographical and cultural reasons. Nobody wants a common European border with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Georgia. Plus Turkey has almost als many inhabitants as Germany and more than the UK or France. That means they would have as much votes as Germany has in the EU without being even close to Germanys or any other big European countrys economic performance. It would be the next financial meltdown.

USA and Russia are playing the Great Game again and Europe suffers from it. The Ukrainian government is a coup regime with a bunch of nazis on board after all. Russia won't give up the crimea since it's always been a part of Russia. The easiest way to solve this problem would be to make the Ukraine a neutral state with no membership in the NATO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

USA and Russia are playing the Great Game again and Europe suffers from it. The Ukrainian government is a coup regime with a bunch of nazis on board after all. Russia won't give up the crimea since it's always been a part of Russia. The easiest way to solve this problem would be to make the Ukraine a neutral state with no membership in the NATO.

I think the Kremlin propaganda got too much to you. The only nazis in Ukraine are those guys from the "Right Sector" and they don't seem as a very influential force in the current government. Sure, there are some nationalists there, but what do you expect to see in a country that basically tries to finally exist as a more or less sovereign state? Putin feed this "nazi" bullshit to his own people because that revokes old memories from when the whole country defended against Hitler. Which is somewhat funny considering that he grows his own nazis - read a bit what is going on to people for ethnic or other minorities in Russia. Scary shit, it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They starting a war in the Ukraine. How would you stop it, Atlya?

They're staring a war in EUROPE. There's nothing to stop, really, just something to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Kremlin propaganda got too much to you. The only nazis in Ukraine are those guys from the "Right Sector" and they don't seem as a very influential force in the current government. Sure, there are some nationalists there, but what do you expect to see in a country that basically tries to finally exist as a more or less sovereign state? Putin feed this "nazi" bullshit to his own people because that revokes old memories from when the whole country defended against Hitler. Which is somewhat funny considering that he grows his own nazis - read a bit what is going on to people for ethnic or other minorities in Russia. Scary shit, it is.

Oleksandr Sych - Vice Prime Minister

Andriy Mokhnyk- Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources

Ihor Shvayka - Minister of Agriculture

Oleh Makhnitsky - acting General Prosecutor

They're all members of the svoboda party. The party even describes its ideology as "social nationalism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

Well, in the local context, social nationalism very often means that they talk a lot about patriotism, national interest etc. plus they are more for social security and somewhat controlled economy. It does not make them nazis. Hell, I wouldn't vote for them, because parties like that are usually full of hypocrites who talk about god, family values and patriotism and then get divorced, get caught while getting a blowjob from a random hooker and so on. To simplify it, think US Republicans but with the social security ideas of Democrats. Assholes - yes. Nazis - not really. I already told you which party in Ukraine is closes to what can be called nazis - Right Sector.

Other example - in my own country, the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice) party is also somewhat nationalistic, while supporting social security and higher taxes for big business, and also focusing very much on the importance of the Catholic church, and so on. So yeah, they are basically social nationalists, but that makes them populist rather than nazi.

Not every combination of nationalism and socialism equals NSDAP, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nazi party had lived a small period of time before Hitler made it this awful killing machine.

Are these Ukrainian parties dangerous, yes. The most dangerous, perhaps not. Unfortunately there are such people in both sides, in most countries of Europe, in Russia, and even in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

Why do those people who accuse the Ukrainian government of being Nazis close their eyes before the immense nationalism going on in Russia? It's extremely selective moralism.

This.

Plus, does anyone really imagine that in the country that has just shaken off the influence of a hegemony that had been interfering with is affairs (and exploiting it - check the "Ukrainian great hunger") and is now under an undercover attack by that hegemony there will be no nationalism on the rise? It's basically fight for independence or, at the very least, shifting dependence to a less uncomfortable one. How do you imagine nationalism not being a part of it? The whole point is that this is basically defensive nationalism and not an offensive one. Contrary to this, the nationalism in Russia is definitely offensive now and it feeds upon a sentiment very similar to the one that led to the rise of the man with a funny moustache and very unfunny ideas - the desire to rebuild former might and power. Germany was butthurt after losing WW1, now Russia is butthurt after the Cold War and the demise of USSR. And the guy promising to restore that power gets all the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

Plus, does anyone really imagine that in the country that has just shaken off the influence of a hegemony that had been interfering with is affairs (and exploiting it - check the "Ukrainian great hunger") and is now under an undercover attack by that hegemony there will be no nationalism on the rise? It's basically fight for independence or, at the very least, shifting dependence to a less uncomfortable one. How do you imagine nationalism not being a part of it? The whole point is that this is basically defensive nationalism and not an offensive one. Contrary to this, the nationalism in Russia is definitely offensive now and it feeds upon a sentiment very similar to the one that led to the rise of the man with a funny moustache and very unfunny ideas - the desire to rebuild former might and power. Germany was butthurt after losing WW1, now Russia is butthurt after the Cold War and the demise of USSR. And the guy promising to restore that power gets all the votes.

But he doesn't have a MUSTACHE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other example - in my own country, the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice) party is also somewhat nationalistic, while supporting social security and higher taxes for big business, and also focusing very much on the importance of the Catholic church, and so on. So yeah, they are basically social nationalists, but that makes them populist rather than nazi.

Not every combination of nationalism and socialism equals NSDAP, you know.

I take it you're from Poland then. After all,  the Ukrainian government is a coup regime with nothing even close to a democratic decision and financed by the US of A with 5 billion US-Dollars until now. The Crimea has been Russian for a long time and the black see fleet of Russia has it's home base in Sewastopol. However, Nikita Khrushchev made it part of the the Socialist Soviet Republic Ukraine in 1954. Anyways, it was still part of the USSR until 1990. The US-Americans weren't too happy with Russian missiles at Cuba in the 60ties, so I understand why the Russians don't like to have US-rockets aiming at them from the Ukraine, Romania or Poland.

After all: this is a beef between the USA & Russia, why should we Europeans get involved or even suffer from any sanctions from one side or the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will you say if putin starts cutting a region for Russian people living in Estonia and other baltic countries (whose status is, by the way, much worse than those of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, a lot of them not being recognized as citizens of those countries)? What on Earth lets you know whether Putin will stop in the South-east of Ukrain, at Odessa, or in Moldavia (that is already partly occupied by the Russian army)?

This guy is clearly playing a game with us. He's asserting his strength and trying to push his advantage further every time. Until he thinks going further on is too costly for him, he will continue. The question is: do we let him play until he's satisfied or do we try to limit the damage he's doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will you say if putin starts cutting a region for Russian people living in Estonia and other baltic countries

He won't, he is not stupid enough, besides, he has his Baltic Fleet stationed in East Germany, formaly known as Königsberg (now: "Kaliningrad"). However, the ones who started this Great Game are located in Washington, as I mentioned before. The understanding in 1990 was, that NATO won't expand towards East Europe, and yet the NATO did. Are you aware of the Kievan Rus? It's essential for the self-conception of todays Russia. As much as I hate to admit it, Putin has a point. Anyways, the ones who are suffering the most (economically) are the Europeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'm aware of the Kievan Rus'. But basing territorial expansion, or irredentism, on that, is as stupid as claiming that Kosovo is Serbian or Izmir and Byzantium are Greek.

To be fair, I don't believe fighting for Crimea is worth it, and I don't think Ukraine is a stable country, all it's asking for is to explode at the first occasion, which is what it has been consistantly doing for the last 10 years. Maidan is a coup? So be it, but there's been a presidential election since then in which 90% of the country voted, that elected a president that is far from being a nazi, and there's going to be legislative soon to renew the parliament. Not wanting Ukraine to move to the west does not give Russia a mandate to invade a part of the country. It's a stupid move anyway, in 5 years the pro-occidental regime is going to be swiped away by the next election in favor of a neutral or pro-Russian one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only thought is that I'd prefer American imperialism over Russian imperialism anytime. Not that I like any of those, but judging from current situation in Europe that's basically the choice you have to make.

And as for Ukraine, I think it's going to end up with Russia either taking the easternmost parts of Ukraine or leaving them in a permanent state of unrest that will undermine any attempts of Ukraine to get closer to EU or NATO.

I wonder if it's really in Russia's best interest to antagonize the West while having China as a neighbour.

And EU could become a much more influential player if it really got united, but it's not happening anytime soon and I'm not even sure if that's possible. Perhaps after a few generations pass.

Imperialism is not a game of football, you don't have to choose a side. In almost every case when great imperialist powers collide the best side to choose is neither. Might be hard to stomach but really I don't see how useful this exchange of poorly cited propaganda on both sides is. It's highly doubtful that the Ukrainian side after the recent election (although perhaps more plausible before the election) is a fascist dictatorship bent on ethnically cleansing the Russian population. Likewise I hold any claim that the separatists are some sort of glorious heroes of liberation with a grain of salt when a fair amount of their founders are politically descended from Eurasianist crowd and whose government has flirted with restricting homosexuality.

The only thing that merits support is peace. My deepest sympathies go to the innocent working people caught between the war such as the trade unionists at Odessa who were slaughtered en masse amongst others who are victims of this horrible war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

I take it you're from Poland then. After all,  the Ukrainian government is a coup regime with nothing even close to a democratic decision and financed by the US of A with 5 billion US-Dollars until now.

I bet the same thing would be said of Polish Solidarity in 1980s if they decided to act in a more direct way. And, guess, what, basically all the Central European countries that were a part of the Warsaw Pact are doing much better now that we got rid of USSR/Russian influence. And many people in Ukraine, especially in its western part, see that clearly enough to want to get rid of it too. The difference between Poland and Russia, however, is that Poland is 98% Polish, while Ukraine has a significant de facto Russian population, which was and still is concentrated mostly on Crimea and in the eastern districts. That, plus the fact that in 1989 USSR was in shambles and Russia now is relatively strong, makes the biggest difference. It might also be noted that Ukraine never got as independent from Russia as, say, Lithuania or other Baltic states, not to mention Poland which was never even a SSR. Actually, I think that if it wasn't for the fact that so much of the Ukrainian industry is located in the eastern districts and that there are pro-western Ukrainians living there as well, the Ukrainian government would be better off granting independence to all the separatists and then, as a much more uniform and united country, join NATO and someday perhaps even EU. Because even if they manage to keep those easter districts, this will hinder them, not help, in "going West", since Russians will always play their games there.

The Crimea has been Russian for a long time and the black see fleet of Russia has it's home base in Sewastopol. However, Nikita Khrushchev made it part of the the Socialist Soviet Republic Ukraine in 1954. Anyways, it was still part of the USSR until 1990. The US-Americans weren't too happy with Russian missiles at Cuba in the 60ties, so I understand why the Russians don't like to have US-rockets aiming at them from the Ukraine, Romania or Poland.

A long time is a better way to put it, and I do agree that it was long enough for that place to become more Russian than Ukrainian - as evidenced by how easy it got "turned". Basically, like I said above, I think that ultimately Ukraine will have to become divided, especially once separatists supported by Russian gain more ground than they ultimately intend to hold - basically only to have a better position for negotiations. In the end, from a global point of view, what Russia does now is not winning anything, but minimizing the losses. The only case when it would win anything would be if it totally annexed Ukraine or if there was another coup, this time the other way round, but I don't think it's going to happen now after Putin antagonized the Ukrainians so much.

After all: this is a beef between the USA & Russia, why should we Europeans get involved or even suffer from any sanctions from one side or the other?

Well, not sure about you Western Europeans, but the last time my country chose to rely on our Western European "allies", we got sandwiched by Hitler and Stalin and Western Europe decided there is no point in dying for some irrelevant country eastwards. So since 1990s most Polish governments tried to do their best to increase the interest of Yanks in our country, so that Yanks have reasons to give a shit when Russians decide again that their western border is not western enough. And the best way to give them reasons to give a shit is do things like provide support in Iraq, loan some places for interrogations and have major NATO troops stationed here - so that the western NATO border is truly here and not on the eastern border of Germany. The whole point is that Western Europe has, practically, no point in giving a shit about what Russia does beyond the German border, I bet Putin could march his little green men down to Warsaw and the peace loving people in, say, France, would still be talking about moderate sanctions, so that they can continue selling weapons to Russia. Fortunately, there is also one other way left for Poland now, which to make Germans give a shit and I think that's what the current government is trying to do. Plus obviously, Poland is very much interested in pro-western independent Ukraine because it would constitute a buffer between it and Russia - basically same thing that Poland now does on the eastern border of EU, together with Baltic states. Not sure where you live, but if you had, say, a border with a country neighboring with North Korea, you'd prefer this country to be in your camp and not in the North Korean one, right?

In my opinion, EU is not and won't be able anytime soon to do without US influence when it comes to resisting Russia - not sooner than it becomes much more unified. And talking about "us Europeans" is only a cheap talk - for now we only have a framework, which can be almost freely ignored in favor of particular national interests - and it is often done even by its founding members. As unlikely as it may sound coming from someone Polish (considering the Polish past is riddled with problems from both eastern and western border), I actually look forward to Germany taking the lead in EU and making it more unified, and as far as I can tell this is what Polish government is supporting now, in a more or less evident way. Perhaps it's a part of that "make Germans give a shit" idea that I mentioned above ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

Imperialism is not a game of football, you don't have to choose a side. In almost every case when great imperialist powers collide the best side to choose is neither.

Yeah, if you're far away from both of them.

I think I found a rough metaphor for such situation. Here it goes:

When you are a bird between two dogs, it's good not to choose sides, because, hey, why anger any of them if they have no interest in you.

If you are a bird between two cats (Poland in 1939, basically), it's pointless to choose sides, because either one is gonna eat you.

But, if you are bird between a cat and a dog... Well, it'd be stupid not to go with the dog, unless he's a known birdeater :P.

The only thing that merits support is peace.

You do realize that if there already is a war underway, peace is usually made only after one side wins and the other loses? So, if you want to have peace, you basically have to tell one side to lose. Make your pick :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a bit harsh about western europe not moving last time you were sandwiched. We declared war on the day after. Granted, our initial strategy has been shit, but it wasn't long before we ourselves were overrun. We, too, keep bitter memories of that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest myownway

You're a bit harsh about western europe not moving last time you were sandwiched. We declared war on the day after. Granted, our initial strategy has been shit, but it wasn't long before we ourselves were overrun. We, too, keep bitter memories of that time.

Actually, it was more like shitty politics and no strategy whatsoever, because no one wanted to start a full-scale war with Nazis. You know the term "Phoney War"? Actually, I think everyone who's lukewarm towards Putin now should read that article twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War. History likes to repeat itself.

And frankly, if we had a threat of a nuclear war going on now I could not blame anyone for desperately clinging to peace (hell, even I would prefer the whole wold ran by Putin to nuclear war - plus at least he does not seem to have any genocidal tendencies (that we know of :P)). But what we actually have (or at least had, because the word "nuclear" started to appear recently in Ukraine-related news) is that plenty of countries were afraid of losing business, GDP, and so on. And Putin just went on and on... Sanctions would work much better if they were stronger at the very beginning, and if there was more unity with regard to them.

Truth be told, if I was sure that Putin stops at Crimea and eastern Ukrainian districts, I'd say let him have it, Ukraine will actually be better off without them (like I mentioned above), but if he's a bully, then you know how bullies are - lack of reaction just makes them want to bully more, because, heck, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.