Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't the U.K. Still latch onto Canada and Australia still though, after all they still have Elizabeth II as their queen, a bit unusual don't you think? But anyway I get what you are saying, and I think it's sad. Russia and Ukraine should view each other as equals. Also as a friendly suggestion, it's just Ukraine not "the" Ukraine. A lot of Ukrainians get hung up by that, if you say "the" it means you don't recognize it as a sovereign nation, but just a region, a border land.
The presence of the monarch on the currency is only symbolic and has no bearing on any actual suzerainty. There are a number of people who would love to see these countries become republics. Both countries are free to pursue policies independent of those from the UK.
As to arm sales, I think you misunderstood what I meant by it. I wasn't criticizing the fact that Russia sells weapons, since every major power does that, but the idea that the economy is not diverse enough.
I wrote to you that selling weapons is not not a problem. Grain sales are surpassing this in recent years. Oil and gas - yes, these are large volumes of exports. But why not? Money goes where there is income. If oil-gas ceases to make a profit, money will go to other areas.
For example, agriculture has a good pace of development after the sanctions.
I wouldn't really lump my name with Ariete and DKM, I'm not anti-Russian or Russophobic, I even often times defend Russia, but I will criticize Russia when it is deserved, just like any other nation. As far as the Ukraine situation, it's a bit of a mixed bag, both the west and Russia are at fault and both were trying to influence the internal politics of Ukraine. However I do think the west does deserve a lot of blame. Europe clearly wanted Ukraine to be part of free trade agreement with EU, this was a huge concern for Russia since Russia already had a free trade agreement with Ukraine, but not with Europe. Europe didn't want to discuss with Russia about this and told them that this doesn't concern them. Though of course Russia had other concerns, such as Ukraine becoming anti-Russia which ironically is what ended up happening anyway. When it comes to Crimea, I think Crimea truly did want to become part of Russia since my family members are from there and voted to be part of Russia, and no they didn't do it with a gun pointed at their back like the western media wants you to believe. And as far as Eastern Ukraine, well that's a huge mess and a similar situation with Israel and Palestine. I also think a part of the reason Ukraine has been anti Russia is because a lack of respect coming from Russia, but also a bit of an inferiority complex and wanting to present them selves as unique and that's not possible if they are tied to Russia, since everyone will see them as just a smaller version of Russia, which in many cases it is. Anyway Russia has many lessons to be learned and make sure they are not repeated with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and that means be more respectful, and less controlling. Parents who control their kids end up loosing them.
Honestly, I have trouble following the Ukrainian
narrative with respect to Crimea. Even though the referendum itself may have violated interaction norms, it's quite obvious that Crimea is majority Russian and the majority want to be a part of Russia. A referendum under different circumstances would have produced the same results. However, that's true only in Crimea, not eastern Ukraine in general.
As far as the Ukraine situation, it's a bit of a mixed bag, both the west and Russia are at fault and both were trying to influence the internal politics of Ukraine. However I do think the west does deserve a lot of blame. Europe clearly wanted Ukraine to be part of free trade agreement with EU, this was a huge concern for Russia since Russia already had a free trade agreement with Ukraine, but not with Europe. Europe didn't want to discuss with Russia about this and told them that this doesn't concern them. Though of course Russia had other concerns, such as Ukraine becoming anti-Russia which ironically is what ended up happening anyway. When it comes to Crimea, I think Crimea truly did want to become part of Russia since my family members are from there and voted to be part of Russia, and no they didn't do it with a gun pointed at their back like the western media wants you to believe.
Well, it is a mixed bag, that is correct, but I don't see any reason why the EU should be blamed for anything. The EU didn't at any point make Ukraine choose between Russia and the EU. The EU would never do that either. If via Ukraine the EU and Russia could had get closer, EU would've liked it. It was Putin who made Ukraine choose, or Yanukovych, in fact. The people of Ukraine thought otherwise. Of course the EU didn't cancel their deal, but Yanu wouldn't had signed it anyway.
The only thing that was incompatible was that Ukraine could not be part of EFTA AND The Eurasian Union (or its customs union).
If Russia would've wanted to keep a free trade deal with Ukraine that would be ok. During the Cold War Finland was in EFTA but also had a bilateral trade deal with the USSR. No big deal. The CETA deal with Canada is due to get ratified in matter of days.
Of course the EU tries to influence policies of member candidates, as to become a part of this club you also have to subscribe to certain ideals, like fair elections, human rights, free press, fight corruption, not use military power against another member and so on. All the good stuff. But that also worked negatively when the Bun Head (Tymoshenko) was imprisoned, and the EU-Ukraine deal was then postponed.
In any case, even in 2013 we knew that it will take decades for Ukraine to even possibly become an EU member. If it would've been about trade, there were plenty of time to make whatever deals. But this wasn't Russia's point. For them it was unacceptable to let Ukraine get even an inch closer to the West, but stop the slippery slope in its tracks. Russia did it in 2008 as well with Georgia, and it worked. Back then there was talk about getting closer to the EU and NATO, now nobody talks about it anymore.
And as Russia is in a very weak situation, its only possibility to create and uphold an sphere of influence is acting like this. It has no soft power, slim economic powers, but it has military power. And if for some reason Lukashenka would be ousted and Belarus would want to get closer to the EU, the Russian tanks would roll into Minsk and all the talks would be over. And believe me: Russia will do that.
As long as Russia acts like this, it can expect no concessions or sympathy from the West. Neither has the West any interest in dealing with Russia more than necessary. And if as a result Russia turns inwards for good, it digs itself deeper into its cold war grave until it drowns.
For example, if the gas and oil pipes were shut off tomorrow, it might get a bit chilly inside houses in Western Europe, but in Russia there will be famine in a few years, and the Putin or whoever who's in charge then will have 1917 all over his hands again. When the pensions are not coming, you have no food, looking at a map of Crimea belonging to Russia will not keep the hunger away.
---
Regarding Crimea, it probably wanted to be a part of Russia. But the referendum was still a joke. If there isn't even a "no, stay with Ukraine" option on the ballot, the referendum is worth nothing. And even less, sending Little Green Men and take the peninsula by force is definitely not the way to go. Ukraine probably knows that it won't get Crimea back, the EU and US surely knows that, and in time Ukraine will probably accept it. But the separatist areas are a different story. To get things back to normal, Russia must step back, and as it won't do it, the situation will not normalise. But the EU and NATO can wait indefinitely, as the balance of power is so overwhelmingly in our favour. In 25 years we won't probably need that gas and oil anymore, as solar, wind and other renewable power will be become more and more common. And as Russia has nothing else to sell to us, well, there's your famine.
Erasure was the one that backed out of the discussion.
Considering that my point is to prove Russian culpability and not western innocence, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The two are not mutually exclusive . Read that last sentence very carefully as it's key to any discussion.
A lot of things happened in South America over the years. You had coups backed by the US, but the reverse just as much. Castro came to power through a coup, on the pretence that he was going to eliminate the problems with corruption present during the Batista regime. What happened is that we got a regime that nationalised all private industries but failed to redistribute that capital in any meaningful way. To this day, even after Castro's death, Cuba is still run by that same party and has failed to move forward. The same can be said about Venezuela.
When it comes to the Ukraine, here's the tricky part. How can we have an honest discussion about the situation there when Russians still treat it as an internal territory? In many ways the situation is similar to that of China and Taiwan, where China refuses to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation, or Argentina's position towards the Falkland Islands. But here's the reality on the ground, the people of those respective countries or territories do not wish to be part of their neighbour.
Just because Ukraine was once part of the Russian empire and the SU, doesn't change the fact that today things are different. It would be like the modern U.K. trying to lay claim to Canada or Australia.
Why would Ukraine want to be part of Russia's sphere of influence when the EU offers a lot more opportunities? Russia's economy is still very pedestrian next to that of the EU , given its reliance on the provision of natural gas and the sale of weaponry. Putin gets a lot of credit for piling Russia out of the mire of the 90's, but that's mostly a product of dumb luck, since oil prices were a lot higher during his first presidency.
On a personal note, the reason why I have trouble taking the Russian side seriously comes from the tactics used on forums. Whenever someone criticises Russia, that person authomatically gets labelled dumb, clueless. Then there is the constant deflection, where everyone who dislikes Russia gets funded by outside sources. That is the pinnacle of a black and a white mentality if you ask me. At least those who criticise Russia come up with constructive criticism (see Ariete, greg94, DKM...).
Why don't you understand that there is no such thing as unanimous "Ukraine" that "doesn't want to belong to Russia any longer?" Why do you think that this puppet government in Kiev is talking on behalf of *all* Ukraine?
You need to understand that in spite of all the actions on governmental level, the ties between PEOPLE are not completely broken, and the information goes back and forth through family ties and social media.
So from what Ukrainians are describing as far as "Europeasation" of their country goes, it sound all too familiar to Russians, the kind of process they went through back in the nineties, when neo-liberals took over their economy and their society, with the help of American "economists" as I've said many times. And the memories of it are still painful.
So when Putin (as corporate pr*ck as he is,) is all about clinging to Ukraine because of the *loss of economic opportunities* with his planned "no custom ( free trade) zone," the Russians who go to fight to Donbass, go there for a different reason. They see very clear what Americans ( with the help of EU) are trying to accomplish all over again, and they don't like it a bit.
An annexation of Malorossia (DNP+LPR)by the Russian Federation is imho the only logical thing . I don't understand why it's not already made. And the Ukies shoukd not complain : they still have northern Donbass (Slaviansk) and the Odessa region where there are a lot of ethnic Russians. So the neo nazi Ukies should at last shut the **** up.
Because Pigeonhole, because.
Because the "fifth column" is sitting in Kremlin, and is trying to bargain Donbass away in exchange for recognition of Russian Crimea. You dear Western partners will come to understanding that Crimea is all Russian of course and remove the sanctions. We in turn will shove LNR and DNR back in "united, federalized Ukraine" and then there will be business as usual. You will be buying our oil and gas, and we will be keeping our money in your banks, and our yachts at your Riviera shores.
That's what it's all about.
Who controls it? The 4th biggest and 2nd fattest country in the world.
Why do you even think that "Ukrainian integration" is beneficial for Europe?
Because it's really not.
Truth to be told, the REAL economic interests of Germany for example lie not with Poland or other V-4 countries, but with Russia. And Germany as you know it, is a back-bone of the EU.
So if post-Soviet Russia would have turned into the stable democratic country with middle class, it would have given tonnes of opportunities to European countries because of its huge and unique market, oriented to European goods. So Americans made damn sure that this scenario wouldn't work out, and instead it were the Chinese-made goods that flooded Russian market after American corporations brought there their know-how.
Germans in their turn accepted what has been offered to them instead of Russian market - i.e. the V-4 countries; Poland-Czechoslovakia-Slovenia. This allowed their economy to grow somewhat, but not to the point where they'd be able to integrate any other former EE countries on the same conditions as V-4 countries. And that's why I'd guess the experience of Bulgaria-Latvia-Lithuania in EU is different comparably to say Poland or Slovenia. And that's why "integration of Ukraine" was out of question for long-long time, no matter how much the US were pushing for it. Not to mention that Germans had to keep their eyes on Greece and her economic troubles, but lo and behold here is 40 million plus country that's knocking on the EU door. What are WEST Europeans to do?
Obviously they don't have enough of finances to bring this behemoth in, as much as the US would wish it to happen. At least not on the same conditions as Poland and other V-4 were accepted. Bulgarian-Lithuanian version is most likely, if at all. And that means "fiscal responsibility" or Russian-style "optimization," when certain percentage of aborigines need to die, in order to accomplish the process of "integration."
Here is a problem though - even if the Ukrainian aborigines will be dying in droves, deprived of their land ( since the sale of land to foreign corporations is one of the conditions of "integration,") or because their country-side will be subjected to a shale drilling, which yet again will destroy the livelihood of Ukrainians ( Eastern Ukrainians in particular,) the point is - Ukraine is still primarily an agricultural country, and always has been, because of its luscious soil. It doesn't have oil or gas, unlike Russia.
So where will all this agriculture produce go, if Russian market is closed for it?
It's not like EU doesn't have enough of its own produce and its own agricultural producers to worry about.
Last edited by erasure; 09-18-2017 at 05:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
