Congratulations to the people of Donetsk

[saxitoxin]

Well sax and kuthoer both live and work in the US, so each is doing just as much to grease the wheels of US capitalism as the other.

I believe in Capitalism, BUT not pure Capitalism.

Capitalism needs to be regulated, as greed corrupts. The same is true with Communism. The elite in Communism become greedy and drunk with power.

Socialism is a mix of Capitalism with laws and regulations by the people to keep the few from turning their society into a oligarchy where the few get rich, while the rest of it's citizens are considered expendable.

you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about

BTW - I was at an (un-permitted) May Day rally in a major American city this evening and wondered to myself how long you'd last attending it while toting around an "I Support Drone Strikes! Jail Snowden!" sign. I don't think very long.

[saxitoxin]

The meetings are over,
The treaties suspended,
The armies start marching,
The Maiden has ended!

The Ukrainian Defence Ministry said in a statement that two Mi-24 helicopter gunships were shot down by shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles while on patrol overnight around Slaviansk, a city that rebels have turned into a heavily-fortified stronghold. A third helicopter, an Mi-8 transport aircraft, was also hit and a serviceman wounded, the Defence Ministry said.

Citing the situation in the east, acting Ukrainian President Oleksander Turchinov has signed a decree reinstating compulsory military service for men aged between 18 and 25.

[LMAO-->] The International Monetary Fund warned that if Ukraine lost territory in the east it would have to redesign a $17 billion bailout of the country, probably requiring additional financing. [the West is determined to cash-in their pound of flesh whether western Ukraine can foot the bill or not; the Ukrainians would be well-advised to look at how friendly their friends are]

[patches70]

The meetings are over,
The treaties suspended,
The armies start marching,
The Maiden has ended!

Citing the situation in the east, acting Ukrainian President Oleksander Turchinov has signed a decree reinstating compulsory military service for men aged between 18 and 25.

Imagine being a Ukrainian being called up to fight against yourselves.

Ukraine has the fifth largest army in Europe, I fail to see how reluctant conscripts are going to accomplish what 180,000 volunteers are too smart to try to do.
It might not be a good idea to give these conscripts guns, who knows who they'll shoot?
Oh the sardonic humor of an unelected government forcing people to give up their lives for the government's own preservation at the urging of other nations and the IMF.

Well, at least we have a solid number. $17 billion. That's how much money an insane government will take to bring it's country to civil war and march young men off to die. And when it's all over they'll have to pay the $17 billion back!

Holy shit it's insanity.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe, patches. That might be an accurate price; however, (1) the IMF has a history of debt forgiveness (so the price tag could be lower than $17bn), yet (2) the Ukrainian-Kievian government might be expecting more IMF bailouts (so the price tag could be higher than $17bn).


I find saxi's implicit claim that "the West" imposes its mandates on "the Rest" through the IMF to be implausible. The IMFs job is to issue bailouts; that's what they do. And given their lovely history of debt forgiveness, it's not like a bailout can force the recipient's hand into doing "nefarious plan B." The IMF sets its conditions which usually get ignored or are half-assed by the recipient. And, the IMF releases bailouts to many countries during times which don't involve Nefarious US Foreign Policy Agendas (as we see with Ukraine).

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not sure why the Kievian government has enacted conscription. They'll get a flood of greenies within... 90 to 180 days? Is that enough time, and will they be good enough against the Russian-Ukrainian special forces, their militias, and the inevitable defectors from the Ukrainian military?

Not only is there that problem, but when a government confiscates people's labor, it tends to make the people annoyed. Of course, nationalism can offset that effect, but given the nationalist crisis in Ukraine, I'm not sure it can. Think of how flooded the Ukrainian military will be in potential spies/informants. It's easy to pay people for information--or to leave their job--when they're dissatisfied with their current employer.

[patches70]

Maybe, patches. That might be an accurate price; however, (1) the IMF has a history of debt forgiveness (so the price tag could be lower than $17bn), yet (2) the Ukrainian-Kievian government might be expecting more IMF bailouts (so the price tag could be higher than $17bn).

But BBS, the IMF has come out and said that if Kiev wants to get the bailout Kiev has to secure eastern Ukraine. In other words, if you want the money you have to fight.

There can be no debt forgiveness or even bailout if the eastern Ukraine leaves. The IMF has been very clear on this. The ability to repay the IMF loan is dependent on assets of the nation. Eastern Ukraine is where the money is, is where the real value of Ukraine is.
If Kiev loses the east then they won't get this bailout or any future bailouts.

Which answers your question-

I'm not sure why the Kievian government has enacted conscription.

Because they have no money and they are depending on the IMF, which the IMF requires that Ukraine be a whole country, which includes the rebelling eastern half.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 6070,d.cGU

[saxitoxin]

I find saxi's implicit claim that "the West" imposes its mandates on "the Rest" through the IMF to be implausible. The IMFs job is to issue bailouts; that's what they do. And given their lovely history of debt forgiveness, it's not like a bailout can force the recipient's hand into doing "nefarious plan B." The IMF sets its conditions which usually get ignored or are half-assed by the recipient. And, the IMF releases bailouts to many countries during times which don't involve Nefarious US Foreign Policy Agendas (as we see with Ukraine).

There is a proved connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and IMF loans. For instance, Yale discovered that ...

The IMF has been shown to act as a tool of US (and other G7 countries) foreign policy to some extent.3 Thacker (1999), for example, shows that governments that vote along the lines of the US on key issues in the United Nations General Assembly are more likely to participate in IMF programs – presumably as the IMF loan acts as a reward.4

http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/unsc_imf.pdf

[GoranZ]

Why equate Socialism with Communism?

Have you ever lived in any of them?

Socialism is a mix of Capitalism with laws and regulations by the people to keep the few from turning their society into a oligarchy where the few get rich, while the rest of it's citizens are considered expendable.

Before you go even farther with your theories what socialism is and what it isn't I will help you with something. Socialism and Capitalism never go together, not they can go together. Capitalism is generally very bad system for general population, even Democracy is struggling to keep the achieved rights.

society of oligarchy where they get rich, while the rest of it's citizens are considered expendable

I edited your sentence a little bit so it will have some sense alone but what you said in that part is pure Capitalism.

I guess economics is not your strength, let alone politics.

Where did you find economics in my post Or as saxi says "you clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about"
Not much politics also... except general state constitutions.

One more time... Have you ever lived in Communism or Socialism?

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe, patches. That might be an accurate price; however, (1) the IMF has a history of debt forgiveness (so the price tag could be lower than $17bn), yet (2) the Ukrainian-Kievian government might be expecting more IMF bailouts (so the price tag could be higher than $17bn).

But BBS, the IMF has come out and said that if Kiev wants to get the bailout Kiev has to secure eastern Ukraine. In other words, if you want the money you have to fight.

There can be no debt forgiveness or even bailout if the eastern Ukraine leaves. The IMF has been very clear on this. The ability to repay the IMF loan is dependent on assets of the nation. Eastern Ukraine is where the money is, is where the real value of Ukraine is.
If Kiev loses the east then they won't get this bailout or any future bailouts.

Which answers your question-

I'm not sure why the Kievian government has enacted conscription.

Because they have no money and they are depending on the IMF, which the IMF requires that Ukraine be a whole country, which includes the rebelling eastern half.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 6070,d.cGU

1. that news source is bunk (beforeitsnews.com citing infowars.com).
2. the IMF already approved Ukraine's $17bn loan.
3. I take it you agree that $17bn isn't the exact price due to the possibility of debt forgiveness or more subsequent IMF loans.
4. Anyway, some of the loan (~$2bn) is for servicing previous debt (to Gazprom).

Rolling over debt != engage in a civil war in order to get the IMF money. They already got $2bn of the loan for rolling over debt, and they'll get more during their tit-for-tat game of fiscal 'discipline' and IMF payoffs.

In exchange for the loan, Ukraine committed to maintaining a flexible exchange rate and focusing monetary policy on domestic price stability, with plans to adopt inflation targeting by mid-2015, Lagarde said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-3 ... nrest.html


The IMF also wants the Ukrainian government to reduce its deficit spending as well as adopt the above goals. Where's "beat down the Eastern secessionists?" The IMF usually always sets these conditions to countries receiving bailouts. These conditions are nothing new! But somehow they mean "destroy the separatists." Even if some segments of Ukraine split, sure, tax revenues decrease, and deficits could increase (or decrease if the government spending was on the East), but it's not like the IMF has been known to immediately enforce its own conditions. It'll likely offer another bailout, but it depends on how the Ukrainian central bank acts during that crisis.

I really don't see how the claims by some crazy person on inforwars.com are even plausible. The IMF cannot force Ukraine to fight a civil war, and the IMF already gave them the money (so how can the IMF ensure that Ukraine fights the war while it handed over $2bn and while it'll very likely hand over increments as the government tries to implement fiscal discipline?) The IMF hasn't even mentioned a "engage in civil war" condition. This is bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

I find saxi's implicit claim that "the West" imposes its mandates on "the Rest" through the IMF to be implausible. The IMFs job is to issue bailouts; that's what they do. And given their lovely history of debt forgiveness, it's not like a bailout can force the recipient's hand into doing "nefarious plan B." The IMF sets its conditions which usually get ignored or are half-assed by the recipient. And, the IMF releases bailouts to many countries during times which don't involve Nefarious US Foreign Policy Agendas (as we see with Ukraine).

There is a proved connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and IMF loans. For instance, Yale discovered that ...

The IMF has been shown to act as a tool of US (and other G7 countries) foreign policy to some extent.3 Thacker (1999), for example, shows that governments that vote along the lines of the US on key issues in the United Nations General Assembly are more likely to participate in IMF programs – presumably as the IMF loan acts as a reward.4

http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/unsc_imf.pdf

Sure, there's definitely a positive correlation between foreign aid funding and abiding by the donor government's wishes, but you trying to push for a deeper correlation: Ukraine got paid to do X on behalf of the G8 (or G7 minus Russia, right? but the study includes G8, so aren't you conveniently omitted something important from your source?). You also have to keep in mind that there's other relevant variables which explain foreign aid allocation. It's not just about the donors' countries' foreign policy, but there's also the aid agencies' internal policies (e.g. give country X money to reduce problem B), and that has nothing to do with the more nefarious side of foreign policy. Therefore, given the study, you can't always point to a bailout and conclude that "the West" is conforming/rewarding that country for meeting its (conflicting) foreign policies.


So, the West told the IMF to send Ukraine some money, so that Ukraine will vote on what key issue in the UNGA? Or Ukraine was being rewarded because it did... what exactly on behalf of the US and the other G7 countries (including Russia)?

Won't Ukraine still support any measure that's detrimental to Russia--without being paid to do so? Russia annexing Crimea, mobilizing a 100k+ army on its border, and using special forces to support local efforts to takeover local governments already sets that incentive...

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd hazard to guess that even if Russia invaded all of Ukraine and puppeted its government, the IMF would still want to send Ukraine money (in order to keep payments flowing to Gazprom), so that the EU doesn't suffer from higher energy prices. If this happened, then do we say that the G8 are supporting the Russian intervention of Ukraine? There's more going on then blaming the West for whatever.

[saxitoxin]

I find saxi's implicit claim that "the West" imposes its mandates on "the Rest" through the IMF to be implausible. The IMFs job is to issue bailouts; that's what they do. And given their lovely history of debt forgiveness, it's not like a bailout can force the recipient's hand into doing "nefarious plan B." The IMF sets its conditions which usually get ignored or are half-assed by the recipient. And, the IMF releases bailouts to many countries during times which don't involve Nefarious US Foreign Policy Agendas (as we see with Ukraine).

There is a proved connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and IMF loans. For instance, Yale discovered that ...

The IMF has been shown to act as a tool of US (and other G7 countries) foreign policy to some extent.3 Thacker (1999), for example, shows that governments that vote along the lines of the US on key issues in the United Nations General Assembly are more likely to participate in IMF programs – presumably as the IMF loan acts as a reward.4

http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/unsc_imf.pdf

Sure, there's definitely a positive correlation between foreign aid funding and abiding by the donor government's wishes, but you trying to push for a deeper correlation: Ukraine got paid to do X on behalf of the G8 (or G7 minus Russia, right? but the study includes G8, so aren't you conveniently omitted something important from your source?).

Well the study was a "for instance" that U.S. foreign policy objectives are calibrated with the disbursal of IMF loans. I can't cite every single piece of research here. Georgetown did a similar study that found a correlation between nations being awarded temporary seats on the UNSC and receiving IMF loans, but found an inverse loan relationship among UNSC members when they voted against the U.S. Dresden has also studied the relationship between IMF loans and U.S. foreign policy.

I never claimed Kiev was paid to do X on behalf of the G7, only that (a) Ukraine needs an IMF loan to avoid bankruptcy, (b) the IMF has implicitly established militarization of the Russian border as a condition of that loan, (c) scientific consensus is that there is a connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and the disbursal of IMF loans.

Anything beyond that is pure speculation, but the pieces are sufficient we can offer an educated hypothesis: Ukraine is being paid to fence-in Russia in preparation for something bigger and more terrible. What? Who knows? The possibilities are endless, but only guesses if you're not working in Arlington.

(Plus, the U.S. is clearly positioned to manipulate the IMF process to achieve its FP objectives. It controls 17% of the IMF votes directly and, via its satellite states like Britain, Germany, Canada, and the rest of the gang, a combined 25% additional. Also, all Executive-Directors have had unusually deep cultural connections with U.S. domestic political power structures. LaGarde, for example, is William Cohen's former receptionist.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Well the study was a "for instance" that U.S. foreign policy objectives are calibrated with the disbursal of IMF loans. I can't cite every single piece of research here. Georgetown did a similar study that found a correlation between nations being awarded temporary seats on the UNSC and receiving IMF loans, but found an inverse loan relationship among UNSC members when they voted against the U.S. Dresden has also studied the relationship between IMF loans and U.S. foreign policy.

I never claimed Kiev was paid to do X on behalf of the G7,

Then the Yale study doesn't support your position. But again, sure, there's a correlation between donor FP and recipient policies. It still doesn't follow that only donor FP is to blame.

Cite as many studies as you want, but it still doesn't follow that if you see a change in "y", then x1 (i.e. FP) is responsible--because in the models of those studies, there are other variables (x2 to x7 or what have you). In other words, there's other causes at play which you inexplicably reject while you bee line for "G7 FP."

... only that (a) Ukraine needs an IMF loan to avoid bankruptcy, (b) the IMF has implicitly established militarization of the Russian border as a condition of that loan, (c) scientific consensus is that there is a connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and the disbursal of IMF loans.

Anything beyond that is pure speculation, but the pieces are sufficient we can offer an educated hypothesis: Ukraine is being paid to fence-in Russia. Why? Who knows? Perhaps the U.S. is hoping to tie-down Russian military resources in disposable Europe to offer it cover during the much ballyhooed "Pacific pivot" of its war apparatus. The possibilities are endless, but only guesses.

Dude, sax, (b) is pure speculation, and to my knowledge it's not even supported in sensible news articles.

Although (c) can happen, (a) can happen without any influence from (c)--e.g. the IMF bailed out Mexico during its 1990s financial crisis because that's what the IMF was designed to do: promote economic stability. You seem to disagree by saying:

The International Monetary Fund warned that if Ukraine lost territory in the east it would have to redesign a $17 billion bailout of the country, probably requiring additional financing. [the West is determined to cash-in their pound of flesh whether western Ukraine can foot the bill or not; the Ukrainians would be well-advised to look at how friendly their friends are]

Where's the warning? There is none. See my response to patches' infowars stuff.

And how can the West benefit by paying money into an organization which then lends that money to Ukraine--in order to pay for previous loans made to Ukraine? There's no pound of flesh being extracted here; it's a transfer of 'flesh' (from G7 to Ukraine). New loans are extracted from G7 flesh to roll over debt to previous G7 flesh with the hope that Ukraine can stabilize its fiscal situation.

Is Ukraine is being paid to fence-in Russia? How do you know? There's other explanations which are plausible--e.g. it's the IMF's job to set conditions on loans to countries whose financial status seems weak. The IMF has a history of sending loans to countries whose ideologies/leaders differed with the NATO's too...

(Plus, the U.S. is clearly positioned to manipulate the IMF process to achieve its FP objectives. It controls 17% of the IMF votes directly and, via its satellite states like Britain, Germany, Canada, and the rest of the gang, a combined 25% additional. Also, all Executive-Directors have had unusually deep cultural connections with U.S. domestic political power structures. LaGarde, for example, is William Cohen's former receptionist.)

Japan provides a large share of the IMF's funding (6.6%), but we don't see people making claims that Japan is controlling Ukraine's fiscal policies.

Is your last sentence one of those "who benefits" line of reasoning? And, if there wasn't a "LaGarde being person A's former receptionists" available, wouldn't digging deep enough into Executive-Directors and their many relationships yield another seemingly plausible connection?

[saxitoxin]

Well the study was a "for instance" that U.S. foreign policy objectives are calibrated with the disbursal of IMF loans. I can't cite every single piece of research here. Georgetown did a similar study that found a correlation between nations being awarded temporary seats on the UNSC and receiving IMF loans, but found an inverse loan relationship among UNSC members when they voted against the U.S. Dresden has also studied the relationship between IMF loans and U.S. foreign policy.

I never claimed Kiev was paid to do X on behalf of the G7,

Then the Yale study doesn't support your position.

Kiev paid to do X on behalf of the G7 was never my position. You're the only one who has said "G7."

Cite as many studies as you want, but it still doesn't follow that if you see a change in "y", then x1 (i.e. FP) is responsible--because in the models of those studies, there are other variables (x2 to x7 or what have you).

As I said, "anything beyond that is pure speculation, but the pieces are sufficient we can offer an educated hypothesis." A hypothesis is the only thing offered here. We are not conducting original research on The Conquer Club message boards.

... only that (a) Ukraine needs an IMF loan to avoid bankruptcy, (b) the IMF has implicitly established militarization of the Russian border as a condition of that loan, (c) scientific consensus is that there is a connection between U.S. foreign policy objectives and the disbursal of IMF loans.

Dude, sax, (b) is pure speculation, and to my knowledge it's not even supported in sensible news articles.

As per the Reuters article I quoted, "the International Monetary Fund warned that if Ukraine lost territory in the east it would have to redesign a $17 billion bailout of the country, probably requiring additional financing." In other words, Ukraine must take action to retain the east in order to keep the gravy train running. This would only be speculation if Ukraine had other options - other than military force - to regain the Donbas.

So I don't believe speculation is the word you're looking for; it's not speculation if it's a common reading of widely reported facts.

There's other explanations which are plausible--e.g. it's the IMF's job to set conditions on loans to countries whose financial status seems weak.

Tim Ash, head of emerging markets research at Standard Bank, disagrees with you:"This is something of a leap of faith for the IMF and is politically driven by key IMF shareholders ..."

The International Monetary Fund warned that if Ukraine lost territory in the east it would have to redesign a $17 billion bailout of the country, probably requiring additional financing.

Where's the warning?

CNBC - "IMF says Ukraine would need modified bailout if eastern region lost" - http://www.cnbc.com/id/101631226
Reuters - "IMF warns Ukraine on bailout if it loses east" - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... UZ20140501

There is none.

OK

[patches70]

BBS, I'm sure you understand Politispeak, correct? Let's try Al jeezra, it's a nice article and has the politispeak quotes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 8261,d.aWw

Now the $17 billion loan is conditional, you agree, correct? That is the Ukraine doesn't have the money yet. The only thing they will be receiving anytime soon is the $3.2 billion. $2.2 of that goes directly to Russia for past due gas payments. Though the Ukraine has to pay $3.4 before the middle of the month or Russia has threatened to cut off the gas. Heck, the initial payment from the IMF won't even cover the whole bill.

But let's get into the conditions. You stated some of them, and those are correct. Also, part of the conditions are that the IMF will reevealuate every two months to make sure all the conditions are being met.
Now, let's get to the politispeak, if you would BBS, please translate this quote, especially the bolded-

“Deep-seated vulnerabilities—together with political shocks—have led to a major crisis in Ukraine. The economy is in recession, fiscal balances have deteriorated, and the financial sector is under significant stress.

“Risks to the programme are high. In particular, further escalation of tensions with Russia and unrest in the east of the country pose a substantial risk to the economic outlook."

Nice, isn't it? I'm sure behind closed doors things are said much more bluntly, but for us dweebs in the rest of the world all we get is the politispeak, which takes some practice to understand.

The conditions will be evaluated every two months, one of the things being evaluated is the unrest in the country which pose, in Lagarde's words now, "substantial risk to the economic outlook." Well no shit, right? But the real risk, from Lagarde's POV is that if Ukraine doesn't end this unrest somehow then the deal could fall through.

Now the IMF is like any other institution, they perform a certain amount of due diligence. There are firms who specialize is such research and whose clients are organizations like the IMF, or any other lending or investing organization.

Nicholas Spiro, works for Spiro Sovereign Strategy in London and their job is to evaluate said risks. Here is what he had to say on the matter of the Ukraine and the IMF loan-

It would be difficult enough for a former Soviet state like Ukraine with a history of shirking reforms to implement an ambitious IMF-backed adjustment program under stable political conditions. Doing this when the country is being torn apart and Russia is hell-bent on undermining and discrediting the government is nigh impossible.

Nigh impossible. And the IMF is telling Kiev the same thing behind closed doors, but in public it's another matter, because that changes certain attitudes of people if the IMF were to come out and flat say the Ukraine has to squash this rebellion to get the full funding of the loan package.

So the reality, and it's not hard to see even with all the politispeak, is that the IMF fronts just enough to hopefully protect Europe's supply of gas while holding a fire under Kiev to do something about the unrest. Something anti Russian obviously. In fact, that's what's stated in this NY Times article-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 8261,d.aWw

Senior Western officials said on Wednesday that the loans from the United States and from the I.M.F. would be structured to get the government through its first few months without undue political upheaval, putting off some of the more difficult changes until after the May election.
The West has also chosen not to press for early parliamentary elections, one senior official said, because “the priority now is stabilization in Kiev and de-escalation with Moscow.”

Now BBS you can understand Politispeak just fine, and the politispeak exactly what it is. You and I both understand why they can't put it bluntly. We also understand exactly what they are really saying.
That if the Ukraine wants the full funds and future bailouts, they better damn well get this unrest under control. The West will do what they can to help but the fighting has to be done by Ukraine if it's fighting that needs to be done.

Which is all nuts. Which is why Ukraine is conscripting, they have no choice in their mind because they refuse to accept the alternatives.
The conscription and fighting will only drive up costs, and BBS you know as well as anyone who profits the most in such violent times, the money lenders. War is big business for such people.

But it's nuts because the conscription and civil war only drive up costs, of money the Ukraine doesn't have and will have to borrow. Not to mention all the other issues involved in civil wars, like the destruction, the death, the upheaval, etc etc. But all that is big money for the money lenders, is it not?

They lend the money so the various parties can kill each other and blow stuff up and then lend the money to rebuild afterward. It is the ultimate win/win situation for organizations who thrive lending money in such ways. And it doesn't even matter who wins! Whatever government ends up taking over in Ukraine also takes over the Ukraine's debts!

For the right government and the right payoff, the IMF may well forgive the loan, but for the wrong government you can forget any forgiveness. The money will be expected and one way or another will be paid back.

The Ukraine is in one hell of a pickle, that's for sure. But just like elections, coups have consequences. And there is no mistaking that the what happened in Kiev was a coup that is labeled "democracy".

What it really is is one huge con where people are unfortunately going to die.

[saxitoxin]

The Times reports that Kiev is stepping up its plans to ethnically cleanse women, children, and old people. Russia must stop dallying and immediately move peacekeeping troops into Ukraine to stabilize the situation. Russia should also declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect civilians from Kiev's thugs.

In Bylbasovka, a Ukrainian officer who identified himself as a staff officer for one of the battalions participating in the operation stood with troops facing about 75 angry residents who demanded they leave.

“We came to prevent further destabilization of the situation,” said the officer, who gave a first name, Vitaly. “We have nothing against peaceful citizens.”

The residents argued with the troops standing at the front rank, at one point chanting “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

Three more busloads of troops stood behind sandbags and watched warily.

The scene was similar at the bridge in Andreyevka, though on a much larger scale. There roughly 10 Ukrainian armored personnel carriers and a few trucks had captured the bridge, where they were met by 200 or more unarmed residents who came out to defy them or urge them to defect. The front rank of troops faced verbal abuse, but held its position, looking weary and under stress.

One woman scolded the soldiers unrelentingly.

“You came with weapons and tanks!” she shouted, her face only a few feet from theirs. “What, you can’t talk to us like normal people?”

Nearby, a man demanded to know who had ordered the operation.

“Who called you here?” he asked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/world ... raine.html

[GoranZ]

The Times reports that Kiev is stepping up its plans to ethnically cleanse women, children, and old people. Russia must stop dallying and immediately move peacekeeping troops into Ukraine to stabilize the situation. Russia should also declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect civilians from Kiev's thugs.

That would lead to war... that could engulf hundreds or thousands casualties...
Much simpler solution(that proWesteners will hate)... Hire assassins and target proWestrern politicians in Ukraine(there are 4-5 of them). Target the heart of the problem, there is no need for unnecessary civilian casualties.

38 dead ProRussian supporters in Odessa today.

Strangely but current Ukrainian government is using the army against civilians in Donetsk. Highly unequal use of force. Out of curiosity I wonder how good would that Ukrainian force will be against regular Russian army or they will disappear in matter of seconds.(I highly dislike this scenario to happen)

[kuthoer]

The Times reports that Kiev is stepping up its plans to ethnically cleanse women, children, and old people. Russia must stop dallying and immediately move peacekeeping troops into Ukraine to stabilize the situation. Russia should also declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect civilians from Kiev's thugs.

That would lead to war... that could engulf hundreds or thousands casualties...
Much simpler solution(that proWesteners will hate)... Hire assassins and target proWestrern politicians in Ukraine(there are 4-5 of them). Target the heart of the problem, there is no need for unnecessary civilian casualties.

38 dead ProRussian supporters in Odessa today.

Strangely but current Ukrainian government is using the army against civilians in Donetsk. Highly unequal use of force. Out of curiosity I wonder how good would that Ukrainian force will be against regular Russian army or they will disappear in matter of seconds.(I highly dislike this scenario to happen)

Wonder how Russia would react to the same situation in their own country, hmmmmmm.

Pussy Riot anyone?

[mrswdk]

@patches what's wrong with that? Official buildings and roads across eastern Ukraine have been taken under the control of armed rebels, who are hostile to the point of shooting down Ukrainian military helicopters. No one in their right mind would lend money to an eastern European country that is currently experiencing turmoil, turmoil which has every chance of turning into a civil war and/or a Russian invasion.

Obviously the IMF is going to tell Ukraine to sort out its problems before they loan money to it. That they do so is hardly sign of a conspiracy.

[GoranZ]

Wonder how Russia would react to the same situation in their own country, hmmmmmm.

Not applicable to Russia.

@patches what's wrong with that? Official buildings and roads across eastern Ukraine have been taken under the control of armed rebels, who are hostile to the point of shooting down Ukrainian military helicopters. No one in their right mind would lend money to an eastern European country that is currently experiencing turmoil, turmoil which has every chance of turning into a civil war and/or a Russian invasion.

Obviously the IMF is going to tell Ukraine to sort out its problems before they loan money to it. That they do so is hardly sign of a conspiracy.

Donetsk region makes 20% of Ukraine's GDP but has 5% of its population. Losing it would extremely undermine Ukraine's ability to return the borrowed money. IMF wont pure money that will be used for war.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, okay, y'all bring some good points. I'll admit that the US/NATO members want the IMF to throw funds into Ukraine to try to keep Ukraine more resilient to Russian pressure (internal and external).

[BigBallinStalin]

Wonder how Russia would react to the same situation in their own country, hmmmmmm.

Not applicable to Russia.

@patches what's wrong with that? Official buildings and roads across eastern Ukraine have been taken under the control of armed rebels, who are hostile to the point of shooting down Ukrainian military helicopters. No one in their right mind would lend money to an eastern European country that is currently experiencing turmoil, turmoil which has every chance of turning into a civil war and/or a Russian invasion.

Obviously the IMF is going to tell Ukraine to sort out its problems before they loan money to it. That they do so is hardly sign of a conspiracy.

Donetsk region makes 20% of Ukraine's GDP but has 5% of its population. Losing it would extremely undermine Ukraine's ability to return the borrowed money. IMF wont pure money that will be used for war.

But the IMF itself doesn't really care about losing money. It's not its money--it's from donor countries. The IMF has had a decades-long legacy of placing bad bets and to continue placing bad bets, so why would they suddenly care about losing money on a loan to Ukraine?

[Pope Joan]

Socialism is a mix of Capitalism with laws and regulations by the people to keep the few from turning their society into a oligarchy where the few get rich, while the rest of it's citizens are considered expendable.

Maybe, you should just read wikipedia once in a while:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

It sounds to me that you support some sort of Nordic Model:
The Nordic model (or Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), which involves the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state.

Wonder how Russia would react to the same situation in their own country, hmmmmmm.

Not applicable to Russia.

Impotent government vs. an armed uprising on the borders? We know how: by throwing in conscripts and flooding the region with blood, then admitting their own impotence and incompetence. We all saw it, the first Chechen War It looks like Ukraine is going down the same road...

Russia must stop dallying and immediately move peacekeeping troops into Ukraine to stabilize the situation. Russia should also declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect civilians from Kiev's thugs.

IMHO, the situation has passed the point of no return. In particular, the no-fly zone over Doneck and Luhansk regions is a question of when rather than if. Full invasion is not definite. I am sure Putin discusses it with his advisors now, and only the thread of the third round of US (not EU -- they are a mother of all the jokes) sanctions is stopping him. But if Obama persists with his policy of declaring sanctions, when his wife refuses him intimacy , it makes Putin's reaction harder to predict...

For instance, the first round of sanctions was declared two days before Crimea Referendum. Why? What logic? The obvious points for declaring them would be when Russia recognizes the referendum or moves to annex Crimea. Can anyone explain the logic here?

Now the third round will be declared (according to Obama) if Russia disturbs the presidential election on May, 25th. I am not sure what it means. The elections are a foregone conclusion with Poroshenko 35% ahead of his next rival in polls. I read it as any time of Obama's own choosing before May, 25th. Any other reading?

[Pope Joan]

A few fun facts about US public opinion on Ukraine:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27244152

I would LOL, if it were not so scary, i.e., what levels of ignorance determine the US foreign policy...

[patches70]

@patches what's wrong with that? Official buildings and roads across eastern Ukraine have been taken under the control of armed rebels, who are hostile to the point of shooting down Ukrainian military helicopters. No one in their right mind would lend money to an eastern European country that is currently experiencing turmoil, turmoil which has every chance of turning into a civil war and/or a Russian invasion.

Obviously the IMF is going to tell Ukraine to sort out its problems before they loan money to it. That they do so is hardly sign of a conspiracy.

Lots of things wrong with that, but it's just SOP. The "rebels" are just doing what the current government did to get into power. Why can't people just accept that the eastern half of Ukraine gravitates toward Russia and don't want to be in the EU?

That's where the stress comes from and the current unelected government in Kiev, which took power in a coup don't forget, is telling everyone in Ukraine "It's the EU or else!"

But everyone says the east must tow the line while it was the west Ukraine that went bananas in the first place and forcibly removed an elected President?

BBS asked why the Ukraine is conscripting, the IMF loan has to do with that. You can sit in your living room and ask "What's wrong with that?" but ask the suckers who are being conscripted and sent to fight their own countrymen what they think of it.

I don't know the answers, I don't care, just that my country stay out of it because this is going to be bloody business and I don't think that blood should be on our hands. Simple as that really.