Congratulations to the people of Donetsk

[mrswdk]

The IMF isn't saying 'join the EU or else', it's saying 'we're not going to lend money to a completely unstable country'.

[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.

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?

If there is a chance for the West to keep Ukraine out of Russian hands they will give money, otherwise IMF wont bother and they will only find excuses.

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...

I agree but back then Russian government was more like puppet government(not much different then current Ukrainian one). But current Russian government is not puppet government, and scenarios that will work with puppet governments would not work.

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?

There are no conditions for fair elections in Ukraine atm. And current Ukrainian government can not establish conditions for them. According to your observation third round of sanctions might result in massive invasion from Russia with goal of taking half Ukraine and bankrupting the other half and maybe freezing EU to death as a cherry lol.


I think I have valid theory why Russia(Putin) has not invaded Ukraine yet. From my point of view the support for joining Russia in Southeastern Ukraine is not as nearly high as it was in Crimea. Probably the situation is quite complicated for those people, they are in the middle, they dont know what to do, they like Ukraine but they also like Russia too. The problem is that any violence in that region is helping those people to decide which side they are about to take... IF they see the actions of the current Ukrainian government as military occupation they will shift towards Russia close to Crimean level, making it for Russia to merge those territories quite easily(in less then a month without large casualties or damage). The problem is that current puppet government in Kiev is not understanding this and is undertaking massive military actions against local population. So they are practically making a favor to Putin. Once the level of support for Russia is as high as it should Russians would simply march like in Crimea. EU/West would enforce sanctions on Russia but those would last until fall this year(after which gas for EU will dictate the negotiations), and if there are no hostilities in Ukraine the conditions will be accepted as it is.
If It was me I would do this... I think Putin is doing the same, this is the most logical route for the events in Ukraine.

[patches70]

The IMF isn't saying 'join the EU or else', it's saying 'we're not going to lend money to a completely unstable country'.

I didn't say the IMF is saying "Join the EU or else". The new government in Kiev is saying that. Here, comprehend what I wrote-

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!"

There are people in the Ukraine, a substantial number it seems, that don't want what the coup is selling.

Now, go back and try and comprehend what I'm saying about the connection between the IMF pending loan and the Ukrainian conscription program.
That money is why the unelected government is telling every Ukrainian between the ages of 18-27 that they have to join the army for the purpose of putting down the revolt, and possibly fighting professional Russian military forces.

That's not a pretty prospect. Maybe you wouldn't need to be conscripted, maybe you'd volunteer.

There are other options available to the illegal government in Kiev, like stepping down. But they won't do that, they used violence to bring down the previous government and now are shocked that violence is being used against them.

Are people insane not to see this?


If the Tea Party one day invaded Washington DC, burned the Capital, ran Obama and every democrat and liberal out of the country and took over, what would happen then? Everyone would be ok with that?
And then, after the now in power Tea Party finds itself embroiled in the backlash of it's actions decides that a mandatory draft is enacted to raise troops to fight those challenging the Tea Party's power and rule, what would people's reactions be?
Add on top of that, Russia or China saying they'll give the Tea Party a big injection of cash if they can fully secure their power, and we've got one messed up situation.
Would you agree?

Hell, it doesn't even have to be the Tea Party. Same thing if the Occupy Wall Street crowd or any other group launched a coup and took power. It would lead to a civil war.

Why, oh why, should the US be involved in anything with the Ukraine? It doesn't matter one bit to our economy, our National Security or anything else as to who controls Ukraine. It's never mattered.
It matters to the EU, I'll give you that, but it's not the US' concern.
The Ukraine is not a member of NATO, we are under no obligation to come to her aid. If the EU launches a war of aggression (Ha! How, right?) then NATO isn't involved because it's a defensive treaty, not a conquering alliance.
And even if Ukraine was a member of Nato, whose side do we intervene on? The side of the government who took power by coup, of the legal elected government in exile? Either one we'd choose leads to more war and violence.

The US' involvement in Ukraine has lead to the bloodshed, the chaos, the death and destruction. We aren't the only guilty party, not by a long shot, but we shouldn't be doing such things in the first place. Not only that, but our actions toward Russia have pushed Russia and China closer together, and that's really bad news for the US down the road.

And apparently that's the same opinion as many of my countrymen. Only the politicians and the completely uninformed seem to want to meddle in everyone else's business. According to the poll Pope posted at least.

No one yet has convinced me of why Ukraine matters to the US at all. So, why should the US get all embroiled in Ukraine's business?
(It's a little late for that puppy, that ship has sailed, but I ask the question anyway).

[patches70]

I think I have valid theory why Russia(Putin) has not invaded Ukraine yet.

Putin has no intention of invading Ukraine, he may be forced into later, but invasion was never his intention. Nor is Putin's intention to invade any other former soviet bloc nations and "rebuild the soviet empire" as some have tried to convince everyone of.

Russia has learned her lesson, occupying nations doesn't work. And with the problems Russia has, occupying Ukraine or any of the other former soviet bloc is a no go.
Russia's population is declining. Capital flight out of Russia is some $25-$50 billion a year, is being bled in secessionist wars by Muslim terrorists in the North Caucasus provinces of Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia. Why would Putin want to invade and reannex giant Kazakhstan, or any other Muslim republic of the old USSR, which would ensure jihadist intervention and endless war?

Why would Putin want to invade Ukraine when hatred of Russia in western Ukraine dates back to the Stalinist forced famines?

Invading the Ukraine would be endless costs in blood and money, the enmity of Europe, and the hostility of the United States.

Putin wants this option-

If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to formalize their historic, cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and the people of Western Ukraine wish to sever all ties to Moscow and join the European Union, why not settle this politically, diplomatically and democratically, at a ballot box?

And therein is the way out of this mess. But who is not going to allow that to happen? Russia won't stand in the way of that solution. And that is the peaceful solution. If it isn't Russia standing in the way of the peaceful solution, then who is?

[saxitoxin]

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).

PARDON ME BBS, DO YOU MIND IF I f*ck YOUR CORPSE FOR THE NEXT 8 TO 12 MINUTES?

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?

When it pleases the U.S. president to murder or sanction foreigners has to do with domestic politics in the U.S.

- Reagan ordered Grenada invaded after he was under fire for the Beirut barracks bombing; it pushed that out of the news for a bit and helped solidify his poll numbers.

- Within 24 hours of the Monica Lewinsky revelations, Clinton ordered the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia, which then took headlines.

Obama will choose to impose additional sanctions at the time that best helps him - or his friends - maximize their career success. The United States government is the personal property of a group of gangsters, and is a tool used for their benefit. Like medieval kings, U.S. presidents routinely order the deaths of people to personally enrich themselves and their allies in big business.

Pussy Riot anyone?

you mean Coca Cola's Pussy Riot presented by MERCK Pharmaceuticals and Unilever, pictured here with an elderly former member of the Wal-Mart corporation's board of directors



PUSSY RIOT, INC., IN THEORY ...

"Ideology is deliberately constructed by bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals, which then is propagated by the mass communications media. Because the bourgeoisie own the communications media, as a social class, they can select, determine, and publish the economic, social, and cultural concepts that constitute the established status quo, which are the ideology that serves their interests. Further, because the working class own no mass communications media, they are overwhelmed by the bourgeoisie′s cultural hegemony and adopt the imposed bourgeois worldview, which thus constitutes a false consciousness.

PUSSY RIOT, INC., IN PRACTICE ...

These aren’t “color” revolutions—they’re banditry under the guise of democracy . . .this banditry is imposed and paid for from outside, is carried out to benefit individuals who don’t care about their countries and peoples, and interests only those who have capitalist ambitions and are trying to conquer new markets.
- Alexander Lukashenko

[GoranZ]

I think I have valid theory why Russia(Putin) has not invaded Ukraine yet.

Putin has no intention of invading Ukraine, he may be forced into later, but invasion was never his intention. Nor is Putin's intention to invade any other former soviet bloc nations and "rebuild the soviet empire" as some have tried to convince everyone of.

If Russian public demands war the war will happen, and with rising numbers of Russians killed in Ukraine that is the probable outcome.

Why would Putin want to invade Ukraine when hatred of Russia in western Ukraine dates back to the Stalinist forced famines?

Stalin was not a Russian

If the people of Eastern Ukraine wish to formalize their historic, cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and the people of Western Ukraine wish to sever all ties to Moscow and join the European Union, why not settle this politically, diplomatically and democratically, at a ballot box?

And therein is the way out of this mess. But who is not going to allow that to happen? Russia won't stand in the way of that solution. And that is the peaceful solution. If it isn't Russia standing in the way of the peaceful solution, then who is?

US and EU dont want that kind of deal... Everything that is worthy in Ukraine is in South East part of the country, the one that will go with Russia.

[patches70]

Stalin was not a Russian

<sigh>, the point I was making Goranz, is that the anti Russian animosity that is widely held in western Ukraine stems from the forced famines back during Stalin's rule. It doesn't matter where Stalin came from, what is now known as Georgia I think. Remember back earlier in this thread, the taped phone calls with what's her name Ice Queen? She was talking about machine gunning Russians, etc etc. Real intense hatred of Russia and things Russian. It's common among ethnic Ukrainians, especially in the western half of the country.

That all comes from the Holodomor, as it's called. The Great famine of 1932-1933. 7.5 million Ukrainian people starved to death and it's a touchy subject unto this day in the Ukraine. In fact, the previous President, Viktor Yushchenko tried to have a law passed making it a criminal act to deny the Holodomor happened.

The debate continues, did Stalin deliberately starve the Ukraine? Was it all just an accident, unintended consequences of industrialization? Arguments have been to both points of view, and the western Ukrainian people hold that it was a deliberate act by Stalin and amounted to genocide. I don't know which view is true and it doesn't really matter to me, but it matters to the people in Ukraine, that's for sure! It is the well of animosity from which the anti Russian hate springs now a days.
But the Eastern half of Ukraine is filled with actual Russians, who have moved there generations ago and still "feel the love" of Mother Russia. And always will. That's ok as well.
Hell, even Americans living abroad can feel love for the US if they want (or any other nation as the case may be), even if they no longer live there. Not a damn thing wrong with that.


This type of thing awaits Russia in all it's old soviet bloc countries. That's why Putin is not stupid enough to try and take them back. That's the argument made by those advocating that the US has to step in, because if we don't stop Russia here then they will march all over the rest of Eastern Europe, and that line is complete bullshit.
The people would resist, it would cost Putin endless treasure, blood and his own people's public opinion to try such a thing, just leaving the US completely out of it, the actual people living in the former soviet bloc nations would fight, resist, and bleed Russia like a stuck pig.
And Putin knows this.
So does the US, but we've got to get people fearful of Russia so people like me will shut up and not speak up when my country does stupid shit like we've been doing in the Ukraine.

US and EU dont want that kind of deal... Everything that is worthy in Ukraine is in South East part of the country, the one that will go with Russia.

Sure, I suppose. But it's not like the Western Ukraine can't build their own industry, create their own wealth, right? So it all comes down to the money and the actual will of the people is merely secondary?

It appears that way, doesn't it?

I mean, we give so much lip service to "democracy" don't we? In the Ukraine we get a first hand look at one of the major failings of democracy, Mob Rule. The tyranny of the majority over the minority. Democracy is all good, so long as everyone democratically chooses what the big geo political players choose what they decide is right.


All the more reason why the US should keep her dirty hands out of the mess. Everything gets mixed up, right is wrong, wrong is right, up is down, so on and so on. And moral authority is tossed out the window.

So the reality is that everyone in the Ukraine who wants to align with the EU are right and in power while all those against have to shut the f*ck up and obey. Naw, that line ain't gonna work, and as a result there is war in Ukraine. But the US getting involved all we ensure is that the death toll will be larger. The only way the violence works is if one side completely wipes out the other, genocide for all practical purposes.
Who is good with that plan and why? Some are, and why is for the money, the wealth, the human consideration isn't a consideration. Well, I'm here to say that ain't what America is about. Our politicians, that's another story I guess. <shrugs>
That's why I wish people would think a little bit more instead of just buying into whatever bullshit spoon fed by the political elite who have other agendas than what is right, fair, lawful or even peaceful.

[BigBallinStalin]

This type of thing awaits Russia in all it's old soviet bloc countries. That's why Putin is not stupid enough to try and take them back. That's the argument made by those advocating that the US has to step in, because if we don't stop Russia here then they will march all over the rest of Eastern Europe, and that line is complete bullshit.
The people would resist, it would cost Putin endless treasure, blood and his own people's public opinion to try such a thing, just leaving the US completely out of it, the actual people living in the former soviet bloc nations would fight, resist, and bleed Russia like a stuck pig.
And Putin knows this.
So does the US, but we've got to get people fearful of Russia so people like me will shut up and not speak up when my country does stupid shit like we've been doing in the Ukraine.

Well, Putin did invade parts of Georgia which were successfully removed and very little Russian blood was (and still is?) being split. This happened when NATO did nothing leading up to that point. Of course, NATO's offering Georgia potential membership likely provoked Russia.

The same scenario is playing mid-way with Ukraine, but you're leaving out an important factor: US/NATO foreign aid to Ukraine.

Putin is reluctant to invade former Soviet states because of not only (1) those states' ability to resist foreign occupation, but also (2) NATO subsidies (e.g. via the IMF) to those states, and (3) potentially escalating economic threats from the US. If (2) and (3) don't happen, is (1) strong enough to prevent a Russian invasion? I don't think the case is so clear--given that (1) failed for Georgia, right?

[saxitoxin]

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...

Hans Morgentheau said something once that describes perfectly those people in the U.S. - and the U.S. client states in Europe - who support war and sanctions against Russia -

"Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation."

As western society becomes more totally controlled through ever tightening surveillance and police networks like the NSA and the strengthening totality of a two-party system of two functionally identical parties, people will find fewer and fewer opportunities to exercise their natural drive to demonstrate power within their own borders. The global aggressiveness of westerners will increase and - with it - war and misery for the people of non-western and developing worlds. The U.S.' (and clients) crazed appeal to nation and race is a safety valve so that people like kut can release their frustration at the system through exercises in violent nationalism (this, for instance, is one reason he is gleeful at the death and gore caused by U.S. drone strikes on women and children whose skin is a darker pigment than #CCCCCC).

[BigBallinStalin]

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...

Hans Morgentheau said something once that describes perfectly those people in the U.S. - and the U.S. client states in Europe - who support war and sanctions against Russia -

"Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation."

As western society becomes more totally controlled through ever tightening surveillance and police networks like the NSA and the strengthening totality of a two-party system of two functionally identical parties, people will find fewer and fewer opportunities to exercise their natural drive to demonstrate power within their own borders. The global aggressiveness of westerners will increase and - with it - war and misery for the people of non-western and developing worlds. The U.S.' (and clients) crazed appeal to nation and race is a safety valve so that people like kut can release their frustration at the system through exercises in violent nationalism (this, for instance, is one reason he is gleeful at the death and gore caused by U.S. drone strikes on women and children whose skin is a darker pigment than #CCCCCC).

Oddly enough, violence as measured by casualties per capita from conflict, homicides per capita, etc. have been on the decline since roughly humanity's tribal phase.
(see: Pinker. The Better Angels of Ourselves).

If we take the empirical research seriously but stick with your story, then we'd have to explain the positive correlation between ever-increasing US security and generally declining violence over the past 120 years.

[saxitoxin]

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...

Hans Morgentheau said something once that describes perfectly those people in the U.S. - and the U.S. client states in Europe - who support war and sanctions against Russia -

"Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation."

As western society becomes more totally controlled through ever tightening surveillance and police networks like the NSA and the strengthening totality of a two-party system of two functionally identical parties, people will find fewer and fewer opportunities to exercise their natural drive to demonstrate power within their own borders. The global aggressiveness of westerners will increase and - with it - war and misery for the people of non-western and developing worlds. The U.S.' (and clients) crazed appeal to nation and race is a safety valve so that people like kut can release their frustration at the system through exercises in violent nationalism (this, for instance, is one reason he is gleeful at the death and gore caused by U.S. drone strikes on women and children whose skin is a darker pigment than #CCCCCC).

Oddly enough, violence as measured by casualties per capita from conflict, homicides per capita, etc. have been on the decline since roughly humanity's tribal phase.
(see: Pinker. The Better Angels of Ourselves).

If we take the empirical research seriously but stick with your story, then we'd have to explain the positive correlation between ever-increasing US security and generally declining violence over the past 120 years.

I think you'd have to separate death from international conflict and death from domestic conflict to analyze the validity of Morgentheau's statement, which dealt specifically with the application of nationalist violence on the world stage, not street crime. What is the total of death from inter-state conflict - on a per capita basis - in the preceding 100 years compared to the 100 years prior to that?

[patches70]

This type of thing awaits Russia in all it's old soviet bloc countries. That's why Putin is not stupid enough to try and take them back. That's the argument made by those advocating that the US has to step in, because if we don't stop Russia here then they will march all over the rest of Eastern Europe, and that line is complete bullshit.
The people would resist, it would cost Putin endless treasure, blood and his own people's public opinion to try such a thing, just leaving the US completely out of it, the actual people living in the former soviet bloc nations would fight, resist, and bleed Russia like a stuck pig.
And Putin knows this.
So does the US, but we've got to get people fearful of Russia so people like me will shut up and not speak up when my country does stupid shit like we've been doing in the Ukraine.

Well, Putin did invade parts of Georgia which were successfully removed and very little Russian blood was (and still is?) being split. This happened when NATO did nothing leading up to that point. Of course, NATO's offering Georgia potential membership likely provoked Russia.

The same scenario is playing mid-way with Ukraine, but you're leaving out an important factor: US/NATO foreign aid to Ukraine.

Putin is reluctant to invade former Soviet states because of not only (1) those states' ability to resist foreign occupation, but also (2) NATO subsidies (e.g. via the IMF) to those states, and (3) potentially escalating economic threats from the US. If (2) and (3) don't happen, is (1) strong enough to prevent a Russian invasion? I don't think the case is so clear--given that (1) failed for Georgia, right?

Russia operated primarily in South Ossetia. Where there is a significant pro Russian population. Russia didn't go smashing into Georgia proper, not even close.
South Ossetia saw the Russians as liberators and absolutely hated the Georgians. Russia stated they were intervening to protect the Ossetians and that's pretty much all they did. They still maintain some troops in South Ossetia, as peacekeepers and that prevents the Georgians from giving the Ossetians a good beating like they used to do pretty much annually. Georgia treated South Ossetian very badly and would still if not for the Russians.

[BigBallinStalin]

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...

Hans Morgentheau said something once that describes perfectly those people in the U.S. - and the U.S. client states in Europe - who support war and sanctions against Russia -

"Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation."

As western society becomes more totally controlled through ever tightening surveillance and police networks like the NSA and the strengthening totality of a two-party system of two functionally identical parties, people will find fewer and fewer opportunities to exercise their natural drive to demonstrate power within their own borders. The global aggressiveness of westerners will increase and - with it - war and misery for the people of non-western and developing worlds. The U.S.' (and clients) crazed appeal to nation and race is a safety valve so that people like kut can release their frustration at the system through exercises in violent nationalism (this, for instance, is one reason he is gleeful at the death and gore caused by U.S. drone strikes on women and children whose skin is a darker pigment than #CCCCCC).

Oddly enough, violence as measured by casualties per capita from conflict, homicides per capita, etc. have been on the decline since roughly humanity's tribal phase.
(see: Pinker. The Better Angels of Ourselves).

If we take the empirical research seriously but stick with your story, then we'd have to explain the positive correlation between ever-increasing US security and generally declining violence over the past 120 years.

I think you'd have to separate death from international conflict and death from domestic conflict to analyze the validity of Morgentheau's statement, which dealt specifically with the application of nationalist violence on the world stage, not street crime. What is the total of death from inter-state conflict - on a per capita basis - in the preceding 100 years compared to the 100 years prior to that?

The data can be hard to get, so sometimes ya gotta rely on proxies. Here's a bunch of graphs for ya:

show

dld here:
http://imgur.com/a/lAynf
http://imgur.com/vr0gHij

from Pinker's
The Better Angels of our Nature

[mrswdk]

All this is just in time for China's emergence as the world's #1 economy by next year or whenever the date's just been moved forward to. Everyone can hate Russia, like Russia deserves, while China and Western friends hold hands in joyous harmony.

The Chinese and Western nations are underpinned by thousands of years of civilization, while Russia is based mainly on vodka and impotent aggression. Together, the world's greatest citizens will put the Russian orphan back in its cage, and the world's flowers will blossom once more.

[GoranZ]

US and EU dont want that kind of deal... Everything that is worthy in Ukraine is in South East part of the country, the one that will go with Russia.

Sure, I suppose. But it's not like the Western Ukraine can't build their own industry, create their own wealth, right? So it all comes down to the money and the actual will of the people is merely secondary?

What you are proposing... giving right to the people of Ukraine to chose for their own, is the best possible scenario for the people of Ukraine and I agree with you. Western Ukraine can become economically strong state but that will take time and would require current oligarchs to be removed from power. Something that is not easy to be made. On the other hand if SouthEastern Ukraine joins Russia, its industry might flourish even more if West doesn't enforce sanctions.

All this is just in time for China's emergence as the world's #1 economy by next year or whenever the date's just been moved forward to.

Next year or by any other measurements by 2019... anyway by the end of this decade.

Everyone can hate Russia, like Russia deserves, while China and Western friends hold hands in joyous harmony.

Define everyone?
"Everyone can hate Russia, like Russia deserves" Are you marketing promoter in RL?

The Chinese and Western nations are underpinned by thousands of years of civilization, while Russia is based mainly on vodka and impotent aggression. Together, the world's greatest citizens will put the Russian orphan back in its cage, and the world's flowers will blossom once more.

You can try but I doubt you will succeed since there is another emerging world power... India. India(with little help from Russia) will render Chinese ambitions for very long time

Anyway the biggest loser(or possibly losers) of all recent conflicts will be EU and with that partially Russia. But if for some unknown reason EU and Russia agree on sphere of influence then even Chinese math wont work

P.S. Why does the West enforcing sanctions on Russia? Because they fear it(down to their bones). Strong Russia is the biggest fear of the West and China. Whats interesting even weak Russia is a country to be afraid of. And fear is powerful enemy

[GoranZ]

Interesting but seems like bloodthirsty USA(CIA and FBI) are behind recent violence in Ukraine.

CIA & FBI agents advise Kiev(translated from German), original story in German here.

[saxitoxin]

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...

Hans Morgentheau said something once that describes perfectly those people in the U.S. - and the U.S. client states in Europe - who support war and sanctions against Russia -

"Not being able to find full satisfaction of their desire for power within the national boundaries, the people project those unsatisfied aspirations onto the international scene. There they find vicarious satisfaction in identification with the power drives of the nation."

As western society becomes more totally controlled through ever tightening surveillance and police networks like the NSA and the strengthening totality of a two-party system of two functionally identical parties, people will find fewer and fewer opportunities to exercise their natural drive to demonstrate power within their own borders. The global aggressiveness of westerners will increase and - with it - war and misery for the people of non-western and developing worlds. The U.S.' (and clients) crazed appeal to nation and race is a safety valve so that people like kut can release their frustration at the system through exercises in violent nationalism (this, for instance, is one reason he is gleeful at the death and gore caused by U.S. drone strikes on women and children whose skin is a darker pigment than #CCCCCC).

Oddly enough, violence as measured by casualties per capita from conflict, homicides per capita, etc. have been on the decline since roughly humanity's tribal phase.
(see: Pinker. The Better Angels of Ourselves).

If we take the empirical research seriously but stick with your story, then we'd have to explain the positive correlation between ever-increasing US security and generally declining violence over the past 120 years.

I think you'd have to separate death from international conflict and death from domestic conflict to analyze the validity of Morgentheau's statement, which dealt specifically with the application of nationalist violence on the world stage, not street crime. What is the total of death from inter-state conflict - on a per capita basis - in the preceding 100 years compared to the 100 years prior to that?

The data can be hard to get, so sometimes ya gotta rely on proxies. Here's a bunch of graphs for ya:

show

dld here:
http://imgur.com/a/lAynf
http://imgur.com/vr0gHij

from Pinker's
The Better Angels of our Nature

I didn't see a chart that refutes Morgenthaus statement.

[BigBallinStalin]

The decline of interstate violence wasn't enough for ya?

[saxitoxin]

The decline of interstate violence wasn't enough for ya?

There were 14 charts. Which one was it?

(Either way, this is getting a little far afield. Morgentheau never said anything about inter-state violence, only that powerless citizens would seek to release their aggression by identifying with national power drives; which could come in the form of military conquest, economic or cultural subjugation, or even the World Cup.)

[GoranZ]

Horrors in Odessa, orchestrated by Western powers

[saxitoxin]

Horrors in Odessa, orchestrated by Western powers

I hope the only thing keeping Russia from immediately moving in is that Putin is negotiating with Lukashenko for a two-pronged intervention; with Kiev's thugs bogged-down in their ethnic cleansing of the east and preparing to fight Russia, now would be the time for the Belarus army to punch down from the north and flatten Kiev.

[patches70]

Hey! Something I can agree with Obama about! It doesn't happen often, and I still have certain doubts I'll get to in a moment, but for the part where Obama is actually right, for once.

Obama was in Manila and he was asked how he answers critics that his foreign policy is one of his "weaknesses".
Obama answered thus-

Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question … I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?

<M>ost of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests.

<M>any who were proponents of … a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again.”

Hey, it's nice that Obama freely admits that Ukraine doesn't have a damn thing to do with our national security interests! Take that you pro-interventionalists!


He's right, the American people have no interest in participating in such adventures. Of of those "proponents" he is referring to the the Senator Lindsey Graham (don't even get me started on this asshole), who on "Face the Nation" said of the situation in Ukraine-

I would sanction the energy economy of Russia, the banking sector of Russia, and try to drive the Russian economy into the ground.

What an idiot! Hahaha, and those of you anti Putin who want to get all up in Ukraine's business, you guys are part and parcel on the side with Lindsey "asshat" Graham!

Sanction the energy economy of Russia? What would that lead to? Graham and useful idiots don't take a minute to think about consequences. Russia would retaliate by cutting off natgas to Ukraine (and Europe) which would immediately plunge the EU into recession and cause the collapse of Kiev.
It's not like Russia still won't have customers, China wouldn't go along with the sanctions, for instance.
Kiev would require more billions in bailouts which would just go to Russia anyway. Sanctions or no.

And Graham wants to drive the Russian economy into the ground? Does he realize that Russia has the #5 economy in the world (according to the World Bank, #8 according to the IMF), and the inter connected economy of the world would feel those effects.

And if Graham thinks that driving the economy of Russia in the ground will lead to Putin being ousted, I have to ask, did it work in Cuba? North Korea? Iran?
Of course not! It doesn't work, but certainly solidifies backlash and just further entrenches the very regime one wishes to get rid of!

Graham also goes on to say-

I would help arm the Ukrainian people … so they could defend themselves.

The WSJ chimes in as well-

Defensive but lethal weapons for Ukraine — anti-tank mines or artillery, modern guns — would raise the cost and risk of this intervention.

Oh, most certainly WSJ, it would raise the costs of intervention as well as casualties on all sides, but I ask, would it make any difference in a Ukraine vs Russia war?
Of course not! Ukraine would still be crushed.

Not only that, but if we go arming the Ukraine then why wouldn't Russia just send S-300 SAMs to Damascus and Tehran?

And a question-
Is it moral to send weapons to friends and encourage them to fight and die in a war they can't win?


It's strange that Obama simply doing what the American people want is regarded as "weak on foreign policy".
Why do the Republicans, a la Graham's and McCain's what to push a President who does not want to fight and lead a nation that whose people do not want to be involved, into eventual military confrontation?

Graham and McCain speak for the bunch of Beltway elite who think Iraq was a good idea and want to confront Russia, overthrow Assad and bomb Iran.
Hell, if those of you who are for all this, then you should be voting Republican as much as possible, with the exception of Billary.
Ole Hillary Clinton is far more hawkish than Obama and even more hawkish than her potential GOP rivals.

The only Republican who is standing against is Rand Paul, which is why the neo cons are piling all over Paul.


And then there is the evidence that even though Obama spouts what is right and correct on the one hand, on the other hand he subverts, instigated and is instrumental in the covert operations that led to the coup. If Obama truly believes what he is saying in the above quotes, then why did the US get so involved with the overthrow of the Ukraine government?
Not only do Americans not want to get involved in the affairs of other nations, we don't want to be installing governments in other nations either.
The vast majority of Americans believe in self determination, even if that determination isn't what we would have chosen. Except for our politicians who only give lip service to democracy, democratic endeavors. Hell, the Obama administration would have been just fine with the previous Ukraine government had they only signed the EU agreement like we wanted them to.

That fact pretty much throws out the window all this stuff about democracy and the will of the people bullshit. And Obama's own words tells us that it doesn't truly matter to the US' national security if Russia rolls right over Ukraine, or has The Crimea or just Eastern Ukraine.


So, what is really going on?

[BigBallinStalin]

[quote="patches70"


And then there is the evidence that even though Obama spouts what is right and correct on the one hand, on the other hand he subverts, instigated and is instrumental in the covert operations that led to the coup. If Obama truly believes what he is saying in the above quotes, then why did the US get so involved with the overthrow of the Ukraine government? [/quote]

Perhaps because Obama does not exert as much control over other political officials as you seem to think?

The federal government is like a Hyrda---its many heads want to accomplish contradictory goals.

[patches70]

And then there is the evidence that even though Obama spouts what is right and correct on the one hand, on the other hand he subverts, instigated and is instrumental in the covert operations that led to the coup. If Obama truly believes what he is saying in the above quotes, then why did the US get so involved with the overthrow of the Ukraine government?

Perhaps because Obama does not exert as much control over other political officials as you seem to think?

The federal government is like a Hyrda---its many heads want to accomplish contradictory goals.

That is true, sir. In practice he probably doesn't exert such control over political officials, but technically, The Buck Stops Here comes to mind.