World Politics

[Buffalo Soldier]

This is why the Russians annexed Crimea. If Ukraine had joined NATO it may have threatened Russia's access to the Black Sea( and therefore the Gulf and the Southern Oceans.

Why does Russia need Crimea/Ukraine to access the Black Sea?

 

[python]

National interests.

It has a far-right government brought about by a coup on it's doorstep. That government is making noises about aligningvwith NATO and the EU (is. Russia's competitors). This is why the Russians annexed Crimea. If Ukraine had joined NATO it may have threatened Russia's access to the Black Sea( and therefore the Gulf and the Southern Oceans.

Plus, there is a sizeable ethnic Russian population in eastern Ukraine who felt threatened by the new Ukrainian nationalist government.

Put simply, Russia wants to influence who is on its borders (much the same as any big power). It is unlikely that they will stage a full invasion, but they will try to keep the disruption and destabilising going.

the west is reaping what it sowed. simple.

a series of west-sponsored 'revolutions' that pushed nato eastward are backfiring in ukraine because the knife after easily cutting thru flesh has reached the bare bone....

as thebelow dw article astutely concluded, east ukraine is gone. a fact created by russia just as cynically as the west created pro-west govt. a cynical tit for tat that vlad has warned about all along

Aussichtsloser Kampf um den verlorenen Osten
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...sloser-kampf-um-den-verlorene-osten-1.2105459

 

[Amsterhammer]

The lying hypocrisy of the Russians is starting to take on laughable proportions. Russia still officially denies any involvement whatsoever, while Russian soldiers have been captured 25 kms inside Ukraine - they 'got lost' according to Moscow.

Meanwhile, they have opened a second front along the Sea of Azov, as a separatist commander admits that Russian soldiers are fighting with his forces, but that they are "volunteers" who are "on leave" from the Russian army. Oh, that's alright then.

 

[python]

the lying hypocrisy has a way to travel in circles ?

 

[Kotar_Rhakoz]

The lying hypocrisy of the Russians is starting to take on laughable proportions. Russia still officially denies any involvement whatsoever, while Russian soldiers have been captured 25 kms inside Ukraine - they 'got lost' according to Moscow.

Meanwhile, they have opened a second front along the Sea of Azov, as a separatist commander admits that Russian soldiers are fighting with his forces, but that they are "volunteers" who are "on leave" from the Russian army. Oh, that's alright then.

The Russians are starting to make that fellow who was in Baghdad look very believable.

 

[ToreBear]

National interests.

It has a far-right government brought about by a coup on it's doorstep. That government is making noises about aligningvwith NATO and the EU (is. Russia's competitors). This is why the Russians annexed Crimea. If Ukraine had joined NATO it may have threatened Russia's access to the Black Sea( and therefore the Gulf and the Southern Oceans.

There is no far right government, that is Russian propaganda. And to which degree it was a coup is debatable. The parliament removed the President when he reneged on the agreement between himself and the opposition. There might be some constitutional holes there, but in most countries with a parliamentary system, the parliament has the power to remove the executive with enough votes.

The noises were about joining the EU, but the way things are currently they would love to join NATO. Which in Russias mind as you correctly stated are competitors.

As for access to the black sea relating to Crimea, that is one of many Russian arguments that don't make any sense:
- Russia would still have port access to the black sea, even if it lost the Sevastopol base.
- NATO already controls the access into and out of the black sea through the Bosporus.
- The black sea is too small to allow a navy much maneuvering room, so any ships would be sitting ducks if confronted by NATO aircraft flying from Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania.

Plus, there is a sizeable ethnic Russian population in eastern Ukraine who felt threatened by the new Ukrainian nationalist government.

I don't think they really felt threatened. Those who only watched Russian TV might have felt a bit threatened, since they would get the propaganda treatment. The majority did not feel threatened if I can remember the polling data and the UN reports correctly.

Put simply, Russia wants to influence who is on its borders (much the same as any big power). It is unlikely that they will stage a full invasion, but they will try to keep the disruption and destabilising going.

Agreed. Russia has a policy of not feeling secure unless their neighbors feel insecure. This has since Putin came to power meant that more and more countries are approaching Nato to safeguard their security, making Russia(or Putin) feel more insecure and being even more aggressive in order to feel secure.

It's a vicious circle that Europe and the US sought to avoid since the cold war. Though Bush 2 really started to make that difficult with his insistence on building the Missile shield. The reason for Bush wanting the missile shield had IMHO nothing to do with Russia, but to a small degree rogue states, and to a large degree pleasing the military industrial complex and it's supporters.

That guy really fvcked up the start of the 21st century.


Ps. I have seen much more evidence of the far right on the Russian side than the Ukrainian side. This has something to do with Putin exploiting it to maintain his power.

 

[laurel1969]

Why does Russia need Crimea/Ukraine to access the Black Sea?

Because reality.

The reality being that its Black Sea fleet is based there with a heavy infrastructure and 15,000 men...and has been for many years. Sevastopol has become even more important since Russia was forced to stop using the naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus as result of the country’s civil war.

Moscow has sought to convert Novorossiysk, a city on Russia’s Black Sea coast which is already the country’s largest commercial port, into a full-scale naval base. But while the Russian navy has started using the port for smaller naval vessels and a supply point, this is still at an embryonic stage.

Bluntly, they need that base for strategic reasons and it has shown this recently during the Georgia war, Libya and also for Russian resupply to Syria.

 

[ToreBear]

The lying hypocrisy of the Russians is starting to take on laughable proportions. Russia still officially denies any involvement whatsoever, while Russian soldiers have been captured 25 kms inside Ukraine - they 'got lost' according to Moscow.

Meanwhile, they have opened a second front along the Sea of Azov, as a separatist commander admits that Russian soldiers are fighting with his forces, but that they are "volunteers" who are "on leave" from the Russian army. Oh, that's alright then.

I quit listening to Russian statements with the belief that they might be true back in April.

It's less frustrating.

 

[Amsterhammer]

the lying hypocrisy has a way to travel in circles ?

Somebody else's possible hypocrisy is no excuse for the outrageous bullsh!t Vlad has been trying to spread.

I have asked you before where you are from, if you are maybe a Russian, and what your angle on this story is in order to try and understand your persistent apologies for blatant Russian lies and aggression, but you have declined to reply. Until such time as you do, I see no reason to take your input for anything other than the pro-Russian propaganda that it appears to be.

 

[laurel1969]

Look there is no 'one side is right' here. Its just international politics. Both sides are seeking to maintain or spread influence.

Rhetoric is rhetoric.

 

[python]

Somebody else's possible hypocrisy is no excuse for the outrageous bullsh!t Vlad has been trying to spread.

i disagree. as i said many times, cynicism goes both ways.

I have asked you before where you are from

and i did answer you and posted, it is none of your business. i also told you i am not of slavic background nor ever visited those lands. my opinions have nothing to do with my ethnic or cultural background, rather, the gradual and consistent realization of the grand hypocrisy the us foreign policy has become.

thus, consistent with your own measure, i can only take your opinions as emotional rants of someone who hates certain politicians, up to supporting their enemies despite them being practically neo-nazis. besides, trying to link so rigidly the internet opinions to ethic backgrounds, is, frankly, a sign of a a narrow mind.

 

[ToreBear]

Look there is no 'one side is right' here. Its just international politics. Both sides are seeking to maintain or spread influence.

Rhetoric is rhetoric.

Yes there is one side that is right in this issue. It's not allowed to invade your neighbors when they want to be friends with their other neighbors. It's that simple.

 

[laurel1969]

my opinions have nothing to do with my ethnic or cultural background, rather, the gradual and consistent realization of the grand hypocrisy the us foreign policy has become.

Well I think you can extend that realisation of hypocrisy to pretty much ANY major player on the international stage.

It is wrong to single out the US, although they have been for about 60 years the predominant force in poking their noses into other people's *** with the result of lots of dead people. The British did worse during their time of Empire although rather than just destabilising other nations or creating fictitious reasons to attack we just invaded and occupied. We got quite good at co-opting the locals mind you.

The Americans have learnt from us, and doubtless when their decline accelerates the same will be done to them.

The only thing left to do is try and open the eyes of the ignorant who succumb to the seductive nationalistic drum-beating.

 

[laurel1969]

Yes there is one side that is right in this issue. It's not allowed to invade your neighbors when they want to be friends with their other neighbors. It's that simple.

Like all those proxy wars the US/NATO and Russia had during the Cold war then...Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea etc etc etc.

 

[ToreBear]

Like all those proxy wars the US/NATO and Russia had during the Cold war then...Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea etc etc etc.

I think Cold "war" is the operative word here. This was not supposed to happen in the post cold war era in Europe. When Russia annexed Crimea they overstepped a boundary that has been asummed to be unbreachable.

This means Russias neigbors can no longer feel protected by international law and especially the OSCE framework. Think Norway, Finland, Turkey, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania. Not to mention Georgia,Armenia etc.

It means that any contract signed with the Russian state is worthless if the Russians don't want to honor it. The whole framework on which trade and mutual relations are built upon are worthless.

If Russia wants to play the cold war "game" again it forces EU/Nato and it's Neighbors to do the same. Imagine the defense budgets going up in Europe. Where is the money going to come from? Taxes or cuts to services etc.?

 

[python]

....The British did worse during their time of Empire although rather than just destabilising other nations or creating fictitious reasons to attack we just invaded and occupied. We got quite good at co-opting the locals mind you.

The Americans have learnt from us, and doubtless when their decline accelerates the same will be done to them.
....

the bolded part of your quote is the key difference btwn the british colonialism and the american arrogant neo-colonialism. simply put, you fellas managed to leave behind the english speaking, common law world, that by and large, has sought to emulate you and, whats more important, aint embarrassed to demonstrate its british roots everywhere - from their flags to culture to mentality...some former colonies are, of course, still grumbling but no more

the us, otoh, has managed before itself becoming a real nation, to pyss off half the world.

 

[laurel1969]

I think the tensions and ambitions remain the same regardless of whether the 'Cold war' is perceived as being over.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Look there is no 'one side is right' here. Its just international politics. Both sides are seeking to maintain or spread influence.

Rhetoric is rhetoric.

Disagree. No matter what you may think of the current or past leadership of Ukraine, they are trying to maintain the territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders of their country against separatists, who are openly and blatantly being supported by a Russia that hypocritically continues to maintain the myth that it is not involved.

National boundaries have never been immutable in this part of the world. Current boundaries are not necessarily permanent simply because they exist. But, there are other ways of addressing regional grievances than by lies, subversion, military force, aggression, and the destabilization of much of central Europe.

 

[laurel1969]

That works two ways. Do you think the west had no part in the coup in the Ukraine?

 

[Amsterhammer]

i disagree. as i said many times, cynicism goes both ways.

and i did answer you and posted, it is none of your business. i also told you i am not of slavic background nor ever visited those lands. my opinions have nothing to do with my ethnic or cultural background, rather, the gradual and consistent realization of the grand hypocrisy the us foreign policy has become.

thus, consistent with your own measure, i can only take your opinions as emotional rants of someone who hates certain politicians, up to supporting their enemies despite them being practically neo-nazis. besides, trying to link so rigidly the internet opinions to ethic backgrounds, is, frankly, a sign of a a narrow mind.

Anyone on a board like this who deliberately refuses to share even the most basic information - as all of us who have been here for years have done - clearly has something to hide. And, anyone who so obsessively maintains such a complete aura of secrecy about their nationality and/or country of residence is someone whose motives are highly suspect.

I'm sure you care as little about what I think of you, as I care about what you think of me. I have made my position perfectly clear - I detest fascists, neo-fascists, oligarchs, whether Ukrainian or Russian, as well as Putin's subversive land grabbing, and his rabble rousing of petty, local, and regional 'nationalist' tendencies, that serve only to undermine peace, stability, and international law, while creating tension, rebellion, and war. I equally detest underhand US efforts to re-shape central Europe. I consider myself to be very far from narrow-minded, whereas you sound like an entirely partisan shill for one side.

 

[python]

such a complete aura of secrecy about their nationality and/or country of residence is someone whose motives are highly suspect

foolish you, it is called an elementary right to anonymity that i chose. the right i consider a wise behavior particularly in the face of emotional, unbalanced types like yourself who have been banned for wishing the forum member you disagreed with an ultimate fate. nah, unlike some with whom i did choose to share, you aren't worth a shred of my trust.

as to my residence, again because you are so wrapped into your own posting and linking opinions to ethnicity, you missed that i mentioned more than once i live in the us. quite few, including those posting in this thread knew that. thankfully, i have only 18 month before moving back to where i grew up.

the rest of your post is disingenuous, not worth much response. mistakenly, stupid me, i recall thanking you for some candid posts which upon a closer look were nothing more than passionate rants at best.

 

[Merckx index]

This is a terrific short interview with creative commons guru Jeremy Rifkin, in which he discusses his view that we are undergoing a massive transformation in which capitalism will be replaced by a zero marginal costs society. What makes it terrific is the interviewer, who knows Rifkin well, takes an extremely skeptical position regarding his work, highlighting the controversies involved.

Rikfin cites you tube music, internet blogs, 3-D printing, AirBnb and green energy technologies as examples of how ordinary people can produce and share wealth at near zero marginal costs. The interviewer rightly wonders if Rifkin's view is too idealistic, and notes that capitalism has always shown a genius for exploiting new opportunities. Rifkin counters that he works with many governments, e.g., in France, Germany, and China, all of which are starting to take his ideas seriously.

If you’re not familiar with Rifkin’s work, I really, really recommend watching this. If you are familiar with it, the interview provides a very nice summary of it.

Key statement: “ownership is not as important [to the millennial generation] as access”

 

[Amsterhammer]

I think Cold "war" is the operative word here. This was not supposed to happen in the post cold war era in Europe. When Russia annexed Crimea they overstepped a boundary that has been asummed to be unbreachable.

This means Russias neigbors can no longer feel protected by international law and especially the OSCE framework. Think Norway, Finland, Turkey, Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Romania. Not to mention Georgia,Armenia etc.

It means that any contract signed with the Russian state is worthless if the Russians don't want to honor it. The whole framework on which trade and mutual relations are built upon are worthless.

If Russia wants to play the cold war "game" again it forces EU/Nato and it's Neighbors to do the same. Imagine the defense budgets going up in Europe. Where is the money going to come from? Taxes or cuts to services etc.?

Excellent post, the bolded in particular.

I think the tensions and ambitions remain the same regardless of whether the 'Cold war' is perceived as being over.

Disagree, precisely because of the Bear's point above. The Crimea annexation has changed the (central) European playing field from what it has been for decades, certainly as far as the major European powers are concerned.

That works two ways. Do you think the west had no part in the coup in the Ukraine?

Everybody knows how involved the US was in the original regime change in Kiev. That's just what we do. /cynicism

foolish you, it is called an elementary right to anonymity that i chose. the right i consider a wise behavior particularly in the face of emotional, unbalanced types like yourself who have been banned for wishing the forum member you disagreed with an ultimate fate. nah, unlike some with whom i did choose to share, you aren't worth a shred of my trust.

as to my residence, again because you are so wrapped into your own posting and linking opinions to ethnicity, you missed that i mentioned more than once i live in the us. quite few, including those posting in this thread knew that. thankfully, i have only 18 month before moving back to where i grew up.

the rest of your post is disingenuous, not worth much response. mistakenly, stupid me, i recall thanking you for some candid posts which upon a closer look were nothing more than passionate rants at best.

Do I need to go and research how many times you've been banned, or will you just stand up and admit to being a hypocrite?

Yes, I missed you mentioning that you live in the US. I note that you only have 18 months left, as you put it. How long was your sentence?

For the rest, you will, of course, think what you like, while I will file you under 'partisan dilettante.'

 

[laurel1969]

Excellent post, the bolded in particular.Disagree, precisely because of the Bear's point above. The Crimea annexation has changed the (central) European playing field from what it has been for decades, certainly as far as the major European powers are

Don't forget...that border has only been there for what....23 years? Its no biggie. Post-colonial *** takes ages to sort out. Look at Iraq.

 

[python]

Do I need to go and research how many times you've been banned

the virulent hypocrite and very visibly so is you. Any one willing to revisit the issue, can page back and see that the issue i raised was NOT how many times you were banned, but that because you wished an ultimate fate to a poster who disagreed with you, you barely survived a life long ban.

Thus fella, i do not wish to share my personal details over internet with such unbalanced types. That you missed my residence yet tried to pin it as my fault re my opinion in politics says everything one needs to know about a self righteous demagogue you are.

Yes, i file you under the worthless, pretentious american who can be taken out of america but whose peculiar brand of arrogance cant be masked.