Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
darkpagandeath wrote: »I thought China was Struggling to keep the Defence troops up, Let alone troops to wage war ?
They have a rapidly expanding and modernisation programme currently going on ,
I reckon they are getting ahead of Russia in terms of military capabilities
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Sorry WakeUp again I disagree with you totally.
As for talking nonsense you have quite clearly crossed that rubicon in your interactions here in recent times. From my perspective despite some of you utterances to the contrary you are an apologist for the current illegal Russian activities in the Ukraine.
What are you sorry for Gandalf if you have something to say then say it no need to apologise. You have been talking nonsense. I have to say I did think a bit more of you and then you resorted to childish type retorts and insults and such things have no place in a politics forum. Standards and all. though in many instances standards would appear to apply to one side of the debate. Do you realise how resorting to calling me an apologist is among the weakest most basic forms of argument. You cant counter what Im saying with a coherent reply to the counter points I raised instead you attempt ad hominem which is find, its pathetic, but fine if that is how you want to play this. Ive crossed the rubicon? Who dafquq do you think you are
you constantly mention and allude to the word “reality” yet from what I can see and in many instances you dont appear to be operating in any type of reality certainly of this world anyways...so realism and “strategic threats” tell me about them....IrishTrajan wrote: »By "same tactics as Putin", I believe he was referring to arming insurgent groups and applying economic pressure to their target (Russia embargoed Ukrainian dairy products, I believe).
Thats side splitting laughable. Completely detached from and unwares of what is and has been happening on the ground and between those nations. bonkersIrishTrajan wrote: »Large chunks of Central Asia, which are currently the battleground where China-Russia-Iran-Pakistan jostle for dominance. It could also refer to China attempting to retake its historic area of Vladivostok and Khasan, or China arming Russia steppe groups to break away and allow China oil rights.
China attempting to retake Vladivostok and Khasan,huh. How you do you propse they would do that. thats just nonsense. Central Asia is comprised of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and afghanahistan. Four of those countries are members of the SCO the other two being China and Russia. Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have observer status Iran having applied for full membership though it cant go through as they are currently under sanctions. Sino –Russian policy in the area whilst accepting that they will have individual differences over certain issues is in the main to check and keep the west out. Pakistan is a different story although they too want to join the SCO and they have the backing of both Russia and China. Yes these nations and one or two others have their own interests and ideas but a battleground? Nope not in the sense of that word. By the way you never got back to me about your China and Russia will have little if any significant role of the world stage comments?? Economies..future growth markets...keep in mind now according to you Im both stupid and an idiot so break it down for me...you were saying....."Spheres of influence" nonsense finished with the 19th century, though it's alive and well in the Kremlin. These days, countries are independent entities which co-operate (or not) together without violating each other's borders - iran/iraq and russia/ukraine excepted.
:rolleyes:. I realise the leadership in Kiev are real world novices and in many ways away with the fairies though is this a universal Ukrainian trait I wonder. What planet do you people operate on. It certainly isnt this one. no wonder the place is phucked
.Defending the defensible: The value of spheres of influence in U.S. foreign policy
Americans don’t like the idea of spheres of influence. The idea that large nations should push around small ones offends our sense of fair play. We envision a world of plucky Davids, squaring off against autocratic Goliaths, with only American might available to right the balance and liberate the oppressed. And so when my colleague Robert Kagan sounds a clarion call to deny spheres of influence to countries like Russia and China, he appeals to a basic and laudable American instinct.
Despite this instinct, this is not a concept that has long informed American practice. To the contrary, the U.S promulgated the Monroe Doctrine specifically to establish a sphere of influence. Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Policemen” concept for the post-World War II order, which evolved into the UN Security Council, saw the world run by great powers. In the words of historians Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, “[t]his distinction between great and small nations quickly became a fundamental element of all U.S. postwar planning.” Even during the Cold War, the U.S. rarely challenged the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, essentially standing aside as Soviet forces crushed uprisings in East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
But after the Cold War ended and the Soviet sphere of influence collapsed, the United States began to champion a new idea in international relations: even small countries have the right to determine their own foreign policy and join any alliance they like. It is an idea with inherent moral appeal. But it is not a coincidence that this new idea came at a time when there were no U.S. peer competitors, that is when there was no other game in town. The U.S. was able to use its predominant power position to push NATO right up to the borders of Russia and into the territory of the former Soviet Union. As Bob has written elsewhere, “a liberal world order, like any world order, is something that is imposed, and as much as we in the West might wish it to be imposed by superior virtue, it is generally imposed by superior power.”
For potential regional powers watching this advance, the issue is not whether great powers get to have a sphere of influence. Being relatively powerful countries, they accept as inevitable and even desirable that the powerful will have special privileges in geopolitics. Rather, the issue is whether the U.S. sphere of influence will continue to go right up to their doorstep and threaten their autonomy, or whether they will be able to push it back. In essence, we are already fighting over spheres of influence. We can regret this state of affairs and deplore it loudly from op-eds, but that will not change it.
Thus, it might be objectively true as Bob says that “for the first time in Russia’s long history, it does not face a strategic threat on its western flank,” but the Russians don’t see it that way. And it is not Germany, Estonia or Ukraine that they fear, but rather the United States. Whether this sense of threat stems from Russian pride, Russian domestic politics, or paranoia hardly matters—countries get to determine their own threat perceptions.
In general, as countries like Russia and China have grown in relative power in recent years, they have begun to push against the liberal world order imposed upon them. That they should do so is, from a historical perspective, normal and natural even if it is very unwelcome. One might expect that if Canada and Mexico choose to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization the United States would similarly object. In any case, their sense of insecurity means they will not easily be persuaded to change course. The question for the United States is whether it should fight to expand its own sphere of influence or whether it should stop expanding and accommodate others
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/03/11-defending-indefensible-spheres-of-influence-us-foreign-policy-shapiroI really don't know what you mean here - you implied above that the US, via NATO "dominate(s) the continent of Europe" meaning that you must think that if the "continent of Europe" doesn't do what the US wants, that there's some credible sanction that the US can apply - presumably using all of that military hardware they have lying around - for example, that stuff which you say the US has used to occupy Germany for 70 years.
see above. Im not surprised you dont know what I mean judging by your posts.Or do you actually think that US military hardware isn't there to threaten Europe? Your position is really quite confused.No, that clown's position isn't bad because I happen to disagree with it. Instead, it's bad because it's not honest, intelligent, perceptive, accurate or worth airing.
that "clowns" position is correct. and youre wrong. in my opinion of course.0 -
-
-
Anyhow back in the real world things are apparently hotting up in East Ukraine again donesk has been the centre of heavy shelling and mortor fire with 1600 individual explosions recorded on Sunday alone.
And US troops and vehicles have arrived in Kiev to begin training Ukrainian forces for the next 6 months
http://news.yahoo.com/fighting-picks-war-torn-eastern-ukraine-080057903.html
0 -
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »Do you not know what evolving scenarios are?
the one where China arms insurgents in Russia and takes control of their resources? Seriously. This is your “evolving scenario”. why dont you elaborate some more on that lunacy for me....IrishTrajan wrote: »China gets most of its oil from Turkmenistan
incorrect no they dont. Saudi Arabia, Angola, Russia in that order.
http://topforeignstocks.com/2015/02/18/chinese-crude-oil-imports-by-country/IrishTrajan wrote: »Russia historically dominated Turkmenistan,
and your point is what exactly . from the 18th century until they gained independence. They are quite tight these days.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20141212/1015762266.htmlTurkmenistan aims to develop closer ties with Russia and China. There are more than 190 Russian companies operating in Turkmenistan already.
ASHGABAT, December 12 (Sputnik) — Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymuhamedov, in his speech ahead of the Day of Neutrality national holiday promised to develop relations with Russia and China, viewed as strategic partners of his country, local media reported Friday.
According to the president, Moscow is an Ashgabat strategic partner and noted that Turkmenistan's development of relations with Russia, "on [a] bilateral level as well as in a format of international organizations, gives good results and is in […] both country's root interests."
"We shall expand friendly relations with Russia in many different directions," the president said Thursday in his December 12th Day of Neutrality speech.
In his discussion on foreign policy the president noted that China is also viewed as a major strategic and trade partner for Turkmenistan.
Russia is considered among Turkmenistan's biggest trade partners. There are more than 190 Russian companies operating in Turkmenistan. 240 Russian investment projects are being conducted in the countryIrishTrajan wrote: »Iran needs to project its power into the north east to keep its borders stable.
Youre talking about Turkmenistan here which borders Iran in the north east. no need for the Iranians to “project” power there whatever you mean by thatIran's President Hassan Rouhani and his Turkmen counterpart Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow underlined the necessity for broadening bilateral ties between the two friendly states in various fields, FNA reported.
During the Sunday meeting, Rouhani underlined Iran's will to develop ties with Ashgabat, and called for the rapid completion a railway project linking Iran with the Central Asian countries of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, which enhance Tehran-Ashgabat relations.
Berdimuhamedow, for his part, hailed Rouhani's views with regards to strengthening bilateral and multilateral regional relations, and said his country will always support Iran's stances in international scene.
Berdimuhamedow also called for expansion of economic, political and cultural relations between Iran and Turkmenistan.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20141212/1015762266.htmlIrishTrajan wrote: »If you think Central Asia is peaceful, you are sadly mistaken. Kyrgystan's hydroelectric power plant and control over water ways has the Uzbeks on edge (Kazakhstan is backing Ubzekistan) whilst Tajikistan was pursuing closer relations with Kyrgystan (likely to follow them in their hydroelectric plant). Such a plant is making Kyrg wealthier, while impoverishing the Uzbeks and threatening their life line.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan aren't exactly friendly, and are quite ready to pop off at one another very quickly. Interestingly, Russia has 9000 soldiers in Tajikistan, while also having close ties with Kazakhstan, and after Russia was alleged to have been behind the post-independence civil war in Tajikistan. China, who aren't known for giving up territorial claims without a fight, gave up claim to 28,000km2 of land in Tajikistan in return for a nominal 1000km2 of mountain range.
But, of course, I'm wrong about the strategic battleground that is Central Asia
But you see I never stated central Asia was “peaceful”. Just as a matter of interest though which of these countries is currently at war with each other?..individual nations will always have their own national issues this is normal the water crisis you allude too between those countries has been ongoing for years. China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan these are the countries you named I think who are vying for dominance within the region. Lets start with China and Russia the main players and the countries that wont have any significance on the world stage according to you...China-Russia relations in Central Asia are attracting increasing attention from scholars and policymakers. Most analysis thus far, however, has employed the competition framework in examining this relationship. In contrast to these studies, this article argues that since the independence of Central Asia, the relationship between the two great powers in the region has been predominantly that of cooperation. When the two nations did engage in competition, it was limited, and did not evolve into direct confrontation. This article proceeds in explaining the bases for China-Russia ongoing cooperation in Central Asia, followed by clarifying the nature of the bilateral competition, as well as explaining China’s key policies towards Russia, and finally, outlining the future prospects for China-Russia relations in the region.
The Bases for Bilateral Cooperation in Central Asia
Central Asia is an important region for China-Russia relations. Geographically positioned between the two countries, it helps maintain some distance between the two great powers, but also facilitates closer bilateral ties. Both China and Russia have special geographic, historical, and humanitarian ties with Central Asia, and maintain close political, economic, and security relations with the region. From a traditional geopolitical perspective, competition should dominate China-Russia engagement there. Ever since the independence of Central Asia, Russia has been carefully watching over the region to ensure that no other country encroaches on its interests there. At the same time, China has been eager to develop deeper ties with its Central Asian neighbors. Therefore, it is easy to imagine how conflicts could arise between China and Russia in managing their Central Asia objectives. The discussion below, however, shows that there are substantial bases for cooperation, facilitated by a strong foundation in bilateral relations, the institutional framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and their shared interests in the region
http://www.theasanforum.org/china-russia-relations-in-central-asia/IrishTrajan wrote: »and you, the idealist who thinks the EU will turn on the US to ally with Russia and China, is correct.
The German and French position is clear. Its the polar opposite to the Americans vis a vis the course of action to be undertaken with regard to Ukraine. why because it isnt in our interests to be at loggerheads and risk war with Russia thats why. If the Americans continue to push this Germany and France and by default EU will act in their own interests. Because they have too. and they will. Who said anything about being "allied" with Russia and China I didnt. Telling the Americans to go phuck themselves if they keep pushing this. Well thats a distinct possibility should things continue on their present course. nothing idealistic about that quite the opposite.IrishTrajan wrote: »On the matter of economics: Kazakhstan's $1.85bn uranium trade is, just that, Kazakhstan's. The Canadians, Australians and Niger (what do you call them, Nigeri? Nigers?) pump out almost as much uranium. And Canadian uranium, I believe, is pretty high quality.
Yes, Russia's "mixing" down is needed. Not life or death, considering the US could just shut down their nuclear power plants and use the vast resources of shale oil they have, or the solar power, or the wind power turbines, or the hydroelectric power stations... But no, of course, a $1.85bn market is definitely why Russia is beating the West, despite their economy have shrunk to smaller than Italy's.
Current and future predicted uranium prices are making many potential mines economically unviable. And even if it is extracted from the earth it still needs to be processed it doesnt matter if its high quality it still needs enriching. The world hasnt produced enough uranium to meet demand the past two decades and demand will continue to increase secondary supplies have been filling the gap. Kazakhstan is the leading primary producer and Russia produces a fair amount themselves. So Russia already controls a fair chunk of the primary production. But primary production alone wont be able to meet demand secondary sources will be rquired. And theres only one significant secondary source – downblended (*not mixing ) Russian nukes. On top of them controlling 40% of the worlds enrichment capacity. and market leaders in building the plants. Unfortunately for the US they are dependent of foreign uranium imports and will be for the forseeable future. Just shut all their plants down and it be grand, er right lol.The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.
The country's 100 nuclear reactors produced 798 billion kWh in 2014, over 19% of total electrical output. There are now 99 units operable (98.7 GWe) and five under construction.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that six new units may come on line by 2020, four of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/What most Americans don't realize is that dependence on foreign oil isn't the main obstacle to US energy autonomy. If you think America's energy supply issues begin and end with the Middle East, think again. One of the most critical sources of foreign energy is due to dry up this year, and the results could mean spiking electricity prices across the country.
In 2011, the US used 4,128 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. Nuclear power provided 790.2 billion kWh, or 19% of the total electrical output in the US. Few people know that one in five US households is powered by nuclear energy, and that the price of that nuclear power has been artificially stabilized. Unfortunately for us, the vast majority of the fuel used for powering our homes must be imported.
If this information is news to you, you are not alone. While the mainstream media focus on the US's "Middle Eastern energy dependence," the real story remains unnoticed. That's why Casey Research invited the field's top experts – including former US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Chairman Emeritus of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Lady Barbara Judge – for a frank discussion of what we think is America's greatest energy challenge.
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Not-Just-Oil-The-US-is-also-Dependent-on-Foreign-Uranium.htmlthe US is more dependent on foreign uranium supply than it is on foreign oil, as yearly consumption exceeds 23,000 tonnes of uranium, whereas domestic production accounts for less than 2,300 tonnes. In 1993, the US and Russia signed the "Megatons to Megawatts Program," whereby the US bought 500 tonnes of Russian surplus high-enriched uranium (HEU) from nuclear disarmament and military stockpiles over 20 years, this having ended last year.
..........
In essence, the replacement agreement does not help the US meet its need for sourcing supply in any way. It gets worse.
While consuming some 23,000 tonnes U3O8 per year and domestically producing only 2,300 tonnes, the US is now on the hook for at least 20,700 tonnes every year, and it is anyone's guess where that uranium will come from. The number is likely higher as the majority of US mine production is owned by the Russian government, and the Russians are within their rights to export it all back to Russia if they so desire.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2039733-uranium-is-ready-to-roar-backIrishTrajan wrote: »Also, I said Russia's "not-EU" will never have world relevance, because it consists of third world nations and Ukraine is most definitely not going to sign up to it. I said Russia has relevance as they have the most nuclear warheads on the planet, but they are at the mercy of the West. Their economy is in the crapper and don't have access to world financial markets... Their resources aren't massive, their uranium production is about 5% of the world markets. Roughly one third of Canada's.
See above. “production”. do you even know what youre talking about. Russian resources arent massive? Are you smoking crack. Russia is global energy superpower and they will always be relevant. And not just because they have “nukes”.IrishTrajan wrote: »Yea, your fantasy strokings are still irrelevant and stupid.
The first time you mentioned stroking I was hmmm ok whatever. Thats the second time youve drooled down that path now. Ya weirdo.:rolleyes:0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement