Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

Putin gained tens of billions from the privatisation. Doesn't the high murder rate of journalists matter to you? The murder or imprisonment of opponents? But Ireland is apparently like this...Corruption is not on a remotely comparable scale.

There's alot of things about Russia that do bother me, some of which you have mentioned..
But don't forget Charlie, and then of course Bertie, he did well didn't he..?
Sold his country down the ****ter then ****ed off out of politics and got off scot free, now does the rounds earning a further fortune going round at the old speaking events telling you about the great service he did us all.....

Hotblack Desiato

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Well capable of winning an election..? You think klitchko is of politician material..? He's alot of experience of course to run a country or hold a high office position of some form..
We'll get in mcgreggor or Katie tailor maybe

I didn't pass any judgement on his capabilities, I have no idea. All I said was he is well-known and apparently popular. There are many people elected in Ireland with nothing going for them other than that.

jimeryan22

On a lighter note.. Just seen this and had a laugh..
Totally unrelated I know but.. Anyway, I'm off to bed, I shall pick up our argument, I mean debate tomorrow gentlemen..
Good night all

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/no-loud-americans-sign-in-republic-of-ireland-slammed-by-kerry-residents-30458902.html

stevejazzx

Corkfeen wrote: »

Putin gained tens of billions from the privatisation. Doesn't the high murder rate of journalists matter to you? The murder or imprisonment of opponents? But Ireland is apparently like this...Corruption is not on a remotely comparable scale.

I think it matters to most people.
What also matters is perspective and reality, lack of bias, a good knowledge of history and ability to discern likely western propaganda. At that stage one can present unbiased information and opinion. At that stage the tendency to focus on Russia is less as you'll find far greater problems elsewhere as Recedite elucidated a couple pages back.

obplayer

jimeryan22 wrote: »

And what happend here with the tolls of the roads..? Our national electric board..? Privatisation as it's been called, or selling off public assets to your buddies for pennies on the dollar has gone on all across Europe.. What about the uk..? What about Greece..? What about Italy..? What about Spain..? The same...
Although I will give you your statement about the homosexual thing in Russia.. They do seem to get a tough old time out there....

At least you get to talk about such things here and even sometimes get a prosecution and a result. Ivor Callely.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/callely-pleads-guilty-over-fake-mobile-phone-expenses-1.1875026
Would this happen in Russia?
All States are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others.

Brown Bomber

obplayer wrote: »

At least you get to talk about such things here and even sometimes get a prosecution and a result. Ivor Callely.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/callely-pleads-guilty-over-fake-mobile-phone-expenses-1.1875026
Would this happen in Russia?
All States are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others.

I assume you are are unfamiliar with the formerly imprisoned billionaire oligarch Mikheal Khodorkovsky? And Berezovsky who had to flee to London to avoid prosecution?

Brown Bomber

jimeryan22 wrote: »

robindch
" then I suggest that you don't know what corruption is"

corruption
kəˈrʌpʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places"
synonyms: dishonesty, dishonest dealings, unscrupulousness, deceit, deception, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, lawbreaking, crime, criminality, delinquency, wrongdoing, villainy; More
antonyms: honesty
the action or effect of making someone or something morally depraved.
"the corruption of youth was a powerful motif"
synonyms: sin, sinfulness, ungodliness, unrighteousness, profanity, impiety, impurity; More
antonyms: morality, purity
2.
the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.
"a record of a word's corruption"
synonyms: alteration, falsification, doctoring, manipulation, manipulating, fudging, adulteration, debasement, degradation, abuse, subversion, misrepresentation, misapplication


Hmmmm. Pretty sure that covers the banksters and political sidekicks...

You don't have to look any further than the UK parliament/institutions and the covering of raping children for decades to see real corruption.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/ukraine-s-war-leaves-deep-scars-on-former-rebel-stronghold-1.1878588

Mass grave discovered in Slovyansk.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume you are are unfamiliar with the formerly imprisoned billionaire oligarch Mikheal Khodorkovsky? And Berezovsky who had to flee to London to avoid prosecution?

Both of your examples ended up conflicting with Putin to a large degree. Putin was responsible for initiating investigations into both of them but his primary reason would appear to be because he disagreed/conflicted with them rather than for dealing with corruption.

110 people currently hold 35% of the nation's wealth, many of these people have gained their wealth through highly corrupt means such as Abramovich who does not conflict with Putin so has remained conviction free. Then there's Putin's wealth which is believed to be in the tens of billions. This was acquired through his position and basically becoming a shareholder in his recently privatised gas network.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Have another read of my post - especially the bit where I describe their representation in the Rada.Stepan (not Stephan) Bandera spent three years in a variety of Nazi concentration camps and was not a Nazi himself - he was a Ukrainian nationalist who tried to co-operate with the Nazi's to oust the Soviets from Ukraine.I said that Svoboda's policies are more in line with UKIP than they are with Hitler and while you may disagree, having read some of their policies and spoken with some members of Svoboda (have you?), I stand by that assessment.

FWIW, I agree with you that they're bonkers, but I also think that UKIP are bonkers and the elected members of Sinn Fein, north and south, have probably committed more crimes than the elected members of Svoboda. But regardless of that, while Svoboda is far-right, it is not Nazi in any real sense and that unhelpful, untrue and unquenchable reach-for-the-godwin is what I'd like to see an end to.

Bandera was a genocidal terrorist. An ethnic-cleansing fascist and a Nazi collaborator. Comparing the banderists to UKIP or any other non-violent and democratic conservative political group is absurd.

Why are you making excuses for him?

The local neo-Nazi groups were out in my town square during the rioting in Kiev recruiting Swedish extremists to be shipped over to act as berserkers.

And this is now the second coup by non-elected groups against democratically-elected and legitimate governments you have given your full support to after your support of the coup in Egypt and the human rights nightmare it has become.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Both of your examples ended up conflicting with Putin to a large degree. Putin was responsible for initiating investigations into both of them but his primary reason would appear to be because he disagreed/conflicted with them rather than for dealing with corruption.

110 people currently hold 35% of the nation's wealth, many of these people have gained their wealth through highly corrupt means such as Abramovich who does not conflict with Putin so has remained conviction free. Then there's Putin's wealth which is believed to be in the tens of billions. This was acquired through his position and basically becoming a shareholder in his recently privatised gas network.

Time for a wake up call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE

And seriously, if you want to understand what is happening in the region beyond BBC and CNN talking points, you can get actual journalism at http://consortiumnews.com/

Especially from Bob Parry, who blew open the Iran-Contra scandal and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who was Reagan's daily briefer on Soviet Union issues.

stevejazzx

Corkfeen wrote: »

Both of your examples ended up conflicting with Putin to a large degree. Putin was responsible for initiating investigations into both of them but his primary reason would appear to be because he disagreed/conflicted with them rather than for dealing with corruption.

110 people currently hold 35% of the nation's wealth, many of these people have gained their wealth through highly corrupt means such as Abramovich who does not conflict with Putin so has remained conviction free. Then there's Putin's wealth which is believed to be in the tens of billions. This was acquired through his position and basically becoming a shareholder in his recently privatised gas network.

Where do you reckon a lot this corrupt wealth is stored?
I'll give you hint - its not Russia.

stevejazzx

Here's a story not yet showing in western media - wonder how long it will take before its a main story on BBC or Sky news?

I find it amazing that wherever the US goes or whenever get behind an invasion a human rights watch springs up afterwards. Its like all that propaganda against Russia has been designed to make stories like this go away as fast as possible.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/18/ukraine-letter-president-poroshenko-military-operations-lugansk-and-donetsk

Brown Bomber

stevejazzx wrote: »

Here's a story not yet showing in western media - wonder how long it will take before its a main story on BBC or Sky news?

I find it amazing that wherever the US goes or whenever get behind an invasion a human rights watch springs up afterwards. Its like all that propaganda against Russia has been designed to make stories like this go away as fast as possible.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/18/ukraine-letter-president-poroshenko-military-operations-lugansk-and-donetsk

No mystery to it.

George Soros to Give $100 million to Human Rights Watch ...

www.hrw.org/news/2010/09/07/global-challengeÖversätt den här sidan
7 sep 2010 - (New York) – George Soros, philanthropist and financier, today announced a challenge grant of $100 million over 10 years to Human Rights

“Well, I (Soros)set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now,”
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1405/25/fzgps.01.html

jimeryan22

obplayer wrote: »

At least you get to talk about such things here and even sometimes get a prosecution and a result. Ivor Callely.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/callely-pleads-guilty-over-fake-mobile-phone-expenses-1.1875026
Would this happen in Russia?
All States are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others.

More of a token lock up job though old callely ain't he..? He's hardly the mastermind of the worlds financial crisis is he..?

jimeryan22

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Time for a wake up call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE

And seriously, if you want to understand what is happening in the region beyond BBC and CNN talking points, you can get actual journalism at http://consortiumnews.com/

Especially from Bob Parry, who blew open the Iran-Contra scandal and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who was Reagan's daily briefer on Soviet Union issues.

I mentioned the same guy twice.. And posted his article where he had said, his own intelligence source had told him that the US is sitting on intelligence that shows the Ukrainians shot plane down.. Was told in a reply that he is a known liar.. When I responded with lied about what.? The person never replied..
So thanks for this bomber

jimeryan22

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No mystery to it.

Have seen it written alright soros is behind the upset in Ukraine alright...
That nazi collaborator as well.. Scum

Sacksian

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No mystery to it.

Maybe I've misunderstood but what is the relevance of George Soros? Does his support discredit HRW in your eyes?

Human Rights Watch is criticising the Ukrainian army and asking for an investigation into violations of international humanitarian law regarding an attack on a hospital, isn't it?

jimeryan22

Mr Bociurkiw said parts of the wreckage that the team inspected yesterday had “almost machinegun types of holes”

Anyone see this article..? Above is a quote from

http://mobile.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-new-wreckage-and-human-remains-found-by-australian-investigators/story-fnizu68q-1227001124772

jimeryan22

Sacksian wrote: »

Maybe I've misunderstood but what is the relevance of George Soros? Does his support discredit HRW in your eyes?

Human Rights Watch is criticising the Ukrainian army and asking for an investigation into violations of international humanitarian law regarding an attack on a hospital, isn't it?

Maybe you've understood george soros..
He's a walking talking nazi collaborating hypocrite....
A horrid man.. That for some reason (roll eyes). The media doesn't seem to go there with regards to his history.. Instead he's looked up to and revered..

robindch

robindch wrote: »

If you think that politicians in the US and the EU are in any way comparable to their counterparts in Russia, and to a lesser extend at least in financial terms, in Ukraine, then I suggest that you don't know what corruption is.

recedite wrote: »

Mik Heil Saakashvili; [...] Vitali Klitschko; Champion kickboxer turned politician. Maidan protester, and favours closer alignment with EU and Nato.

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] the tendency to focus on Russia is less as you'll find far greater problems elsewhere as Recedite elucidated a couple pages back.

At this point I was going to try and discuss the different levels of corruption in the EU and US and Russia, but I can't think of any way of doing it that doesn't ultimately sound like Father Ted explaining the difference between small/far away and big/near.

robindch wrote: »

that unhelpful, untrue and unquenchable reach-for-the-godwin is what I'd like to see an end to.

Even after drawing attention to it, the pro-Russian don't seem to be able to post squat without godwinning themselves - even recedite's one-sided note managed to call Saakashvili "Mik Heil" - classy!

Putin's radicalization has succeeded. He must be thrilled, or at least as thrilled as somebody with his emotional range can get.

recedite

Corkfeen wrote: »

Both of your examples ended up conflicting with Putin to a large degree. Putin was responsible for initiating investigations into both of them but his primary reason would appear to be because he disagreed/conflicted with them rather than for dealing with corruption.

110 people currently hold 35% of the nation's wealth, many of these people have gained their wealth through highly corrupt means such as Abramovich who does not conflict with Putin so has remained conviction free. Then there's Putin's wealth which is believed to be in the tens of billions. This was acquired through his position and basically becoming a shareholder in his recently privatised gas network.

All of the major players, including Putin, benefited from the sell-off of soviet state assets during the Yeltsin period. At the time Putin was not particularly influential, but he was savvy. The oil company Putin's money comes from is believed to be Surgutneftegas, which dates back to 1993. Abramovich's money also dates back to this time (Sibneft 1995)
It was only later that the the oligarchs, mainly Berezovsky, persuaded Yeltzin to select Putin as his successor, thinking that Putin would an ideal man to keep the gravy train rolling along.

But as soon as Putin became president, he started to reverse the nationalisation process, causing him to fall out with Berezovsky and certain other oligarchs.
Khodorkovsky's oil company was essentially seized by the state, on tax evasion grounds, and the assets are now owned by Rosneft, which is majority state owned, something like Statoil in Norway.

Those who were "pilfering" from the semi-state Gazprom were fired, and the state regained control of it. This is a reasonable summary of Gazprom from wiki;

1993–1997: Privatisation
Gazprom's political influence increased significantly after the new Russian President Boris Yeltsin appointed the company's chairman Chernomyrdin as his Prime Minister in December 1992. Rem Viakhirev took Chernomyrdin's place as Chairman both of the Board of Directors and of the Managing Committee.[5]
The new government was eager to introduce economic reforms and began to privatize Gazprom. Following the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 5 November 1992 and the Resolution of the Government of Russia of 17 February 1993, the organization became a joint-stock company and started to distribute shares under the voucher method: every Russian citizen received vouchers to purchase shares of formerly state-owned companies. By 1994, 33% of the Gazprom's shares had been bought by 747,000 members of the public, mostly in exchange for the vouchers. 15% of the stock was also purchased and allocated to Gazprom employees. The state retained 40% of the shares, but the amount was gradually lowered to 38%.[5] Trading of Gazprom's shares was heavily regulated, and the by-laws of the company prohibited foreigners from owning more than 9% of the shares.
Gazprom slowly established credibility in the western capital markets with an offering of one percent of its equity to foreigners in October 1996 in the form of Global Depository Receipts and a successful large bond issue of US$2.5 billion in 1997.

1998–2000: Tax evasion and asset-stripping
As the Prime Minister of Russia, Chernomyrdin ensured that the state did not closely regulate Gazprom. The company evaded taxes on a large scale, and the state received little money in the form of dividends. The management and board members launched a massive asset-stripping, and Gazprom's property was parceled out to them and their relatives. Some of the largest stripped assets were transferred to the controversial gas-trading company Itera. Chernomyrdin and Gazprom's CEO Rem Viakhirev were leading figures in the process.[7]
In March 1998, for reasons unrelated to Gazprom, Yeltsin fired Chernomyrdin from his position as Prime Minister.[8] On 30 June 1998 Chernomyrdin returned to the company as the chairman of the board of directors.

2000–2003: The Putin reforms
Gazprom's situation changed abruptly in June 2000, when Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia. Putin launched a campaign to rein in the oligarchs. Per his policy of the so-called national champions, he strengthened state control in strategic companies.[9] He launched an attack against what he saw as mismanagement and personal pilfering of state assets. After coming to power, Putin immediately fired Chernomyrdin from his position as the chairman of the company's board and used the stock owned by the state to vote out Vyakhirev. The two men were replaced by Dmitry Medvedev and Alexei Miller, who had previously worked with Putin in Saint Petersburg.[9] Putin's actions were aided by shareholder activism of Hermitage CEO William Browder and former Russian finance minister Boris Fyodorov. Miller and Medvedev were assigned the task to stop the asset-stripping, and also to regain lost possessions. By denying Itera access to Gazprom's pipelines, Miller almost forced Itera to declare bankruptcy. As a result, Itera's management agreed to sell the stolen assets back to Gazprom.

2005–2006: Establishment of government control
In June 2005, Gazprombank, Gazpromivest Holding, Gazfond and Gazprom Finance B. V., subsidiaries of Gazprom, agreed to sell a 10.7399% share to the state-owned company Rosneftegaz for $7 billion, at what some western analysts viewed as an undervalued price.[11] The sale was to be completed by 25 December 2005, which, combined with the 38% share of the State Property Committee, gave the Russian government control over the company.[12]
As the Russian state had acquired a controlling share, it removed the 20% restriction on foreign investment in Gazprom, and the company became fully open to foreign investors

I suppose you could argue that if Putin were to take this "de-nationalisation" process to its logical conclusion, he should hand his own oil interests over to the state too. And also seize those of Abramovich. But maybe he believes that in some cases, they have built up their companies over the years through their own personal initiative, even if they did get their start during the great Yeltzin sell-off.

In other words, he did not agree with the sell-off, nor was he responsible for it, but he understood at the time what was happening and how to profit from it. Is that corrupt?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

In other words, he did not agree with the sell-off, nor was he responsible for it, but he understood at the time what was happening and how to profit from it. Is that corrupt?

In a libertarian sense, no, of course it's neither corrupt nor even mildly dishonest - cash is cash and that's the beginning and the end of it.

Less amoral worldviews take a different line. While the principle of at least certain parts of the sell-off was arguably fair enough, the implementation of the sell-off was beyond criminal and anybody who profited in any non-trivial way from it is, as far as I'm concerned, almost certainly criminal themselves.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

At this point I was going to try and discuss the different levels of corruption in the EU and US and Russia, but I can't think of any way of doing it that doesn't ultimately sound like Father Ted explaining the difference between small/far away and big/near.

Your Father Ted remark raised a smile but upon immediate reflection wouldn't seem to be concurrent with the point you were attempting to make i.e that Russia corruption dwarfs that of the US and EU.
Ironically the FT remark addresses perspective - the exact thing you appear to lack in this debate.
Back on to your original point however I am absolutely fascinated to hear of the Russian corruption that will dwarf the Iraq weapons of mass destruction scandal, the NSA, Guantanamo Bay, rendition flights, the financial crisis etc.

robin wrote:

Even after drawing attention to it, the pro-Russian don't seem to be able to post squat without godwinning themselves - even recedite's one-sided note managed to call Saakashvili "Mik Heil" - classy!

Pro-Russian? Hmm..seems that you're laying a foundation from which to grow straw men.
My constant unending point is perspective so pro-Russian or pro-US or pro Ukrainian are all bad starting points as they immediately lose objectivity. But hey what good would the debate be if everyone listened to one another? People would have to write much longer replies when ad hominem attacks or simply writing someone would be easier.

robin wrote:

Putin's radicalization has succeeded. He must be thrilled, or at least as thrilled as somebody with his emotional range can get.

The radical center left who dare challenge western motives?
Your last post is fastest dismissal in the history of debate - you have in my estimation lost some high ground last few pages - so a retort calling us all Putinists isn't going to cut it.
Come on lets hear about this great unmatched Russian corruption.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] Russia corruption dwarfs that of the US and EU [...]

Yes, the percentage of national output in Russia wasted on corruption far exceeds what's normal here. As somebody no doubt once said, in Russia corruption isn't a problem with the system, it is the system.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your last post is fastest dismissal in the history of debate [...]

You should hang around here more often - I think i was quite restrained

More seriously, you're wrong to imply there's two sides to this debate. There aren't, as there are far more. There is a POV which the Russian government puts forward and that has the benefit of simplicity and consistency, but at the expense of accuracy and honesty. I can't find any very consistent single position put forward by the Ukrainian government who, most of the time, behave like a bunch of amateurs (but are improving slowly). There's a POV from most of the EU governments which is, most of the time, as foresightful as Chamberlain and about as well-informed.

And then there's an accurate view of where we are, and where we could be and few people indeed seem to have any worthwhile thoughts on that - Radek Sikorsky and Carl Bildt, the FM's of Poland and Sweden respectively being two notable, honorable exceptions to the unending mass of mediocrity.

To dismiss my POV as "compartmentalized" "EU/US propaganda" as some have suggested is to indicate a fairly dismal understanding of both my POV and the different POV's of the EU and US governments. But then again, that lack of understanding is, so far as I can see, part of the problem that everybody's grappling with in the first place.

PopePalpatine

stevejazzx wrote: »

The radical center left who dare challenge western motives?
Your last post is fastest dismissal in the history of debate - you have in my estimation lost some high ground last few pages - so a retort calling us all Putinists isn't going to cut it.
Come on lets hear about this great unmatched Russian corruption.

Yeah...I doubt the LGBT people being hunted by gangs of thugs would call Putin "centre-left".

Turtwig

I think this discussion would be far more interesting if those defending Putin pointed out the problems they perceived socially with Russia.

Those on the 'other side' can point the U.S. social flaws.

(Although it is pretty clear that neither side thinks the U.S. is an ideal to strive for.)

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote: »

.....and ability to discern likely western propaganda. At that stage one can present unbiased information and opinion. .

Propaganda by Chomsky; anyone disagree?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

Come on lets hear about this great unmatched Russian corruption.

Here's a timely one, I believe the largest ever fine levied against a government for corruption.

In a judgement issued today, the the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration has ordered the Russian state to pay a little over $51 billion dollars to the former shareholders of Yukos, the now-defunct oil company which Putin and his government subjected to a range of state-sponsored harassment and theft. The full text of the judgement is here.

This Reuters article summarizes the case briefly:

Reuters wrote:

The panel of judges, which has been reviewing the case since 2005, concluded that officials under President Vladimir Putin had manipulated the legal system to bankrupt Yukos. "Yukos was the object of a series of politically motivated attacks by the Russian authorities that eventually led to its destruction," the court said. "The primary objective of the Russian Federation was not to collect taxes but rather to bankrupt Yukos and appropriate its valuable assets."

recedite

That is funny alright, I had only posted a few days ago that "Khodorkovsky's oil company was essentially seized by the state". It all happened a few years ago, but the timing of the investigation/judgement is interesting given the current whipping up of anti-Putin sentiment by Obama and Cameron in their media soundbytes.
There is of course no chance that the Russian Federation will pay this fine.

It begs an interesting question though. Suppose you are against the "corrupt practice" whereby State assets (which have been built up over many years by all the citizens) are privatised, thereby enriching a few well connected oligarchs.
What if someone comes to power who reverses that process? Are they corrupt? "Privately owned" oil assets were seized and nationalised in many countries over the years, eg in Iran and numerous South American countries.
The process is always declared to be unlawful by those who represent the interests of the multinational corporations.

Anyway, if some of the gas and oil fields around the our coasts were seized by the State I would be the first to cheer.