Vladamir Putin a clear and present danger to peace in Europe.

comongethappy

Hidalgo wrote: »

There hasn't been investment in Ukraine, more a case of loans and bail outs. Whoever provides this finance is going to to play a role in the reciepient's affairs whether the bail out comes from Russia, USA or the IMF

For sure.

I'd imagine tax collecting has all but ceased in much of Ukraine.

They aren't just broke.... They are broke broke.

What can a country do except borrow in that scenario? And the IMF are the bank of last resort.

comongethappy

Hidalgo wrote: »

Russia is as you say sensitive to western investment to a nation on its doorstep as the west would be to Russia providing finance to a nation within the west's sphere of influence.

Do you know that is true?

Ireland received bilateral loans from the UK & Sweden in 2010 to keep things running (which will be paid next year I think).

Had Russia lent a billion or so, do you think anyone would care?

Maybe France would have landed troops in Kinsale again?

Hidalgo

comongethappy wrote: »

For sure.

I'd imagine tax collecting has all but ceased in much of Ukraine.

They aren't just broke.... They are broke broke.

What can a cover do except borrow in that scenario? And the IMF are the bank of last resort.

And thats why BRICS will be a threat to IMF. Gives broke countries another option. That won't sit well with IMF and USA.

I'm not claiming BRIC policies will be brilliant for the financial recipient btw. Could be much of a much

comongethappy

Hidalgo wrote: »

And thats why BRICS will be a threat to IMF. Gives broke countries another option. That won't sit well with IMF and USA.

I'm not claiming BRIC policies will be brilliant for the financial recipient btw. Could be much of a much

Explain?

Is the BRICS a bank?
Chaired by who & where?

Can Ireland borrow from them?

You are imagining a lot of institutional powers that doesn't exist yet.

Hidalgo

comongethappy wrote: »

Do you know that is true?

Ireland received bilateral loans from the UK & Sweden in 2010 to keep things running (which will be paid next year I think).

Had Russia lent a billion or so, do you think anyone would care?

Maybe France would have landed troops in Kinsale again?

Its merely my opinion. I don't think the US would be too happy if Russia began making massive investments in Latin America.

Who Ireland or Sweden get the money from is inconsequential. Its developong markets that are the rich pickings. Ones rich in raw materials that can be exploited by the loan providers under the guise if trade agreements, free trade etc.

Boskowski

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well I agree that the unrelenting expansion of capitalism is the cause of a lot of problems.

But the russians arent communists anymore. You think the russians arent capitalists too?

They just dont make anything that anybody wants.

And anyway, why do they get to interfere in Ukraine? Why is that okay for you just because you dont like the US?

Russia can invade its neighbours because you dont like western investment?

Poor f'ing Ukrainians.

I'm not saying the Russians aren't capitalists and I don't dislike the US per se.

I can understand however how Russia would favour their own capitalist interests over western corporate expansion. They resist IMF intervention in the Ukraine for that very reason. They are also trying to keep Western investment in Russia at bay. There just not going to be sold out to the West and I think thats a very legitimate stance.

I am very critical of the current form of capitalist policies wherever they happen and I'm not defending Russia and damning USA or anything. I know they're all as bad as each other, but I can understand why Russia is doing what she's doing.
In my opinion the West drives an aggressive expansion politics here while Russia simply tries to protect its interests both economically and strategically, which I think is all very predictable.

IMO again we're playing with fire for capitalist interests and that simply pisses me off a bit. I believe we were greatly involved in overthrowing an elected government in the Ukraine to champion our interests and expected Russia to stand by and if not we're prepare to take that risk. Great stuff.

I have no interest in a destabilised region right at Europas backdoor and some feckers playing great game with Russia for money simply because I value the peaceful life I have too much.

Sand

Boskowski wrote: »

There just not going to be sold out to the West and I think thats a very legitimate stance.

In my opinion the West drives an aggressive expansion politics here while Russia simply tries to protect its interests both economically and strategically, which I think is all very predictable.

"The West"...Where does that particular political bloc begin? Does that include countries like say Australia? Or just countries west of Russia?

Frankly, "the west" tends to reference countries that are located across the globe - east and west - that tolerate and indeed celebrate individualism and human rights, rule of law, free speech and political rights. My instinctive sympathies are with "the west" for that reason alone. If Russia prides itself on being outside "the west", indeed sees "the west" as an adversary, then that is their call but it says alot about the Russian state. It also says alot about Russia that they feel they can veto the aspirations of their neighbours who want to join "the west".

Russia and the Russians are admirable in many ways, but they seem to have a siege mentality as a people. And they use it to justify their very poor record of terrorising and bullying their neighbours. The Russian state needs to grow up. The Cold War is over, they lost. If they want to see Cold War II then they'll quickly recognise that they need "the west" to buy their gas a lot more than "the west" needs them.

Lemming

Ok, two things here Boskowski

Boskowski wrote: »

I can understand however how Russia would favour their own capitalist interests over western corporate expansion. They resist IMF intervention in the Ukraine for that very reason.

The bold bits are for emphasis on what I'm about to say. On what grounds does Russia get to dictate the affairs of another soverign nation and who they do business with? So Russia wants to resist IMF intervention in the Ukraine. Do the Ukranians get a say in this? Or is it all what Mr. Putin wants? Isn't that a rather large part of the current set of problems? Big neighbour bullying small neighbour?

They are also trying to keep Western investment in Russia at bay. There just not going to be sold out to the West and I think thats a very legitimate stance.

Summed up as "we want to trade with you, but we don't want you to trade with us". In case you haven't noticed, "Mother Russia" has already been whored out to, and by, oligarchs never mind any notions of capitalism corrupting the proletariat ...

IMO again we're playing with fire for capitalist interests and that simply pisses me off a bit. I believe we were greatly involved in overthrowing an elected government in the Ukraine to champion our interests and expected Russia to stand by and if not we're prepare to take that risk. Great stuff.

I have no interest in a destabilised region right at Europas backdoor and some feckers playing great game with Russia for money simply because I value the peaceful life I have too much.

I'm sorry, but who is this "we" business? Who, other than Ukranians, deposed a deeply corrupt president after he was very publically bought out by the Kremlin over trade negotations with the EU, which a rather large percentage of the Ukranian population apparently were keen to see go through rather than having to be in hoc to Russia forever (understandable given the legacy of the Soviet Union on its brutalised satellite states).

The only "fecker" playing some great game is Putin, who has managed to find himself wedged between backing the seperatists to the hilt after supplying them with the hardware to shoot down a passenger jet and risking the wrath of the international community, or back down and risk the wrath of his own electorate whom he has whipped up into a frenzy.


Edit: Incidentally mulbot, you still haven't answered my first question.

InTheTrees

Hidalgo wrote: »

Russia is as you say sensitive to western investment to a nation on its doorstep as the west would be to Russia providing finance to a nation within the west's sphere of influence.

On its "doorstep"?

I guess the concept of a "neighbour" doesnt really apply to russia given the negative experiences of most of russias neighbours.

Doesnt russia want to be with the rest of the world at all?

Also I believe Russia has a quite lucrative arms deal with Mexico. And who cares? Mexico can buy arms from anyone it likes.

Despite being on the US's "doorstep".

Why can an independent Ukraine make its own decisions? How would Ireland feel if the UK wanted to make foreign policy decisions for us?

InTheTrees

Hidalgo wrote: »

And thats why BRICS will be a threat to IMF. Gives broke countries another option. That won't sit well with IMF and USA.

I'm not claiming BRIC policies will be brilliant for the financial recipient btw. Could be much of a much

You know BRICS is just a name used by stockbrokers to desribe brazil, russia, china and India?

They're not an alliance or an organisation, just a group of countries doing well about five years ago.

InTheTrees

Hidalgo wrote: »

Russia is as you say sensitive to western investment to a nation on its doorstep as the west would be to Russia providing finance to a nation within the west's sphere of influence.

Russia is already the largest supplier of arms to south and central america.

But you dont see us complaining about "doorsteps" or threatening to invade russia.

Which is why russia needs to grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Basically they suck at being capitalists and are failing badly at it, and now they're stamping their feet and crying like babies.

Boskowski

Look whatever about all that fairy tale stuff of our values and how we embrace individualism bladibla - which is all lovely until you get on the wrong side of us - the thread title is about some poor Tom Clancy headline type accusation of Russia and Putin being the threat to peace in Europe.

The way I see it is that 'we' are very deliberately playing with fire (destabilising and overthrowing an elected government that doesn't 'play ball') because we think we can and as usual we disguise it under bringing all the good bits of our society to some place who may or may not want it in the first place. So in my book it is 'us' and predominantly the US who are a threat to peace in yet another region where they are sniffing great WallStreet and CityOfLondon growth potential and where loads of valuable resources and strategic influences are to be had.

As usual we will find some weapons of mass destruction or such or maybe we will find some airliner being shot down followed by one thing or the other to bring our public opinion in line.

As usual - no doubt - we will leave political, economical and sociological wasteland and suffering for decades to come while lining some big arse corporate pockets and as usual our media spin machine has quickly brought all the fanboys in line who have already forgotten about our last few adventures since they are all of ten years or less in the past by now.

But sure isn't it great how we bring all our Western values to all these places?

I know I sound like this big silly cynic to you but quite frankly I fail to see how one cannot but...

InTheTrees

Boskowski wrote: »

The way I see it is that 'we' are very deliberately playing with fire (destabilising and overthrowing an elected government that doesn't 'play ball') because we think we can...

Did you miss the part where russia invades Ukraine and takes over crimea?

Standing up to bullies may well be "deliberately playing with fire" but sometimes you have to.

sin_city

CptMackey wrote: »

That's the same argument that dictators always make. We are just looking out for our people in your country. Ethnic Russians are in no danger.

You see, I don't buy this at all...

sin_city

InTheTrees wrote: »

Did you miss the part where russia invades Ukraine and takes over crimea?

Standing up to bullies may well be "deliberately playing with fire" but sometimes you have to.

How did Crimea become part of Ukraine?

I find it hard to take that you support the neo nazis in the Ukraine government over the Russians going into Crimea....Again, must emphasize...zero deaths in Crimea.

CptMackey

sin_city wrote: »

How did Crimea become part of Ukraine?

I find it hard to take that you support the neo nazis in the Ukraine government over the Russians going into Crimea....Again, must emphasize...zero deaths in Crimea.

You so sure? Ethnic tartare are going missing. It was still an illegal invasion. The lack of combat deaths doesn't change the fact that Putin took over the Crimea illegally

InTheTrees

sin_city wrote: »

How did Crimea become part of Ukraine?

I find it hard to take that you support the neo nazis in the Ukraine government over the Russians going into Crimea....Again, must emphasize...zero deaths in Crimea.

What complete nonsense. Deluded nonsense.

I support independent soverign nations against invasion by their neighbors.

As do most normal people.

And whats this bullsh*t about "zero deaths"?? So f'ing what? Does that make it okay to invade your neighbour?

Boskowski

The thing is the Ukranian Government was overthrown by the Maidan troubles. They were fuelled if not instigated by the EU or worse, at least thats the way the Russian government looks at it. Its a view I personally cannot completely dismiss I mean all the EU politicians were very quick to jump to the protesters help.

Anyway so the Ukranian government was overthrown and a Western friendly government was installed threatening the strategical position of Russian especialyl at the Black Sea where Russias fleet sits on the Crimea.
Again how do people not see that Russia could not let that happen and come up with some cock and bull how Russia sucks at capitalism and has to grow up. Thats not how the world works. These strategical decisions and power games are very real and who thinks its all nicy nicey and international community and grow up doesn't know about politics. The US are poking around in the Black Sea long enough deliberately provoking Russia. Only they're not allowed by international contract to pass Istanbul with a fleet or else they'd be in there like a shot. They're still poking with odd lone missile carrier just to stir.

People need to grow up and understand political realities.

Lemming

Boskowski wrote: »

The thing is the Ukranian Government was overthrown by the Maidan troubles. They were fuelled if not instigated by the EU or worse, at least thats the way the Russian government looks at it. Its a view I personally cannot completely dismiss I mean all the EU politicians were very quick to jump to the protesters help.

So, majority of Ukranians appeared to actually want the EU trade negotiation that were publically bought by the Kremlin and then getting p1ssed off about said blatant cavalier corruption that had them consigned to be serfs to Russia is all the EUs fault?

I.
See.

The one thing the EU cannot be accussed of is being an expedient actor. It is not. It moves with all the speed and poise of a tortoise. To accuse the EU of fuelling, much less engineering the protests is absurd and worthy of a sin_city CT badge. As for EU politicians being very quick to the protesters help; what did they actually provide besides words of platitude? Perhaps if folks stopped looking at what is said and more what is done they'd see who the protagonists really are; hint: look east.

sin_city

Still waiting for a response on how Crimea became part of Ukraine there mate......yes zero deaths....maybe not important to you but very important to decent people that are against neo nazis

Illegal? Isn't overthrowing a democratically elected government illegal?

Do you agree that Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq all were better off before the US interfered?

Regarding invading your neighbours...You mean that technically when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam this was a bad thing?

Regarding missing Tartars, can you confirm the figure...is it 4 people? I have been looking into this....Apparently the BBC has confirmed that Putin authorized it himself.

Lemming

sin_city wrote: »

Still waiting for a response on how Crimea became part of Ukraine there mate......yes zero deaths....maybe not important to you but very important to decent people that are against neo nazis

Jesus Christ. Look at a f*cking history book. The Crimea was given to the Ukraine BY the Russians during the Soviet era. And an annexation with zero deaths is still an annexation. How'd you feel if the UK invaded the republic but killed nobody doing it?

sin_city

Lemming wrote: »

To accuse the EU of fuelling, much less engineering the protests is absurd and worthy of a sin_city CT badge.

Many of the protesters were paid to protest. I can provide links in a private message if you wish.

Also, we've all seen that video of the Ukrainian girl in the I am a Ukrainian....that was produced by US NGOs...pushed as being legit it was just a big scam....It was as legit as the babies in the incubators in the first Iraq invasion...both achieved their aims.

The video gave the face of a young woman to represent the Ukrainian rebels when really the true face was neo nazis.


You throw out the CT crap and when I provide evidence you are no where to be seen....

sin_city

Lemming wrote: »

Jesus Christ. Look at a f*cking history book. The Crimea was given to the Ukraine BY the Russians during the Soviet era. And an annexation with zero deaths is still an annexation. How'd you feel if the UK invaded the republic but killed nobody doing it?

If the UK invaded Ireland many people would die...we are mostly Irish, not British....Most of the people in Crimea consider themselves Russian.


Thanks for the confirmation that it was part of Russia and that they gave it to Ukraine.....I do feel this is important...

I hope you don't have a problem if Scotland vote for independence like Crimea did...then again, I just don't know...You are in favour of supporting a neo nazi backed regime that overthrew an elected government in place of democracy in Crimea where the people said, no, we don't want to be part of the neo nazi thing...we want to join Russia....

Your opinions are quite dangerous...I think you should look more into what you are supporting.

mulbot

Lemming, i already answered, oh and by the way,mentioning that Putin was responsible for the plane crash is a particularly dangerous assumption,since not one shred of evidence exists,in fact,Russia publicly challenged US to produce their satellite imagery of the area(where they knew it existed) and suddenly theUS angle on blaming Russia was dropped because US imagery would have shown those missile systems in Ukraines hands.

Just getting back to OP,can you suggest why Putin is a threat to Europe as a whole? What countries exactly do you think are threatened and why

kksaints

InTheTrees wrote: »

You know BRICS is just a name used by stockbrokers to desribe brazil, russia, china and India?

They're not an alliance or an organisation, just a group of countries doing well about five years ago.

Its a bit more than that actually. They hold summits and have plans to set up a development bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank

Another interesting development is the setting up of the Eurasian Economic Area in 2015. It will be interesting to see how many ex-Soviet countries join. There is already a Single Economic area between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union

Mongfinder General

It boils down to this. The Russians are on our doorstep. Putin isn't worried about sanctions. In fact Europe is worried. His attitude is. "We're back. Now what are you going to do about it?"

The E.U. won't do much about it. Armed conflict is the last resort and Putin knows that Europe has no appetite for this. The Russians have been hit with sanctions. Their attitude is so what? They'll just go and trade with somebody who doesn't sign up to the sanctions. In fact for major exporters like Germany, sanctions might hurt them more than the Russians.

There is no cogent force in Europe to deal with the Russian threat. A further incursion towards Kiev will make bordering countries very, very nervous...

mulbot

Mongfinder General wrote: »

It boils down to this. The Russians are on our doorstep. Putin isn't worried about sanctions. In fact Europe is worried. His attitude is. "We're back. Now what are you going to do about it?"

The E.U. won't do much about it. Armed conflict is the last resort and Putin knows that Europe has no appetite for this. The Russians have been hit with sanctions. Their attitude is so what? They'll just go and trade with somebody who doesn't sign up to the sanctions. In fact for major exporters like Germany, sanctions might hurt them more than the Russians.

There is no cogent force in Europe to deal with the Russian threat. A further incursion towards Kiev will make bordering countries very, very nervous...

excellent summary-

sin_city

Aside from all the pro and anti Putin stuff.....Do people think Putin would still be leader if he did not take action in Crimea?

I mean he has quite a high rating in Russia at the moment and I think he would be assumed as being weak if he did nothing.

Hidalgo

InTheTrees wrote: »

You know BRICS is just a name used by stockbrokers to desribe brazil, russia, china and India?

They're not an alliance or an organisation, just a group of countries doing well about five years ago.

Have they not recently formed a 'BRICS Bank' With $50bn initial capital set aside for development and infastructurw programmes and another $100bn set aside to loan to states in financial difficulty?

czx

Hidalgo wrote: »

Have they not recently formed a 'BRICS Bank' With $50bn initial capital set aside for development and infastructurw programmes and another $100bn set aside to loan to states in financial difficulty?

States in financial difficulty. Top priority for the BRICS