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
Ukrainian Conflict 2014 - ? (Take II)
Options
-
29-01-2014 6:07pm#1
Comments
-
-
Dont know a whole lot about ukraine would it be divided along religous and ethnic lines like yugoslavia
Generally along ethnic lines.
North-West, Ukranian, nationalist, Pro-European
South-East, Russian, imperialist, Pro-Russian
There have, however, been protests in the South-East/Russian stronghold.
0 -
-
-
The Swiss banking authority is co operating with the Ukrainian government over frozern assets belonging to viktor yanukovic held in Swiss accounts totalling around €170 million .
the authorities are also investigating a huge money laundering operation involving yanukovic his son and 30 of his entourage.
Ukraines government believe $37 billion in loans given to Ukraine disappeared in 3 years during yanukovics reign and another $70 billion left the country .
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/yanukovych-regime_swiss-move-on-ukraine-frozen-funds-claim/41378902
So if I'm correct nearly $100 billion + vanished with viktor yanukovic and his entourage before being whisked off to Moscow for his own protection.
That figure is absolutely staggering if true
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
It is a little ironic that the Swiss have decided to investigate these goings on considering they are and have been a model of tax secrecy though in recent times they have somewhat changed their tune. you could always rely on the Swiss to obfuscate and obstruct this time around and in a couple of other instances outside influences may well have "forced" their hand. wherever that money went its going to be hard to track and pin down. When yanukovic was in power Ukraine was akin to a neofeudal system you could make an argument Russia is sort of on that buzz too. and in some instances now Ukraine has gone toward its own form of outright feudalism . Chocolate barons in control and his mates administering power in various regions .the place is an all round joke. will probably be hard to nail down exactly how much money left the country the Ukrainians are claiming its the amount you allude too whether they can prove that or not is another matter entirely. the web is quite deep.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/ukraine-s-stolen-assets
a very rational, well thought out, piece has appeared in the Ukrainian state news agency...
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150415/1020937007.html?
US paratroopers have have arrived in Ukraine to compliment the British. Canadians will be on the way shortly to send a "message".
http://www.stripes.com/news/us-paratroops-convoy-to-western-ukraine-for-training-mission-1.339858
http://www.startribune.com/world/299875741.html?
The US troops have been planned since early February it's not exactly a suprise at this stage the same with Canadian and British troops all planned and announced early in the year .
Wonder what would happen if 20,000 US ,Canadian, British and Baltic state military volunteers appeared in Ukraine would the various Russian ambassadors be jumping up and down too.
But ask how yanukovic got so wealthy on an average industrial wage .
€100 +billion in a few short years is crazy to disappear out of any economy
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I was saying that normally you're interactions are coherent and if you use links to back up what you say then the majority are from recognised sources which is why I found it strange you used Sputniknews. I was being nice!!!
I'll get back to you on the rest later when I have a few minutes to spare.
my apologies Gandalf you are correct that was my bad not yours. not sure what happened there
apologies again. 0 -
-
There is no civil war in Ukraine and I'd guess there isnt a majority who want away from Kiev .
The facts .
Russian gangster so called president goes against the populations wishes to be European and free instead he decided were Russian and staying that way.
In between he's stolen billions upon billions from the Ukrainian people again my guess syphoned off to mother Russia .
There was never any unrest in Ukraine to give history to a civil war .
unless you consider how a minority section of the population maintained the majority to constantly stay in power .but we all know why
The people in eastern Ukraine aren't doing a lot of fighting we know it's mainly Russian forces and heavy equipment doing most of the fighting and taking land illegally.
But here we are the Ukrainians are idiots Ukrainians are all neo nazi's .
America is bad America caused all of this .
Anglo American Canadian war mongers it's all the same around and around posts that got the last thread locked .
Russia invaded Ukraine plain and simple not the EU not Nato and certainly not Canada and the UK .
But why let facts get in the way
0 -
new thread, old troll
welcome back;) build a bridge will you
There is no civil war in Ukraine and I'd guess there isnt a majority who want away from Kiev .
The facts .
Russian gangster so called president goes against the populations wishes to be European and free instead he decided were Russian and staying that way.
In between he's stolen billions upon billions from the Ukrainian people again my guess syphoned off to mother Russia .
There was never any unrest in Ukraine to give history to a civil war .
unless you consider how a minority section of the population maintained the majority to constantly stay in power .but we all know why
The people in eastern Ukraine aren't doing a lot of fighting we know it's mainly Russian forces and heavy equipment doing most of the fighting and taking land illegally.
But here we are the Ukrainians are idiots Ukrainians are all neo nazi's .
America is bad America caused all of this .
Anglo American Canadian war mongers it's all the same around and around posts that got the last thread locked .
Russia invaded Ukraine plain and simple not the EU not Nato and certainly not Canada and the UK .
But why let facts get in the way
there was plenty of unrest . according to the red cross unless they changed their assessment it is a civil war. who said the EU NATO Canada or the UK invaded Ukraine where are you getting that from. if it isnt a civil war then what is it then. the leadership in Kiev in my opinion are idiots thats my opinion nothing personal so it really shouldnt bother you so much that I think that. and they propelled one of the leaders of the far right to an advisory roll of the Ukrainian military and right sector operations will now be coordinated together with the military. this was announced and broadcast by the Ukrainians themselves their ministry of defence. there is only one solution to this and that is some sort of federal structure being put in place its the only option there is no military answer from a Kiev point of view. the fact they dont seem to realise this or are ignoring it or arent making moves to try and bring this about which will in turn ensure or at least give a chance to the country remaining "united" is just another indication to me that they are, well , idiots. some sort of diplomatic way out of this needs to be found and it needs to be found soon. this article was published March 31st.Ukraine's Bloody Civil War: No End in Sight
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city’s Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city’s centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk—noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya—indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev’s chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the “Anti-Terrorist Operation.” Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
.........................
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin—thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area’s noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded—via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties—to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass—despite repeated protestations from Kiev’s representatives in Washington—is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also—given that each side has enormously powerful supporters—poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-bloody-civil-war-no-end-sight-125090 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Well if you mean 20,000 US, Canadian, British and Baltic military troops suddenly appearing in Ukraine I would think they wouldnt even get that far. and if they did the Russians would view it as a direct threat to their existence then vapourise them. I dont think it would even get that far it would be a crazy course of action. . As for Yanukovic and his crew looting money Im sure he did how much and where it is thats a question I dont know the answer too.
Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Russian factions is fine. Western volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Ukrainian factions is illegitimate and grounds to "vaporize" (I assume that's the word you meant to use) them?Vlad would maybe send Barry a selfie of his finger and the button with a short message saying if you send your troops to Ukraine the button gets it. something like that
Russia stated Danish warships would be nuclear targets. The Danish still bought them
And yes, that's exactly what the Russians want. Threatening nuclear war against 500 million people on their doorstep and 350 million to their east. If a single nuke hit French forces, for example, the French would level civilians (that's why the Soviet plan was to nuke Venice or the Low Countries rather than direct strikes on the UK or France should war have broken out).
What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:Ukraine defending themselves. they are dumb enough to go on the offensive. training them is just the beginning and then if arms are supplied and they go on the rampage. they will be committing national suicide the Russians wont have that and they will roll in. be careful what you wish for.
"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.
Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, seriously think they're going to take back Crimea anyway. However, Donetsk and Luhansk are both within Ukrainian sovereign territory. They can, and should, be given the weapons to fight an aggressive war to secure their control over those regions.0 -
-
-
-
IrishTrajan wrote: »Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Russian factions is fine. Western volunteers operating in Ukraine, fighting with pro-Ukrainian factions is illegitimate and grounds to "vaporize" (I assume that's the word you meant to use) them?
and where did I say this was illegitimate? I was talking to somebody else not you read back and youll see the question that was put to me. If by western volunteers you mean troops as I pointed out already think it was to Gatling yep Russia would light them up as soon as they touched down on Ukrainian soil. and thats if they even got that far. this is just my opinion of course.IrishTrajan wrote: »Russia stated Danish warships would be nuclear targets. The Danish still bought them
And yes, that's exactly what the Russians want. Threatening nuclear war against 500 million people on their doorstep and 350 million to their east. If a single nuke hit French forces, for example, the French would level civilians (that's why the Soviet plan was to nuke Venice or the Low Countries rather than direct strikes on the UK or France should war have broken out).
What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:
Russia threatened Denmark with nuclear weapons if the country signed up to the nato defence shield. Nato is directed toward Russia if Denmark wants to play with the big boys then they need to accept the potential consequences. not saying its right. just how it is.Russia threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons if it tries to join Nato defence shield
Russia has threatened to target Denmark’s warships with nuclear weapons if the Scandinavian nation becomes a member of Nato’s missile defence shield.
In comments which have been met with anger in Copenhagen, the Russian ambassador to Denmark said a move towards better integration with the Western alliance would make it a “threat to Russia”, and that it would have to accept the consequences.
Mikhail Vanin told the told Jyllands-Posten newspaper: “I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-threatens-denmark-with-nuclear-weapons-if-it-tries-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.htmlIrishTrajan wrote: »"Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.
Nobody, not even the Ukrainians, seriously think they're going to take back Crimea anyway. However, Donetsk and Luhansk are both within Ukrainian sovereign territory. They can, and should, be given the weapons to fight an aggressive war to secure their control over those regions.
I disagree no they shouldnt. the Germans and French are of the same opinion, thankfully.IrishTrajan wrote: »If this is breaking any topic rules, apologies. Our posts were deleted before I could actually tackle your "Russia is a energy power" before. Hopefully the mods don't delete this post, since it tackles Russia's actual position in this conflict and dictates how soon it could end.
If I recall, you said something about Russia's (incl. pro-Russian factions) uranium resources being 40% of the world's market, and that Russia dominates the resource stockpiles. This is, unfortunately, untrue. They have have provided 40% of the US' uranium, but not the worlds. In fact, Australia dominates the markets with around 30% of the uranium reserves. Canada is third (and actually has larger market share and production than Russia) at 9% of the world reserves. Russia and Kazakhstan, the two main pro-Russian groups, don't even meet the same quantity of reserves as Australia.
Granted, Russia and Canada have vast areas of unexplored space which could hold uranium deposits of profitable value, but we can't make any estimate as to how much there could be. Even so, it is unlikely to put Russia in first place with an overwhelming market share.
Ok you are getting yourself mixed up here and youve "recalled" incorrectly. what I said was Russia controls 40% of the worlds enrichment capacity do you know what youre talking about. Im not sure you do.Who Is Dominating the Uranium Market?
This is one part of Vladimir Putin’s plan to dominate the world energy markets. In my book, The Colder War, I call it the “Putinization” of uranium. And he has nicely positioned his country to pull it off.
In January 2014, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russian energy giant Rosatom, was bursting with enthusiasm when he predicted that Russia’s recent annual production rate of 6.5 million pounds of uranium would triple in 2015.
Rosatom puts Russia’s uranium reserves in the ground at 1.2 billion pounds of yellowcake, which would be the second largest in the world; the company is quite capable of mining 40 million pounds per year by 2020. Add in Russia’s foreign projects in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia, and annual production in 2020 jumps to more than 63 million pounds. Include all of Russia’s sphere of influence, and annual production easily could amount to more than 140 million pounds six years from now.
No other country has a uranium mining plan nearly this ambitious. By 2020, Russia itself could be producing a third of all yellowcake. With just its close ally Kazakhstan chipping in another 25%, Russia would have effective control of more than half of world supply.
That’s clout. But it doesn’t end there.
Globally, there are a fair number of facilities for fabricating fuel rods. Not so with conversion plants (uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride) or enrichment plants (isolating the U-235). And the world leader in conversion and enrichment is… yes, Russia.
All told, Russia has one-third of all uranium conversion capacity. The United States is in second place with 18%. And Russia’s share is projected to rise, assuming Rosatom proceeds with a new conversion plant planned for 2015. Similarly, Russia owns 40% of the world’s enrichment capacity. Planned expansion of the existing facilities will push that share close to 50%.
http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/energy/who-is-dominating-the-uranium-marketIrishTrajan wrote: »Two armed groups with differing political goals within one state. That's civil war, no? They do have a right to defend their territory. Through political means, not armed insurgency. It would be like Donegal starting a military campaign against Dublin because they want to be part of the UK. Do you think we'd just sit on our hands and let them?
so only side in a civil war has the right to fight and defend themselves. fair enoughIrishTrajan wrote: »Donetsk and Luhansk are part of the Ukrainian State. They seemed perfectly fine when it was a pro-Russian majority in power. Now it is pro-European, and they refuse to engage in democracy.
Undermining the existence of the Ukrainian Government is, quite essentially, treason.
yep it is treason. but the rebels are there too stay. just how it is.IrishTrajan wrote: »If I recall correctly, there was a leaked Kremlin document stating that Russia could do in the eastern Baltics what they have done in Ukraine (viz: - arm ethnic Russian groups to fight the Governments). I can't find a link to it, unfortunately.
your previous recollection was incorrect and wrong. so forgive me if I view this other above statement of yours with some scepticisim. though Im willing to take that back if you can come up with that link. link please....IrishTrajan wrote: »It is feasible that Russia may strike the Baltics. Rather unlikely, but entirely possible. Think about it, MAD only occurs when both sides are willing to use nuclear retaliation. However, if the Russians declare that any other country fights against them, they will use nuclear retaliation, do you think NATO will get involved in the Baltics? Unless the Russians actually do fire a nuclear weapon, it should largely remain conventional, I would presume. Russia also has the "stop at the border or we will use a nuke" card, which I don't think NATO would push.
it isnt feasible that Russia would strike a Nato country thats ridiculous and would result in a nuclear war. lets just dispel this myth that any confrontation with Russia would remain conventional. it wouldnt. first engagement would be "conventional" soon followed by the use of theater ballistic missiles and after that the ICBMS start flying.IrishTrajan wrote: »You are quite clearly against the West arming Ukraine. You keep saying it's national suicide, implying that Russia will come stomping in to cut their heads off an in overt war.
yep I am. and so are the Germans and French. Russia will not let the rebels fall if it looks like happening or lots of Russian start getting dead at the hands of western supplied weapons they will roll in and all the way to Kiev.IrishTrajan wrote: »Russia crushed the Chechen separatists incredibly brutally (Grozny), and told the world to keep their noses out of it. How then can the Russians tell the Ukrainians to keep their noses out of eastern Ukraine against separatists?
why are you asking me that?..IrishTrajan wrote: »Bad decision? The Russians charge you exorbitant fees on your gas. The Russians cut your economy to shreds through barriers to trade. The Russians cut your gas off in winter. The pro-Russian President who allowed this to happen has stolen €100bn from your economy over the years. The Russians annex part of your country and then arm another part to fight you when you get rid of that President. The Russians threaten overt war if you join the EU or NATO.
Yeah, the Ukrainians are unhinged and hot headed simpletons. The Ukrainians are the ones at fault here for making "bad decisions". The Ukrainians are the ones at fault for wanting to be something other than starved out puppets.
yes bad decisions. one after the other after the other.IrishTrajan wrote: »But you don't agree, you're defending Russia's actions. To say "I agree" while siding with the people stopping them is absolutely and unequivocally disingenuous.
In your opinion. my opinion however would be different..IrishTrajan wrote: »No. When it's at the barrel of a gun and you shoot down civilian airlines, you don't get a say. If they wanted to settle the matter peacefully, they'd do so at the negotiating table.
who doesnt get a say what are you getting at here....IrishTrajan wrote: »Hell, if the Russians really cared about "ethnic Russians" they'd invade Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and do what they did in Crimea. Declare "this is ours and anyone who says otherwise gets nuked".
I dont believe they care to much about ethnic Russians either this is a cover for what they are doing. that much is obvious.IrishTrajan wrote: »This isn't some humanitarian effort on the part of Russia. It is them starting a conflict to grind the Ukrainian economy into dust, so Ukraine will have no option other than to lie down and let the Bear have its way.
and Ive never stated as much. not sure why you are saying that to me.IrishTrajan wrote: »Of course there is. Drive up the cost of war for the opposing side. War only continues so long as the cost of continuing is less than the cost of surrendering. Ukraine, given the proper training and equipment, could begin a meatgrinder with the Russians.
no there isnt. there is no military solution to this, clearly,IrishTrajan wrote: »The Ukrainian economy might be shuddering, but the Russians are in a death-grip thanks to oil prices and the EU/US sanctions.
shuddering? lol you dont say. death grip thats interesting.IrishTrajan wrote: »So long as those sanctions stay up, and the Ukrainians keep applying pressure, the Russians will have to crack. It's only a matter of finding the breaking point.
so you want to break Russia. and you think the Russians are just going to be ok with this happening.IrishTrajan wrote: »Sanctions are not a declaration of war. If they were then Russia's sanction on Ukrainian dairy product would've been given more media time.
yes they are.IrishTrajan wrote: »It's easy. We pay a little more for our gas and get it from the Middle East, or Canada (the EU has nine months supply of gas, the UK/Ireland/Norway wouldn't even feel the pinch since we don't buy Russian oil/gas). I do believe we're actually working on a pipeline at the moment, as well.
judging by the above. you havent a clue what youre talking about.IrishTrajan wrote: »Of course it does. Giving them weapons isn't going to make their army capable of invading Russia, but it will make it possible for them to crush the rebel groups. The same ones who hide among civilians, and the same ones who shot down Dutch civilians.
and thats exactly why those simpletons in Kiev can not be given weapons:rolleyes: thankfully the Germans and French will push back against this and have their heads screwed on and realise it will only make a bad siution a million times worse.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement