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

marienbad · 05-05-2014 07:11PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I'm afraid it has alot to do with it... The GDP of Russia has exactly what to do with anything..?? Empire spasm..?
What are you even talking about..?

Times have changed for Russia as they did with the British Empire , they just can't accept it as is the case with most fading empires. The GDP has everything to do with it. How long do you think Russia can keep this up what with capital flight unemployment and a faltering economy ?

That is not to say Russia cannot become great again what with all the resources they have ,but this government is moving in the wrong direction. It is not a question of going 'back to the future' but just back to the past

Brian Shanahan · 05-05-2014 08:15PM

marienbad wrote: »

Times have changed for Russia as they did with the British Empire , they just can't accept it as is the case with most fading empires. The GDP has everything to do with it. How long do you think Russia can keep this up what with capital flight unemployment and a faltering economy ?

Not to mention the largest demographic deficit of any country in the world, with a population that is getting smaller, unhealtier and dying younger at an ever increasing scale?

recedite · 05-05-2014 09:10PM

marienbad wrote: »

The GDP has everything to do with it. How long do you think Russia can keep this up what with capital flight unemployment and a faltering economy ?

Keep what up? It has got easier for Russia since they stopped subsidising gas prices in Ukraine.

GDP hasn't a lot to do with all this, but as you mention it, the Russian economic model is more sustainable in the long term than either Italy or USA. Check out the massive debt to GDP ratios those countries are burdened with; USA 76%, Italy 126%.
Russia 12%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

marienbad · 05-05-2014 09:14PM

recedite wrote: »

Keep what up? It has got easier for Russia since they stopped subsidising gas prices in Ukraine.

GDP hasn't a lot to do with all this, but as you mention it, the Russian economic model is more sustainable in the long term than either Italy or USA. Check out the massive debt to GDP ratios those countries are burdened with; USA 76%, Italy 126%.
Russia 12%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt

Indeed , that is one of the few redeeming features in an otherwise bleak picture. Doesn't change the fundamentals though.

jimeryan22 · 06-05-2014 01:35AM

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/819522.shtml

Might help their coffers

stevejazzx · 06-05-2014 10:30PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

All of this is pro imperialist clap trap. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Or was.

Pro imperialist claptrap? Hmmm
Here's TL DR for you - it's not pro imperialist. It concerns addressing the situation surrounding the Ukraine and not Russia in isolation as some kind of lone rogue state.

Frank wrote:

Poland is a sovereign nation. Any of these nations can join NATO or the EU or install defence structures and it's not the business of Russia.

Poland is in NATO. Ukraine is part of IPAP

It's absolutely Russia's business what NATO does as during the 90s, the two sides signed several important agreements on cooperation and NATO have broken them all.

Spiegel Online wrote:

Spiegel Online: "What the U.S. Secretary of State [James Baker III] said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, 'no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,' provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachov said, but added: 'any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.'"

Here's more
Look it's easy to Google, it's verifiable and all scholars agree regarding it.
The US has repeatedly broken its promises to the Russia and while there are many primary causal factors to this crisis; this is one of the major enabling factors in this crisis. It's the ham-fisted US foreign policy, particularly during the Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama administrations that have gotten us here. They were exploiting a weakened Russia coming off the back of a cold war and the SU breakup.

Frank your comments here suggest that you know very little about this crisis - or that you're just simply anti-Russian - again without really knowing why. This therefore just adds to the plausibility of what I claimed.

BuilderPlumber · 07-05-2014 11:09PM

Nodin wrote: »

It's a question of alliances. Pro-democracy people in the "orange revolution" in Ukraine found support of all sorts from the US and EU. Pro-Democracy movements in Azerbaijan were simultaneously ignored, because their corrupt government is "pro-western" in outlook.

That is true. Ukraine has been simmering for a long time. Since 2004 actually! And has of course very much come to a head now. The so-called orange revolution was a failure and we are continuing that now in the sequel! Ukraine sits on a pipeline route and Russia and the West as per usual are vying for control.

Azerbaijan is a real prize for the West. An oil rich ex-Soviet entity on the crossroads of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. While by no means the worst government in the region, it is still corrupt and authoritarian but pro West.

Of all the colour revolutions of the 2004-2009 period, I can only remember the West supporting the Ukrainian and Georgian one!! Azerbaijan and surprise surprise Iran's green revolution clearly were not supported by the West. The latter may seem odd as isn't Iran an enemy? Well, not exactly. If it was, it would have been bombed in the 1980s. So, the regime is seen as beneficial to US interests currently.

Pro or anti democracy does not have anything to do with it. Western interests which amount to not giving Russia much control is often what matters most!

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 01:00AM

Interesting read....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

robindch · 08-05-2014 10:42AM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Pro or anti democracy does not have anything to do with it. Western interests which amount to not giving Russia much control is often what matters most!

Not true. "Western" interests within Ukraine amount to reliable access to Russian raw materials which requires a peaceful country that pays its bills. Russia, however, wants to control Ukraine and to use it as a weapon, and views the lack of Western condemnation of the anti-corruption Maidan protests as full complicity in arranging them, then helping toss out Moscow's appallingly corrupt man in Kiev. The Russian view is paranoid, divisive and dangerous.

With proper governance over the last twenty years, Ukraine could have been another Poland - successful, vibrant and rich. Instead, with Russian levels of corruption and under the twitchy trigger of Moscow, the country is a pitiful economic and political basket case.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2014 01:34PM

robindch wrote: »

Ukraine could have been another Poland - successful, vibrant and rich.

It's easy now to forget just how far the former Eastern Bloc countries that are now in the EU have come, in only 25 years of economic independence and 10 years of EU membership.

Some like Czech Rep and Poland are doing very well, some like Bulgaria or Hungary less well but still have a much brighter future than any of the (non-Baltic) former USSR republics.

Instead, with Russian levels of corruption and under the twitchy trigger of Moscow, the country is a pitiful economic and political basket case.

Which is exactly where Putin wants his neighbours, weakened satellites firmly in Russia's orbit.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2014 01:40PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Interesting read....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

When it comes to British soldiers, there is absolutely no evidence that they are here. But it is a tale conveniently fitting in with all the others about “hidden forces” and “mercenaries” that both the separatists and the government are keen to propagate as the violence escalates. This is not, after all, unusual in lands descending into civil war; there is a reluctance, perhaps natural, to accept that compatriots would be eager to inflict brutalities on each other and more comforting to blame outsiders; the raging conspiracy theories in such situations are ideal for disseminating such claims.

Your point?

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 01:47PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Your point?

Who you asking mate..? Myself..?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2014 02:56PM

You posted it and said it was interesting so it would be nice to know what particularly you thought interesting in the article, were there any points in it you particularly agreed or disagreed with, etc. Mate.

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 03:41PM

ninja900 wrote: »

You posted it and said it was interesting so it would be nice to know what particularly you thought interesting in the article, were there any points in it you particularly agreed or disagreed with, etc. Mate.

Ahh, you were talking to me... No not really bud, a mate sent it on to me yesterday, just thought it interesting alright.. Wanted to see others feedback

robindch · 08-05-2014 05:46PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's absolutely Russia's business what NATO does as during the 90s, the two sides signed several important agreements on cooperation and NATO have broken them all.

Can you point out these agreements and the bits that have been broken?

And regardless of what the EU and NATO countries are (or are not) up to, are you still happy to see Russia interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs and for Russia to swipe a major part of Ukraine completely illegally?

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 06:25PM

robindch wrote: »

Can you point out these agreements and the bits that have been broken?

And regardless of what the EU and NATO countries are (or are not) up to, are you still happy to see Russia interfere directly in Ukrainian affairs and for Russia to swipe a major part of Ukraine completely illegally?

You mean swipe back robin. :-)

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 06:32PM

President George H. W. Bush promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that – if the Soviets broke up the Soviet Union and dissolved the Warsaw Pact – then NATO would not move into those former Soviet countries. This assured the Soviets that NATO would not encircle Russia. But Bill Clinton broke America’s promise, and the U.S. has pursued a campaign of encircling Russia ever since
Jimmy Carter’s highly-influential National Security Adviser – the architect of the plan to arm the Mujahadin and lure Russia into Afghanistan, later Bill Clinton’s special emissary to Azerbaijan and Barack Obama’s foreign affairs adviser, who was instrumental in moving NATO into the Warsaw Pact nations – argued in 1997 that Russia should not be allowed to regain control of Ukraine......
[From wiki]

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2014 07:38PM

If Russia thinks it can dictate what international organisations other countries can join, it's a violation of their sovereignty. The wikipedia article on NATO says that it is disputed that any such commitment was given, and it would be wrong for the US to offer any commitment on behalf of other nations anyway.

What wikipedia article are you quoting, because a search yields nothing.

argued in 1997 that Russia should not be allowed to regain control of Ukraine

Why, is that supposed to be a controversial statement? Russia regaining control of Ukraine would be just fine, is that it?

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 07:49PM

ninja900 wrote: »

If Russia thinks it can dictate what international organisations other countries can join, it's a violation of their sovereignty. The wikipedia article on NATO says that it is disputed that any such commitment was given, and it would be wrong for the US to offer any commitment on behalf of other nations anyway.

What wikipedia article are you quoting, because a search yields nothing.

Why, is that supposed to be a controversial statement? Russia regaining control of Ukraine would be just fine, is that it?

Well with a quick search. I found it...
And no it's not.. I just copied and pasted.. Someone asked about the agreement. Which NATO made, not America... A quick search yielded the statement... What's your point or question or whatever..?

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2014 10:41PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Well with a quick search. I found it...

Well come on then let the dog see the rabbit.

recedite · 08-05-2014 10:45PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Interesting read....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-mercenaries-m16-and-ready-meals--evidence-of-western-involvement-or-something-far-less-controversial-9322948.html

Even if British nationals had been there, which is highly unlikely, they would not have left Nato 5.56mm rounds or empty ration packs lying around for local people to find afterwards.
It would seem far more likely that the men and/or the weapons wandered up from Georgia, with or without the blessing of the govt. there.
Georgian troops have also been sent to Afghanistan, where they could easily get to swop small items of kit with the British troops there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/18/us-georgia-army-idUSANT84708020080118

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 10:53PM

recedite wrote: »

Even if British nationals had been there, which is highly unlikely, they would not have left Nato 5.56mm rounds or empty ration packs lying around for local people to find afterwards.
It would seem far more likely that the men and/or the weapons wandered up from Georgia, with or without the blessing of the govt. there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/18/us-georgia-army-idUSANT84708020080118

How are you the second person to think I jumped on the band wagon.. I only said interesting read like.. Come on get off me... I would find it hard to believe of any soldiers British soldiers being idle enough to make the mistake of leaving obvious evidence of their being there...
Yanks or anyone else, maybe, not Brits though... Still the best soldiers in the world. ;-)

jimeryan22 · 08-05-2014 10:58PM

ninja900 wrote: »

Well come on then let the dog see the rabbit.

Lol..
Apologies, [as takes foot out of mouth]
Couldn't find it myself, copied pasted from my post and googled.. Turns out not wiki but some blog..

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/americans-dont-know-ukraine-crisis.html

Apologies again for mis info.. Honest mistake

recedite · 08-05-2014 11:46PM

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Come on get off me... I would find it hard to believe of any soldiers British soldiers being idle enough to make the mistake of leaving obvious evidence of their being there...

Not saying you thought that; but it was mentioned in the article that locals speculated on it.

Anyway, here's an article on the supposed Bush/ Gorbachev agreement not to expand Nato eastward. It seems to have been only "a politicians promise" with nothing in writing. A gentleman's agreement,but nothing "legally binding".

IMO even if there had been a formal written agreement at the time, things change, and it would be unrealistic to stop the eastward expansion on that basis alone. The real problem with the expansion is the tension it stokes. It would be better and more natural to have a buffer zone of countries that could co-operate with both Russia and also western Europe/Nato, without provoking either. That was why Finland never joined. They were too close to Russia. They always managed very well without being in Nato

obplayer · 09-05-2014 01:53AM

robindch wrote: »

Not true. "Western" interests within Ukraine amount to reliable access to Russian raw materials which requires a peaceful country that pays its bills. Russia, however, wants to control Ukraine and to use it as a weapon, and views the lack of Western condemnation of the anti-corruption Maidan protests as full complicity in arranging them, then helping toss out Moscow's appallingly corrupt man in Kiev. The Russian view is paranoid, divisive and dangerous.

With proper governance over the last twenty years, Ukraine could have been another Poland - successful, vibrant and rich. Instead, with Russian levels of corruption and under the twitchy trigger of Moscow, the country is a pitiful economic and political basket case.

Proof and/or links please? Western interests are all benign but Russian interests are all nasty and horrible? So America is a paragon of virtue in it's foreign policy? And no I am not saying that Russia is all benign either, simply that, as I have said before.....
This is a squabble over valuable territory by two big powers who could not care less about the people who live in the territory and the west are at least as responsible for this dreadful situation as Russia.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-05-2014 02:11AM

The Finns were forced into signing a very restrictive peace treaty with the USSR after WW2, because they fought for a time alongside the Germans on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' basis, after being invaded by the Soviets in 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948

This did not explicitly rule out an alliance with NATO but clearly they were fearful of provoking their neighbour, upon which they were significantly economically dependent, as well as obviously vulnerable to any military action (ring any bells?)

Russia still occupies large tracts of traditionally Finnish territory btw - although the Finns are, for now at least, refraining from provoking seperatist sentiment in those areas...

BuilderPlumber · 09-05-2014 08:25AM

obplayer wrote: »

Proof and/or links please? Western interests are all benign but Russian interests are all nasty and horrible? So America is a paragon of virtue in it's foreign policy? And no I am not saying that Russia is all benign either, simply that, as I have said before.....
This is a squabble over valuable territory by two big powers who could not care less about the people who live in the territory and the west are at least as responsible for this dreadful situation as Russia.

Most if not all the current dictatorships are born out of the cold war between the US and USSR. The cold war was supposed to have ended in the Gorbachev era of the late 1980s but in reality never did. Current Ukraine situation is proof of that.

Anyway, both superpowers are equally responsible for things. The US gave us such gems as Saudi Arabia, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of Iran (especially the much more repressive 1980s version), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, the Russians provided us with North Korea plus communist rebels all over the world. They also helped establish Saddam's/Baathist Iraq and Baathist Syria. Along with the People's Republic of China (a poor and repressive country back then). Arguably, both gave us the dreadful Khmer Rouge, a regime that makes the Taliban look like moderates by comparison!

Africa became a virtual playground for their proxy wars. Angola, Mozambique, Congo/Zaire, Ethiopia, Somalia, Chad, Sudan, etc.

robindch · 09-05-2014 10:06AM

obplayer wrote: »

This is a squabble over valuable territory by two big powers who could not care less about the people who live in the territory and the west are at least as responsible for this dreadful situation as Russia.

I'll repeat what I said/implied in earlier posts:

Liberal democracies tend to be peaceful and tend not to invade each other. That stability is good for business and good for society at large - means, peace! Authoritarian dictatorships live to exercise and acquire political power and are much more likely to invade weak countries. The EU and the US are trying to ensure that Ukraine becomes a stable democracy and not an unstable basket case.

While I've seen a wall of Kremlin-funded propaganda which has blamed "the west" for the mess, I can honestly say that I've seen no evidence that this is actually the case - Nuland's tapped phonecall, btw, doesn't say what RT says it says. And I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that the main reasons for the current instability are (a) Yanukovich's monumental corruption, the follow-on corruption within Ukraine itself and popular discontent with both; (b) the total political incompetence and naivity of the interim administration; and (c) the predatory paranoia of Putin and his mates.

To suggest that The EU/US and Russia are even remotely equally responsible for what's gone on there since last November is to adopt a position which really defies reality on a global scale.

recedite · 09-05-2014 10:58AM

ninja900 wrote: »

Russia still occupies large tracts of traditionally Finnish territory btw...

That is the price of being on the losing side in a war though. Poland and France now occupy part of what was once German territory, and poor old Prussia has ceased to exist altogether. C'est la vie.

recedite · 09-05-2014 11:09AM

robindch wrote: »

Liberal democracies tend to be peaceful and tend not to invade each other.

<<Cough>> USA
<<Cough>> UK
When was the last time either of these were not involved in a war somewhere in the world?

Oh I get it, they don't invade each other. Just other countries.
Both are big supporters of the Saudi kingpin BTW.

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

Comments