Global Implications of the Ukraine Crisis

[213374U]

If every allegation is believed, without a shred of proof, what is the point of the internet?

 

Believe everything, do nothing.

 

Funny how that works. Because if/when evidence does surface, usually years later, nobody cares anymore owing to the novelty having faded and the fact that those responsible are no longer actively involved and therefore not valid political targets. False flag ops in the past are well documented, yet anyone who suggests anything of the sort is immediately labeled a conspiracy theorist and evidence is dismissed as "propaganda", which provides a convenient intellectual shortcut to ending any discussion.

 

morpheus.jpg

 

what if I told you that this is all according to plan?

 

I fully subscribe to the bolded part, btw. *rotates recliner*

Edited April 1, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

 

You are so ignorant, but you involve your self in every discussion. That is a really bad combination.

 

 

 

Its the fact that you continue to make these biased and unsubstantiated claims about the West and NATO that forces me to get involved in most discussions, so you better just get use to it because I'm not going anywhere

[Malcador]

 

Pah, that's a good policy to assume everyone's self interested until they prove otherwise. Dog eat dog world out there and all

I tend to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Certainly served me well.

 

 

For the most part it works out, but it's the rare exception that burns the most.   But in any even assuming people are nice is a fine stance, just not for me.

 

 

Its the fact that you continue to make these biased and unsubstantiated claims about the West and NATO that forces me to get involved in most discussions, so you better just get use to it because I'm not going anywhere

Sadly.

[Tagaziel]

For the most part it works out, but it's the rare exception that burns the most.   But in any even assuming people are nice is a fine stance, just not for me.

That is true. I was on both ends and generally, if you give people some love, they gonna give you love back. Uh, figuratively speaking. That rare exception can be a guy who's just two steps away from being the stereotypical wife beater, coming into your office looking for confirmation that signing documents without reading them can mean you can back out of them because you don't feel like holding your end of the bargain.

[milczyciel]

I don't see anything wrong with being skeptical, but modern cynicism (which is distinctively different from awesome Greek cynicism) relies on reducing every human to either a self-interested **** or a self-interested **** with good camouflage skills. It's a corollary of my general distaste for the modern pessimism.

According to that guy it was The War to End All Wars that cemented "modern cynicism". And given how well that ended (21 years of peace, I'm impressed) I can only concur. Pretty smart move to drop that double faced "age of optimism" if you ask me.

Also, from where I stand, you forgot (or didn't recognized their existence) third group: the prey - those nice, emphatic or simply good-natured folks, who ends up getting used throughout their lives. Most of them are just weak and it's their "obedient, unaware slave" upbringing which is the sole reason behind their undoubtedly nice, emphatic and what's most important USEFUL attitude/character. Call me overreacting hysteric, but IMO It can't get more basic than that - their OS just does not run other way around. They can't be mean, selfish or just old school evul (for teh lulz) on a long run,without paying the price (i.e. mental breakdown). Trust me, being one of them I think I know what I'm talking about as in my case you could call It a family trait and the only difference between my grandparents, mother and I is that I recognize the condition we're living with (but just as they, not fighting it at all) and even that passive realization came with a price.

 

Sure, sure there are also those, whose kindness, empathy, strong morals and overall goodness is fueled not by obedience and lack of a spine, but quite opposite - their inner strength and resistance to the rules of the game. Surprisingly they tend to die violently (Martin Luther King, Gandhi to name two most prominent) - I wonder why?

Understand I'm not diminishing their role or impact, if anything I adore them, I envy them, I know I'm a lesser man compared to them. Alas there's just to many wolves in sheep's clothing among that group, to feel good and secure about trusting every single one of them. Especially those who are successful in stepping on all those toes, without getting any harm done to them or their beloved ones.

 

And just in case - this particular disillusioned sob IN FACT feels overwhelming envious, because it sure as hell must be much easier to live surrounded by all those pretty pictures of others and yourself. So that's that, you won. Godspeed or "live long and prosper", whatever suits your fancy. 

Not even a droplet of sarcasm in that last paragraph.

[Tagaziel]

While I can certainly understand your position (if not entirely comprehend it, since I had the luck to avoid any major problems in my life, particularly in the fiscal area), I find it a healthy exercise to compare the World 2014 to the World 1914. We might bitch and moan how horrible it is to live in 2014, but really, we have it infinitely better than previous generations.

 

For reference, you have the privilege of being able to express your opinion freely on the Internet and over other media without fear of reprisal. Your parents and grandparents would not have been so lucky. Hell, my father and his friends were chased by the SB after laying down flowers at the Poznan July monument back in the 80s. I won't even touch on the disparity between material possessions between 1989 and 2009, since that's pretty obvious.

 

My point is, we all could use a bit of perspective in our lives.

[Cultist]

Sure but we know regime change is sometimes necessary, like in the case of Milosevic. Its a question of " what is best for the region" and " what is the current regime in a particular country doing with its power, is it benefiting its citizens"

Quite interesting logic here. At some point of time some people believed cleansing certain regions from certain ethnicities are "what is best for the region".

Anyway, looking at how everything turned out for Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Egypt I kinda think someone asking wrong people about "what is best for the region".

 

Was it? Even when you factor in the loss of Crimea, the EU has aligned Ukraine with the Union, Russian stock markets went down, capital flight rate over there has increased, prices are rising (food rose 25% from the start of the year), and Russia has confirmed its opinion as a hostile foreign power. The long term effects of the Ukrainian revolution are up to debate, but I don't consider it a failure of the West. Maybe it's the shining beacon of Polish statesmanship that's blinding me.

Actually russian stock markets ar edoing well. There were a period of instability but things got as usual after a while. It happens all the time - Iraq invasion, Georgia, Japan and China quarreling about some islands. Nothing new, business as usual.

What is interesting is that Russia managed to profit from Ukraine's demise as turmoil sent grain and corn prices skyrocketing. This and the fact that Ukraine lost ****load of its ports. But that's a short term effect and prices will stabilize after a while. What is important is that with Crimea Russia now can ignore Turkey in terms of negotiating a route for their new pipeline - before they considered placing it around Ukrainian waters through Turkey territory and turks bargained hard to earn as much from this deal as possible. So now they'll get nothing as overnight their position shifted from providers to possible consumers.

Overall everyone profited from this revolution, except for Ukraine and Turkey.

[BruceVC]

 

Sure but we know regime change is sometimes necessary, like in the case of Milosevic. Its a question of " what is best for the region" and " what is the current regime in a particular country doing with its power, is it benefiting its citizens"

Quite interesting logic here. At some point of time some people believed cleansing certain regions from certain ethnicities are "what is best for the region".

Anyway, looking at how everything turned out for Iraq, Lybia, Syria and Egypt I kinda think someone asking wrong people about "what is best for the region".

 

 

 

Actually you have unintentionally supported my view about the right way the West can implement regime change. You mentioned some examples, Libya is the correct way to implement regime change and Syria is the result of where the West is prevented from getting involved by the vetoing power of Russia and China

 

So lets look at the state of Syria and Libya now and ask yourself what country is better off? Yes things aren't perfect in Libya but its no where near the catastrophic level  of economic and social collapse that Syria is at....

 

So once again I do support the principle of Western intervention to assist with regime change in some cases.

[Malcador]

Hard to say that Syria would end up in the same state post "intervention" (more than they are now anyway - was funny to see the mighty USAF essentially working for terrorists/rebels) as Libya did, as well.  Hard to say what would be left after airstrikes, how easily Assad's forces would crumble or if they would at all.  The West doesn't magically make things better, after all.

[Cultist]

Actually you have unintentionally supported my view about the right way the West can implement regime change. You mentioned some examples, Libya is the correct way to implement regime change and Syria is the result of where the West is prevented from getting involved by the vetoing power of Russia and China

 

So lets look at the state of Syria and Libya now and ask yourself what country is better off? Yes things aren't perfect in Libya but its no where near the catastrophic level  of economic and social collapse that Syria is at....

 

So once again I do support the principle of Western intervention to assist with regime change in some cases.

Actually, the ways are the same only justification differs. When you support rebels with money, resources and weapons and then tell us that the country is worse off due to ongoing war it's like asking court to show mercy due to you being an orphan while being convicted for killing your entire family.

You support western intervention but refuse to accept the rights of non-western countries to intervent in turn?

Isn't it no different from "Behead those who insult democracy"?

 

For example, if Russia or China or other country would openly support some rebel group at the country bordering your own and openly hostile to your country, what would be your reaction? How would you call it?

[BruceVC]

Hard to say that Syria would end up in the same state post "intervention" (more than they are now anyway - was funny to see the mighty USAF essentially working for terrorists/rebels) as Libya did, as well.  Hard to say what would be left after airstrikes, how easily Assad's forces would crumble or if they would at all.  The West doesn't magically make things better, after all.

 

No Malc you are missing some facts and the reality of the situation in Syria. There was a time in the beginning of the Syrian conflict where the Syrian rebels wanted the West to destroy Assads air-forcee and military hardware like his tanks. They were prepared to do the ground fighting. There weren't the degree of  Islamic extremists involved in the Syrian rebels in the beginning.

 

This is exactly what the Libyan rebels asked for and this is exactly how the West intervened and assisted with regime change. At the moment the situation in Syria is as follows

• hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed
• millions of Syrians are refugees
• vast parts of the infrastructure of Syria has been destroyed and areas of major Syrian cities have been raised to the ground
• Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda, are now active in Syria
• Certan neighbors to Syria have parts of there country destabilized due to various factions involved in Syria, like Lebanon

Yes we can't predict the future but I don't see how you can possibly argue that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict could have had any worse result than the current situation...especially when we look at Libya today

[213374U]

For reference, you have the privilege of being able to express your opinion freely on the Internet and over other media without fear of reprisal.

 

Yep. And in the brave new world of unlimited digital freedom, no one gives a toss.

[BruceVC]

 

Actually you have unintentionally supported my view about the right way the West can implement regime change. You mentioned some examples, Libya is the correct way to implement regime change and Syria is the result of where the West is prevented from getting involved by the vetoing power of Russia and China

 

So lets look at the state of Syria and Libya now and ask yourself what country is better off? Yes things aren't perfect in Libya but its no where near the catastrophic level  of economic and social collapse that Syria is at....

 

So once again I do support the principle of Western intervention to assist with regime change in some cases.

 

For example, if Russia or China or other country would openly support some rebel group at the country bordering your own and openly hostile to your country, what would be your reaction? How would you call it?

 

 

You have asked some good questions around China and Russia, but its just not a realistic question. Russia and China never send troops to assist in any foreign affair or on any humanitarian mission unless it benefits them directly. For example they didn't care about the Bosnian War or the various ongoing military missions in Africa, like CAR at the moment. Its always Western countries who send troops and provide military assistance for UN sponsored military missions

 

Now I'm not saying all Western military interventions are altruistic but at least  the West does intervene on humanitarian grounds at times. But to answer your question I would be very angry and concerned if Russia or China did what you mentioned. And they already did this throughout Africa during the Cold War when it was about the spread of Communism. But where are you seeing something similar to this in what we are discussing with the various modern conflict areas, I am missing the analogy?

[Malcador]

No Malc you are missing some facts and the reality of the situation in Syria. There was a time in the beginning of the Syrian conflict where the Syrian rebels wanted the West to destroy Assads air-forcee and military hardware like his tanks. They were prepared to do the ground fighting. There weren't the degree of  Islamic extremists involved in the Syrian rebels in the beginning.

 

This is exactly what the Libyan rebels asked for and this is exactly how the West intervened and assisted with regime change. At the moment the situation in Syria is as follows

• hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed
• millions of Syrians are refugees
• vast parts of the infrastructure of Syria has been destroyed and areas of major Syrian cities have been raised to the ground
• Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda, are now active in Syria
• Certan neighbors to Syria have parts of there country destabilized due to various factions involved in Syria, like Lebanon

Yes we can't predict the future but I don't see how you can possibly argue that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict could have had any worse result than the current situation...especially when we look at Libya today

 

Uh huh, prepared to do ground fighting. What happens if they can't cut it ? Full on invasion by US troops and then the utter storm that will result from that ?

 

Barring the death tolls being as high, I can see a western attack and/or invasion resulting in most of those problems with terrorists operating in the country (Islamists are in the rebels now, no?), infrastructure damaged or destroyed and the region a bit destabilized as people get uppity over the West bombing a fellow Arab nation or whatever.

 

Largely, seems less risk to just not get involved (and can save your lives and money), not as if the Syrians will be grateful.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Malcador

[213374U]

Ukraine to hike domestic gas prices by 50 percent to meet IMF demands

 

This is in addition to the recently slashed pensions. Likely more to come from the incumbent unelected government, in the form of austerity measures aimed at reducing budget deficit. Will Maidan protesters at least benefit from this deal? Think again! The bailout is intended to alleviate debt pressures, i.e. it's going straight to the banks. Congratulations Greece, you are no longer the economic armpit of Europe!

 

All aboard the FREEDOM train! Next stop, asset stripping. Choo-choo!

[obyknven]

Ukraine start mobilization

http://youtu.be/wi1o-BTp_Mg

Alcotroopers.

 

Meanwhile Ukrainian Nazi teach European Nazi how hate Russians .

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/white-nationalist-delusions-about-russia/

 

The majority of White Nationalists in the West nowadays cherish strong hopes in Russia and Putin in particular, which have reached a crescendo with the ongoing Ukraine crisis. However, I want to argue that these hopes are grave delusions. Not because Putin is also controlled by Jews, as is being countered by some White Nationalists; he may or may not be, but that makes no difference for us. And alternatively, even if Putin’s Russia is not controlled by the Jews as strongly as the West (which is indeed not true – see below), even if Russia receives the full wrath of the Jewish-controlled media, it still doesn’t make Putin’s Russia our friend or a natural ally.

 

Nevertheless, I concede that at the moment Russia is the lesser evil for the white race compared to the Jew-led West. But still it has to be understood that Russia is also an evil, an essentially anti-white system. Hence, at most, it could be only a temporary ally.

...

Russian identity is more analogous to American and Brazilian trans-racial identity than German or French ethnic identity. There are many Russians who are entirely European. But there are also many Russians of Near Eastern and Mongoloid ancestry, and many of mixed race. But even the whitest of Russians, to the extent that he thinks of himself as a Russian, is committed to a trans-racial identity, an identity whose racial “substratum” includes not just European, but also Mongoloid and Near Eastern (e.g., Caucasian) elements, as well as mixtures of all three.

A Russian is not, therefore, just another kind of European. Thus it is with good reason that Russians have always felt that their identity, interests, and destiny are distinct from those of Europe. European White Nationalists need to recognize this as well.

...

This “Europeanization,” however, occurred only on the surface, and in its essence Russia remained a distinctly non-European society, in which a European minority elite ruled over a Slavic, Asiatic, Near Eastern, and mixed-race population. However, this process of “Europeanization” was drastically reversed, both culturally and more importantly racially, with the Bolshevik Revolution.

It is a common misconception to regard the imposition of communism in Russia as a merely a political change. First and foremost, the Bolshevik Revolution was a revolt of the culturally and/or racially non-European masses against the European elite. In short, this critical event in history has to be primarily comprehended not in social-political but rather in racial terms. The ideals of communism served only as a façade, as a tool through which the spiteful non-European masses expressed their deep and long-held hatred and resentment towards their European masters and everything European. This was already at that time clearly observed and eloquently pointed out by Oswald Spengler.

... 

Therefore the stronger traditionalism of Russians, their patriotism and pride in their heritage, do not advance White Nationalist interests any more than the racial pride and patriotism of Indians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, or Africans. Indeed, it might make them more formidable enemies of our interests.

 

By his words  Bolshevik Revolution was a revolt of Russians against European "White" masters. This is not true, but this is common point of view for Western culture and this mean - Western antisovietism = antirussianism.  This is same **** as antesemitism is. If some Westerners hate USSR then IRL they hate ethnic Russians.

 

 

[obyknven]

Ukraine to hike domestic gas prices by 50 percent to meet IMF demands

 

This is in addition to the recently slashed pensions. Likely more to come from the incumbent unelected government, in the form of austerity measures aimed at reducing budget deficit. Will Maidan protesters at least benefit from this deal? Think again! The bailout is intended to alleviate debt pressures, i.e. it's going straight to the banks. Congratulations Greece, you are no longer the economic armpit of Europe!

 

All aboard the FREEDOM train! Next stop, asset stripping. Choo-choo!

Europe want moar Ukrinian cheap prostitutes gastarbeiters. Just modern form of slavery.

[Cultist]

You have asked some good questions around China and Russia, but its just not a realistic question. Russia and China never send troops to assist in any foreign affair or on any humanitarian mission unless it benefits them directly. For example they didn't care about the Bosnian War or the various ongoing military missions in Africa, like CAR at the moment. Its always Western countries who send troops and provide military assistance for UN sponsored military missions

 

Now I'm not saying all Western military interventions are altruistic but at least  the West does intervene on humanitarian grounds at times. But to answer your question I would be very angry and concerned if Russia or China did what you mentioned. And they already did this throughout Africa during the Cold War when it was about the spread of Communism. But where are you seeing something similar to this in what we are discussing with the various modern conflict areas, I am missing the analogy?

 ANd why should anyone send troops unless it benefits them directly? Regarding Africa - everyone did this during the Cold War, one tried to spread Communism, others Capitalism. So you would be angry and concerned but what would you do? Russia, for example, was concerned about instability at her borders and decided to take decisive actions. Israel acts the same way - they perform airstrikes to prevent threats, instead of waiting things to happen.

 

No Malc you are missing some facts and the reality of the situation in Syria. There was a time in the beginning of the Syrian conflict where the Syrian rebels wanted the West to destroy Assads air-forcee and military hardware like his tanks. They were prepared to do the ground fighting. There weren't the degree of  Islamic extremists involved in the Syrian rebels in the beginning.

 

This is exactly what the Libyan rebels asked for and this is exactly how the West intervened and assisted with regime change. At the moment the situation in Syria is as follows

• hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed
• millions of Syrians are refugees
• vast parts of the infrastructure of Syria has been destroyed and areas of major Syrian cities have been raised to the ground
• Islamic extremists, Al-Qaeda, are now active in Syria
• Certan neighbors to Syria have parts of there country destabilized due to various factions involved in Syria, like Lebanon

Yes we can't predict the future but I don't see how you can possibly argue that Western intervention in the beginning of the Syrian conflict could have had any worse result than the current situation...especially when we look at Libya today

So all they asked was to destroy government military so they could have an easy walk. And you support that because it's rightful democratic intervention for all that is good. But when Russians supported Crimean separatist movement you consider that as a horrible unfree undemocratic intervention for all that is evil.

Looking how rebels began fighting each other after, what? Two months? And seeing now they have hell knows how many splinter groups, a lot of which are openly supporting al-quaeda, that would be a brilliant idea. Looking how Lybia, Iraq and Syria turned into a radical islamist breeding nest after humanitarian and democratic bombardments and interventions it is hard to be surprised others would act to prevent similar scenarios on their borders.

But, you know, we alrady have great examples of great decisions regarding support of freedom fighters.

[BruceVC]

Ukraine to hike domestic gas prices by 50 percent to meet IMF demands

 

This is in addition to the recently slashed pensions. Likely more to come from the incumbent unelected government, in the form of austerity measures aimed at reducing budget deficit. Will Maidan protesters at least benefit from this deal? Think again! The bailout is intended to alleviate debt pressures, i.e. it's going straight to the banks. Congratulations Greece, you are no longer the economic armpit of Europe!

 

All aboard the FREEDOM train! Next stop, asset stripping. Choo-choo!

 

Well I just see this as bad business sense that the Ukrainian energy company, Naftogaz, sells gas at less than the price in buys from Russia. We should be supporting the fact that the IMF is encouraging Ukraine to demonstrate more fiscal prudence

 

I'm much more concerned that Russia is using, again, bullying tactics to influence Ukraine to be aligned to them by increasing the price they pay for gas from Russia

 

http://dailyenergydump.com/2014/04/01/russia-tightens-energy-screws-angers-ukraine/

[Mor]

Hard to say that Syria would end up in the same state post "intervention" (more than they are now anyway - was funny to see the mighty USAF essentially working for terrorists/rebels) as Libya did, as well.

That because it is already post intervention, long before the popular demonstrations against the regime has escalated into a sectarian civil war, Iran has been supporting Syria with money\equipment\specialist and experience from their own then recent squashed domestication -- granted the strategy was the only way for Assad to stay in power i.e. solidify alawite support behind him through fear mongering, but it also back fired when they were unable to stump the demonstrations and found themselves fighting a war against a large Sunni majority in a Sunni majoirty region. Although the later appearance of ISIS radical helped Assad a lot -- the reason why the west has remained on the sidelines for so long, while iran and Russia freely supported Syria from the start, was lack of cohesion among rebels groups and radical elements -- while ISIS fanatics initially won some battle on the ground they caused more harm to rebel case by association with radical Islamist, reduced material support from the west and broke the ranks. But this whole thing can still go wrong in so many ways for Russia, who has a couple of dozen millions of Sunni muslims among its rank including in the volatile region of Caucasus.

 

But then again, quick glance of the recent post make me think that the main point of this direction was to deflect\excuse Russian action, but it's to early for me to dive into that and there is a new update to read.

[Cultist]

Well I just see this as bad business sense that the Ukrainian energy company, Naftogaz, sells gas at less than the price in buys from Russia. We should be supporting the fact that the IMF is encouraging Ukraine to demonstrate more fiscal prudence

 

I'm much more concerned that Russia is using, again, bullying tactics to influence Ukraine to be aligned to them by increasing the price they pay for gas from Russia

 

http://dailyenergydump.com/2014/04/01/russia-tightens-energy-screws-angers-ukraine/

That's called free market - everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. Before Russia had lower gas prices for Ukraine because Ukraine showed some cooperation. Why should they provide same price cuts now? Check how much other EU countries are paying for gas. Want to be in EU - be prepared to pay just as everyone else.

[BruceVC]

 

Well I just see this as bad business sense that the Ukrainian energy company, Naftogaz, sells gas at less than the price in buys from Russia. We should be supporting the fact that the IMF is encouraging Ukraine to demonstrate more fiscal prudence

 

I'm much more concerned that Russia is using, again, bullying tactics to influence Ukraine to be aligned to them by increasing the price they pay for gas from Russia

 

http://dailyenergydump.com/2014/04/01/russia-tightens-energy-screws-angers-ukraine/

That's called free market - everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. Before Russia had lower gas prices for Ukraine because Ukraine showed some cooperation. Why should they provide same price cuts now? Check how much other EU countries are paying for gas. Want to be in EU - be prepared to pay just as everyone else.

 

 

But the question should be " why is Russia pushing up its price now that Ukraine is looking to align to the EU" ?

 

Obviously this is some sort of punitive measure. This is just going to harm Ukraine's economic recovery and seems childish and contradictory to wanting regional stability?

 

Also how does this help Russia in winning over the hearts and minds of the Ukrainians?

[Cultist]

Well of course it is punitive. You have an anti-russian coalition screaming "Hang the Muscovite!" or something like that in power and then expect price cuts? That would be funny. A kind of "Lend me your money you filthy pig!" funny.  Look how much Poland pays. 

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar©.

[BruceVC]

Well of course it is punitive. You have an anti-russian coalition screaming "Hang the Muscovite!" or something like that in power and then expect price cuts? That would be funny. A kind of "Lend me your money you filthy pig!" funny.  Look how much Poland pays. 

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar©.

 

Okay I see your point. But I just think this does more harm to the region than good, because you are allowing a political agenda to influence a countries economic prosperity

[213374U]

Well I just see this as bad business sense that the Ukrainian energy company, Naftogaz, sells gas at less than the price in buys from Russia. We should be supporting the fact that the IMF is encouraging Ukraine to demonstrate more fiscal prudence

 

Yes, because IMF-sponsored "fiscal prudence" has worked wonders elsewhere, right? Who cares if people can't pay for gas? After all, it's "bad business" to subsidize necesity goods, huh?

 

But hey, let's spin the story to make it about Russia. And while we're at it, let's also forget that the single thing that started the ball rolling was Yanukovych's refusal to accept the same terms of the deal that his unelected successors have made. Can't let silly things like democracy get in the way of economic domination, now can we.