Ukraine discussion

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, Oby, you picked an elaborate comic strip in Danish here. Are you perchance Danish, or perhaps you speak it fluently?

I'm asking, since this strip is actually very clever and multi-layered.

Translations of the front pages into English,

top, and then bottom, left to right:

"The Soviet Union threatens with peace and disarmament"

"Soviet spy"

"The Berlin Wall"

"Communists strike"

 

While it seems straightforward at first, the man appears to be afraid of the Soviet Union as a communist threat, it's actually possible to interpret it taken together as the Soviet empire disintegrating, and the world is no longer recognizable. The Berlin wall has fallen, he reads about communists striking domestically in non-communist Denmark, etc.

Edited September 2, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Gromnir]

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/russia-markets-idUSL5N0QY1H820140828

 

is additional bad news for russian economy. the ruble dropped another .5% v. the dollar on monday, and situation appears to only be getting worse with looming threat of increased european sanctions as russian troops move into the ukraine. the devaluing o' the ruble means that the cost o' buying foreign food will effectively increase, regardless o' where the russians find replacement sources o' basic foodstuffs. 

 

it is very difficult to explain the foreign food sanctions as they seem aimed at hurting russia. for humanitarian reasons, a number o' western nations have a policy against imposing sanctions on food and medical supplies, but the self imposed food sanctions by russia is, at best, a perplexing move from an economic perspective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different?

 

a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. 

 

ask us what could obama do different today is myopic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/russia-markets-idUSL5N0QY1H820140828

 

is additional bad news for russian economy. the ruble dropped another .5% v. the dollar on monday, and situation appears to only be getting worse with looming threat of increased european sanctions as russian troops move into the ukraine. the devaluing o' the ruble means that the cost o' buying foreign food will effectively increase, regardless o' where the russians find replacement sources o' basic foodstuffs. 

 

it is very difficult to explain the foreign food sanctions as they seem aimed at hurting russia. for humanitarian reasons, a number o' western nations have a policy against imposing sanctions on food and medical supplies, but the self imposed food sanctions by russia is, at best, a perplexing move from an economic perspective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different?

 

a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. 

 

ask us what could obama do different today is myopic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Okay, so you agree the sanctions are the best strategy?

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/russia-markets-idUSL5N0QY1H820140828

 

is additional bad news for russian economy. the ruble dropped another .5% v. the dollar on monday, and situation appears to only be getting worse with looming threat of increased european sanctions as russian troops move into the ukraine. the devaluing o' the ruble means that the cost o' buying foreign food will effectively increase, regardless o' where the russians find replacement sources o' basic foodstuffs. 

 

it is very difficult to explain the foreign food sanctions as they seem aimed at hurting russia. for humanitarian reasons, a number o' western nations have a policy against imposing sanctions on food and medical supplies, but the self imposed food sanctions by russia is, at best, a perplexing move from an economic perspective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different?

 

a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. 

 

ask us what could obama do different today is myopic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Okay, so you agree the sanctions are the best strategy?

 

no. nevertheless, it may be the only plausible strategy given the current mess and recogninzing the lack o' influence obama has.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Nah, he has backtracked on several possible  militant and decisive actions, he does consider the consequences of his choices. If he was so unconcerned he would have openly invaded eastern Ukraine right from the beginning under the pretense he was protecting ethic Russians. This is something he has always said he would do

 

 

And if you listen to Ukraine and their buddies that is what they've done. As always you have- or state that you have- a basic misconception.

 

Primarily, you mistake a statement or implication of capability with a statement of direct and imminent intent. When for example Putin says he can take Kiev in two weeks it doesn't mean that he intends to, or wants to, it means he is able to if he's pushed to. What he wants is a neutral Ukraine, if they try and change that- as to most practical purposes they did during the February putsch- then there will be consequences. If the agreement with Yanukovich had been honoured none of this would have happened.

[Longknife]

Stopping in real quick cause I heard some random guy in town walking by say Putin actually threatened to use nukes while I was out. Can't be true, right? I've googled and found nothing. I'm pretty sure the one thing the USA and Russia definitely manage to do right is recognize that's taking things a step too far.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Longknife

[Volourn]

Nope. He may have not outright stated 'i will use nukes' but he pretty much did everything but that. Do a search.

[Longknife]

Nope. He may have not outright stated 'i will use nukes' but he pretty much did everything but that. Do a search.

 

 

Figured as much and have been searching. Was just hoping someone would be able to say something like "ah the Daily Mail claimed that, it's BS" or whatever. I'm curious by nature so I still wonder where the hell this guy on the street got that idea from, but guess I'll assume he was just talking out his ass and not even reading a BS news source.

[Shallow]

 

Nope. He may have not outright stated 'i will use nukes' but he pretty much did everything but that. Do a search.

 

 

Figured as much and have been searching. Was just hoping someone would be able to say something like "ah the Daily Mail claimed that, it's BS" or whatever. I'm curious by nature so I still wonder where the hell this guy on the street got that idea from, but guess I'll assume he was just talking out his ass and not even reading a BS news source.

 

Putin just said something along the lines of "Don't invade us, it doesn't matter that you have superior numbers and stuff, we're a nuclear power, screw you nato.", which some people will of course take as "I'll nuke you all FOR COMMUNISM!!!"

[Volourn]

Um.. They';ll take it like that because that's obviously the threat he wanted to make. No other reason to mention that his country has nukes. Then again, it doesn't surprise me, because Putin is a piece of crap who loves to murder Russians so obviously he wouldn't have a problem murdering non Russiens as in his invasion of Ukraine.

[Shallow]

I'm guessing he made the statement because:

A. Russian people seem pretty into the image of a hot macho shirtless horseriding man with balls of steel bringing the Russian people back into their golden age and crushing the evil nato whilst simultaneously skinning a tiger, an image that has gotten a good bit of criticism by its followers for not storming Kiev.

B. He wants to remind the people who are pro direct military intervention in Ukraine or even Russia that when you're fighting a country with nuclear weaponry, when the opposing side would rather see mutual destruction than submit, you can't really win. Thus initiating a political game of chicken.

[Volourn]

Of course, Russia won't use nukes. I mean, that's why the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place. They played chicken with a richer nation and simply couldn't pay to keep it up hence why they lost terrorities like Georgia and Ukraine in the first place. You would they'd learn.

 

But, ego and all that.

 

And, the fact that a sizeable number of Russia supports his 'we must protect Russians in Ukraine' when at the same time he has no problem murdering Russians in Russia. Then again, considering the Russin media is basically gvo't owned it's not surprising.

 

Say one thing about up and down nature of Western media - espicially the US - it's definitely not wholy gov't owned since it often criticizes the  govt.

 

You can tell too. Any country that makes their political leaders out to be gods ala Putin makes me suspect.

[BruceVC]

 

Nah, he has backtracked on several possible  militant and decisive actions, he does consider the consequences of his choices. If he was so unconcerned he would have openly invaded eastern Ukraine right from the beginning under the pretense he was protecting ethic Russians. This is something he has always said he would do

 

 

And if you listen to Ukraine and their buddies that is what they've done. As always you have- or state that you have- a basic misconception.

 

Primarily, you mistake a statement or implication of capability with a statement of direct and imminent intent. When for example Putin says he can take Kiev in two weeks it doesn't mean that he intends to, or wants to, it means he is able to if he's pushed to. What he wants is a neutral Ukraine, if they try and change that- as to most practical purposes they did during the February putsch- then there will be consequences. If the agreement with Yanukovich had been honoured none of this would have happened.

 

 

I agree with this in the sense he did want a neutral Ukraine or a Ukraine that was more favourable to Russia and not the EU and things would have been different if Yanukovych had stayed in power

 

But Putin doesn't  get to decide the fate of countries. Even if those countries use to be part of the USSR. I suppose this ideological clash was evitable between Putin and the West. We might as well get it over with now

[Volourn]

"But Putin doesn't  get to decide the fate of countries."

 

But, he does. And, he has.

[BruceVC]

"But Putin doesn't  get to decide the fate of countries."

 

But, he does. And, he has.

 

He thinks he does and he has been able to do it in the past, like Georgia. But Ukraine is different. The West has drawn a line over Ukraine, not a military line. And sanctions will continue to be implemented and Russia will continue to be ostracized from the international community unless it stops interfering in Ukraine

[Volourn]

They can draw all the lines all they want. He's already decided the fate of Ukraine. Ukraine as it was known just a year no longer exists and nothing the West does or whines about will change it because they're all talk. The West doesn't care about Ukraine. Russia is willinmg to send their soldiers to die in Ukraine. Can the West say the same? No? Then their squawking is meaningless.

[BruceVC]

They can draw all the lines all they want. He's already decided the fate of Ukraine. Ukraine as it was known just a year no longer exists and nothing the West does or whines about will change it because they're all talk. The West doesn't care about Ukraine. Russia is willinmg to send their soldiers to die in Ukraine. Can the West say the same? No? Then their squawking is meaningless.

 

You right the West wont send troops to Ukraine, I've said that several times. But as I have  also mentioned numerous times you don't necessarily need  a military intervention to get a country to change its political course or military aspirations. They just need to continue with sanctions which they will. And finally yes Ukraine isn't part of NATO or the EU but this doesn't mean it hasn't become an important symbolic area where the West is making a stand against Russian hegemony in the region. So the West does care about Ukraine

[Volourn]

Yeah, but it's too late for the West to do anything to stop Ukraine from changing. It has changed, and it has changed because of Russia. You cna't undo that without  war since this isn't Happy happy Land where negotiations win out.West doesn't care about Ukraine. Period. That's pretend.

[BruceVC]

Yeah, but it's too late for the West to do anything to stop Ukraine from changing. It has changed, and it has changed because of Russia. You cna't undo that without  war since this isn't Happy happy Land where negotiations win out.West doesn't care about Ukraine. Period. That's pretend.

 

Yes that's fine I can accept that Ukraine's borders have irrevocably changed. But that doesn't mean  that Russians new objectives around carving up other parts of Ukraine will be acceptable

[Chilloutman]

Yeah, but it's too late for the West to do anything to stop Ukraine from changing. It has changed, and it has changed because of Russia. You cna't undo that without  war since this isn't Happy happy Land where negotiations win out.West doesn't care about Ukraine. Period. That's pretend.

Not true, Ukraine in first place wanted to get out of Russia influence. Doubt that military intervention will make them sooo happy that they no longer gtfo from Russian influence - actually probably even more.

[BruceVC]

 

Yeah, but it's too late for the West to do anything to stop Ukraine from changing. It has changed, and it has changed because of Russia. You cna't undo that without  war since this isn't Happy happy Land where negotiations win out.West doesn't care about Ukraine. Period. That's pretend.

Not true, Ukraine in first place wanted to get out of Russia influence. Doubt that military intervention will make them sooo happy that they no longer gtfo from Russian influence - actually probably even more.

 

 

Well to be fair there are definitely areas of population in Ukraine that would prefer to be part of Russia. But this still doesn't give Russia the legal right annex another country

[Chilloutman]

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

[obyknven]

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3

[Shallow]

If you believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then Ukraine, along with a ****load of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must reunite with Russia to restore the Soviet Union, if you don't believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then you oughta approve of the eastern half of a nation seceeding, especially after an undemocratic coup, elections where no pro-russia candidates were able to run without being attacked, and the capital arming rightwing nationalists who want to wipe you out with weapons and sending them into your portion of the country when large portions of you decide you feel like rebelling. The argument of territorial soveriegnity i silly in ex Soviet lands, we also wouldn't be in this whole situation if the west had honored their agreement with Gorbachov and not expanded nato in an attempt to dominate as much of the globe as possible.

[Chilloutman]

If you believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then Ukraine, along with a ****load of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must reunite with Russia to restore the Soviet Union, if you don't believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then you oughta approve of the eastern half of a nation seceeding, especially after an undemocratic coup, elections where no pro-russia candidates were able to run without being attacked, and the capital arming rightwing nationalists who want to wipe you out with weapons and sending them into your portion of the country when large portions of you decide you feel like rebelling. The argument of territorial soveriegnity i silly in ex Soviet lands, we also wouldn't be in this whole situation if the west had honored their agreement with Gorbachov and not expanded nato in an attempt to dominate as much of the globe as possible.

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied. I dont understand why yhey have to be part of it again because of infallibility of territorial sovereignity. Also i agree that coup was kind of undemocratic, however president was elected because he promise that he will sign EU treaty but then he rejected it so he didnt follow part of his deal with his own people. I dont understand why soveriegnity would be silly there were states before Soviets occupy them. No comment on NATO, states are not forced to be part of it

Edited September 3, 2014 by Chilloutman