Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Nobody forces them ask for cheap oil. [...] It is ukraine, freedom state, their choice.
Actually Ukrainians chose, they'd like to use their shale-gas deposits, but Russia don't want to let them. So yes, this is Russian style freedom: We let you one option, you're free to choose. :D
Actually Ukrainians chose, they'd like to use their shale-gas deposits, but Russia don't want to let them. So yes, this is Russian style freedom: We let you one option, you're free to choose. :D
the question that should be asked, is what is crimean territory really worth:
I think everyone even rumpil might agree, that Ukraine should sort itself out, along with their... energy supply... how on earth are they supposed to do that?, when russia is stealing control of all their energy and production assets. Starting in Crimean, and currently hitting the industrial Donieck region. It is more that obviously pre-planned strategy by Moscow, to destabilise Ukraine to the point it brakes... EU cause to help, is almost helpless just like current Ukrainian situaion, when you look at the facts.
Metallurgy for example.
(edited)
I think everyone even rumpil might agree, that Ukraine should sort itself out, along with their... energy supply... how on earth are they supposed to do that?, when russia is stealing control of all their energy and production assets. Starting in Crimean, and currently hitting the industrial Donieck region. It is more that obviously pre-planned strategy by Moscow, to destabilise Ukraine to the point it brakes... EU cause to help, is almost helpless just like current Ukrainian situaion, when you look at the facts.
Metallurgy for example.
(edited)
To all those who are heavily opposing Putin's foreign policy (I'm not a fan of Putin either) and who are criticizing how the West deals with it: give a politically feasible alternative. In those hundreds of messages that were put here, not one alternative has passed. Not one.
It's easy to criticize. It's much more difficult to offer a real solution.
It's easy to criticize. It's much more difficult to offer a real solution.
Russian forces were there many years before, so this is lie. The fact that before referendum they helped to have free referendum in whole Crimea is not occupation :-).
Not true. Russians were supposed to stay in their bases in Sevastopol. Administratively Sevastopol is not even part of Crimea, even Russians said, they welcome the two new subjects of the Russian Federation: Crimea and Sevastopol. So Russian soldiers had no right to be in Crimea, and even in Sevastopol they only had the right to guard and maintain the Russian base, and not to occupy the Ukrainian ones. So there was an occupation befor the referendum.
Again lie. If more than 90% people want join russia, it is not annexation.
Not true. Occupation is when a military force conquers a territory (unofficial). Annexation is when a territory joins a state officially, no matter if there was a referendum or not. When Russians announced that Crimea and Sevastopol joind the RF, it was an annexation.
If there is USA ship in Black Sea more than (i dont know exactly) 15 days Russia forces can destroy it.
Not true. Most parts of the Black Sea are international waters, so American (and Russian) warships can stay there as much as they like. Russians have no right to destroy any ships there.
What would be your opinion on Russia command that NATO had to cancel several bases which are close to russia, for example in Poland or so ?
Russian command told exactly that NATO can't install missile-defense systems in Poland. Before the South Ossetia war, NATO even cared about that, the project was started only after the Russian invasion happened.
Maidan was second try, orange revolution was before.
Stating that Maidan is just a Western conspiracy, and the East Ukrainian situation is the will of the simple and peaceful (and heavily armed) people is pretty one sided.
Not true. Russians were supposed to stay in their bases in Sevastopol. Administratively Sevastopol is not even part of Crimea, even Russians said, they welcome the two new subjects of the Russian Federation: Crimea and Sevastopol. So Russian soldiers had no right to be in Crimea, and even in Sevastopol they only had the right to guard and maintain the Russian base, and not to occupy the Ukrainian ones. So there was an occupation befor the referendum.
Again lie. If more than 90% people want join russia, it is not annexation.
Not true. Occupation is when a military force conquers a territory (unofficial). Annexation is when a territory joins a state officially, no matter if there was a referendum or not. When Russians announced that Crimea and Sevastopol joind the RF, it was an annexation.
If there is USA ship in Black Sea more than (i dont know exactly) 15 days Russia forces can destroy it.
Not true. Most parts of the Black Sea are international waters, so American (and Russian) warships can stay there as much as they like. Russians have no right to destroy any ships there.
What would be your opinion on Russia command that NATO had to cancel several bases which are close to russia, for example in Poland or so ?
Russian command told exactly that NATO can't install missile-defense systems in Poland. Before the South Ossetia war, NATO even cared about that, the project was started only after the Russian invasion happened.
Maidan was second try, orange revolution was before.
Stating that Maidan is just a Western conspiracy, and the East Ukrainian situation is the will of the simple and peaceful (and heavily armed) people is pretty one sided.
There's no really good solution anymore, but I think the federalization of Ukraine and guarantees of minority rights would be (/have been?) the best.
It's easy to criticize. It's much more difficult to offer a real solution. - yes.
if you ask me: UN peacekeeping forces in crimea and east ukraine from tomorrow... in biggest possible numbers, not NATO not even Ukrainian but with their approval of course, definatly not masked pro-russian terrorists with Putin's and Lavrovs blessing. :-],
UN forces... with russian approval.... (to stop the violence asap)
That is what they are for, if I am not mistaken...
Russia has 'refused to take a single step' to de-escalate Ukraine crisis
the problem is exactly that, russia is not interested in any peaceful solution (by their actions, not words), just because they are playing their own game, inward game for their own benefit and for the russian public... to keep the corrupt Putin gov. in power, and they are also playing a deceitful two-way game outward, blocking UN solutions, praising "separatists" while aiding them to steal resources and land, for moscow's benefit, and pretending all the time that they are actually interested in "peace", meanwhile stalling all possible talks, and not keeping to their agreements like the geneve one. Again the problem is that Russia is not keeping to agreements they made.
It is very simple to me, Ukraine without Russian cooperation is helpless... (a that process in worse and worse, day by day) EU is not able to help Ukraine, without huge costs that still can come to nothing, if Moscow doesn't change their strategy towards Ukraine, this is whole the problem - again. In all ends - Putin politics come down to gas prices threats. (its the same with other countries, Poland or Germany..)
_ _ _
Another solution is... the one I actually think Putin is working towards... but is again not interested in, as he wants more... , could be a mutual financial debt clearance, this would mean... mutual estimates of the value of crimean resources, and the so called "sale of crimea" to russia, with the gas debt cleared, and and new deal for stable gas supply. Literally russia should pay for the mess they escalated in the name of resources and stealing valuable territory.
_ _ _
Another one, is federalisation... it's a good concept, which should not be rejected, or forced (by russia), but unfortunately it has a flip side, it could make crimea scenario annexations easier to conduct, if russia would choose to go that way again..
Without Russian cooperation, solution is near impossible.
(edited)
if you ask me: UN peacekeeping forces in crimea and east ukraine from tomorrow... in biggest possible numbers, not NATO not even Ukrainian but with their approval of course, definatly not masked pro-russian terrorists with Putin's and Lavrovs blessing. :-],
UN forces... with russian approval.... (to stop the violence asap)
That is what they are for, if I am not mistaken...
Russia has 'refused to take a single step' to de-escalate Ukraine crisis
the problem is exactly that, russia is not interested in any peaceful solution (by their actions, not words), just because they are playing their own game, inward game for their own benefit and for the russian public... to keep the corrupt Putin gov. in power, and they are also playing a deceitful two-way game outward, blocking UN solutions, praising "separatists" while aiding them to steal resources and land, for moscow's benefit, and pretending all the time that they are actually interested in "peace", meanwhile stalling all possible talks, and not keeping to their agreements like the geneve one. Again the problem is that Russia is not keeping to agreements they made.
It is very simple to me, Ukraine without Russian cooperation is helpless... (a that process in worse and worse, day by day) EU is not able to help Ukraine, without huge costs that still can come to nothing, if Moscow doesn't change their strategy towards Ukraine, this is whole the problem - again. In all ends - Putin politics come down to gas prices threats. (its the same with other countries, Poland or Germany..)
_ _ _
Another solution is... the one I actually think Putin is working towards... but is again not interested in, as he wants more... , could be a mutual financial debt clearance, this would mean... mutual estimates of the value of crimean resources, and the so called "sale of crimea" to russia, with the gas debt cleared, and and new deal for stable gas supply. Literally russia should pay for the mess they escalated in the name of resources and stealing valuable territory.
_ _ _
Another one, is federalisation... it's a good concept, which should not be rejected, or forced (by russia), but unfortunately it has a flip side, it could make crimea scenario annexations easier to conduct, if russia would choose to go that way again..
Without Russian cooperation, solution is near impossible.
(edited)
Actually it could be even simpler:
Ukraine Wants U.N. Troops in Eastern Cities, if russia would veto, they should be kicked out of UN. The sooner it would be over, the better (for peace), at the moment US and many european countries are cutting their military budgets, russia is doing the opposite with a near 30/44% increase... :-] it is more than obvious... again, that "peace" in not behind Russian action.
good indicator of intentions:
World's top 15 military budgets 2013, by % of GDP
4 Saudi Arabia 9.3
15 United Arab Emirates 4.7
3 Russia 4.1 and going up.
1 United States 3.8 and going down.
10 South Korea 2.8
9 India 2.5
6 United Kingdom 2.3
14 Turkey 2.3
5 France 2.2
2 China 2.0
11 Italy 1.6
13 Australia 1.6
7 Germany 1.4
12 Brazil 1.4
8 Japan 1.0
+ The national (Russian) plan is to increase defense spending by more than 44 percent over the next three years
+ The Pentagon unveiled a 2013 budget plan that would cut $487 billion in spending over the next decade
and another:
Global_Militarization_Index
(edited)
Ukraine Wants U.N. Troops in Eastern Cities, if russia would veto, they should be kicked out of UN. The sooner it would be over, the better (for peace), at the moment US and many european countries are cutting their military budgets, russia is doing the opposite with a near 30/44% increase... :-] it is more than obvious... again, that "peace" in not behind Russian action.
good indicator of intentions:
World's top 15 military budgets 2013, by % of GDP
4 Saudi Arabia 9.3
15 United Arab Emirates 4.7
3 Russia 4.1 and going up.
1 United States 3.8 and going down.
10 South Korea 2.8
9 India 2.5
6 United Kingdom 2.3
14 Turkey 2.3
5 France 2.2
2 China 2.0
11 Italy 1.6
13 Australia 1.6
7 Germany 1.4
12 Brazil 1.4
8 Japan 1.0
+ The national (Russian) plan is to increase defense spending by more than 44 percent over the next three years
+ The Pentagon unveiled a 2013 budget plan that would cut $487 billion in spending over the next decade
and another:
Global_Militarization_Index
(edited)
Putin would never have agreed on the federalization of Ukraine (including Crimea). Why would he? There was land for the taking, and in majority, the people living there were Russian-speaking, so probably rather positive about Russia. And he knew the West would never use troops to defend Ukraine.
if you ask me: UN peacekeeping forces in crimea and east ukraine from tomorrow... in biggest possible numbers, not NATO not even Ukrainian but with their approval of course, definatly not masked pro-russian terrorists with Putin's and Lavrovs blessing. :-],
I was talking about a politically feasible solution. Putin would never agree with peacekeeping troops in Crimea (the same kind of troops like in Srebrenica, which turned out to be a total disaster).
the problem is exactly that, russia is not interested in any peaceful solution (by their actions, not words), just because they are playing their own game, inward game for their own benefit and for the russian public
That is a problem, indeed. I agree: Russia does not want peace, Russia wants to change the borders. But this is a constant, you are sure of this. So what should the West do / have done to avoid this? Send troops?
Your 'solutions':
1) Let the Russians pay: not going to happen, why would Putin agree with that? He doesn't care whether the West accepts the annexation of Crimea or not.
2) Federalization: see above (my previous comment).
I was talking about a politically feasible solution. Putin would never agree with peacekeeping troops in Crimea (the same kind of troops like in Srebrenica, which turned out to be a total disaster).
the problem is exactly that, russia is not interested in any peaceful solution (by their actions, not words), just because they are playing their own game, inward game for their own benefit and for the russian public
That is a problem, indeed. I agree: Russia does not want peace, Russia wants to change the borders. But this is a constant, you are sure of this. So what should the West do / have done to avoid this? Send troops?
Your 'solutions':
1) Let the Russians pay: not going to happen, why would Putin agree with that? He doesn't care whether the West accepts the annexation of Crimea or not.
2) Federalization: see above (my previous comment).
...
Russia's federalisation plan for Ukraine sparks criticism
... federalisation is a coin with two sides, and it was Russian idea.. :-]
in my observation it is beneficial to rich stable (and/or smaller) countries like Germany or Switzerland which are already unified enough not to disperse, and it doesn't not seem so good anymore for medium, or poorer countries, that are not unified enough "to unify" (if that makes sense),
also it doesn't seem like a good plan for larger countries on the outskirts of continents... like UK, Poland or Spain... or Ukraine... federalisation could simply lead to braking up the larger country, by fragmentation of special interests groups, which would also weaken the country if a larger threat arrived - like russia for example) also it would make the gap larger between industrial and poorer ends of those countries, bigger. For example in Poland, rich silesians would rather not pay and share their taxes with those poorer 'podlaskie' region lands and people, but this would lead to greated economic division, which is bad for both sides.
... back to the UN.
if russia veto's UN peacekeeping forces, their motives would be unquestionable, kick Russia out from UN on this basis, and their crimea annexation, and militarisation in general. Throw the UN forces anyway, in large numbers they should be mainly from India or African countries. There would not be a question of american, eu, izraeli.. and so on, and in the worst case it is better for objective peace intended forces to fight, as oppose to two opposite sides with "personal" interestes, and emotional connotations.
actually, Russia could agree to that, if their intentions were peaceful, they could even "legally" send up to 360 russian UN troops. Ukraine could also send 360 Ukrainian UN troops. In the same light blue helmets.. for "peace" ;) I recon it could work, it would be worth trying, its better than inspectors whom can't defend themselves, and definatly better than leaving... Ukrainians to fight against the pro-russians on their own... as this has the threat of Russian invasion all over it, and there is no middle objective side at all. Also Russia would have to think twice, before attacking any UN forces, as oppose to walking all over ukrainian forces like they did in Crimea, a Counter-balance of force is unfortunatley neccesary, for there to be peace, a the moment Russia has all the cards, in the game they dealt. :-]
(edited)
Russia's federalisation plan for Ukraine sparks criticism
... federalisation is a coin with two sides, and it was Russian idea.. :-]
in my observation it is beneficial to rich stable (and/or smaller) countries like Germany or Switzerland which are already unified enough not to disperse, and it doesn't not seem so good anymore for medium, or poorer countries, that are not unified enough "to unify" (if that makes sense),
also it doesn't seem like a good plan for larger countries on the outskirts of continents... like UK, Poland or Spain... or Ukraine... federalisation could simply lead to braking up the larger country, by fragmentation of special interests groups, which would also weaken the country if a larger threat arrived - like russia for example) also it would make the gap larger between industrial and poorer ends of those countries, bigger. For example in Poland, rich silesians would rather not pay and share their taxes with those poorer 'podlaskie' region lands and people, but this would lead to greated economic division, which is bad for both sides.
... back to the UN.
if russia veto's UN peacekeeping forces, their motives would be unquestionable, kick Russia out from UN on this basis, and their crimea annexation, and militarisation in general. Throw the UN forces anyway, in large numbers they should be mainly from India or African countries. There would not be a question of american, eu, izraeli.. and so on, and in the worst case it is better for objective peace intended forces to fight, as oppose to two opposite sides with "personal" interestes, and emotional connotations.
actually, Russia could agree to that, if their intentions were peaceful, they could even "legally" send up to 360 russian UN troops. Ukraine could also send 360 Ukrainian UN troops. In the same light blue helmets.. for "peace" ;) I recon it could work, it would be worth trying, its better than inspectors whom can't defend themselves, and definatly better than leaving... Ukrainians to fight against the pro-russians on their own... as this has the threat of Russian invasion all over it, and there is no middle objective side at all. Also Russia would have to think twice, before attacking any UN forces, as oppose to walking all over ukrainian forces like they did in Crimea, a Counter-balance of force is unfortunatley neccesary, for there to be peace, a the moment Russia has all the cards, in the game they dealt. :-]
(edited)
Read the article. It's federalization without Crimea. They want a federalization of Ukraine after they annexed Crimea. So in their eyes, Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, and not a part of the plan for Ukraine's federalization.
And in Belgium we know federalization, between the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south. To use an euphemism, it's not a great success here ;-)
In my opinion, a federation can only work if it starts from different regions unifying themselves (so a centralization), like Germany, Switzerland or the United States. Not the other way around like in Belgium (decentralization): there was a unitary state, and we created regions along the language borders (Dutch, bilingual Dutch-French, French, German). But that sort of decentralizing federalization simply does not work; it's just a stepping stone to even more autonomy and in the end, breaking up the country. No unity at all.
One can be in favor of breaking up the country, but I just want to show that decentralizing federalization does not lead to unity. On the contrary.
And in Belgium we know federalization, between the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south. To use an euphemism, it's not a great success here ;-)
In my opinion, a federation can only work if it starts from different regions unifying themselves (so a centralization), like Germany, Switzerland or the United States. Not the other way around like in Belgium (decentralization): there was a unitary state, and we created regions along the language borders (Dutch, bilingual Dutch-French, French, German). But that sort of decentralizing federalization simply does not work; it's just a stepping stone to even more autonomy and in the end, breaking up the country. No unity at all.
One can be in favor of breaking up the country, but I just want to show that decentralizing federalization does not lead to unity. On the contrary.
true...
Let me be clearer than I was, I think that at this stage federalisation of Ukraine would be terrible, and disastrous it would brake the country up, with or without crimea. Unfortunatley in my eyes, Crimea is already a lost case anyhow, there is now the matter of future peace, and a Russian payment/price for this... to settle, we could have a major world conflict in which russia would be doomed to fail (like nazi germany) but everyone would lose, or we could have a more peaceful economic resolution... if only russia decide to play ball, and they might if it suited them. For example something like gas debt clearence... in exchange for Ukrainian govermnent to agree to crimea land loss, and russian as a national language next to Ukrainian - or sometning along these lines... but there is the small matter of oil and gas assets around crimea.. :-] Unfortunately for Ukraine it is again a choice of bad, or worse... :-]
There is also the bigger picture here, this conflict could have major implications on the whole EU unity. :-] which would definatly be terrible, but so far european parliment seems to do its job well. (in general, on that issiue)
(edited)
Let me be clearer than I was, I think that at this stage federalisation of Ukraine would be terrible, and disastrous it would brake the country up, with or without crimea. Unfortunatley in my eyes, Crimea is already a lost case anyhow, there is now the matter of future peace, and a Russian payment/price for this... to settle, we could have a major world conflict in which russia would be doomed to fail (like nazi germany) but everyone would lose, or we could have a more peaceful economic resolution... if only russia decide to play ball, and they might if it suited them. For example something like gas debt clearence... in exchange for Ukrainian govermnent to agree to crimea land loss, and russian as a national language next to Ukrainian - or sometning along these lines... but there is the small matter of oil and gas assets around crimea.. :-] Unfortunately for Ukraine it is again a choice of bad, or worse... :-]
There is also the bigger picture here, this conflict could have major implications on the whole EU unity. :-] which would definatly be terrible, but so far european parliment seems to do its job well. (in general, on that issiue)
(edited)
if only russia decide to play ball, and they might if it suited them. For example something like gas debt clearence... in exchange for Ukrainian govermnent to agree to crimea land loss, and russian as a national language next to Ukrainian - or sometning along these lines...
Why would Russia agree with that? Putin does not care whether the Kiev government accepts the loss of Crimea or not. In reality, they have lost it, regardless of their acceptance.
In the deal you propose, there is nothing in it for Russia. In Russia, the perception will be that Russia must pay for its own land.
Why would Russia agree with that? Putin does not care whether the Kiev government accepts the loss of Crimea or not. In reality, they have lost it, regardless of their acceptance.
In the deal you propose, there is nothing in it for Russia. In Russia, the perception will be that Russia must pay for its own land.
well yes, and no... if only russia decide to play ball it's all on a (currently false) premise that Russia would want to solve this crisis peacefully, which they obviously don't, and that is why it has no end in sight... but it this scenario russia could would, officially gain crimea, it wouldn't be disputed territory anymore if ukr.gov. would agree - that is a big difference, also the sanctions would/could be lifted (if russia cares) and in broad-speeking-term, russia would stop being the agressor it now is, and peace and partnerships could theoretically be restored. But any peaceful scenario requires russia's will to cooperate, not to worsen the crisis.
Tough love from the UN and the EU is the only option with a chance, and it is still a very weak bet, for success. Any plot to make gazprom's plans more difficult from the eu, would/could/should also butter russia in to talking. EU should definitely collectively decrease its dependency on gazprom gas anyway, but also all the gazprom expantions of pipelines in the eu countries should be put on hold, immediatly untill further notice. EU hold payment for gas, and things like that, despite popular belief Russia has a lot to lose, by continuing by this route.
(edited)
Tough love from the UN and the EU is the only option with a chance, and it is still a very weak bet, for success. Any plot to make gazprom's plans more difficult from the eu, would/could/should also butter russia in to talking. EU should definitely collectively decrease its dependency on gazprom gas anyway, but also all the gazprom expantions of pipelines in the eu countries should be put on hold, immediatly untill further notice. EU hold payment for gas, and things like that, despite popular belief Russia has a lot to lose, by continuing by this route.
(edited)
It is little different but generally you are right. Because there is very few people who know as I know that west is not a angel but more as a aggressor (no matter if USA or EU) I have to hold my opinion and spread it cos I dont want let others people here be manipulated by other guys here :-)
Maybe I little exaggerate :-) but I suppose I need to that:
- it is good weapon when there is dominance of west supporters
- it is fun when people dont have strong nerves :-D
(but very politely, without insults or so)
Maybe I little exaggerate :-) but I suppose I need to that:
- it is good weapon when there is dominance of west supporters
- it is fun when people dont have strong nerves :-D
(but very politely, without insults or so)