NATO's new insane policy in the Ukraine.

[boneyard bill]

This semi-coherent rant goes into great detail on the evils of the west by virtue of things they might do at some point in the future. It also makes some dubious claims, such as the fact that much of the loan money was used for foreign payments was evidence that it was being stolen, rather than the more prosaic idea that it might have been used to pay overdue loans.

The point may be that the money went from the IMF to their friends in the banks, not to the Ukrainian people who are suffering.
Medicine and Meat Out of Reach Amid Ukrainian Price Shock
Inflation at 20%, their currency has halved, but the foreign banks got their money back. I wouldn't be surprised if some did end up in the wrong hands though as well.

The Ukrainian government has admitted that their central bank gold, all 33 tons of it, has disappeared. So some of the IMF money has had to go to replace it.

- - - Updated - - -

The more we appease Putin the more likely nuclear war would be.

Unfortunately what we do know is that the United States likes to launch pre-emptive strikes. So Russia must be wondering if the United States is going to launch a pre-emptive strike on them. Which makes the world a more dangerous place

The Russian military has re-classified NATO as an enemy in their new targeting policies. But don't worry. Who cares? Nothing to see here.

 

[boneyard bill]

The point may be that the money went from the IMF to their friends in the banks, not to the Ukrainian people who are suffering.

Well sure. The purpose of the loan was to help Ukraine meet an estimated $9billion of debt repayment. If that was the point they wanted to make, and it's a fairly good point, then why accuse political leaders of personal theft?

This is why this discussion gets so frustrating. There's plenty wrong with US foreign policy, but the easiest, and most efficient way to make yourself the most dedicated cheerleader the US could ever wish for is to align yourself firmly with Russian propaganda. The accusation of personal theft is silly - there's no evidence, IMF funds would be more closely scrutinised than other kinds, and the cash movements they're referring to are on public record as being unrelated to the accusation they're making. It's not a credible accusation to make.

The reason it is being made, I suspect, is that there were a lot of funds going missing under the previous, Russian-friendly, president. Particularly in central Ukraine, where a broadly supportive oligarchy was being built to mirror the one in Russia. That's not just about corruption - if you're making friends with a country with a lot of oligarchs, then having your own and casting your country as ripe for more of the same attracts inwards investment to your net benefit. It's the same rationale that stops the US pursuing companies and rich people that keep their cash in tax havens - not wanting to chase away the rich.

But obviously, encouraging corruption looks bad, so an obvious target for any loyal propagandist is to throw enough mud about missing funds that observers just shrug, say there's accusations against both regimes, and don't look too hard at it. In other words, it's one of those talking points that gets brought up not in service of the truth, but to obscure and obfuscate. It might be true, it might be false, but that's not why it's there. It's there to serve the Russian state.

The way to avoid media bias is to ask questions. Blindly quoting sources that don't present any evidence is no part of that, even if they contradict sources you dislike.

The Ukrainian government is notoriously corrupt. Not just under Yanukovich but under preceding pro-Western governments as well. The oligarchs in Ukraine, which includes Petroshenko, are mostly aligned with the Kiev regime.

But even the Ukrainian government probably isn't as corrupt as our own. How much money did Rumsfeld say was missing from the Pentagon? Oh yeah, $2.3 trillion. That's more than a tenth of the national debt. And we've already discussed on these boards how many Wall Street bankers have been criminally charged with fraud despite their having lost numerous civil cases.

 

[boneyard bill]

There is no outrage in my post, nor are there any insults; there's just casual contempt for someone who makes sweeping claims based on ignorance.

I said nothing about the European media except that I didn't follow it. So why are you complaining that I made charges that I never made?

Because you and the rest of the Putin fanboys have repeatedly talked about WESTERN media being nothing but propaganda; and the west is far bigger than the US alone. Don't go crying when you're called out on the things you say. Either restrict your claims to be specifically about US media, or go and educate yourself.

My comments on the media were limited to the mainstream media in the US, and I never made any representations about European media. Instead, I asked you what they were reporting, and now you go off on a tirade.

Hah.

Did you learn from the European media that the Yanukovich government was democratically elected?

Yes.

Did you learn that some of the protestors in the Maidan were armed?

Yes.

Did you learn that some of those protestors were avowed neo-Nazis?

Yes.

Did you hear the protestors being described as a "democracy movement"?

Yes.

If you did hear these statements, then shouldn't the latter two statements raise some cognitive dissonance with respect to the first two?

No, since there is no contradiction between the fact that there is a presence of *some* neo-nazi's in a popular revolt, and the claim that the *majority* of the revolters want more democracy. Just like there's no contradiction in reporting that a revolt movement is a democracy movement even if they're overthrowing a leader who was ostensibly democratically elected; especially not when said leader broke the promises he was elected on and used his power to undo previous democratic reforms in order to strengthen his own base.

Shouldn't the fact that it's so easy to answer your question raise some cognitive dissonance of your own in regards to the validity of your position?

Oh wait, no, you're going to just say my arguments aren't worth responding to, right?

There is cognitive dissonance here. You just refuse to acknowledge it. Not only is there cognitive dissonance, there is downright hypocrisy in US foreign policy. We say we support democratic government and then proceed to support the overthrow of a democratic government even as we ignore the overthrow of the democratic government in Egypt, and the persecution of Christians by the Muslim dictatorship in Sudan.

Not only did we not support the democratic government of Ukraine, we supported that overthrow even though (or more likely because) the Ukrainian government had reached an agreement with the opposition that brought them into the government and conceded the number one demand of the protestors which was to hold early elections.

What did Putin do when Ukraine had a pro-Western government (even though that election was probably stolen)? He left them alone. He did not intervene, and he has never intervened except when he has been provoked. That has been in Georgia and Ukraine and both of those provocations occurred after the US sponsored both countries for NATO membership, a decision which NATO, wisely, has put on hold.

 

[boneyard bill]

Unfortunately what we do know is that the United States likes to launch pre-emptive strikes. So Russia must be wondering if the United States is going to launch a pre-emptive strike on them. Which makes the world a more dangerous place

Putin perfectly well knows we aren't going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on them unless it's a matter of survival.

That wouldn't necessarily be the case if Russian and NATO troops come face to face, and keep in mind that NATO already has troops in Western Ukraine, and that the US has reversed its previous policy of no pre-emptive strikes. No, Putin cannot be confident that we wouldn't launch a pre-emptive strike.

Did I mention that our policy in Ukraine is insane?

- - - Updated - - -

Scratch a Conservolibertarian and underneath you find a fascist sympathizer. We saw it with Pinochet we see it with Putin.

It was the fascists who overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and started this mess. But if all you can think of to do is call names, do not expect any further responses from me on this thread.

 

[boneyard bill]

The real problem is that they will win. Russia will not let that happen, and they have the tactical advantage in Ukraine. So then we face the prospect of nuclear war.

yada yada yada

Russia didn't attack when they could back in the day and now they can't because their economy is wrapped up in capitalism to a pretty large extent. Putin has yet to stick a sword in his stomach to prove his intentions. He's not insane.

So I'm pretty sure Russia will ''give up" and join the rest of the world when it becomes clear they they are going to suffer even more than the Iranians, who are actually insane, but who are going to keep negotiating with the west rather than risk more sanctions.

Actually what's gonna happen is that Saudi Arabia and like minded producers who can get black gold out of the ground at less than $20 a barrel are going to keep letting prices fall until Russia - Russia is already losing money in the current economy without western sanctions - and the United States and Canada who need the price to be over $70 a barrel reduce their activities at the well head, agree to regulate prices IAC with OPEC, and sign agreements to keep a cap on their production.

Doing so will be fatal to Russia so the US and Canada will allow some pain here, perhaps some regulation here, to support OPEC's reductions in barrel costs, which together with existing sanctions and more to come soon will break Russia leading to Putin's ouster and a new detente with the west by Russia.

Russia will not "give up" in Ukraine. We are trying as hard as we can to provoke a Russian intervention. If that isn't obvious, I don't what it takes that wouldn't go over people's heads. So the problem is, what happens when the West starts LOSING? NATO can't beat Russia in a local battle in the Ukraine. We can't win this militarily in the tactical arena. So what then? Are we go to go strategic and attack Russia?

It's possible, but by no means certain, that Saudi Arabia has upped its production at US behest. That is what Reagan did in the '80's, and it brought down the Soviet Union. But can you walk on water twice? I doubt it. The Soviet Union was strapped for cash in the '80's. Today Russia has a balanced budget and no external debt, and Putin has set aside funds for sanctions relief for Russian industries. And in the '80's oil was the Soviet Union's major export, but today they export a lot of natural gas. Meanwhile, China has huge holdings of US dollars and Russia's credit is good.

How long can Saudi Arabia keep this up? In terms of their own resources, for quite a while, but what about OPEC? The low oil price is hurting OPEC badly so Saudi Arabia has to be concerned about whether or not they want to see OPEC fall apart.

But also keep in mind that the current low price may not be the result of US pressure at all. That is only speculation. Another speculation is that they are doing so to destroy the US fracking industry. That is a whole lot less ambitious a goal than trying to destroy the Russian economy.

 

[tupac chopra]

The point may be that the money went from the IMF to their friends in the banks, not to the Ukrainian people who are suffering.

Well sure. The purpose of the loan was to help Ukraine meet an estimated $9billion of debt repayment. If that was the point they wanted to make, and it's a fairly good point, then why accuse political leaders of personal theft?

This is why this discussion gets so frustrating.

The discussion is frusrating when you go on and on and on (as you have done here) saying someone acuused someone of theft.
Here is what was said

John Helmer’s Dances with Bears calculates that “of the $3.2 billion disbursed to the Ukrainian treasury by the IMF at the start of May, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of August.”[4] This raises the question of whether the IMF’s loan is legally an “odious debt,” being made to a military junta and stolen by government insiders.

Do you actually have any evidence of where the money went?

The accusation of personal theft is silly - there's no evidence, IMF funds would be more closely scrutinised than other kinds, and the cash movements they're referring to are on public record as being unrelated to the accusation they're making. It's not a credible accusation to make.

If they are on public record, then have you seen them? Can you point to them?

 

[barbos]

But also keep in mind that the current low price may not be the result of US pressure at all. That is only speculation. Another speculation is that they are doing so to destroy the US fracking industry. That is a whole lot less ambitious a goal than trying to destroy the Russian economy.

Yeah, I think this is more likely. I can see SA doing what US tells them but they are not the only one in OPEC which seems to agree to keep production level intact. So it's about killing fracking and US may be OK with it since it coincided with the need to put pressure on Russia.
In the end it could be good for everybody, fracking will be killed, Russia will start producing its own shit instead of importing it from China/Europe.
Of course I am being irrationally optimistic here.

 

[dystopian]

For God's sake, be realistic! All of the objective evidence here shows that NATO is the expansionist force in Europe. It is overwhelming. How can you deny it?

Countries voluntarily joining a military alliance in order to increase their own security = RAWR IMPERIALIST EXPANSIONISM!

A country invading and annexing parts of its neighbours = victim!

 

[dystopian]

There is cognitive dissonance here. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Oh, I fully acknowledge the cognitive dissonance you have going on. Cognitive dissonance which is in evidence by the fact that below, you're using an argument that was already pre-empted in the post you're responding to.

Not only did we not support the democratic government of Ukraine, we supported that overthrow even though (or more likely because) the Ukrainian government had reached an agreement with the opposition that brought them into the government and conceded the number one demand of the protestors which was to hold early elections.

Forgetting of course for a moment that the president wasn't overthrown... he was *voted* out of office. You know, using that whole 'democracy' thing.

What did Putin do when Ukraine had a pro-Western government (even though that election was probably stolen)? He left them alone. He did not intervene, and he has never intervened except when he has been provoked.

Except this is either a blatant lie on your part, or simple ignorance. There is ample evidence that Russia has been inciting unrest in eastern Ukraine for years before the current crisis. This was already in evidence when they were caught secretly distributing Russian passports to the people there more than FIVE YEARS ago. Anyone who genuinely thinks Russia hasn't been looking for, and trying to create, an excuse to do exactly what it has is hugely naive.

 

[barbos]

Except this is either a blatant lie on your part, or simple ignorance. There is ample evidence that Russia has been inciting unrest in eastern Ukraine for years before the current crisis. This was already in evidence when they were caught secretly distributing Russian passports to the people there more than FIVE YEARS ago. Anyone who genuinely thinks Russia hasn't been looking for, and trying to create, an excuse to do exactly what it has is hugely naive.

I presume you have a link?

 

[dystopian]

Except this is either a blatant lie on your part, or simple ignorance. There is ample evidence that Russia has been inciting unrest in eastern Ukraine for years before the current crisis. This was already in evidence when they were caught secretly distributing Russian passports to the people there more than FIVE YEARS ago. Anyone who genuinely thinks Russia hasn't been looking for, and trying to create, an excuse to do exactly what it has is hugely naive.

I presume you have a link?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/ukraine-russia-crimeapassportizationcitizenship.html
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/more-russian-passports-in-ukraine/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/russian-citizenship-for-8-million-ukrainians/
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/russian-passportization/
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20140...ian-Passports-to-Ukrainians-Spark-Debate.html
http://www.eesti.ca/passportization...asions-of-neighbouring-countries/article41799

You'll find plenty more written on the subject with a google search for your own.

Russia's "passportization" efforts are nothing new, and are part of its foreign policy tactics aimed at giving itself justification to do the kind of things it has done in Georgia and Ukraine. Give people in a foreign country Russian passports > a few months or years later claim Russian 'citizens' are being opressed -> some time later again, light a fuse under the ethnic powderkeg they've installed in the country -> invade.

As you can read for yourself, the Crimean crisis was already being predicted by people back in 2008. Russia claimed it would respect Ukraine's territorial integrity when people started calling them out on their passportization program in the Ukraine, yet here we are, with Russia having done everything people predicted they would and everything Russia claimed it wouldn't. And still, people like you support them without question.

 

[barbos]

I looked couple of links and see no evidence of the Ukrainians secretly getting russian passports 5 years ago.
First link says dual citizenship is not legal, I don't know if it's true or have ever been true.
I know that Kolomoysky has 3 passports including ukrainian, go tell him
Either way, I don't see "secret" part.
And just for information, the reason why people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were taking russian passports was that they had no other options in case they needed to travel outside.
As for ukrainians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_citizenship#Dual_citizenship
As you can see, it was and still is legal.

 

[dystopian]

I looked couple of links and see no evidence of the Ukrainians secretly getting russian passports 5 years ago.

I don't know what else you'd call giving citizens/subjects of a neighboring country passports against the explicit wishes of that country's government and without their involvement.

First link says dual citizenship is not legal, I don't know if it's true or have ever been true.

First you claim you don't know if it's true (hint: it is)...

As for ukrainians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_citizenship#Dual_citizenship
As you can see, it was and still is legal.

...and then you explicitly claim to *know* that it is legal, citing a wikipedia article that explicitly says Ukraine doesn't recognize dual citizenship. The fact that there are people (notably the people who've been given Russian passports) hold dual citizenship and that it isn't explicitly criminalized does NOT therefore mean it is "legal". The only way for it to be legal is if Ukraine *recognizes* the dual citizenship, which it does not. One should not confuse a lack of active criminalization of an activity for legalization thereof.

But of course, none of this is the interesting part. The interesting part is that you chose to respond to me pointing out Russia's underhanded tactics of passportization in order to fabricate justification for its actions by focusing the argument on the word "secret", rather than you know; the actual point. I've pointed out before that this is part and parcel of your debating technique; ignore the main thrust of the arguments and points that discredit your narrative, and try to poke holes in the irrelevant parts of them in the hope that somehow magically invalidates the rest that's been said.

 

[barbos]

Dual citizenship is absolutely legal, wikipedia said so.
The fact that it's not recognized does not mean anything because it only applies while ukrainians are in Ukraine.
Also you claimed "distributing" passports in Eastern Ukraine but provided "evidence" for Crimea instead. Had you said Crimea I would not question you because I heard about that, not that I agree with your qualification, but I heard that people in Sevastopol were legally taking dual citizenship.
Anyway, it's mute now, because Putin have not used "pasportization" as an argument.

And again, whatever the law (if any) was installed it was done because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they basically could not go abroad because they were not recognized by anyone besides Russia, so they took russian passports to travel abroad. It had nothing to do with Ukraine and it was not used as pretext for anything anywhere.

 

[boneyard bill]

For God's sake, be realistic! All of the objective evidence here shows that NATO is the expansionist force in Europe. It is overwhelming. How can you deny it?

Countries voluntarily joining a military alliance in order to increase their own security = RAWR IMPERIALIST EXPANSIONISM!

A country invading and annexing parts of its neighbours = victim!

Countries being taken over in a coup supported by outsiders is expansionism. A country annexing another region that requested to be annexed is not expansionism.

 

[boneyard bill]

Oh, I fully acknowledge the cognitive dissonance you have going on. Cognitive dissonance which is in evidence by the fact that below, you're using an argument that was already pre-empted in the post you're responding to.

Not only did we not support the democratic government of Ukraine, we supported that overthrow even though (or more likely because) the Ukrainian government had reached an agreement with the opposition that brought them into the government and conceded the number one demand of the protestors which was to hold early elections.

Forgetting of course for a moment that the president wasn't overthrown... he was *voted* out of office. You know, using that whole 'democracy' thing.

What did Putin do when Ukraine had a pro-Western government (even though that election was probably stolen)? He left them alone. He did not intervene, and he has never intervened except when he has been provoked.

Except this is either a blatant lie on your part, or simple ignorance. There is ample evidence that Russia has been inciting unrest in eastern Ukraine for years before the current crisis. This was already in evidence when they were caught secretly distributing Russian passports to the people there more than FIVE YEARS ago. Anyone who genuinely thinks Russia hasn't been looking for, and trying to create, an excuse to do exactly what it has is hugely naive.

The president of Ukraine cannot be constitutionally removed from office by majority vote of the parliament. That is how you remove a premier, not a president. So the removal was illegitimate. But it was further illegitimate when you consider that the parliament was surrounded by armed neo-Nazis at the time.

Russians were giving passports to Russian speaking Ukrainians. Holy Cow! This is outrageous! Bring on the nukes! Look, Putin could be in Kiev right now if he wanted Ukraine. One of the first things the European parliament did when this crisis broke out was to vote NOT to intervene militarily in the Ukrainian situation.

 

[boneyard bill]

I presume you have a link?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/ukraine-russia-crimeapassportizationcitizenship.html
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/more-russian-passports-in-ukraine/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/russian-citizenship-for-8-million-ukrainians/
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/russian-passportization/
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20140...ian-Passports-to-Ukrainians-Spark-Debate.html
http://www.eesti.ca/passportization...asions-of-neighbouring-countries/article41799

You'll find plenty more written on the subject with a google search for your own.

Russia's "passportization" efforts are nothing new, and are part of its foreign policy tactics aimed at giving itself justification to do the kind of things it has done in Georgia and Ukraine. Give people in a foreign country Russian passports > a few months or years later claim Russian 'citizens' are being opressed -> some time later again, light a fuse under the ethnic powderkeg they've installed in the country -> invade.

As you can read for yourself, the Crimean crisis was already being predicted by people back in 2008. Russia claimed it would respect Ukraine's territorial integrity when people started calling them out on their passportization program in the Ukraine, yet here we are, with Russia having done everything people predicted they would and everything Russia claimed it wouldn't. And still, people like you support them without question.

Except it HASN'T happened. Russia HASN'T used the excuse of Russian citizens in the Ukraine being attacked as a pretext for intervention. Nor did he need such an excuse since Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian speaking people in the former Soviet territories even since the Soviet Union broke up. So there goes your whole argument right down the toilet.

 

[laughing dog]

Our Ukrainian policy has always been, first and foremost, all about provoking Russia. But why?

Not just Ukrainian, Georgian too.
I think US can't tolerate another country with nukes.

You think the US does not "tolerate" Great Britain, France, Israel or India?

 

[barbos]

Speaking of dual citizenship, it was made illegal for government officials to have it.
Then it was found that Kolomoysky (Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region) has 3 passports.
Guess what he said? He said "I have triple citizenship, not dual"

 

[barbos]

Not just Ukrainian, Georgian too.
I think US can't tolerate another country with nukes.

You think the US does not "tolerate" Great Britain, France, Israel or India?

You forgot China, no?
As far as US security concerned these countries have no nukes, that is they can't really nuke US.
Not that GB or France would ever want to.