Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto
Maybe I did not made the point of US interference clear before. The Maidan shootings (sniper shootings on Ukraine's police forces) and sudden US support for the opposition is what I am talking about. So, technically what you refer to is the rebuttal of Russia (??? I dont really know who these "rebels" are*), what I am talking about is the process of installing the current regime in Ukraine.
This may not come surprisingly, but there were always tensions in the Ukraine. And yes, pro-Russia governments were very thorough in detaining dissidents (aka opposition leaders and demonstrators) before. This happened many times, but never before did the opposition have support from snipers and the backing of the US.
As far as I know, the EU wanted to broker a deal in the Maidan shootings, which would have allowed for a constitutional transition into a new government. Even Russia could have done little about that, because if the new ukrainian government was elected and thus legitimately formed under constitution, Russia could not have so easily played the Kosovo card (aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo%...rbia_relations => highlights the then very controversial precedent of Serbia and Kosovo, that made Crimea's decleration of joining Russia basically possible under UN law).
The EU deal was very short lived (1 day) and was broken by the pro-western opposition, which led to the current events. And this is precisely the point that was made in those audio recordings. The US had a very strong interest in installing the new regime, no matter the consequences (quote Nuland: "fuck the EU")
*If you were implying that the rifles used by the Maidan snipers cannot be traced back to the US, then you are most certainly right. But not because it could not technically be done, but for the same reason you only can guess who shot down MH17. If the US government would simply deny any stakes in it, then thats sufficient (same with Russia simply denying any stakes in the MH17 shoot down). All you can do is believe whatever side's propaganda. However, the shootings were only a contributing factor. More important is the divisive diplomatic approach from US and EU. If the US declined any backing of the pro-western regime, the EU would not have had any problems with that... Russia would not have had any problems with that. The EU would have tried to their approach, which maybe had succeeded but most certainly not, because of the russian influence. Anyway, the current military conflict and the sovereignty issues on crimea could have been avoided. More importantly, the unnecessary loss of civilian life could have been avoided. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by yononaka
You make it sound like it would have been a great idea to ignore the wishes of these countries (expressed not just by their elites, but by most of the ordinary people as well) to placate Russia, never mind that the very reason these countries wanted to join NATO was to secure themselves as much as possible against their former oppressor - Russia (what a strange coincidence!). The US was nowhere near as enthusiastic about this eastward expansion as the new joiners were.
|
Resources. The largest supply of gas (in terms of delivery rate) comes from
GazpromRussia, and EU relies on alot of it. The piping runs through the Black Sea, from East to West Europe.
From an Economics point of view (sorry Jinto for being an ANALyst here
), the control of Eastern Europe would mean that Russia gets to leverage on the gas dependency without losing its customers, making them a price-maker; however should EU control EE, their combined alliance allows them to leverage on Russia by cutting the cost of gas and oil on the European continent through political pressure.
And the US, having the control of the closing price of heating gas through NYMEX futures contracts (which is an international benchmark like the WTI), the trading institutions would earn either way - if there is peace, there will be stagnant prices, initiating a war would put prices through the ceiling. In case of a tanking war which increases price volatility, they trade off-the-market contracts, which will have exotic prices (sometimes not even denominated in currency!). Commodity traders benefit the most from chaos because of chaotic price movements, so I wouldn't be surprise if Wall Street had a hand in this.
Strange as it is, it seems that we might really need a James Bond right now.
The world is not enough for the monied interests it seems.
