Ukrainian Conflict

[Jinto]

This, lets call it an US-led destabilization, which the EU had no problem of using for their own interests will cost all sides.
Until now its been only the people of Ukraine, who had to suffer because of some brick heads making "wise" decissions in the US. Well, it certainly appeared to be a wise decission to weaken the EU and Russia by adding some oil to the conflicting interests between EU and Russia in Ukraine.

But in a sense of some sort of economic justice at least, the culprits have to suffer too (but not enough in my oppinion):

This is the beautiful economic fight thats fought with sanctions (its funny, how all US food imports are banned, but only fruits and vegetables from EU).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0G61K220140806

But the US and Germany have already prepared the next round of sanctions in terms of blackmailing Russia to recede all interests in the E. Ukraine:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...s-over-ukraine

Knowing that all participating forces are block heads, its predictable that Russia will not stand idle and trigger the necessary conditions for implementing the next round of sanctions.

Furthermore, the not so really legitimate Ukrainian parliament, that was put into office with backing of the US and the EU didnt turn out to be the nice puppets they were meant to be:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...of-rebels.html

I hope the economic consequences in the US, EU and Russia will be severe enough to teach them a lesson.
Its still only a tiny piece of justice for the completely unnecessary loss of civilian lives in this completely unnecessary conflict.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Jinto

This, lets call it an US-led destabilization

Yea, those were US troops that annexed Crimea, US troops that are leading the rebels in east Ukraine, and US missile that shot down an airliner, and US military thats shelling Ukraine from inside Russia.

[SaintessHeart]

I am going to munch popcorn here. With the NSA scandal, I think a US-EU conflict should be in order. Russia and China will be cackling in glee.

[GreyZone]

We need something like a new "Godwin's Law" for blaming " 'murica ", something along the lines of:

"As an online discussion about modern political conflicts grows longer, the probability of the US supposedly being the pupett master behind everything approaches one."

[Cruachan]

I doubt the formal US government would destabilize Ukraine. They're not too fond of Russia and that's the only nation this conflict benefits. It certainly doesn't benefit Ukraine. Ukraine has historically been coveted for its large tracts of land suitable for agriculture and its key strategic location on the continent. Ideally Ukraine could have their own strong central government, try to cut ties with both the East and West, instill a sense of pride in their nation, and champion a Ukrainian identity that even the ethnic Russians who live there can get behind. There was one faction in Ukraine I was following called the Right Sector, since they did not discriminate against ethnic Russians or other non-Ukrainians, and instead claimed to only fight disorder and injustice. I recently learned they had pro-Zionist sentiments, though so I'm wary of them.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Yea, those were US troops that annexed Crimea, US troops that are leading the rebels in east Ukraine, and US missile that shot down an airliner, and US military thats shelling Ukraine from inside Russia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-c...nuland/5367794

Any questions?

And I dont wanna know how the maidan snipers obtained their weapons.

Originally Posted by Cruachan

I doubt the formal US government would destabilize Ukraine. They're not too fond of Russia and that's the only nation this conflict benefits. It certainly doesn't benefit Ukraine. Ukraine has historically been coveted for its large tracts of land suitable for agriculture and its key strategic location on the continent. Ideally Ukraine could have their own strong central government, try to cut ties with both the East and West, instill a sense of pride in their nation, and champion a Ukrainian identity that even the ethnic Russians who live there can get behind. There was one faction in Ukraine I was following called the Right Sector, since they did not discriminate against ethnic Russians or other non-Ukrainians, and instead claimed to only fight disorder and injustice. I recently learned they had pro-Zionist sentiments, though so I'm wary of them.

This is essentially a game of chicken for super powers. When the iron curten fell in the early 90s the then USSR had not much power to actually keep their sphere of influence as big as the former warsaw pact territory. They basically let the whole thing die under one condition, that there will be no NATO extension to the east. I am not saying that Russia technically had the right to demand that, but every so called super power wants its neighbour hood under their own sphere of control (the USA is not much different there... I just mention Cuba and nuclear missiles).

Now when the EU and even more so the US were happily pushing for the extension of NATO into the east (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania), they were asking for a rebuttal... which came surprisingly late... in Georgia. By then they should have realized that Russia wont make anymore conessions no matter what.
In the case of Ukraine, which is a major transit country for russian gas into the EU, the US had little to loose and everything to gain. The EU was shifting ever closer to Russia, because of the economical ties. Furthermore, the EU unlike the US is a major trading partner with Russia. So, by destabilizing Ukraine, the EU and Russia relationships can be set back (which means EU will shift back to US), furthermore the EU can be economically weakend as well as Russia. This will indirectly benefit the US economy. Now, I imagine the wet dream was, that the EU is not buying Russian gas anymore, but US shale gas. This would make the EU very dependend on the US, which is a good thing to force hegemonic super power policies.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Jinto

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-c...nuland/5367794

Any questions?

And I dont wanna know how the maidan snipers obtained their weapons.

I don't know, using a site setup by a well known conspiracy theory nut that's full of holocaust denier and anti-semite, spouting things like climate change is really caused by secret US weapons to back up your factually incorrect claims?

I don't know, should I have any questions?


That's about as bad as seeking advice on racial relations on stormfront.

[Cruachan]

Originally Posted by Jinto

This is essentially a game of chicken for super powers. When the iron curten fell in the early 90s the then USSR had not much power to actually keep their sphere of influence as big as the former warsaw pact territory. They basically let the whole thing die under one condition, that there will be no NATO extension to the east. I am not saying that Russia technically had the right to demand that, but every so called super power wants its neighbour hood under their own sphere of control (the USA is not much different there... I just mention Cuba and nuclear missiles).

Now when the EU and even more so the US were happily pushing for the extension of NATO into the east (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania), they were asking for a rebuttal... which came surprisingly late... in Georgia. By then they should have realized that Russia wont make anymore conessions no matter what.
In the case of Ukraine, which is a major transit country for russian gas into the EU, the US had little to loose and everything to gain. The EU was shifting ever closer to Russia, because of the economical ties. Furthermore, the EU unlike the US is a major trading partner with Russia. So, by destabilizing Ukraine, the EU and Russia relationships can be set back (which means EU will shift back to US), furthermore the EU can be economically weakend as well as Russia. This will indirectly benefit the US economy. Now, I imagine the wet dream was, that the EU is not buying Russian gas anymore, but US shale gas. This would make the EU very dependend on the US, which is a good thing to force hegemonic super power policies.

Well it's not like Ukraine was exactly cohesive before, there's been ethnic tension for decades between the Russians living there and the Ukrainians. You make a solid point about it not costing the US much and it would make sense if they wanted to cause that shift from Russian to US oil but it's speculation unless rebel guns can be traced to the US, but it's much more likely that the Russians are responsible. Occam's Razor. Russians may want to continue selling their oil to the EU but they won't need to with the way China's industry is still growing and building automobiles, more capital means more fuel and China isn't exactly the most green country when compared to many of the EU countries or even the US to an extent.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I don't know, using a site setup by a well known conspiracy theory nut that's full of holocaust denier and anti-semite, spouting things like climate change is really caused by secret US weapons to back up your factually incorrect claims?

Nobody stops you from searching the original audio in the internet. I mean, if I was citing the daily mail or some other news paper, then their non existant reputation for accuracy would not change the fact that the quoted audio recordings do really exist.

I just used this source because both of the audio recordings (EU and US) were quoted in it (which was a difficult find).

Originally Posted by kyp275

I don't know, should I have any questions?

You are free to believe whatever propaganda you are most happy with. But please check the facts. And if that includes the question: "Can I see the sources for the claims on that site?" Then yes, you could have asked this question. Just because a site is not as credible as another, doesnt mean it has based its article on false claims.

Originally Posted by kyp275

That's about as bad as seeking advice on racial relations on stormfront.

Do not focus on advice here, focus on the mentioned audio records please. You can erase all that was added by the author/editor of the article but the audio recordings remain a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

The EU audio recording is in german. The quality of voice is not very high, so I dont know if auto translation works (but maybe you can understand german):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC17nnfPF2I

Originally Posted by Cruachan

Well it's not like Ukraine was exactly cohesive before, there's been ethnic tension for decades between the Russians living there and the Ukrainians. You make a solid point about it not costing the US much and it would make sense if they wanted to cause that shift from Russian to US oil but it's speculation unless rebel guns can be traced to the US, but it's much more likely that the Russians are responsible. Occam's Razor. Russians may want to continue selling their oil to the EU but they won't need to with the way China's industry is still growing and building automobiles, more capital means more fuel and China isn't exactly the most green country when compared to many of the EU countries or even the US to an extent.

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.

[yononaka]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Now when the EU and even more so the US were happily pushing for the extension of NATO into the east (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania), they were asking for a rebuttal... which came surprisingly late... in Georgia. By then they should have realized that Russia wont make anymore conessions no matter what.

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.

[SaintessHeart]

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.

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.

[Jinto]

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.

I am not saying it was a wrong move. But after Georgia (which btw. had its wish to join NATO declined), the US should have known, that Russia wont tolerate more concessions.
I do not think the ruling elite in the US is that blind not to see that. Hence, I must assume the move was deliberate.

[GreyZone]

Why trying to connect every single little thing with the US? It's not like "USA", "Russia", "EU" and "involved civilians" are the only participants in this conflict. In the end it was the eastern European presidential shield that stopped the Russians from taking the capital of Georgia. Those were partially part of the EU and/or NATO, but the "important" western European contries had no part in it.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Why trying to connect every single little thing with the US?

Were did I state "every little thing"? I very clearly said, what I attribute to US interference, and EU interference, and Russian interference.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

In the end it was the middle eastern presidential shield that stopped the Russians from taking the capital of Georgia.

I don't quite understand how this is relevant for the decission, to not let Georgia join the NATO, but only after major US support for letting Georgia join the NATO (G.W. Bush's visit there was the first ever visit by a US president). The EU also had their stuff running, ENP, economic partnerships etc.

[Cruachan]

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.

Well I haven't had television for a few years so I'm not inclined to believe any propaganda presented in that medium, propaganda is not always bad though. I'll have to educate myself on the current situation more, as I'm somewhat familiar with the 20th century history of Europe, and after that I will return with either a good defense, a new opinion, or an acceptance of your theory. I look forward to it.

[yononaka]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I am not saying it was a wrong move. But after Georgia (which btw. had its wish to join NATO declined), the US should have known, that Russia wont tolerate more concessions.
I do not think the ruling elite in the US is that blind not to see that. Hence, I must assume the move was deliberate.

Well, if you want to continue to emphasize the role of the US in this, you are certainly free to do that. They seem to have their finger in every pie, that's for sure. It's just that having a finger in a pie doesn't quite compare with being elbow-deep in the pie, fist first, and the latter cannot be excused by the former.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by yononaka

Well, if you want to continue to emphasize the role of the US in this, you are certainly free to do that. They seem to have their finger in every pie, that's for sure. It's just that having a finger in a pie doesn't quite compare with being elbow-deep in the pie, fist first, and the latter cannot be excused by the former.

Well yes. Having the finger in your arch rival's pie is certainly a clever move.

But semantics aside, if you know that people will come to harm - when you promise them freedom, but know very well that this will only lead to conflict. What does that make you? Does it really matter that much who brings the gas and who brings the lighter?

But that leads to a moralistic debate, that is as biased as propaganda. Hence, I will not claim to be objective. That part is just my oppinion - not facts.

[risingstar3110]

In some ways, the role of US and Russia was flipping sides in Syria and Ukraine. One fund the rebels, the other threw in support on their government.

But on media, you clearly can see the difference in tones when describing the two events. On one hand, you see the Syria government described as dictatorship,has been facing economical sanction, and was seriously condemned by that biological gas incident despite it's clear that it's not in their interest for so, with the US and EU openly backed up and funded the "moderate rebels" (the more extreme meanwhile cut off people heads and stuffs). Syria are opened for US and NATO invasion too. Meanwhile the rebel in Ukraine are taken as Russian funded terrorists, and immediately assumed at fault for the MH17 as "it's not within Ukriane interest to take down that plane". And then the EU and US jumped at any evidences of Russian backing.


Now i'm not saying these two countries and incidents are the same. But you can clearly see the different tone of media depends on which side they are on

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

"it's not within Ukriane interest to take down that plane"

Actually, it's more like "Ukraine had no reason to fire ANY kind of AA weaponry in the area."

On the other hand the rebels kept shooting planes down and blogging about it online...

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Jinto

But that leads to a moralistic debate, that is as biased as propaganda. Hence, I will not claim to be objective. That part is just my oppinion - not facts.

In short, you are so eager to be anti-American that you ignore the relative lack of importance and influence the Americans have over events in Ukraine?

I swear, they could launch a massive rescue operation to save twenty thousand Yazidis from genocide tomorrow and you people would start asking questions why they re-invaded Iraq or something.

So the American-delivered rhetoric of freedom -- tainted as it is by the actual actions or lack thereof of the American government -- still gathers hearts and minds in corrupt, oppressed countries. Ergo, when people rise up and challenge existing regimes, it's the Americans' fault for not supporting them, and the Americans' fault if they support them. K.

Not to mention, it wasn't the Americans. Among the flags raised during the Maidan in defiance of Yanukovych, no star-spangled banners were to be seen. What inspired was the European Union flag. Will Germany take responsibility? Will you ask me why should you?

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Now i'm not saying these two countries and incidents are the same. But you can clearly see the different tone of media depends on which side they are on

No, you are, and you need to stop that.

Call me back when Kiev starts gassing Donetsk.