Ukraine and Russia Developments, Thread 3

[Basil II the B.S]

I really wanna know on what basis the IMF thinks that continuing support in Ukraine is somehow a safer proposition than doing the same in Greece.

Absolutely none since Ukraine is in a far worse situation than Greece. At this point Russia should just have Ukraine milk the IMF, thus Western taxpayers. Until they eventually collapse despite the funding and default on the IMF loans too.
As Europeans we objectively deserve this as long as we aren't able to elect capable leaders.

[snuggans]

UPDATE 1-Ukraine's Oschadbank says reaches deal with creditors in debt talks


it's beginning, basil.

while Ukraine has to pay the IMF $18 billion over the next four years, i wonder how much Russia has to pay to foreign creditors over the next four years, hopefully they should be making dents into that $500+ billion debt when they do. let's be clear here, whatever happens to Russia's economy will be felt in Ukraine, that much is certain, the question is how well is Ukraine going to weather it versus how well Russia is going to weather it, and how well is Ukraine at becoming dis-attached from the hip to Russia whenever Russia does sink and stumble, Ukraine better no longer be attached to Russia when that does happen, that's the main objective here and the IMF is keen to see it through.

[Sire Brenshar]

Nah, the precedent was Kosovo. At its core the poor Russian relations with the Baltic states and Poland are a result of historical grievances and hawkish politics. Nobody in the higher ups seriously consider a Russian attack even remotely plausible.

Really? So why is everyone in Eastern Europe readying their militaries? Why is the US stationing a brigades worth of equipment in the region?

You seem to have ignored my point entirely, that because Crimea was taken based off ethnic and historical justifications it raises an open question towards the possibility of an attack on for example the Baltic states, and hence the alarm and introduction of politically unpopular measures such as conscription in hose places. Of course though you'll just dismiss them as 'hawkish', and by extension therefore also irrelevant and irrational.

Actually, in today's settings, military power is everything. There is no such thing as economic or cultural victory, in real life, when there is another who could conquer you anytime.

If thats true why is Ukraine an independent state? Why did the two Afghanistan wars fail why did the Iraq war?

Happy, of course!

Dragging Russia into another Arms Race would have the same effect it had during Cold War 1. Only it would get there faster. Which means this time the Ukrainians won't need to wait for 50 years till they get Crimea and Kuban. Or even Moscow. After all, they got that city form the Finns.

The problem, is that you think that if another arms race occurs it would end the same way. What if despite the best intentions especially of the West to avoid war things spiral out of control and it goes nuclear? Russia and the US dont have the same close relationship they have during the cold war in case of a crises, and Putin so far seems willing to stonewall potential diplomatic solutions aimed at defusing tensions.

[Basil II the B.S]

UPDATE 1-Ukraine's Oschadbank says reaches deal with creditors in debt talks


it's beginning, basil.

Kinda of irrelevant. If they don't pay Russia, they'll still be bankrupt. Thus they'd be forced to borrow from the IMF at infinitum.

while Ukraine has to pay the IMF $18 billion over the next four years, i wonder how much Russia has to pay to foreign creditors over the next four years, hopefully they should be making dents into that $500+ billion debt when they do. let's be clear here, whatever happens to Russia's economy will be felt in Ukraine, that much is certain, the question is how well is Ukraine going to weather it versus how well Russia is going to weather it, and how well is Ukraine at becoming dis-attached from the hip to Russia whenever Russia does sink and stumble, Ukraine better no longer be attached to Russia when that does happen, that's the main objective here and the IMF is keen to see it through.

Few pages ago you were outraged that anyone mentioned Russia which is doing decent, and Ukraine which is doing , in the same phrase, now you want that comparison? Hilarious as always snuggans. Ukraine isn't coming out of this at all. Not in 4 years, not in 20.
America has destroyed their economy, sold the few industry they had to a tiny circle of oligarchs, stole their gold reserves.
European business as reported previously are leaving en masse. Shell confirmed as well that they are leaving. Russian oil and gas won't go through Ukraine any longer. Inflation is above 200%. That is doing well?
Russia will be fine, for the simple reason that America and its vassals are no longer the only source of capital. As China's state newspaper recently mentioned the G7 is a gathering of debtors and Europe under the American leadership is falling apart overrun by debts and immigrants.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/927001.shtml
But hey, if milking the IMF and a deal with the few investment banks that owns Ukrainian bonds makes you sleep at night.

[Abdülmecid I]

What? I think you've completely misread this statement...particularly the application of the word "optimistic" here, which in addition to meaning "hopeful" and "confident" can also mean "involving an overestimate" in English. I clearly was using the word in the latter sense, but you're excused from not knowing this if English is not your first language.

Sorry, I misread your post and thought that you were sharing Dromichaetes' russophobic dreams. My apologies.

[Roma_Victrix]

In 1941 not only the Ukrainians, but even the Russians had welcomed the Wehrmacht (with flowers, bread and salt - a customary way to say "welcome" in Eastern Europe).

Going further back, in 1918 Kuban proclaimed its independence and then wanted to unite with Ukraine. Fast forward to 1993, right before the showdown between Yeltsin and the Russian Duma, and several republics of the federation wanted to secede.

The Russians love to be patriotic on only two occasions:

1) When not being patriotic sends them to Siberia (or similar);

2) When they have nothing to gain by being "unpatriotic".

Best proof, the Baltic Russians nowadays. No matter how hard is Puting trying to stir things up there, it's not working. And that is in spite of the fact some of those Baltic Russians were not given the citizenship of the countries they live in, for failing to pass the local language tests. By the way, the overwhelming majority of the Baltic Russians passed those language tests and were granted citizenship. By Putin's standards, that was humiliating, but most of the Russians happily "debased" themselves and learned Estonian or Latvian. It is so much better to be "oppressed" in Estonia and Latvia than living "free" in Russia, that no "patriotic" Russian there thinks to set up roadblocks and occupy government buildings. Just like no patriotic Russian was thinking to do so in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea either, so Putin had to send in the little green men and the Spetsnaz.

Likewise, as soon as the Moldavian citizens were allowed to travel to the EU without visa last summer, the Transnistrean Russians formed long lines in front of the Moldavian passport offices.

All the past and present experience would indicate that if Russia descends into chaos like the Soviet Union did in 1991, the Russians would gladly join whatever looks like a better alternative.

Yes, these are some solid examples of the conditional nature of Russian patriotism. We are already witnessing an exodus of sorts of intellectuals and the well-educated from Russia to the West, not only because some feel threatened by the state, but also because there are simply greater opportunities to be had in the West. I suppose if you're an oil industry analyst or consultant then Russia is the place for you. In the end people will do what's best for their families and the bottom line: money.

All of that said, I think your underestimating present-day Russian nationalism, which is one of the sole things keeping Putin in power and the driving force behind the separatist movement in Donetsk and Luhansk. Even without the aid of state propaganda and the constant state-friendly narratives presented at RT, I think Russian patriotism is perhaps also ingrained in the people who have no motivation as of now to leave Russia and are living comfortably enough for the moment. For the vast majority of Russians it is the horse they bet on and they're sticking with it. You're basically saying that in the very near future it will become apparent to most Russians that this is a losing bet, and I just don't think that will be the case. Of course there are the recent precedents for the Russian Empire and Soviet Empire collapsing and losing chunks of what they had previously, but Moscow? It just sounds like wishful thinking even if Russia is sent into economic turmoil during the next five years.

[Gertrudius]

I for one fail to see the merit in some kind of significant fragmentation of the Russian Federation. I can't imagine that accomplishing anything other than breeding more instability in the region. Advocating for such is just a different side of the same coin that drives the nostalgic lust exhibited in current Russian policy (and in the argumentation of it's advocates). Russia plays an important role regionally and on the world stage, it will likely continue to do so. That they are making short sighted and inane policy decisions doesn't change that fact.

[Stavroforos]

Not to mention that this wet-dream of Russian fragmentation will be worse for all the non-Russian republics who have much smaller economies and laughably small populations. Sure, many of the Russian energy deposits are beyond where this future fragmented Russian state would end, but I can't imagine them being able to capitalize well. Russia would remain the strongest nation in the region of fragmented nations who will end up creating even greater instability in the region. Honestly, the Russian fragmentation wet-dream seems to come much more out of a hatred of Russia than it does out of reality.

[Dromikaites]

The smaller republics would end up under the protective umbrella of either NATO or China (depending on who gets there first).

Look at the Baltic states: the Russian bear cannot touch them even though they are militarily insignificant. In the same time, the much bigger and stronger Ukraine is a battleground precisely because it is outside NATO's umbrella.

The Russians have a culture based on raw force, which encourages carving up the Federation, as soon as the central authority would collapse. Basically, the Russians would bow to the nearest guy holding a big club. Which is why once the local oligarchs are freed of Putin, each would attempt to create his own fief.

It has happened before in 1917, it was close to happening in 1993 and would happen as soon as the conditions would be ripe in the future.

As for the benefit of having a fragmented Russia instead of the current federation, the West would have an easier way of modernizing and integrating those Russian statelets, one at a time.

[Condottiere 40K]

5530
It will probably be a re-enactment of the break up of the Ottoman Empire, with the nation of Muscovy very vocal about protecting the rights of foreign Russian speakers, becoming increasingly more Orthodox and having it's President say things that seem rather bizarre when translated.

[Stavroforos]

The breakup of the Ottoman Empire was great for Turkey, though.

[Condottiere 40K]

That got to be part of NATO to contain the Russians; Muscovy could be part of NATO to contain the Chinese.
6499

[Bethrezen]

As for the benefit of having a fragmented Russia instead of the current federation, the West would have an easier way of modernizing and integrating those Russian statelets, one at a time.

And then the West conquers, subdues or fragments the remaining powers, modernizing and integrating them as well, and a neverending Golden Age starts for humankind.With the Emperor sitting on the Golden Throne.

[Heathen Hammer]

The irony of the whole Russia breaking up wet dreams is that more then likely we may see the exact opposite. The only part that can realistically break apart from RF is Caucasus - but it is something that may even benefit Russia in the long run, given how these republics provide barely any financial input and their budget mostly relies on Moscow spoon-feeding them taxpayer cash. However, other "republics" have more ethnic Russian living in them , so there'd be little incentive for them to seek independence from Moscow and its money. Another factor is that Russia may not lose, but gain some more regions in the future: a lot of ethnic Russian regions were handed over to non-Russian republics by Lenin and Stalin, and given how almost everything about these (now "independent") republics is artificial (from economy to de-facto borders) we will probably see their inevitable disintegration and Russian regions returning back to become an official part of Russia again.
Most importantly, we see another tendency - rise of Europskeptic and anti-American movements in EU, which will start replacing morally and legally corrupt "mainstream" parties in the next 5-10 years, which means end of NATO as we know it. Also Canada seems to be leaning towards China (Harper's government is doing most of the leaning) and we'll probably see more states defect from US into China's sphere of influence.

[Vanoi]

^lol. We saw a Euro skeptic candidate already rise in Poland, and its not going to benefit Russia as he may be Eurospectic, but still pro-American and doesn't like Russia at all. In fact, i seriosuly doubt any of the Eastern European countries will change their stance towards Russia, or leave NATO.

I'd love to hear what European countries would leave NATO though. All of them right now are just too busy enjoying the membership and having the US protect them so they don't' have to spend large amount of money on their militaries.

[Heathen Hammer]

^lol. We saw a Euro skeptic candidate already rise in Poland, and its not going to benefit Russia as he may be Eurospectic, but still pro-American and doesn't like Russia at all. In fact, i seriosuly doubt any of the Eastern European countries will change their stance towards Russia, or leave NATO.

I'd love to hear what European countries would leave NATO though. All of them right now are just too busy enjoying the membership and having the US protect them so they don't' have to spend large amount of money on their militaries.

Yeah, they are too busy enjoying being spied on and having corrupt pro-American politicians who flood their countries with Islamists.

[Vanoi]

Yeah, they are too busy enjoying being spied

Lol what is this, 2013? Its been two years now. The NSA scandal isn't an obstacle anymore.

on and having corrupt pro-American politicians who flood their countries with Islamists.

EU's immigration policy is a fault of their own.

You didn't address any of my points though, like usual. What nations are going to leave NATO again HH?

[Heathen Hammer]

Lol what is this, 2013? Its been two years now. The NSA scandal isn't an obstacle anymore.

Yes it is.

EU's immigration policy is a fault of their own.

It is a fault of corrupt pro-American politicians.

You didn't address any of my points though, like usual. What nations are going to leave NATO again HH?

They'll probably have their own military alliance which would save them cash just as much, but without obligation to partake in America's pointless and unwinable wars like Afghanistan.

[Vanoi]

Yes it is.

Prove it then. Prove the NSA scandal is still hurting US-European relations to the point of them leaving NATO.

It is a fault of corrupt pro-American politicians.

Source?

They'll probably have their own military alliance which would save them cash just as much, but without obligation to partake in America's pointless and unwinable wars like Afghanistan.

How? None of these countries have the logistics or spend enough money on their own militaries. Even France need US logistical help in getting troops to Mali and France is a big military power in NATO.

You still have not told me which nations would be leaving NATO.

[Heathen Hammer]

Prove it then. Prove the NSA scandal is still hurting US-European relations.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...rom-your-data/
Also anti-American parties are gaining popularity, which is a clear sign that Europeans no longer like US.

Source?

Source on what? That politicians like Cameron and Hollande flooded their countries with people who are ready to commit acts of violence for religious reasons? That's common knowledge.

How? None of these countries have the logistics or spend enough money on their own militaries. Even France need US logistical help in getting troops to Mali and France is a big military power in NATO.

You still have not told me which nations would be leaving NATO.

Look at which nations have growing anti-US parties and put 2 + 2 together. Also China will want us out at some point as well.