Post: #26

(04-14-2014 03:17 PM)Courage Reborn Wrote:  I've been out of the loop on this. Can someone break down the current situation?

Basically, pro-Russian protesters are occupying government buildings in several eastern cities.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-04-1...ine-passes

Quote:HORLIVKA, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine's acting president urged the United Nations on Monday to send peacekeeping troops to eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russian gunmen kept up their rampage of storming and occupying local government offices, police stations and a small airport.

The request came from a government that has proved powerless to rein in separatists in its eastern and southern regions, where insurgents have seized or barricaded government buildings in at least nine cities, demanding more autonomy from the new government in Kiev and closer ties with Russia.

The Kiev government and Western officials accuse Russia of instigating the unrest and of deploying armed Russian agents in civilian clothing to carry them out.

In a telephone call with Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, acting President Oleksandr Turchynov suggested that an "anti-terrorist operation" be conducted jointly by Ukrainian security forces and U.N. peacekeepers, according to the presidential website.

Peacekeepers, however, would have to be authorized by the U.N. Security Council, where Russia holds a veto.

Turchynov's deadline for insurgents to give up their weapons and vacate their homemade barricades passed Monday without any visible action — instead, the violence continued. A pro-Russian mob stormed a Ukrainian police station in Horlivka, another city near the Russian border. Later in the day, armed men in masks also seized control of a small airport outside the city of Slovyansk, also in the Donetsk region bordering Russia.

"The Russian Federation is sending special units to the east of our country, which seize administrative buildings with the use of weapons and are putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of our citizens in danger," Turchynov said, according to the presidential web-site.

The events echoed those in Crimea, which was annexed by Russia last month after key regional facilities were seized by Russian troops aided by local militiamen.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying Monday that Putin has received "numerous appeals" from eastern Ukraine "asking him to help and interfere in one way or another." Peskov added that Putin was "watching the developments in those regions with great concern" but wouldn't elaborate.

The Kiev government is in a bind because if they crack down, and there is major bloodshed, it sets up a pretext for Russia to invade.

Post: #27

(04-14-2014 03:08 PM)rover Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:37 PM)Maciano Wrote:  For crying out loud... The Russians have a violent imperialist past like most other Euro-countries; historically average Russians were serfs: slaves. Besides that, in 20th century, they've been prime responsible for the Holodomor, the Katyn-massacre, whole displacements of peoples, the Gulag Archipelago, the enslavement of E Europe for 50 years, and countless of other stuff. The US has not got that great a record either, but it's nothing as bad as that.

Empires all have violent past, especially those with a lot of small pesky neighbours. The USA is a bit lucky in this regard due to its geography. Every country had some form of slavery in the past, what is your point, are you hating on the USA brothers too because their ancestors were mostly brought in as slaves? You seem to be very one-sidedly educated, which is quite common among small satellite countries who are passed from one block to another like a whore in a brothel, since the new governments are always forced to educate their people how their old master was all bad but the new one is all good. It's just a propaganda machine, some learn to read beyond it, most don't.

It doesn't matter what I seem to you. I'm not even from Eastern Europe, I just have a good memory. Russia has been a bad hegemon whenever the country became powerful. Eastern Europeans know this, have suffered Russia's idiosyncracies, violence and paranoia. I never watch Western media or altmedia-shit like Russia Today. I just add 2 + 2 together myself and look for the outcome.

Some of you fall for the fallacy of deeming right what you like; you like a lot of stuff about Russia (its conservative sex roles, its illiberalness in general, the babes, the more bad-assness of their leaders) and then conclude: this must be right. Well, Russia isn't right. It isn't right to invade sovereign nations who want to go their own way, but get thwarted for the crime of being smaller. It wasn't right in Iraq when the US did it, it isn't right now when Russia is using all the tricks in the book to do it to Ukraine.

And for all the US' faults -- there are plenty -- there are at least some virtues. Russia has been a pest on their neighbors for two centuries now. Russia could take some lessons from Poland or Estonia, they might be small, but they've improved themselves in many ways Russia hasn't.

Post: #28

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 03:08 PM)rover Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:37 PM)Maciano Wrote:  For crying out loud... The Russians have a violent imperialist past like most other Euro-countries; historically average Russians were serfs: slaves. Besides that, in 20th century, they've been prime responsible for the Holodomor, the Katyn-massacre, whole displacements of peoples, the Gulag Archipelago, the enslavement of E Europe for 50 years, and countless of other stuff. The US has not got that great a record either, but it's nothing as bad as that.

Empires all have violent past, especially those with a lot of small pesky neighbours. The USA is a bit lucky in this regard due to its geography. Every country had some form of slavery in the past, what is your point, are you hating on the USA brothers too because their ancestors were mostly brought in as slaves? You seem to be very one-sidedly educated, which is quite common among small satellite countries who are passed from one block to another like a whore in a brothel, since the new governments are always forced to educate their people how their old master was all bad but the new one is all good. It's just a propaganda machine, some learn to read beyond it, most don't.

It doesn't matter what I seem to you. I'm not even from Eastern Europe, I just have a good memory. Russia has been a bad hegemon whenever the country became powerful. Eastern Europeans know this, have suffered Russia's idiosyncracies, violence and paranoia. I never watch Western media or altmedia-shit like Russia Today. I just add 2 + 2 together myself and look for the outcome.

Some of you fall for the fallacy of deeming right what you like; you like a lot of stuff about Russia (its conservative sex roles, its illiberalness in general, the babes, the more bad-assness of their leaders) and then conclude: this must be right. Well, Russia isn't right. It isn't right to invade sovereign nations who want to go their own way, but get thwarted for the crime of being smaller. It wasn't right in Iraq when the US did it, it isn't right now when Russia is using all the tricks in the book to do it to Ukraine.

And for all the US' faults -- there are plenty -- there are at least some virtues. Russia has been a pest on their neighbors for two centuries now. Russia could take some lessons from Poland or Estonia, they might be small, but they've improved themselves in many ways Russia hasn't.

They improved themselves with German capital and when you minus the taxes and unreported Russian income the avg Russian salary is probably = to Poland. Most folks report only a fraction of income so when you read wiki avg. income it not showing whole picture.
Most of those new EU eastern euro countries aren't doing good at all. Realize that the economy is supporting only a fraction of the population due to many workers being forced to work in western EU. Add to that the % that legally immigrated to the west and then the unemployment rate and you will find that most EE EU countries if they had to employ the whole population and no money was being sent home would be like Greece right now.
Funny in the last 2 centuries I kind of remember the French and Germans invading Russia..with help from East European nations.
That being said..as I said I understand the Crimea annex. Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine in the first place...even the Czech president said so this week.
But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.
But I suspect if they are funding pro Russian groups who really want to be HEARD and the protesters live in Ukraine...then they have the same right as EU funding pro western protesters. And US funding Al Quieda in Syria.
Again 2 wrongs don't make a right..but it is like getting pussy. You can't act like a beta if your competition is Alpha.
Rules have to be for both. Think about it! If VK acted how he wanted to without US sanctions there would be NO crisis now. Elections would be coming soon enough.
But if UA wants Russia out they will have to fight. And NATO isn't obligated to help them. In fact NATO should have stopped bringing in small weak countries a long time ago. It doesn't make US more secure..makes it less so.
Ukraine is also a nightmare because you really can't even trust them. Half the country thinks Kiev is the enemy. The units are divided.

Post: #29

No need to invade if the troops keep deserting:

Quote:SLAVIANSK/KRAMATORSK, Ukraine (Reuters) - Armored personal carriers driven into the eastern Ukrainian city of Slaviansk had been under the control of Ukrainian armed forces earlier on Wednesday, pictures taken by Reuters photographers showed.

A soldier guarding one of six troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists told Reuters he was a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

"All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people," said the soldier, whose uniform did not have any identifying markings on it.

"They haven't fed us for three days on our base. They're feeding us here. Who do you think we are going to fight for?," he said. on Wednesday, pictures taken by Reuters photographers showed.

A soldier guarding one of six troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists told Reuters he was a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

"All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people," said the soldier, whose uniform did not have any identifying markings on it.

"They haven't fed us for three days on our base. They're feeding us here. Who do you think we are going to fight for?," he said.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBR...6?irpc=932

Post: #30

Latest dispatch from VICE News:

Post: #31

enjoying these vice reports

Post: #32

(04-16-2014 08:04 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  No need to invade if the troops keep deserting:

Quote:SLAVIANSK/KRAMATORSK, Ukraine (Reuters) - Armored personal carriers driven into the eastern Ukrainian city of Slaviansk had been under the control of Ukrainian armed forces earlier on Wednesday, pictures taken by Reuters photographers showed.

A soldier guarding one of six troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists told Reuters he was a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

"All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people," said the soldier, whose uniform did not have any identifying markings on it.

"They haven't fed us for three days on our base. They're feeding us here. Who do you think we are going to fight for?," he said. on Wednesday, pictures taken by Reuters photographers showed.

A soldier guarding one of six troop carriers now under the control of pro-Russian separatists told Reuters he was a member of Ukraine's 25th paratrooper division from Dnipropetrovsk.

"All the soldiers and the officers are here. We are all boys who won't shoot our own people," said the soldier, whose uniform did not have any identifying markings on it.

"They haven't fed us for three days on our base. They're feeding us here. Who do you think we are going to fight for?," he said.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBR...6?irpc=932

At another level, this is good news for the American people, too (if our soldiers/police are anything like Ukrainian soldiers). The people lording over us better speed up with the robo-soldiers.

Post: #33

Isn't it strange that the uniform of these Ukrainian forces has no identifying markings on it? WTF? How does anyone know these are Ukrainians? - could those be Russians driving APCs from former Crimean bases?

Post: #34

(04-16-2014 11:56 AM)rover Wrote:  Isn't it strange that the uniform of these Ukrainian forces has no identifying markings on it? WTF? How does anyone know these are Ukrainians? - could those be Russians driving APCs from former Crimean bases?

Fresh recruits that got whatever uniforms slapped on them maybe?

Post: #35

(04-16-2014 11:56 AM)rover Wrote:  Isn't it strange that the uniform of these Ukrainian forces has no identifying markings on it? WTF? How does anyone know these are Ukrainians? - could those be Russians driving APCs from former Crimean bases?

How would they get to Donetsk? The Ukrainian military is facing south in the Kherson oblast alongside Russian checkpoints.

Post: #36

(04-16-2014 12:09 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  How would they get to Donetsk? The Ukrainian military is facing south in the Kherson oblast alongside Russian checkpoints.

Well, its far fetched, but just saying - aside from the flag there is no way to distinguish who is who there.

Now there are rumours that Yanukovich will return to Donetsk this weekend, - that would be really interesting.

Post: #37

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 03:08 PM)rover Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:37 PM)Maciano Wrote:  For crying out loud... The Russians have a violent imperialist past like most other Euro-countries; historically average Russians were serfs: slaves. Besides that, in 20th century, they've been prime responsible for the Holodomor, the Katyn-massacre, whole displacements of peoples, the Gulag Archipelago, the enslavement of E Europe for 50 years, and countless of other stuff. The US has not got that great a record either, but it's nothing as bad as that.

Empires all have violent past, especially those with a lot of small pesky neighbours. The USA is a bit lucky in this regard due to its geography. Every country had some form of slavery in the past, what is your point, are you hating on the USA brothers too because their ancestors were mostly brought in as slaves? You seem to be very one-sidedly educated, which is quite common among small satellite countries who are passed from one block to another like a whore in a brothel, since the new governments are always forced to educate their people how their old master was all bad but the new one is all good. It's just a propaganda machine, some learn to read beyond it, most don't.

It doesn't matter what I seem to you. I'm not even from Eastern Europe, I just have a good memory. Russia has been a bad hegemon whenever the country became powerful. Eastern Europeans know this, have suffered Russia's idiosyncracies, violence and paranoia. I never watch Western media or altmedia-shit like Russia Today. I just add 2 + 2 together myself and look for the outcome.

Some of you fall for the fallacy of deeming right what you like; you like a lot of stuff about Russia (its conservative sex roles, its illiberalness in general, the babes, the more bad-assness of their leaders) and then conclude: this must be right. Well, Russia isn't right. It isn't right to invade sovereign nations who want to go their own way, but get thwarted for the crime of being smaller. It wasn't right in Iraq when the US did it, it isn't right now when Russia is using all the tricks in the book to do it to Ukraine.

And for all the US' faults -- there are plenty -- there are at least some virtues. Russia has been a pest on their neighbors for two centuries now. Russia could take some lessons from Poland or Estonia, they might be small, but they've improved themselves in many ways Russia hasn't.

They improved themselves with German capital and when you minus the taxes and unreported Russian income the avg Russian salary is probably = to Poland. Most folks report only a fraction of income so when you read wiki avg. income it not showing whole picture.
Most of those new EU eastern euro countries aren't doing good at all. Realize that the economy is supporting only a fraction of the population due to many workers being forced to work in western EU. Add to that the % that legally immigrated to the west and then the unemployment rate and you will find that most EE EU countries if they had to employ the whole population and no money was being sent home would be like Greece right now.
Funny in the last 2 centuries I kind of remember the French and Germans invading Russia..with help from East European nations.
That being said..as I said I understand the Crimea annex. Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine in the first place...even the Czech president said so this week.
But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.
But I suspect if they are funding pro Russian groups who really want to be HEARD and the protesters live in Ukraine...then they have the same right as EU funding pro western protesters. And US funding Al Quieda in Syria.
Again 2 wrongs don't make a right..but it is like getting pussy. You can't act like a beta if your competition is Alpha.
Rules have to be for both. Think about it! If VK acted how he wanted to without US sanctions there would be NO crisis now. Elections would be coming soon enough.
But if UA wants Russia out they will have to fight. And NATO isn't obligated to help them. In fact NATO should have stopped bringing in small weak countries a long time ago. It doesn't make US more secure..makes it less so.
Ukraine is also a nightmare because you really can't even trust them. Half the country thinks Kiev is the enemy. The units are divided.

You make a good point re Ukrainian nationalists. They've been deliberately boorish, dumb & unnecessarily intolerant of half their Russian-speaking countrymen. This is what revanchism gave them: immediate, opportunistic response from the bear. I rly anticipated Russia would pull this move re E-Ukraine, that's why objected to them annexing Crimea. (Although, I would, of course, not object a peaceful secessionist movement in peaceful circumstances.)

Putin's duplicity is what I first admired abt him, when he used it to bring some order to Russia & thwarted the US when it went too far in its power trips. Sadly, Putin & his cronies seem on a power trip themselves w/ all the negative stuff attached to that.

In general, to me, Putin is a nationalist. One of the oldschool European 19th century mentality who believes his country, people, religion, culture, heroes, traditions, values & language are paramount. It's not bad per se to claim your country's rightful place under the sun, but Euro-nationalists can never end it right there. They need more than their own place in the sun. They need other people's place under the sun too. Most of these nationalists can be contained within smaller democratic Euro states, but Putin rules one of the most powerful nations on earth.

Post: #38

Just thinking, Russia should've dangled a carrot to the less hawkish euro countries right after annexing Crimea. Say a temporary 2-3 month 5% gas discount with major publicity within targeted countries. Nothing big, but a gesture. To some level this would moderate some future euro sanctions if/when Russia annexes or invades eastern (won't prevent sanctions obviously). At the very least it sows dissention among euro countries and within euro countries.

With all the money saved from Ukrainian discounts and base leasing gone and with the wealth of gas and oil in Crimean territorial waters it wouldn't really cost Russia anything.

If Russia takes over 1/2 of Ukraine I'd think it could easily take existing pipelines in Ukraine and cheaply redirect extensions around the newly landlocked Ukraine to go through Belarus and Russian controlled southern Ukraine.

Post: #39

This might not be WWIII but it seems like start of Cold War II.

Post: #40

(04-16-2014 12:53 PM)Maciano Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 10:45 AM)Maciano Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 03:08 PM)rover Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:37 PM)Maciano Wrote:  For crying out loud... The Russians have a violent imperialist past like most other Euro-countries; historically average Russians were serfs: slaves. Besides that, in 20th century, they've been prime responsible for the Holodomor, the Katyn-massacre, whole displacements of peoples, the Gulag Archipelago, the enslavement of E Europe for 50 years, and countless of other stuff. The US has not got that great a record either, but it's nothing as bad as that.

Empires all have violent past, especially those with a lot of small pesky neighbours. The USA is a bit lucky in this regard due to its geography. Every country had some form of slavery in the past, what is your point, are you hating on the USA brothers too because their ancestors were mostly brought in as slaves? You seem to be very one-sidedly educated, which is quite common among small satellite countries who are passed from one block to another like a whore in a brothel, since the new governments are always forced to educate their people how their old master was all bad but the new one is all good. It's just a propaganda machine, some learn to read beyond it, most don't.

It doesn't matter what I seem to you. I'm not even from Eastern Europe, I just have a good memory. Russia has been a bad hegemon whenever the country became powerful. Eastern Europeans know this, have suffered Russia's idiosyncracies, violence and paranoia. I never watch Western media or altmedia-shit like Russia Today. I just add 2 + 2 together myself and look for the outcome.

Some of you fall for the fallacy of deeming right what you like; you like a lot of stuff about Russia (its conservative sex roles, its illiberalness in general, the babes, the more bad-assness of their leaders) and then conclude: this must be right. Well, Russia isn't right. It isn't right to invade sovereign nations who want to go their own way, but get thwarted for the crime of being smaller. It wasn't right in Iraq when the US did it, it isn't right now when Russia is using all the tricks in the book to do it to Ukraine.

And for all the US' faults -- there are plenty -- there are at least some virtues. Russia has been a pest on their neighbors for two centuries now. Russia could take some lessons from Poland or Estonia, they might be small, but they've improved themselves in many ways Russia hasn't.

They improved themselves with German capital and when you minus the taxes and unreported Russian income the avg Russian salary is probably = to Poland. Most folks report only a fraction of income so when you read wiki avg. income it not showing whole picture.
Most of those new EU eastern euro countries aren't doing good at all. Realize that the economy is supporting only a fraction of the population due to many workers being forced to work in western EU. Add to that the % that legally immigrated to the west and then the unemployment rate and you will find that most EE EU countries if they had to employ the whole population and no money was being sent home would be like Greece right now.
Funny in the last 2 centuries I kind of remember the French and Germans invading Russia..with help from East European nations.
That being said..as I said I understand the Crimea annex. Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine in the first place...even the Czech president said so this week.
But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.
But I suspect if they are funding pro Russian groups who really want to be HEARD and the protesters live in Ukraine...then they have the same right as EU funding pro western protesters. And US funding Al Quieda in Syria.
Again 2 wrongs don't make a right..but it is like getting pussy. You can't act like a beta if your competition is Alpha.
Rules have to be for both. Think about it! If VK acted how he wanted to without US sanctions there would be NO crisis now. Elections would be coming soon enough.
But if UA wants Russia out they will have to fight. And NATO isn't obligated to help them. In fact NATO should have stopped bringing in small weak countries a long time ago. It doesn't make US more secure..makes it less so.
Ukraine is also a nightmare because you really can't even trust them. Half the country thinks Kiev is the enemy. The units are divided.

You make a good point re Ukrainian nationalists. They've been deliberately boorish, dumb & unnecessarily intolerant of half their Russian-speaking countrymen. This is what revanchism gave them: immediate, opportunistic response from the bear. I rly anticipated Russia would pull this move re E-Ukraine, that's why objected to them annexing Crimea. (Although, I would, of course, not object a peaceful secessionist movement in peaceful circumstances.)

Putin's duplicity is what I first admired abt him, when he used it to bring some order to Russia & thwarted the US when it went too far in its power trips. Sadly, Putin & his cronies seem on a power trip themselves w/ all the negative stuff attached to that.

In general, to me, Putin is a nationalist. One of the oldschool European 19th century mentality who believes his country, people, religion, culture, heroes, traditions, values & language are paramount. It's not bad per se to claim your country's rightful place under the sun, but Euro-nationalists can never end it right there. They need more than their own place in the sun. They need other people's place under the sun too. Most of these nationalists can be contained within smaller democratic Euro states, but Putin rules one of the most powerful nations on earth.

Agreed..we now on same wavelength.
Putin is a nationalist and he is promoting fascism in Russia t o an extent.But he can get away with it because majority of Russia is Russians and other groups that except the culture.
Ukraine nationalism is BAD. US nationalism is good. Why do I sound like a hypocrite?
Because Ukraine can't afford nationalism based on traditional Banderstan Ukrainian values simply because half the country sees him as an enemy. That was the biggest mistake from the protests.The gov't was formed based on partly the nationalistic agenda. Doing so alienated 50% of the country. Then the knocking over Lenin statues and language law repealed.
Nationalism is rising in EU right now. Austerity measures have angered folks and they are becoming more attracted to fascism. Bad economies have been doing that in Europe for centuries.

Post: #41

(04-16-2014 01:08 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Putin is a nationalist and he is promoting fascism in Russia

And why is that bad? Russia under Putin is a much nicer place to live than Russia under Yeltsin.

I don't care what they call the regime. I want peace, security, stability, rule of law. Russia under Putin does not have much in terms of rule of law, but at least it has more of the first three: peace, security, stability.

Moscow under Yeltsin in October 1993:

Post: #42

But consider that he's currently exporting instability to his neighbor in order to maintain it at home.

Post: #43

(04-16-2014 01:12 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 01:08 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Putin is a nationalist and he is promoting fascism in Russia

And why is that bad? Russia under Putin is a much nicer place to live than Russia under Yeltsin.

I don't care what they call the regime. I want peace, security, stability, rule of law. Russia under Putin does not have much in terms of rule of law, but at least it has more of the first three: peace, security, stability.

Moscow under Yeltsin in October 1993:

?????I didn't say its bad. I said its bad nationalism in Ukraine because the country is divided. Russia's majority is Russian so it isn't horrible.
I wrote enough already about Yeltsin. He was a western ass kisser.

Post: #44

(04-16-2014 01:17 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  But consider that he's currently exporting instability to his neighbor in order to maintain it at home.

Yes, but his duty is to serve the Russian people, not the Ukrainian people.

I don't have access to Putin's thoughts, but I suppose that in his view the "war" over Ukraine started in 2004 when the U.S. and others (e.g., Boris Berezovsky) backed Yushchenko and engineered the Orange Revolution.

Post: #45

I have to second people objecting to Jeltsin & the rape of Russia in the 90s. It was disgusting how average people got pushed from a communist dictatorship in a hyper-free market "democracy". Putin's rise can not be understood w/o pointing to the 90s plundering of all these corporatist oligarchs. The West rly should've been a better brother to the Russians after 90yrs of communist hardship.

Nationalism gets nasty when it moves beyond its borders &/or makes the majority into the only legitimate interest group.

Post: #46

Nothing new under the sun!!! Here's one of Mark Ames's Whore-R Stories:

The Southeast Autonomous Whore (December 2004)

It was right after the Orange Revolution. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:Lola, my whore, came from Severodonetsk, a toxic dump in the Lugansk oblast, the Russified east of Ukraine. I rented her late on Sunday, November 28th -- the same day that the Ukrainian governors of several pro-Yanukovich regions were holding a congress in Severodonetsk, threatening to create a breakaway southeastern Ukrainian republic if the "orange" revolution in Kiev succeeded. It was one of those coincidences that writers invent to give a sordid story some relevance -- but invention in this case isn't necessary. We're talking about whores here, folks. Any john in Moscow knows that Yanukovich country, the pro-Russian southeast of Ukraine, is the snapper-basket of Europe, the white world's most fertile breeding ground for whores, the Golden Triangle of prostitution production.

(...)

When I found out she was from Severodonetsk, I exclaimed, "So Lola, what do you think about being a citizen of a new country?" She hadn't heard about the separatist movement in her region.

"I don't know, I guess it's fine," she said, laughing. "Really, I don't understand politics. We're all Ukrainians. Although...we are also close to Russia. I don't know Mark, I know nothing about this."

Nothing new under the sun, indeed.

Post: #47

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  [quote='Maciano' pid='703326' dateline='1397576722']
[quote='rover' pid='702590' dateline='1397506128']
[quote='Maciano' pid='702561' dateline='1397504279']

But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.

What about Donetsk, Odessa and all the other pro-Russian majority towns in the East?

Post: #48

(04-16-2014 02:46 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  [quote='Maciano' pid='703326' dateline='1397576722']
[quote='rover' pid='702590' dateline='1397506128']
[quote='Maciano' pid='702561' dateline='1397504279']

But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.

What about Donetsk, Odessa and all the other pro-Russian majority towns in the East?

Except for Crimea the majority of the Russian cultured regions don't want to be part of Russia.
They majority don't support the junta in Kiev but to them its an internal matter that has to be fixed by elections, democratic institutions.Not by splitting the country up.
Most of course would love more autonomy. Odessa actually has a bit of autonomy already and always had.
Problem is no one knows Putins agenda. Is he doing all of this just so e can force west to recognize Crimea? Does he really want east Ukraine? Does he pretend to want east Ukraine so to distract eyes there while he invades Odessa,Nikoliev and Kherson designing a land bridge to Transneister? Thus taking back what was once called "NEW RUSSIA".
But I think he should just work on his own economy. He got Crimea..that alone is a win. Leave the poor Ukrainians alone.They are in so much financial trouble that they will be begging Russia for help.

Post: #49

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.
But I suspect if they are funding pro Russian groups who really want to be HEARD and the protesters live in Ukraine...then they have the same right as EU funding pro western protesters. And US funding Al Quieda in Syria.

Are you saying that Russia no historic right to take over South/East Ukraine, unlike Crimea, - just because it was cut out of Russia proper by bolsheviks and given to the Ukranian Republic in 1922 as opposed to 1954? Even though those cities were part of Russia since 1700s and were founded/developed by them, just like Sevastopol? A lot of people will disagree with you there. Not saying that this wouldn't be a pretty bad move, but speaking of 'historic' rights, whatever they mean, it's about the same.

At this point, if Russia made a move into Crimea, it behooves them to continue and spend the next decade or two getting the rest of South/East Ukraine - via federalization, strong economic links, the language and, eventually, referendums and back into Russia's fold. If Ukrainian governments continue to be as polarizing and weak, it's absolutely going to happen.

Post: #50

(04-16-2014 03:18 PM)rover Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 11:55 AM)jimukr104 Wrote:  But I am totally against Russian troops taking over any part of mainland Ukraine. They don't have a historic right like they did with Crimea and unlike Crimea the majority doesn't want them there.
But I suspect if they are funding pro Russian groups who really want to be HEARD and the protesters live in Ukraine...then they have the same right as EU funding pro western protesters. And US funding Al Quieda in Syria.

Are you saying that Russia no historic right to take over South/East Ukraine, unlike Crimea, - just because it was cut out of Russia proper by bolsheviks and given to the Ukranian Republic in 1922 as opposed to 1954? Even though those cities were part of Russia since 1700s and were founded/developed by them, just like Sevastopol? A lot of people will disagree with you there. Not saying that this wouldn't be a pretty bad move, but speaking of 'historic' rights, whatever they mean, it's about the same.

At this point, if Russia made a move into Crimea, it behooves them to continue and spend the next decade or two getting the rest of South/East Ukraine - via federalization, strong economic links, the language and, eventually, referendums and back into Russia's fold. If Ukrainian governments continue to be as polarizing and weak, it's absolutely going to happen.

Yes that is what I am saying. I said national security trumps right or wrong. They needed Crimea for that. Donetsk and those other cities they don't. Nor do the people there, majority, want to be in Russia.
Should Manhattan island be given back to the Indians? There has to be a an extent as to how far one can go back.Putin wanting those areas just to destabilize Ukraine because he is "pissed" is not a good reason.They never even disputed those areas. Crimea was being disputed even when the 1994 agreement was made.