Ukraine-in-a-thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Actually, it's not a good point at all. In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned. The West was viewed through a very pragmatic lens. It is not until 2004 or so when Putin regained control of the media that "the world is out to get us" attitude started making a comeback. But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

---

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience. This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries. Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded.

I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...

---

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

One does not shift a cultural pattern of thinking/acting/value in the space of a decade, except, perhaps, with the then maturing generation who are less a part of the previous experience.

---

It can happen just fine under the right circumstances. Having a totalitarian empire unravel within a span of six years can do wonders for clearing people's heads. Not everybody of course, but most get message.

Quote:

---

This self=protectiveness (paranoia) has been a characteristic of the Russian mindset for centuries.

---

Because Russia has been ruled by tyrants for almost the entire span of its history.

Quote:

---

Russia, at least when not the CCCP, often embraced relations with the West. Cordial, even friendly, relationships does not necessarily mean that this mindset was discarded. I did not mean to say that Russia views all around it as enemies -- that was the Soviet "Collective Security" thinking, a policy now discarded.

---

Well guess what, it's the Soviet-style thinking that is back now. Not some centuries-long cultural stuff, but good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Oh, for Christ's sake, stop playing the "I used to live in Russia so my opinion is correct" card, please. What gives you special insight? You were close friends with Yeltsin? You're present during meetings, when Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and the rest make decision? They confide to you?

Give it a rest and move on.

---

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

Has any one of you drank 3 liters of vodka with a guy named Vladimir Smirnoff and then have him drive you around? No? Then can it and bow down to my ultimate knowledge of Russian culture!

“You mean no similarity whatsoever?”! And? Hitler probably did beautiful speeches about the love of mothers for their kids, so because Hitler said so, you can’t love you kids, or your country?

“In the 90s that "siege mentality" was totally abandoned” Yeah, and happened: Kosovo, Missile shield. Poland joined in NATO and all the “coloured” revolutions around Russia. Russia didn’t provide any weapons to the Taliban (might change), swallowed humiliations after humiliations, then, oh! Surprise! This one was one too much.

“But what do I know, I'm merely an eyewitness...” I was an eyewitness in 3 wars and I saw merely nothing, especially in mountains or forests…

“good old-fashioned Cold War mentality is back. It's been dominant for close to a decade now.” Agree, and in both sides. See some comments in this thread.

“Only better.” Only to you. Nothing singular, I always think my opinion is better than the others'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Did you not read the post????

Even if a nation wants to join a political or military alliance, it doesn't have to be accepted if the effect is detrimental to the overall stability. But, in the case of Poland and Baltic nations, NATO wanted them in, their population was in favour of it overwhelmingly, so it's all fair and good. I don't have a problem with that.

Ukrainian population, on the other hand, never expressed interest in joining. NATO membership never got above 20% support, it usually varied between 5-15%. NOT entering NATO was supported by 30-50+% (from the top of my head, it may be a few percentages more or less in either case). Even with that Yuschenko was pushing for it, and USA was pushing for it from their side. After Yuschenko's defeat, they kept at it, financing and supporting political parties that wanted NATO membership and applying pressure on other NATO members that thought Ukraine in NATO isn't such a good idea. Similar stuff with Georgia.

Why was it done? Ukraine in NATO doesn't bolster NATO security, Ukrainians don't want it, a good chunk of European NATO doesn't want it and it will most surely antagonize Russia. Why the needless poke in the eye?

---

I read it and was not impressed, essentially your understanding a particular geopolitical reality does not mean it has to be tolerated.
The West tried any amount of resets and accords over the years, its the russians who are poking everyone else in the eye for years.

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

Post-soviet thinking about some lock on the future of any states is essentially an acceptance of a kleptocratic norm.

Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

Basically I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin, poke away I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

If you can give insight into Russian soul, so can I. Only better.

---

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I read it and was not impressed.

---

That's your problem.

Quote:

---

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

---

Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.

Quote:

---

Since the russians are already incapable of sustaining there favored "stability" without a crackdown then its not really stable is it.

I care not a whit for the the eyes of a proven autocrat like Putin.

---

I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Never did or claimed that. My posts dealt with political doctrines and consistencies in Russian foreign politics. You're the one who claimed special insight based on the fact that you were born and/or lived in Russia.

---

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's your problem.

---

Actually its the worlds problem now

Quote:

---

Having a right to choose means leaving them alone to make that choice, not spending millions to fund movements and parties or supporting revolutions, against the wish of the people in question.

---

Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???

Quote:

---

The greatest irony is that Ukrainians already tried that. Yuschenko was hailed as democratic savior, western minded, progressive politician who will make Ukraine a NATO member. People in the streets, fighting for democracy and less corruption. At the end of his term, his approval rating was less than average shoe size in UK. Timoshenko fared only slightly better, not even being jailed by Yanukovich was enough to wash her.

We'll see how long it takes for this one.

---

So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.

Quote:

---

I already know your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

---

and I totally oppose your thinking also.

The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

"Russian mindset is completely different..." -- these are your words from this thread. So yeah, you're claiming insight alright. So am I, but at least I have a damn good idea of what I'm talking about.

---

Poorly chosen words, perhaps, which conveyed a slightly different message than I wanted. I thought it clear from the rest of my post that I was talking about political decision making. If it wasn't, I made it explicitly clear in the very next post.

If that's not enough, I'll repeat it again - I refer only to political decision making and political and military doctrines. I don't claim any special insight into frame of mind or soul of 150,000,000 Russians. I don't believe one can. I don't know how to say it any clearer than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Actually its the worlds problem now

---

Mine? No. I'm admitting from the start that I'm a euroweenie who doesn't believe in borders at all and am not willing to die for politicians on either side.

Quote:

---

Yea cos Russia never does any of that kind of stuff???

---

Never said that. Russia isn't more innocent than US/West in that regard and the difference in the level of meddling is explainable by the fact the Russia considers its near abroad to be its own backyard, USA considers the entire world as its own backyard.. It just isn't the evil empire everyone's considering it to be, but like US and some other countries, it is prepared to meddle in other countries to further its own interest.

Quote:

---

So what there entitled to there own choices, why does Russia get to pass judgement on politician x y or z.

---

Look above.

Quote:

---

and I totally oppose your thinking also.

---

I know you do. I'd love you for it you were using arguments to do so, like Seamus, instead of repeating outdated political slogans. I might even learn something.

Quote:

---

The world will not return to a form of stability if we accept Putin's imaginary reality.

---

That's not imaginary reality. Russia has the muscle to project power in its near abroad.

Another leaked conversation, this time between Timoshenko and Sufrych.

Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's understandable given the situation, but it's a momentary spike. It will drop back to more manageable levels as soon as the crisis is over.
People will naturally assume that NATO membership would have protected them during this crisis, unaware that it was the possible NATO membership that was the prime reason for the crisis itself.

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.

---

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

Second - I expect that the annexation of Crimea will have a lasting effect on Ukraine, forcing it Westwards rather that trying to tread the line between the EU and Russia. And hey, NATO membership would have protected them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

---

I want to marry you now, PVC.

Quote:

---

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

---

The scourge of conservativism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

---

Well thank you so much Henry Higgins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The Soviets claim this deal which no one has ever seen anywhere AND the states in question had/have a right to forge there path.

---

Which Soviets? And do you mean the well-documented promises made by Western leaders?
There is a relatively sober article from 2009 right here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-663315.html

I wouldn't quite say noone has seen anything, a very simple google search turned this up, maybe you just didn't want to look for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Which Soviets? And do you mean the well-documented promises made by Western leaders?
There is a relatively sober article from 2009 right here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-663315.html

I wouldn't quite say noone has seen anything, a very simple google search turned this up, maybe you just didn't want to look for it?

---

bring out the paper which says Poland couldnt join Nato or the EU

The countries themselves made the choice.(as they were entitled too)

There was no agreement beyond a few spooks jawing with each other, the former communist nations signed no such agreeements.

Quote:

---

Never said that. Russia isn't more innocent than US/West in that regard and the difference in the level of meddling is explainable by the fact the Russia considers its near abroad to be its own backyard, USA considers the entire world as its own backyard.. It just isn't the evil empire everyone's considering it to be, but like US and some other countries, it is prepared to meddle in other countries to further its own interest.

---

Russia's backyard is quiet bloody, this near abroad strategy is a complete mess.

I understand how and why there messing about lately but I just don't believe it should be tolerated.

Quote:

---

That's not imaginary reality. Russia has the muscle to project power in its near abroad.

---

Will it be MORE or less stable if Putin does anymore of this craic then???

Even if Russia was given the ok in its near abroad it will still end up in a mess every couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

bring out the paper which says Poland couldnt join Nato or the EU

The countries themselves made the choice.(as they were entitled too)

There was no agreement beyond a few spooks jawing with each other, the former communist nations signed no such agreeements.

---

Neither I nor the Soviets said there was a written agreement, no need to fight windmills.
The article clearly states that it was not supposed to be just their decision as existing NATO members would simply not allow them to join.
You also can't just join a private club because you're a free person, they have to let you in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I want to marry you now, PVC.

---

And thanks to our Conservative PM - you can.

Except - no thank you. I had my heart broken by a Scandinavian once before and after her I said never again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Neither I nor the Soviets said there was a written agreement, no need to fight windmills.
The article clearly states that it was not supposed to be just their decision as existing NATO members would simply not allow them to join.
You also can't just join a private club because you're a free person, they have to let you in as well.

---

To understand why, later, they were allowed to join you need to understand two things.

1. The Warsaw Pact was the Great Shame of the Allies, after the Poles and Czechs had fought to protect Britain's skies and Romania had unilaterally switched sides after ousting its Fascist dictator, we let them all down. So, when half a century later our former allies announce that, in fact, all if forgiven and they still want to be friends.

Well, historical resonance is a powerful force even in international Politics.

2. If there was no treaty, then the Politicians at the time had no right to speak for their successors - and the Soviets had no right to expect anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The scourge of conservativism!

---

Thusly, no new words are allowed, aren't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“You mean no similarity whatsoever?”! And? Hitler probably did beautiful speeches about the love of mothers for their kids, so because Hitler said so, you can’t love you kids, or your country?

---

It was not about loving anyone, it was about invading other countries to bring liberation to the oppressed ethnic brothers. Well, perhaps you could call that loving them in a peculiar way (penetration is there OK). Only such love seemed unrequited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Irregardless of NATO membership, Ukraine will have to work with Russia, and taking cues from Finland rather than Poland and Baltic states would have been much better.

---

On a second thought: while theoretically the Finland way seems perfect for Ukraine, it is hardly practicable what with Ukraine's starting position and the attitude of Russians (both average and powers-that-be).
Finland separated from Russia in 1918, so now it is almost forgotten by Russians that some day it was not abroad. While it wasn't forgotten, Russia (the Soviet Union then) tried to correct that in 1940. Moreover, Finland has always been alien to what is termed here as "Russian mindset": a different culture, history, non-Slavic (indeed non-Indo-European) language, and a location out of sight and out of mind of greater geopolitical players.
Ukraine is a different story and I have already explained the attitude of Russia to Ukraine. It is more similar to the attitude Russia has towards Baltic states or its former socialist allies. As one of the deputies (not from Svoboda) shared: "In the 1990s whenever we met Russian MPs at some official occasions they more or less openly said: "Ukrainians, stop fooling around with this independence of yours".
Russia will never tolerate Ukraine within some European foundation nor neutral. We saw that neutrality is not an option just now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

First off - stop saying "irregardless", it's not a word.

---

And you waited this long to tell me that? I'll use "irrespective" from now on, Dr. Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LW__eE7-BA

Quote:

---

Second - I expect that the annexation of Crimea will have a lasting effect on Ukraine, forcing it Westwards rather that trying to tread the line between the EU and Russia. And hey, NATO membership would have protected them.

---

Possibly. (that's a word, right?)

Irrespective of this argument, I do remember a few pages back you said that NATO bombing of Serbia was justified by actions taken after the bombing. Is Russian intervention in Ukraine also justified if Ukraine joins NATO after it?

“It was not about loving anyone, it was about invading other countries to bring liberation to the oppressed ethnic brothers. Well, perhaps you could call that loving them in a peculiar way (penetration is there OK). Only such love seemed unrequited.” Right. You want to go this way, fine: REMINDER: It is not PUTIN who got 4 openly NAZI in his executive. It is NOT the Russian minority (majority in Ukraine) that wanted to kill others minorities. It is not in Crimea that the Jewish Leader asked his followers to get out because fear.
The ONLY side that shows racism for now is YOUR side…
See Sarmatian: “Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.”
And this one is the DEMOCRATIC leader, the Ukrainian Joan of Arc.

So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.

---

From what I can tell the demonstrations did not start as anti-Russian. Russia made them anti-Russian.

The Russians make a big deal out of the neo-Nazis but seem to overlook there own, fairly open, anti-Semitism and heavy handedness. It overlooks the fact that the guy who took over Crimea was an Organized Crime Kingpin, AKA The Goblin, with involvement in the deaths of several rival politicians.

It is just fine calling a spade a spade, so long as you are not just whitewashing the unsavory elements on the other side.

It is hard to know for sure who to blame more. Maybe the propaganda of the West is more subtle than the propaganda used by Russia. The Russian stuff is certainly much more vitriolic and fear mongering than what you see from Western outlets.

I don’t see this in black and white. You don’t need to give the Western Nations a pass but there is plenty to fault about Putin’s governance in magnifying and escalating the crises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

And thanks to our Conservative PM - you can.

Except - no thank you. I had my heart broken by a Scandinavian once before and after her I said never again!...

---

Oh, so the old line about Scandanavians is true then....

Once you go Scandanavian, you can never eat spicy food again.

Well, I guess Putin's personal position depends on the outcome of the Ukraine situation...

Interesting how the situation has escalated. Putin's image and America's image, plus their respective influence on the international system, are at stake to a high degree.

What about the Central Asian states? What about Azerbaijan?

Neither side will allow the other to gain a resounding political victory when it is possible to thwart them at minimal cost, but by the same token there will be no drastic steps taken by either side in the short term.

So, the ends of men must once again reach the middle.

What is the middle?

Note that I'm not asking about a diplomatic position of compromise at the bargaining table, but the natural outcome between the actions of two poles heavily constrained in their options?

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

The danger I see is that in testing his limits he may well trigger a reaction no one wants, himself included.

Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

Quote:

---

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader[ship position].

---

Which is why blaming Obama specifically for anything makes no sense. He's a non-entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

In my post I didn't speak of likening ANYONE to ANYONE. It is too general. I spoke of likening the particular speech of Person 1 to the particular speech of Person 2. I heard some abstracts (translated) which seem to bear out this likening.

---

But all the examples I gave are based on the idea that one aspect of person A is just like that one aspect of person B, it doesn't improve the comparison one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Warsaw Pact was the Great Shame of the Allies, after the Poles and Czechs had fought to protect Britain's skies and Romania had unilaterally switched sides after ousting its Fascist dictator, we let them all down. So, when half a century later our former allies announce that, in fact, all if forgiven and they still want to be friends.

---

Yes, we let down our friends and so we had to lie to our new friends to make up with the old friends. -> moral superiority!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If there was no treaty, then the Politicians at the time had no right to speak for their successors - and the Soviets had no right to expect anything.

---

So only written and signed contracts count and otherwise people can't expect anything? Do notorious liars and deceivers have moral superiority as long as they never signed a written contract? I'M arguing the point that the West has complete moral superiority, not legal superiority in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

---

Usually when countries have a strong leader, we call him a dictator. and strong leader presidents can look very much like elected dictators anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

---

Yeah, but the American people don't have a written, signed contract with Obama that says he will do these things, so they have no right to expect anything.

Quote:

---

Yeah, but the American people don't have a written, signed contract with Obama that says he will do these things, so they have no right to expect anything.

---

While the executive has grown in power, if anything the position of the POTUS himself is actually relatively weak.

The point is that one can't really expect much of anything from Obama. Neither a statesman nor a figurehead, he ends up being little more than a glorified bureaucrat.

I think all these conflicts boil down to "lesser evils".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

While the executive has grown in power, if anything the position of the POTUS himself is actually relatively weak.

The point is that one can't really expect much of anything from Obama. Neither a statesman nor a figurehead, he ends up being little more than a glorified bureaucrat.

---

The US has no real foreign policy but it does have agendas. Under his tenure the US has participated in some very unprincipled actions. Obama gets the blame for that.

Further, he is not a non-entity. He most certainly has a strong influence on outcomes. I just see it as a negative influence, for the greater part, and as a liability.

This mostly means that we have no insight into decision making. Both he and Bush followed a neo-con agenda, with regard to the world. Just that Obama is more half hearted and hesitant in its implementation. It is those behind the seines that we need worry about, in his case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Another leaked conversation, this time between Timoshenko and Sufrych.

Timoshenko explains how she will use all her contacts to make the world destroy Russia so "only scorched earth remains". When asked about 8 million Russians in Ukraine, she said they should all be "shot in the head". Very juicy conversation. Sufrych initially denied it happened, but Timoshenko confirmed it, except the part where she says Ukrainian Russian should all be shot, which she claims was edited in by the FSB.

---

As to the leaked conversation, she says it is a fabrication, which given the content, I don’t find impossible to believe. It seem a little too extreme IMHO and reads much more like Russian Propaganda. Even given the anger over such a situation I find the content hard to believe.

I most definitely is a windfall to the Russian Propaganda Apparatus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Putin is in the driver’s seat. The west has no strong leader.

The danger I see is that in testing his limits he may well trigger a reaction no one wants, himself included.

Obama is a man totally lacking in principals. He said some fine things to get elected but felt no compunction to follow his own words. On the international seine he is completely out of his depth and has no credibility.

---

He already got the Nobel, took out Usama, changed the tone with Israel, withdrew from Iraq, is drawing back from Afghanistan, would've closed Gitmo if anybody in Congress could've gotten their states to agree to take the prisoners, has kept his hands off Venezuela, and has encouraged the "Arab Spring" up to and including the NATO efforts in Libya.

He went into office stating that we would be more collegial with our allies and less the dominant voice; that he would work with both the Israelis and the Palestinians but would not promote Israel; that he would remove the USA from Iraq and draw down in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible; he asserted early on that the USA wanted to work on developing a new and less antagonistic relationship with the muslim/arab world -- how has he not kept his promises (aside from Gitmo where he was blocked).

The Obama administration has always been about bringing about health coverage for all Americans and taking us from a leadership to a collegial role in foreign affairs. So far, he is delivering on all of his stated major objectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

As to the leaked conversation, she says it is a fabrication, which given the content, I don’t find impossible to believe. It seem a little too extreme IMHO and reads much more like Russian Propaganda. Even given the anger over such a situation I find the content hard to believe.

I most definitely is a windfall to the Russian Propaganda Apparatus.

---

From what I've been able to gather, she admitted the conversation did happen, but that the part about killing 8 millions Russians in Ukraine or calls for nuclear attacks on Russia isn't true and was edited in by the FSB. She didn't deny the entire content of the conversation, based on her twitter post afterwards: "The conversation did take place, but the bit about 8 million Russians in Ukraine was edited. I actually said that the Russians in Ukraine were Ukrainians. Hi, FSB :) Sorry for being obscene."

I could be wrong, though. Is there any other statement she made about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He already got the Nobel, took out Usama, changed the tone with Israel, withdrew from Iraq, is drawing back from Afghanistan, would've closed Gitmo if anybody in Congress could've gotten their states to agree to take the prisoners, has kept his hands off Venezuela, and has encouraged the "Arab Spring" up to and including the NATO efforts in Libya.

He went into office stating that we would be more collegial with our allies and less the dominant voice; that he would work with both the Israelis and the Palestinians but would not promote Israel; that he would remove the USA from Iraq and draw down in Afghanistan as rapidly as possible; he asserted early on that the USA wanted to work on developing a new and less antagonistic relationship with the muslim/arab world -- how has he not kept his promises (aside from Gitmo where he was blocked).

The Obama administration has always been about bringing about health coverage for all Americans and taking us from a leadership to a collegial role in foreign affairs. So far, he is delivering on all of his stated major objectives.

---

He got the Nobel Prize for his potential. Laughable.

His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have only made them worse.

I don’t see anything to brag about in the handling of the Arab Spring or Libya.

As Commander In Chief he has the power to close Gitmo any time he would like.

I see a lot of bungling and finger pointing with poor results everywhere, health care included.

Policies of drone strikes and assassination don’t inspire me. Sorry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

From what I've been able to gather, she admitted the conversation did happen, but that the part about killing 8 millions Russians in Ukraine or calls for nuclear attacks on Russia isn't true and was edited in by the FSB. She didn't deny the entire content of the conversation, based on her twitter post afterwards: "The conversation did take place, but the bit about 8 million Russians in Ukraine was edited. I actually said that the Russians in Ukraine were Ukrainians. Hi, FSB :) Sorry for being obscene."

I could be wrong, though. Is there any other statement she made about it?

---

I only saw a short blurb on the matter. It said, she did admit that she spoke but she denied the content of the conversation.

You information could very well be more informed than mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

He got the Nobel Prize for his potential. Laughable.

His policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have only made them worse.

I don’t see anything to brag about in the handling of the Arab Spring or Libya.

As Commander In Chief he has the power to close Gitmo any time he would like.

I see a lot of bungling and finger pointing with poor results everywhere, health care included.

Policies of drone strikes and assassination don’t inspire me. Sorry!

---

Fisherking:

Do not mistake me. I voted against him twice even though both opponents were "meh." I find his policy initiatives to be wooden-headed and wrong and oppose 9 in 10 of them. I am not thrilled with the drone strikes either, or at least the overly liberal use thereof. I am by no means an Obama apologist.

All I am saying is that the American electorate, charmed by the thought of "Yes we can," did. We are getting the leadership we chose and he is doing, more or less, exactly what he said he would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I only saw a short blurb on the matter. It said, she did admit that she spoke but she denied the content of the conversation.

You information could very well be more informed than mine.

---

Be careful, this kind of reasonable post could give the Backroom a reputation for civility. AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?!?!!

Obama's foreign policy is just about what I would expect from a Chicago politician with 2 years experience in the US Senate.

If this crisis has taught us anything it's that if you ever drop the "bad guy" baton and refuse to use it, somebody else will immediately pick it up and start swinging to his heart's content. Moral of the story: never drop the baton. It's better if we are the "good bad guy" or "bad good guy", then for someone like Putin getting the opportunity to be the true bad guy and living up to that reputation.

Can't wait for 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

If this crisis has taught us anything it's that if you ever drop the "bad guy" baton and refuse to use it, somebody else will immediately pick it up and start swinging to his heart's content. Moral of the story: never drop the baton. It's better if we are the "good bad guy" or "bad good guy", then for someone like Putin getting the opportunity to be the true bad guy and living up to that reputation.

Can't wait for 2016.

---

I fail to see how this is a disastrous turn of events for the wider world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Obama's foreign policy is just about what I would expect from a Chicago politician with 2 years experience in the US Senate.

---

His competition's view was "Nuke Iran". He could have done a lot worse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fail to see how this is a disastrous turn of events for the wider world.

---

Is the world better off today than it was two months ago?

I have listened to the Tymoshenko phone tape and my bet is that our Russian friends might have indeed tapered a bit it, as Tymoshenko is saying that 8 million Russians in Ukraine should be nuked and that does not make exactly any sense as it would require nuking Ukraine..:dizzy2: Otherwise dear Julia does not exactly come off as sane person either.. Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.Here is the tape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Is the world better off today than it was two months ago?

---

I would say the situation is the same as it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I would say the situation is the same as it was.

---

I would say it's significantly worse and about to go even further downhill. Time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

His competition's view was "Nuke Iran". He could have done a lot worse...

---

Welcome to our hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlcngdW2Ju4

General reply:

Do not conflate the administration for the individual. Obama is much less than his administration. When you elect a POTUS, you are electing an administration - the man himself is hardly relevant, and this has been true for about 50 years.

Now, to clear something up: Obama could make the Chief Executive stronger in theory - there is always that possibility open to strong leaders - but for now that position is heavily-constrained, and Obama-as-man probably lacks both the skill and the desire to loosen the bonds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

It is NOT the Russian minority (majority in Ukraine) that wanted to kill others minorities.

---

It is the first time I hear of any ethnicity in Ukraine wanting to kill another. Again: Maidan was a multinational phenomenon. There was no talk of exterminating ANY nationality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, we can argue about legitimacy of a coup in one side and the legality of a coup in the other side as much as you want, but the Nazism in action is actually on the Ukrainian side. Without these Nazi, perhaps, perhaps, the cessation of Crimea wouldn’t have happened.

---

You are doing what I criticized Sarmatian for: denouncing Nazis on one side and choosing to ignore Nazis on the other. I refer you to my posts about what is going on in Crimea now. And I can add some more: fugitives start to flee from the peninsula reporting bullying and hostility to any who express dislike of Russia's takeover. Admitting oneself to be Ukrainian is a worse sin. The best is yet to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.

---

Correction: ex-prime minister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Correction: ex-prime minister.

---

Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..

---

I don't like Tymoshenko, but knowing her to be a very cautious politician I can well believe that the most startling parts of the conversation were forged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

You are doing what I criticized Sarmatian for: denouncing Nazis on one side and choosing to ignore Nazis on the other. I refer you to my posts about what is going on in Crimea now. And I can add some more: fugitives start to flee from the peninsula reporting bullying and hostility to any who express dislike of Russia's takeover. Admitting oneself to be Ukrainian is a worse sin. The best is yet to come.

---

....and ignoring how the interrim government has started cracking down on their own fascists(right sector leader killed during arrest) gives an even clearer picture of how selective their perception is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I have listened to the Tymoshenko phone tape and my bet is that our Russian friends might have indeed tapered a bit it, as Tymoshenko is saying that 8 million Russians in Ukraine should be nuked and that does not make exactly any sense as it would require nuking Ukraine..:dizzy2: Otherwise dear Julia does not exactly come off as sane person either.. Come to think she is ex president of Ukraine.Here is the tape:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo

---

Could be, could be. The rest of the conversation is enough to safely label her a fruitcake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Correction: ex-prime minister.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Thanks for the correction. To me bit of a nutter nevertheless..

---

And possible future president.

It seems there will be three options: herself, Tyahnybok and Klitschko... and the guy who spent all his working years receiving punches in the head looks the sanest option. There's a hidden message in there somewhere, I just can't find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

And possible future president.

It seems there will be three options: herself, Tyahnybok and Klitschko... and the guy who spent all his working years receiving punches in the head looks the sanest option. There's a hidden message in there somewhere, I just can't find it.

---

There is the Communist Symonenko, the Party of Regions' bid Tygypko, the ex-mayor of Kharkiv Dobkin and some others may yet show up.
As for Tymoshenko's chances: a popular believe here is that her time has gone. The way Maidan reacted when she spoke to it showed that as plain as pikestaff. She has lost much of her popularity with the pro-western electorate (due to her long-time absence from the active politics) and is still obnoxious for the pro-Russian one.
The sanest choice I see is Poroshenko (I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names), though I don't know whether he will run for the office. Anyway, according to the new old constitution the role of the president will not be that significant as it used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names

---

We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

There is the Communist Symonenko, the Party of Regions' bid Tygypko, the ex-mayor of Kharkiv Dobkin and some others may yet show up.
As for Tymoshenko's chances: a popular believe here is that her time has gone. The way Maidan reacted when she spoke to it showed that as plain as pikestaff. She has lost much of her popularity with the pro-western electorate (due to her long-time absence from the active politics) and is still obnoxious for the pro-Russian one.
The sanest choice I see is Poroshenko (I wonder how you guys don't get lost among all those outlandish names), though I don't know whether he will run for the office. Anyway, according to the new old constitution the role of the president will not be that significant as it used to be.

---

The problem is see is Tyahnybok. During a crisis, nut jobs like himself tend to get a lot more support, so it is entirely plausible he will get enough to get to the run-off. In the run-off, I see most people supporting the other candidate. The question is who will that second candidate be. I don't believe any Party of Regions candidate would get there. They're disorganized and seen as too pro-Russian for the current situation. Timoshenko just might get enough support. Klitschko is, well... Klitschko, he'll get some votes but not enough.

Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

---

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

---

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and drinks vodka like a Russian, it's a Russian. So, Ivan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

...There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

---

I see what you did there... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?

---

He's Ukraine's Willy Wonka. Also an ex-PM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and drinks vodka like a Russian, it's a Russian. So, Ivan.

---

My Swedish friend certainly makes a point there. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

My Swedish friend certainly makes a point there. :yes:

---

Let's call him Sven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Who's Poroshenko, what's his story?

---

He was close to Yushchenko during the Orange revolution, got some ministerial posts (foreign affairs, economy, the chief of national bank) even when Yanukovych was prime minister but later was apparently disillusioned in Yushchenko's insipidity and moved out of his orbit. He owns a confectinary enterprises network (perhaps someone heard of "Roshen" since its plants are in Europe (Hungary, I believe) as well as in Russia).
Well, you can find more information on him if you like - I don't want to be blamed in keeping secret some particularly unpleasant fact about him (that is there are some as much as about any Ukrainian politician). I cannot deny he was an active pro-Maidan figure. Yet currently he is the most balanced option likely to get support in different regions of Ukraine. Recent polls call him a leader of presidential race (22%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Russians are called Ivan. These are Ukrainians. There's a difference, you ignorant Swede.

---

Actually, Ivan is as much a Ukrainian name as Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I don't believe any Party of Regions candidate would get there. They're disorganized and seen as too pro-Russian for the current situation.

---

They started to play their old tune of the second official language. Is THIS a timely call likely to instill unity among people in times of turmoil?
The latest news of Tygypko: his party is quote surprised unquote by his decision to run for the presidency. He quote started too soon without consulting anyone within the party unquote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Actually, Ivan is as much a Ukrainian name as Russian.

---

Now there is a real cause for war. Fight to the last who gets to be called Ivan! Maybe Putin could get for once run for his money in 1vs 1 against Klitschko ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Now there is a real cause for war. Fight to the last who gets to be called Ivan! ~;)

---

To differentiate I suggest calling the Ukrainian Ivan "the nazi Ivan" and the Russian Ivan "Ivan the Deliverer".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

To differentiate I suggest calling the Ukrainian Ivan "the nazi Ivan" and the Russian Ivan "Ivan the Deliverer".

---

Nah! Too long, lets just put Putin and Klitschko in the cage to settle it once and for all.I would pay good money to see that..

All vodka-drinkers are Russian and called Ivan. End of story.

Yes, that includes you, Ivan-musha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Nah! Too long, lets just put Putin and Klitschko in the cage to settle it once and for all.I would pay good money to see that..

---

Putin will send an unidentified fighter sporting no insignia. In case he loses he will claim there was no Russian participant in the fight. And then he will call a referndum on who was the winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

All vodka-drinkers are Russian and called Ivan. End of story.

Yes, that includes you, Ivan-musha.

---

Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:

---

You were within an ace of calling him son of a Sven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Putin will send an unidentified fighter sporting no insignia. In case he loses he will claim there was no Russian participant in the fight. And then he will call a referndum on who was the winner.

---

You're wrong about one thing...

Putin never loses.

Attachment 12573

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Labelling a Finn as a vodka drinker is heresy. We drink anything and i mean anything with alcohol content from engine coolant to eau de cologne..We are not picky like that, you,you Svensson.:inquisitive:

---

Yeah, what's wrong with Sven? He's a bit touchy these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

We just call all of them Ivan. Makes things easier. So, we have blonde girl-Ivan, boxing-Ivan, and so on....

---

Ooh...oooh...I saw that one! Balboa kicked his ass despite the steroids.

:furious3: :soapbox: :furious3:

You only feed HT's life long dream of being a Swede.

Back to Ukraine, and Mr. Obama’s latest speech:

Quote:

---

"Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neigbors, not out of strength, but out weakness.

"Ukraine has been a country which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and we have considerable influence on our neighbors, we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them.

The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and laid bear these violations of international law indicates less influence not more.

"So my response then continues to be what I believe today, which is: Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. ," said Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_786009.html

---

It is hard for me to imagine a more arrogant statement when dealing with a leader who will only take this as a challenge

Stinging Russian pride is not going to put an end to the crises.

Russia may be reduced in overall influence but it is still the country with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and a military approaching the size of that of the USA.

Oh yeah?

And just where is that wonderful manufacturing base they used to have?

It has been primarily a service economy for the last 30 year. Things are not what they used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Oh yeah?

And just where is that wonderful manufacturing base they used to have?

It has been primarily a service economy for the last 30 year. Things are not what they used to be.

---

This very true but only relevant if the West actually follows up on the threat of serious sanctions. US sanctions alone won't be enough, EU has to join in.