Ukraine-in-a-thread

[rvg]

I can't say how reliable the data is, but I can hardly believe the general lawlessness of Yeltsin era, when selected people were buying companies worth billions for literally two cases of vodka was better than Putin's.

More nonsense, padawan. Avoid the nonsense you must.

Smart people were buying privatization vouchers from stupid people. Then they took those vouchers and turned them in to get shares in Russian oil, gas and other industries dealing primarily with extraction of minerals. They got fabulously rich. The stupid were left with nothing. Smart > stupid. That's an axiom and it has nothing to do with lawlessness.

[Sarmatian]

More nonsense, padawan. Avoid the nonsense you must.

Smart people were buying privatization vouchers from stupid people. Then they took those vouchers and turned them in to get shares in Russian oil, gas and other industries dealing primarily with extraction of minerals. They got fabulously rich. The stupid were left with nothing. Smart > stupid. That's an axiom and it has nothing to do with lawlessness.

Well, if you consider that normal, than I understand your position.

[rvg]

Well, if you consider that normal, than I understand your position.

Of course I consider it normal. The vouchers were given evenly to the entire country, each family got one. It's not Yeltsin's fault that 95% of people are idiots who would sell their voucher for a case of booze. C'est la vie.

[Montmorency]

I can hardly believe the general lawlessness of Yeltsin era, when selected people were buying companies worth billions for literally two cases of vodka was better than Putin's.

That was showing off.

So it's just like I said. There's more corruption now, it's just that Putin orchestrates or oversees the biggest bits himself.

As for the underdevelopment of Sochi, well, well-known Putin cronies got multi-billion-dollar contracts to build up infrastructure - they didn't do jack.

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

[Husar]

Not really, no.

USA and Russia are very similar - they both torture people.

And - so? That bare fact obliterates all other differences between the two? What makes any country different from any other country, come to think of it?

Of course there are differences, I was talking mostly about foreign policy and how other countries are treated.
Internally the USA are preferable but not exactly great either IMO. The Daily Show made a nice comparison: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...better-off-red

Check to make sure that your current view isn't equally childish.

I haven't seen a single tangible argument on why I should prefer US foreign policy over the Russian one from a relatively neutral POV.
From eavesdropping on my elected government officials to "**** the EU" comments I find it a little hard to see the US government as my best and mostest well-meaning friends. Please show me what I am overlooking. The Marshall plan? That only came about because we were supposed to serve as pincushions against the "red tide".

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

Is it that what the increasing wealth gap proves? Maybe we're just slower.

[Sarmatian]

See, that's the difference between American and Russian corruption/patronage: America is much more multipolar, so the money gets spread out much more.

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

[Montmorency]

why I should prefer US foreign policy over the Russian one from a relatively neutral POV.

As a German, you are in a good position to contemplate it. Germany and Russia have been getting close lately, and recent German assertiveness, both in general and towards Russia (over Ukraine) in particular is interesting. Clearly, the German government does not want to get too close to Russia for the time being.

Anyway, the US' foreign policy is preferable: the US views Germany as a useful economic and political partner, and the two are separated by thousands of miles. Russia and Germany have recent mutual acrimony, and ultimately Russia will always view Germany and Western Europe as a national-security threat (at least on par that of America, nukes notwithstanding). Russia wants buffers between itself and its heartland, so it will continually attempt to push its borders as close to Germany as possible - and I figure that might make you sweat more than the contempt of the Americans and their spies.

[rvg]

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

It really wasn't. There was less corruption. As far as lawlessness goes, Russia is still lawless. The big difference is that before people were victimized by the gangsters, now they are victimized by the police. Russia used to have freedom of speech and more or less free elections. Gone and gone. One thing that improved was the price of oil and gas. That's it.

[Montmorency]

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

Sure, but I'm just noting that they're not unrelated (i.e. polarity and relative corruption).

Yeltsin vs Putin:

Putin has cleaned up low-level corruption where it suits him, which is what I think you have in mind, but as a tool of governance he's just gathered all the chaotic strings toward his chest. But I'm mostly just repeating myself. If we're to get anywhere, then we need to be more specific than just "corruption".

[Fisherking]

When it comes to corruption, America is light years ahead of Russia (ahead in a positive sense), there's no contest there.

We're comparing Yeltsin era corruption to Putin era, and I believe Yeltsin era was worse.

That would be a hard call.

The whole corruption index is perceived corruption. It is hard to actually quantify.

During Yeltsin it was more from the top. Today it could be just more general.

Russians seem to see their civil servants and Bureaucracy as corrupt but not their media and politicians.

If the civil servants are corrupt, those above them are also. Bet on it. They can’t get away with it if those above them are not getting a cut too.

Corruption brought down the Soviets. Today I think it is more managed. Even centralized.

That of the Yeltsin era was certainly more destructive to the nation.

[Sarmatian]

As a German, you are in a good position to contemplate it. Germany and Russia have been getting close lately, and recent German assertiveness, both in general and towards Russia (over Ukraine) in particular is interesting. Clearly, the German government does not want to get too close to Russia for the time being.

Germany is a part of NATO and at the moment and short-term future considers US a more important partner. The other side of the coin is that Germany was the strongest opponent of tough measures against Russia, blocking the idea of kicking Russia out of G8. That tells me that Germany consider Russia a very important partner in the long term. More important, less important or of equal importance as US, that is hard to say.

Some political analysts in Germany are openly wondering would it be better for German and EU interests to "substitute UK for Russia". Obviously, this crisis over Ukraine has and will spoil relations, but in the long term, I believe it will prove to be a minor bump.

Anyway, the US' foreign policy is preferable: the US views Germany as a useful economic and political partner, and the two are separated by thousands of miles. Russia and Germany have recent mutual acrimony, and ultimately Russia will always view Germany and Western Europe as a national-security threat (at least on par that of America, nukes notwithstanding). Russia wants buffers between itself and its heartland, so it will continually attempt to push its borders as close to Germany as possible - and I figure that might make you sweat more than the contempt of the Americans and their spies.

I don't believe so. I think Russia sees Germany as potential best bud in Europe, and that becoming best buds with Germany is the best possible course for safety and stability of Russia.

[Montmorency]

Maybe, but on the other hand I don't think Russia will stop seeking an Eastern-European sphere of influence with that expectation, and maybe there will be regional tensions, and militarization, and after all Germany and Poland are also going for the "best buds" deal, and if Europeans begin replacing Russian spot-oil with locally-fracked natural gas, and Russia after Putin becomes less stable and more unpredictable...

It's complicated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nothing else will happen unless Ukrainians make it happen. If civil war breaks out in the country, things could spiral out of control. If Ukrainian troops try to take back Crimea for some reason, things could spiral out of control. If Russia tries to take Eastern Ukraine for some reason, things could spiral out of control.

I think those are all unlikely scenarios though. The powers that be seem to have contained the situation.

Again, to simplify. Are you willing to kill a few thousands of your own soldiers to demonstrate your willpower in this confrontation. If not, then do what you can with words, but remember Pompeus Magnus' reminder to Cato.

[Pannonian]

Again, to simplify. Are you willing to kill a few thousands of your own soldiers to demonstrate your willpower in this confrontation. If not, then do what you can with words, but remember Pompeus Magnus' reminder to Cato.

Can you remind me of this reminder? It's been quite a while since I last read the texts.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Can you remind me of this reminder? It's been quite a while since I last read the texts.

You've not played enough EB. It was a reminder to stop quoting law, for the audience carried swords.

[Husar]

Maybe, but on the other hand I don't think Russia will stop seeking an Eastern-European sphere of influence with that expectation, and maybe there will be regional tensions, and militarization, and after all Germany and Poland are also going for the "best buds" deal, and if Europeans begin replacing Russian spot-oil with locally-fracked natural gas, and Russia after Putin becomes less stable and more unpredictable...

It's complicated.

Do you actually think Russia could try to annex Poland or any other EU member country just like that?
Ukraine works because it's far away and most people here think it's Russia anyway, or thought so before the current crisis.

But I do not think that Russia can just touch an EU member with the rest of the EU just voicing protest.
Instead, we would congratulate our new member Russia and Brussels would force all kinds of nonsense on them until they just whinge and wish they had never done that.
Or WW3, without popcorn.

I don't even see why Russia would want to have that many buffers when better relations could make buffers completely unnecessary.

[Pannonian]

You've not played enough EB. It was a reminder to stop quoting law, for the audience carried swords.

I knew of the quote, but didn't know he'd said it to Cato.

[Montmorency]

Do you actually think Russia could try to annex Poland or any other EU member country just like that?

Well, no - I was speaking of their geopolitical imperatives, not a specific near-term goal.

I don't even see why Russia would want to have that many buffers when better relations could make buffers completely unnecessary.

If only the path to OWG were that easy...

[Husar]

Well, no - I was speaking of their geopolitical imperatives, not a specific near-term goal.

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg

http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork...rope_1167.html

If only the path to OWG were that easy...

It's usually harder to integrate than it is to separate but we will keep fighting the good fight.

[Beskar]

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork...rope_1167.html

Problem is, Russia would dominate the Union, especially if it joins as a single-bloc, the current nation-state hegemony doesn't work that well as check and balance.

Only way for the EU to be more balanced is the breakdown of the Nation States into NUTS level 1 borderies or similar. That would look similar to this. The United Kingdom was actually done like this under labour, but unfortunately, the North-East referendum screw-up failed to implement it correctly, as it gives regions more control as per devolution. Instead we ended up with Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and London getting the benefits and not the rest.

The joining Russian Federation would have to be broken down like this as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Problem is, Russia would dominate the Union, especially if it joins as a single-bloc, the current nation-state hegemony doesn't work that well as check and balance.

Only way for the EU to be more balanced is the breakdown of the Nation States into NUTS level 1 borderies or similar. That would look similar to this. The United Kingdom was actually done like this under labour, but unfortunately, the North-East referendum screw-up failed to implement it correctly, as it gives regions more control as per devolution. Instead we ended up with Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and London getting the benefits and not the rest.

The joining Russian Federation would have to be broken down like this as well.

Screw up?

You mean where they voted the "wrong" way?

This thread isn't about the democratic deficit in the EU, it's about the democratic deficit in Russia and the Ukraine.

But lets us digress for a moment - the reason the EU doesn't work as a democracy is that there is absolutely no unified polity - the fact that parts of France, the UK and Spain keep trying to break away should tell you something about how bolting NUTS together works in practice, just barely if at all.

Ultimately no amount of internal re-organisation will keep a country together, it didn't work for Russia (Ukraine was historically part of the Russian Empire, mostly) and it hasn't worked all that well for Ukraine - there's enough ill feeling about Kiev that some people would rather be Russian than Ukrainian.

No, given that many Russians don't want to be Russian - you have to ask just what the Crimeans think about Kiev.

Here's a piece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26503476

Does he believe the allegations of Russians here that those from western Ukraine are out to harm them?

"It's a myth", he tells me. "We just spent a couple of months in the western city of Lviv. People there are extremely polite and kind. There is no violence to Russian people - I was speaking Russian with no problems. The fear comes from propaganda on television.


"When I went to the west, my mother told me not to say I was from Sevastopol - and she watches a lot of TV. People in western Ukraine are united to build a new country without corruption and without criminals. We are looking forward to helping them."

Sounds like the Welsh or the Scots.

[rvg]

The difference with Ukraine is that the conflict there is far more ideological than it is ethnic. There's 50 million Ukrainian citizens and most of the do not want to be Putin's slaves. I would hate to see them getting turned into slaves while we sit around and twiddle our thumbs.

Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act.

[Montmorency]

Of course, everybody has goals for the long term:
https://i.imgur.com/H9XyOHI.jpg

Do they have a linguistically-representative chant for the EU stormtroopers yet?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference with Ukraine is that the conflict there is far more ideological than it is ethnic. There's 50 million Ukrainian citizens and most of the do not want to be Putin's slaves. I would hate to see them getting turned into slaves while we sit around and twiddle our thumbs.

Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act.

Yeah - America was literally founded on broken treaties.

With regard to the corruption issue, Russia scores highly today because Putin uses patronage and favours as political tools - that registers as "corruption" on indices calibrated against Germanic democracies, but it makes perfect sense in what is a semi-feudal Tyranny.

I doubt Putin sees the Russian people as "slaves" any more than Lenin did, or the Tsar for that matter. Actually - Tsar Nicholas might be a good comparison, save that he lacked Putin's political agility and the correct atmosphere to reform Russia in.

[rvg]

Yeah - America was literally founded on broken treaties.

Yeah, but that doesn't obligate us to keep breaking them.

With regard to the corruption issue, Russia scores highly today because Putin uses patronage and favours as political tools - that registers as "corruption" on indices calibrated against Germanic democracies, but it makes perfect sense in what is a semi-feudal Tyranny.

I think this is exactly what Russia is today.

I doubt Putin sees the Russian people as "slaves" any more than Lenin did, or the Tsar for that matter. Actually - Tsar Nicholas might be a good comparison, save that he lacked Putin's political agility and the correct atmosphere to reform Russia in.

I don't think he sees them as slaves, he just treats them as such. I don't think he goes out of his way to hurt the people, he simply doesn't care, they are not present in any of his calculations. If they benefit, that's okay, if they get hurt -- no big deal. People outside of Putin's inner circle and his bureaucratic pyramid simply do not matter.

[Sarmatian]

Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act.

Can anyone link to the text of the memorandum?

Yesterday I've read in an article from some American newspapers that the wording of the memorandum is such that US, UK, Russia are only obligated to defend Ukraine in case of nuclear attack.

[Montmorency]

Ask, and...

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.
Signed in four copies having equal validity in the English, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

[Brenus]

“Not to mention that the 1994 memorandum morally obligates us to act” Err, that is a stretch: text is saying: “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”. So the seek the UNITED NATIONS, not NATO or EU or USA or whatever other bodies.
Morally…. Right…

[Myth]

Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker

Well if Israel can make nukes, why not Ukraine? Hell, I'd like everyone to have at least one nuke. A lot less democracy policing will happen.

[Montmorency]

They should ask Russia for one.