[Hencredible Casanova]

Yeah. Poland was never an FSU state, only part of the Warsaw Pact.

No telling what Ukraine will end up like. Lots of variables.

But the people in the western part at least have already chosen their fate.

And I don't blame them, especially those who recall the days of the USSR. Why the hell would they want to be part of Putin's vision?

This is a man who spent the majority of his career working to maintain one of the most depressing, uninspiring and deadliest totalitarian systems the world has ever known. Even more telling, he considered the crumbling of that system a "personal humiliation" and "the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century."

Today, Russia is little more than a corrupt petrostate that is vastly unequal; a tragedy given the nation's immense resources, size, and relatively low population density.

Ukraine's transition if it actually joins the EU will undoubtedly be brutal at first, given the IMF reforms, but over the long term I don't think anyone can say definitively that it's a bad thing for them.

Time will tell.

[jimukr104]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/03...-break-up/

[DaveR]

(03-06-2014 08:10 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Instead of talking about what we think might happen, lets talk about what has already happened. The ruble has already plunged and many objective sources indicate the Russian economy is taking a hit as a result.
How is that "boss?"

Yeah, let's talk about what has already happened:
- Russia militarily intervened after Georgia's Western-leaning president tried to use his military to crush an uprising
- The US talked a lot and did nothing
- New administration initiated a "reset" of its relations with Russia

Because you're fixated on the Rouble, I thought you might want to know that it isn't a free-floating currency. The Central Bank widened the Rouble trading corridor in October. It started falling before Euromaidan had even started, and that was an intended consequence.

Quote:

The Central Bank of Russia (CBR) has announced an increase in the range that its currency the ruble (RUB) can trade, effective from October 7, 2013, as part of a gradual transition towards a free floating exchange rate by 2015.

(03-06-2014 08:10 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Do you know how much Russian money is tied up in the West?

Do you? Why don't you tell us where and how much. Oligarchs don't just rock up to a bank and open accounts in their own name. Their assets are held 20 layers deep in holding structures so nobody can find them.

(03-06-2014 11:51 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This is a man who spent the majority of his career working to maintain one of the most depressing, uninspiring and deadliest totalitarian systems the world has ever known. Even more telling, he considered the crumbling of that system a "personal humiliation" and "the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century."

Actually, those quotes were taken completely out of context. I posted the original text in the now-closed Ukraine conflict thread. This is a classic example of a person cherry picking what information to emphasize - or ignore - based on where his sympathies or allegiances lie. I hope the White House is paying you my friend.

[Blunt]

BBC reporter trips over himself trying to admit the presence of neo fascists while simultaneously downplaying their role:

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26468720

Quote:

However, even though the far right are a minority, for their numbers they have played an outsized, though not decisive, role

What would you call leaping up to the stage and demanding Yanukovich to be out by 10 am on threat of violence, if not decisive?

It seems like this guy was under major pressure to downplay them, probably a result of the BBC Night news video.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-07-2014 12:02 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 11:51 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This is a man who spent the majority of his career working to maintain one of the most depressing, uninspiring and deadliest totalitarian systems the world has ever known. Even more telling, he considered the crumbling of that system a "personal humiliation" and "the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century."

Actually, those quotes were taken completely out of context. I posted the original text in the now-closed Ukraine conflict thread. This is a classic example of a person cherry picking what information to emphasize - or ignore - based on where his sympathies or allegiances lie. I hope the White House is paying you my friend.

They were not taken out of context. He actually did say "personal humiliation" in regards to the breaking up of the SU in his memoir. This is the first time I've posted that quote which you've never attempted to repudiate.

As for the geopolitical thing, most people agree with my view as to what he actually meant.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...test-geop/


Further, the fact that he was a KGB official for a totalitarian state - and rose rapidly through the ranks, mind you - is direct evidence that he worked hard to maintain a system of oppression against millions of people.

So, either way you look at it, he was part and parcel of a totalitarian regime. There's no need to look at what he said when we know what he did for most of his life.

We'll see what happens in the coming days wrt Crimea and sanctions.

[DirectDanger]

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-06-2014 11:21 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Every day in the dumpster outside my apartment I see people digging through it. Beggars are common in my city, and it's relatively prosperous.

This could perfectly describe San Francisco, and probably many other US cities.

[DaveR]

(03-07-2014 12:15 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:02 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 11:51 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

This is a man who spent the majority of his career working to maintain one of the most depressing, uninspiring and deadliest totalitarian systems the world has ever known. Even more telling, he considered the crumbling of that system a "personal humiliation" and "the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century."

Actually, those quotes were taken completely out of context. I posted the original text in the now-closed Ukraine conflict thread. This is a classic example of a person cherry picking what information to emphasize - or ignore - based on where his sympathies or allegiances lie. I hope the White House is paying you my friend.

They were not taken out of context. He actually did say "personal humiliation" in regards to the breaking up of the SU in his memoir. This is the first time I've posted that quote which you've never attempted to repudiate.

As for the geopolitical thing, most people agree with my view as to what he actually meant.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...test-geop/


Further, the fact that he was a KGB official for a totalitarian state - and rose rapidly through the ranks, mind you - is direct evidence that he worked hard to maintain a system of oppression against millions of people.

So, either way you look at it, he was part and parcel of a totalitarian regime. There's no need to look at what he said when we know what he did for most of his life.

We'll see what happens in the coming days wrt Crimea and sanctions.

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you post something a bit more balanced than an article by George W Bush's warmonger.

The original translation is in the old thread. Better still, read the original in Russian if you want to remove any doubt. The bullshit you're trying to spin is completely twisted out of context.

FYI, most of the political leaders of Central and Eastern Europe today were involved in the Communist Party of their respective countries. In one-party Communist states there was no other way to get involved in the leadership of the country.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-07-2014 12:50 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you post something a bit more balanced than an article by George W Bush's warmonger.

The original translation is in the old thread. Better still, read the original in Russian if you want to remove any doubt. The bullshit you're trying to spin is completely twisted out of context.

FYI, most of the political leaders of Central and Eastern Europe today were involved in the Communist Party of their respective countries. In one-party Communist states there was no other way to get involved in the leadership of the country.

Talk about being taken seriously...


The article wasn't even written by "George Bush's warmonger" (John Bolton); it simply analyzed a quote he made about Putin's statement and evaluated whether it was true or not.

And why ignore the comment Putin made in his own memoir about being "personally humiliated" by the breakup of the Soviet Union?

There's many quotes from Putin speaking about the Soviet Union which all indicate the same sense of remorse he had about its disintegration, so whether or not you agree on what he said in the one instance we have been debating, it doesn't matter since it's a moot point.

This also invalidates your final point because not only did he serve a totalitarian regime, he was emotionally invested in seeing it succeed - and still regrets that it didn't.

His struggle to create a viable Eurasian Customs Union is simply a doomed effort to recreate the Soviet Union to the extent that he can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it has no shot, hence his actions as of late.

He won't even claim many of the Russian soldiers in Crimea as being Russian (unmarked, etc) in order to save face in the event he has to order his troops (the ones that were already on base) to retreat.

That's basically what he's amounted to in recent months - a determined troll of the United States.

You also must realize his moves are already backfiring. The Moscow Stock Exchange saw a 12% drop on Monday, losing the country an equivalent of $58 billion (that's US dollars) in a single day!

So, spin it all you want if it helps you sleep at night, but I'm not buying what you're selling. We'll just have to agree to disagree and see how the rest of this plays out.

My prediction: failure for Putin.

[DaveR]

(03-07-2014 12:37 AM)DirectDanger Wrote:  

I was expecting that to be completely one-sided given that it's from Stratfor (US intelligence strategy provider), but it turned out to be very balanced.

There were only two mistakes I picked up on:

1: The Crimean referendum poses two questions which the population can vote for or against, so it isn't a fait acompli as was suggested. The questions are: "Join Russia?" and "Leave Ukraine?". So the outcome could be:
- for leaving Ukraine, for joining Russia - Crimea will become part of Russia
- for leaving Ukraine, against joining Russia - Crimea will become independent
- against leaving Ukraine, against joining Russia - Crimea will stay part of Ukraine
- against leaving Ukraine, for joining Russia - an invalid outcome. I'm not sure wha twill happen if this is the result.

2: two of the Baltic states are now Eurozone members, not one as the guy stated - Estonia since the start of 2011 and Latvia since the start of this year.

[Big Nilla]

My prediction: failure for Obama / the West / Hencredible.

[Easy E]

[DaveR]

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

The article wasn't written by "George Bush's warmonger" (John Bolton); it simply analyzed a quote he made about Putin's statement and evaluated whether it was true or not.

And why ignore the comment Putin made in his own memoir about being "personally humiliated" by the breakup of the Soviet Union?

To be honest, I didn't bother to read it when I saw Bolton's mug at the top and something about Tampa Bay Times. Post something from a credible source and I will read it.

I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to Putin's "own memoir." He hasn't published a memoir. If you are referring to some other publication, why don't you post the text (preferably in Russian) so I can comment on it?

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

There's many quotes from Putin speaking about the Soviet Union which all indicate the same sense of remorse he had about its disintegration, so whether or not you agree on what he said in the one instance we have been debating, it doesn't matter since it's a moot point.

This also invalidates your final point because not only did he serve a totalitarian regime, he was emotionally invested in seeing it succeed - and still regrets that it didn't.
States.

The collapse of the Soviet Union is a common theme in any discussion about the economics of Russia. The country is still recovering from that collapse, and many older people still long for the Soviet Union. their quality of life was much better under that system because they were too old to re-skill by the time the Communist system failed in 1991. As a result, they suffered heavily for a decade and continue to suffer today.

For Putin to paint the fall of communism as anything less than a disaster for that demographic would be akin to Obama telling war veterans that they are a relic of the past.

If you actually visit the country, you will find that it's one of the most capitalistic anywhere.

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

His struggle to create a viable Eurasian Customs Union is simply a doomed effort to recreate the Soviet Union to the extent that he can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it has no shot, hence his actions as of late.

How is the creation of a trade pact in any way related to an attempt to recreate a Communist state? Why don't you try to explain that in non-rhetorical terms? Repeating headlines from the Washington Post doesn't prove your point.

By the way the EU's expansion plans are simply Furher Merkel's effort to recreate a Nazi-dominated Europe to the extend she can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it wouldn't be complete.
-- Sounds ridiculous? That's what you sound like to someone with a balanced understanding of the current conflict.

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

He won't even claim many of the Russian soldiers in Crimea as being Russian (unmarked, etc) in order to save face in the event he has to order his troops (the ones that were already on base) to retreat.

That's basically what he's amounted to in recent months - a determined troll of the United States.

I think it's a good strategy as it removes the possibility of Kiev declaring an act of war.

The US has been trolling Russia since it started to recover 15 years ago. Iran - same deal. They're also involved in unmarked military operations - Pakistan, et. al.

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

You also must realize his moves are already backfiring. The Moscow Stock Exchange saw a 12% drop on Monday, losing the country an equivalent of $58 billion (that's US dollars) in a single day!

That's what happens whenever there's a conflict on a country's border. When the situation stabilises, the market will do the same. The NYSE dropped a lot of value during the Gulf War and more recent conflicts.

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

So, spin it all you want if it helps you sleep at night, but I'm not buying what you're selling. We'll just have to agree to disagree and see how the rest of this plays out.

My prediction: failure for Putin.

I don't mind disagreeing with uninformed rants by someone who has never even stepped foot in the countries in question.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-07-2014 02:22 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

The article wasn't written by "George Bush's warmonger" (John Bolton); it simply analyzed a quote he made about Putin's statement and evaluated whether it was true or not.

And why ignore the comment Putin made in his own memoir about being "personally humiliated" by the breakup of the Soviet Union?

To be honest, I didn't bother to read it when I saw Bolton's mug at the top and something about Tampa Bay Times. Post something from a credible source and I will read it.

I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to Putin's "own memoir." He hasn't published a memoir. If you are referring to some other publication, why don't you post the text (preferably in Russian) so I can comment on it?

So do you normally make accusations about an article someone posted only to later admit not having read it?

The "geopolitical disaster" comment is common knowledge and above dispute. Google it yourself. Not only is it widely written, but I've watched dozens of interviews where that gets brought up, including one with Henry Kissinger the other day.

You're literally the only person I know who has challenged that comment. Scholarly journals, periodicals, even books cite Putin's comment and interpret it exactly the way I describe. Plenty of Russians and Russian speakers heard and read the same comments yet don't reach your conclusion.

Because of that reality, which is somehow lost on you, the onus is on you to come up with a source saying otherwise, and don't just refer to some Russian translation of the text. I want an actual article from a credible source saying that his comment was taken out of context.

As for the "personal humiliation" comment, I already posted the source for that in an earlier post in this thread.

(03-07-2014 02:22 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

His struggle to create a viable Eurasian Customs Union is simply a doomed effort to recreate the Soviet Union to the extent that he can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it has no shot, hence his actions as of late.

How is the creation of a trade pact in any way related to an attempt to recreate a Communist state? Why don't you try to explain that in non-rhetorical terms? Repeating headlines from the Washington Post doesn't prove your point.

By the way the EU's expansion plans are simply Furher Merkel's effort to recreate a Nazi-dominated Europe to the extend she can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it wouldn't be complete.
-- Sounds ridiculous? That's what you sound like to someone with a balanced understanding of the current conflict.

It's an attempt to keep neighboring countries out of the West's sphere of influence and under Moscow's orbit - prolonging the survival of Russia's current regime (oligarchic rule).

Notice how Russia all of a sudden instigates a country's affairs as it seeks to enter an agreement with the EU (i.e. Armenia)?

This is, again, common knowledge. Balanced view on the conflict? You sound like a Kremlin spokesperson to me. But that's cool. If you're from or live or have lived in Russia and feel loyal to the place, whatever.

But don't pretend you're balanced. I don't think I've seen a single critical post of Russia from you. I've actually had plenty of posts looking at the conflict from that pov and even being understanding of it.

Ukraine has been hoping to go EU for a long, long time, even before EU was ready or interested in any association with Ukraine. Fuhrer Merkel is not remotely the case, in contrast to Russia's aggression towards its neighbors.

(03-07-2014 02:22 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

He won't even claim many of the Russian soldiers in Crimea as being Russian (unmarked, etc) in order to save face in the event he has to order his troops (the ones that were already on base) to retreat.

That's basically what he's amounted to in recent months - a determined troll of the United States.

I think it's a good strategy as it removes the possibility of Kiev declaring an act of war.

Most naive comment ever. It's a tactic to save face in the event of a withdrawal. That's all. Everyone, even the press, knows who the Russian soldiers are.

(03-07-2014 02:22 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

So, spin it all you want if it helps you sleep at night, but I'm not buying what you're selling. We'll just have to agree to disagree and see how the rest of this plays out.

My prediction: failure for Putin.

I don't mind disagreeing with uninformed rants by someone who has never even stepped foot in the countries in question.

That's a red herring. There's clearly millions of Ukrainians and Russians both inside their respective countries and in the diaspora (some of whom I know personally) that disagree with everything you're saying. Would you call them uninformed?

Further, we are talking about not just Ukraine and Russia but also the EU and the US (where I'm from), both being places I have more than stepped foot in actually. That's immaterial to the discussion we're having anyway. I'm not dropping data sheets on Ukraine or Russia, I'm observing political events from a distance, just like you. I've followed these events closely and discussed them with trusted people I respect and who I agree with in regards to other places I've been and issues I follow.

Again, there's much left to see in this story. It's not over just yet.

Let's just watch it play out and we'll see who's right. Much better proposition than to debate a guy on the Roosh forum I don't even know and will probably not agree with on this topic.

Personally, I don't see a zero sum outcome for any of the stakeholders.

But more importantly, I'm not getting paid to go back and forth with you so I'll just leave it at that and move on.

Cheers

[Hencredible Casanova]

(03-07-2014 02:22 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to Putin's "own memoir." He hasn't published a memoir. If you are referring to some other publication, why don't you post the text (preferably in Russian) so I can comment on it?

Also, before I move on, just wanted you to know about Putin's memoir that you said he never published.

http://www.amazon.com/First-Person-Aston...1586480189

Pretty solid reviews on Amazon.

[DaveR]

(03-07-2014 03:28 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

The "geopolitical disaster" comment is common knowledge and above dispute. Google it yourself. Not only is it widely written, but I've watched dozens of interviews where that gets brought up, including one with Henry Kissinger the other day.

You're literally the only person I know who has challenged that comment. Scholarly journals, periodicals, even books cite Putin's comment and interpret it exactly the way I describe. Plenty of Russians and Russian speakers heard and read the same comments yet don't reach your conclusion.

Because of that reality, which is somehow lost on you, the onus is on you to come up with a source saying otherwise, and don't just refer to some Russian translation of the text. I want an actual article from a credible source saying that his comment was taken out of context.

As for the "personal humiliation" comment, I already posted the source for that in an earlier post in this thread.

The "geopolitical disaster" comment is always brought up by the American side. There are plenty of analysts who point out that it's a misquote and, in fact, the Tampa Bay Times article you linked to includes such analysis by a US-based political analyst.

Quote:

That’s not the only view of Putin’s remarks, however. Other scholars we consulted say there is more nuance in the meaning of Putin’s words.

Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, a 2013 book by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution, addresses the "often misquoted line" about the demise of the USSR:

"Most references to this line have suggested that Putin was bemoaning the loss of the communist economic and political system," the book reads, "but Putin has since frequently underscored that he was talking about the collapse of the Russian state itself."

The original speech was made in Russian, so you've got it around the wrong way - the English version is a translation.

Here's the original address to the Federation Council: http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2005/0...7049.shtml

And the official translation: http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2...7086.shtml

And a more complete quote of the English translation, not taken out of context:

Quote:

I consider the development of Russia as a free and democratic state to be our main political and ideological goal. We use these words fairly frequently, but rarely care to reveal how the deeper meaning of such values as freedom and democracy, justice and legality is translated into life.

Meanwhile, there is a need for such an analysis. The objectively difficult processes going on in Russia are increasingly becoming the subject of heated ideological discussions. And they are all connected with talk about freedom and democracy. Sometimes you can hear that since the Russian people have been silent for centuries, they are not used to or do not need freedom. And for that reason, it is claimed our citizens need constant supervision.

I would like to bring those who think this way back to reality, to the facts. To do so, I will recall once more Russia’s most recent history.

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups – possessing absolute control over information channels – served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.

Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system.

But they were mistaken.

That was precisely the period when the significant developments took place in Russia. Our society was generating not only the energy of self-preservation, but also the will for a new and free life. In those difficult years, the people of Russia had to both uphold their state sovereignty and make an unerring choice in selecting a new vector of development in the thousand years of their history. They had to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values, not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state.

Moreover, it was a speech to Russians and for Russians, not a bunch of dickwads in Washington and New York looking for opportunities to misquote. For Russians, the Great Patriotic War (known as the Second World War to you) is not considered a catastrophe because Russia won. They still celebrate it every year and the nation's main holiday period surrounds its anniversary date.


The "personal humiliation" rubbish that you quoted came from the following Business Week article: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...er-ukraine
If it's the one you linked to, then it is not a "memoir." It's a second-party biography based on some interviews he gave fourteen years ago upon being appointed the interim President of Russia. The word "humiliation" does not appear anywhere in the Russian text: http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/PUTIN/razgowor.txt

Have you actually read it, in either language?

Since you think the reviews on Amazon are so great, here's a quote from the first one:

Quote:

One might say that the KGB officer would not be the best person to head a new and democratic Russia. But Putin served in the foreign intelligence and that is the big difference. As he admits in the book, the foreign intelligence officers in the KGB due to many years they spent abroad, were the group most critical towards the Soviet system, because they were able to compare the living standards, economic growth etc.
Soviet foreign intelligence as this type of organization in any other country used to hire the best people, whose tasks included gathering and analyzing information and feeding it back to Moscow. KGB officers saw very vividly the growing gap between the West and the East.

(03-07-2014 03:28 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Quote:

How is the creation of a trade pact in any way related to an attempt to recreate a Communist state? Why don't you try to explain that in non-rhetorical terms? Repeating headlines from the Washington Post doesn't prove your point.

By the way the EU's expansion plans are simply Furher Merkel's effort to recreate a Nazi-dominated Europe to the extend she can. Without Ukraine in the mix, it wouldn't be complete.
-- Sounds ridiculous? That's what you sound like to someone with a balanced understanding of the current conflict.

It's an attempt to keep neighboring countries out of the West's sphere of influence and under Moscow's orbit - prolonging the survival of Russia's current regime (oligarchic rule).

Notice how Russia all of a sudden instigates a country's affairs as it seeks to enter an agreement with the EU (i.e. Armenia)?

This is, again, common knowledge. Balanced view on the conflict? You sound like a Kremlin spokesperson to me. But that's cool. If you're from or live or have lived in Russia and feel loyal to the place, whatever.

But don't pretend you're balanced. I don't think I've seen a single critical post of Russia from you. I've actually had plenty of posts looking at the conflict from that pov and even being understanding of it.

Ukraine has been hoping to go EU for a long, long time, even before EU was ready or interested in any association with Ukraine. Fuhrer Merkel is not remotely the case, in contrast to Russia's aggression towards its neighbors.

The EU association agreements would have placed Russian businesses which trade in those countries at a significant disadvantage, so of course they will respond. Do you think Russia is going to give Armenia and Ukraine preferential access to their markets if it doesn't get the same in return?

If you knew the first thing about Ukraine, you would know that its policy for a long time has been non-alignment. The push toward the EU comes from the West of the country, not the South/East.

There are plenty of my posts which are critical to the way business works and the quality of life in Russia and Ukraine. I've been in the region for almost a decade and know how it works it inside out. It's you trying to pass yourself off as someone with a balanced opinion, when you've never visited the region in question.

(03-07-2014 01:25 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Quote:

He won't even claim many of the Russian soldiers in Crimea as being Russian (unmarked, etc) in order to save face in the event he has to order his troops (the ones that were already on base) to retreat.

That's basically what he's amounted to in recent months - a determined troll of the United States.

Quote:

I think it's a good strategy as it removes the possibility of Kiev declaring an act of war.

Most naive comment ever. It's a tactic to save face in the event of a withdrawal. That's all. Everyone, even the press, knows who the Russian soldiers are.

If everyone knows they're Russian soldiers, then how is it going to save face? Your premise is illogical.

I can only surmise that sending unmarked soldiers and not confirming who they belong to is a legal move. Everyone knows they're Russian based on the equipment and number plates.

(03-07-2014 03:28 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Quote:

I don't mind disagreeing with uninformed rants by someone who has never even stepped foot in the countries in question.

That's a red herring. There's clearly millions of Ukrainians and Russians both inside their respective countries and in the diaspora (some of whom I know personally) that disagree with everything you're saying. Would you call them uninformed?

Further, we are talking about not just Ukraine and Russia but also the EU and the US (where I'm from), both being places I have more than stepped foot in actually. That's immaterial to the discussion we're having anyway. I'm not dropping data sheets on Ukraine or Russia, I'm observing political events from a distance, just like you. I've followed these events closely and discussed them with trusted people I respect and who I agree with in regards to other places I've been and issues I follow.

I would call the diaspora biased. They obviously didn't like the country if they were prepared to leave it. Under the Soviet Union, it was a permanent move. The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, for example, is fanatical and disconnected from real events in the country. They emigrated in a different era and thus have no connection (not even language) to half of today's Ukrainians.
There are also millions of Russians and Ukrainians who disagree with everything you are saying - that's political discourse. I don't see how that justifies your argument any more than mine.

News for you: USA and the EU are not Russia and Ukraine. Your experience in those countries doesn't mean a thing. Following the news from another continent in a foreign language doesn't make you an expert. Unlike you, I am not observing political events from a distance... I'm actually on the ground and speak the language.


Continuing our tit-for-tat: You sound like John McCain to me. But that's cool. You're from the US and feel loyal to the place, whatever.

[Clyde Rules]

Here is the Exiled take on Ukraine. I tend to agree with their POV on the root causes of this current international conflict and it was a good read overall. Especially when you consider that it was written before this current flareup so its more unbiased on why things are happening like they are.

UKRAINE: THE GOGOLEAN BORDELLO

[Bad Hussar]

(03-06-2014 01:21 PM)ASOT Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 10:17 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Haven't been following the Ukraine threads till now. Has anyone discussed the possible involvement of George Soros and his foundations? Obviously they have been active in ex-Soviet and Soviet block countries over the years, including the installation of a previous Ukrainian Prime Minister, the blonde chick. I really don't know what their interests are, but maybe other members can enlighten me.

Who wrote John Kerry's "19th century" speech? And how could he keep a straight face when delivering it? I foresee rappers and other musicians sampling that speech just like they did "Comical Ali's" after the invasion of Iraq. It's pretty much at the same level of ridiculousness. Kerry must think people are very, very stupid indeed.

Hear from the satanic man himself about his views and actions in Ukraine:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-26...eakthrough

WND - pretty garden variety coverage of the Soros factor. Mention a total of $100 million poured into Ukraine 'NGOs' by Soros:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/soros-heavily...ne-crisis/

Infowars - quotes 'Aleksandr Yefremov' who suggest Soros is funding training of armed revolutionaries as in Libya:
http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-lib...n-ukraine/



On a macro level it's a genius scheme that Soros and his ilk has enacted.
1. Fund dissent in anywhere that poses a threat to the US or that can be used as a splinter under the nail of a threat.
2. Bring that dissent to a boiling point when needed.
3. Wait for the predictable reactions of the incumbent governments/kings/dictators.
4. Create a load of bull shit called the 'doctrine to protect' that billions of liberals will mindlessly embrace.
5. Totally co-opt the media into pushing this doctrine. Even American RT hosts will be infected by it.
6. By now the unrest is so strong point 4 has created a pretext to invade, or they can simply sit back and fan it from the sidelines as in Syria.

Even as far back as the Gulf War this was the game plan. But now they've refined it so much they needn't even create a perceived threat against the US to win support amongst Americans for whatever the latest expedition is. Just start up the Two Minutes Hate (e.g. anti Russian gay rights b.s., poor Sochi coverage) and you're good to go.

OK. But on your points 1-6: Why, or how, is it that Soros' interests are aligned with American interests? I know he has taken US citizenship, but I doubt whether anyone seriously believes he has any loyalty to America or it's people. Neither any loyalty to Hungary or it's people. He obviously identifies as a "Global Citizen" (As do I incidentally). So what's in it for him? As you mention all these revolutions cost a lot of money (Mercenaries aren't cheap, and they are just one of the last pieces of the puzzle...). Not that I've looked in detail, but has he personally benefited, economically, from any of the "Colour" revolutions? Is he poised to benefit in any way in the current Ukrainian crisis?

Is he genuinely trying to do good, as he sees it, in ex-Soviet/Soviet Block countries? (I understand Hungary itself is not doing too badly), or is there something more sinister? When you have unidentified snipers involved shooting people from rooftops, it is reason for concern.

[DaveR]

Soros barely escaped alive from a dictatorship, so I can understand him feeling a responsibility to help others out of the same situation. I can't see how he could gain a lot from it personally. As a trader it may give him a few more events to trade, but it's an expensive way to do that.


Unrelated: here's the views of an ex-Kremlin strategist: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/04/opinio...index.html

[Orion]

One has to note that nowhere does it stand that an EU state must be economically prosperous. Yes it is an economic union as well, but no one dictates you growth or development quotas you have to meet.

Therefore, how much is there going to be actual economical benefit is entirely up to a member state, and absolutely has nothing to do with EU.

However, most of states do receive some decent growth and improvement of situation, but it is a temporary thing that has more to do with tighter law and regulations ie less money is stolen from state funds by mafia, corruption, oligarchs etc. After that, it is all up to the initiative of the state, how much is population dedicated to business and income, how much rich people invest etc.

Right now, EE is still nothing more but a good source of well qualified, young immigrants, and a good place to open banks or get cheap labor. There must be more competition and more investments, more business in order to increase average income.

When i see how EU funds are invested (agricultural projects and other type of non profitable shit) i know that it will take lot more time until "hey state, do something" mentality is kicked out of EE. That being said, Ukraine is really saddest of all cases, where they will have to really tighten things up mercilessly, otherwise they will never move farther than Iraqi GDP levels.

[Teedub]

(03-06-2014 04:26 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Poland and Romania are already done. They are pro-western and pro-American societies (both being NATO and EU member states). According to Roosh and others, there are already signs of degradation among women in parts of these countries (at least in Poland), so the cancer is already present as far as how women take care of themselves.

I'm in Poland now and I can tell you that it's still far from Anglosphere levels in regards to women.

They're super sweet and friendly and go red when you ask their names haha.

[Booyah]

Don't even mention Anglosphere with Poland in one sentence, it's as different as chalk and cheese.

[Icarus]

More excellent footage from Crimea, courtesy of VICE News:

This time VICE News correspondent Simon Ostrovsky interviewed the Night Wolves guy who is a buddy of Putin's:

[jimukr104]

I would call the diaspora biased. They obviously didn't like the country if they were prepared to leave it. Under the Soviet Union, it was a permanent move. The Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, for example, is fanatical and disconnected from real events in the country. They emigrated in a different era and thus have no connection (not even language) to half of today's Ukrainians.
There are also millions of Russians and Ukrainians who disagree with everything you are saying - that's political discourse. I don't see how that justifies your argument any more than mine.

"News for you: USA and the EU are not Russia and Ukraine. Your experience in those countries doesn't mean a thing. Following the news from another continent in a foreign language doesn't make you an expert. Unlike you, I am not observing political events from a distance... I'm actually on the ground and speak the language.


Continuing our tit-for-tat: You sound like John McCain to me. But that's cool. You're from the US and feel loyal to the place, whatever."



The Canadian Ukrainian dispora is basically western Ukrainians who have been in the USA before Ukraine became a soviet state. In NYC we have them also. My Ukrainian credit union actually donates money supportign Svoboda party. However, this community is now basically American born except for the senoir citizens..similar to Canda.
The Soviet Jews who stated coming in the 70's in NYC have different ideas..they don't like communist USSR. but they don't support the protests. Little Odessa is really a Russian community of Russians/Ukrainians who consider themselves Russian.
The most came after 1988. They started flooding my high school(hot chicks). These are the Jews and Christians who Pretended to have a Jew in the family. They came with more wealth and are completely soviet or post soviet but they have nothing to do with the Ukrainian dispora. Chicks who came from Kiev 1988-2001 consider themselves Russain Ukrainians. They still keep flats back in FSU and indulge in post Soviet Russian culture. They are Russain orthrodox and Jewish.. Not like the Ukrainian orthodox that has set up churches decades ago or that go to Catholic or Greek schools9one around my corner).
My point is from what i hear on the radio...if the show is from lower manhattan(old Ukrainian diaspora area) its pro Ukraine. If it is from Brighton beach-Sheepsheadbay-Midwood- it is pro Russia.
But understand Western Ukrainiains are more political by their nature so there will be a bias ..more so than the East and South.

As for that American RT chick who quit. She is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.Her grandmother hungarian. Hungarians invaded Ukraine and Russia with the German army.They did light duty..like rounding up Jews withthe Romanians(Italians tried avoiding that).
PS McCain is an idiot. He is just trying to pour more money to the corporate defense contractors.

[jimukr104]

Quote:

Ukraine has been hoping to go EU for a long, long time, even before EU was ready or interested in any association with Ukraine. Fuhrer Merkel is not remotely the case, in contrast to Russia's aggression towards its neighbors.

Not completely true... it goes back and forth between whether the leader is western or Russain leaning BUT even the ones who have wanted friendlier western relations attempted to do it without worsening relations with Russia. It is the EU that told UA that they have to choose and can't go both ways.
Also the polls show only 42-45% wanting EU trade agreement. Certainly not a majority. Also many don't understand it....its like Obamacare. Many went on interviews thinking it meant free visa to travel.

Quote:

or Russians, the Great Patriotic War (known as the Second World War to you) is not considered a catastrophe because Russia won. They still celebrate it every year and the nation's main holiday period surrounds its anniversary date.

True.... Americans would never have landed on Normandy if the Russians weren't already on the way to Berlin. Normandy was filled with young kids and old men and very few Armour battalions because Russia was destroying them all in the East.
Putins biggest concern is NATO and lost of trade.The 2 countries have industries that are partnered up.
Let me ask you a question?
If a guy came in your face and said he is going to fuck you up and for you to wait there while he goes and get 20 of his friends to help fuck you up.. would you:
a. wait because more the merrier
b. Run away
c.scream "The enemy outnumber us a paltry 20+ to one, good odds for any Russian"
d. Fuck him up now while he is only by himself

If you are rational you would pick choice D..Putin has picked D I suppose.

His Duma address:

His meeting with Obama