Hencredible was given a break of 3 days because of his emotional posting in this thread. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should take down to others.
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Ukraine conflict lounge
I could have worded my replies in a less inflammatory way also. Sorry for getting sidetracked - this thread is supposed to be about Ukraine after all, not Russia and Putin.
Unrelated: the latest rumour on Twitter is that some pro-Russia guys have dug up the gas pipeline running from Crimea into Ukraine and planted explosives around it... WTF?
Unrelated: the latest rumour on Twitter is that some pro-Russia guys have dug up the gas pipeline running from Crimea into Ukraine and planted explosives around it... WTF?
Quote: (03-07-2014 02:01 PM)DaveR Wrote:
I could have worded my replies in a less inflammatory way also. Sorry for getting sidetracked - this thread is supposed to be about Ukraine after all, not Russia and Putin.
Unrelated: the latest rumour on Twitter is that some pro-Russia guys have dug up the gas pipeline running from Crimea into Ukraine and planted explosives around it... WTF?
links?
RFE/RL attempts to show they are balanced by linking this "interesting piece":
Denying the Far-Right Role in the Ukrainian Revolution
Article by FAIR. Haven't heard of them.
Edit: They actually seem to have some articles exposing Western media bias:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/05/puti...standards/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/04/the-...-bad-kind/
Denying the Far-Right Role in the Ukrainian Revolution
Article by FAIR. Haven't heard of them.
Edit: They actually seem to have some articles exposing Western media bias:
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/05/puti...standards/
http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/03/04/the-...-bad-kind/
Quote: (03-07-2014 02:01 PM)DaveR Wrote:
I could have worded my replies in a less inflammatory way also. Sorry for getting sidetracked - this thread is supposed to be about Ukraine after all, not Russia and Putin.
Unrelated: the latest rumour on Twitter is that some pro-Russia guys have dug up the gas pipeline running from Crimea into Ukraine and planted explosives around it... WTF?
Suggest we open a Putin lounge.
![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
To be fair, more people are discussing Ukraine here than any place else. When the situation is discussed in most places, it focuses on Russia and geo-politics.
"Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact."
"Want him to be more of a man? Try being more of a woman!"
"It is easier to be a lover than a husband, for the same reason that it is more difficult to be witty every day, than to say bright things from time to time."
Balzac, Physiology of Marriage
Quote: (03-07-2014 01:32 AM)DaveR Wrote:
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.
That's not quite correct. The two questions posed are essentially:
1) "are you for Crimea as part of Russia?"
2) "are you for Crimea as part of Ukraine?"
There could be only one "Yes". If both questions are answered "Yes" (or none) that bulletin is invalid.
Reference
Quote: (03-07-2014 04:56 PM)gosh Wrote:They will be asking..stay with Ukraine but have more independence
Quote: (03-07-2014 01:32 AM)DaveR Wrote:
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.
That's not quite correct. The two questions posed are essentially:
1) "are you for Crimea as part of Russia?"
2) "are you for Crimea as part of Ukraine?"
There could be only one "Yes". If both questions are answered "Yes" (or none) that bulletin is invalid.
Reference
They will also ask if they want to be a complete independent state.
Are Russiam troops truly in Crimea? I am watching news reports talking of "uniformed russian military" but showing men in ski masks and civilian clothes who occasionally have random weapons.
Russia has claimed there are no Russian troops in Crimea, and these are Ukranians rebelling against the new Ukrainian government, which they say is illegitimate.
Russia has claimed there are no Russian troops in Crimea, and these are Ukranians rebelling against the new Ukrainian government, which they say is illegitimate.
Russian economic climate and investing (doesn't get into the possibility of sanctions and the results):
World Money Analyst: I am very pleased to speak with Alexei Medved. Alexei is the Russia and CIS contributing editor at World Money Analyst, and I caught him at his office in London. Thank you for joining us today.
Alexei Medved: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.
WMA: As you and I have discussed before, Russia remains a little-understood market for many Western investors. Can you talk a little about the investment backdrop for Russia?
Alexei: One should look at investing in Russia from at least two time perspectives: long term, meaning 10-plus years, and a medium time horizon of 1-3 years.
Long term, Russia is still the best-performing major stock market in the world for the period 2000-2013, when measured in US dollars against the major market indexes. It is well ahead of not only all developed markets, but also the markets in China, Brazil, and several other emerging markets that were and are much more a center of attention for Western media and investors. This long-term outperformance was achieved despite the fact that 2013 was not a good year for Russian equities, with the RTS Index down 5% in 2013.
Medium term, the Russian market remains the most undervalued. The average P/E is about 4.5, significantly below other emerging markets and way below the multiple on shares in the developed markets.
WMA: How has the Russian market held up so far this year, with emerging markets under pressure?
Alexei: As you know, so far this year many emerging markets and emerging market currencies have been punished significantly, as Western institutional investors became worried about macroeconomic pressures in some of the emerging economies, like Turkey and Argentina. These countries have problems that are real and serious: too much external debt, a trade deficit, a budget deficit, declining foreign currency reserves, etc. So, it is understandable why foreign investors withdrew a lot of money from these markets recently.
What is hard to understand is why they also withdrew significant amounts of money from the Russian market. In my view, it is primarily because most investors continue to view emerging markets as a single class of investments. So, when they withdraw money, they do it across the board, in all emerging markets. This is generally not the best approach. In contrast, investors do not approach developed markets as a single class, but differentiate between the countries.
WMA: Using your examples of Turkey and Argentina, how does Russia compare in terms of the macro picture?
Alexei: The macroeconomic position of Russia is vastly different from that of Argentina or Turkey. For starters, Russia has a positive trade balance and a balanced budget, unlike these and many other emerging and developed countries. Russia also has a very low debt load, with the ratio of external government debt-to-GDP around 10%, much lower than the roughly 95% in the US and even higher in some European countries. Further, the unemployment rate in Russia is around 5.5%, meaning the country is essentially running at full employment.
The unrefined “sell everything that’s emerging” approach apparently in play by Western institutional investors has led to the Russian market being unjustifiably punished. The good news is that the punishment has created even better investment opportunities for investors who can avoid “herd mentality.” There are solid, profitable Russian companies that are trading today at very low valuations.
WMA: One of your areas of expertise is the use of short-dated, US-dollar-denominated Eurobonds to capture higher yield and manage risk. Can you explain this strategy a little for our readers?
Alexei: Of course. I think Russia and the CIS also present a good opportunity for fixed-income investors. Given my serious worries about a possibility of rising inflation and yields in developed markets, we recommend investing only in relatively short-term bonds (under four years). Our [Alexei’s independent business] weighted portfolio maturity is now under two years. One can either invest in Russian sovereign debt or the safest corporate bonds and receive somewhat higher yields than in comparable developed-economy bonds. Investing in bonds that do not have an investment-grade rating from one of the major rating agencies is another option.
Based on our local knowledge, we particularly like some high-yield bonds where we have a decent understanding of the company and believe that the bonds will be repaid, despite fairly low ratings from the credit agencies. This way, we invest in bonds that offer 10%-12% yields.
WMA: Switching to issues of politics and governance, many observers are concerned about issues of corruption in Russia, making it difficult for an investor to navigate the market. Has the current government embraced reforms on this?
Alexei: Obviously, one has to be very careful when considering investing in Russian equities or bonds. For investors who lack knowledge about the country, I do not recommend they attempt a do-it-yourself approach to selecting Russian shares. A better approach is to either invest through an index fund or to seek share selection advice from people who specialize in the Russian market on a day-to-day basis. This is in spite of the fact that over the last decade, Russia to some extent became much more investable.
Back to your question, corporate governance has generally improved, although perhaps not as much as some investors would like. The government is taking steps in this direction, yet a lot remains to be done. As Russia recently became a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its market is opening up to external competition, Russian companies will have to become more efficient to compete, and thus more profitable for investors.
Many investors have yet to wake up to the reality that Russia is a serious global player that’s here to stay. This opens up even more opportunities for investors.
WMA: The January issue of World Money Analyst highlighted the importance of taking a longer view on markets and investments, something that you and I agree on. You’ve made some great recommendations at WMA and recently advised to take profits on two stocks that were held for a year or longer. Can you briefly go over these trades?
Alexei: Yes. As I said earlier, one has to look at these opportunities on a medium- to long-term investment timeline and not attempt to trade these markets, as one’s investments can get unjustifiably punished, as is happening now. We have been active in the Russian market for over 20 years and certainly maintain such an approach when we look at investments to recommend to our clients. Once the investment is made, we monitor it on a constant basis, as one cannot just “salt it away.” Once the shares reach our target price, we sell them and move on to the next opportunity.
In the January 2014 issue of WMA, I recommended taking profits on two positions. The first was the shares of Russian airline Aeroflot, recommended in the January 2013 issue. By January 2014, its shares had moved up nicely on the back of stellar company operating results. We advised to sell the shares and realized an 84% gain, including the dividend, in 12 months.
The second was the shares of AFK Sistema, a large-cap (US$18 billion) company that restructured itself from a conglomerate into essentially a private equity fund. I recommended its GDRs in the July 2012 issue. By January 2014 the shares had moved up significantly, and I advised to sell in that month’s issue of WMA. We pocketed a total return of 63% in 18 months.
These returns are particularly remarkable against a negative 5.6% return of the Russian RTS Index in 2013. While we still like both of these shares, their significant appreciation had reached our price targets, so it was time to cash in some chips. And seeing that these shares are now trading lower, we got out at the right time and preserved the investors’ profits.
WMA: We can’t talk about Russia and not mention the ruble. Investing in certain currencies—like the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone—has been in vogue for several years on the premise that these are “resource currencies” supported by the natural resource wealth of the issuing country. With Russia’s vast mineral and commodity wealth, should we consider the ruble a commodity currency?
Alexei: Given that Russia is a large producer of oil, gas, and some other commodities, to some extent the ruble should be seen as a commodity currency, perhaps even a petrocurrency. So, if one believes that the oil price is likely to decline significantly and stay low for years to come, one should not buy Russia. However, if one believes that the oil price trend is flat to up in the medium and long term, Russia will do well macroeconomically.
WMA: Next to the emerging markets, another big issue is developments in Ukraine. You have covered Ukraine for World Money Analyst subscribers. The country seems to be caught in a conflict about alliances: to enter into a closer economic alignment with Moscow, or shift to stronger ties with the EU. What are your thoughts on this and the investment implications for Ukraine?
Alexei: It is very sad that the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated as far as it has. Ukrainians are also fed up with perceived government corruption and diminishing civil liberties in the country. In December, Russia provided a US$15 billion rescue package to Ukraine and immediately disbursed US$3 billion. It remains to be seen which way the current situation will be resolved.
However, there are some corporate bonds in Ukraine that should be relatively immune to this political turmoil. One of the companies we like in Ukraine is MHP, the largest chicken-meat producer in Europe. The company is fairly insulated against possible further depreciation of the local currency, as it sells 37% of its products abroad. After the recent selloff in Ukrainian bonds, one can buy the Eurobond of MHP priced in US dollars with a maturity in April 2015 and a yield to maturity of 10.6%. Such a high yield on short-dated paper is very hard to find elsewhere.
WMA: Any final thoughts for investors about the opportunities in Russia?
Alexei: The latest selloff of Russian shares represents an opportunity to buy quality companies at discount prices. Today, we can see compelling value in world-class companies with assets not just in Russia but globally (including the USA), good corporate governance, and nice dividends. In short, I agree with Warren Buffett: “Buy when others are fearful.”
World Money Analyst: I am very pleased to speak with Alexei Medved. Alexei is the Russia and CIS contributing editor at World Money Analyst, and I caught him at his office in London. Thank you for joining us today.
Alexei Medved: My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.
WMA: As you and I have discussed before, Russia remains a little-understood market for many Western investors. Can you talk a little about the investment backdrop for Russia?
Alexei: One should look at investing in Russia from at least two time perspectives: long term, meaning 10-plus years, and a medium time horizon of 1-3 years.
Long term, Russia is still the best-performing major stock market in the world for the period 2000-2013, when measured in US dollars against the major market indexes. It is well ahead of not only all developed markets, but also the markets in China, Brazil, and several other emerging markets that were and are much more a center of attention for Western media and investors. This long-term outperformance was achieved despite the fact that 2013 was not a good year for Russian equities, with the RTS Index down 5% in 2013.
Medium term, the Russian market remains the most undervalued. The average P/E is about 4.5, significantly below other emerging markets and way below the multiple on shares in the developed markets.
WMA: How has the Russian market held up so far this year, with emerging markets under pressure?
Alexei: As you know, so far this year many emerging markets and emerging market currencies have been punished significantly, as Western institutional investors became worried about macroeconomic pressures in some of the emerging economies, like Turkey and Argentina. These countries have problems that are real and serious: too much external debt, a trade deficit, a budget deficit, declining foreign currency reserves, etc. So, it is understandable why foreign investors withdrew a lot of money from these markets recently.
What is hard to understand is why they also withdrew significant amounts of money from the Russian market. In my view, it is primarily because most investors continue to view emerging markets as a single class of investments. So, when they withdraw money, they do it across the board, in all emerging markets. This is generally not the best approach. In contrast, investors do not approach developed markets as a single class, but differentiate between the countries.
WMA: Using your examples of Turkey and Argentina, how does Russia compare in terms of the macro picture?
Alexei: The macroeconomic position of Russia is vastly different from that of Argentina or Turkey. For starters, Russia has a positive trade balance and a balanced budget, unlike these and many other emerging and developed countries. Russia also has a very low debt load, with the ratio of external government debt-to-GDP around 10%, much lower than the roughly 95% in the US and even higher in some European countries. Further, the unemployment rate in Russia is around 5.5%, meaning the country is essentially running at full employment.
The unrefined “sell everything that’s emerging” approach apparently in play by Western institutional investors has led to the Russian market being unjustifiably punished. The good news is that the punishment has created even better investment opportunities for investors who can avoid “herd mentality.” There are solid, profitable Russian companies that are trading today at very low valuations.
WMA: One of your areas of expertise is the use of short-dated, US-dollar-denominated Eurobonds to capture higher yield and manage risk. Can you explain this strategy a little for our readers?
Alexei: Of course. I think Russia and the CIS also present a good opportunity for fixed-income investors. Given my serious worries about a possibility of rising inflation and yields in developed markets, we recommend investing only in relatively short-term bonds (under four years). Our [Alexei’s independent business] weighted portfolio maturity is now under two years. One can either invest in Russian sovereign debt or the safest corporate bonds and receive somewhat higher yields than in comparable developed-economy bonds. Investing in bonds that do not have an investment-grade rating from one of the major rating agencies is another option.
Based on our local knowledge, we particularly like some high-yield bonds where we have a decent understanding of the company and believe that the bonds will be repaid, despite fairly low ratings from the credit agencies. This way, we invest in bonds that offer 10%-12% yields.
WMA: Switching to issues of politics and governance, many observers are concerned about issues of corruption in Russia, making it difficult for an investor to navigate the market. Has the current government embraced reforms on this?
Alexei: Obviously, one has to be very careful when considering investing in Russian equities or bonds. For investors who lack knowledge about the country, I do not recommend they attempt a do-it-yourself approach to selecting Russian shares. A better approach is to either invest through an index fund or to seek share selection advice from people who specialize in the Russian market on a day-to-day basis. This is in spite of the fact that over the last decade, Russia to some extent became much more investable.
Back to your question, corporate governance has generally improved, although perhaps not as much as some investors would like. The government is taking steps in this direction, yet a lot remains to be done. As Russia recently became a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its market is opening up to external competition, Russian companies will have to become more efficient to compete, and thus more profitable for investors.
Many investors have yet to wake up to the reality that Russia is a serious global player that’s here to stay. This opens up even more opportunities for investors.
WMA: The January issue of World Money Analyst highlighted the importance of taking a longer view on markets and investments, something that you and I agree on. You’ve made some great recommendations at WMA and recently advised to take profits on two stocks that were held for a year or longer. Can you briefly go over these trades?
Alexei: Yes. As I said earlier, one has to look at these opportunities on a medium- to long-term investment timeline and not attempt to trade these markets, as one’s investments can get unjustifiably punished, as is happening now. We have been active in the Russian market for over 20 years and certainly maintain such an approach when we look at investments to recommend to our clients. Once the investment is made, we monitor it on a constant basis, as one cannot just “salt it away.” Once the shares reach our target price, we sell them and move on to the next opportunity.
In the January 2014 issue of WMA, I recommended taking profits on two positions. The first was the shares of Russian airline Aeroflot, recommended in the January 2013 issue. By January 2014, its shares had moved up nicely on the back of stellar company operating results. We advised to sell the shares and realized an 84% gain, including the dividend, in 12 months.
The second was the shares of AFK Sistema, a large-cap (US$18 billion) company that restructured itself from a conglomerate into essentially a private equity fund. I recommended its GDRs in the July 2012 issue. By January 2014 the shares had moved up significantly, and I advised to sell in that month’s issue of WMA. We pocketed a total return of 63% in 18 months.
These returns are particularly remarkable against a negative 5.6% return of the Russian RTS Index in 2013. While we still like both of these shares, their significant appreciation had reached our price targets, so it was time to cash in some chips. And seeing that these shares are now trading lower, we got out at the right time and preserved the investors’ profits.
WMA: We can’t talk about Russia and not mention the ruble. Investing in certain currencies—like the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone—has been in vogue for several years on the premise that these are “resource currencies” supported by the natural resource wealth of the issuing country. With Russia’s vast mineral and commodity wealth, should we consider the ruble a commodity currency?
Alexei: Given that Russia is a large producer of oil, gas, and some other commodities, to some extent the ruble should be seen as a commodity currency, perhaps even a petrocurrency. So, if one believes that the oil price is likely to decline significantly and stay low for years to come, one should not buy Russia. However, if one believes that the oil price trend is flat to up in the medium and long term, Russia will do well macroeconomically.
WMA: Next to the emerging markets, another big issue is developments in Ukraine. You have covered Ukraine for World Money Analyst subscribers. The country seems to be caught in a conflict about alliances: to enter into a closer economic alignment with Moscow, or shift to stronger ties with the EU. What are your thoughts on this and the investment implications for Ukraine?
Alexei: It is very sad that the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated as far as it has. Ukrainians are also fed up with perceived government corruption and diminishing civil liberties in the country. In December, Russia provided a US$15 billion rescue package to Ukraine and immediately disbursed US$3 billion. It remains to be seen which way the current situation will be resolved.
However, there are some corporate bonds in Ukraine that should be relatively immune to this political turmoil. One of the companies we like in Ukraine is MHP, the largest chicken-meat producer in Europe. The company is fairly insulated against possible further depreciation of the local currency, as it sells 37% of its products abroad. After the recent selloff in Ukrainian bonds, one can buy the Eurobond of MHP priced in US dollars with a maturity in April 2015 and a yield to maturity of 10.6%. Such a high yield on short-dated paper is very hard to find elsewhere.
WMA: Any final thoughts for investors about the opportunities in Russia?
Alexei: The latest selloff of Russian shares represents an opportunity to buy quality companies at discount prices. Today, we can see compelling value in world-class companies with assets not just in Russia but globally (including the USA), good corporate governance, and nice dividends. In short, I agree with Warren Buffett: “Buy when others are fearful.”
More footage from VICE News:
"The great secret of happiness in love is to be glad that the other fellow married her." – H.L. Mencken
Quote: (03-07-2014 01:33 PM)Roosh Wrote:
Hencredible was given a break of 3 days because of his emotional posting in this thread. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should take down to others.
I thought that when guys are given a short term suspension (such as 3 or 7 days), it does NOT say banned next to their names?
Hopefully this will all resolve b/c sometimes these political topics and threads do become a bit too heated.... and it is NOT easy to avoid getting lured into attack mode.
The top 5 links in Reddit's worldnews subreddit currently features pro-West viewpoints:
![[Image: 531a5f30b9f941-43581878]](http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/i3/531a5f30b9f941-43581878)
Roosh
http://www.rooshv.com
Quote: (03-07-2014 03:13 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:
Quote: (03-07-2014 02:01 PM)DaveR Wrote:
I could have worded my replies in a less inflammatory way also. Sorry for getting sidetracked - this thread is supposed to be about Ukraine after all, not Russia and Putin.
Unrelated: the latest rumour on Twitter is that some pro-Russia guys have dug up the gas pipeline running from Crimea into Ukraine and planted explosives around it... WTF?
links?
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/...52/photo/1
"the leader of the Right Sector movement, Dmytro Yarosh, will run for president of Ukraine, the chairman of the local branch of the movement, Andriy Tarasenko, said on Friday. The nationalist group, which was important in the fight for Kiev’s Independence Square in February that drove Mr. Yanukovych from power, will rename itself at a congress in a week and participate in elections at all levels, Mr. Tarasenko said."
Lets now examine this.. they made the second in command as secretary of defense and NOW the leader is running for president/
I always said it was probably red sector that opened fire on protesters and reports confirm same bullets killed cops. There is also a leaked Estonian minister phone call.
Putin is certainly RIGHT.. Neo Nazi's are trying to take over Ukraine.
USA is politically going to be exposed to the whole world as bigger dopes than usual.
Lets now examine this.. they made the second in command as secretary of defense and NOW the leader is running for president/
I always said it was probably red sector that opened fire on protesters and reports confirm same bullets killed cops. There is also a leaked Estonian minister phone call.
Putin is certainly RIGHT.. Neo Nazi's are trying to take over Ukraine.
USA is politically going to be exposed to the whole world as bigger dopes than usual.
@Jim that's big news. Bad news for the coalition. You could already see at the end of the protests how Klitschko was swept aside for Right Sector speakers.
Obviously worse case scenario for Ukraine is right sector wins. But now that they are running for president the coalitions vote will be split between Yarosh and Klitschko (and/or another coalition candidate) , so the Eastern candidate might have a shot.
I wonder if this will play into Putins strategy for Crimea. It might be worth it to keep their presidential votes in Ukraine.
Obviously worse case scenario for Ukraine is right sector wins. But now that they are running for president the coalitions vote will be split between Yarosh and Klitschko (and/or another coalition candidate) , so the Eastern candidate might have a shot.
I wonder if this will play into Putins strategy for Crimea. It might be worth it to keep their presidential votes in Ukraine.
This opinion piece was broadcast on the national primetime newscast here in Canada on Thursday night.
The main point is that Putin does what he wants because Obama is too weak and lacks the balls to control him.
The main point is that Putin does what he wants because Obama is too weak and lacks the balls to control him.
Deleted. Wrong thread.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
Quote: (03-07-2014 09:21 PM)Blunt Wrote:
@Jim that's big news. Bad news for the coalition. You could already see at the end of the protests how Klitschko was swept aside for Right Sector speakers.
Obviously worse case scenario for Ukraine is right sector wins. But now that they are running for president the coalitions vote will be split between Yarosh and Klitschko (and/or another coalition candidate) , so the Eastern candidate might have a shot.
I wonder if this will play into Putins strategy for Crimea. It might be worth it to keep their presidential votes in Ukraine.
The presidential election process usually goes through 2-3 rounds until one with a clear majority is elected. The ones who don't make the cutoff (25%? - can't remember) are eliminated in each round.
It isn't as clear-cut as before because the Party of Regions have some lingering negativity as betrayers of the South/East. They also don't have a candidate at the moment and all of the top administration of the former government have criminal trials opened against them.
I would also bet that Right Sector will terrorise the opposition parties everywhere except Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea.
Don't forget that it took five years for the Orange revolution to unravel. Many believed at the time that Ukraine would magically become corruption-free and European without any thoughts of austerity and the massive cost of restructuring an inefficient economy. The same euphoria is ramping up again..
Late to the thread, but my first instinct upon hearing of conflict in EE, said this was a rouse to lure America over into a war they can't possibly win. I have been reading and discussing a lot of war oriented content lately, however, so my view might have been a little biased at the time..
Will read through all these threads when I get a chance, very interested in how this develops
Will read through all these threads when I get a chance, very interested in how this develops
It's funny how badly the Ukrainian crisis has shaken people here. On one side, the President goes "There is no threat to Finland", but on the other side there's been a huge hassle in the barracks areas too and a closed-off sitting for the government from the military. From what I understood, we've been having fighter jets spread and in cockpit standby for a while now. Interesting stuff.
Made me think that it would really suck to get an extra training letter from the military right now.
Made me think that it would really suck to get an extra training letter from the military right now.
Quote: (03-07-2014 09:54 PM)Nemausus Wrote:
This opinion piece was broadcast on the national primetime newscast here in Canada on Thursday night.
The main point is that Putin does what he wants because Obama is too weak and lacks the balls to control him.
If that's the case then Eisenhower didn't have the balls to stop Khrushchev in 1956 when the Soviets rolled into Hungary. Same with LBJ in 1968 when they went into Czechoslovakia. Same goes for Ronald Reagan in 1981 when Poland was encouraged to declare martial law (with the promise of Soviet military backing if anything when wrong) to inhibit the Solidarity movement.
If you are going to impose your will on the world, you must have control over what you believe.
Data Sheet Minneapolis / Data Sheet St. Paul / Data Sheet Northern MN/BWCA / Data Sheet Duluth
Okay - lets keep this simple.
Is Obama weak in not standing up to Putin? I don't think so.
It is like a game of chicken. Do we have an all out war with Russia in order to protect a country we don't care about?
Or do we back down?
Seems Obama has two options. Be weak or be crazy. And I think being weak is the lesser of the two evils.
Is Obama weak in not standing up to Putin? I don't think so.
It is like a game of chicken. Do we have an all out war with Russia in order to protect a country we don't care about?
Or do we back down?
Seems Obama has two options. Be weak or be crazy. And I think being weak is the lesser of the two evils.
He's being realistic so far.
The west won't do much in the end because it doesn't really matter that much to the west whether Crimea is in Russia or Ukraine. There's no vital interest at stake.
The problem is not in the Crimea itself but in the precedent it sets for all the countries around Russia. So the west will have do something to show it's disapproval, that's all.
Crimea may become some kind of legal gray area, with a status unrecognized by western countries. It may become hard to visit.
The west won't do much in the end because it doesn't really matter that much to the west whether Crimea is in Russia or Ukraine. There's no vital interest at stake.
The problem is not in the Crimea itself but in the precedent it sets for all the countries around Russia. So the west will have do something to show it's disapproval, that's all.
Crimea may become some kind of legal gray area, with a status unrecognized by western countries. It may become hard to visit.
If only you knew how bad things really are.
In America - the president is limited to two terms.
Whereas in the UK (and most other countries) you can stay in power for longer than that.
From the point of view of foreign affairs I think it creates a weakness in the American system? Since after the president is in his second term - it seems he will be more cautious in his dealings with foreign countries. Since he would rather prevent war by appearing weak - since his weakness will never be thrown at him in the next election campaign.
As such - I wonder if foreign countries are more likely to try and 'punk' America during the president's second term as opposed to his first time (where he may react stronger - so that he can look good in the next election cycle).
If Russia had invaded Crimea during Obama's first term in office - I think he would react in a more hawkish manner. And I am guessing Putin knows that - which is why he would prefer to pull shit like this during Obama's second term in office.
Whereas in the UK (and most other countries) you can stay in power for longer than that.
From the point of view of foreign affairs I think it creates a weakness in the American system? Since after the president is in his second term - it seems he will be more cautious in his dealings with foreign countries. Since he would rather prevent war by appearing weak - since his weakness will never be thrown at him in the next election campaign.
As such - I wonder if foreign countries are more likely to try and 'punk' America during the president's second term as opposed to his first time (where he may react stronger - so that he can look good in the next election cycle).
If Russia had invaded Crimea during Obama's first term in office - I think he would react in a more hawkish manner. And I am guessing Putin knows that - which is why he would prefer to pull shit like this during Obama's second term in office.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)