It's a great article -- I have one question ...

[Stephanie]

The Ukraine economy is a basket case, why they were keen to suck up to EU blandishments on expansion to the East. So more about having their hand out for preferential EU aid than trade.
http://www.economist.com/news/europe...-war-not-peace

"THE war in Ukraine is intensifying, as Russia’s incursions into the east of the country become ever more brazen. On August 27th a column of Russian troops and equipment crossed the Russia-Ukraine border in the far south, at Novoazovsk, in an apparent attempt to open a new front outside the rebel-held areas and closer to Crimea."

"The Ukrainian economy is in tatters. The IMF says GDP will contract by 6.5% this year; some call this is optimistic. The hryvnia has fallen over 60% against the dollar this year. The loss of Crimea and disruption in the Donbas region have taken their toll on investor confidence and domestic production. “Ukraine does not function without Donbas,”


Excellent article.

[Stephanie]

That i agree with. But a more westernised ukraine would do more trade with europe and russia would lose out. ECONOMICALLY. Lest i remind you, that this whole thing kicked off over a trade deal that europe was attempting to negotiate with ukraine



If you had a halting site being set up beside your house, wouldnt you do everything possible to try and stop them from setting up. But with regards russia, it is mainly financial their worry. You have to remember that america has bases all around russia with ICBMs with ranges of about 6000 kms(minimum), so having bases in the ukraine doesnt make much of difference. If they wanted to attack russia they could regardless of influence in ukraine.

So why then the whole debacle? Putin is using sectarianism in ukraine as a front to try and keep control of them financially as a trade partner. he doesnt want to start war and has no interest in the ukrainian people and turning them russian. If europe started trading better with the ukraine, russia would lose out. That is the pretext.....

People can go on and on about how putin is a monster, which he is not. Russia is stocked with nuclear war heads. he could end the world tommorow if he wished. They dropped a 50 Mega tonne equivalent bomb near the artic that was so big it was felt over in america. If you dropped one in offaly, it would knock liverpool to the ground...... He is trying to protect the russian economy in the same way the irish government is trying to maintain our low rate of corporation tax, because it is good for the economy. Putin if he was that way inclined could wipe europe off the map in an hour if he wished....

Lest you remind me lol ??


So to put it in simpler terms :

Let's say you have a happy trading relationship with your neighbor , and then your neighbor discovers that he could

also trade with the bloke down the street. And so your response is to attack your neighbor in order to prevent him

from trading with the bloke down the street ??

That's what it boils down to , and I think it is wrong and there is no conceivable excuse for it.

Lest I remind you .

[Meursault]

Lest you remind me lol ??


So to put it in simpler terms :

Let's say you have a happy trading relationship with your neighbor , and then your neighbor discovers that he could

also trade with the bloke down the street. And so your response is to attack your neighbor in order to prevent him

from trading with the bloke down the street ??

That's what it boils down to , and I think it is wrong and there is no conceivable excuse for it.

Lest I remind you .

I agree it is wrong, but i can understand why hes doing it. ukraine imports and exports to russian and is a big trade partner. What happens when europe comes along is ukraine starts importing/exporting from them and the russian trade takes a hit. But thats not the big thing. Financially russia controls ukraine. 25% of ukrainian exports are to russia. 31% of imports are from russia. That is financial clout, in the same way that germany controls ireland, because when you control someones currency, you control the country. Then the european trade plan with ukraine would reduce that % considerable and russia would have less financial control over ukraine.



"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

[joggon]

I have a question for you Stephanie, who put the USA in charge of running the world ? .
After the fall of communism eastern european countries were applying and joining the EU . Where was the need for the USA and NATO to aggressively pursue the re militarisation of eastern europe . Russia was weakened at this stage . Now that higher oil and gas prices have enriched the Russian economy it finds Nato on its doorstep again .
My sympathy is with the people of eastern european countries and Russia who's governments are now forced to spend larger amounts on their military budget instead of social programmes .

Lets not forget the cancerous interference of the USA in South America and Middle east do we really want this for Ukraine ?.
And before you say what all americans say " we saved you from Hitler" let us not forget how many Russians died and the Russian army defeated the German army before the allies on the western front .
Must be said the people of Laos are still being blown apart 40 + yrs after america's "misadventure" in Vietnam .
American governments do not always serve their citizens well and seem to be able to get away with it in the manner dictators would be proud of .
Have a nice day now y'all !

[Meursault]

in case my point is confusing here is what i am arguing:

--Putin doesnt want control of ukraine militarily, because he already controls them financially. Now financially is a bit different from militarily, but it still is control. he still can dictate policy within the ukraine.

--The new trade deal between europe and ukraine would have altered that financial control by making the ukraine less dependent on russia financially and hence russia could no longer dictate policy.

--He is now using the sectarianism as a proxy war to try and maintain control, because the new ukrainian government will try to trade with europe, which is understandable. What he may try and do is split the country further. Ideally he would like the status quo to remain unchanged, but he is playing a fine line.

--Now why does he want to maintain control? Financial would certainly be one of the big reasons as in the russian economy is a big trade partner with the ukraine. I believe also given that he has control, he doesnt wish to lose it. Has he an eye on nato? yes, but he doesnt care. like i said ICBMs can travel across the world. But i maintain that the reason for the aggression is not because he wants WWIII, but rather he wishes to maintain control of a country in the same methodology that britain lays claim to the sheep on the falklands. Why? It defies belief.

[Meursault]

I have a question for you Stephanie, who put the USA in charge of running the world ? .
After the fall of communism eastern european countries were applying and joining the EU . Where was the need for the USA and NATO to aggressively pursue the re militarisation of eastern europe . Russia was weakened at this stage . Now that higher oil and gas prices have enriched the Russian economy it finds Nato on its doorstep again .
My sympathy is with the people of eastern european countries and Russia who's governments are now forced to spend larger amounts on their military budget instead of social programmes .

Lets not forget the cancerous interference of the USA in South America and Middle east do we really want this for Ukraine ?.
And before you say what all americans say " we saved you from Hitler" let us not forget how many Russians died and the Russian army defeated the German army before the allies on the western front .
Must be said the people of Laos are still being blown apart 40 + yrs after america's "misadventure" in Vietnam .
American governments do not always serve their citizens well and seem to be able to get away with it in the manner dictators would be proud of .
Have a nice day now y'all !

no offense man, but your going miles off topic it probably deserves a thread of its own you know, just saying

[joggon]

think of it another way , if the governments of India and Pakistan spent the money on social programmes instead of their nuclear programme's how different would life be for its citizens .
Militarisation is a disaster for the economy and people in vulnerable countries whether in europe or elsewhere .
The expansion of Nato only benefits those who manufacture and sell the required military weaponry .

[joggon]

no offense man, but your going miles off topic it probably deserves a thread of its own you know, just saying

yep i was broadening the debate

[Stephanie]

I have a question for you Stephanie, who put the USA in charge of running the world ? .
After the fall of communism eastern european countries were applying and joining the EU . Where was the need for the USA and NATO to aggressively pursue the re militarisation of eastern europe . Russia was weakened at this stage . Now that higher oil and gas prices have enriched the Russian economy it finds Nato on its doorstep again .
My sympathy is with the people of eastern european countries and Russia who's governments are now forced to spend larger amounts on their military budget instead of social programmes .

Lets not forget the cancerous interference of the USA in South America and Middle east do we really want this for Ukraine ?.
And before you say what all americans say " we saved you from Hitler" let us not forget how many Russians died and the Russian army defeated the German army before the allies on the western front .
Must be said the people of Laos are still being blown apart 40 + yrs after america's "misadventure" in Vietnam .
American governments do not always serve their citizens well and seem to be able to get away with it in the manner dictators would be proud of .
Have a nice day now y'all !

First : Please do not personalize this discussion.

Second : My sympathy is with the eastern Ukrainian people being killed in their own homes ,

and being driven from their own land.


" Russian economy it finds Nato on its doorstep again ." -- NATO has been there all along .

It hasn't up and moved .

It just seems (to me) that right now it actually could be strategically useful , if anyone had the 'balls' to employ it's

'metaphorical' might. : If Ukraine was part of NATO , and NATO forces were posted on Ukraine-Russian border ,

I very much doubt Putin would 'march' against it.


"Where was the need for the USA and NATO to aggressively pursue the re militarization of eastern Europe"

: in light of recent Russian actions , it would seem that having and maintaining a 'presence' + NATO , was in fact

strategically sound , and was wrought with due foresight .

[Stephanie]

in case my point is confusing here is what i am arguing:

--Putin doesnt want control of ukraine militarily, because he already controls them financially. Now financially is a bit different from militarily, but it still is control. he still can dictate policy within the ukraine.

--The new trade deal between europe and ukraine would have altered that financial control by making the ukraine less dependent on russia financially and hence russia could no longer dictate policy.

--He is now using the sectarianism as a proxy war to try and maintain control, because the new ukrainian government will try to trade with europe, which is understandable. What he may try and do is split the country further. Ideally he would like the status quo to remain unchanged, but he is playing a fine line.

--Now why does he want to maintain control? Financial would certainly be one of the big reasons as in the russian economy is a big trade partner with the ukraine. I believe also given that he has control, he doesnt wish to lose it. Has he an eye on nato? yes, but he doesnt care. like i said ICBMs can travel across the world. But i maintain that the reason for the aggression is not because he wants WWIII, but rather he wishes to maintain control of a country in the same methodology that britain lays claim to the sheep on the falklands. Why? It defies belief.

Are you just saying stuff , or are we having a conversation ?

You having a conversation w someone else ?

I never said Putin wants WW III. : I said "surely he wouldn't " .

In your post you are re-wording , re-stating what I already have said .

Perhaps we are in agreement ?