Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 143

Thread: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    Well, if you promise to keep it a secret then I will tell you. I have one of my people inside Putin's circle of people. He is reliable. Every now and then we meet at daylight and he tells me of Putin's next moves, clear and simple.

    Seriously though. I think that is where this is going and I do not mind really for it means we join Albania too at last.

    How about you though? Would you mind annexing Moldova back again?
    No, because we're not a country that violated another country's sovereingty. Moldavia is an independent country. If Moldavia were to make a referendum to join Romania, ofc, we'll accept, but they must do it on their own. By their own volition, not Putin-style with foreign troops (or romanian troops in this case) on their territory. They may be our brothers accross the river but they have the same right to choose their own destiny and path in life as anyone of us. IF they'll ever want to part of Romania, which a lot do, they'll chose when and why, not us. It's their choice as a free and sovereign people with borders we respect.

    You're making scenarios for annexation or trading international recognition... god dammit man. How cynical are you?

  2. #22
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As far as I know, the vast majority of Crimea's power comes from Ukraine. However, Ukraine relies on Russia for a fairly large share of its energy resources.

    Ukraine almost certainly won't respond by cutting off power or water for two reasons:

    1. Such a move would impact civilians and violate humanitarian legal instruments. Ukraine would effectively reposition itself unfavorably globally and risk losing support that it would otherwise gain.
    2. Russia has the military power to quickly reverse that situation, so such a move would be temporary and not enforceable.

    Ukraine is in a very difficult and vulnerable position. Politically and diplomatically it can and will reject the annexation of Crimea. In terms of practical responses, it is in no position to try to wrest it away from Russia without inviting an existential threat, so it won't attempt to do so.

    It also knows that the West is not very likely to intervene militarily in Crimea or even Ukraine. Hence, it will almost certainly try to minimize any rationale for Russia to launch even a limited invasion in the East. That means reassuring Russia that it wants a constructive relationship, avoiding policy measures that would inflame ethnic Russians living in its East who might already be tempted by Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine, and perhaps even limiting any integration with the West to economic integration. The prospect of future military integration with the West might change Russia's current calculus, so Ukraine has already announced that it will not seek NATO membership. Ukraine's hope is to preserve the rest of its territorial integrity, overcome its substantial financial problems, build prosperity within the territory it still possesses through deepened economic collaboration with the West, and limit its rejection of Russia's annexation of Crimea to political and diplomatic protests. Certainly, the transitional government has adopted that stance. Should the upcoming elections produce a more hard-core nationalist government, the risk of miscalculation could increase.

    Everything is on hold until Ukraine's upcoming election in May. It should be interesting because Ukraines' past elections were filled voter fraud. One out of five Ukraines polled said they have or would sell their vote because they need the money. But thats just the tip of the voter fraud ice berg.

    I wish I had as much hope in Ukraine over coming it's economic problems as you do. But the odds don't seem in Ukraines favor. 1. The government is too corrupt and infiltrated with oligarchs, cronyism and self interest. 2. There are too many political factions to get any meaningful reforms passed and implemented. 3. The people are poor and average income is $300 a month. The government subsidizes residential gas, so people aren't used to paying for the gas they use. They still want the government to support them but don't want to pay taxes. The people want to keep main industries nationalized. Loan rates are 13 to 14%. Add all that together and the results are plain to see in the streets of Ukraine....poverty and civil unrest. I don't see it changing anytime soon...especially now that far right parties hold seats in parliment and top position in government.

  3. #23
    Sage
    DDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Republic of Dardania
    Last Seen
    05-06-17 @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,173

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    No, because we're not a country that violated another country's sovereingty. Moldavia is an independent country. If Moldavia were to make a referendum to join Romania, ofc, we'll accept, but they must do it on their own. By their own volition, not Putin-style with foreign troops (or romanian troops in this case) on their territory. They may be our brothers accross the river but they have the same right to choose their own destiny and path in life as anyone of us. IF they'll ever want to part of Romania, which a lot do, they'll chose when and why, not us. It's their choice as a free and sovereign people with borders we respect.
    Who mentioned annexations by force in Putin style? I said "join" not "invade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    You're making scenarios for annexation or trading international recognition... god dammit man. How cynical are you?
    Huh?

    What does this has to do with me? How am I cynical?
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.
    The Republic of Dardania is the proper name for: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...ification.html

  4. #24
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Afternoon Moot. Yep with Russia always holding the long term hole cards.

    "Led by the powerhouse lobbying of the American Petroleum Institute, a coalition of Fortune 500 energy companies are using the Ukraine crisis to spur Congress to approve a key policy goal: Easing regulations on the export of U.S. natural gas.

    Despite a decade-long boom in U.S. natural gas production, very little of America's vast gas reserves are exported.. That's because strict regulations on the transfer and storage of gas have made it impossible to profitably ship out of the U.S.

    Oil and gas companies have paid Washington lobbyists millions in recent years to challenge the strict export rules.....snip~

    U.S. Push For Natural Gas Exports To Help Ukraine Won't Actually Help Ukraine
    Howdy MMC

    How is the US going to export gas to EU cheaper than Russia? Ukraine can't even pay it's bills now so how do you think they will pay for US gas?

    The oil industry never lets a good crisis go to waste.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by DDD View Post
    Who mentioned annexations by force in Putin style? I said "join" not "invade?"

    Huh?

    What does this has to do with me? How am I cynical?
    ... You're applying a wrong set of standards all the way.
    You don't trade countries or trade recognition or whatever.

    The USA doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. The EU doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. It's Ukraines' decision whether they accept the reality that there is nothing that anyone can do and bite their tongues and suck it in. that's the of it. And then the EU and maybe the USA can work up a plan to prevent such a thing from happening ever again.

    you saying that some entity gives Crimea to Russia in exchange for Moldavia to come to Romania and/or Russia + friends recogonize Kosovo. Who... what.. by what authority does someone or one country decide this?

    Are you not getting this? Moldavia, Crimea, Ukraine, Kosovo are not pawns to be played by the greater powers of the world, trading favors or benefits. That's not how it should work IF we want a civilized world. You're cynical because you hint at that. You want some entity (EU or USA )to betray Ukraine's trust in regards to Crimea in order to make a deal with Russia for some other countries to get something out of the whole crisis. This is cynical to the bone.

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Europe and Japan should be put on notice that America is reducing its capabilities to what it can afford, and that they need to start building their own capabilities so that we can shift our focus more to those other 'peripheral American interests'. I disagree that an Empire showing budgetary cracks should continue to strain itself to maintain its ability to project power. We can only be as strong as our domestic strength will allow us to be, and we do need to focus on fiscal responsibility and national economic competitiveness.
    I don't think it is unreasonable to ask Japan and Europe to make a larger contribution to their defensive capabilities, but that does not mean that the forthcoming cuts in defense spending are aligned with the evolving security environment. If one examines the projected spending over the next 5 years, Defense is slated to be reduced an average of 1.8% per year in nominal dollars and 3.2% in real (after inflation) dollars assuming that the abnormally low inflation rate of the last five years continues. U.S. nominal and real GDP are both projected to continue to grow, meaning that the U.S. will be spending less on defense per dollar of GDP. After 5 years, U.S. defense spending will have decreased approximately 17% in real terms.

    Can one reasonably argue that the world will have become comparably safer five years from now to justify such a reduction? Can one maintain U.S. power will have remained essentially stable relative to the world at large in which China will likely have increased its own military spending by 10% or more each year (published figure) and Russia will have carried through with additional significant investments in modernizing its conventional and nuclear forces?

    In the longer-term, that growing disinvestment in U.S. defense spending relative to the rest of the world could erode the present U.S. technological military edge. For example, with China and Russia actively investing in hypersonic jet and space-related research, even as the U.S. is currently maintaining a managed retreat from both areas, would there be implications were either one of those countries to achieve a qualitative breakthrough in some of that technology? For instance, would the military balance of power shift if one of those countries achieved a breakthrough in developing a hypersonic fighter jet (not likely in 5 years but something that can't be written off in the medium term, much less beyond)?

    The above longer-term discussion is more speculation right now. The slowly shifting balance of power in a multipolar world is current reality. Ignoring it creates longer-term risks. Furthermore, addressing it does not require the U.S. to embrace radical measures that would lead to fiscal ruin. It does not require spending levels relative to revenue and/or GDP consistent with the Cold War or a perpetual war footing. In addition, to reduce or avoid less than necessary expenditures, the U.S. could refrain from intervening militarily in areas where critical American interests or strategic allies are not at risk. Examples would including refraining from playing any military role in Syria's civil war (the U.S. wisely backed off military intervention there), not having gotten involved in Libya's civil war, having maintained the prior deterrence regime against Iraq, etc. Deterrence is far less expensive than the costs of war (human, financial, and economic), but deterrence requires sufficient power, a willingness to use it when critical interests/allies are threatened, and a would-be adversary's clear understanding of a nation's power and willingness to use it.

    Prudent defense policy cannot be tied solely to a nation's domestic desires, even as it might be tempting to turn inward. Instead, its defense posture needs to be consistent with the security environment that confronts it. In that environment, careful attention should be given to the requirements of protecting its critical interests and strategic allies and maintaining a balance of power to deter would be aggression against its interests, strategic allies, and itself. Afterward, financing should be consistent with its long-run economic capacity. Sources of defense funds would depend on its level of taxation, ability to reallocate existing spending to make its fiscal policy more consistent with the nation's priorities, and leveraging possible opportunities for savings from efficiency, etc. Alliances and partnerships can also magnify its hard and soft power.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Everything is on hold until Ukraine's upcoming election in May. It should be interesting because Ukraines' past elections were filled voter fraud. One out of five Ukraines polled said they have or would sell their vote because they need the money. But thats just the tip of the voter fraud ice berg.

    I wish I had as much hope in Ukraine over coming it's economic problems as you do. But the odds don't seem in Ukraines favor. 1. The government is too corrupt and infiltrated with oligarchs, cronyism and self interest. 2. There are too many political factions to get any meaningful reforms passed and implemented. 3. The people are poor and average income is $300 a month. The government subsidizes residential gas, so people aren't used to paying for the gas they use. They still want the government to support them but don't want to pay taxes. The people want to keep main industries nationalized. Loan rates are 13 to 14%. Add all that together and the results are plain to see in the streets of Ukraine....poverty and civil unrest. I don't see it changing anytime soon...especially now that far right parties hold seats in parliment and top position in government.
    Addressing its financial and economic problems is Ukraine's hope. Those are very difficult challenges and I am not confident that they can be addressed anytime soon. Some progress might be made, but real risks exist.

  8. #28
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    The USA doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. The EU doesn't get to decide if Russia gets to keep Crimea. It's Ukraines' decision whether they accept the reality that there is nothing that anyone can do and bite their tongues and suck it in. that's the of it.
    No, but all of those groups get to decide on the ease of which Russia gets to keep Crimea. Then Russia could decide whether the gain is worth the economic pain. Sadly, however, neither Obama nor the EU are up to the challenging Putin in chess or poker.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Howdy MMC

    How is the US going to export gas to EU cheaper than Russia? Ukraine can't even pay it's bills now so how do you think they will pay for US gas?

    The oil industry never lets a good crisis go to waste.

    Its not.....that's why I gave you the link. It wont help for the Ukraine nor the EU. Which to me sure if we can sell them something that's okay. But its not going to be able to make up anything for what they get thru Russia now. That's even with the EU looking to find away around it. I think you are correct in what Putin has been pulling in with resources. Even when other defense analysts talk about how he has been underestimated. I don't see how it isn't clear enough for some to see. This was from Post 14 too.



    According to one independent analysis being studied by the Kremlin and reviewed by The Daily Beast, such measures could be a drag on the Russian economy over time and an embarrassment for the Russian government, but would only be an “inconvenience” for the Russian economy in the near term. More drastic measures would include going after Russia’s ability to interact in global financial markets, which the analysis calls “disruptive,” and restrictions on Russian energy exports or trade sanctions, which the analysis says would be “catastrophic.”

    The analysis by Macro-Advisory, an investment firm operating in Russia, predicts that the West, especially European countries, will not move to impose “disruptive” or “catastrophic” sanctions on Russia until Putin crosses another red line, such as the outright invasion of Ukraine.

    “The key risk [for Russia] is Stage 3, i.e. a ban or restrictions on Russia’s interaction in global financial markets and/or any selected restrictions on trade or investment with Russia,” the report stated. “Investors assume that Stage 4 [catastrophic] sanctions are not yet on the agenda simply because these would also have a negative contagion to several EU countries, and many high-profile companies, as well as indirectly on the global economy.”.....snip~

  10. #30
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    It gets all those things from Ukraine. As in, the pipelines and all that come by land from the connection between the crimean peninsula to the territory of Ukraine.
    But Ukraine gets most of it's gas from Russia. Not sure about petrol or electricity.

    But it's not impossible to build new energy pipelines from the territory of Russia to the crimean peninsula. It's not that hard.

    And I don't think Ukraine will cut off utilities to Crimea. It's not just against human rights but also because it'll hurt a lot of ukrainian supporters, around 250k crimean tartars and about 450k ukranian ethnics. So... that's not an option. It's the reason why Crimea was moved to Ukraine's administrative territory in the 1950s under the USSR. Economical and administrative reasons.
    This may be true but two facts would remain - 1. Russia would be unable to build the necessary infrastructure to supply Crimea in a short period of time - the suffering and inconvenience experienced by those on Crimea may make them think twice about where their future security lies. 2. Those pro-Ukraine elements on Crimea would gladly, I believe, suffer some inconvenience in the hope that the situation may reverse itself in time and Crimea would move to reestablish connection with Ukraine.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •