Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 188

Thread: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

  1. #71
    Invictus


    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,108

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    Kazakhastan is part of the Eurasian Economic Community and Commonwealth of Independent States. Russia isn't gonna touch Kazakhstan. Their relationship is just as close as Russia and Belrus is. So fear monger elsewhere.
    I doubt Putin would interfere in Kazakhstan even though one quarter of its population is ethnic Russians who feel their status/role has been diminished since the collapse of the USSR. Although fellow members in Putin's Customs Union, both Kazakhstan and Belarus had stated they preferred a diplomatic solution in Crimea rather than militarism. Unlike Russia, Belarus has recognized the new government in Kyiv. Lukashenko must be a bit nervous because the eastern portion of Belarus used to be in Russia proper. Far more likely targets of Putin colonialism would be eastern Ukraine and/or Transnistria (part of Moldova). Russia is actively encouraging secessionist movements in those regions. All of the former Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR's) are understandably very concerned with the overt Russian colonialism in the former Crimean region of Ukraine.

  2. #72
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-17 @ 02:13 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,127

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Simpleχity View Post
    I doubt Putin would interfere in Kazakhstan even though one quarter of its population is ethnic Russians who feel their status/role has been diminished since the collapse of the USSR. Although fellow members in Putin's Customs Union, both Kazakhstan and Belarus had stated they preferred a diplomatic solution in Crimea rather than militarism. Unlike Russia, Belarus has recognized the new government in Kyiv. Lukashenko must be a bit nervous because the eastern portion of Belarus used to be in Russia proper. Far more likely targets of Putin colonialism would be eastern Ukraine and/or Transnistria (part of Moldova). Russia is actively encouraging secessionist movements in those regions. All of the former Soviet Socialist Republics (SSR's) are understandably very concerned with the overt Russian colonialism in the former Crimean region of Ukraine.
    Russia had a deal with many ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan in 2008 to move them out of there if they wanted it.. They told Putin, no.. So he wouldn't have support in Kazakhstan as they aren't "oppressed".
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  3. #73
    Invictus


    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,108

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by austrianecon View Post
    Russia had a deal with many ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan in 2008 to move them out of there if they wanted it.. They told Putin, no.. So he wouldn't have support in Kazakhstan as they aren't "oppressed".
    I've been to Crimea many times and I never witnessed nor heard of any "oppression". What you did have was a constant agitation by pro-Russian political parties. Even so, the current pro-Russian Crimean Prime Minister (installed by Moscow) received only 4% of the vote in the last Crimean election. With the turmoil in Kyiv, Putin saw an opportunity and pounced. Truth be told, Ukraine is better off without Crimea. It is a sinkhole economically that is now Russia's problem. As the Crimeans are about to discover, life under Russian law is very different than living in an autonomous republic. About the only population segment that will benefit are pensioners (~500,000) who will see their pension checks double in size. Tourism - which supports the peninsula - is about to take the toilet plunge that befell Egypt. There are no flights and all booked Ukrainian and foreign tour groups have cancelled. The service sector (hotels, spas, car rental agencies, souvenir shops, tour guide agencies, etc) is about to take a very significant and painful hit.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Quite possible. I didn't work out the Yanukovych portion and yes, it may have been more difficult with Yanukovych still there but even if he was, and lets just say for the sake of the discussion his government didn't fall. How much pressure from the Russian bear would it take to undermine him or have him removed if they really wanted it? It would have delayed things possibly - maybe the leverage with Iran and Syria would not have been as good -- the risk of a Russian failure may have risen, but Putin is so full of himself he may still have done it anyway, just later.

    Hard to say - too many variables to see that one clearly.
    From the Russian point of view there was no need to remove Yanukovych because he was accepting their deal. Not only that, but it's more likely Putin would have preferred not to get into a struggle like this at a time when he wants a positive view of Russia and at a time when he is trying to rebuild Russia. No, Putin's response here with regards to the seizure of Crimea is the type of thing that's done when someone doesn't have any good choices left.

    This issue was forced by the US. Likely it was the result of being frustrated after being outmaneuvered by Putin when he offered Yanukovych a better deal that was accepted. So the US then calculated that it would pressure Yanukovych through protests, threat of financial sanctions, and by applying pressure to Akhmetov. The opportunity presented itself to remove him and the US took that opportunity knowing full well that it would be of grave concern to Putin to have been cut out by force in this way. Now this is where the BIG mistake was made. What they likely calculated was that they could do this as long as they offered Putin some sort of deal that would allow Russia to have some influence in the government they were planning to form. Over and above that, Putin was likely offered some assurances with regards to Sevastopol and possibly some no NATO guarantees. They thought this would be enough to placate him. And that was the big mistake, because, as Putin indicated in his speech, they have lied and engaged in backbiting on the Russians in the past. So there was simply not enough trust on Putin's part in the US. And he had very good reason to calculate in that way. Then Putin, being a Russian nationalist, calculated that he was not going to take a risk having Russia suffocated by trusting the US. So he enacted plans, that had likely been formulated long ago to seize Crimea.

    That's the most likely explanation, IMHO.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Which blunder would that be?
    The blunder was thinking they could derail Russia's better offer to Yanukovych by removing him from office, not realizing the consequence would be Russia's seizing Crimea. The blame for this VERY BIG blunder lies the the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

    No doubt about it.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Without question I do believe this to be the case. If Ukraine plunges into a civil war in the near-term I can see both sides intervening as "peacekeepers" in their respective spheres of influence and essentially locking in a Solomon solution. At that point it moves into the active phase of building two competing power camps and more direct efforts to obstruct each side's advances.
    I don't think it's in anyone's interests at this point for there to be a civil war in Ukraine. I think both sides will try to avoid this. BUT THAT IS ONLY IF THE US DOES NOT TRY TO PUSH NATO INTO UKRAINE. If that happens, then I think Russia may calculate that it's in their interests to create as much instability in Ukraine as possible, and then you could very well see a civil war there. However, I don't think that would be a wise move on the part of Russia. They should be satisfied that they have secured Crimea and tolerate the discomfort with having NATO next to them. But that is me. I could see a Russian nationalist like Putin thinking otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    America has had its fingers in the Ukrainian pie since the collapse. The name of the game in these countries for America has always been to identify the dissidents, who exist in every country, and then devote as many resources as possible to help them fundraise, organize, and campaign. I don't doubt for a moment that there are people being moved into these organizations as soon as possible who are either CIA operatives or CIA assets to manage perceptions and monitors loyalties. Outside of the covert agency power you have proxies in private NGOs and business using their networks and connections to aid in these causes. Such groups inevitably are looping in the Agency as is the case with the Shell corporation parallel state in Nigeria. His actions are another interesting question. There has been an odd frequency to see glimmers of peaceful shifts away from conflict in Ukraine suddenly ending as snipers end up shooting at both sides for no apparent reason. Perhaps Russia would engage in such false flag actions, though it seems the U.S. had more to gain. After all, what happened in Kiev on February 20th assured Yanukovich's downfall.
    That's pretty good. However, a couple of things. First of all, who are you refering to in, "His actions are another interesting question?" Second, Russia would not gain anything by engaging snipers to kill protesters and thus derail the peace deal. It only makes their task of rebuilding Russia much more difficult as it results in many more obstacles. Neither do I think the US did it, although that is more likely. It may have been the work of the neo-Nazis who simply wanted to get Yanukovych out. It's also highly likely that it was the work of some 3rd party who would have an interest in driving a wedge between the US and Russia. Someone say that was not pleased by the recent cooperation between Russia and the US with regards to Iran and Syria. That may actually be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    You make the U.S. seem so noble. Except, an aggressive foreign policy towards Russia begin in the midst of the collapse. That makes it seem less like what you say and more like a power/resource grab, which is ultimately what it is more like. As the Soviet Union collapsed we set up a banking unit through a spook bank that was essentially just about letting Russian officials and future oligarchs empty state coffers overseas into a slush fund for later use. Many of those same mafia-linked oligarchs then moved in to take over Russian industry flush with cash and made various powerful Western financiers their silent partners. Russia's crackdown on oligarchs, portrayed in Western media as a politically-motivated consolidation of power, was more directly understood as their effort to expunge a cancer of foreign corruption introduced by the proxies of Western industry and replace it with good old-fashioned domestic corruption subservient to Mother Russia. Putin's victory over the robber barons of Russia was about restoring the authority of the Russian nation over its own borders. His aggressive efforts to stamp out the Islamist insurgencies in the North Caucasus, which were also a product of covert Western machinations, was the culmination of Putin's efforts at restoring national unity. Since then he has sought to re-assert Russian authority overseas because while he was focused on the internal consolidation of power, the U.S. had pressed its gains right up to Russia's doorstep.
    Good response. I agree. Do you have a reference to support your assertion that we set up a banking unit through a spook bank?

  7. #77
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,018

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The US has a technical edge over Russia. However I doubt seriously this short war rhetoric. The US has been fighting these short wars against adversaries in which it has overwhelming air superiority. Although the US likely has the edge over Russia in that regard, the situation isn't so lopsided. Also recall that Russia is said to have the best air defense systems in the world. And it's a fact that the US worries about them because they have put up a big fuss about Russia selling them to Iran and Syria.
    The US has superior technology and training. The US has almost constant combat experience, and our economy is more able to handle expenditures. I assume we have all sorts of special operations and intelligence tricks that the public doesnt know about. So long the US limits itself to removing Russia from Ukraine, I think it would be one sided.

  8. #78
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    That is rather silly. He was not plotting some action in Ukraine before there was even a reason to plot some action in Ukraine.
    And you know this how - because of your deep and introspective relationship with Putin? Me, I'm speculating on his actions and by putting together a chain of events and information through various news sources. Just claiming something is silly without providing a fact based and logical alternative is not very compelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I do imagine he was hoping that making his involvement crucial in various issues important to the U.S. would give him some cover in the event of incidents such as this one. No doubt Russian planners have also spent years developing contingency plans depending on various outcomes in Ukraine. The war will be over by Christmas!!!
    One thing that I can say with some confidence is geopolitical and military land grabs are based on "hoping". As I previously stated, once the Syrian and Iranian negotiations were clearly being led by Russia, the opportunity presented itself and he planned taking back Crimea and Ukraine. This was a test to see how the EU and US would react. It seems he's so far been successful.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #79
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    From the Russian point of view there was no need to remove Yanukovych because he was accepting their deal. Not only that, but it's more likely Putin would have preferred not to get into a struggle like this at a time when he wants a positive view of Russia and at a time when he is trying to rebuild Russia. No, Putin's response here with regards to the seizure of Crimea is the type of thing that's done when someone doesn't have any good choices left.
    But then annexation, if that was the end goal, would prove that Yanukovych wasn't needed past accepting the deal anyway. Perhaps he would stay on as a puppet doing the Kremlins bidding and be a useful tool, but that is a minor issue compared to the annexation itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    This issue was forced by the US. Likely it was the result of being frustrated after being outmaneuvered by Putin when he offered Yanukovych a better deal that was accepted. So the US then calculated that it would pressure Yanukovych through protests, threat of financial sanctions, and by applying pressure to Akhmetov. The opportunity presented itself to remove him and the US took that opportunity knowing full well that it would be of grave concern to Putin to have been cut out by force in this way. Now this is where the BIG mistake was made.
    I'd be interested to see how the US pressured Yanukovych with protests. Are you saying the CIA fomented social protests?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    What they likely calculated was that they could do this as long as they offered Putin some sort of deal that would allow Russia to have some influence in the government they were planning to form. Over and above that, Putin was likely offered some assurances with regards to Sevastopol and possibly some no NATO guarantees. They thought this would be enough to placate him. And that was the big mistake, because, as Putin indicated in his speech, they have lied and engaged in backbiting on the Russians in the past. So there was simply not enough trust on Putin's part in the US. And he had very good reason to calculate in that way. Then Putin, being a Russian nationalist, calculated that he was not going to take a risk having Russia suffocated by trusting the US. So he enacted plans, that had likely been formulated long ago to seize Crimea.

    That's the most likely explanation, IMHO.
    I admit it sounds plausible, but that would mean the US misread Putin and his intentions in a big way. Would that be how you see it?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #80
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post



    Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.

    If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII
    There won't be any WWIII. Putin is currently pals w/one of the US govt.'s Supreme Rulers, Tillerson, meaning any war between Russia and the US is impossible.

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •