The official NMA board
General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: Simon73 on March 26, 2015, 09:29:25 PM
-
I just got the confirmation that on the 12th april I will have to be in Wien then after a few days in Ukraine. Sure they will send me in the areas more affected by war. such as the south or east.monitoring the cease fire. all right but wtf.........there is war not a cease fire!
I will bring all NMA music with me as usual.............mp3 for sure not my vynils or cds collection. I hope this helps.
simon
-
If I may ask, what are you gonna do there?
-
hi
am going to monitor the cease fire and work on human rights. most probably in the regions where the war is still going on.
thanks for asking.
simon
-
Wow - Stay safe. Does the cease fire seem to be holding this time? I don't think there was much hope of it lasting a few weeks ago.
-
That's important work, Simon. Hope you have a chance and everything goes well there.
Meantime, if you're interested there was a thread here about Ukraine year ago before the things escalated as far as they're now. Here (http://board.newmodelarmy.org/index.php?topic=8057.0).
-
Hats off to you Simon.
Keep safe mate.
-
thanks to all guys
hope to meet u somewhere on the road
will eventually post something from there
best to all the family
simon
-
Good luck and stay safe.
And if the shit hits the fan go to Georgia, it's nice and relaxed there, well if you stay away from Abkhazia and south Ossetia. :)
-
I think Billy T's posts were good read then. Lots of interesting stuff. Simon, please could you keep us informed about the situations too? There are some of us here who are interested about the topic.
-
Respect to you Simon.
Stay safe :-*
-
Hi thanks to all again.
It will be good to be able )I hope so at least) to check internet and relax writing to the family, especially those who are most interested or even who showed support.
I am a bit worried as I never left my daughter Maya for long and <I already know I will have to resign sooner or later as the mission mandate is one year. And I know I can t stay there one year. I mean I can as I did before in Afghanistan but not now.
It is so difficult to do something related to my studies and to have a family.
But I try.
This is also why I tend to go for short-medium term missions when I am so lucky to find them.
Anyway I leave on the 12 april.
happy easter to everyone.
Me alone at home with my daughter as maman Veronique is also gone for work (mali another amazing place before the war started there too).
So I enjoy family life (not that one of the song that one was very much fucked up .......ah ah...........)
love to all
simon
-
Stay safe. Actualy I am considering to possibly visit The Ukraine as I hear Kiev is not affected by the war as much.If i do make it and you are around or ever near, I can buy you a drink. I really admire that you are working on human rights. If I were qualified I would like to help too.
Just stay Safe.
-
The Ukrainians are reporting 20 occurrences of firing at their soldiers and 30 drone fly overs in the past 24 hours alone. The cease fire has never really taken hold, it slowed the fighting but there have only been 3 or 4 days without some kind of shooting.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-truce-still-not-holding-as-kyiv-sees-30-probe-drones-in-last-24-hours-385966.html (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-truce-still-not-holding-as-kyiv-sees-30-probe-drones-in-last-24-hours-385966.html)
It has come out that the "separatists" seem to have executed captured Ukrainian soldiers. A war crime.
http://uatoday.tv/politics/amnesty-international-demands-investigation-of-war-crimes-in-east-ukraine-420850.html (http://uatoday.tv/politics/amnesty-international-demands-investigation-of-war-crimes-in-east-ukraine-420850.html)
The OSCE who is supposed to be helping, really isn't....
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-crisis-russia-osce-monitoring-mission/26690263.html (http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-crisis-russia-osce-monitoring-mission/26690263.html)
And again Russia is committing a sort of genocide against the Crimean Tatars.
http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-conducting-hybrid-genocide-against-crimean-tatars-muzhdabayev-says/ (http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-conducting-hybrid-genocide-against-crimean-tatars-muzhdabayev-says/)
We had 4000 Russian troops in exercises in Transnistria today, 20 minutes up the road from Moldova's capital. Something's coming.
The fact is, a war is coming. Not this "little" war, something bigger and uglier. The current situation is unworkable in the long term for Russia. The parts of Donbas they have taken already are not capable of self sufficiency, in anything such as agriculture, industry or economics, so Putin must either subsidize it, a long term near impossibility, or conquer more territory to affix to it so that it may have some economic viability on its own. The only other option is to retreat and abandon his puppets, this will never happen. So more war is coming to Ukraine, possibly here in Moldova, and some slim chance Estonia and Latvia, depending on how several things shake out...
I think Putin's ultimate goal here is not Ukraine at all, but to fracture NATO and rupture the US-EU relationship, leaving him a freer hand in all of Europe. This week we saw Greek President and Putin boot licker and fascist apologist Tsipiras come to Moscow to hang out with Putin. Last week hackers released communications between the Kremlin and France's Marine Le Pen......Hungary's Orban is constantly on Putin's jock, Britain's UKIP is full of Putin apologists.....and 3 weeks ago they held a conference in Moscow for all these different groups across Europe that espouse a right wing populism. Fascists the lot.
So we have Putin courting the EU's far left and far right......Why would he do this if not simply to destabilize Europe however he can.
Today Germany brought 100 tanks out of mothball, and into service. Merkel is beginning to understand what Poland and the Baltics have been saying, trouble is coming from the East, and talking shows no signs of being able to stem the tide. Almost not a day goes by the past few weeks without Putin threatening to use his nuclear weapons, a tactic to bully and intimidate his neighbors.
I also think we may be seeing the end of MAD (mutually assured destruction) that kept the west and Soviets from nuking each other during the cold war. Look at it this way, Putin launches a full scale invasion of, say the Baltics, NATO responds with conventional forces, Putin nukes Warsaw, daring the West to retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal, if it doesn’t the alliance is finished and falls apart. The main power centers of Europe (Berlin, London, Paris) are still intact to do business with and are far more compliant now. If the west does respond we have nuclear war. I think this could be Putin’s ultimate gambit. He essentially does the craziest thing possible daring the west to be as crazy as he is, with the idea that they won’t.
Here comes the war.
-
Sadly I can see a lot of sense in what you are saying Billy T. As a student of history, its clear to see one thing, as long as there are a multiple of independent or allied nations, war is inevitable. As soon as Poland regained independence in 1989, the first thing they wanted to was distance themselves from Russia at all costs, straight into NATO as soon as possible. I hope it does not back fire for them. Certainly if there were to be a third major war in Europe, Poland would for the third time the battleground
Putin could prove to be a very dangerous man. Truly hope we are wrong
-
Anyone watched 'Night Must Fall'? A truly horrific Holocaust documentary...
It was suppressed after the mid-40's (and only came to light and was released and shown on TV this year) because despite all the terrible stuff that Germany did, it might put people off the idea of a united Europe... IE all of Europe banded together against Russia, getting a bit frisky...
Well, it hasn't happened yet but it looks likely that it might...
Putin looks like a villain from a James Bond film...
-
putin has no interest in destabilizing europe. it's the nato and the transatlantic relationship which has interest in destabilizing europe. there were several attempts of russia to bond more with europe in the past, to build a transit road which would make commerce easier. that is seen as a danger in those transatlantic relationships. putin did hold a speech in german in front of the german cabinet in 2001 to show his attitude.
nato did encircle russia and broke treaties. "**** the eu" came from nuland. the financial crisis came from goldman sachs which is destabilizing europe.
george friedman from stratfor is explaining that one of the main goals of us politics was to undermine relationhip between russia and germany for almost a century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaL5wCY99l8
and here is stratfor wargaming russia's military options in ukraine:
https://www.stratfor.com/video/wargaming-russias-military-options-ukraine
There's a sentry in a uniform to watch the VIPs along the hall
Strategical discussions taking place behind the steel plated wall
The agents issue the statements to the waiting press who circulate the words
Justification, propaganda, Western foreign policy across the world
i'm not on the russian side nor am i on the nato side.
i'm just screaming loud i am not at war
-
Something's coming.
The fact is, a war is coming. Not this "little" war, something bigger and uglier.
And how are they and the rest going to solve all these things later? When there's bitterness and if nothing gets solved but only new contracts created, people will remember the consequences again for tens of years.
But to the point about Russia moving towards other nations, like Baltics; Latvia, Estonia or something as you assume...? No, I don't believe that they'd invade a Nato country. That's just too much and all of the ways to communication would be lost.
In the Cold War era the nations and different quarters could retain their power by ruling either with fear, contracts and trade. Not by attacking to the center of enemies.
-
putin has no interest in destabilizing europe. it's the nato and the transatlantic relationship which has interest in destabilizing europe. there were several attempts of russia to bond more with europe in the past, to build a transit road which would make commerce easier. that is seen as a danger in those transatlantic relationships. putin did hold a speech in german in front of the german cabinet in 2001 to show his attitude.
nato did encircle russia and broke treaties. "**** the eu" came from nuland. the financial crisis came from goldman sachs which is destabilizing europe.
george friedman from stratfor is explaining that one of the main goals of us politics was to undermine relationhip between russia and germany for almost a century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaL5wCY99l8
and here is stratfor wargaming russia's military options in ukraine:
https://www.stratfor.com/video/wargaming-russias-military-options-ukraine
i'm not on the russian side nor am i on the nato side.
i'm just screaming loud i am not at war
That's just silly. For 50+years NATO protected Western Europe from some truly horrible things. Stalin committed a genocide with more than twice as many victims as Hitler's. 13 Million Ukrainians, Moldovans, Tatars, Balts and others, murdered. A crime which Putin and Russia's apologists are still trying to hide. The shield that spared millions from this was NATO.
Today the Baltics, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and others are living free, their journalists can write as they wish with out fear of being murdered, gay citizens can live without being beaten and humiliated at every turn, and the average man or woman is able to put a full meal on the table for their children. ? Also this idea that NATO encircled Russia out of malice is foolish. NATO did not force Poland or any of the new member states to join, they didn't have to, these countries had a long history and understanding of what it was like to live under Russian oppression. They came to NATO not the other way around. Are these people not free to chose for themselves or they are only free to choose for themselves if it doesn't bother Mr. Putin? Are you saying that Poles, Balt's, Czechs etc. are too stupid to figure out things for themselves and so had to be duped into "encircling" Russia?
And 2 more things, no treaty was ever signed limiting NATO expansion, verbal promises were made indeed, but no treaties. Russia has broken, badly it's treaty with Ukraine over it giving up it's stockpiles of nukes. You may say, ok both sides have broken promises,and that's true, but the important distinction, is that NATO attacked no one, all new NATO members are there voluntarily, Putin did attack. An important difference. Also NATO is never going to launch a first strike against Russia, will never happen, and the Russian's know this too. So all their whining is simply pissing and moaning over lost Empire
All of this in NATO countries and what of Russia....Journalists critical of the regime are murdered, gay citizens have a parade-get attacked by thugs and the police rush into beat up the parade, not the thugs......For twenty years Russia was making money had over fist, and outside Moscow almost nothing was spent to improve the lives of its own people.....45km from the Kremlin, it's still hard to find indoor plumbing....No investment was made in the future, only stealing. NATO will not need to bring down Mr. Putin, time and economics will do that, it's only a question of how many people he kills while we wait for that to happen.
-
Something's coming.
The fact is, a war is coming. Not this "little" war, something bigger and uglier.
And how are they and the rest going to solve all these things later? When there's bitterness and if nothing gets solved but only new contracts created, people will remember the consequences again for tens of years.
But to the point about Russia moving towards other nations, like Baltics; Latvia, Estonia or something as you assume...? No, I don't believe that they'd invade a Nato country. That's just too much and all of the ways to communication would be lost.
In the Cold War era the nations and different quarters could retain their power by ruling either with fear, contracts and trade. Not by attacking to the center of enemies.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think this is likely. But I also don't think it's impossible if it's what Putin feels the regime needs to do to survive. I'm not certain NATO would put up a unified front if it came to pass, so maybe Putin's not either.
I'm also far from alone in thinking it's a possibility. Lithuania reinstating conscription, Poland creating self defense citizens militias, Germany bringing 100 tanks back into service and on and on. The mood I'm seeing all over Eastern Europe is something bigger and uglier is coming, perhaps the mood on the street is affecting my thinking.
The Lithuanian Govt. shut down a Russian language (also Russian state owned) media outlet this week for broadcasting propaganda. This is how Putin is already attacking the Baltics, (google doctrine of hybrid warfare in Russia) An attempt to create discord within the borders of countries with large Russian minorities. And don't discount the effect of this propaganda. My Moldovan buddy got yelled at by his neighbor the other day for supporting the Nazi death camps in Ukraine......The neighbor of course is mono-lingual and all his news comes from one source-the Kremlin. They propaganda we got on N1 (Russia's biggest station) said that in the Donbas, Ukrainian government troops were lining the roads with crucified babies and children. Not a single photo or video exists of this, but trust us, who else can you?
Putin and his cronies have stolen too much to ever leave office and be safe from each other or one day the Russian people.....Never discount what desperate men may do. Among Putin's biggest fears has got to be a Maidan style movement in Russia, so I don't think anything is 100%off the table.....
And seriously what would the reaction be in Europe if Obama said every day for the past few weeks, he would nuke Russia to get his way. Minds would be lost. Putin is plainly and openly threatening nuclear war to secure his goals.
-
i will only comment on your statement that putin did attack. i think this is the only crucial difference here, so let's talk about it.
as i see it:
there was some demonstrating goin on, which escalated. the sovereign party leader had to flee, because it got very violent. he was not out of business though. a replacemt government was installed in which fascist partys were involved. one of their first political actions was to forbid russian as an official language. people of the crimea got afraid because of the tensiones and did prefer to vote to be under protection from russia.
this is really put in simple words from me.
fact is, it is not solved and cleared until now, who, which party, escalated the tensions by shooting in the crowd.
fact is, that the us said it put over 5 billion dollars into the interest of an new government in ukraine.
fact is that fascist and nazi groups take part in the momentary government.
fact is, that there were votes by the crimean people.
fact is, that the crimea region was just 1954 given by chrustchow to the ukraine.
whe i say fact is i don't mean that i am in right with my opinion. i just cannot see a russian aggresion here. i see a reaction to a difficult situation. and please watch the videos i posted to put that into context.
we should be very careful to blame just putin for the situation. i think this cannot be right and fuels the real danger of a bigger war.
-
I completely agree with Billy T and have expressed similar sentiments over the years here about NATO, an organisation I fully support. The reason we actually have an enlarged NATO and EU today is simply because of NATO standing up to Soviet aggression and drawing a line in the sand during the post-war era. If not for NATO, Soviet forces would have been much further west.
The new EU states wanted to join NATO and the EU and why not? All you need to do is look at what happened to the western half of Europe in light of Hitler’s defeat and compare it with the Soviet spoils further east. Dire. Why did West Germany progress and East Germany regress further? To this day, Germany is still paying for re-unification through taxation such is the effect of it all.
It would be fair to say that WWII didn’t end in eastern Europe until 1989. This is where Putin comes in: a KGB man in East Germany when the wall came down unable to secure any form of help, because Moscow had realised the game was up. His superior killed himself, the state collapsed to 'capitalists' and Putin had to go home. He still speaks bitterly of this and remains determined to reverse what he considers is Russia’s greatest humiliation. Much of what is going on now can be tied to this and Russia’s losses after WWI. Hence, the clever mixture of communist and royalist sentiments now present.
Poland has warned Europe of Russia’s impending aggression for a long time and Europe passed it off as paranoia. The wise realised this was true when Putin started to crackdown on political opponents more than a decade ago and see himself as a new 'tsar'; the sceptics realised there was something to it when Georgia was invaded in '08; the Putin apologists still can’t see it with Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine under a vulgar mixture of Russian nationalists / royalists / communists. Unfortunately, the EU is somewhat afraid of Putin and unwilling to take much of a stand, simply hoping that the shit will settle down now that he’s supposedly been ‘pacified’ with an illegal land grab etc…
There is a very good reason why Brussels has to listen to Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine – lest for the fact that Soviet ‘liberation’ was anything but and significant Russian minorities pose a threat if they dance to Putin's jig. It’s obvious that Ukraine’s lack of EU and NATO membership precludes it from so-called genuine help, and this is entirely regrettable for so many reasons, but the former countries have this.
Should Putin be mad enough to chance his hand in the hallway of the newer NATO member states, then he will have no one else to blame but himself for unleashing war. NATO is justified in defending an attack on any of its member states. The sad thing is that, given how he raped the Russian economy for his own personal gain, I can easily see him doing the age-old prank of pre-fabricating a set of circumstances which ‘excuse’ and ‘justify’ further Russian expansion to safeguard the ancient Kremlin paranoia that The West is out to get it. See Crimea and the bullshit song and dance that the Kremlin wasn't really interested in it...
When you have Stalin as your role model, nothing is beyond your wildest dreams, especially when Europe seems as hesitate to act now as it did in the 1930s and early 1990s.
We are still paying the price for not doing to Russia what was done with Germany and Japan after they lost WWII.
-
wow, i didn't know i was in a nato propaganda front here. ;-)
but, if you want to discuss, please just answer the questions with the examples i gave, to give this a solid ground. so this one question, this is about ukraine.
who attacked ukraine?
and another question when the subject is nato.
you mean the organisation which had sleeper cells all over europe which conducted terrorism?
they sponsored fascist groups, again, which made false flag terror attacks in italy in the 70s to blame it on communist groups. all done in fear of an russian aggression. as they put it always. and they did most likely at least one terror attack in the 80s here in germany. the oktoberfest attack which is just now being reopened because of new facts. these facts are about "gladio" natos secret armys, the nato operation of the sleeper cells.
dr. daniele ganser wrote about it and uncovered it. he is the founder of the swiss isntitute for peace and energy research.
so, as i don't see a russian aggresion since the ww2, and i think it was a german aggresionn then anyway, the nato had maybe the right to exist as long as the warsaw pact was intact. since then the nato for me is nothing but an arm of the military industrial complex with the only justification of a fear of a russion aggression. you need enemys if you want your weapons to be sold. that is the context i see the nato in.
in the recent past i have terribly aggressive statements heard only by nato commanders and not from putin. since the maidan happened all diplomatic attempts are being bombarded with the only arguement that putin is evil and therefore cannot be trusted. they don't want to protect. you can judge a litlle by the way some is talking. and nato is aggressive in that way.
but again, who attacked ukraine? what is action, what is re-action?
-
i will only comment on your statement that putin did attack. i think this is the only crucial difference here, so let's talk about it.
as i see it:
there was some demonstrating goin on, which escalated. the sovereign party leader had to flee, because it got very violent. he was not out of business though. a replacemt government was installed in which fascist partys were involved. one of their first political actions was to forbid russian as an official language. people of the crimea got afraid because of the tensiones and did prefer to vote to be under protection from russia.
this is really put in simple words from me.
Partly accurate. There was a demonstration against the scrapping of the EU trade deal by some students, but not by the wider population. Then Yanukovich ordered the demonstrators beaten, students who were protesting non-violently. This is the spark that set the larger fire. People were tired of rampant corruption and of generally living in a way where they felt they had no dignity. So they decided enough is enough and the rest is history. It's true that Western Govts. and the Serbian Organization OTPOR rushed into aid as they could, but the spark and the bulk of all this anger was not some foreign coup. To date not a single one of my Ukrainian friends has gotten a check from the CIA for what they feel is a battle for the soul of their country
We'll get to what a bold faced LIE that 5 billion dollar figure is in one moment
There were far right parties brought into the new government, no more than in France, Britain or dozen other European countries' Less in fact. These far right parties were also largely cleared out in the new elections, with Ukrainians opting for moderates, widely opting. The language law- an unmitigated bit of stupidity. But remember it passed the Rada, the then President vetoed it and it never became law. It also never will.
fact is, it is not solved and cleared until now, who, which party, escalated the tensions by shooting in the crowd.
That is true
fact is, that the us said it put over 5 billion dollars into the interest of an new government in ukraine.
Fact is, that is an edited statement doctored by Putin apologists. A LIE. If you read/hear the entire statement what is said is that since 1992 the USA has invested 5 billion dollars into Ukraine. It was spent in various areas trying to develop civil society. No different was done in Poland and dozens of other Eastern European countries in the same time.
Not defending Nuland, I think she's a loathsome little war troll, but this great and grand admission you Putinista's think you've found is just another lie.
fact is that fascist and nazi groups take part in the momentary government.
A dressed above, largely cleared out during the elections. May I ask what country you are from? Any fascists in your government? Chances are, yes.
fact is, that there were votes by the crimean people.
Agreed. I do believe that a majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Thing is we will never know for sure because a real vote wasn't held. Just the population of Ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars who have fled Crimea puts the lie to the 98% figure. It most likely would have been around 70%, but Moscow doesn't like real votes and was taking no chances so they put masked men with machine guns at every polling station. Sounds legit.
fact is, that the crimea region was just 1954 given by chrustchow to the ukraine.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Soviet leaders routinely adjusted borders. The leaders of all the former Soviet States themselves agreed to abide by these borders when the CIS was formed following the collapse of the USSR. If historical claim to land is our benchmark, then the Russians need to get the hell out too and leave it for the Tatars.
whe i say fact is i don't mean that i am in right with my opinion. i just cannot see a russian aggresion here. i see a reaction to a difficult situation. and please watch the videos i posted to put that into context.
we should be very careful to blame just putin for the situation. i think this cannot be right and fuels the real danger of a bigger war.
There are Russian soldiers and weapons uninvited on the territory of Ukraine, there are no tanks or forces from Ukraine on the territory of Russia. But there's no Russian aggression here? You are either lieing or deluded.
-
in the recent past i have terribly aggressive statements heard only by nato commanders and not from putin. since the maidan happened all diplomatic attempts are being bombarded with the only arguement that putin is evil and therefore cannot be trusted. they don't want to protect. you can judge a litlle by the way some is talking. and nato is aggressive in that way.
Then clean out your ears if you're not hearing them.
On Friday, as Russian Federation tanks and troops poured across the border into eastern Ukraine, Vladimir Putin talked about his country’s most destructive weaponry. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” he said. “This is a reality, not just words.” Russia, he told listeners, is “strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces.”
That same day, Putin used a term for eastern Ukraine meaning “New Russia.” So when he refers to repelling “any aggression against Russia” and speaks of “nuclear deterrence,” as he did on Friday, the Russian president is really warning us he will use nukes to protect his grab of Ukrainian territory.
For more than a generation, nuclear weapons were considered defensive only. In a few short sentences on Friday, however, Putin made these devices offensive in nature, just another tool to be employed by an aggressor. And to highlight his threat, on Aug. 14 at Yalta, the Crimean city he had seized this year, Putin mentioned “surprising the West with our new developments in offensive nuclear weapons about which we do not talk yet.”
I can post more provocative stuff in Russian language if you like
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/31/putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine.html)
-
of course there are russian soldiers and weapons in ukraine, because they've already been there. legally.
and i don't like being called a liar. just tried to state my point of view and to give it some solid grounds on which i base them.
to me this whole thing could not have happened without the maidan incident. and since this is not solved, you cannot put putin as an aggressor here. just follow the timetable of incidents.
but you seem to have an agenda and i leave you with that.
-
ctulhu, don't waste your time, now even a famous troll who used to poison this board with his shit-stirring but seemed to have fucked off in recent times has resurfaced... let him/her have the last word and (s)he'll disappear under his rock again
-
so, as i don't see a russian aggresion since the ww2, and i think it was a german aggresionn then anyway, the nato had maybe the right to exist as long as the warsaw pact was intact. since then the nato for me is nothing but an arm of the military industrial complex with the only justification of a fear of a russion aggression. you need enemys if you want your weapons to be sold. that is the context i see the nato in.
Russia’s post-war aggression is legendary: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Iran, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austria, Manchuria, Korea, Afghanistan, Japan etc… In some cases the outright response was to push the USSR’s borders further out at the expense of other nations – ironically forcing the pro-western part of what is now Ukraine into the USSR from Poland. The result: a little known anti-Soviet guerrilla war which lasted for over a decade. I’m not really sure why you would see some aggression originating from Germany at this time.
The Soviet regime, especially under Stalin, was hell bent on conquest. They were determined to reclaim the entire former Russian Empire. This is what Putin greatly admires. NATO’s creation was in response to Soviet aggression and the fact it missed the boat on Hitler, because of the prevalent policy of appeasement which proved disastrous. The fact so many former Moscow ‘clients’ are happy under NATO’s umbrella speaks volumes. Not one of them would wish to re-join a Moscow alliance, would they?
Ganser’s work on NATO is interesting, I must admit that. However, I don’t think justice is done, saying that operations were conducted in a uniform manner throughout The West. In other words, the allegations of ‘terrorism’ cannot and should not be equally applied through all member states, some of which were clearly Soviet sympathisers at times and/or had significant pro-Soviet political parties. There was war: cells operated differently, depending on the circumstances.
If a war is on the cards against Russia, you will see the most determined fighters coming from eastern Europe. There is a very good explanation for that: they greatly value their newly won freedom and know the price is high to retain it when Putin has already shown Georgia and Ukraine what the consequences are of moving towards a pro-Western agenda.
Estonia now wants a permanent NATO force, despite the guarantees of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Why? Because they don’t trust Putin and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia live with the legacy of WWII. Sweden and Finland want closer ties and have increased co-operation. They never really considered the option during the Cold War. Russia is largely perceived as a grave threat to European peace – not NATO. In response, NATO has so far declined to station troops on a permanent basis, or indeed provide missile defence batteries in The Baltic States.
Putin didn’t need Maidan to interfere in Ukraine. The bottom line is that Russia has never really had any interest in an independent, especially pro-Western, Ukraine. The sooner it ceases to exist, the happier Putin, the nationalists, the royalists and the communists will be. It's also an important stage to recreating the empire.
-
these are interesting opinions, but no one ever answered my question about the ukraine. as i stated, it is very important to regard the timetable of events to get to conclusions about who is acting and pushing and who is reacting to that actions.
what about my question regarding the stratfor "freudian" slip, admitting, that the main goal of us imperial politics, was to destroy and prohibit the commerce and trading and relationships between russia and germany. you can put europe instead of germany there.
there were several attempts from russia to get even closer and friendly with europe, for trading purposes. but this is seen as a danger to the us empire and they put a great effort in there to not let that happen. and it seems to be working. but it only seems.
i think the arguement of the states wanting to join nato is wrong in sight of the population. its always money and business and politicians who want such agreements, not the people. "in the name of the people" all of this is done. if you join nato you have to spent more on military equipment. that's the main point.
the fear of a russian agression is the product of the military industrial complex, their propaganda, who needs enemys to justify spending for weapons, even if the states have no money to keep their infrastructure intact, but have money for tanks and bombers.
we had several incidents of exposed propaganda in germany. and it was always to make putin and russia look bad and be evil and be the aggressors. i mean, these incidents were exposed by real jounalists and shown that they were just lies. propaganda. the main tv stations and mainstream press was and is involved.
you always refer to the very past, the soviet regime etc... this is legit. but then you have also to put in context the other side of the story.
who used nuklear weapons?
who started to explore nukes again after the agreement to not do this? calling them mini-nukes and bunkerbusters?
who is moving towards his called enemy?
who has the most miltary bases ind foreign countrys?
who spends the most money on military?
so who is the danger here?
-
Some interesting points there cthulhu and Pumpkin.
"a little known anti-Soviet guerrilla war which lasted for over a decade". You are right there. Western history books about the war seem to have omitted events in the East post 45. In Poland the vast resistance groups in the East of the country did not disband till the late 40's still loyal to the Polish government in exile in London, around 200,000 Poles killed in post-45 fighting. My own Great Uncle who fought with the Russians from Lenino to Berlin only to be killed by the Russian in 1947.
"you always refer to the very past, the soviet regime etc... this is legit. but then you have also to put in context the other side of the story"
that is true, but the past has made the situation of East-West tension that has never really ended even after the end of the cold war. -- cthulhu, you use history in your point, "who used nuclear weapons". Of coarse it was the States, but I truly believe this is down to the fact they got there first. The U.S., U.S.S.R, and the Nazi's all wanted the nuclear bomb. I feel sure if Hitler had it in 1942, he would have used it on Moscow, and if Stalin had it in 1944, he would have used it on Berlin.
"who has the most miltary bases ind foreign countrys?
who spends the most money on military? "
Being armed and prepared does not necessarily make you the aggressor, maybe it makes you the one who believes they have more of a threat to defend against. In 1944 the allies had many more times the military capability that the Nazi's, but who were the aggressors in that war ?
-
i think what i'm trying to express is this:
if you are really interested in peace. if you really want to solve problems without just murder your opposition, you just have to be able to put yourselve in the opponents position and point of view.
so even if you don't have aggressive actions in mind, you have to acknowledge that your actions could be seen and felt like that by the opposition.
russia has the right to feel threatened by the recent evolving of history. it is the nato, which came closer to its borders. it doesn't matter if the countrys joined on their free will. it just matters that there was a treaty, in which the nato just promised not to do that and did it. this doesn't produce trust.
so if you have an opponent who feels threatened, but would not have to, you should start giving him something, for the sake of both sides, to gain trust. but if you see the opponents actions distached from your own actions and then call him aggressor, you won't ever solve a problem.
i really think the nato, displayed by the recent statements of their changing leaders, rasmussen for example, has no ability to have some self criticism and self judgement.
i demand these abilitys in every leader. but if you have an army, if you are the army, you just need and want to fight, that's your job.
and why should the nato states feel threatened anyway? just watch this graphic:
(how do i change the size or how can i upload it from my pc?)
(http://press.ihs.com/sites/ihs.newshq.businesswire.com/files/press_release/file/NATO_v_Russia_Defence_Budget_IHS_Janes.png)
-
Cthulhu, the role of history in the current situation cannot be denied: it is everywhere from the attempt to re-create ‘New Russia’ and the Russian Empire to why western Ukraine so desperately wants to be re-integrated into Europe proper. The whole events of WWII weigh very heavily in the current conflict. You cannot understand what is going on now without a solid knowledge of what has gone on for at least the last 150 years or more. The people fighting for one side or the other link almost everything to exact past grievances.
There has always been a prevalent doctrine in Russia that Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians are but one people under one religion and one country and this should be addressed as an inalienable truth. This is actually not the case. This is a fundamental argument at the core. Ukrainian nationalists will never accept this – ever and that’s it. Russian nationalists reject the concept of Ukrainian everything. Russian tsars then dictators enforced it without fail, more or less.
Moscow’s agenda under Putin with Ukraine has always been obvious. It was only a matter of time. The blueprint was supplied by Georgia. It predates Maidan. See the Orange Revolution before. What was it all really about? The only reason Ukraine got independence was because of a deal cut by Yelstin to allow him to replace Gorbachev and dismantle the USSR. Ukraine ratified independence and Moscow accepted. The origins for the current events have very long roots indeed.
Some people could easily think US policy was to divide and conquer, but if the goal is to maximise profit through commerce and trade why would you shut Russia out when it is so rich in natural and mineral resources? Surely the goal would be to get in and do business and that’s what happened under Putin until quite recently. In terms of doctrine alone, it hasn't stopped the USA from befriending China. Maximum profit. Why is the USA involved with reconstruction in Vietnam and Cuba now? They can say they were right all along and get down to opening up for business.
Russia had a very good relationship with Europe for a number of years under Yeltsin and Putin, both regularly getting red carpet and banquet treatment. Putin was once a solid ally in the so-called War on Terror. However, you can’t blame Europe for being so apprehensive now when Russia decides to go after countries in its old domain (Ukraine & Georgia) which want closer ties with the West. Then Russia starts flexing its muscle along the EU borders.
Georgia only caused a slight ripple and is too far away physically and culturally to matter to Brussels, but Ukraine is right next door to Poland. Moreover, the aggression brings bad memories to a region which was simply a living hell during WWII, because of the Nazis (this is a given), but also the Soviets (our allies – not a given till later). WWII doesn’t matter so much to us in the west now, but it still has a looming presence everywhere in central and eastern Europe. These countries are on high alert, because of the sensitivity of the issue and Russia’s behaviour the last time it ‘liberated’ the region. If you don’t believe me, then consider how the Baltic States, amongst others, view Moscow’s role.
The vast majority of people in the former Warsaw Pact countries wanted, and still continue to want, NATO membership. They are glad they have it. I’m not aware of any such country wanting to revoke its membership. If anything, most of the countries mentioned actually want to strengthen it beyond its current agreements.
I’m not sure I really understand the last part of your previous post. Are you saying that the Americans are the real threat here, because of the variables you posted?
Yes, they have used nuclear weapons during a war. Have they done so since? Is this usage the reason they are such a threat? Or is it that they have re-addressed the subject of nuclear development? Is the number of military bases a legitimate argument to claim that a country could be belligerent? As for military expenditure, that would come as no surprise whatsoever.
Despite all these variables, you are never going to convince people in eastern Europe that America – not Russia – is the aggressor here. It is Russia that looks at lost empire and wants to re-create the past at whatever expense. The extremists in the Russian parliament don’t even try to hide such desires.
The last point I’m going to make here is something rarely talked about and worth a lot of consideration here.
Just imagine if Ukraine had not been persuaded by London and Washington 20 odd years ago to agree to The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances which effectively gave Ukraine’s nuclear weapons to Russia. This was incredibly short-sighted and done largely as a goodwill gesture to Yeltsin who helped bring down the USSR.
The reality is that if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons (it had the third largest arsenal at that time), Putin would have been very unlikely to annex Crimea (thus breaking an international agreement) and interfere in the east. This is where it could be argued that the West made a crucial mistake.
-
Some interesting points there cthulhu and Pumpkin.
"a little known anti-Soviet guerrilla war which lasted for over a decade". You are right there. Western history books about the war seem to have omitted events in the East post 45. In Poland the vast resistance groups in the East of the country did not disband till the late 40's still loyal to the Polish government in exile in London, around 200,000 Poles killed in post-45 fighting. My own Great Uncle who fought with the Russians from Lenino to Belin killed in 1947.
The same thing happened in western Ukraine (former parts of Poland Lwow). This is a current theme which is constantly re-visted now and done to show Moscow that they will fight again. In return, the Russians make out that they are Nazis and that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi state. From Moscow's point of view, the Poles and Ukrainians were ungrateful for their liberation which essentially became little more than domination in the eyes of the latter.
Being armed and prepared does not necessarily make you the aggressor, maybe it makes you the one who believes they have more of a threat to defend against. In 1944 the allies had many more times the military capability that the Nazi's, but who were the aggressors in that war ?
I'd agree very much. If Ukraine had a proper army now and viable weapons, especially nuclear, Putin wouldn't be up to his current games. As it stands, Ukraine is a soft target and he knows the West doesn't really want to roll up its sleeves and defend it. It's the same mentality we once saw from Milosevic. What eventually had to be done there? Well, that's for another thread and another day.
-
"(former parts of Poland Lwow)."
Lwow, Lemberg, Lvov, Lviv, yes the city with many past masters. Wonder what it will be called years from now.
-
Some people could easily think US policy was to divide and conquer, but if the goal is to maximise profit through commerce and trade why would you shut Russia out when it is so rich in natural and mineral resources?
did you watch the video i posted, where it was admitted that the main goal of us foreign policy was to defend europe and russia getting closer?
this is also an answer that you have to judge the whole history for about 150years.
In terms of doctrine alone, it hasn't stopped the USA from befriending China. Maximum profit. Why is the USA involved with reconstruction in Vietnam and Cuba now?
first destroy, annihilate and embargo the hell out of countrys and then offer reconstruction?
the invasion of iraq, based on lies, hiding the fact that the interest was oil. simple. that's aggresion under the mantle and deception of humanitarian causes.
Or is it that they have re-addressed the subject of nuclear development?
yes, i find that crucial. if somone decides to do that, the others have to do it, too. by logic of the stupid military way of thinking.
Are you saying that the Americans are the real threat here, because of the variables you posted?
not americans, but the american political interest. our (i speak for german pov) leaders have even decided to put sanctions against russia, which mostly harm themselves. we have to question this. why does the us have even interest in ukraine and won't stay out of the conflict, since they are far away. this is explained ind the stratfor statement.
This was incredibly short-sighted and done largely as a goodwill gesture to Yeltsin who helped bring down the USSR.
there you say it. yeltsin brought down the ussr and opened it to the neoliberal way. after that, most things began to rot. putin managed to rebuild. i think this is the view of most russians, as i understand it. that you have to keep in mind. what yeltsin did was good for the oligarch and elites, not for the population.
but we won't come closer to each other. i hope we're on the same side, that any actions which can escalate the matter are not good. that it really is time for every party to step back, be rational an friendly and try the diplomatic way. that it is not the goal to get rid of putin, before peace can be done.
i can highly recomment this book:
the shock doctrine by naomi klein
this is a must read! i think after that book you would understand my point of view a bit more. it opened my eyes to many connections.
-
Yeah, I did watch it and I'm not convinced that it is the ‘main aim’. I don’t think events really support that. The reality is that Russia and Europe have long had serious problems which pre-date communism, imperialism etc… The current hostility to Europe and the West is not some American fabrication, but an age-old Russian mentality pre-dating the founding of the US itself. The real focus of US interest is in the vibrant Far East more than in a stagnating, aging Europe which is set to decline further. This is the real shift in world politics.
Yeltsin helped bring down the USSR; he didn’t singlehandedly do so. The reason it was so easy was because no one was interested in fighting to keep it going. It was a failed state. Yeltsin had a free reign and then set about outlawing the real parliamentary opposition. Putin has followed Yeltsin and enriched the oligarchs and elites even more so than Yeltsin, but where is the root of all this really? The Communist Party. This is exactly where it all originates. Swiss bank accounts, privilege and the connections to rise above all else…
All empires rot after collapse, don't they? Isn't that what Russia has had to deal with? Something to consider is that China also junked the same system, but kept the single-party structure. They did it quietly. China is the next empire, so the question is how? Haven't they used many of the same principles, bar democracy, which you claim has ruined Russia? China rides 'capitalism' to success; Russia is supposedly ruined by it. Why? How? Does it justify current Russian aggression?
I have read Klein’s book and, to be honest, I was left unimpressed by it. Absolutely nothing wrong with a full criticism of capitalism, or anything else for that matter, but the frequent inclusion of conspiracies was unconvincing. Moreover, although criticism has its place and time, I also prefer to see something more constructive offered.
-
You still just claim that russia is hostile and aggressive and give no explanation based on facts for that claim. to say that the root is
an age-old Russian mentality
is not convincing. and now please just don't repeat that russia invaded ukraine.
i'm a bit astonished that you've read the (whole?) book by naomi klein and say that you were unimpressed and also use the modern "witch" hunt claim by using conspiracy to discredit it.
that shows to me, that we really are far away from having a discussable different opinion.
the book is not so about capitalism but it's about neo-liberalism. and i just hate it. this so called science and its worshippers are plainly dumb and blind and ruin millions of lives while helping a handful to get super rich and control the population. if yu cannot see this, than you don't want to see it.
i think russia and europe have a chance to develop. europe is not stagnating and aging and russia is doing well in comparison to the usa. there is a full financial war out there, originating from wall street and europe has to struggle with it. as does the whole world.
russia is well connected, see brics. china is opening a development bank. the dollar will be replaced as world curreny, the tool of domination and oppression of the us empire. the usa is now a failed state and rotting. that's why thhey want to push ttip, so they can more recklessly operate big busisness oversea and legalize illegal doings with it.
don't get me wrong. i'm from germany and i don't like my government and politicians. i don't like putin and the oliga(s)rchs, i don't like obama or hillary and i don't like the way the western system is working. it produces more problems than it is willing to solve.
but! it offers at least a kind of freedom to think for yourself, organise yourself and use the system against itself. you just mustn't wait for the leaders to act, but act for yourself. but first you have to do some analysis for yourself and see that this system is dead and has no future.
then you can start to join sharing communities. you can pay in regional currency which boost the small businesses. you can produce constructive subversive resistance, like the yes men. you can convince the people in you surrounding to collect for a privat energy solution, a little power station.
well, i admit i went a bit off topic here. but since no one did answer my initial question, by which actions russia can be considered aggressive in the case of ukraine, i'm still asking it.
there were three journalist killed recently in urkaine. they were called pro-russian.
-
then you can start to join sharing communities. you can pay in regional currency which boost the small businesses. you can produce constructive subversive resistance, like the yes men. you can convince the people in you surrounding to collect for a privat energy solution, a little power station.
I have three questions for you, as you make some assertions about your theories and how it would help small business and I actually run a business.
1. Have you ever run your own small business, or indeed been at the cutting edge of any business where cash flow, marketing, sales and economic based decisions were yours to take? As you make some pretty sweeping assertions about small business economics in your last post.
2. How would this obvious removal of economy of scale you propose help a business in any way, including your supposition that local currency would help a small business? What local currency are you suggesting I accept, money, pigs, carrots? And how will that help me with the increased transfer costs across these smaller units all with their own currencies.
3. Can you tell me how "constructive subversive resistance" would help my business one iota, in fact can you tell me how those three words in the same sentence are not a complete contradiction in terms?
I'm eager to hear as this retreat into smaller economic cells is the complete opposite to the evolution of markets that started from the stone age on.
-
i have posted this in reply to pumpink asking for
Moreover, although criticism has its place and time, I also prefer to see something more constructive offered.
it was meant to offer some alternatives, mostly in way of thinking, as i tried to express in my post. please regard this in context.
no, i don't have a small business. i worked as a freelancer for a while, as cutter and producer. i have worked in so many different areas in my life. i had a well paid job as a producer of medical information films for patients, mostly cancer patients. i got this job without any main knowledge as a medic, but as a filmmaker. i did it because i needed a job, i was good at it, but i quit, because i couldn't stand working for the pharma business any longer. i fought, i tried to get my viewpoints into it but as it was clear that i have real concious problems with the work, i quit. i'm always searching for alternatives and i believe in alternatives. you just have to go first and try to work it out. that's my approach and that is why i write this.
so for the currency thing, i referred to the fact, that there are alternative currencys out there:
An alternative currency (or private currency) is any currency used as an alternative to the dominant national or multinational currency systems. They are created by an individual, corporation, or organization, they can be created by national, state, or local governments, or they can arise naturally as people begin to use a certain commodity as a currency. Mutual credit is a form of alternative currency, and thus any form of lending that does not go through the banking system can be considered a form of alternative currency.
...
Some alternative currencies devalue rapidly (they are called Schwundgeld); this increases monetary circulation. The Miracle of Wörgl is an event that showed the potential of this increased spending through the introduction of a local currency known as Freigeld. Local currencies also have the benefit that they cannot be spent abroad, and thus the money always keeps circulating locally, benefiting only the local economy.
Alternative currencies are reported to work as a counterbalance for the local economy. They increase in activity if the local economy slows down, and decrease in activity if the local economy goes up.
this is from wikipedia. there are always pro and contras to it, but i prefer to look at the pro side.
alternative currencys, as i understand it, are about local business. if you have to trade international, they are not a working tool. that was not what i meant.
my post, as i said before, was about thinking outside the box, breaking down the lethardic thinking, that the world is as it is and you cannot change a thing. you have to be creative and there are no answers before you don't try a thing. maybe it won't work, but maybe it does.
"how many times have you been pacified, accepting when you're told there's no way, making sure it never will" (quote by quicksand)
constructive subersive resitance is absolutely not about helping a business. i don't know why you put it like i wanted to give answers to business problems.
the whole thing is taken out of context and i think you just want me to show that i have no experience or knowledge about what i'm writing.
i just wanted to give inspiration in that matter.
i'm interested in new movements like transition towns:
A Transition town is a grassroot community project that seeks to build resilience in response to peak oil,[1] climate destruction, and economic instability by creating a local group that uphold the values of the transition network.[citation needed] Local projects are usually based on the model's initial '12 ingredients' and later 'revised ingredients'.[2][3] The first initiative to use the name was Transition Town Totnes, founded in 2006. The socioeconomic movement is an example of fiscal localism.[4][5] Since then, many Transition groups have started around the UK and, in recent years, the world.....The Transition model can be applied to different types of place where people live, such as villages, regions, islands and towns. The generic term is "Transition initiative", which includes Transition neighborhoods, communities, and cities, although "Transition town" is in common usage.
wikipedia
I'm eager to hear as this retreat into smaller economic cells is the complete opposite to the evolution of markets that started from the stone age on.
what you want to say with that? that markets are evolutionary things and therefore there's no alternative to the process they made, say the last thirty years? do you think it is a good evolving process? can a market itself be evolutionary or are just laws and politics and agendas behind a market, like TTIP, which could be changed?
from the stone age on??? really? gosh....is it nature?
i don't think so. in my point of view the economics of neo-liberalism have and are still trying to transform the societies in the last thirty years for the worst possible outcome in humanity for the benefit of only a few.
so, i don't have real answers to your questions, but that should be obvious in regarding my intentions. i have resentments, heavy, about the structure of society which i came to live in. but i'm living, and i'm glad i'm living. with all my problems. i'm going to be unemployed in two months, i will have to leave my flat. and i enjoy parts of the structure of the society i'm living in. but i ibelieve in improvement. and therefor my opinion is, neo liberalism must go, and all the institutions have to care more about their own doorsteps as to try to regulate things globally.
-
Well I wish you well with looking for employment, sorry to hear you will be unemployed. Don't please be a victim, there are many avenues to go down to employment, including retraining! :)
I hear what you are saying, but it has to be practical in my worldview.
-
Thanks, mate! And i can assure you i never will be a victim. What i didn't mention is, that after quitting the producer job, i started retraining to become a cook! And this retraining will now be over after 3 f**ing hard years and that's why i will be unemployed. I had a little fight with the director of the hotel i was trained in. They didn't want to pay extras for working on an official holiday and had a lame excuse for it. I started a fight, joined the union (you don't do that if you want a job;-) and said i would go to court if they don't pay. I won. All the other workers didn't say nothing out of fear to loose their job or even just have an unpleasant situation. They just complain and do nothing. I can't help them.
So now i'm looking forward to travel to island and cook for two months in a camp, i almost got this job now. After that i will look on...
Straight on for the days ahead!
-
You still just claim that russia is hostile and aggressive and give no explanation based on facts for that claim. to say that the root is an age-old Russian mentality
is not convincing. and now please just don't repeat that russia invaded ukraine.
You ask me not to “repeat that Russia invaded Ukraine”, but prior to this you ask for proof of Russian hostility and aggression. I’m not really sure why.
Plenty of factual examples have been given to support the assertion that Russia has been aggressive and hostile under Putin and before. I’m not the only one to have done so here. In addition to the various post-war era examples given (facts, not opinions), we can also add Georgia and Ukraine to Russia’s recent aggression under Putin. Did Ukraine invade Russia or annex parts of its territory? No, it’s the opposite actually. What happened in Georgia in 2008? Are you fully aware?
Let’s return again to the main theme of this thread.
Why is Simon73 actually going to Ukraine? Is it because a bunch of Turks, with dreams of restoring the Ottoman Empire, want to annex Crimea (could be a valid point actually using Putin’s argument)? Is it because Georgia has invaded eastern Ukraine? Has Poland decided to re-claim old inter-war territories, because they feel like doing so under the pretext that Polish speakers are being violated by a nationalist government in Kiev? (Well, yet another valid point in a twisted historical context - only if it were true.) The answers are obvious.
Hasn’t Simon73 said "war is still going on"? Does war not involve aggression? Do you buy the argument that Kiev is fighting a war against its own citizens and Russia needs to defend Russian-speaking Ukrainians (whom they really consider to be Russians) against an unelected Ukrainian government? Are Ukraine’s internal affairs not a matter for its own concern?
The fact is that Russia has annexed Crimea (on historical ‘reasoning’) against the protocols of international law. Russia has/supports troops in eastern Ukraine. Official or not they exist – don’t fool yourself. They are not covered by a long-standing agreement that existed between Ukraine and Russia to allow Russian troops in Crimea before the annexation took place. It is Russia/Putin and/or a combination of Russian nationalists/royalists/communists with clear access to Russian weapons which asserts ‘its right’ to intervene in old pre-WWI territories in eastern Ukraine (previously under Russia) under the pretext that ‘Russian speakers’ are being violated by a Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev. Is that not aggression? How would Russia react to foreign troops on its soil. It would be considered an invasion and an act of aggression. Are there Ukrainian troops in Russia?
Using Putin’s mentality, Poland, and a number of other countries, would be justified to annex western Ukraine. However, there is only one country which has annexed Ukrainian territory, as agreed by international law to which Russia previously agreed. That is aggression; that is hostility.
If Crimea is ‘justifiably’ Russian because Khrushchev gave it away to Ukraine, then the same argument goes that Lenin gave away what is now eastern Ukraine to Kiev. If you can 'right the wrong' done by Khrushchev, then why wouldn’t Putin argue you could do likewise with Lenin’s ‘mistake’. Where does it go from there? That Russia can claim parts of Poland, because they were once under the tsar?
If you find the argument unconvincing that there is an age-old Russian mentality at play here, then I encourage you to familiarise yourself more with Russian history. (See Slavophiles and Westernisers.) Once you fully understand the role of this philosophy in their outlook, we can discuss whether or not it is irrelevant. To Slavophiles, the very existence of Ukraine is unacceptable. There is only one Eastern Slavic state – Russia. This is not my opinion, but a Russian school of thought, one which has gained great popularity given that many Russians blame Yeltsin and Gorbachev (both Westernisers) for Russia’s current plight. Russia is not doing well; it is not a success. It couldn’t be if you buy Klein’s doctrine that neo-liberalism, what she terms disaster capitalism, is the root of evil. Russia enthusiastically adopted many of the tenets of neo-liberalism.
Since you’re fixated on answering questions, please answer at least a few that I have already put to you. Most importantly, I would like your answer as to why China has become a world power in such a short space of time, largely using capitalism with many aspects of neo-liberalism? If it ruined Russia, why did China benefit from it to such an extent? Why has Poland become a star player in reform? Try telling China to dump its current path and return to Mao's ways, or the Poles to revert to what effectively ruined their country with Moscow’s blessing.
i'm a bit astonished that you've read the (whole?) book by naomi klein and say that you were unimpressed and also use the modern "witch" hunt claim by using conspiracy to discredit it.
that shows to me, that we really are far away from having a discussable different opinion.
the book is not so about capitalism but it's about neo-liberalism. and i just hate it. this so called science and its worshippers are plainly dumb and blind and ruin millions of lives while helping a handful to get super rich and control the population. if yu cannot see this, than you don't want to see it.
I have read Naomi Klein and found the book unimpressive. The book is a critique of Smith’s classical capitalism. Isn’t that what the neo-liberals love? The market solves everything? Capitalism and democracy. They both have their warts and are far from perfect, but what can be offered as a better alternative?
I think Klein tends to oversimplify. Failure to agree with her ideas is hardly the trademark of not wanting to see the 'evils of neo-liberalism'. If the arguments were more robust, it might be more convincing. After her criticism, I would like to see an alternative system offered. How is it some sort of ‘which’ hunt here? Even someone like Stiglitz, who is critical enough about some aspects of the current economic order, is not a fan of hers.
-
I want to answer with some material i want to quote:
All is “Putin’s paranoia” in the Western media in a pervasive campaign of vilification that holds the story together through all its lies. Charges of aggression and crime against Russia and Putin are daily proclaimed with no evidence, but together provide a pretext for why “Russia must be stopped” and the US-led West Ukraine regime armed with US weapons to “teach Putin a lesson”. The known five billion dollars spent on political destabilization of Ukraine in recent years, the covert special forces, and the direct financing and orchestration of the overtly fascist coup leaders all disappear into the anti-Putin/Russia propaganda field.
…..
As ultimatums and embargoes from the US and the EU continually escalate blaming “Russia’s aggression” without sustainable evidence ever produced, the war-mongering by the corporate media simultaneously increases to foment war fever. None seem to have processed the undeniable fact that the neutrality and non-arming of Ukraine was promised by NATO and the US Secretary of State James Baker in 1991. Still the war party’s favorite liars like John McCain and the New York Times declare unsubstantiated war-pretext accusations daily. So the question arises: What will be the next big-lie pretext for NATO and US armed intervention?
….
The claim that Russian soldiers “poured into Crimea to seize it” is, however, perfectly false. In fact, it was a voluntary referendum with demonstrated EU Parliamentarian-observing its overwhelming public support for re-unification with Russia. No evidence suggests that the already-present Russian soldiers involved were not models of presence without abuse and threat. No doubt many Tatars wanted no part, but the soldiers did not arrive by instruction from the Kremlin “to overthrow with brute force”. They were already a long time in Crimea under contract with Ukraine and in fewer number than the undenied contract allowed. No-one disputes any of this. Diversion from it is the game, and lies about Putin is the strategy that sustains it. An 83% voter turnout elected re-integration with Russia by over 90%. No counter-evidence disputes this, only unsubstantiated innuendos.
In contrast, Poroshenko’s post-coup election in October 2014 was by a fraction of Ukraine’s total electorate with most of the Russia-speaking South and the East unable to participate. His October 26 snap parliamentary election was in the conditions of more than a million citizens driven from their homes, oligarch and foreign money pouring in to indoctrinate voters, and anti-communist and anti-Russian mass passions inflamed to terrorizing proportions. Under post-coup law, the Kiev regime’s sacred claim to Crimea is criminal to disagree with and liable to social destruction – the “new Western democracy and freedom”.
Also erased from the official story are the facts that the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter and “the right of nations to self-determination” (Article 2, Chapter 1). This is the very right Ukraine invoked in seceding from the USSR in 1991, and the same right invoked for the separation of Kosovo from Serbia – which was in fact enforced by NATO bombing. Further erased is the UN International Court ruling in July 2010 that “general international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence”.
Facts and laws are not all that is automatically reversed in the official story and repeated like 2 + 2 =4. The contrast between Russia’s governing treatment of Crimea and the coup government’s treatment of the Ukraine people is also very revealing. While the oligarchs are setting up the Ukraine people to be permanent debt-slave in exchange for banker-corporate control over the country’s life capital, Russia is far advanced in upgrading the public infrastructures and life security of Crimea as fast as possible.
The Underlying Geo-Strategic Pattern
The underlying global pattern is that any organised force standing against NATO-backed corporate globalization is selected for attack and dismemberment. We have seen this from Afghanistan to Syria in the last decade. NATO is the combination of all the white world powers that formerly warred against each other. Now they have a common cause which has switched from the wartime-generated welfare state leading the world to the very polar opposite under the same name – disemploying, defunding and skinning everyone alive without private money stocks from Spain and Greece to Ukraine.
The major strategy of rule is to divide the population into warring sides. The Republican Party has no other evident policy in the US, nor does the US itself abroad. So civil war was planned for Ukraine from before 2000 as reported by Germany’s former State Secretary for Defence, Willy Wimmer, who has since made public his meeting with the US State Department in Berlin on May 2, 2000 when a map was presented regarding NATO’s future expansion to include the dividing of Ukraine into Eastern and Western regions. Five billion dollars of US foreign-operations spending in Ukraine from 2008 (acknowledged to a business audience by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland after the Kiev coup she directed) was then directly invested in mass anti-regime circles and propaganda and financial support to key agents of the eventually violent overthrow. This was not the intention of the mainly peaceful and popular demonstrations before February 2014 against the government of Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt president in a long line. But a violent coup was opted for instead led by neo-Nazi terror on the ground. The terror was then projected onto the government to justify overthrowing it, and then onto the resistance in the Eastern regions, Russia and Putin as patsies for Western public opinion.
As always in US-orchestrated “regime changes”, official and media attention turns to blaming the designated enemy while the catastrophic consequences of the violent overthrow are blinkered out. The Ukraine “regime change” has led to massive bombings of civilians and infrastructures in the East, deliberate starvation of millions of citizens, and armed-force land clearances, murder, torture and rape by neo-Nazi death squads. This large-scale ethnic cleansing’ has been altogether screened out of Western state and media reports, while the official story has daily flailed Putin as the villain and the cause of all the problems.
If we look forward and backward from the “weapons of mass destruction of Iraq”, the “genocidal plans of the dictator Gadaffi”, and “Assad’s chemical weapons” as a pretext for bombing another society with major strategic and economic resources to be pried open, we see that the pretexts always turn out to be false. But in every case a society formerly independent of US dominance and doing better than neighbours is torn apart and opened to transnational corporate invasion.
….
Reverse projection is the master psych-op at work. Blame the enemy for what the US is doing as the reason to attack it. Even if the evidence shows a big lie in motion, only a few know it and it will not be reported in the corporate media. In fact, such serial mass murder as the Kiev sniper killings is grounds for prosecution of crimes against humanity under international law and prosecution by the International Court. But so far such due process of law and criminal prosecution have been deployed only to serve the unspoken global agenda while war-drums beat against all those who draw a line against it on the ground. The deprived become the Enemy whenever they fight back.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-americas-lebensraum-is-washington-preparing-to-wage-war-on-russia/5431970
the aggression you claim by russia is a reaction to the expanding nato, with rocket shields installed directly at the border to russia. they have a right to feel threatened, i would say.
i also want to quote an interview with daniele ganser, whom i mentioned earlier:
Mr. Ganser, the German Chancellery accuses NATO chief Philip M. Breedlove, of “dangerous propaganda”. Breedlove exaggerates Russia’s military involvement in East Ukraine, for example. What is going on here? Is the German government just accusing NATO of war propaganda?
The German Chancellery is right with its critique. In my opinion, something dangerous is happening right now: US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.
“Our primordial interest [preventing a German-Russian alliance] is to ensure that will never happen,” said Friedman.
“The US, as an empire, cannot intervene in Eurasia all the time,” he explained. Therefore they must turn countries against each other, so they don’t build close alliances. “I suggest something President Ronald Reagan used against Iraq and Iran: He supported both war parties!” Freidman stated. The war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988 claimed at least 400.000 dead, so from the point of peace science it is frightening what Friedman suggests. “So the Iranians and Iraqis fought against each other and not against us,” explained Freidman in his speech. “That was cynical and amoral. But it worked.”
The USA cannot occupy Eurasia. The same moment we put our boots on European soil, we will be outnumbered due to demographics. In my opinion the radical US generals like Breedlove are trying to implement this strategy, where in future German and Russian Soldiers kill each other in Ukraine, thus destabilizing and weakening the whole of East Europe. That would be a catastrophe. Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.
How is NATO trying to fuel this conflict?
NATO General Breedlove often sticks out by spreading exaggerated and untrue claims. This is how NATO is fueling the war. This is dangerous, because the situation is very tense, as we know. On the 12th of November 2014 Breedlove claimed that Russian toops and tanks have marched into Ukraine! But that wasn’t true and it wasn’t just a little thing. Literally the NATO general said: “We have seen that Russian troops, Russian tanks, Russian artillery and air defense systems have moved into Ukraine.” BBC and other mass media spread that worldwide but it was a lie.
And US General Ben Hodges, commander of the US troops in Europe, also pushes for war by supporting the Ukrainian army. In January 2015 he visited a military hospital in Kiev and handed over a medal for bravery of the US Army to a wounded Ukrainian soldier! That, of course, increases tension.
However, the US General Hodges shows symbolically: The US is an “active party of war” in the Ukraine. It stands by the Ukrainian army that is fighting the Russian supported separatists in East Ukraine. Because Germany is a NATO member, there is a danger that German soldiers are dragged into this war by the US. Similar to Afghanistan after 2001.
If that happens, then we have exactly the situation Friedman is asking for: Germans and Russians shooting at each other in the Ukraine. Of course I hope that this won’t happen. However, a peace movement needs to raise this and warn of such dangers in order to avoid them.
Is this a very common thing, I mean, that NATO lies, exaggerates or deceives?
Yes, regrettably NATO has, on a regular basis, combined lies and war. In my book NATO’s secret armies in Europe. Staged terror and clandestine warfare I show how, during the Cold War, NATO had built in Western countries, supported by CIA and the British secret service MI6, secret armies, of which existence the governments and population didn’t know anything.
Especially the US generals are dangerous, because they have been continuously fighting wars in different countries during the last 70 years. As representatives of an empire they are not only used to kill but also to deceive. General Lyman Lemnitzer, for example, who served as SACEUR of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) between 1963 and 1969, so one of Breedlove’s predecessors, suggested in the 60s that the US should stage a war against Cuba by destroying an American ship at the military base in Guantanamo and by staging terror attacks in Washington, and then for both crimes accuse Fidel Castro in order to get the American public behind the war. John F. Kennedy, however, stopped the operation [Northwoods]. But it shows, how dangerous the officers in the Pentagon are.
Is only the US pushing for wars or are other countries also involved?
NATO has 28 members and unfortunately other NATO countries are involved in war propaganda as well. For example, the Brits! In March 2003, before they attacked Iraq, Tony Blair, the then prime minister, said: “Iraq is in possession of chemical and biological weapons. Its rockets are ready for use within 45 minutes.” That was a lie! The attack on Iraq by USA and Great Britain started, nevertheless, without an UN mandate. So it was illegal!
It was also an illegal aggression when NATO, on the 24th of March 1999, started bombing Serbia. Because NATO didn’t have a mandate of the UN Security Council. Back then it was Germany under the Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Defense Minister Rudolph Scharping and the Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that actively took part in the aggression [War on Yugoslavia], together with the US. In the run-up to the aggression lies were spread to get the people behind this war. Later, in 2014, Schröder admitted that NATO violated International Law. “When the question came up how to deal with developments in Yugoslavia and Kosovo respectively, we sent our planes, our Tornados [German warplanes] to Serbia together with NATO and bombed a sovereign state without a Security Council Resolution,” admitted Schröder self-critically.
How come that in those cases nobody raises its voice and we only read the same NATO statements with their arguments?
The mass media in Germany are pushing people into a direct confrontation with Russia, in a way the radicals in the US, like Stratfor director Friedman, are asking for. It means, they fuel animosity towards Russia. And very rarely there is a critical discussion about NATO or about the strategic interests of the US, those powers that are fueling the war in Ukraine.
Many journalists don’t even call the US an empire fearing for their jobs and other things. But it is apparent that the US is an empire of our times, the most powerful nation that, of course, is pursuing its national interests. This fact is rarely raised by the mass media. So many people watching TV don’t even know the term ‚US Empire’ or the strategic interests of this empire in Eurasia. Therefore, critical people disappointed by the TV and Newspapers are trying to inform themselves through alternative media on the Internet.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-accuses-nato-of-dangerous-propaganda-americas-strategic-objective-is-to-prevent-a-german-russian-alliance/5439264
as i said earlier, i witnessed several media scandals about lies and propaganda here in germany. though there were some court rules and some apologys the liars had to make, the corporate media of course does not display them as such scandals as i and many others see them. that's also a reason why i question more the western nato side than the russian side.
you say that china is benefitting from the capitalist and neoliberal rules it adopted, but that only shows on statistics about the gdp or whatever it's called. there are always only a few who benefit from that, and if they make billions, the statistics go up. but it has nothing to do about the people and if they have a better living.
another quote:
Many Marxists including Theotonio dos Santos believe that the reemergence of capitalist characteristics in the People’s Republic of China had its roots in post-1949 socialist construction rather than in the semi-colonial structures prevailing in China prior to 1949. The issue of high growth of GDP is misleading. The rate of growth during the Maoist period was equally significant, its focus and “social composition”, however, was different. The main thrust of GDP growth in the post Mao era has been the cheap labor “Made in China” export economy which relies on abysmally low wages and high levels of unemployment, not to mention the dynamic development of luxury consumption in the internal market (what Marxists call department IIb). Moreover, while contributing to impoverishing the Chinese people, a large share of the profits of this capitalist growth process have largely been transferred via international trade to the Western countries.
The video below should dispel any doubts concerning the nature of contemporary Chinese society. Levels of income inequality are higher than in the U.S according to a 2014 University of Michigan study. Social inequality in China is among the highest in the World.
Income inequality has been rising rapidly in China and now surpasses that of the U.S. by a large margin, say University of Michigan researchers.
That is the key finding of their study based on newly available survey data collected by several Chinese universities.
“Income inequality in today’s China is among the highest in the world, especially in comparison to countries with comparable or higher standards of living,” said University of Michigan sociologist Yu Xie. University of Michigan study.
I have hope, that since the masks came off the monster's face (today is a good day) the people are beginning to realize, how they are being played. worldwide. but i also have fear of an escalating conflict which could bring war to europe and even the world. that's why i want to be very careful with blaming russia for the conflict. and to me history shows that the neoliberal agenda is a very aggressive and inhuman force which wants to control everything.
-
The material you quote from Global Research (GR) is interesting, but are you aware of the history behind it? Michel Chossudovsky’s organisation is, in its own words, "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order". That’s fine, if that’s what you want to do. However, to me, a proper research organisation needs to be objective - above all else - and not selective. Chossudovsky is a favourite at Russia Today (RT), another state-funded media outlet under Putin’s control. RT stands long accused as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy – not only by independent observers, but also by former employees. I would take his comments about the situation in Ukraine with a hell of a dose of salt.
I think GR's political outlook largely motivates much of what you have quoted from them. I find it rather selective at times and it ignores many of the factors I have already mentioned which are real considerations in this conflict. Anyway, according to GR [all further quotes in italics]:
None seem to have processed the undeniable fact that the neutrality and non-arming of Ukraine was promised by NATO and the US Secretary of State James Baker in 1991.
According to which official document? Ukraine had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons at this time and the idea was to come to an official decision on this. The result was The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, effectively giving Ukraine’s nuclear weapons to Russia around 20 years ago. If anything, this de-armed Ukraine in Russia’s favour. Ukraine deeply regrets this now. Around the same time, Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and became the first post-Soviet state to participate in Partnership for Peace and joined the NATO-Ukraine Commission and supplied troops to peacekeeping operations. In 2002, the Ukrainian government stated NATO membership as a goal and this was agreed by NATO in 2008. Two years later President Yanukovich (pro-Moscow) removed this from the agenda for fear of making Putin more angry. He would do likewise earlier last year with the EU proposals.
The claim that Russian soldiers “poured into Crimea to seize it” is, however, perfectly false. In fact, it was a voluntary referendum with demonstrated EU Parliamentarian-observing its overwhelming public support for re-unification with Russia.
Under the Ukrainian constitution and Ukrainian law, the referendum was illegal. There is no debate about that, as Crimea was a constituent part of Ukraine when the referendum took place. It effectively states that territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote. This was not the case. The referendum was illegal. Were the OSCE and the UN present? There were observers from EODE, a Russian far-right organisation.
In contrast, Poroshenko’s post-coup election in October 2014 was by a fraction of Ukraine’s total electorate with most of the Russia-speaking South and the East unable to participate.
This is just nothing but an outright lie. Almost 60% of the electorate participated (excluding some eastern regions under paramilitary control) and Poroshenko won by a large margin. The Russian-speaking south also participated in the election. Only Donbass did not fully participate, but this was largely due to pro-Russian violence and intimidation. Putin himself recognised the election results. Igor Strelkov himself admitted the paramilitaries prevented people from voting here. The facts speak for themselves.
the aggression you claim by russia is a reaction to the expanding nato, with rocket shields installed directly at the border to russia. they have a right to feel threatened, i would say.
The aggression I claim by Russia goes far beyond anything to do with NATO expansion. We can say that NATO expansion is a factor here, but there is also a good reason why so many former satellite states want to be under NATO’s umbrella. In many of these countries Russia’s more recent aggression only convinces them of the need for NATO membership and greater protection. Do you think Poland or Latvia want to face what Ukraine and Georgia has under Putin's bullying tactics and desire to recreate the Russian Empire?
Even if Russia feels threatened, which is a legitimate enough argument in itself, does that give Russia the right to annex the territory of another sovereign state (Crimea)? Does that give Russia the right to meddle in eastern Ukraine? Does that give Russia the right to be in Georgia screwing around, because of another pro-Western president? The country which is really threatened in all of this is clearly Ukraine (annexation, foreign invasion, meddling). Georgia has also been violated. Neither has NATO membership. Should Russia plan to do likewise with Poland, for example, then they will face the entire arsenal of NATO as a reaction. That’s something that I don’t think Putin is stupid enough to do, at least at this stage. If he should do it, then I would certainly support NATO - no doubt about it.
As for NATO being the aggressor, the only party to have annexed another country’s territory and advocated an illegal referendum is Russia. In fact, NATO hasn’t even responded much to this behaviour. There have been verbal dances, finger-pointing and sanctions, but not much else. No military repercussions have been authorised by NATO. No plan for invasion. Ukraine simply isn’t worth it and the overarching expectation is that Putin will settle down. This may come to haunt the feck out of Europe, but when has Europe ever solved its own wars over the last century?
US generals like Breedlove are trying to provoke a war, where Germans and Russians would kill each other in order to weaken both countries. This is a cynical, actually a diabolical plan. But this is exactly what US strategist like Georg Friedman, director of the Stratfor think tank, are suggesting. United, Germany and Russia are the only power that could threaten the US, Friedman said in a speech in February 2015 in Chicago.
It’s very difficult to see this as feasible. Both Merkle and Putin have grown from the same system and have an understanding of one another. Germany is also rather scared of participating in troop deployment in Europe, because of the legacy of WWII. Their participation in Yugoslavia didn’t go down a dream and reactions from Greece prove that Germany has a long way to go to shake such conceptions off. The real power that threatens the US is China – not Russia, nor a German-Russian alliance. By the way, the Russians also harbour a long memory about WWII and would unlikely be willing to throw that aside, especially given Germany’s historical relationship with Ukraine - not to mention with Russia.
Therefore a peace movement needs to encourage an alternative solution, like the neutrality of Ukraine. No NATO membership and friendship between Germany and Russia.
Ukraine clearly wants NATO membership for many of the same reasons that Poland and the Baltic States wanted it and continue to want to strengthen it. Should they be denied it, because Putin doesn't want it? So, how far do peacemakers get with Ukraine which, if it had NATO membership and/or a cache of nuclear weapons, would very unlikely have been attacked from the east and seen the annexation of its southern flank. How can Ukraine be neutral when it's been violated under international law by an aggressive neighbour?
that's also a reason why i question more the western nato side than the russian side.
If you think there is greater freedom of speech and objectivity on the Russian side under Putin, you seriously need to think twice. There is a long list of dead political activists and journalists who fell foul of the man. Just because Putin might share some of your reservations about current politics and economics, it doesn't mean he should be given the benefit of the doubt on those grounds.
you say that china is benefitting from the capitalist and neoliberal rules it adopted, but that only shows on statistics about the gdp or whatever it's called. there are always only a few who benefit from that, and if they make billions, the statistics go up. but it has nothing to do about the people and if they have a better living.
It goes well beyond statistics. Look at any Chinese city on the eastern seaboard. Look at the purchasing power of the Chinese. Look at the fact that the Chinese government is minted and able to invest anywhere it likes. Look at the fact that China has bought up most of Africa, whilst much of the rest of the world is in recession. People have much better living standards now than under Mao. There’s no doubt about that. China is the next superpower. When it achieves this, Russia will be forced to hand back territories along the border to China. They will show no mercy for that. You certainly won’t see an emaciated Russia throwing its weight around against the world’s most powerful army and a country which takes no prisoners.
If some organisations and people are going to get worked up about the legality of the whole Iraq fiasco and yet disregard the question of legality in the case of Ukraine where you have flagrant annexation of another country’s territory, then you really need to wonder where the real objectivity lies and what are the reasons for this behaviour. However, when Global Research clearly states its ‘mission’, then the answer is rather clear.
The 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic is a dangerous road to stumble down.
-
I am in the south east of Ukraine. really a few km away from the front line and the situation is really f. up especially for the civilians trapped in the moddle of the so called combat line.
the 2 parties do nothing but stay where they are and they fore randomly all kinds of weaponwy at each other nit gaining any territory but filling the areas with shparpnel of mortars, uxos, ieds, and all kinds of shit who kill and will kill mainly civialians in the years to come.
>:(
-
I am in the south east of Ukraine. really a few km away from the front line and the situation is really f. up especially for the civilians trapped in the moddle of the so called combat line.
the 2 parties do nothing but stay where they are and they fore randomly all kinds of weaponwy at each other nit gaining any territory but filling the areas with shparpnel of mortars, uxos, ieds, and all kinds of shit who kill and will kill mainly civialians in the years to come.
>:(
That's very sad to hear. :'(
-
I read about this in the newspapers, listen ti that watcing tv - and I don`t know what to do to stop this sh*t
Not knowing right or wrong - a market place for politicians, global market, international players
and the normal people there, only want to have a normal life can`t have a nomal life - they have to decide to follow this or that party, but the game is played on a higher level
I don`t want to be at your place
take care of you
Lotus
-
While I've been following this thread, I haven't posted the ongoing issues in Finland which started in 2007:
Various infringements in airspace and sea by Russian aeroplanes. It's only a tip of the ice berg.
Well I don't want to swamp this forum in a whining about distrust but sure it is there now.
Finnish government have questioned these infringements many times but Russia disputes them and we've heard they're making jokes about our reactions in newspapers. It's a joke to them.
We've always been in a singular and unique terms with the big R in east and still we are totally free and independent nation. (Some might say even rich, in western world standards.) The terms/relations are based in trade and agreements that no one other dares to take part in. In Ukraine, they've said they'd want Ukraine to develop, evolve to a same kind of country as Finland is nowadays. But nothing's black&white if we look it deeper. The territory, locations and political atmosphere are totally different.
-
thanks for all your comments and the ongoing discussion. will write more when I can and hat I can (which is not a lot for security reasons internet not being safe etc)
best
simon
-
Well...The war's back on (it never really stopped).....Russian and separatist forces launched a serious offensive overnight....But yeah, for some people her,e of course both sides, or America, or the lizard people behind the government are to blame, or what ever......the fact remains Russian hardware, Russian soldiers are fighting on the territory of Ukraine, not Ukrainian soldiers and hardware fighting on the territory of Russia, but somehow the fault lies with anyone but journalist/opposition murdering, gay bashing, fascist Putin........
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/03/can-anyone-stop-putin-s-new-blitz.html?via=desktop&source=twitter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/03/can-anyone-stop-putin-s-new-blitz.html?via=desktop&source=twitter)
At least Slovakia's PM is showing back bone against fascism.....
http://joinfo.com/world/1002477_Slovak-Prime-Minister-flabbergasts-Russians-no.html (http://joinfo.com/world/1002477_Slovak-Prime-Minister-flabbergasts-Russians-no.html)
-
Thanks for keeping us informed. I don't post in this thread much as I really haven't got a very good understanding of the situation. That's why I really appreciate hearing about it from people who are actually there.
-
Agreed, I'm rather ignorant of the whole situation. Thanks for keeping us posted. I should read more. :-[
-
I felt and feel adressed by Billy Ts comment about different opinions and then mixing it with lizard people. and i was and i am still kind of pissed off by it. these kind of views, blaming the one evil (putin) for a complex conflict and then disavow everything that tries to get some understanding is just hate fueling and the way to war.
i mean, i just posted information which is important to have regarding the conflict and of course it has to do with international politics and of course you have the usa in the boat even in the ukraine.
but i don't want to justifie myself against this obvious dumb remark about lizard people, when trying to get a wider view about the conflict.
i found a good comment about the situation which has some ideas regarding peace. that's what we need.
At the end of the Cold War, the prevailing view in Washington was that the U.S. was strong, and Russia was weak and did not count in a unipolar world. We disregarded Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion, the Iraq War, and the U.S.-led military intervention in Serbia for the independence of Kosovo. We went back on our assurances to Russia that the air war on Libya was limited to saving civilian lives and did not include regime change. We withdrew from the ABM Treaty and even suggested that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.
With each rejection, Russia’s resentment grew. Confronted by the West’s support for the pro-Europe protests in Independence Square in 2013 (Euromaidan) and the unlawful deposition of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Russia’s accumulated uneasiness over the West’s intentions increased, and its military intervention in Eastern Ukraine soon began. The U.S. actions in Kosovo—carving out an independent state based on ethnicity from within a sovereign nation—provided the precedent for Russia to carve Crimea out of Ukraine.
Given all these events, many people declare that a new Cold War has arrived. I don’t agree. It is not too late to repair our relationship with Russia, but real improvement starts with Ukraine—a country of historical strategic interest for Russia and no strategic interest for us.
In May, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both held meetings with Putin, signaling that diplomatic efforts may be beginning to break the current stalemate over the Ukraine crisis. Such efforts must recognize, in retrospect, that all parties are responsible for the current situation: Russia, in its military interventions; the U.S. and Europe, in attempting to bring Ukraine exclusively into the Western sphere, especially NATO; and Ukraine itself, in not taking advantage of opportunities over the last 20 years to improve its governance, reduce corruption, and create greater national unity.
Accepting this shared responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine, we can pursue an understanding that recognizes both the legitimacy of Russia’s concerns about security threats on its border and the importance of self-determination by the Ukrainian people. Such a deal would have five features:
1. Russian forces would withdraw from eastern Ukraine, and Russia would accept Ukraine’s current borders in a binding treaty.
2. Ukraine would agree never join NATO.
3. Ukraine would be allowed membership in both the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.
4. A new, internationally supervised referendum would be held in Crimea on whether to join Russia, remain part of Ukraine, or become independent, as Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and others have suggested, thereby providing a victory to the West’s core values by promoting authentically democratic self—determination, as opposed to the phony democracy practiced in the referendum held in Crimea last year.
5. All economic sanctions on Russia would be lifted.
http://time.com/3916035/ukraine-u-s-russia/
-
Interesting post cthulhu. As I said earlier, I really do not know enough about the situation and am keen to learn more from those who have more invested. However, I have had this creeping feeling for a while now that the anti-Russian propaganda that we're being fed is a bit over the top. Sure, Putin has made some highly questionable moves but it would appear that they are en par with those of the USA and EU.
I just can't help but feel that we're being mislead by our media. It just seems so cheap and obvious (like Russia's oppression of gays and lesbians. Since when has any US or EU government ever given two shits about another country's gay rights? Even the recent FIFA 'scandal' seems to have a distinct anti-Russian component to it. It seems to me that Russia is being pushed more than its pushing but I could be wrong.
I think I can smell a rat but I'm happy to be corrected by those who know more about the situation.
-
Well Johnz, your post lightens me up a lot. because you recognize the anti-russian propaganda and notice the media-war and disinformation that fucks me up so much.
it fucks me up because people fall for it and then use it in discussions as arguements.
again, i'm not saying that putin (even this is so stupid, it's never a person but a system or a parliament or group who is acting.) or say russia (not the people, never the people but their so called leaders) has done everything right. but in this special case of the ukrainia conflict you have to regard the timetable of events. and if you do so, you have to reckognize the need for russia to act in that situation.
what about some formerly mexican state in the us had some squarrel, like the maidan, and there were some unsolved shootings of innocent people, and russia would say: yes, we promote a regime change and anyway we're supporting the opposotion with money. the thought alone seems ridiculous. why?
we're so indoctrinated to see western involvement in other countries as purely driven by wanting to help democracy, human rights or whatever good cause there is, that we cannot see that all of this sh*t is only geopolitics in the aera of neoliberalism.
we're misled by the mainstream media, and all i can see at the moment ist that they prepare us for a war. these type of texts i posted, an acknowledgement of the russian point of view, a reflection of the past and the actions by us, the west, which invoke that kind of russian reaction, are very rare.
let's hope the voices who really care and seek a solution, a discussion and do not only throw blame around can make themselves heard and have some more platform to be published.
screaming loud, i am not at war!
-
Ctulhu, don't worry - there's a number of us who see through the western propaganda (as well as through the Russian one, by the way - like you I certainly don't think Russia is exempt from blame... but neither is the current Ukrainian government, and most definitely not the EU and US; and seeing as we're not in Russia, I'm much more concerned about western propaganda than others'), it's just that I personally find it pointless to argue online with faceless keyboard warriors who will then act all sheepish if/when they meet you in person (it's happened to me before, including with people I've had arguments with on here in the past); I did at times in the past, but haven't for quite some time and have no real interest in going back to doing it. We are also very capable of looking for information and sources ourselves, so it's not like we rely on the links posted by people on the NMA board and treat them like some sort of oracle to base our world view on either.
Sometimes I will post my opinion/comment on a specific matter ONCE (I'm sure I did in the previous post on the situation in Ukraine, over a year ago, I might have done in this thread too, I don't honestly remember), after that I'm happy to let those who feel they've got to have the last word have it... I never changed my mind or opinion on things following a 'lecture' by some sanctimonious person on an Internet board once, and I don't honestly think I ever will, so whatever helps them fill their life really ;)
-
we're misled by the mainstream media, and all i can see at the moment ist that they prepare us for a war. these type of texts i posted, an acknowledgement of the russian point of view, a reflection of the past and the actions by us, the west, which invoke that kind of russian reaction, are very rare.
In your previous post you had a link to an article in TIME. Isn’t TIME a very mainstream media source? Regardless, it offers a viewpoint with which you agree and there’s no problem with that. I think if you look at mainstream Russian media, you'd really get a sickener and see plenty of talk of war.
In many ways the TIME article featuring a former US Senator was not what I would have expected. It's certainly worth a discussion. The first thing that strikes me about what Bill Bradley says is his criticism of Poroshenko’s decision to give former Georgian President Saakashvili Ukrainian citizenship and make him the Governor of Odessa region which the DPR really want so that they could 'create' a bridge for their operations. He calls it provocative. Why? No real reason given.
Saakashvili has a lot going for him, but he is one of a revolving cabinet of notorious public enemies in Putin’s eyes, since he, like three of Ukraine's recent presidents, also refused to bow down to Moscow’s increasingly authoritarian control and was subsequently ‘rewarded’ by Putin with his country being invaded in 2008. Sound familiar? Putin is said to have wanted Saakashvili hanged “by the balls” years ago. I reckon he does even more so now that he’s a Ukrainian citizen determined to help the country retake Crimea.
Bradley is certainly correct about Western feck-ups with Kosovo and Libya, I'll certainly grant him that, but it’s only the former which had a real influence on Russian politics and rightly so. Why? Because it came at the expense of another good client state...
Bradley is also correct in stating that “Russian forces” exist in Ukraine. He might want to reinforce the existence of Russian troops further by saying this is only possible because of Putin and the Russian approved paramilitary leadership operating in the so-called DPR, the same crowd who accuse Ukraine of being currently run by “miserable representatives of the great Jewish people”. It is actually the DPR, the self-gloryfying separatists, and its 'leadership' who are anti-Semitic, sectarian, racist, homophobic and anti-Ukrainian. The United Nations, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have all passed comment on this. It isn't some fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda.
Back to the article, I don’t think Bradley can, however, rightly emphasise “the importance of self-determination by the Ukrainian people”, then disregard that by claiming Ukraine “would never agree to join NATO”. By putting preconditions on the table, you are actually eroding self-determination outright. Ukraine wants NATO membership; Georgia wants NATO membership. The reasons are obvious: no one fostered this upon them – they see the benefits that its members have.
Some further points to the article:
1. Russia had already agreed to accept Ukraine’s borders in a binding treaty back in the 1990s. It has since violated that on several occasions, particularly since its client, Yanukovych, was given the bum’s rush out of town last year. No one wants him back and his political party belongs to the pages of history. Russia refused to accept Ukraine’s territorial integrity outright, because Ukraine had the ‘audacity’ to prefer a closer alliance with Europe. Had Yanukovych been deposed in favour of someone linked to the DPR, Moscow wouldn't have shown the slightest sign of disapproval. The fact is, and the Presidential elections confirmed it, Ukraine wants a closer relationship with the West.
2. Ukraine wants to join NATO and has been a member of PfP for a long time. Is it supposed to turn its back, simply because Putin doesn’t like that?
3. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have been offered membership of both the EU and EEU to various extents. All three are only interested in the EU and do not want to be part of Putin’s master plan to recreate the Russian Empire. Don’t forget that Yanukovych’s decision to abandon the EU deal and focus only on one with the EEU galvanised Euromaidan and led to his, and his party's, downfall. Putin pulled the strings on that, too, but failed to see it would cost his client his job.
4. Any proposed referendum on Crimea’s constitutional status would have to satisfy the conditions of the Ukrainian constitution – not the conditions the West or Russia wants – and only that. Bradley is certainly right about last year’s “phony democracy”, aka the fear-mongering referendum in Crimea which attempted to paint Ukrainians simultaneously as both Nazis and Jew-loving Zionists of the highest order. How ironic is that? The DPR tries to do likewise.
Russia under Putin simply dislikes any former 'colony' which has the temerity to challenge Moscow’s increasing authoritarianism, especially if that involves a closer relationship with the West.
Maybe lending an ear to Russian dissidents and the various political opposition movements, many of which are underground at this stage, would do more to shed light on such events than simply thinking Putin is a victim of anti-Russian propaganda fuelled by inept Western leaders who really aren’t interested in standing up to him. Putin certainly knows that all too well at this stage. Failing that, there’s always a critical examination of Russian media to explore…
-
I can tell you. It is really fucked up. The situation in the counrty seems normal but who lives in the so called DPOR territory or in the buffer zone get shelled every bloody day or almost. Both parties sit in their trenches shelling each other and killing mainly civilians. 2 days ago I visited the hispital where a 10 year old girl got her feet amputated and she lost her mom during the previus night's shelling. ut s fucked up and as usual civilians are the main casualties.
-
It's normal elsewhere. In Lviv and Kiev nothing. In fact I am going this weekend to Lviv.
It's a shame that this is happening near the border. Ukrainians are really nice, friendly people.
Damn Russians trying to dominate the world again. No wonder why People of ex- soviet countries still can't stand Russians. And Putin treats his own people that way too.
-
Damn Russians trying to dominate the world again. No wonder why People of ex- soviet countries still can't stand Russians. And Putin treats his own people that way too.
Yes, those evil Russians always trying to dominate the World. You saw it in every James Bond Movie. And Putin..can't even think how evil he reacts, pardon, he acts in comparison to the friendly Empire of USA, who only wants to bring peace love and harmony and democracy to the world. Yeah, another russian imperial day. The friendly usa is treating their own people so well, so that most of them now even don't have to work! and all those killings by the police are just bad mistakes, it's not racism.
-
It's normal elsewhere. In Lviv and Kiev nothing. In fact I am going this weekend to Lviv.
It's a shame that this is happening near the border. Ukrainians are really nice, friendly people.
Damn Russians trying to dominate the world again. No wonder why People of ex- soviet countries still can't stand Russians. And Putin treats his own people that way too.
yes they are friendly people but super patriotics and nationalists since they are very young I can tell u. today is indipendence day here. crazy scenes of peole and children with flags only patriotic song about ukraine etc
-
Today is the birthay of Maya my magic daughter. 3 years old.
I am not with her and this is already very sad.
PLus the bloody conflict has killed and will killed many more civilians and innocents people while soldiers obey orders (or often they do not) and from their respective trenches they shell each other and disseminate mines all over the place. as a result they remain where the **** they are sitting in their positions not gaining any territory or anything but they kill civilians, women, men and children. now and in the tears to come as landmines and devices and unexploded stuff will remain here for years as in many other countries.
my rage has no end.............................
am going there tomorrow to check the place speak with the police and army and try to understand who the **** left that shit on the ground behind that house!!!!!!!!!!!
Children cases in Volodarske
http://www.mariupolnews.com.ua/descr/59968
24-08-2015, 13:41
= Video
МВД: у одного из малышей, пострадавших в результате взрыва под Мариуполем, сильно травмированы ноги, возможно, придется делать ампутацию
Как сообщал городской сайт «Мариупольские новости» ранее, сегодня в поселке Володарское четверо детей нашли на проезжей части неизвестный предмет, который в результате взорвался. 4-летний ребенок погиб, трое – получили ранения.
О состоянии пострадавших детей рассказал в эфире телеканала «112 Украина» заместитель начальника пресс-службы милиции Донецкой области Дмитрий Ерошенко. По его словам, у одного из малышей сильно травмированы ноги, возможно, медикам придется делать ампутацию.
«Состояние тяжелое, у одного ребенка сильно травмированы ноги и, возможно, даже придется делать ампутацию, но пока еще неизвестно», - отметил Ерошенко.
Police: one of the children affected by the explosion near Mariupol got badly injured leg and may have to do an amputation
As reported by the website "Mariupol News" earlier today in the village Volodarske four children found on the roadway an unknown object which exploded as a result. 4-year-old child was killed and three - were injured.
On the status of the children’s victims, the TV channel "112 Ukraine" was informed by the deputy head of the press service of the Donetsk regional police, Mr. Dmitri Eroshenko. According to him, one of the kids received badly injured leg, perhaps doctors will have to do an amputation.
"The situation is difficult, one child was badly injured on his leg and, might even have to do an amputation, but it is still unknown", - said Eroshenko.
http://www.mariupolnews.com.ua/descr/59974
24-08-2015, 17:01
= Video
Одному пострадавшему в результате взрыва мальчику сделали операцию в Мариуполе, второму – в Володарском, третьего отправляют в Днепропетровск
Трое детей, которые пострадали в результате сегодняшнего взрыва в поселке Володарское, находятся в тяжелом состоянии. Об этом сообщает корреспондент телеканала «112 Украина».
Так, 11-летнего мальчика перевезли в 3-ю больницу Мариуполя. Ему уже сделали операцию, ребенок в реанимации. По словам медиков, у него травмы от осколков мины, операция была проведена на туловище и ногах.
Еще одному мальчику делают операцию в Володарском, сюда специально из Мариуполя приехал нейрохирург.
Третьего мальчика должны госпитализировать в Днепропетровск с тяжелыми травмами глаза.
One in the explosion injured boy underwent surgery in Mariupol, the second - in Volodarske, a third was sent to Dnipropetrovsk
Three children, who have suffered as a result of today's explosion in the village of Volodarske are in serious condition. It is reported by the correspondent of TV channel "112 Ukraine".
The 11-year-old boy was taken to the 3rd hospital of Mariupol (Remark: this hospital has a special children department. Also the girl from Sartana was brought here before she was flown to Kyiv). He already had the surgery, the boy is now in intensive care. According to doctors, his injuries are caused from shrapnel mines, the operation was carried out on the body and legs.
Another boy got the operation in Volodarske, in his case a neurosurgeon came especially from Mariupol to Volodarske.
Third boy will be hospitalized in Dnipropetrovsk due to his serious eye injuries.
http://www.mariupolnews.com.ua/descr/59979
24-08-2015, 19:52
Мальчик из Володарского после взрыва лишился обеих ног, требуется ампутация руки. Второй ребенок уже в Днепропетровске (ФОТОРЕПОРТАЖ)
Одному из мальчиков, пострадавших в результате сегодняшнего взрыва в поселке Володарское, ампутировали обе ноги. Также требуется ампутация руки, но ребенок пока в очень тяжелом состоянии, поэтому операцию отложили.
По словам медиков, еще одного пострадавшего, у которого серьезная травма глаз, уже доставили в Днепропетровск. Пока неизвестно, как снаряд оказался на улице, где играли дети.
Корреспондент городского сайта «Мариупольские новости» побывал на месте происшествия:
A boy from the explosion in Volodarske lost both legs, amputation of the hand is required. Second child is already in Dnipropetrovsk (PHOTOS)
One of the boys affected by today's explosion in the village of Volodarske amputated both legs. It also requires amputation of the hand, but the child is in very serious condition, so the operation was postponed.
According to doctors, another victim, who received eye injury, has taken to Dnipropetrovsk. It is unknown how the shell was on the street where the children played.
Reporter of the site "Mariupol News" visited the scene: (photos, some, not all)
http://gordonua.com/news/war/V-Volodarskom-Doneckoy-oblasti-v-rezultate-vzryva-pogib-rebenok-troe-raneny-95406.html
In Volodarske, Donetsk Oblast as a result of an explosion a child died and three children are wounded
Four children were playing with an unknown object found on the roadway. Press service of Donetsk Oblast Police informs about it.
"The tragedy happened at around 09:30 near a private house on Kalinina Street in the village of Volodarske." Three children aged 8-10 were taken to hospital with severe wounds. The child who died was 4 years old.
Volodarske is situated 25 km away from Mariupol.