Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine

Casually Red said:
theres nowt in the other parts except billions of debt and skint ukranians . The moneyspinners... industries , best agricultural land and tourist resorts are all in the east
Click to expand...

I am sure they would prefer being in charge of a poor country to not being in charge of a slightly richer one.
 
where to said:
Anyone know much about the 1994 nukes treaty and UK responsibilities re: Ukrainian sovereignty?
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes much difference as it's not legally binding and that goes without pointing out that all parties involved broke the "economic coercion" clause a long time ago. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances. It also quite ambiguous language that would be picked apart in an international court case "obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force," if the US can claim a state law to give justification for breaking sovereignty of Libya, I'm the Russia can claim an urgent threat from sectarian violence.
 
How would they not be in charge of Ukraine ? Russia had no plans to occupy Ukraine, it was quite happy to work with whatever faction was in power and always had been .they ..all of them...could be in charge of it all if they stopped fucking about, and might yet be if commonsense and reason prevails over ethnic intolerance . And if they dont they wont even be in charge of the bankrupt bit . IMF ,EU, White House and a few oligarchs will .

Your talking as if the Ukranian population wanted to join the EU . The fact is the majority of them voted for a coalition that shelved that decision as not in Ukraines best interests and tried to put it on the back burner and not deal with it. Particularly under EU threats and duress . And that there appears to be just as much anti eu sentiment in Ukraine as there is pro . The they you are referring to is simply one section of the Ukranian people, by no means even a majority .

They had independence until a few weeks ago within a society that for all its many rotten faults made some effort to accept there was a plurality among the countries ethnicities and thereby held itself together . The refusal by the lunatic right to countenance that reality any further has led them very quickly to the brink of disaster .

Without the east ,western Ukraine basically has no economic future worth speaking of . The thing about multi billion dollar loans is they have to be repaid . The question for them ..and their foreign lenders ...is with what ? Ukraine is bankrupt now as it is . 5 years down the line without its indisutries, exports, under IMF an EU ausyerity programmes. Therell be fucking rickets and black death . Its just not viable unless its going to be an aid dependent shithole like Kosovo .
 
Casually Red said:
he doesnt have to send tanks in. He can just turn the gas off , and the money. Right now Ukraines credit rating is at triple C. Nobody only Russia is prepared to service Ukrranian debt. And Id take the view the very last thing he wants to do is send tanks in , thats not good for Russian interests at all. The eastern ukranians have enough muscle to look after themselves unless the Ukranian army turns on them. Which I wouldnt view as likely.
Click to expand...
upload_2014-3-1_15-58-35.png
 
Casually Red said:
How would they not be in charge of Ukraine ? Russia had no plans to occupy Ukraine, it was quite happy to work with whatever faction was in power and always had been .they ..all of them...could be in charge of it all if they stopped fucking about, and might yet be if commonsense and reason prevails over ethnic intolerance . And if they dont they wont even be in charge of the bankrupt bit . IMF ,EU, White House and a few oligarchs will .

Your talking as if the Ukranian population wanted to join the EU . The fact is the majority of them voted for a coalition that shelved that decision as not in Ukraines best interests and tried to put it on the back burner and not deal with it. Particularly under EU threats and duress . And that there appears to be just as much anti eu sentiment in Ukraine as there is pro . The they you are referring to is simply one section of the Ukranian people, by no means even a majority .

They had independence until a few weeks ago within a society that for all its many rotten faults made some effort to accept there was a plurality among the countries ethnicities and thereby held itself together . The refusal by the lunatic right to countenance that reality any further has led them very quickly to the brink of disaster .

Without the east ,western Ukraine basically has no economic future worth speaking of . The thing about multi billion dollar loans is they have to be repaid . The question for them ..and their foreign lenders ...is with what ? Ukraine is bankrupt now as it is . 5 years down the line without its indisutries, exports, under IMF an EU ausyerity programmes. Therell be fucking rickets and black death . Its just not viable unless its going to be an aid dependent shithole like Kosovo .
Click to expand...

I should point out that "they" in my post referred to the people who are currently in charge, who were not in charge before all this nonsense started.
 
the way I see this is that on a number of occasions during the insurrection Yanukovich and the opposition sat down and brokered internationally sponsored peace deals . The Russians pledged to ensure Yanukovich lived up to his end and made clear they expected the western powers to do like wise. None of the peace deals were worth the paper they were written on. Within days they were history and not once did the west ever attempt to hold up their end, quite the reverse, they cheered the violent breaking of those deals on. Russia continually pointed this out and accused the west of not living up to its international agreements and obligations. The west simply used violence and the threat of violence to acheive an outcome, an elected states overthrow.
The states overthrow caused a constitutional crisis, with half the country not under the sway of fascist gangs refusing to recognise the coups legitimacy. To compund that even further one of the fist pronouncements from the coup was belligerent ethnic intolerance and language banning accompanied by nazi slogans in the mainstream and all sorts.
That unsurprisingly has led to a massive rift within Ukrainian society. The way to sove that rift is with negotiations. However its clear the Kiev faction cannot be negotiated with in good faith, that no agreements are ever binding on them and the west makes no attempt to hold them to their agreements, indeed encourages them to break them to secure short term advantage.

Therefore what Putin has done, after being invited to do so by a very large section of Ukraine is talk about sending a force that will most certainly put the issue of negative consequences to the fore in the event of bad faith being exercised or threats or use of force being made to secure outcomes to any negotiations. Should they occur. The Kiev lot are now for the first time facing actual consequences for breaking repeqated agreements, bad faith, violence, threats, intolerance and fascism. Its only by the issue of consequences being an actual reality for once are negotiations ever likely to occur.

In my view if Russia actually wanted to seize Crimea and annexe it then Yanukovich would not be still giving press conferences, hed be in a jail or having a polonium tea. What I believe Russia wants is to present the Kiev crowd with a choice and with consequences. Either negotiate in good faith with those who oppose you or face utter ruin and the carve up of the independant state you overthrew by violent means. That this is happening is because the west have blindly reneged on its responsibilities in persuit of short term advantage.

Basically negotiations without Russian troops in the background as a consequence for either fascist aggression or duplicitous bad faith are completely pointless. And if theres no negotiations then theres just ethnic war and ethnic cleansing.

So thats my take on it. Putin doesnt want Ukraine, he just wants a stable Ukraine. There is unmistakable absolute chaos there but hes keeping order to one part and telling the other to wise the fuck up or face very serious consequences. The fascists arent going to destroy and drive out the non compliant population, they have to sit down and talk and negotiate even if it takes years.

If the Kiev crowd get their heads round that I believe theres a good chance Ukraine will stay united. If they dont then its not the Russians who are going to lose. Consequences. Its a big wet haddock in the face coming from Putin that should have been coming from the western powers.
 
things to note as well . Russia has observed the diplomatic niceties of informing Kiev..a government they havent officially recognised yet and regard as a coup...of intended troop movements, which their agreement on Crimea entitles them to do to ensure security of the Black Sea fleet and Russian citizens within Crimea. Theyre playing this by the book and not actually breaking any treaties, agreements or laws. Unlike the Kiev lot.
Theyve also been officially asked to this by the government of Crimea.
 
The Kiev crew are now demanding Russia sits down and negotiates with them. Russia are saying they dont see any urgency or necessity for any discussions in the current climate. Fuck offski in other words.
 
Casually Red said:
Russia has observed the diplomatic niceties of informing Kiev..a government they havent officially recognised yet and regard as a coup...of intended troop movements, which their agreement on Crimea entitles them to do to ensure security of the Black Sea fleet and Russian citizens within Crimea. Theyre playing this by the book and not actually breaking any treaties, agreements or laws. Unlike the Kiev lot.
Click to expand...
But do legal "troop movements" extend beyond the land (mostly bases, I suppose) they lease? What link did you read that said legal extends beyond leased land?

Casually Red said:
Theyve also been officially asked to this by the government of Crimea.
Click to expand...
Please, again, can we have link to this?
 
Casually Red said:
if he wants to destroy Ukraine he doesnt need to send in tanks. The tanks are there at the request of the Crimean republic, to keep it stabilised. They havent shot at anyone yet. If they werent there Im quite sure thered be a lot of shooting going on as speak .

which would you prefer ?
Click to expand...

I don't suppose it is in Russia's interests to destroy Ukraine, but Putin clearly feels the need to militarily seize the Crimea....and he has sent in the tanks to do so. (Like I said he would)
 
Eastern-Odyssey said:
I don't think it makes much difference as it's not legally binding and that goes without pointing out that all parties involved broke the "economic coercion" clause a long time ago. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances. It also quite ambiguous language that would be picked apart in an international court case "obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force," if the US can claim a state law to give justification for breaking sovereignty of Libya, I'm the Russia can claim an urgent threat from sectarian violence.
Click to expand...


although russia is still technically acting within the framework of the agreement on crimea, and havent technically breached anyones sovereignty yet. At least not in a provable manner. With Kievs lack of either electoral or constitutional legitimacy theyre also fully entitled to regard them as a coup and not a sovereign governemnt. As it has to be admitted Yanukovich was elected president, overthrown by unconstituional means, retains a lot of support ..at least for his post as opposed to his persona.

.Furthermore in the reign of terror thats going on accross western ukraine, with the burning of over 500 political offices and the homes of politicians , the effective banning of dissenting political parties and with fascists prowling the streets no election to restore legitimacy there could ever be regarded as democratic. And therefore theres no onus on them to recognise whatever gets rubber stamped by that laughable exercise as legitimate either

So that leaves a massive stalemate at the moment that can only be solved by negotiations. And it looks like if the Ukranians ever want to persuade the Russians to talk theyre going to have to bring something substantive to the table first.
 
brogdale said:
I don't suppose it is in Russia's interests to destroy Ukraine, but Putin clearly feels the need to militarily seize the Crimea....and he has sent in the tanks to do so. (Like I said he would)
Click to expand...

seizing the crimea means annexing it and taking it . He plainly has done no such thing so your wrong . Hes established basic security there in the absence of any and complete chaos accross the country.
 
goldenecitrone said:
Like 1968.
Click to expand...

Was there a situation in 1968 when, after a coup paid for by the West, fascists gained ministerial positions in defence, law and order and the post of deputy prime minister? As well as fascist gangs being in control of the capital city? Please don't confuse the coup in Ukraine with attempted progressive rebellions in 1968.
 
Casually Red said:
seizing the crimea means annexing it and taking it . He plainly has done no such thing so your wrong . Hes established basic security there in the absence of any and complete chaos accross the country.
Click to expand...

Are media reports of Russian troops, tanks, aircraft and helicopters in Crimea incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Is Zelensky no longer convenient both inside and outside Ukraine? [Bot spam]
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
existentialist
existentialist
editor
New Ukraine forum
Replies
0
Views
563
editor
editor
Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
YouSir
Global Fallout from the Ukraine War
Replies
23
Views
2K
not-bono-ever
not-bono-ever
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
6K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
Back
Top Bottom