Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Vangelovski]

Gocka, I don't know why the surprise or shock at these sorts of intra and inter-governmental conversations. This is just business as usual - obviously everyone has a preferred option, but that does not mean that they are capable of actually making it happen.

Some of the comments on this thread are so far-fetched that they are laughable. Just on this thread alone (not to mention all the news sites) there are so many competing grand-conspiracies as to who's behind everything and why, that we would have to believe that its possible for the same piece of paper to be both black and white at the same time (along with a billion other colours).

We have evil corporations (who seem to be working awfully collaboratively even they are competing for the same share of profits) that are dangling the politicians, yet at the same time we are to believe that is the American and Russian political establishments that are behind everything (regardless of the fact that inter-party politics are so vicious that most can even stand the sight of each other and the fact that the views and interests of many of these politicians are fundamentally irreconcilable). We have theories out there that Ukraine (or insert whatever the latest hotspot is) must be the centre of the universe and whoever holds sway there will achieve world domination or that the economic possibilities that the Ukraine (or insert whatever the latest hotspot is) are so enormous that the political elite and the industrial-military complex will become so rich that the money will last them for a few weeks until the next hotspot opens up needing a grand chess game explanation. Then, we supposedly have 45 million individuals that are just plain zombies going along with whatever the grand puppet master tells them to do. Finally we have some unnamed Jews in the middle of all this in cahoots with the Illuminati, the Freemasons, my weird looking neighbour, definitely Peter Garret (who must have controlled the Labor party otherwise how else would he get such a cushy position), possibly ancient aliens and of course, the reverse vampires.

In this instance, as in all of these situations, the grand puppet master seems awfully schizophrenic as he appears to be working against himself by organising so many competing interests. Or maybe, that's the genius of it...

[Risto the Great]

Vangelovski, I don't know why you're mocking the motivations of the key participants in the Ukranian saga. The same motivations played out in Macedonia. It was all about spheres of influence and money (in fact, just money). Not much changes over time.

Corporations are not necessarily evil, but their motivations are money first and people second. So, in fact, this could be construed as evil.

I think a powerful corporation, just like a superpower nation, will always treat each project like it is the centre of the world and seek to exploit any and every opportunity from it. It is the nature of the beast and we don't even need anything to be sinister about it. We are merely identifying it.

We have enough proof about millions of zombies to suggest that they often are able to be bullied into lowly acts of self-hate and sheepliness. Macedonia is evidence enough of this. I'm pretty sure history is full of well orchestrated conspiracies.

[Gocka]

Tom,

I am a bit surprised that you think a phone call like that is business as usual, and I think you either didn't read the entire conversation or are purposely taking it lightly to support a wider point you want to make. They were not discussing their favorites they were literally discussing who will be part of the government and at one point Nulland is telling the ambassador that they need to talk to Klitchko to soften him up before they break the news to him that he wont be part of the new government. At the end they are discussing how the need to bring in the UN to "glue" it together (make it seem more legitimate). It's pretty damming because it happened before anything blew up in Ukraine, the former president was still in charge and the US was discussing who was going to take over, then big shocker it played out exactly as they discussed.

Come on man take your head out of the sand. No one is suggesting that this is some grand plan, its a fluid situation that is constantly changing but you cant deny the the US is directly involved and is at least attempting to pull strings.

Your suggestion that 45 million people are like zombies is not as far fetched as it sounds. Take a look at Syria, how many millions of refugees and how many million more under house arrest that are playing no part in anything that is going on in their country?

How could 45 million Ukrainians be involved in the picking of the government when there was no vote, and you just end up with a government over night. What consensus put Arseniy in charge? This is what happens when you read too many books and dont spend enough time in the real world.

The United States for example has 330 million people, and I could give you hundreds of examples of laws that are passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes that are overwhelmingly unpopular with the actual population. If our interests as citizens are represented then how is that even possible? The law about unlimited campaign contributions from corporations passed with no problems yet most Americans thought it was dangerous and wrong, laws about big agricultural producers being able to patent GMO seeds, subsidies for oil companies, there are so many examples of laws that have only special interests for large corporations that most citizens are against yet they pass almost uncontested.

Can you answer me just one question. If I am a corporation and I give a million dollars to candidate X, what is my motivation to do so? As a corporation I am not impacted by 99% of issues that regular people care about so I am not giving money to this candidate so he can fight for poverty, or the environment or what ever, I have only one reason that I would waist a million dollars on this candidate. so that I get a return on my investment. Maybe since your background is not in business you have trouble understanding the motivations of a corporation but its simple, a business never spends money unless its to make money.

They dont all have to act in unison to get what they want at least some of the time.

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

Vangelovski, I don't know why you're mocking the motivations of the key participants in the Ukranian saga. The same motivations played out in Macedonia. It was all about spheres of influence and money (in fact, just money). Not much changes over time.

Corporations are not necessarily evil, but their motivations are money first and people second. So, in fact, this could be construed as evil.

I think a powerful corporation, just like a superpower nation, will always treat each project like it is the centre of the world and seek to exploit any and every opportunity from it. It is the nature of the beast and we don't even need anything to be sinister about it. We are merely identifying it.

We have enough proof about millions of zombies to suggest that they often are able to be bullied into lowly acts of self-hate and sheepliness. Macedonia is evidence enough of this. I'm pretty sure history is full of well orchestrated conspiracies.

I'm not mocking the motivations, I'm mocking the perceived capability of all the mentioned players to orchestrate what they are supposedly orchestrating and the idea that so many competing interests can all be behind these events at the same time - as if it is in everyone's interest to have what is happening play out.

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Gocka

The United States for example has 330 million people, and I could give you hundreds of examples of laws that are passed with overwhelming bipartisan votes that are overwhelmingly unpopular with the actual population. If our interests as citizens are represented then how is that even possible? The law about unlimited campaign contributions from corporations passed with no problems yet most Americans thought it was dangerous and wrong, laws about big agricultural producers being able to patent GMO seeds, subsidies for oil companies, there are so many examples of laws that have only special interests for large corporations that most citizens are against yet they pass almost uncontested.

If the USA is anything like the "House of Cards" TV show, democracy plays a very small part in this.

[Big Bad Sven]

Originally Posted by EgejskaMakedonia

I was reading an article that mentioned in Obama's conversation with Putin, he warned Putin that the 'people of Ukraine had the right to determine their own future.'

I guess it's only alright when the USA interfere with internal affairs in foreign countries.

LOL pretty much this.

I saw something similar, an american politician was saying how russia simply cant invade a country, redraw borders, annex territory and decide who goes into power.

The yanks must have short memories. I wonder how the serbs feel when the yanks annexed kosovo from them, or how macedonians feel when the yanks pretty much gifted the shiptars control of macedonia.

Its just typical politics. When one super power has the upper hand and exploiting the situation the weaker side takes the moral high ground and acts innocent.

The yanks are just upset that they are getting a taste of their own medicine and are getting scared that instead of being number one in the world they will slowly be number three

Estonia, latvia, lithuania, poland, Romania and moldova would be shitting themselves right now. Maybe selling their souls (and asses) to the EU/NATO and treating russian minorities like shit was perhaps not the smartest choices.

[Big Bad Sven]

Originally Posted by vicsinad

Meanwhile, getting back to Ukraine specifically, I found this simple explanatory article on the Budapest Memorandum, and it reminds me about how fruitless international laws and treaties are, when in reality, we know it's force that determines outcomes, not justice and right versus wrong. It reminds me of the Macedonian case with Greece and about every other case of international disputes. We are at the mercy of those with the bigger guns...they make and break the rules as they please. In the end, it doesn't really matter what the UN Charter says or what the Interim Accord says. Laws are made by men with the biggest sticks, just as history is written by the victors.

Exactly.

The UN, human rights watch, all these useless agreements - they are just a waste of time, worthless.

Its all about power and money. Every one knows greece treats its minorites like shit, and same as the albanians and 'kosovars', but no one speaks about them because they are on the side of the 'good guys' and have powerful backers to protect them so they can keep on doing what they want with no consequences.

[vicsinad]

If corporations are anything like countries (which they are), they sure as heck will collaborate even though they are competing for the same share of profits. Remember how Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria were somewhat collaborative on ridding Ottoman presence from Macedonia...only to tear at each other for the same limited amount of resources? Or how about why France, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, did not want to intervene to help Macedonians gain their freedom? Because France had too many investments in the Ottoman territory and she was afraid that stirring up problems with Turkey would hurt her economically. They collaborate to act, and to not act. I think it's sometimes in multinational corporations' interests to work together, and after they achieve "x" goals, to let the "market" determine who is the wealthier corporation. Sometimes corporations can't reach certain markets and resources without collaborating. Thus, in their minds, some profit is better than no profit.

Any way, it's not about conspiracy. It's reality. I could give two hoots about Freemasons and all that other jargon. But doubting that money is the driving force of outside nations and corporations (not the people of Ukraine) to intermingle in Ukraine is discrediting the evidence that the lessons of history and the nature of human beings provide for us. However, more than that, it's making a mockery of the available facts. Russia and the US would not be there if it was purely about "humanitarian" efforts or "upholding justice and law." Money drives them, be it in the form of natural resources or investments.

The US knows that it's not like the old days: you don't need to conquer a nation to own it (although we'll do it if need be). You just need to have a big stick and a selling point for the citizens. Our military is our big stick; our promise of either financial investment, the free market or democracy are our selling points. Then we go in with our corporations, create meaningless low-paying jobs that are worse for the people than their "unemployed" agricultural lifestyles, extract their resources, give them some crumbs of the leftovers, and over-stuff the materialistic appetites of the ignorant and arrogant Americans citizenry. As Big Bad Sven suggested, my country is upset because others are learning how to play our game.

The US is an uncontrollable machine that needs to be stopped. No one politician or person will make a difference. Decades of laws and financial tradition and apathetic citizenry have allowed us to operate how we do. Sure, Ukrainians may need this revolution for their country. But US (along with UK, Russian and China) need their citizens to revolt and take legitimate and meaningful power for the world's sake. A new system and culture of living is needed on this planet, and the change is going to have to start with the "big" boys and trickle down. Or else, the future looks bleak for a greedy world running short on resources...

[vicsinad]

Another analysis in the Washington Post. Seems as it comes down to energy and money, as usual.

Russia

●President Vladimir Putin wanted Ukraine to be part of his new Eurasian Economic Union, based in Moscow. If Kiev signed on with the European Union, thus reducing trade barriers to Europe, it would have scotched Putin’s plan.

●Part of the ideology behind the Eurasian union is that Russia and its neighbors have a different value system than the West. Putin has been pushing that idea hard. It contains a thinly veiled ethnic appeal, to fellow eastern Slavs. If Ukraine joined Europe, and prospered while abiding by European values, that would contradict Russia’s contentions.

●Russia feared that if Ukraine and the EU reduced trade barriers, European companies would use Ukraine as a conduit for flooding the Russian market. (Russian tariffs for Ukraine are lower than they are for Europe)

●Integration with Europe might be a prelude to integration with NATO, which Putin would see as a disaster. Russia bases its Black Sea fleet in Crimea; it would be unthinkable to maintain that base if Ukraine joins NATO.

●Much of the natural gas that Russia sells to Europe flows across Ukraine, and Russia’s state-owned Gazprom would very much like to gain control of Ukraine’s pipeline system.

●Putin was not a fan of ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, and he apparently decided that the way to handle him was to smother him in the Kremlin’s embrace.

●Standing up for ethnic Russians abroad — millions live in Ukraine — is good politics at home.

The downside: Russian dominance of Ukraine would force Moscow to deal with extremely strong anti-Russian feeling among a significant part of the population.

The European Union

●Poland was the most enthusiastic proponent of the Ukraine trade deal. Polish leaders believed that it would lead to having a competently managed, largely democratic, non-corrupt nation as a neighbor. And that, they thought, would be better for Poland than the Ukraine that currently exists.

●Many in Europe — and in the United States — saw Ukraine as a nation not yet fully formed, and worried that without assistance toward becoming one it could turn into a flash point of East-West tension. (They were right.)

●The EU has launched a legal case to force Gazprom to divest itself of pipelines feeding Europe. Allowing Gazprom to assume control of Ukraine’s pipeline system would be a step backward.

●European leaders were also not fans of Yanukovych, and they decided that the way to handle him was to smother him in their embrace.

●European leaders are not fond of Putin. Denying him control of Ukraine might take him down a peg or two.

The downside: Owning Ukraine’s myriad problems.

So what’s their prize?

●For Russia: Putin offered Ukraine a $15 billion bailout in the fall. He had committed $3 billion by the time Yanukovych’s government came undone. That’s a write-off, but Russia gets to keep the other $12 billion.

●For Ukraine: The country is appealing to the EU and the International Monetary Fund for short-term and long-term loans. They will most likely be forthcoming, and for far more than $15 billion.

●For Ukraine: The Ukrainian people will have to bear the austerity that comes with the international assistance.

●For the West: They will be blamed for the austerity.

●For Russia: It may decide to keep control of Crimea. It will gain Russia plenty of enmity in Ukraine — and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...22c_story.html

[Vangelovski]

Victor, you talk about corporations as if they are some amorphous mass. Lets test your (and that of some others) claims.

In relation to the present Ukrainian crisis, which corporations are you talking about exactly, McDonald's, Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, General Motors? And who exactly of the literally millions of shareholders is the driving force behind the whole Ukrainian situation? Can you name anyone specifically?

How are have they convinced the US and/or Russian Governments to orchestrate this whole thing? Why have these public officials listened to these particular shareholders of these corporations? What about other corporations and their millions of shareholders who would lose out in this particular scenario? Are they in on it too? How, why?

Finally, what actual evidence have you got aside from some vague historical examples that are highly debatable?