Russia declares war on Ukraine. Live updates from inside Ukraine

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hi

You have made some good points and I cannot address them all just now because I have to go but in general a real war will hurt both sides and yes you might get some cheap coal but the prize is to push oil/gas up and to increase military spending by making it acceptable to the public by using fear.

The Ukraine according to sources is short of $20bn over the next two years and we just spent $1000bn in Afghanistan fighting cave dwellers so in the big play of things we are not about to go to war with a nuclear power over something we could buy for peanuts

News just in

"Poland&Estonia,150troops each,to be rotated in & out #Ukraine"

Two bus loads, sure that's going to move a mountain and shows commitment to fighting WWIII

Sums don't add up, does not compute to me

a reply to: VirusGuard

No worries.. I understand how real life can get in the way of things..

As for how much we spent in Afghanistan I think it has more to do with how that mess started. In the case of Ukraine, I support the Europeans taking the lead on that situation since it will affect them more than it will the US, specifically Germany. If we were to roll into Ukraine then yes, we should be responsible for help in rebuilding the nation to a point somewhat better than before we entered.

That has been a core principle of the US since the end of World War II, starting with the Marshall Plan.

The loan the US provided is not attached to the IMF stuff. As for ulterior motives revolving around the defense industry - If anyone else were in office I would agree. Since Obama is in office, and as we have seen since he took office about how much he disdains the military, I find it difficult to believe he cares about military spending / funding / R&D.

He seems perfectly content to gut the military while providing more in social services. not exactly a game plan that supports a concept of armed intervention.


As for the military deployment to Poland / Baltic states - Those are just US numbers. Several other NATO nations have sent/ planning on sending elements of their militaries there as well. The intent was to reinforce our allies that they will be protected. I think the current situation in Poland / Baltics has more to do with Poland invoking article 4 coupled with Russian military realignment in that area up thru the Baltic region to Finland.

European nations will be better able to initially respond to a situation. Unless Russia pulls a sneak attack any movement will be tracked by intelligence assets.

I do remember a comment about beefing up the US presence in Europe / NATO overall but I don't know what numbers / elements / units were being discussed.

a reply to: Xcathdra

An abstaining vote in UN on one side and negotiating mega gas deal to cover Russia's interest on other, is not being neutral.

Neutral only on paper and only till the matters are "somewhat still cool".

It would be really naive to take China for neutral in the long term perspective.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If we were to roll into Ukraine then yes, we should be responsible for help in rebuilding the nation to a point somewhat better than before we entered.

That has been a core principle of the US since the end of World War II, starting with the Marshall Plan.

The loan the US provided is not attached to the IMF stuff.

Yes I am sure the people in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan would agree with you and poor old Americans can console themselves by the revenue that will be raised from the like of Haliburton and the banks interests on these new building projects so they don't pick up all the tab in taxes but don't you need to start this war first plus remember the first few $bn is needed to pay Russia for the gas bill.

must go

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Xcathdra

An abstaining vote in UN on one side and negotiating mega gas deal to cover Russia's interest on other, is not being neutral.

Neutral only on paper and only till the matters are "somewhat still cool".

It would be really naive to take China for neutral in the long term perspective.

The abstention is a major element in this mess and is not related to oil / gas deals. It specifically revolves around Russian action in Crimea. What people may not realize is how Russia screwed China over by going into Ukraine. Russia used the one card China was saving for itself in regards to the territory disputes in the Pacific.

* - That action by Russia caused Pacific nations to caution China a similar action would not be tolerated.
* - At the UN level it put China into a position where if it sided with Russia, they were in fact tying their own hands when it comes to their territorial disputes - If China sided with Russia they would lose leverage in the Pacific by tipping their hands that a similar action like Ukraine might occur in the Pacific. If China were to denounce Russian action in Ukraine, it would be yanking the carpet out from under their own feet. That position would come back to haunt them should they take action in the Pacific.

* - By being forced to abstain, it raises the suspicion on both sides about Chinese intentions in the Pacific as well as their surrounding neighbors, Russia and north Korea being just 2.

One key issue in the Asian area, and I don't think many people understand it, is the issue of losing face to ones adversary. Russian action and its expectations of China have caused issues. Contrary to popular belief Russia and China's long terms goals are not compatible with each other. They have differing views on just about everything, including Europe and the west.

What we are seeing right now is China observing to see how this plays out. The longer this goes on in Ukraine, the more of a disadvantage China will be at in the Pacific (because of renewed interest on territorial issues and its impact on the global community).

So while Russia and China and India seem friendly right now, all 3 nations have a history of distrust and war with each other. They will use this incident to see how each other operates to gain inside information without actually engaging in armed conflict.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Always burn your bridges.... You never know who may be following.

a reply to: VirusGuard

No the US does not need to start a war in Ukraine.

Russia already did that when they invaded.

As for the list of nations you rattled off bear in mind the US was not the only nation involved. A fact people seem to conveniently forget.

China knows very well two tricks the west plays

a) divide and rule
b) one prey at a time

hence China knows if Russia is screwed then who will be next.

China is not foolish.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: VirusGuard

No the US does not need to start a war in Ukraine.

Russia already did that when they invaded.

As for the list of nations you rattled off bear in mind the US was not the only nation involved. A fact people seem to conveniently forget.

No, you are wrong, America has invaded Alaska, with nuclear weapons. Yeap, sure has. Right after Alaska wanted to join Russia, Obama personally invaded Alaska with nuclear missiles.

It's all true.

originally posted by: renden

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: VirusGuard

No the US does not need to start a war in Ukraine.

Russia already did that when they invaded.

As for the list of nations you rattled off bear in mind the US was not the only nation involved. A fact people seem to conveniently forget.

No, you are wrong, America has invaded Alaska, with nuclear weapons. Yeap, sure has. Right after Alaska wanted to join Russia, Obama personally invaded Alaska with nuclear missiles.

It's all true.

Source?

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

originally posted by: renden

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: VirusGuard

No the US does not need to start a war in Ukraine.

Russia already did that when they invaded.

As for the list of nations you rattled off bear in mind the US was not the only nation involved. A fact people seem to conveniently forget.

No, you are wrong, America has invaded Alaska, with nuclear weapons. Yeap, sure has. Right after Alaska wanted to join Russia, Obama personally invaded Alaska with nuclear missiles.

It's all true.

Source?

Exactly. Ask Xcathdra

originally posted by: clay2 baraka

Please don't feed the trolls.


Alaska used to be a part of Russia. As a matter of fact Alaska down to the Washington State / Oregon area used to be Russian. Fast forward to manifest destiny and it left only Alaska in Russian possession. Alaska was purchased from Russia for about 7 million in gold.

There are no claims on Alaska by Russia.
The petition submitted lacks a legal basis due to the civil war. The resolution of the civil war established a precedent that a state can not leave the Union based on unilateral actions of the state. The ability to create / change a state boundary is a Federal responsibility per the Constitution. The only state with special status is Texas, which can subdivide into 5 smaller states without Congressional approval.


As far as Renden goes there is absolutely no telling what he is on about. Last I checked we were discussing Ukraine and Russia mixed with a bit of China.


If his post had merit he would have linked to the sources to support his comment. As per the norm, he didn't supply anything.

Thread drift detected and ignored.

Renden do you have anything on topic?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
How to SAve Ukraine - Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Russia

An interesting viewpoint. He compared to what's going on in Ukraine with the of the 1930's civil war in Spain.

Ill say hopefully its not like that the spanish civil war was really bad with atrocities most people like to forget about.I guess the similarity was Russia backing the military coop with money and lots of weapons. As we see they could easily do that in eastern Ukraine as well.But this time europes united or at least for now in their resolve to help Ukraine.So i dont think will see the same results. This Ukraine conflict can be over as soon as they have the presidential elections.Because than even eastern Ukraine has a say in the government.

originally posted by: victor7
China knows very well two tricks the west plays

a) divide and rule
b) one prey at a time

hence China knows if Russia is screwed then who will be next.

China is not foolish.

And you are constantly missing the point.

You are ignoring history with regards to China - Russia relations. You are ignoring key points in their relationship up to this point in time. You are ignoring facts while you seem to be stuck on the oil/gas element, which does not play as big a point in Russia-China relations.

If all of Europe were to cease buying Russian gas, and China opted to buy all of their gas from Russia, it would not be enough to offset the loss of Europe. There would still be a gap anywhere between 15%-20% down. While China's energy needs are increasing they are stuck in the coal era. They are slowly converting over to cleaner fuels but it wont be in line to offset Russian losses.

China is the worlds leading nation for renewable energy sources, which is another reason china cannot absorb any left over Russian gas should European countries look elsewhere. Secondly, China is finally being forced to separate government involvement in Chinese energy companies. The Chinese government has been heavily criticized by other nations for the way they undercut just to obtain a source.

Chinese energy companies are pushed by the Chinese government to secure sources. In order to do that, the Chinese government subsidized purchases, allowing Chinese companies to massively overpay just to obtain the source. That practice is coming to an end.

The current need for energy resources in china is based on their economic development, which is in the process of a slowdown right now. China also is having massive issues with pollution not to mention recent strikes of upwards of 30k employees in one area.

Normally economic development can help a country out, as we have seen in china and Russia. Factor in a military doctrine both nations have and you reduce the amount that goes into the civilian sector. Now, add on top of that conflicts, which reduces the availability even more.

Factor in armed conflict and all gains made can be wiped out, just like that. The US market is the largest market for Chinese goods. If you remove / degrade that market, where does the excess go? Europe? Africa?

You and some other constantly harp on the gas sector while failing to take into account how closing of major markets will affect those nations.

If the US or Europe were to stop buying Russia gas and Chinese goods, they would still be able to tap local outlets to help offset the loss (not replace, but offset). The flip side is the hit the corresponding sectors in Russia and China would take. While the west would take a heavy toll, it would still be preferable when compared to the ramifications in china and Russia. When you take key sectors that are responsible for driving Russian and Chinese economic growth and stop them cold, it would not take long for a destabilizing effect to it.

Setting economics aside, even when Russia and China were communist controlled, they did not see eye to eye. The fact Russia has evolved even farther away from a communist doctrine has done nothing but increase the strain between Russia and China. Some of those land / territory / resource claims in the Pacific are overlapping with some Russian claims.

China's doctrine to this point has focused on self sufficiency - which is extremely costly. That type of economic policy does not create room for another nation to enter the picture to share (Russia). Their interests overlap, they both have their own foreign policy goals and in the end it comes down to the fact that China wont answer to Russia and Russia wont answer to China.

China's actions in the Pacific reinforce the viewpoint that compromise is not in the Chinese vocabulary. A lot of the claims they are making in the Pacific are ones China relinquished a loooong time ago.

Now, can we please move back to Russia and Ukraine?

originally posted by: dragonridr
This Ukraine conflict can be over as soon as they have the presidential elections.Because than even eastern Ukraine has a say in the government.

I honestly believe Russia wont allow those elections to take place.. At least not in the East or South of Ukraine.

Yeah there's just no point trying to even joke about the constant trolling here by certain members that continuously spread blatant disinformation in every line of their text.

No, Russia did not invade Ukraine, and no, Alaska was not "sold" to America, it was leased for the period of 99 years for commercial development. Because banks that were financing the lease would not secure the funds with out commercial guarantees, an entirely separate contract was simply drafted to appease the banks. Russian contract stated a 99 year lease, yet the internal American banking contract stated a sale, which naturally displayed it as the most lucrative sale of land in history of property investment.

Lucrative land investment is what China has been very busy doing in Ukraine right before all this bs "EuroMaindan" nonsense started.

originally posted by: renden
No, Russia did not invade Ukraine, and no, Alaska was not "sold" to America, it was leased for the period of 99 years for commercial development. Because banks that were financing the lease would not secure the funds with out commercial guarantees, an entirely separate contract was simply drafted to appease the banks. Russian contract stated a 99 year lease, yet the internal American banking contract stated a sale, which naturally displayed it as the most lucrative sale of land in history of property investment.

Since I'm not quite old enough to remember Seward's Folly personally, and a lot of what we were taught in American History class seems to have been seriously slanted, I can't say for sure. But I would think at least Pravda.ru and the Voice of Russia would get it right on two different anniversaries of the transaction. Pravda says the story about a 99 year lease is just a "popular myth," and the Voice of Russia says it is one of the "numerous rumors and myths." And both state that Russia sold Alaska to the US.

...Russia sold Alaska to the United States for five cents per hectare...

Popular myths about the sale of Alaska:

...Alaska was not sold, but leased for the period of 99 years.

Pravda.ru

...on March 30, 1867, Russia sold Alaska and the Aleutian Islands to the US.

...Since then the purchase of Alaska has been surrounded by numerous rumors and myths. Some say that the US did not pay Russia in full; others insist that Alaska was not sold but was leased for 99 years.

Voice of Russia

originally posted by: renden
Yeah there's just no point trying to even joke about the constant trolling here by certain members that continuously spread blatant disinformation in every line of their text.

No, Russia did not invade Ukraine, and no, Alaska was not "sold" to America, it was leased for the period of 99 years for commercial development. Because banks that were financing the lease would not secure the funds with out commercial guarantees, an entirely separate contract was simply drafted to appease the banks. Russian contract stated a 99 year lease, yet the internal American banking contract stated a sale, which naturally displayed it as the most lucrative sale of land in history of property investment.

Lucrative land investment is what China has been very busy doing in Ukraine right before all this bs "EuroMaindan" nonsense started.

What warped version of history were you taught? Russia first offered to sell Alaska to the United States in 1859. Mostly because the Crimean war drained Russia of resources and moved their attention closer to home.Russia never had more than 400 people in Alaska they couldnt get people to move there and didnt have the resources to colonize it. Then America went through a civil war so the offer was shelved until March 30, 1867 where it was agreed to a proposal from Russian Minister in Washington, Edouard de Stoeckl, to purchase Alaska for $7.2 million.Most Americans thought the price was to high for a frozen wasteland.In fact William Seward, then-Secretary of State, was conducting negotiations with Russia regarding Alaska. He also signed the sales agreement, and he received most criticism for that. Rumor has it that the senators who approved the ratification of the agreement, were bribed by the Russian ambassador. Indeed, historians say that Stoeckl received $25,000 from Alexander II for his efforts.Russia wanted the money or more appropriately Alexander II.

No wonder you think Ukraine wasnt invaded you really have a hard time understanding things. See if you enter a country with armed troops which now Putin admits he did thats an invasion doesnt matter why you believe they did it. Trying to say other wise after Putin admitted troops were sent to Crimea is just silly dont you think.

Now back to the thread i saw this and im intrigued apparently it was agreed that the UN would handle negotiations with the pro russian groups.This was part of the agreement i hadnt heard and it surprises me Russia agreed.

(Reuters) - A senior mediator from Europe's OSCE security body is due to start negotiating the surrender of pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine on Sunday, although hopes for a rapid end to the crisis are limited.

Gunmen occupying public buildings in Donetsk and other Russian-speaking border towns refuse to recognize an accord in Geneva on Thursday by which Russia, Ukraine and Kiev's U.S. and EU allies agreed that the OSCE should oversee the disarmament of militants and the evacuation of occupied facilities and streets.

This statement however concerns me hes under pressure to resolve this quickly. People arent happy thinking Kiev is being to easy on the Pro russians and im afraid hes feeling the heat. I understand Ukrainians are upset but negotiations is far better than then if war breaks out in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia, who warned on Friday of "more concrete actions" to end the standoff if there were no movement over the Easter weekend, said after the meeting that the senior OSCE officials and the local authorities in the east would "work out practical steps for the implementation of the Geneva agreement in the course of the next day or two".

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

hey man, so much effort just for the wish to see split between china and russia............so that west can prey on them........one chop at a time...........NOT HAPPENING.

No one cares for the history, it is the present that matters.

West stops buying chinese goods?..............does west want to go into recession, unemployment and economic devastaton? 21st century economies are much interwined.

Go and pussyfoot the third world countries with armies under decades of sanctions. Messing around with even regional powers is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED.

Btw, don't spend too much time in trying to split China and Russia or your allies like Germany and France might feel ignored and go their own ways...........totally fracturing the northern alliance.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: dragonridr
This Ukraine conflict can be over as soon as they have the presidential elections.Because than even eastern Ukraine has a say in the government.

I honestly believe Russia wont allow those elections to take place.. At least not in the East or South of Ukraine.

why should they ??