The Situation in the Ukraine. #1

@ macadonian, i also hope your country or any other country joins the EU either, infact i hope countries start to leave it, its had its day, its destroyed countries economy and yes your right only the politicians etc want it, try asking the people what they want. I think any country who joins the EU will regret it, and if the EU ever does collapse i am sure the countries like Germany, France and UK will come out it in better shape leaving the other former members cripple further. The only reason the EU is targeting ex soviet and ex yugoslav etc, countries is to stop Russia getting closer ties or them joining the Customs union. Theirs no other reason than to snub Russian influence.

Hilary Clinton is a creature, anti Russian, aswell as a war monger, cant stand the woman,

@ macedonian , though some points are very correct in general i don`t think there is a correlation between Yugoslav states and between connection enjoyed by Russia , Belarus and Ukraine. They actually do have 1000 years of common history , and are quite homogenues in terms of space and culture.

That is why Yugoslavia as a project was never viable.

macedonian wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Not quite.  They created a plant to build Klimov engines in Russia.  They also moved over the plant of building engines for cruise missiles in Russia as well, since majority of it did come from Ukraine.  In other words, it was known quite a few years ago that the Western Ukrainians (Polish Ukrainians) gaining much popularity and strength (gaining power in Kiev), that Russia would be forced to start moving a lot of production over to Russia.  Technically, they don't really produce much for Russia anymore other than spare parts for older systems that will be phased out anyway, and Ukraine imports a lot from Russia.  Antonov is really the only one left and a lot of its production is in Russia too (Aviastar-SP).

Also noting, Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine until recent history.  Majority of people in Crimea speak Russian, not Ukrainian.  Actually, on a fair note, about 90% of the country speaks Russian and Ukrainian is really just either spoken by leadership/government and some households.  Now the difference between the two languages is really about maybe the sense of Ukrainian being pretty old and using different dialects, while Russian has changed over the decades/centuries, but it really isn't hard for the two to understand each other.  The problem with a lot of modern Ukrainians are that they still cling onto the former glory, where they believe that they were just trounced by Russia.  Now mind you, Ukraine was treated like a little child in a lot of sense (hence being called little Russia at many points in History) but simple fact is, many Russian's hold same genetics to Ukrainians, even if many of these Ukrainians don't like it.  Them denying it is simply trying to whitewash history for the Ukrainian/Polish in western Ukraine (Lviv area is pretty much dominant of this group) and it really is sad.  But don't forget, for a very long time, Ukraine was split between east and west, and in this sense, you will get two divergent groups in the country, which is the case today in Ukraine.

As for politics, yes both sides are corrupt, but Ukraine is far worst off.  Simply put, Ukraine has a GDP per capita lower than China, and Ukraine only has around 44M people.  Pretty pathetic.  And at that, majority of their sales of product are reliant on Russia's purchases.  Agriculture, end products of, and military.  Unfortunately for Ukraine though, many of this is changing with the massive push for agriculture development (we may see Russia as the agriculture power of Eastern world very soon) and localisation of all military development.  What Ukraine will lose even more is the loans.  Ukraine relies a lot of loans and investments from Russia, and if Russia pulls that and puts high tarrifs on Ukraine, well, kiss a lot of their sales goodbye (or just profits).  EU is none-competitive for many of these small eastern countries, as Antonov would quickly either be absorbed or just destroyed by EADS and whatever agriculture industry they have will be gobbled up by foreign companies and Ukraine will see very little in terms of profit for themselves thanks to the free border trade.  Pretty much, a lot of Ukrainian land is owned by British companies that pretty much take advantage of it and are rarely if ever taxed.

Ukraine will be sapped dry of whatever little it has, its enterprises that could be considered capable will be either absorbed or destroyed cause it is considered competition, and then Ukraine will end up very reliant on EU funding just to survive and so they end up as a pathetic satellite state.  At least under USSR, Ukraine was quite powerful and developed.

To give my very honest opinion (and I'm saying this as a Russophile) - you have a very Russo-centric view on things.
Try to be rational. You were right on many points when discussing with the Russian crowd on MP.net (yes, I've read that discussion), but you only view things from a certain angle.
It takes two to tango, and the Russians certainly haven't been the best of partners for the Ukrainians to tango with.
Hence, the look westward...
There is certainly more complex issues at hand here, but, basically what I'm saying is: keep a balanced approach on the matter...

Too lazy to type more...
no offense intended...etc

Sure, Russia also made it's share of mistakes vis-a-vis relations with the Ukraine

But that's not really the point. The Ukrainians should be pragmatic.
They're not.
Oh their leaders are pragmatic - but only in the sense of looking out for the best of interests of themselves personally.

The Ukrainian shift Westward would be all well and good, and justifiable - if it actually did have the potential to bring real benefits to the Ukraine.
But the reality is rather close to how Sepherenox describes it.
Virtually no economic benefit whatsoever; whatever the Ukraine may gain in some small funds & programs from the EU, investment into agriculture, services, Western multinational conglomerates expanding their precense, perhaps some oil/gas/coal projects - would be completely and utterly overshadowded by its loss of co-operation or joint-ventures with Russia in the fields of space & rocketry tech, defense industries, nuclear power, aircraft, machinery & other high-tech production, etc... I believe I mentioned it before; over 70% of the Ukraine's engineering production is exported to Russia. The rest of the CIS makes up another bit of the balance.

To the EU it only exports coal, steel, grains, labour and other natural resources; it has nothing that's even remotely competitive in European consumer markets so talking about the EU's hundreds of millions of people and huge market is incredibly premature; none of those people want to buy anything from the Ukraine.

It's well on its way to becoming a natural-resource and cheap workforce appendix.

zg18 wrote:@ macedonian , though some points are very correct in general i don`t think there is a correlation between Yugoslav states and between connection enjoyed by Russia , Belarus and Ukraine. They actually do have 1000 years of common history , and are quite homogenues in terms of space and culture.

That is why Yugoslavia as a project was never viable.

Common history...well...we all have that.
What I mean to say is, we've been living in a certain space along each other for centuries.
And of course there's bound to be good and bad things between nations throughout these centuries.
I once wrote on a different thread that the Portuguese and Spanish was actually the same language 1000 years ago.
That doesn't matter today though. The Portuguese and the Spaniards are pragmatic enough to concentrate on what's their common interest.
Same thing applies to the Scandinavian nations. They were knees-deep in each others blood and had fought for centuries. Doesn't matter today either. They all seem to be very close to one another, which makes a lot of sense given their close customs languages, etc.
The Irish and the English? The Scots and the English?

Now see the Slavic nations...
Perhaps the best example for this is Nikola Tesla. Nobody should question his nationality, because it's well known that the man was a Croat, but because he became an Orthodox Christian, the Serbs claim that he was a Serb. It's all nonsense (and please read: Bullshit!). The same thing between us and the Bulgarians. We both claim the Macedonian revolutionaries against the Turks as our own, not as a point which unites us, but as one that divides us. We all seem to be suspicious and fearful of each other, and that's a good emotion for someone to exploit should they want to play divide et impera with us. Which they do...all too often...
Same applies to the Ukraine and Russia IMHO. They both act with a lot of emotions, and that (by definition) makes it irrational.


P.S.
Agreed about the Yugoslavia project.
That was never viable.
But I'll tell you this: Whenever (and this happens often during my travels) I meet a Croat, it usually ends up with both of us being drunk, having a good time, and going home during the small hours in the morning.  

My point is this: There is no talk of a Scandinavian Union. Yet the Scandinavian nations act unified on foreign policy, finance, AND DEFENSE.
Now, exclude Russia/Belarus - you just don't see that between Slavic nations. Period.
This all comes down to pragmatism and rationality. We seem to be lacking both.

macedonian wrote:Same applies to the Ukraine and Russia IMHO. They both act with a lot of emotions, and that (by definition) makes it irrational.

I don't agree that Russia acts with emotions towards the Ukraine.
Not one bit.
All of its policies are pragmatical; perhaps not always the best decisions - but pragmatical and aimed at getting results in its own favour.

If the Ukraine is dead-set on integrating with NATO and the EU; and has no problem selling the latest Russian technology to the West or China; then what can we do exactly? How can we trust them? For all the talk of brotherhood or whatever - it's a seperate country, a seperate state with its own military, its own foreign policy, its own state security services, military-industrial complex and state corporations that Russia has no direct control over.

And as Russia has no direct control, it has no reliable control. Russia can contract its own companies and resources out, to build nuclear reactors, to build space ports, to renovate the Kirov class nuclear-power missile cruisers, or to design and fit an upgrade for the T-72. And it can be fairly sure that there won't be too many unexpected surprises; some of the work may be shoddy, or the schedules might slip behind - but that's about it.

Imagine the circus that would take place if Russia decided to use some of the Ukraine's potential for any one of these tasks - even the simplest one.

At least with countries like Italy, India and increasingly China and others; we can rely on them for the most part too; in some cases even more than on our own companies. We can rely on them not to siphon off all the money to themselves, not to resell the R&D to the highest bidder, not to claim to complete a project while in actuality it falls far short of meeting requirements, not to fall hopelessly behind schedule, not to blow up the whole thingup into political issue and start bickering over some anti-Russian shit in their parliament before the next government to be elected scraps the joint-project and with it all of the progress and investment so far (under the encouragement of the EU), etc...

That's why - for all the potential that there is in Russian-Ukrainian co-operation - nothing can be done for now. The Ukraine has made its decision. Russia has now too; it could have decided to try and expand its ties with Ukraine further; in order to counter the EUs increasing influence there and the free trade agreement its offering to the Ukraine. Russia could have countered this without panic, and sped-up its own projects with the Ukraine; signed a deal on the Ukraina cruiser reconstruction, pushed ahead with the An-70 and An-148 production and given them more government contracts, etc...
But it didn't adopt that strategy, it adopted the strategy of cutting its losses and restricting ties as much as possible.
And honestly it's easy to see why - it's by far the more safer option; less reward but also a lot less risk.

My point is this: There is no talk of a Scandinavian Union. Yet the Scandinavian nations act unified on foreign policy, finance, AND DEFENSE.
Now, exclude Russia/Belarus - you just don't see that between Slavic nations. Period.

You do between Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia and all the other Slavic nations in NATO.
Because they are in NATO and do what they're told in all vital areas by Washington and Brussells.

The Scandinavian countries BTW are not as united as you think. Finland is inching towards neutrality and close relations with Russia; right now its considering giving a contract for Russia to build a new Nuclear reactor in the country, and is also considering purchase of some Russian weaponry. Political and cross-border social contacts are being upgraded fairly rapidly; while the Russian language is being considered as a replacement for mandatory Swedish as the 2nd foreign language taught in schools in the Eastern parts of the country especially.
Norway, while a part of NATO, also seeks to avoid antagonizing Russia as much as possible; it signed a border demarcation treaty with Russia a few years back, and Statoil Hydro was invited as one of only 2 Western oil majors (the other being French Total) to participate in the Stockmann project.
Again, political contacts are on a high-level, the Norwegian PM makes regular trips to Russia, especially to the bordering Murmansk region and so on.

Only Sweden is hostile to Russia basically; it's stepped up its political and military support for the Baltic states (after making huge financial investments there), and in their media there seems to be a certain level of hysteria about the Russian military's modernisation program, and about how Russia is a potential threat to the country, a lot of propaganda about how it's such a poor, oppressive country, etc...

There have been several plans drawn for pan-Scandinavian defense but so far they remain on paper. Everyone understands that any such plans will be aimed at Russia; while Finland and Norway seek to avoid doing anything that could ruin their profitable business relations with Russia.

This all comes down to pragmatism and rationality. We seem to be lacking both.

No mate, we lack the Warsaw pact  

flamming_python wrote:

macedonian wrote:Same applies to the Ukraine and Russia IMHO. They both act with a lot of emotions, and that (by definition) makes it irrational.

I don't agree that Russia acts with emotions towards the Ukraine.
Not one bit.

Blocking imports from Ukraine? Rational?
There is the possibility that (because of Russian blockade) the Ukrainians will have to search for other markets, which will be very tough on them initially, but could turn to be paying off in the long run...which in turn would leave Russia with even less influence over Ukraine. How's that rational and how's that in Russia's interest?
Not to mention that there are MANY pro-Russian Ukrainians, and these measures hurt them as well, and alienate them from Russia. How's that rational?!

flamming_python wrote:All of its policies are pragmatical; perhaps not always the best decisions - but pragmatical and aimed at getting results in its own favour.

Not true.
Russia will never act recklessly against a western European state as it does towards the Ukraine. Someone mentioned here that the Ukrainians feel they're entitled when it comes to Russia, I say: True. But the same is true for Russia when it comes to Ukraine.

flamming_python wrote:If the Ukraine is dead-set on integrating with NATO and the EU; and has no problem selling the latest Russian technology to the West or China; then what can we do exactly? How can we trust them? For all the talk of brotherhood or whatever - it's a seperate country, a seperate state with its own military, its own foreign policy, its own state security services, military-industrial complex and state corporations that Russia has no direct control over.

When you're strapped for cash, you do stupid things. Nothing beats stupid, but while addressing this issue, please note that many RUSSIAN generals were selling military secrets to the West for peanuts! Hell, Yeltsin was selling the whole country to the west, and the man isn't a Ukrainian, is he?! During his reign, I remember there was talk of Russia joining NATO... 

flamming_python wrote:And as Russia has no direct control, it has no reliable control. Russia can contract its own companies and resources out, to build nuclear reactors, to build space ports, to renovate the Kirov class nuclear-power missile cruisers, or to design and fit an upgrade for the T-72. And it can be fairly sure that there won't be too many unexpected surprises; some of the work may be shoddy, or the schedules might slip behind - but that's about it.

Imagine the circus that would take place if Russia decided to use some of the Ukraine's potential for any one of these tasks - even the simplest one.

Try to look at this from their point of view.
Not as Ukraine actually being a part of Russia, or a mere puppet that should always agree with its master (like a battered wife agrees with her abusive husband) but as a partner state. Again, you seem too critical of their actions, while cutting yourself too much slack IMHO...

flamming_python wrote:At least with countries like Italy, India and increasingly China and others; we can rely on them for the most part too; in some cases even more than on our own companies. We can rely on them not to siphon off all the money to themselves, not to resell the R&D to the highest bidder, not to claim to complete a project while in actuality it falls far short of meeting requirements, not to fall hopelessly behind schedule, not to blow up the whole thingup  into political issue and start bickering over some anti-Russian shit in their parliament before the next government to be elected scraps the joint-project and with it all of the progress and investment so far (under the encouragement of the EU), etc...

OK, let's talk about the countries you've mentioned:
-Italy: True, they would not sell joint R&D to the highest bidder (for now!, not sure how they'd act if things continue to go south for them), but they would freely give access to ALL the sensitive data to the Americans in a blink of an eye;
-India: Will act in accordance with their national interests. Should Russia ally itself with Pakistan, India wouldn't think twice about giving out secrets to the Americans (if their national interests dictate so) and nobody would blame them for it (I know I certainly wouldn't);
-China: Well, I don't see the Chinese selling the blueprint to the highest bidder, merely producing the same aircraft under a different name, and selling the final product..

flamming_python wrote:That's why - for all the potential that there is in Russian-Ukrainian co-operation - nothing can be done for now. The Ukraine has made its decision. Russia has now too; it could have decided to try and expand its ties with Ukraine further; in order to counter the EUs increasing influence there and the free trade agreement its offering to the Ukraine. Russia could have countered this without panic, and sped-up its own projects with the Ukraine; signed a deal on the Ukraina cruiser reconstruction, pushed ahead with the An-70 and An-148 production and given them more government contracts, etc...
But it didn't adopt that strategy, it adopted the strategy of cutting its losses and restricting ties as much as possible.
And honestly it's easy to see why - it's by far the more safer option; less reward but also a lot less risk.

We seem to be agreeing here than?

flamming_python wrote:

My point is this: There is no talk of a Scandinavian Union. Yet the Scandinavian nations act unified on foreign policy, finance, AND DEFENSE.
Now, exclude Russia/Belarus - you just don't see that between Slavic nations. Period.

You do between Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia and all the other Slavic nations in NATO.
Because they are in NATO and do what they're told in all vital areas by Washington and Brussells.

Were you trying to prove my points or refute them with this? 

flamming_python wrote:The Scandinavian countries BTW are not as united as you think. Finland is inching towards neutrality and close relations with Russia; right now its considering giving a contract for Russia to build a new Nuclear reactor in the country, and is also considering purchase of some Russian weaponry. Political and cross-border social contacts are being upgraded fairly rapidly; while the Russian language is being considered as a replacement for mandatory Swedish as the 2nd foreign language taught in schools in the Eastern parts of the country especially.
Norway, while a part of NATO, also seeks to avoid antagonizing Russia as much as possible; it signed a border demarcation treaty with Russia a few years back, and Statoil Hydro was invited as one of only 2 Western oil majors (the other being French Total) to participate in the Stockmann project.
Again, political contacts are on a high-level, the Norwegian PM makes regular trips to Russia, especially to the bordering Murmansk region and so on.

This is nothing new, Finland always tried to be as neutral as possible, it even bought Russian arms during the cold war.
It was still in the western sphere of influence and is so now too. Norway is a member of NATO, so I don't see the point...
Imagine if you cut the same slack to the Ukrainians, and even though they might become a NATO member, you point out all the positive stuff their government is doing toward Russia  

flamming_python wrote:Only Sweden is hostile to Russia basically; it's stepped up its political and military support for the Baltic states (after making huge financial investments there), and in their media there seems to be a certain level of hysteria about the Russian military's modernisation program, and about how Russia is a potential threat to the country, a lot of propaganda about how it's such a poor, oppressive country, etc...

There have been several plans drawn for pan-Scandinavian defense but so far they remain on paper. Everyone understands that any such plans will be aimed at Russia; while Finland and Norway seek to avoid doing anything that could ruin their profitable business relations with Russia.

Scandinavian nations will ALWAYS cover for each other first. That was my point. And it still stands.

flamming_python wrote:

This all comes down to pragmatism and rationality. We seem to be lacking both.

No mate, we lack the Warsaw pact  

Or maturity, mutual respect, and rationality?
Here, I respect you man!
 
(gotta start somewhere)

Macedonian, you raise many good points; it's hard to argue with them individually. I will say what I want to say though in more general terms.

I still don't agree that Russia acts irrationally, or illogically. Just sometimes it makes the wrong calculations. The example you gave of the most recent restrictions as a resuly of the Ukraine deciding to sign the EU AA is valid enough; it's an example of double standards of course - Russia wouldn't try to dictate terms to more powerful countries; or even ones outside the ex-USSR. Especially as Russia has itself said that it respects the Ukraine's choice. Why then would it start implementing policies that would be against WTO norms?

Since it only lasted a few days; it did seem like a short-term emotional reaction before Russia calmed down (and Putin met with Yanukovich, a few days ago). But it just seems to me not so much based on emotion, but rather just a stupid decision; Russia decided to demonstrate its power. But it was pointless and did more harm than good. Yanukovich is determined to play hard ball whether with Russia or the EU (e.g. Timoshenko), and secure his country's own bargaining power and leverage. Some silly muscle-flexing isn't going to convince him; he's angling for the highest bidder and that means that he can only be bought off.

I'm one of those people who advocated more than most about the approach of expanding ties with the Ukraine as much as possible, and setting up as much joint-production and projects as much as possible; even at the expense of Russian aircraft producers, helicopter engine manufacturers, shipyards, etc... because I think that the long-term advantages will outweigh the short-term ones; and Russian companies can always use more competition anyway.
But this is not the path that Russia has chosen - and whichever way you look at it; it is a fair decision because the Ukraine is really quite a terrible and untrustworthy partner. Every project with them becomes beset with delays and political squabbles at the bare minimum. Just 5 years ago they had their air-defense crews in Georgia shooting our guys down. Yes I know that they have a different government now, but something like that very same previous government can be elected again. Russo-phobia has hardly ebbed down there, it hasn't ebbed down at all despite the fact that they've been a separate state for 22 years now.
This is why it the Ukraine is unreliable; it's government can change, and even its present government can make complete U-turns on its current decisions. And no - you don't see that with Italy, China, India, etc... they are far more predictable.

They are also far more independent. Which is the root of the problem. The Ukraine can be bought off by the EU and US. The value of any of their joint-projects with Russia is not as much as the kickbacks and promises that they can receive from Washington and Brussels. Either of these two capitals, can and WILL if they have the opportunity, bribe the Ukraine into cancelling its weapon/space/nuclear/shipbuilding projects in Russia, or transfer the details on them; in return for various economic or military benefits.
Actually Yanukovich is an interesting leader in this regard. If he proves that the Ukraine is not willing to give up its Russian ties for the West's sake, and it's Western ties for Russia's sake - then the Ukraine could yet prove to be an profitable partner for both.

I don't agree that such countries such as Italy or France will give all their information about weapon systems that they are building with Russia to the US in a blink of an eye. They are independent enough to resist; they will lose far too much from something like this and gain far too little no matter what US threats or promises there may be. France in particular is moving full-steam ahead on creating more and more joint-projects with Russia in the defense industry. No way they'll be that stupid.

NATO is slowly losing its cohesion in any case; this is an inevitable process as the alliance was set up because everyone there was afraid of an invasion and later - nuclear strike from Russia. Now that this threat no longer exists, and various member states are starting to have more and more defense industry and economic co-operation with Russia - it makes less and less sense for them to jeapordise these ties by giving various tactical info on these things to the US. In the Cold War it made sense as the US was their main protector from Soviet warheads. But now - not really.

Thanks FP for that detailed opinion.

And +1 for it, because I don't disagree with most of the points made.
(Actually I agree with ALL OF THEM, except for the Italy and France vis-a-vis the US/NATO part).

You do understand though, that we seem to be in agreement about what I've said previously about Slavic nations?

I've never stated that the relations between Russia and the Ukraine were sour or sweet because of what Russia did ONLY, I actually said that it takes two to Tango, and that neither Tango partner is willing to follow the others' moves.
As a matter of fact I've compared them to other examples (my country included).

Now, I'm no pan-Slavist but is it too much to ask for people that share many commonalities, to actually TRY to work together on their COMMON interests?
Actually, strike that: Can they (we) at least try not to work AGAINST each other?! Stop the emotional bickering, and concentrate on what's best for all?
Especially when we're often being treated poorly by others?

Again, exclude Russia/Belarus, I just don't see that between Slavic nations. And even this relationship has a big question mark on it if Lukashenko is ousted in Belarus. I suspect we might see someone act more pro-west there too. Perhaps not a Russophobe like Yushchenko, but someone along the lines of Yanukovich.


Cheers.

Hahaha, I tip my hat to whoever made this pic (non ex-Soviets won't get it unfortunately)

Haha great. Caucasus hostage if someone wonders what movie is that :-)

US national security advisor criticizes Russia for Ukraine's coercion
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_12_05/US-national-security-advisor-criticizes-Russia-for-Ukraines-coercion-4402/

US National Security Advisor Susan Rice has criticized the Russian authorities for what she described as coercion of Ukraine and for human rights abuses. "We often can cooperate with Russia on nonproliferation, arms control, counterterrorism and other vital interests," Rice said at a human rights conference in Washington.

"But, as we meet these mutual challenges, we don't remain silent about the Russian government's systematic efforts to curtail the actions of Russian civil society, to stigmatize the LGBT community, to coerce neighbors like Ukraine who seek closer integration with Europe, or to stifle human rights in the North Caucasus," Rice said.

"We deplore selective justice and the prosecution of those who protest the corruption and cronyism that is sapping Russia's economic future and limiting its potential to play its full role," she said.

Austin wrote:US national security advisor criticizes Russia for Ukraine's coercion
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_12_05/US-national-security-advisor-criticizes-Russia-for-Ukraines-coercion-4402/

US National Security Advisor Susan Rice has criticized the Russian authorities for what she described as coercion of Ukraine and for human rights abuses. "We often can cooperate with Russia on nonproliferation, arms control, counterterrorism and other vital interests," Rice said at a human rights conference in Washington.

"But, as we meet these mutual challenges, we don't remain silent about the Russian government's systematic efforts to curtail the actions of Russian civil society, to stigmatize the LGBT community, to coerce neighbors like Ukraine who seek closer integration with Europe, or to stifle human rights in the North Caucasus," Rice said.

"We deplore selective justice and the prosecution of those who protest the corruption and cronyism that is sapping Russia's economic future and limiting its potential to play its full role," she said.

Anyone reckon she had some Russian guy two time her while she was at university?

Edit: she looks a pig. So maybe she's auditioning for a career in comedy instead...

PS Croneyism:
Hmm like the Ivy League, bank bailouts, and trillion dollar disappearances.
Bush becomes president cos his dad rigged it.
And Hilary the Pig was set up for it, because her (sham marriage) husband was president.
Wow America has a bigger drug problem than obesity problem...

Well ain't this a "symbolic" development, talk about a bunch of Russophobes.   

AlfaT8 wrote:Well ain't this a "symbolic" development, talk about a bunch of Russophobes.   

Yup that and the chanting of UNA-UNSO slogans too. "Glory to Ukraine - Glory to its heroes!"
Haven't watched the vid but multiple reports stated the crowd as repeating that.
Nice bunch of Nazis we have here

Eh screw Lenin and his stupid statues.

However, now you guys can finally see why I have such a negative attitude towards ANY cooperation with Ukraine in the military field. We don't need them, they are a liability.

But but.. the common history!   

Seriously though, looking at this whole mess, it's hard to come to any other conclusion, at least for now.

TR1 wrote:Eh screw Lenin and his stupid statues.

However, now you guys can finally see why I have such a negative attitude towards ANY cooperation with Ukraine in the military field. We don't need them, they are a liability.

The lenin statue is made of some pretty precious rock so that's why everybody wants to break a piece of it for themselves so they can sell it. What mighty prosperity has aligning oneself with NATO for 10 years for the people  

TR1 wrote:Eh screw Lenin and his stupid statues. 

However, now you guys can finally see why I have such a negative attitude towards ANY cooperation with Ukraine in the military field. We don't need them, they are a liability.

However many more Ukranians will now see that this guy parade is nothing more than that of "orange revolution" and things might change. Lenin has done it again!  

I think Ukraine heads towards partition

George1 wrote:I think Ukraine heads towards partition

Wouldn't be so dramatic.
Just towards a collapse of its economy and industries so far.

Good day,
I would like to ask a question. What do you think are the views of Russia's government and it's people, regarding the recent developments in Ukraine?
I mean, what would they like to do with the current situation? Support Yanuk, or the other side, pressure UA into Customs Union, instigate some sort of rebellion, or actual partition of territory, or take no action at all?
I'm not asking for any information sources, just interested in your personal opinion on this matter.

Well I just logged on to ask exactly the same question.

My family are from Kiev, and from other parts of what is now the Ukraine. They were Russians through and through. The word "Ukrainian" to them denoted the pogrom causing maniacs from Lvov and places.

I'm sickened by the American tone. This is akin to Russia giving bombs and guns to Mexicans and blacks to demand a separate state in California and Alabama. I'm sickened by some of the EU idiots.

Finally, some Europeans have man aged to work out that this isnt the "people power" that the Liars Club have been claiming. Its exactly the extreme right wing scum, the sort who backed Hitler, caused pogroms and genocides of Russians.  With a group of slightly less far right nuts who think they can capitalise on it all.

I'm amazed at the detached tone of the Russian media on it. Perhaps it is so that a Russian bailout of the Ukraine is considered "palatable".  I think that the troublemaking mobs should either be jailed or kicked out of the Ukraine and off to Poland/Germany or wherever their true ancestral homes really are.

The West doesn't tolerate gangs of animals attacking cops and invading govt offices. Why the hell should the Party of the Regions or RUssia? Why should Party of the Regions supporters etc be prevented from having their own protests?

When you think of the price paid by Russia in the Chechen campaigns, I really hope that the Kremlin thinks this one out and hits really hard in pr, political and even military terms if necessary.

The tone coming from America and some of Europe has been utterly obscene. I think a couple of missile cruisers should be parked off New York and LA just to bring that idiot Obama down a peg or two.

Obviously the Kremlin has its own plan, but I'm struggling to figure each step as of now.