The Situation in the Ukraine. #17

Karl Haushofer wrote:Win over the young people and you can overthrow any government unless the government is like in China who simply massacred all the protesters in Tiananmen. Yanuk should have done that but either he or his government was too weak.

True but China is no longer a dictatorship. China's president has a max term of 8 years. It's not like Lukahsnko who has an unlimited term and king like power.

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:
What makes you think the most Belarussians hate him?

Lukashenko is a dictator. Everyone hates dictators. The end of dictators is very bad. Killed like Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceaucescu, Gaddafi.

Mussolini and Hitler were killed because they lost wars, not because they were dictators.  Napoleon the same. Had they won their wars they would be celebrated heroes even today.

Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

From your list only Ceaucescu is a valid example. And I don't see Lukashenko like Ceaucescu at all.

You also have to remember that a country like Singapore is basically a dictatorship but at the same time it is one of the wealthiest and most peaceful countries in the world.  Belarus is no Singapore but it is no Ukraine either.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:On the contrary, the US foreign policy against Russia has been working very well. Systematically taking down Russia's allies. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Ukraine, and now Cuba. Selling arms to India to make India a client of the US rather than a client of Russia. Belarus is next.

What lost allies?
Russia has regained influence in Egypt and Iraq. Libya and post-Soviet Ukraine were never allies of the Russian Federation and I do not see how Cuba is supposed to be lost.

Gaddafi would have voted against the Crimea resolution. The new Libya government voted for the Crimea resolution. Iraq is a Shia theocracy allied with Iran. Iraq is allied to whoever Iran is allied to. Egypt used to be an ally of Russia until Egypt became an F-16 user. Watch out for India. India is buying US arms especially F-35 if PAK FA fails to deliver in time.

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Win over the young people and you can overthrow any government unless the government is like in China who simply massacred all the protesters in Tiananmen. Yanuk should have done that but either he or his government was too weak.

True but China is no longer a dictatorship. China's president has a max term of 8 years. It's not like Lukahsnko who has an unlimited term and king like power.

China is a one-party country. It is a dictatorship but not much different from the USA really that has a two-party dictatorship.

But you would be fooling yourself if you think that general elections influence Chinese long term policies. They don't. Those policies are decided by a select group of men (the party leadership) and the people have very little say about those decisions.

The West is no different though. Elections do not decide how the country is run.

Karl Haushofer wrote:Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

Gaddafi has himself to blame for not investing in close ties to other sovereign powers. He chose to be an eccentric ruler without a patron.

Karl Haushofer wrote:China is a one-party country. It is a dictatorship but not much different from the USA really that has a two-party dictatorship.

But you would be fooling yourself if you think that general elections influence Chinese long term policies. They don't. Those policies are decided by a select group of men (the party leadership) and the people have very little say about those decisions.

The West is no different though. Elections do not decide how the country is run.

Agreed. The west has good PR for example Hollywood making the west look like paradise and the west's enemies look like crap.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

Gaddafi has himself to blame for not investing in close ties to other sovereign powers. He chose to be an eccentric ruler without a patron.

Gaddafi was a big buyer of Russian arms and thus Libya was a client of Russia. Gaddafi killed by the US so Libya turned against Russia and voted against Russia regarding Crimea.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

Gaddafi has himself to blame for not investing in close ties to other sovereign powers. He chose to be an eccentric ruler without a patron.

But it does not excuse China and Russia allowing the West to extend it's geopolitical and economic goals by removing Gaddafi.

Can't believe Russia sanctioned Gaddafi in 2011 and then in 2012 lifted sanction on the anti Russia new Libya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93Russia_relations

This thread is starting to remind me of the butthurt thread on mp.net....

For that reason I am retiring for the evening.

Flagship Victory wrote:Can't believe Russia sanctioned Gaddafi in 2011 and then in 2012 lifted sanction on the anti Russia new Libya.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Well, Russia is currently preventing the NAF from using its artillery to hit the position of Kiev's artillery that is shelling them.

Keep this in mind when shaking your head to Russian decisions. They are good at capitulating.

Clearly, Russia lacks experience in foreign policy. Putin make a big mistake and fell into the west's bate when he absorbed Crimea after taking over it. Absorbing such a big chunk of Ukraine ensures Ukrainians will hate Russia forever, just like Syrian will hate Israel forever after Israel absorbed Golan in 1982. The US is experience in causing trouble elsewhere. The US has done that for decades.

Flagship Victory wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:
What makes you think the most Belarussians hate him?

Lukashenko is a dictator. Everyone hates dictators. The end of dictators is very bad. Killed like Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceaucescu, Gaddafi.

My brother has construction company in Belarus.. And You can't be further from the truth. Troll

Flagship Victory wrote:Clearly, Russia lacks experience in foreign policy. Putin make a big mistake and fell into the west's bate when he absorbed Crimea after taking over it. Absorbing such a big chunk of Ukraine ensures Ukrainians will hate Russia forever, just like Syrian will hate Israel forever after Israel absorbed Golan in 1982. The US is experience in causing trouble elsewhere. The US has done that for decades.

False. Taking Crimea was exactly what Russia should have done and Russia did the right thing. Now Crimea is Russian and that's it, period. There can be no legal or any other reasons for anyone to claim it from Russia. For once Russia acted swiftly and decisively and this is how Russia should act more often.

Taking back Crimea probably did increase anti-Russian mood in Ukraine but this is not very important. The new regime in Kiev was anti-Russian anyway and anti-Russian propaganda would have been shown in the Ukrainian TV and anti-Russian teaching would have been going on in Ukrainian schools anyway.

By taking back Crimea Russia just made sure that it will keep it's navy presence in the Black Sea and that it can protect Russian mainland from potential attacks from the Sea. And Crimea is said to have some natural gas reserves as well.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

Flagship Victory wrote:Can't believe Russia sanctioned Gaddafi in 2011 and then in 2012 lifted sanction on the anti Russia new Libya.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Well, Russia is currently preventing the NAF from using its artillery to hit the position of Kiev's artillery that is shelling them.

Keep this in mind when shaking your head to Russian decisions. They are good at capitulating.

Actually, had Russia not sanctioned Libya in 2011 and kept arms supply to Gaddafi, Gaddafi would have never been killed by the US. Russian ships could have docked at Tripoli to resupply Gaddafi. Again, Russia's lack of foreign policy experience shows, and it hurts Russia.

The #US backed insurgents are kicking at #Damascus door. Had it not been for #Iran and #Iraq and #Lebanon backing #Assad, #Assad would have died like #Gaddafi. #Russia still haven't learned its foreign policy #lesson. Russia still sanctions Syria and won't deliver #Yak-130 and #MiG-29M2, wanting Assad to die at the hands of #US.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

Gaddafi has himself to blame for not investing in close ties to other sovereign powers. He chose to be an eccentric ruler without a patron.

But it does not excuse China and Russia allowing the West to extend it's geopolitical and economic goals by removing Gaddafi.

Except that USAE failed. They won the war, but lost the peace.

Russia should only use the UNSC veto for the sake of its own interests and allied and friendly states.

Flagship Victory wrote:Clearly, Russia lacks experience in foreign policy. Putin make a big mistake and fell into the west's bate when he absorbed Crimea after taking over it. Absorbing such a big chunk of Ukraine ensures Ukrainians will hate Russia forever, just like Syrian will hate Israel forever after Israel absorbed Golan in 1982. The US is experience in causing trouble elsewhere. The US has done that for decades.

They should have hired Captain Flagship to save the world..


In more serious news...

Another fight in RAda Parliament..



Apparently the fight happened the same day FUck EU Nuland was present..

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:
Except that USAE failed. They won the war, but lost the peace.

The US's goal was to cause chaos, war, killing in north Africa, middle east, eastern Europe. That's what Arab Spring and Euro Maidan were all about.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Gaddafi was killed because of NATO. He had no chance. Russia and China did not bother to veto against his murder in the UN.

Gaddafi has himself to blame for not investing in close ties to other sovereign powers. He chose to be an eccentric ruler without a patron.

But it does not excuse China and Russia allowing the West to extend it's geopolitical and economic goals by removing Gaddafi.

Except that USAE failed. They won the war, but lost the peace.

Russia should only use the UNSC veto for the sake of its own interests and allied and friendly states.

How did they lost peace in Libya? The West has no troops in Libya. No Western people are dying in Libya. Cheap Libyan oil is still going to the West (some say that the West is actually getting free oil from Libya). And Gaddafi's funds in European banks were confiscated by the European Union and they will never be returned to Libya.

And I disagree about the UNSC veto as well. Russia and China should use their vetos for the sake of their own (and their allies) interests and to prevent their geopolitical enemies from achieving their goals. Both of these are equally important.

Obama is portrayed by the media as the one who made peace with Iran. The US's goal is to sell weapons to Iran and turn Iran and by extension Iraq and Lebanon against Russia. This is very dangerous for Russia because Iran borders Russia via Caspian.

In the event that Iran turns against Russia, Assad will also turn against Russia. In that case, the US would make peace with Assad and deliver F-16 and F-15 fighter jets to Assad to kill ISIS.

Iran and Iraq both abstained in the vote about Crimea. They can both easily become clients of the US and go against Russia.

Russia is making a foreign policy mistake by not delivering Yak-130 and MiG-29M2 to Assad which Assad already paid for before 2011.

However, for the time being, there is no danger of Iran allying with the US against Russia like it did before 1979.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/middleeast/iran-us-relations-khamenei/

Karl Haushofer wrote:How did they lost peace in Libya?

Libya is a failed state which is used by countless people smugglers and Islamists as a base.
Even worse, it is close to Europe.

Karl Haushofer wrote:The West has no troops in Libya.

The EU did recently launch a new naval operation in order to deal with people smugglers and migrants.

Karl Haushofer wrote:No Western people are dying in Libya.

They die in Tunesia whose terrorist problem became much worse thanks to the failed state Libya.

Karl Haushofer wrote:Cheap Libyan oil is still going to the West (some say that the West is actually getting free oil from Libya).

Libya's oil production crashed.

The holder of Africa’s largest reserves is producing 432,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Mustafa Sanallah, chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corporation, more than 300,000 b/d of which is exported.
Although an improvement from last year’s low of around 200,000 b/d, the Opec member’s output is still down more than 70 per cent from levels achieved before the 2011 revolution that ousted former ruler Muammer Gaddafi.
...
“Libyan production has crept up from recent lows, but these gains are minimal. I don't think they will be able to get above 800,000 b/d,” said Richard Mallinson, geopolitical analyst at Energy Aspects.
“Even if all the political and security issues were to disappear overnight, it would struggle to get the 1m b/d target. Their ability to produce at these levels has gone, as the fields have not been properly maintained,” said Mr Mallinson.

Karl Haushofer wrote:And Gaddafi's funds in European banks were confiscated by the European Union and they will never be returned to Libya.

Not enough to buy stability on the southern flank of the EU.

Karl Haushofer wrote:And I disagree about the UNSC veto as well. Russia and China should use their vetos for the sake of their own (and their allies) interests and to prevent their geopolitical enemies from achieving their goals. Both of these are equally important.

Vetoes should not be free.

I can name 5 foreign policy failures on Russia's part.

1. failure to back client Gaddafi in 2011

2. failture to back client Assad in 2011

3. failture to stop Euro Maidan in 2013

4. absorbing Crimea in 2014 therefore made Ukrainians hate Russia forever

5. failure to back NAF resistance in Donbas, Kharkov, Odessa

Flagship Victory wrote:I can name 5 foreign policy failures on Russia's part.

1. failure to back client Gaddafi in 2011

2. failture to back client Assad in 2011

3. failture to stop Euro Maidan in 2013

4. absorbing Crimea in 2014 therefore made Ukrainians hate Russia forever

5. failure to back NAF resistance in Donbas

Crimea was a smart move.  The Ukrainians in question to hate Russia, hated Russia prior.  I know this cause I am Ukrainian.

Failure to openly back NAF fine.  They couldn't stop maiden as it would be viewed as interference and more Ukrainians would hate Russia.  Instead, it was a major failure on Yanukovich whom should have stayed and actually do something to prevent it from getting out of hand.

I would say, assad needs way more than Yak-130's and MiG-29's and apparently the money was moved to much more needed equipment.  Gaddafi was Medvedev's failure and it ended up being one of the many reasons why it costed him his presidency.

So please, go away.

And as much as we will see an attempt in Belarus, it wont be successful. Much like the one in Armenia.

Crimea was a mistake to absorb. Should have never done that. It is basic foreign policy. Crimea is too little for Russia to gain, too big for Ukraine to lose. Crimea does not even border Russia.

You know what? In the US, president elections run for 2 whole years, with grueling televised debates between a dozen or so candidates, including foreign policy. In Russia, it is the same ruling party, the same candidate, no televised debates, the same president. That's why Russia president lacks foreign policy skills whereas the US president has very very good foreign policy skills because he / she has to beat a dozen or so other candidates in a 2 years grueling election campaign which involves many televised debates. :cheer

That's why the US president beats the Russia president every time when it comes to foreign policy.