Merged Ukraine erupts in riots and general strike.

[angrysoba]

Is it perfectly alright then for Poland to absorb Kaliningrad using the Putin principle

Dunno. What do people in Kaliningrad think?

Or should I say Konigsburg?

 

[uke2se]

The sole cause of WW2 wasn't appeasement or non-interventionism, it was the crooked treaty of versalles that killed German industry for the express benefit of aiding France and the UK.

Uhmm... no.

As for what I just said, this is a forum, what I have typed is pretty clear.

Ok, so are those bankers of any specific ethnicity?

Appeasement isn't giving to get along, not getting involved in actions that don't involve you is called non-interventionism. Also called respect of national sovereignty.

Appeasement is giving to get along, and that's what you are proposing. Not getting involved is giving Putin a carte blanche. Keeping up trade is giving Putin a pat on the back.

As for your critique on Ukraine, if Ukranians want to fight with regard to ukraine seperating it sounds like an issue that should be handled solely by Ukranians, not russians or the US/UK/NATO so again there is no reason for any side to be involved, another score for non-interventionism.

International law (and history) says different. Non-interventionism can suck it.

International law supports coups like in Egypt where elected leaders are removed by military, same in Pakistan, but it doesn't support vote for secession, except when the sole world super power thinks its valid, so while South Sudan voting for secession is applauded Crimia is looked down upon?

WTF?

Doesn't sound like the rule of law at all when it is so arbitrary and really falls down to if the big boys like it or not, that is the rule of man, not of law.

Man created the rule of law. Do you understand the necessity for laws at all?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Another Judo move:

MOSCOW, March 20 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin told company bosses on Thursday to bring their assets home and clean up their businesses to help Russia survive Western sanctions over Crimea and an economic downturn.

Facing a possible widening of Western sanctions that may target businessmen close to Putin, some of Russia's oligarchs are increasingly nervous about their companies' prospects.

Some of Russia's largest companies are registered abroad where they may benefit from lower tax rates but also may enjoy some distance from the Kremlin and feel beyond its reach.

Without referring to Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region or to slowing economic growth, Putin said it would also be in the bosses' interests to support the Russian economy.

"Russian companies should be registered on the territory of our nation, in our country and have a transparent ownership structure," Putin told heads of Russia's largest companies.

"I am certain that this is also in your interests," he said, pressing home a patriotic message at a conference full of businessmen, including a front row of top oligarchs such as media mogul Alisher Usmanov and metals magnate Vladimir Potanin. [...]

 

[IDB87]

Another Judo move:

Ahhh, sweet delicious nationalism.

I wonder how patriotic those Russian oligarchs actually are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ahhh, sweet delicious nationalism.

I wonder how patriotic those Russian oligarchs actually are.

The "appeal" might be to nationalistic ideals of selflessness. But the subtext is all threat: repatriate your money, or else.

Sort of like how the mob offers you "protection" for a fee.

 

[IDB87]

The "appeal" might be to nationalistic ideals of selflessness. But the subtext is all threat: repatriate your money, or else.

Sort of like how the mob offers you "protection" for a fee.

That's exactly how I read it as well. The "Transparent ownership" part especially.

 

[TheRealnz]

Uhmm... no.



Ok, so are those bankers of any specific ethnicity?



Appeasement is giving to get along, and that's what you are proposing. Not getting involved is giving Putin a carte blanche. Keeping up trade is giving Putin a pat on the back.



International law (and history) says different. Non-interventionism can suck it.



WTF?



Man created the rule of law. Do you understand the necessity for laws at all?

Um, yes. (Thats easy),

Did I post about any ethnic group or have I repeatedly said business interests of 2 particular countries had direct influence on the treaty of versailles and said explicityly WW1 was entered into by the US solely so the US could ensure repayment of their loans given to the UK and France (ie international bankers/banking). lol.

Yes appeasement as I said is an action and giving. Non-intervention is not giving anything, simply not getting involved at all in matters that don't pertain the the direct defense of your own nation and respecting other nation's sovereignty. You've yet to explain how non-interventionism caused WW2 as you implied earlier. I've told you how foreign interventionism by the US, UK, and France directly led to WW2 with the terrible treaty of versailles, if you looked outward you could even say foreign interventionism is what led to the expansion of WW1 and its cause in the first place.

I'll also throw it in again because it is constantly ignored, but if invasion was the sole pretense of WW2, why was war not declared against the Soviets as well?

International law doesn't say different. International law accepted the Kosovo, Bosnia, Croation, Slovenia seccession, It accepted the split of Czechosolovakia and most recently the seperation of south Sudan from the North as a new nation. So you really have no legs to stand on when denying international accepatance of secession.

If you don't know the difference between rule of law and rule of men, as terms then you really should just ask. LOL. Rule of law is the following of law, rule of man is might makes right. There is no rule of law internationally because the US and pretty much every major power acts solely under the auspices of their might or ability making it a right. So you see a great deal of the twisted policy we have now where you have the US calling for "democratic" elections in Afghanistan or Iraq, yet saying their shouldn't even be votes for Crimean secession when the democratically elected government is thrown out by foreign (US/EU) backed rebels.

 

[TheRealnz]

Because the current ethnic tensions that showed up shortly after Putin's buddy was removed by his own Parliament are indicative of how the Ukraine has functioned for the last 23 years as an independent nation?




Those borders have been accepted for over 100 years, by all parties, including Russia. They have a better "historical basis" then say the present borders of Poland, Germany and this completely artificial Russian province of Kalingrad. There are very few if any states on this planet that are drawn on 100% ethnic lines! or even historical ones.



These places have been Ukrainian for about 100 years.




Except that the border has been in its present form since the reincorporation of the Ukraine into the USSR and the borders were guaranteed in their present form in a 1994 treaty signed by Russia.

The only ones who seem to want ethnic tensions is the Svoda party and the Right Sector political groups who stress ethnic Ukrainian purity. The language split seems to have always existed

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...olding-it-back

Putin's buddy as you call him was democratically elected, those in the coup were not.

 

[uke2se]

Did I post about any ethnic group or have I repeatedly said business interests of 2 particular countries had direct influence on the treaty of versailles and said explicityly WW1 was entered into by the US solely so the US could ensure repayment of their loans given to the UK and France (ie international bankers/banking).

Take it to the conspiracy forum. This crap has no place in a serious forum.

lol.

What's funny?

Yes appeasement as I said is an action and giving. Non-intervention is not giving anything, simply not getting involved at all in matters that don't pertain the the direct defense of your own nation and respecting other nation's sovereignty.

"Non-interventionism" also entails keeping up the same trade and relations as before, which makes it appeasement, because a rogue state can do whatever they want and not have any repercussions. That's exactly what happened in the 1930's.

You've yet to explain how non-interventionism caused WW2 as you implied earlier.

Stop lying. I've already told you that I never said that. Nor did I imply it. Why do you feel the need to lie?

I've told you how foreign interventionism by the US, UK, and France directly led to WW2 with the terrible treaty of versailles, if you looked outward you could even say foreign interventionism is what led to the expansion of WW1 and its cause in the first place.

You've told me a lot of crap, but that's just what it is. Crap. WWII was started by an expansionist Germany. The US and UK had nothing to do with it. Read history, for God's sake.

I'll also throw it in again because it is constantly ignored, but if invasion was the sole pretense of WW2, why was war not declared against the Soviets as well?

Good question. Many felt that the Soviet Union should be declared upon, but they needed to deal with Germany first. As it happened, Germany invaded the Soviet Union first, so nothing had to be done. That said, the invasion of Poland was the spark that started WWII.

International law doesn't say different. International law accepted the Kosovo, Bosnia, Croation, Slovenia seccession, It accepted the split of Czechosolovakia and most recently the seperation of south Sudan from the North as a new nation. So you really have no legs to stand on when denying international accepatance of secession.

None of those are anything similar to the situation on Crimea. Fail.

If you don't know the difference between rule of law and rule of men, as terms then you really should just ask.

I know that all laws are made by men. Apparently you think there's some other kind of law. That's not topical for this forum.

LOL.

I'm glad you're having fun. You should know that all these "lols" make you seem fairly young.

Rule of law is the following of law, rule of man is might makes right.

Haha, what?

There is no rule of law internationally because the US and pretty much every major power acts solely under the auspices of their might or ability making it a right.

Wrong.

So you see a great deal of the twisted policy we have now where you have the US calling for "democratic" elections in Afghanistan or Iraq, yet saying their shouldn't even be votes for Crimean secession when the democratically elected government is thrown out by foreign (US/EU) backed rebels.

So all you have are tu-quoques. Gotcha.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Meanwhile in Lviv, sanctions against Russian Banks (and kids with red jackets) are enforced:

 

[McHrozni]

I'll also throw it in again because it is constantly ignored, but if invasion was the sole pretense of WW2, why was war not declared against the Soviets as well?

UK and France realized that fighting Nazi Germany and Soviet Union combined would be much more than they could handle. As it happens they were at war with Nazi Germany from September 3rd, 1939, whereas Soviet invasion of Poland happened on the 14th.

Not that it matters, since this wasn't the "sole pretense", it was when war turned hot.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Another Judo move:

One thing leftards, and also apparetly Putin, fail to understand is that money didn't go West for some alturistic motive, but to generate profit. It was placed there because it offered the best return on investment for the relative risk involved. Taking the money away will hurt both sides and benefit other parties. Putin is really acting like a child, or else a really bad strategist. The West can certainly do without Russian money, albet it's useful in the current state of affairs. It's doubtful if carrying out his worst economic threats benefits Putin in any way. All he can do is remove the incentive to refrain from serious economic punishment.

McHrozni

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'll also throw it in again because it is constantly ignored, but if invasion was the sole pretense of WW2, why was war not declared against the Soviets as well?

First rule of trolling: don't make it blatantly obvious that's what you're doing.

 

[dudalb]

One thing leftards, and also apparetly Putin, fail to understand is that money didn't go West for some alturistic motive, but to generate profit. It was placed there because it offered the best return on investment for the relative risk involved. Taking the money away will hurt both sides and benefit other parties. Putin is really acting like a child, or else a really bad strategist. The West can certainly do without Russian money, albet it's useful in the current state of affairs. It's doubtful if carrying out his worst economic threats benefits Putin in any way. All he can do is remove the incentive to refrain from serious economic punishment.

McHrozni

And Putin;s move is going to raise still more red flags with Western Investors when it comes to putting their money into Russia;Maybe Putin will decide to "Punish" the West by seizure of assets.
The worst blowback to Putin might well come not form offical sanctions, but from Western Investors deciding that Russia is someplace they do not want to put their money.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The worst blowback to Putin might well come not form offical sanctions, but from Western Investors deciding that Russia is someplace they do not want to put their money.

Interventionism!!

 

[Childlike Empress]

While this thread was progressing, I thought more than once about making one of my trademark witty side remarks about how the EU doesn't need Western Ukrainian potatoes as Poland does that job already more than fine. Yet an interesting article made me glad that I resisted, because the world market might indeed want those potatoes ... and big agribusiness did notice.

But that's again a long source-heavy article on consortiumnews so it likely would be as well-received as the last one - people just being incapable of processing. So I'm kind of glad to be able to ask them to listen to an half an hour long radio interview with the author instead.

 

[McHrozni]

And Putin;s move is going to raise still more red flags with Western Investors when it comes to putting their money into Russia;Maybe Putin will decide to "Punish" the West by seizure of assets.
The worst blowback to Putin might well come not form offical sanctions, but from Western Investors deciding that Russia is someplace they do not want to put their money.

Precisely. Add to the fact the best customers for Russian oil and gas are looking for other sources, as they started five years ago. Plus there is a sense of urgency for that now, which will lead to even less economic and political clout for Russia. Without oil and gas, Russia is as irrelevant as Ukraine economically.

Overall this move by Putin benefits no one directly, maybe a few nations indirectly. In the short period he may see a short rise in popularity due to nationalism, but Crimea is a white elephant for him now. I doubt that he can let it go and survive politically, if he decides we're right.

McHrozni

 

[trustbutverify]

Overall this move by Putin benefits no one directly, maybe a few nations indirectly. In the short period he may see a short rise in popularity due to nationalism, but Crimea is a white elephant for him now.

McHrozni

He might, eventually, find himself fighting terrorists on two fronts. And if those fighters manage to start cooperating on operations...

 

[IDB87]

While this thread was progressing, I thought more than once about making one of my trademark witty side remarks about how the EU doesn't need Western Ukrainian potatoes as Poland does that job already more than fine. Yet an interesting article made me glad that I resisted, because the world market might indeed want those potatoes ... and big agribusiness did notice.

But that's again a long source-heavy article on consortiumnews so it likely would be as well-received as the last one - people just being incapable of processing. So I'm kind of glad to be able to ask them to listen to an half an hour long radio interview with the author instead.

I'm down to where the Author mentions Monsanto for the first time (I'm sure it won't be the last, and I'm interested to see if any Anti-GMO crap comes up in the comments). Does he actually give a solid reason why we should care that Cargill was spending money in the Ukraine while other businesses weren't?

What's the big deal here?

Also, what actually happened:

Cargill, one of four so-called "ABCD" companies that dominate the flow of agricultural goods around the world, has purchased 25 percent plus one share of indirect interest in the grain terminal Kombinat Stroykomplekt, or KSK, from privately held Russian firm Deloports Limited.

The horror!

But then this isn't a company necessarily investing in Ukraine - it's a company purchasing stock in a Russian controlled port. What are the evil implications, Empress? And where did the $200 million number come from in your article? The actual source for Cargill's investment listed a possible amount of ~50 million, but it is apparently an undisclosed amount.

 

[halleyscomet]

The International Bankers caused everything. Should have guessed that.The Classic Cosmic Conspiracy Theory.

Don't be silly.

The reptilian Zionist time traveling bankers are the Classic Cosmic Conspiracy Theory.