The larger point is that everything happening in the East is being fomented by Russia. It was more or less quiet there before, even if there was a difference of political opinion, now it's slipped into a war zone, largely due to aggressive Russian media/propaganda, and Russian military troops/leaders coming over the border to lead them on.

And it's not about the locals wanting "autonomy", it's about Putin trying to spin the East into his sphere of influence, either by direct annexation (see Crimea) or by making a "buffer zone" (see Georgia 2008). If it was really about autonomy, then there would have been massive public support for the rebels, instead of the vocal and aggressive minority that is supporting them.


How big is "Russia's front porch" exactly? Does it go up to Berlin? (It did not too long ago). Yes, it is a power play between East and West going on there. Ukraine needs to be smart and keep a balance, and not spin too far one way or the other, I think Poroshenko is smart enough to realize that.

Don't forget this all started when Putin tried to bring Ukraine into his Economic Union and away from the EU, that's when the **** hit the fan, and Ukraine was kind of forced to tip one way or the other.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the IMF, Ukraine is a poverty case, I'm not sure why anyone would really "want" them for monetary reasons. Putin wants Ukraine to bolster Russia's global influence, especially in the direction of the EU. I guess the EU doesn't like that.


For as long as I've been around, there really wasn't much distinction in Ukraine between ethnic Russians or Ukrainians. But now when the country becomes polarized, alot more people who I know there who used to refer to themselves as "Russians living in Ukraine" are now suddenly calling themselves "Ukrainians".

As for documentation, the turnout in the presidential elections was large, and for the first time, the whole country voted for the same candidate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraini...election,_2014

...rather than the usual "blue states vs. red states" (in US terms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...oting_patterns

About "US/NATO/IMF/World Bank so desperately needed to facilitate the deposition "
To use your favourite phrase "where is this documented"? I am especially interested in such documentation about IMF/World Bank?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A240V020140305

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine#IMF

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/wo...kage.html?_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-956353.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A2A1A420140311

The World Bank and IMF have been making poor countries poorer for decades by increasing their national debt with dollar-based loans to their governments. Ukraine, which will be no exception, would have denied them that opporunity, had their government looked eastward rather than westward for help.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Thanks for the links-
I read in your links "Ukraine is on the verge of bankruptcy after years of financial mismanagement, high energy costs and currency turmoil." So they do desperately need the loans?
I do not see anything in your links to explain why you think borrowing money from Russia would make Ukraine less poor than borrowing money from the West?
Anyway Russia is having to pour money into Crimea which is a big burden for them.

As long as there continues to be aggressive US media/propaganda, blathering on only about "aggressive Russian media/propaganda" serves only to trumpet your political opinion.

I've already documented the presence of US-backed interventionists in Ukraine, while you have yet to document the so-called "Russian military troops/leaders coming over the border." (Putin himself is still waiting for that.)

Says you. Over and over (so it must be true?).

Start with the nextdoor neighbor. How exactly do you think the US would react if they were minding their own business (dream on ) while Russia enticed Canada and/or Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact?

Are you suggesting that was some kind of a crime? Or that Ukrainians are too stupid to decide the matter for themselves? Putin didn't rush in, topple a government, and get unelected oligarchs to sign up for a massive increase in national debt.

Because — especially when it comes to the meddlesome interventions of the US government and its allies — it's always about some combination of money and power. The IMF is routinely used to infuse dollar-based debt into struggling countries, worsening their national debt situation, while enriching those at the helm of their governments (and their friends).

Except Donetsk and Lugansk.

(Ever wonder why a 'government' would go ahead with such an election fully aware that the voices of a region comprising 10% of the population wouldn't be heard? I suggest it's precisely because they never had any intention of seeking a peaceful solution in that region, as indicated by their military action both before and since the election.)

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

More debt is not the only solution to a financial crisis.

I don't believe I ever suggested anything to the effect that "borrowing money from Russia would make Ukraine less poor than borrowing money from the West." I have no idea what kind of terms would accompany a loan from Russia, but dollar-based debt from US-backed sources invariably gives increasing political leverage to the US rulers and their global agenda. Again, it's all about money and power.

And because Russia is not playing US-style money & power games all over the globe, perhaps — just perhaps — a loan from Russia would involve less burdensome conditions.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

About "Start with the nextdoor neighbor. How exactly do you think the US would react if they were minding their own business (dream on ) while Russia enticed Canada and/or Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact?" Think about Cuba?

About "Ever wonder why a 'government' would go ahead with such an election fully aware that the voices of a region comprising 10% of the population wouldn't be heard?" You are now talking about the Tatars in Crimea?

About "I don't believe I ever suggested anything to the effect that "borrowing money from Russia would make Ukraine less poor than borrowing money from the West." "
Actually you wrote "The World Bank and IMF have been making poor countries poorer for decades by increasing their national debt with dollar-based loans to their governments. Ukraine, which will be no exception, would have denied them that opportunity, had their government looked eastward rather than westward for help." So what did you mean by "not giving them the opportunity to make them poorer"?

About "More debt is not the only solution to a financial crisis." True which is why the IMF is very reluctant to lend Ukraine more money because Ukraine did not implement the economic changes agreed last time they borrowed IMF money.

I have documented the presence, please refer to post 480 of this thread (please feel free to forward to Putin if he missed it as well)

World War 3 or just a local spat in Ukraine?


The US is "involved" as they are allied with Western EU, who does have a (changing) border with Russia. The comparison you gave is not really valid, altho Russia does have friends in Cuba and S.America.


And when Russia meddles and intervenes with it's neighbors, it's about....?

So the IMF is bad because they loan to struggling countries to stop them from going broke and sliding into anarchy? So that they can install puppets and control them? Keep in mind that Russia was one of the largest IMF borrowers:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/1999/091399.HTM

And countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Congo, etc. are all puppets of the Western world because the IMF loaned to them?
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/map/lending/

Ukraine needs a cash injection from somewhere, otherwise it's a failed state, and nobody wants that. Besides, most of the IMF money will go to the Russians anyway, as Ukraine owes them some billions in gas money.

Exactly.

The Tatars in Crimea were treated much better by both the rest of the Crimeans and the Russian government than the Russians and Russian-sympathizers in Donetsk and Lugansk have been treated by the Ukrainian 'government.'

About "The Tatars in Crimea were treated much better by both the rest of the Crimeans and the Russian government than the Russians and Russian-sympathizers in Donetsk and Lugansk have been treated by the Ukrainian 'government.'"
We were discussing "Ever wonder why a 'government' would go ahead with such an election fully aware that the voices of a region comprising 10% of the population wouldn't be heard?" Not people's treatment! So you agree the voice of the Tatars was not heard in the Crimean referendum?

From today's newspapers "Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Jemliev has expressed his support for Western sanctions against Russia following the annexation of Crimea, ..."

However if you want to discuss that topic then treatment of Tartars includes;

• torture and murder
• physical assault
• Banning their spiritual leader
• Fining and jailing peaceful protestors

As you like links http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...423720401.html

...which I rebutted in post 497. To wit: None of your links documented anything like the Russian government sending "military troops/leaders over the border", and in fact most of the Russians they described were ex-military with strong Neo-Nazi leanings, making them more likely to a friendly reception in Kiev than in Donetsk and Lugansk.

As I've already shown, (here and here) US State Department officials were involved in Kiev events from the start, even showing support for the coup, and (here) the US didn't even wait for an election before getting the usurpers in Kiev to sign on to $17 billion in dollar-based debt through the IMF.

I find it much less troubling for Russia to want some say in what goes on in its own neighborhood than for the US to demand a say in what goes on in everyone else's neighborhoods. I don't subscribe to the myth that US foreign policy is based only on altruistic motives. Other than its immediate neighborhood, Russia shows no interest in meddling or intervening, and in fact hasn't been unequivocally shown to be meddling or intervening in Ukraine at all.

The IMF is used to saddle 'struggling countries' with dollar-based debt by rewarding the failed economic policies of their existing governments.

They don't need to 'install puppets' — the conditions of the loans give them enough control.

I don't see evidence of that in the page cited by your link. In any case, I don't know of Russia's having taken on any dollar-based debt in recent history.

Rewarding such failure (with strings attached) all over the globe is one of Washington's favorite activities.

That remains to be seen.

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Unless they were actually prevented from voting, the voice of every Tatar who voted was heard. That the vote didn't go the way they wanted doesn't mean their voices weren't heard.

I don't deny that Tatars have suffered in the more distant past, but in recent events (which this thread addresses), they have been treated as a minority better than their Ukrainian counterparts.

True, the Tatars were not prevented from voting. People in Donetsk/Lugansk were:

And still, the Ukrainians voted for an ex-member of governments who used to live peacefully with Yanukovich. Petro Proshenko is actually Piotr and speak Ukrainian as a second language. There is no east-west front line. There is post-soviet corruption and the usual secret service interventions. Nothing new.

After Poroshenko's last minute make up into Petro in order to try and let forget about the old Piotr, a part of the population had nobody to vote for. There was no point voting in the Donbass. Why a militia goes all military against the civil population with no reaction from the legal forces of the state, I don't know. Ask Iatseniuk, not Putin.

If you really want to criticize Putin, ask him why he gave a gas prices far under international market to the Ukrainians in the first place. Iatseniuk knows too, he was in the lot at that time too.

It's the ex-Soviet, nobody is a virgin. They all f^cked together at some point(s).

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

To manipulate them? Be a good boy and I'll give you cheaper gas?
(BTW, he just signed a big gas deal with China that is much cheaper than EU rates)

I think Lugansk's new Foerign Minister may be a virgin...or not...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-Ukraine.html

Now ask Iatsenyuk why he didn't speak up against it. He profited from both eastern and western lubricant to get… … let's call it "promoted".

About "(BTW, he just signed a big gas deal with China that is much cheaper than EU rates)"
Well they have been negotiating this deal for 10 years and Putin was desperate to show some progress. There are still some open points around this deal to be agreed so do not expect to see gas flowing any time soon.

Russia is sending weapons and soldiers by truckloads to Ukraine.
Ukraine's hand is was twisted by a Russia's assault forces next to its border. So the "green people" could "lead an uprisal" with little local resistance.

But in a twist it turned out Russia pulled their regular forces back and instead started adding Chechen fighters to the mix (by truckload again). I have no idea if/how Ukraine should deal with this situation.

But when I think what pressure UE could make on Russia but instead does nothing, then the EU is basically in collusion with Russia. Thus Obama visiting Poland for two days but not meeting Merkel on D-day anniversary, while Merkel is to meet Putin. There is a new "world order" being sorted out right now, or a piece of it.

About "If you really want to criticize Putin, ask him why he gave a gas prices far under international market to the Ukrainians in the first place"
I thought that price was all part of the deal about the Black Sea fleet and Sevastopol harbour?