Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

To be honest, I think Ukraine is (hopefully) in a good position moving forward, assuming Russia stops where it is.

Let's be honest, the country is probably better off without Crimea anyway.

But those suggestions from Russia are not in Ukraine's interest, they are in the interests of Russia.

What Ukraine needs to do is figure out a way to stabilize and defend the rest of their country while reforming and dealing with the corruption and internal problem that put them in a position where Crimea could be carved off with such relative ease. They should probably contest Crimea, but only half-heartedly, while they work things out, and then dump them completely if they have an opportunity to join Nato.

Ukraine should become a politically and militarily neutral state.

Hahaha. I think we all know that what Russia means by this has very little to do with what the words are saying. A neutral state requires a level of self-defense ability that Russia almost certainly doesn't want to see in Ukraine. They were a neutral state - but generally successfully invading a neutral state is a pretty strong incentive for them to under no circumstances remain neutral, since it's obvious they don't have the ability to pull it off, and Russia has just killed any chance of Ukraine being neutral - it's not even a choice any more.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am wondering will our government have nuts to nationalize some Russian companies as an answer to nationalization of Ukrainian property in Crimea

[Knit tie]

To be honest, I think Ukraine is (hopefully) in a good position moving forward, assuming Russia stops where it is.

Let's be honest, the country is probably better off without Crimea anyway.

But those suggestions from Russia are not in Ukraine's interest, they are in the interests of Russia.

What Ukraine needs to do is figure out a way to stabilize and defend the rest of their country while reforming and dealing with the corruption and internal problem that put them in a position where Crimea could be carved off with such relative ease. They should probably contest Crimea, but only half-heartedly, while they work things out, and then dump them completely if they have an opportunity to join Nato.

That's an interesting opinion. Was Crimea that economically detrimental to Ukraine?


Also, speaking of countries becoming better through losing stuff. You know what we need to lose for Russia to become better? Moscow. American pigdogs should come and occupy Moscow. We'll build them a monument for that.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Yo dawgs, I'm Avis and I'm replying to a bunch of ancient posts.

Avis: I get your disgust for Western oligarchs, but were things better in the rest of Ukraine? Or in Russia? It seems the 90's were pretty bleak all over the place.

Anyway, the kleptocracy is not the same thing as euro-integration. Those countries that did integrate and joined the EU are doing better than Russia or Ukraine that did not.

In Russia, they were actually worse: food shortages and all. Not a nice time in general. And the countries that did integrate into the EU had functioning economies to begin with: Ukraine, on the other hand, requires craptons of financial support that has to appear from somewhere. I don't see people lining up to pay, but I'm no expert on such things - this is me repeating stuff I have heard, just like the rest of you.

Avis-Mergulus, and one question. Why your so called "Crimean Government" behaves like an armed robber? With all that "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy (the most expensive ships were built in Ukraine so even the "it's all Soviet" claim doesn't work) Ukrainian state-owned companies (Those where funded from the budget of  Ukraine, you know? ) and even private property owned by "the wrong people"?

I really want to hear your explanation why it is a righteous way to act

Look who's talking. Tell me, for how long does one have to beat an eastern communist deputy to get him to sign the repeal of the Regional Languages law? For some reason, nobody was bothered when the Rada unanimously - you know, even the absent and the socialist members - voted for all that shit you did in the recent period. What the hell are all those videos where rightist activists beat "titushki"? Are they all staged? Interesting it is, how many names Ukrainians have for Russians. "Moskali", "katsapy", now this one... heh.

Are you going to defend your position with photos of graffiti? If one takes the things that people write on the walls in Kiev for real... well, let's not talk about it.

But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants.  If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.

Ukrainian state-owned companies, funded from the budget of Ukraine, which included Crimean taxes as well. If those "state-owned companies" really did work for the good of the people of Crimea, then they have no right to go against the Crimean government.
And I will not be told of "wrong people" by folks who are twiddling their thumbs and contemplating lustration, having already jailed numerous innocents for allegedly "supporting the bloody regime of Yanukovich". Bloody regime my ass. You interesting people up west can never accept the fact that there are people other than you in Ukraine, and mark my words - when this is done, you'll be right. And then we will all be content.

"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.

"Most of the time" you did not have the government that the majority of Crimean voted for - you had snivelly bastard Kuchma and warty bastard Yuschenko with his paranoia and his hilarious fascist antics. Besides, I see a flaw in your logic here: if 75% of Crimeans voted for Yanukovich, whom you call pro-Russian (ha-ha), then why are you crying foul when the overwhelming majority of Crimeans votes to join Russia? Why so surprised?

Sure as heck. The most noticeable aspect was that everything state- beginning with voting bulletins and ending with nameplates on schools and hospitals - got converted into Ukrainian. Russian in schools was demoted to secondary language - that in a region where 90+% of the population speaks it - and Ukrainian was instated in its place.

It's so funny how Russians cannot under any circumstances take what they've dished out to countless nations and peoples. The minute they're under serious threat from a nation powerful enough to subjugate them (see Mongols and Nazi Germany) it defines them in ways virtually nothing else can. When you were talking about the Russian language in schools I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

And through all this, the bastards in the west - those same bastards who are now in government - told us that we were not "nationally conscious" enough, and that we needed to be more loyal to our country. Fuck them. We are.

I'm sure Russia is big enough for all of you.

I hope you are consistent in your support for gangs of nationalist bandits and one-culture states. Eat your heart out: I have lived in Crimea and I will live there again. You never have and never will, and yet you talk so much, one might think you're an expert.

And so commenceth the insufferable "You don't even live here, silly foreigner!" arguments.

And that's good how? The Ukrainian oligarchy doesn't care for anything but its pockets, and the only "liberal" thing they're gonna do is promote laws that benefit those pockets. It's like the nineties all over again. You know, people here were enthusiastic about the Soviet Union falling, being friends and all with the West - and then it turned out it wasn't going to feed them. It isn't going to feed Ukraine either. And the people who suffer will not be the oligarchs.

You will notice at no point have I praised or expressed support for the people in government in Ukraine right now. I agree with their approach to the National question but I am a Socialist. I have no time for them or for the rightists that govern Russia and Belarus and will soon govern Crimea.

Okay. One thing I really missed - the Right Sector (or Pravy Sector, whatever you like) and current government are not the same guys. But the Right Sector is nationalist. I now recall that guy who was interviewed by BBC on Maidan (link was posted here earlier) - the one who said "One nation, one country, one leader. No, we won't do like Hitler, well, not like, maybe just a bit..."

Right Sector and Svoboda (the most junior partners in the coalition that governs Ukraine) are far-right and Nationalist. You are completely correct, and you could argue that the government in Ukraine is quite Nationalistic in their promotion of Ukrainian and so on, but they're really more Liberal than anything else.

1. And you, of course, know what "we Russians did to people", being so highly educated in matters historical. Countless Ukrainians fought for the Reds (you might want to read up on the classical literature of that period, Bulgakov's "White Guards" being the most prominent example), and unlike in modern Ukraine, Ukrainian was taught in schools in the Ukrainian SSR - my father has some rather extensive memories on the subject. It was never stamped out as Russian now is in Ukraine, and had protected status. Dual names for stuff and all. I don't know where you get your info - I get mine from people who were there and whom I trust. You may choose to trust me or not - I have nothing to gain by deceiving you. Whatever.

2. Yes, it is. That was the whole point.

3. You don't live here, silly foreigner. This discussion is basically you all comparing sources - and if of turns out you got your info from the same loudmouth on the telly, look, you're on the same side! I would laugh, but my eyes seem wet for some reason. If the argument is so insufferable, well, doh. Do you live here or not? That's right, you don't, but somehow you feel that you are as entitled to a say in the matter as people who do. Why?

4. "Rightists who govern Russia" has me smiling. Of course, for more than ten years, my country was a political corpse that could only shrug weakly and say "yes, yes" when the so-called free world wanted another war somewhere. And now it's not, and the very fact that Russia actually has national interests has you frothing with rage. Too late.
I don't know what kind of socialist you are if you agree that the language of such a significant sector of the population has no right to status. Not the kind I am used to for sure, but maybe it's for the best.

5. You say they are liberal. Please, clarify. In which economic or social sphere they are going to apply their liberalism? What do you mean when you say that the government in Kiev is liberal? It's not snark - I sincerely don't know what you mean.


Having written this wall of text, I'm off to happier things. Bye and all, will check back tomorrow.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

That's an interesting opinion. Was Crimea that economically detrimental to Ukraine?

Crimea is important for territorial waters there are unexploited oil and gas in the Black Sea.  Also, loss of Crimea will hit Ukrainian Azov ports, because Kerch straight will become controlled by Russia. Other than that. Yes, Crimea is not an important asset

1) It's GDP per capita is lower than average in Ukraine . It has few industries but none are vital for our economy or defense industry
2) It has many, many pensioners.
3) Large chunk of GDP of Crimea comes from tourism. But partly it is from budget of Ukraine that provides free\discounted tours to some social groups, partly it is "wild" tourism were with majority of money remaining untaxed.
4) We are subsidizing region with free freshwater and cheap energy. It is hard to say how will this be treated... but I doubt that we'll sell it for the same price
5) It is not economy but important. Crimea always voted for Pro-Russian politicians with them being unable to vote electoral map of Ukraine will change somewhat

Add Ukraine-wide effect that a large chunk of the nation will be more ready to accept unpopular reforms (We are partially occupied, that's why need to do it) and economical war with Russia (Before it would be "Our idiotic government pissed of our friend and partner", now it is "Russia is mean")

That's why I believe  that Putin wants much more than Crimea. It is illogical to do what he does. It only helps Ukraine to leave Russian sphere of influence

[Scoops Novel]

Well, i found that rant interesting and would like to hear more of this in a reasoned and reasonable discussion. Yes, i value information pumping over arguing.

Anyone care to venture how far this move by Russia was anticipated?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Russia Kremlinland is perfect and does no wrong, I don't get what you capitalist pigs don't understand.

"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.

Morgan Stanley cuts Russian growth forecast to 0.8% from 2.5%
http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2014/03/17/morgan-stanley-cuts-russian-growth-forecast-to-0-8-from-2-5/

Set against what’s going on in Ukraine, which to be fair is the context in which he was talking, this may be true, but even so, it’s a bit of a stretch given the financial and economic mayhem of the last three years to think the single currency such a defense against the elements. If this is what stability looks like, I hate to think what constitutes a crisis.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/mar/06/ecb-eurozone-bank-of-england-interest-rates-business-live

We downgrade GDP growth on heightened uncertainty. The rising tensions in Ukraine  make for a very challenging backdrop to the Russian economy, creating substantial downside risks to economic performance. The combination of more subdued investment and consumption spending related to heightened uncertainty, and tighter monetary policy, lead us to downgrade our 2014 GDP forecast from 2.6% to 1.0% (1.3% in 2013).

Investment spending will be the key avenue via which market volatility will affect growth performance. The sectoral breakdown of last year’s investment suggested that private-sector consumption-related investment has been growing, while it was oil and gas investment that was holding back overall investment activity. Our more positive view on 2014 GDP was critically dependent on the assumption that government-led oil and gas investment would come out of its 2013 doldrums, with new projects coming on stream. However, given the uncertain backdrop, we now have much less confidence about this scenario playing out, even if, in principle, the government may feel more pressure to ‘take control’ of SOE investment plans. We, therefore, cut our real investment growth forecast to zero from 3.8% previously

http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-cuts-russian-growth-2014-3

In our view, Bank Rossii’s hike is unlikely to do very much to curb the sell-off in RUB, but today’s decision will seriously damage the country’s economic growth through a sharp slowdown in private consumption, an extended fall in fixed investments and increased volatility in money market rates. We cut our 2014 GDP forecast to 1.0% y/y from 2.6% previously and even consider the new forecast to be optimistic in such an uncertain geopolitical environment. This monetary tightening could send Russia into recession even in 2014, as businesses and consumers will experience more troubles with credit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-10/russian-2014-growth-forecast-cut-by-imf-as-inflation-persists.html

Capital flight from Russia has risen sharply since the start of this year to $45-$50 billion, Goldman Sachs said on Thursday, predicting full-year outflows could be as much as $130 billion, or double 2013 levels.

Goldman says its calculations show capital outflows have jumped 60 percent from year-ago levels as the economy slows and the threat of Western sanctions bites. It also slashed its forecast for Russian economic growth this year to 1 percent.

Western powers are considering imposing sanctions on Moscow in response to its military intervention in neighbouring Ukraine, especially if the Crimea region votes this weekend in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.

"The Achilles heel of the Russian economy remains the flow abroad of Russian capital following any shock. We would also think that any sanctions or even the threat of sanctions will be ultimately targeted at these flows," Goldman analysts Clemens Grafe and Andrew Matheny said in a note.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/ukraine-crisis-russia-capital-idUSL6N0MA2N720140313
They might not show this to you on your state news. 

[MonkeyHead]

So, I am coming around to the idea that the Ukraine is economically, politically and socially better off without Crimea, which may just turn into a millstone around Russia's neck. Ukraine, without the influence of Russian citizens electing pro-Russia politicians, develops closer ties with the west/EU/NATO, which allows NATO/western states to put more pressure on Russia/Putin. Ukaraine seems to have so much to gain by playing its cards right here, with Russia gaining Crimea, but losing many freinds and much face and favour.

[GlyphGryph]

That's why I believe  that Putin wants much more than Crimea. It is illogical to do what he does. It only helps Ukraine to leave Russian sphere of influence

It's certainly the way it looks from a foreign-policy perspective.

But remember that there's a lot to suggest the invasion was done for domestic reasons, to shore up waning support, rather than for any true "foreign affairs" reason - after all, Putin certainly seems like the type to let his country be a bit worse off in the long run so long as he's still the guy in charge, and while an invasion of Ukraine proper has been polled as unpopular, the invasion of the Crimean region has met with lots of support back home and mounting Russian pride.

If he's done this primarily for domestic reasons, then he has a very good reason to stop while he's ahead, regardless of what Ukraine does next.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants.  If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.

I am too lazy to comment that wall of text, but here that is just wow level of absurd

Yep, Sahaidachny (corvette) was started as Kirov in Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv and completed in 1992
Lutsk (corvette)  was laid down in 1992, launched in 1993. It is not Soviet by any means
Ternopil (corvette) was laid down in April 1991, launched  in 2002. Yep it was long.

That is the the three best vessels in Ukrainian Navy. But even the rest that are Soviet built... Who said you that you can just steal them?  What kind of rights on it you have? I can understand demanding 5% of the fleet as a fair share but that is just a theft even if Crimea would legally leave as true independent country.

PS. we have one good NATO-level corvette under construction. But it was halted by Yanukovitch's government, restoring domestic shipbuilding was less important than mansions. Hope it will change under the new government. Also, I hope that we'll buy some used reasonably priced ships from NATO. Those heroic blockaded sailors that don't switch sides deserve new ships even if we'll be not able to evacuate them

[Guardian G.I.]

Putin signs order to recognize Crimea as a sovereign independent state - RT

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am wondering.... If Russia will make Crimea join as an independent country, will it annex Abkhazia, Osetia and Transinistria in the same way? Why not?

[Knit tie]

Why?

On second thought, puppet state. All the benefits with none of the drawbacks of a colony.

[smjjames]

When I saw that, I thought 'but would it be an economically viable state?' Someone further up said that much of its economy is tourism based, but I don't know how strong of a local economy Crimea has.

[10ebbor10]

Yo dawgs, I'm Avis and I'm replying to a bunch of ancient posts.

Avis: I get your disgust for Western oligarchs, but were things better in the rest of Ukraine? Or in Russia? It seems the 90's were pretty bleak all over the place.

Anyway, the kleptocracy is not the same thing as euro-integration. Those countries that did integrate and joined the EU are doing better than Russia or Ukraine that did not.

In Russia, they were actually worse: food shortages and all. Not a nice time in general. And the countries that did integrate into the EU had functioning economies to begin with: Ukraine, on the other hand, requires craptons of financial support that has to appear from somewhere. I don't see people lining up to pay, but I'm no expert on such things - this is me repeating stuff I have heard, just like the rest of you.

Nah, their economies were not that much better off. While the crash in Ukraine was amongst the worst, in general there was a decline in 40% of GDP. Point is, the euro-integration nations started their recovery almost 3 year earlier than the others. While Ukraine was another 4 years later.

Anyway, in 1995 there was still time to fix stuff. However, now you're facing a 2-3 decade old industrial complex, reliant on Russian gas delivered at massive discounts, which will collapse eventually. Question is if the collapse can be softened, of if they're going to stick with the old system.

Avis-Mergulus, and one question. Why your so called "Crimean Government" behaves like an armed robber? With all that "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy (the most expensive ships were built in Ukraine so even the "it's all Soviet" claim doesn't work) Ukrainian state-owned companies (Those where funded from the budget of  Ukraine, you know? ) and even private property owned by "the wrong people"?

I really want to hear your explanation why it is a righteous way to act

Look who's talking. Tell me, for how long does one have to beat an eastern communist deputy to get him to sign the repeal of the Regional Languages law? For some reason, nobody was bothered when the Rada unanimously - you know, even the absent and the socialist members - voted for all that shit you did in the recent period. What the hell are all those videos where rightist activists beat "titushki"? Are they all staged? Interesting it is, how many names Ukrainians have for Russians. "Moskali", "katsapy", now this one... heh.

The Regional Languages law was not repealed, and you'll have to provide a source for the claim that everyone supported it. I mean, the descision was vetoed by the interim president, so I highly doubt that it was unanimous.

Are you going to defend your position with photos of graffiti? If one takes the things that people write on the walls in Kiev for real... well, let's not talk about it.

But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants.  If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.

In that case, most of the Russian fleet belongs in Ukraine as well. Anyway, the Soviet origin doesn't matter, it's a separate transfer, almost 2 decades ago. The new transfer will be regarded as an entirely separate manner.

Ukrainian state-owned companies, funded from the budget of Ukraine, which included Crimean taxes as well. If those "state-owned companies" really did work for the good of the people of Crimea, then they have no right to go against the Crimean government.
And I will not be told of "wrong people" by folks who are twiddling their thumbs and contemplating lustration, having already jailed numerous innocents for allegedly "supporting the bloody regime of Yanukovich". Bloody regime my ass. You interesting people up west can never accept the fact that there are people other than you in Ukraine, and mark my words - when this is done, you'll be right. And then we will all be content.

So you're saying that companies that aid the local economy should be nationalized, and companies that only serve to fill their own pockets shouldn't. Strange logic...

"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.

Based on the official statistics, Russia had continues economic growth since 1999 (excluding the world wide economic crisis of 2007-2009). Anyway, point still remains that Russia is dependent on Europe for about 60% of it's economy, while the reverse is less than 10% (IIRC). Sure a major part of this are energy resources, but those can be replaced.

"Most of the time" you did not have the government that the majority of Crimean voted for - you had snivelly bastard Kuchma and warty bastard Yuschenko with his paranoia and his hilarious fascist antics. Besides, I see a flaw in your logic here: if 75% of Crimeans voted for Yanukovich, whom you call pro-Russian (ha-ha), then why are you crying foul when the overwhelming majority of Crimeans votes to join Russia? Why so surprised?

Nobody is surprised. But it's pretty clear that the referendum was pretty much fixed, and can't be recognized internationally. I mean, aside from the possibility fraud and data manipulation, which has not been proven, the fact remains that there was no option to maintain the status-quo. You either chose to annex Crimea into Russia, or turn Crimea in a quasi independent state.

When I saw that, I thought 'but would it be an economically viable state?' Someone further up said that much of its economy is tourism based, but I don't know how strong of a local economy Crimea has.

It's mostly dependent on tourism and agriculture, but it does have some oil.