Print

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

[Sean Mirrsen]

New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?

I for one don't

But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.

I think you never played chess. If the government of the Ukraine is legitimate as it claims, it is subject to the treaty and can be asked to pay up. If the government of the Ukraine is illegitimate as Russia claims, Russia gets a free pass on its intervention (or any number of other advantages). Either state of their legitimacy is a loss for Ukrainian government.

See:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[gogis]

Russian
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml

Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.

In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?

It would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.

Wow, wait a second. Russia already paid till 2017, we talk about deal after 2017 which is providing cut since 2010.
How your example is even relevant? It's all upside down

Russia's deal was contingent on using Sevastopol. Russia then directly acted to deny Sevastopol to Ukraine, thereby rendering them unable to comply on their end of the deal. That does give them the right to discontinue the discount from here on out. It does NOT give them the right to demand retroactive repayment. I realize fair business practices may be an exotic concept in Russia, but over here that's a total bullshit deal.


Let me give you an analogous example: We rent Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. If the US just moved in and took Guantanamo, you're saying we'd be totally justified in then demanding decades of back payment (it's a 99-year contract) because Cuba could no longer provide Guantanamo to us for rent (because we already took it)?

Why you keep ignoring the fact that there is 2 deals? You keep giving examples with one deal. It's just ridiculous how you drawing parallels here.

You have 99 year contract. You then sign another contract, giving Cuba forward some $$$ to renew this deal in 10 years since now.
Then Cuba goes apeshit and perform coup, overthrowing goverment which signed second contract and asks NK to employ some nukes to deter imperialistic US right near border of free Cuba.

Thats proper example. Now you act.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Sometimes I suspect that some Russian posters in this thread are Ukrainian secret agents....

[smjjames]

@smjjames: Can I get a source for that? All I can find is that Interfax says that the Ukrainian Defence Ministry says that the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet said that Ukrainian troops stationed in Crimea should surrender and something from Al Jazeera saying that Russia denies that their commander said so. I'm sure you can forgive me for not being 100% convinced that the ultimatum is real.

Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071

It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.

[GlyphGryph]

If Russia wanted to benefit from the contract they made, maybe they shouldn't have rendered the contract meaningless?

Unless there was a clause in the contract specifically describing this sort of situation, the idea that Ukraine should be on the hook for anything is ludicrous. And no one in their right mind would ever agree to those sorts of terms.

And after all, Russia is still going to get to use it's military bases over the named time span, aren't they?

Hell, it seems like Ukraine's end of the deal is pretty much insured indefinitely.

[RedKing]

Now we're getting down to the crux of what this is really all about.

So, Russia was afraid that the post-Yanukovich government was going to renege on the Sevastopol deal in 2017? That's why they invaded were totally surprised to be helped out by the mysterious unmarked Russian-speaking troops with Russian equipment who totally aren't Russians?

And no, NATO was not planting nukes in Ukraine. Or even missile defense batteries. That was decided back in 2008.


Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.

[smirk]

New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?

I for one don't

But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.

I think you never played chess. If the government of the Ukraine is legitimate as it claims, it is subject to the treaty and can be asked to pay up. If the government of the Ukraine is illegitimate as Russia claims, Russia gets a free pass on its intervention (or any number of other advantages). Either state of their legitimacy is a loss for Ukrainian government.

If the Ukraine government is legitimate, they can claim bad faith on the deal because of Russia's takeover of Crimea.  The argument hinges, I think, on whether the Crimean referendum can be said to have been fair and free of Russian influence. Russia says it was, Ukraine and most of the West say it wasn't. Conflict!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Heheheh.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Russia's deal was contingent on using Sevastopol. Russia then directly acted to deny Sevastopol to

Why you keep ignoring the fact that there is 2 deals? You keep giving examples with one deal. It's just ridiculous how you drawing parallels here.

You have 99 year contract. You then sign another contract, giving Cuba forward some $$$ to renew this deal in 10 years since now.
Then Cuba goes apeshit and perform coup, overthrowing goverment which signed second contract and asks NK to employ some nukes to deter imperialistic US right near border of free Cuba.

Thats proper example. Now you act.

I like how the analogy kinda breaks when you add the motive- Ukraine wasn't asking anyone for nukes. And also: implying anyone in the west is (was) as hostile to Russia as NK is to the US.


Oh, and you forget the part where the US invades Cuba, pronounces it's treaties with Cuba null & void, annexes Guantanamo and then demands back pay since Cuba can no longer rent it to us as per our previous treaties.

[Grek]

Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071

It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.

Right. That's the Associated Press saying that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry claims that Russia is demanding that their ships surrender. As you can imagine, the Ukrainian military has every reason to say that Russia is violating international law, even if that isn't true. If the accusation sticks, it means more support for Ukraine abroad, which is desperately needed if Ukraine is to have any chance of getting Crimea back. I'm not saying that Maksim Prauta is lying, just that he has some pretty strong incentives to do so and that we shouldn't immediately take him at his word.

[gogis]

Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.

In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.

Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.

[RedKing]

And there we go with the tu quoque argument, right on schedule.

[smjjames]

Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071

It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.

Right. That's the Associated Press saying that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry claims that Russia is demanding that their ships surrender. As you can imagine, the Ukrainian military has every reason to say that Russia is violating international law, even if that isn't true. If the accusation sticks, it means more support for Ukraine abroad, which is desperately needed if Ukraine is to have any chance of getting Crimea back. I'm not saying that Maksim Prauta is lying, just that he has some pretty strong incentives to do so and that we shouldn't immediately take him at his word.

CNN also reported that and at the same time Russia denied that there was going to be some aggressive action. No violence erupted though and it could have been a commander doing something he wasn't supposed to. It was never really 100% clear what was going on with that incident, whether it was a commander being a loose cannon or the kremlin actually sanctioned it behind the scenes.

Russia has still done threats, which is what I was getting at.

Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.

In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.

Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.

Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.

[gogis]

And there we go with the tu quoque argument, right on schedule.

This can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverb
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем

[Zangi]

Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.

In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.

Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.

I see the thing as damage control.  You don't let someone else write the story for you.  Especially the people who don't like what you just did.
So the dog and pony show has to keep going or else the only thing people hear about is how Russia is the bad guy and has zero plausible reason to do what they did. 
Paradox terms: No dog and pony show = Not even a murky/forged casus belli or any other can-be-spun-as-legitimate reason to do what they done.

[gogis]

Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.

Thats why I inspecificaly mentioned land grab *slash* conflict. And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.