BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Lux Angel Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-20-2014, 07:30 PM   #45
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Our intent has been pretty far from supporting democracy many times. Among other things, we've systematically undermined and even overthrown democratically elected governments in Central and South America. To say nothing of the fact that we strongly supported Saddam before we opposed him. One of our most egregious actions was supporting the coup that removed (and killed) the democratically elected President of Chile Salvador Allende, replacing him with the incredibly brutal dictator General Pinochet. To claim any of this was support of democracy is the worst kind of historical revisionism. One that perpetuates mistakes and downright evil.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I totally acknowledged that throughout our international adventurism, the US has been involved in supporting bad regimes especially in South America. Our intent, at least back during the Cold War, was in fact to promote democracy against possible encroachment/takeover from communist or leftist regimes...but in doing so we did in fact support dictatorships.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Bush's support of Georgia was no stronger and no more effective than Obama's support of Ukraine. Once again, historical revisionism at its' worst. You may not like this source. But attacking the source will not change the facts they cite.
Actually yeah it was...because after the sanctions and inclusion of Georgia into US training and military operations, Russia stopped fucking with Georgia...So yeah, I'd say GW's actions were a bit more effective than Obama's have been so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
"Easily supply Europe's energy needs"? You have to be kidding. The US can't even remotely supply its own energy needs now, nor will it ever without moving away from fossil fuels. The Middle East and South American countries are pumping almost at their max rate. We can do better, but not easily or fast at all. Natural gas alone won't do it, oil is a dead end. We'll need to develop alternative sources.
We import roughly half of our petroleum from other nations and the majority of it comes from Canada, Mexico, South America and the Middle East. With the exception of the Middle East, most of those regions are close to us, and that helps us keep the cost down. Europe imports a lot of its oil/gas from Russia, for the same reason we import from the previously mentioned countries, because it is close by.

There is more than enough oil/natural gas elsewhere in the world that Europe could get by without relying soley on Russian imports, the issue isn't one of feasibility its one of cost...its going to cost the Europeans a lot more to import from other places like Africa, Asia and South America.

The US is reliant on oil/gas imports, but that's more so because of the policies in place and less because of a supposed lack of those resources. There is opposition to completing the keystone pipeline and fracking in some states...even though some of the largest oil and gas reservoirs are located here in North America.

Where did you read that South America and the Middle East are pumping oil out at max rates? Show me the proof on that..I know that in Iraq specifically, the oil production facilities have yet to reach their full capability because of a lack of investment and security issues.

And in the US, opening up the keystone pipeline and facilitating additional exploration would continue to expand our production capability; but that's a decision our current President and Congress has to deal with.


I do agree that natural gas and oil are not the best solutions, but besides developing more nuclear plants, they are the only ones we have...wind farms, solar energy plants and hydoelectric, as popular as they are, don't produce enough energy to sustain our immense power grid. That's why even in states like California where they are used a lot, fossil fuel plants are still providing a majority of the energy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
As for the relatively division in Ukraine, once again, you might not like the source, but this is simply a factual statement. One could post many sources, or painstakingly look up election results, but this statement is simple and clear.

"This divide has been a challenge for Ukraine since it won independence in 1991. Elections have been near-evenly split between the two halves, pulling the country in opposite directions. As the Ukraine-focused political scientist Leonid Peisakhin put it, Ukraine "has never been and is not yet a coherent national unit with a common narrative or a set of more or less commonly shared political aspirations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rassed-to-ask/
Several things about this article:
1) This is an online newspaper article, and though it does present some valid facts, some of the ideas expressed are very editorial and matter of opinion. It also doesn't cite where it is getting all of its information from..So I wouldn't use this as the basis for your counter argument. CIA world factbook, state department, any number of college databases and international affairs journals are much better places to get this kind of information.

2) You have misread what the article is saying. It said in fact that only 1/3 of Ukrainians identify themselves as Russian speakers or ethnic Russians and wanted closer ties with Russia. It is not half of the country's populace that seeks greater ties to Russia, but rather that 1/3 segment of the population occupies half of the country geographically speaking.

3) As I already said in my earlier posts, regardless of how many Ukrainians want closer ties with Russia, Russia's invasion and interference in Ukrainian territory is very much illegal. The fact that this article focuses so much on explaining how and why the Ukraine was already a divided country even before Russia invaded is simply an attempt by the Washington Post to make everyone forget the elephant in the room: the fact that Russia invaded another sovereign country and the international community has done relatively little in response.

Last edited by Patronus86; 04-20-2014 at 07:49 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2014, 09:01 PM   #46
128Convertibleguy
Captain
13
Rep
625
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
We import roughly half of our petroleum from other nations and the majority of it comes from Canada, Mexico, South America and the Middle East. With the exception of the Middle East, most of those regions are close to us, and that helps us keep the cost down.

The US is reliant on oil/gas imports, but that's more so because of the policies in place and less because of a supposed lack of those resources. There is opposition to completing the keystone pipeline and fracking in some states...even though some of the largest oil and gas reservoirs are located here in North America.

Where did you read that South America and the Middle East are pumping oil out at max rates? Show me the proof on that..I know that in Iraq specifically, the oil production facilities have yet to reach their full capability because of a lack of investment and security issues.

And in the US, opening up the keystone pipeline and facilitating additional exploration would continue to expand our production capability; but that's a decision our current President and Congress has to deal with.

I do agree that natural gas and oil are not the best solutions, but besides developing more nuclear plants, they are the only ones we have...wind farms, solar energy plants and hydoelectric, as popular as they are, don't produce enough energy to sustain our immense power grid. That's why even in states like California where they are used a lot, fossil fuel plants are still providing a majority of the energy.

2) You have misread what the article is saying. It said in fact that only 1/3 of Ukrainians identify themselves as Russian speakers or ethnic Russians and wanted closer ties with Russia. It is not half of the country's populace that seeks greater ties to Russia, but rather that 1/3 segment of the population occupies half of the country geographically speaking.
The bottom lines of the lengthy material below is that we're not going to free Europe from their dependence on Russian fossil fuels in a year. Or two, or five. It will help with some things in the future, but not with the Ukraine now. And that an effective long run strategy must include things other than fossil fuels.

The price of oil is a world price. With the exception of a very few things like the tar sands oil from Canada, it's relatively easy to move the stuff around, and the added cost is not decisive. It's about 5% of the total.

Canada wants Keystone so they can sell the oil to places like China at a higher price than they can get here, even including transportation. They have categorically refused to guarantee that any portion of the oil go to the US. They don't want to build the pipeline in their country, it has too much citizen opposition.

Which is a major reason why Keystone is a very bad deal for the US. Right now, we buy that oil, trucked to the Midwest, at a discount, because they have no good way to get it to other markets. Build Keystone, oil will cost _more_ here. The other reason it's a bad deal is that pipelines are risky, and tar sands oil is unusually dirty (toxic). Which is why Canadian citizens don't want it built in their country.

The US is dependent because we simply do not have the resources. Fracking has brought us back close to our previous peak, but is unlikely to take us much farther. Fracked fields run out sooner than unfracked. The oil reserves we have here are increasingly locked in rock, which is why we need fracking. Much of it is so locked it's practically and economically infeasible to recover. As in North Dakota. The companies have been trying to get oil from things like oil shale for many years. They've failed miserably. The western part of Colorado is littered with their failures. Here's the story. There is no magic breakthrough waiting in the wings.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=MCRFPUS1&f=M

We use almost twice what we produce. You're not going to make that up with fracking. You're certainly not going to be able to eliminate Europe's dependence on Russia with US fossil fuel.

Here's a good article on Saudi (the world's largest exporter) reserve capacity. It's not much. You do trust the Wall Street Journal, yes?

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013...tion-capacity/

Another excellent article, from an unbiased source, quoting simple facts.

"The notion that oil is becoming abundant all over again is contradicted by the levitating price and by the evidence that actual worldwide crude oil production is either flat or growing at an infinitesimal rate. But the industry doesn't want the public or policymakers to know this because the current belief in abundance tends to slow down an energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

That transition must come sooner or later. But the industry would like to see it come later. And, if policymakers are fooled by the abundance story, that transition will almost certainly come later."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...already-peaked

The US represents about 10% of world production. Even with our recent increases, world production has been flat. Do you think that's because of all those environmentalists in Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran? The other top producers. The only reason we haven't had a major oil price increase is the global recession.

Next, the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine far exceed the number of Russian speakers. You missed the key phrase in the above reference:

"Elections have been near-evenly split between the two halves, pulling the country in opposite directions." That doesn't reflect a 2/3 to 1/3 split.

The Ukrainians have been lurching back and forth for years. If you want an example of undue influence by a minority, it's the protests in western Ukraine that ousted the last democratically elected President, who was admittedly not a great leader. Just yet another lurch.

The international community has done relatively little, because there's nothing much they can do. Go to war with Russia? Fortify a Ukrainian army which has nothing like Russia's capacity? Stop buying Russian fossil fuels, and wreck their economy?

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 04-20-2014 at 10:15 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2014, 01:48 AM   #47
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
You are really getting too focused on the world-wide energy crisis, so I am going to try to keep my responses tailored to energy as it pertains to the Ukraine crisis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The price of oil is a world price. With the exception of a very few things like the tar sands oil from Canada, it's relatively easy to move the stuff around, and the added cost is not decisive. It's about 5% of the total.
The price of oil can and generally does stay the same in a global economy. However there is a difference between the price of crude oil or natural gas and the final product that is sold at the pump, and the price at the pump is in fact very different across different regions. Compare the cost of regular gas in NY (currently around $3.70) to most of Europe (anywhere from $3.88 to $4.78).

As well, I haven't fact checked whether 5% is the additional amount for transport, refining, and importing oil/gas, but for the sake of argument let's say it is 5%...all of the energy firms in the EU having to pay an additional 5% on importing 13.63 million barrels per day (at $104.3 a barrel) from somewhere other than Russia comes out to over $71 million....that 5% is a lot of money and is in fact very decisive in why Europe would prefer to get its oil from Russia rather than elsewhere in the world.

It most definitely is not easy to move, store and safeguard this stuff around the world...that's why shipping and transport companies and maritime security firms are doing so well now. The logistical costs of getting this stuff from the USA, Africa and Middle East are much higher than piping it in from Russia.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The bottom lines of the lengthy material below is that we're not going to free Europe from their dependence on Russian fossil fuels in a year. Or two, or five.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Canada wants Keystone so they can sell the oil to places like China at a higher price than they can get here, even including transportation. They have categorically refused to guarantee that any portion of the oil go to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Which is a major reason why Keystone is a very bad deal for the US. Right now, we buy that oil, trucked to the Midwest, at a discount, because they have no good way to get it to other markets.
So I am having trouble following your logic here. Are you saying the US could not readily and efficiently satisfy Europe's oil/gas needs because the oil from the keystone pipeline can't go to Europe? It can go to China but not Europe? And the chart you linked below shows US crude oil production has been increasing over the last few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
How does this prove your point that the US doesn't have oil/gas resources?
It is actually showing that the US is finding more sources of oil/gas and is developing a higher capacity to retrieve it.

And I don't know where you are getting all of this info that fracking and shale mining has turned into a failure...those procedures have actually been working very well..there are some environmental concerns, and I am not here to argue about that, but economically speaking all those procedures you called "failures" are working very well at providing us with more energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Build Keystone, oil will cost _more_ here.
Not sure what how you arrive at that conclusion...based on basic supply/demand economics, the opposite will likely happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
We use almost twice what we produce. You're not going to make that up with fracking. You're certainly not going to be able to eliminate Europe's dependence on Russia with US fossil fuel.

Here's a good article on Saudi (the world's largest exporter) reserve capacity. It's not much. You do trust the Wall Street Journal, yes?

http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013...tion-capacity/
Yeah, it is unlikely that we will ever get by without at least some foreign oil/gas, but we are much more self-reliant than we were 10-15 years ago...and stuff like fracking and shale oil and additional exploration can further decrease our dependence on imported stuff..how do I know? Because it already has and we know there are still a lot of untapped resources in and around North America.

As for Europe's energy needs, there are plenty of places that have production surpluses or have the ability to increase production...

1) We've already discussed the US's oil/gas potential with fracking, additional exploration and the keystone pipeline. Environmental considerations aside, we do have the ability to produce more oil/gas. You actually proved that with the graph you provided and you also acknowledged that between the US and Canada we have the ability and supposed intent to ship extra oil/gas to China.

2) Saudi Arabia may be reaching its production capacity, but note that the WSJ article said that there are other places (like the US) that have the ability to fill that energy gap. There are other areas in the Middle East, like Iraq, that still aren't producing oil at the max rate because of a lack of infrastructure and security. There are plenty of places in Asia and Africa where oil/gas companies are looking to start new drill sites because of newly discovered reservoirs. Outside of Saudia Arabia and Venezuela, Canada has one of the biggest oil reservoirs in the world, and much of it is still untapped because of government regulations.

The bottom line is that there is a lot of oil/gas that still hasn't been tapped yet...this notion that we are currently producing as much oil/gas as we possibly can is a false one. If Russia gets sanctioned and their gas goes off the global market, world oil prices will likely see a hike, but there are plenty of other places that could step up to fill the gap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post

Another excellent article, from an unbiased source, quoting simple facts.

"The notion that oil is becoming abundant all over again is contradicted by the levitating price and by the evidence that actual worldwide crude oil production is either flat or growing at an infinitesimal rate. But the industry doesn't want the public or policymakers to know this because the current belief in abundance tends to slow down an energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

That transition must come sooner or later. But the industry would like to see it come later. And, if policymakers are fooled by the abundance story, that transition will almost certainly come later."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...already-peaked

The US represents about 10% of world production. Even with our recent increases, world production has been flat.
First off, this is yet another newspaper article, so there is no point in calling it unbiased. I get the point this article is trying to make...but honestly its making an argument based on semantics. A lot of these substances that supposedly "inflate" the official oil production numbers like bio fuels and natural gases are in fact being incorporated into our energy grid and fuel pumps...and with advances in technology, there is a good chance we'll be able to make good use of the leftover substances like refinery gain. So why take those substances out of the oil production numbers if we can make efficient use of them?

Also, this article still isn't considering the possibility of undiscovered reservoirs and other places, like Africa, the Arctic, and Canada that haven't been fully developed for oil/gas extraction. I don't think oil/gas production has peaked just yet..it may happen in our lifetime, but I think there is far too much we haven't found yet for us to have peaked.

I get your intent behind all of this...oil/gas/fossil fuels will eventually run out and when they do we'll be screwed if we don't have alternate energy sources ready to go. I agree with you on that issue. But at the moment, we have an abundant amount of these resources, the only restriction we face is how quickly we can discover and retrieve the stuff....So your whole argument that Europe would be screwed if it lost access to Russian gas is false..there is plenty of oil/gas to be had, it is simply a matter of getting it. The only constriction we might face initially is figuring out a way to retrieve, refine and ship the oil in a quick enough manner to Europe should Russia' gas suddenly be taken off the market.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Next, the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine far exceed the number of Russian speakers. You missed the key phrase in the above reference:

"Elections have been near-evenly split between the two halves, pulling the country in opposite directions." That doesn't reflect a 2/3 to 1/3 split.
Again dude, this is a newspaper article you are referencing...I wouldn't rely on this as the main source for your argument.

And you are misinterpreting the quote. The quote is referring to a half and half split geographically....the article stated very explicitly that 1/3 of the population supported closer ties to Russia..and I don't even know how accurate that is seeing as the author didn't cite any references for that statistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The Ukrainians have been lurching back and forth for years. If you want an example of undue influence by a minority, it's the protests in western Ukraine that ousted the last democratically elected President, who was admittedly not a great leader. Just yet another lurch.
No one, including myself, has claimed that Ukraine has been a stable democracy the last few years, but it doesn't matter how much the Ukraine has been lurching..Russia's actions aren't any less illegal. How does the Ukraine's instability validate or mitigate Russia violating the Ukraine's national sovereignty? Your insistence on arguing this point repeatedly is very pathetic.

Also some of this most recent instability in Eastern Ukraine that you have called "lurching" has in fact been caused by Russian agents and disguised Russian forces...I think it is a little too soon to determine how much of the instability in Eastern Ukraine is genuine dissatisfaction on the part of the Russian Ukrainians and how much of it is due to the Russian military's intervention.

Where are you getting this info that the people who were protesting against Yanukovych earlier in the year were a minority? I have read nothing of the sort in any article/document so far. Yanukovych's policies were widely unpopular, according to many different sources.

And if you want to get technical about Yanukovych's departure, he fled the country because he realized he had lost most of his support within the Ukraine. The reason he lost most of his support was because he broke off closer ties with the EU in favor of close economic/political ties with Russia, a move that a majority of the Ukrainians clearly disliked. And when they showed their disagreement with his policies through protest, he responded with overly aggressive and often lethal police force. So if you truly believe that a democracy should be a government that serves the people, and not the other way around, Yanukovych lost his democratic credibility long before he fled for Russia.


You know it's kind of funny that you tried to call me a revisionist earlier, because so far, you are the one who has been revising history in an attempt to discredit the Ukraine and validate Russia's actions.

These claims that half of the Ukraine has always been aligned with Russia and that it was "undue influence" that removed Yanukovych from his office...they all smack of revisionist and apologetic undertones that far too many people are willing to entertain. You ignore the obvious crimes that Yanukovych committed against his own people, and ignore that Russia seized a foreign country's sovereign territory to claim it as its own. Somehow those transgressions don't matter to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The international community has done relatively little, because there's nothing much they can do. Go to war with Russia? Fortify a Ukrainian army which has nothing like Russia's capacity? Stop buying Russian fossil fuels, and wreck their economy?
No one thinks war should be an option. But sanctioning, even partially, Russia's exports would be a very direct and effective way to cripple Russia. As I have already argued above, despite a hike in global oil prices, the European economy has other options if Russian gas/oil goes off the market.

Last edited by Patronus86; 04-21-2014 at 02:24 AM.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2014, 12:37 PM   #48
128Convertibleguy
Captain
13
Rep
625
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
The price of oil can and generally does stay the same in a global economy. However there is a difference between the price of crude oil or natural gas and the final product that is sold at the pump, and the price at the pump is in fact very different across different regions. Compare the cost of regular gas in NY (currently around $3.70) to most of Europe (anywhere from $3.88 to $4.78).

So I am having trouble following your logic here. Are you saying the US could not readily and efficiently satisfy Europe's oil/gas needs because the oil from the keystone pipeline can't go to Europe? It can go to China but not Europe?

And you are misinterpreting the quote. The quote is referring to a half and half split geographically....the article stated very explicitly that 1/3 of the population supported closer ties to Russia..and I don't even know how accurate that is seeing as the author didn't cite any references for that statistic.

No one thinks war should be an option. But sanctioning, even partially, Russia's exports would be a very direct and effective way to cripple Russia. As I have already argued above, despite a hike in global oil prices, the European economy has other options if Russian gas/oil goes off the market.
Let's try to make this quick.

The difference between Europe and US gas prices is tax, not transportation.

The oil that's going through Keystone will head for the place willing to pay the biggest price. That's China. They will outbid Europe. Unless you want to take over the oil company involved.

There is not some magic oil field that can step up and replace Russia's production. They are the world's largest producer, bigger than Saudi Arabia. The US only produces about half of what it needs. If we were to send any major fraction to Europe, there would be screams of outrage here.

The indisputable bottom line is that bailing Europe out of its' dependence on Russian fossil fuels will take years, and additional sources of energy other than fossil fuels.

I'm done with that. Feel free to have the last word.

As far as Ukraine goes. You _still_ don't understand the quote below. For years, the Ukraine has elected governments that alternately support better ties with Russia, or better ties with the West. The results of those elections are the verifiable factual proof.

I'm not disrespecting Ukraine. I'm saying their political direction has been all over the map. Which it has. It's not at all obvious that the Western Ukraine protestors who ousted the last President, who was elected with a majority, command any majority of the country, even a slim one. It's not 2/3-1/3, that's for sure. The results of the elections there over many years say so.

"Elections have been near-evenly split between the two halves, pulling the country in opposite directions."

Done there also. This is ridiculously repetitive. Once again, feel free...
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2014, 01:05 PM   #49
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
6
Rep
589
Posts

 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Agree with all of this. Solar energy systems would be a good addition. Europe has wind covered, as well as economical vehicles.
It doesn't sound like "Europe has wind covered", and not sure that solar would be good either:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9...to-the-UK.html

Europe's economical vehicles are largely diesel-powered, which would be a good thing, except the environmental lobby in the US keeps diesels out of the picture.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2014, 03:27 PM   #50
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The difference between Europe and US gas prices is tax, not transportation.
That's not just taxes at work...you obviously don't want to acknowledge how supply/demand economics work. Also you conveniently chose to ignore the notional 5% cost ($71 Million) that the EU would have to pay in order to import the oil from places other than Russia (I don't know if 5% is accurate).

There are think tank groups that support my argument that Germany and other EU countries can in fact get their oil/gas needs from other places like Africa. See this paper by the Centre for European Policy Studies, a brussels think tank:

http://www.ceps.be/book/europe-vulne...ssian-gas-cuts

Again the issue isn't one of feasibility, its that it would cost the EU countries more to get oil/gas from these other places.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The oil that's going through Keystone will head for the place willing to pay the biggest price. That's China. They will outbid Europe. Unless you want to take over the oil company involved.
How do you know China will outbid Europe, especially if Russian gas/oil is no longer an option? That isn't a fact at all, that's a guess..

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
There is not some magic oil field that can step up and replace Russia's production. They are the world's largest producer, bigger than Saudi Arabia. The US only produces about half of what it needs. If we were to send any major fraction to Europe, there would be screams of outrage here.
The US isn't the only country that could fill the EU's energy gap...Please refer to my first response.

And yes Russia is the world's biggest oil producer now, but that is primarily because the Russian economy is almost entirely dependent on exporting that stuff to other countries...whereas other countries have other industries they can rely on for economic growth and profits.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Canada sits on the third largest reservoir in the world (Russia has the 8th largest)..if there were a greater demand and less government regulation, Canada would easily outproduce Russia. There are plenty of other places, like Africa, Asia and the arctic that haven't reached their full oil production potentials because of a lack of investment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
The indisputable bottom line is that bailing Europe out of its' dependence on Russian fossil fuels will take years, and additional sources of energy other than fossil fuels.
Again refer to my first response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
As far as Ukraine goes. You _still_ don't understand the quote below. For years, the Ukraine has elected governments that alternately support better ties with Russia, or better ties with the West. The results of those elections are the verifiable factual proof.
Show me this basis for this "factual proof." Despite economic and political instability in the Ukraine, the trend over the last 10 years has been for the Ukrainians to want greater independence from Russia's influence. There are certainly large segments of the the population in Crimea and in parts of the East that dissent from this opinion, but the majority of Ukraine does in fact want greater independence from Russia...hence why the Orange Revolution happened and why Viktor Yanukovych decided to flee to Russia earlier this year.

It doesn't necessarily mean they all want to join the EU, but an overwhelming majority disapprove of Russia's intervention into the Ukraine and support greater Ukrainian independence.

This Economist article explains this trend very well:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...t-may-well-get

Yes its an article from a biased media outlet, but I figured the Economist would be right up your alley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
I'm not disrespecting Ukraine. I'm saying their political direction has been all over the map. Which it has. It's not at all obvious that the Western Ukraine protestors who ousted the last President, who was elected with a majority, command any majority of the country, even a slim one. It's not 2/3-1/3, that's for sure. The results of the elections there over many years say so.
When you say blatantly false things or subjective things like Yanukovych was ousted by "undue influence" and half of the Ukraine wants to be a part of Russia...you do marginalize and thus insult the Ukrainians who are struggling to keep their country.

Yanukovych did lose a majority of his support in Ukraine...that's why he left. Whether or not the majority of Ukrainians actively participated in or supported the protests against his rule, he was widely unpopular at the time he left.

And you keep mentioning how Yanukovych was democratically elected...as if that somehow mitigates his thoroughly undemocratic attempts to subjugate and intimidate his own people when they disagreed with his policies. Again...it comes off as revisionist and apologetic.

And I don't know if the country is split 2/3 to 1/3 in terms of whether they support the EU or Russia, but I know for sure that its not a half and half split in terms of numbers....I have not seen any source, article or document that has indicated those numbers.

The economist article i referenced certainly doesn't show those numbers.

Last edited by Patronus86; 04-22-2014 at 01:29 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2014, 04:25 PM   #51
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
6
Rep
589
Posts

 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

The world is far from being out of oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lula_oil_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_gas_field

much less the US (note the last sentence on the page of the first link):

http://www.eccos.us/oil-shale-in-co-ut-wy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_...ng_controversy

And from what I understand, the French have made great strides in reprocessing/recovering spent nuclear fuel, which greatly reduces the waste from nuclear power:

http://www.minnpost.com/community-vo...t-nuclear-fuel

Russia's lever over Europe could be removed through a bit of preparation and repositioning.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      05-21-2014, 07:28 PM   #52
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

Issue is pretty simple, USA/NATO promised NOT to expend toward Russia, then 1991 USSR collapsed and became weak, NATO started to expend and Russia couldn't do shit about it. Fast-forward to today, Russia is strong now and multiple time warned USA/NATO not to make any moves towards Ukraine. Maidan was financed by west and west installed pro-USA puppet government, its a big threat to Russia (for the same reason Cuban Missile Crisis was a threat to USA, although Cuba is not USA land and Cuba is Russia ally) so Russian started military actions and annex Crimea. Crimea was annex because it was Russia to begin with, it had major Russia naval base, and most people there are Russian.

US government tried to bring military and weapons to UA because they want and support a full scale war (as always), however EU rejected this.

And then there are IMF sharks that wanna play too. After IMF "rescues" UA, people and country will be piss poor, Crimean people will soon be praying that Russia annexed them.

Pretty much its all about USA vs Russia, political power and geopolitics, and IMF trying to make some money from people's blood.
Appreciate 0
      05-22-2014, 12:54 PM   #53
128Convertibleguy
Captain
13
Rep
625
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Issue is pretty simple, USA/NATO promised NOT to expend toward Russia, then 1991 USSR collapsed and became weak, NATO started to expend and Russia couldn't do shit about it. Fast-forward to today, Russia is strong now and multiple time warned USA/NATO not to make any moves towards Ukraine. Maidan was financed by west and west installed pro-USA puppet government, its a big threat to Russia (for the same reason Cuban Missile Crisis was a threat to USA, although Cuba is not USA land and Cuba is Russia ally) so Russian started military actions and annex Crimea. Crimea was annex because it was Russia to begin with, it had major Russia naval base, and most people there are Russian.

US government tried to bring military and weapons to UA because they want and support a full scale war (as always), however EU rejected this.

And then there are IMF sharks that wanna play too. After IMF "rescues" UA, people and country will be piss poor, Crimean people will soon be praying that Russia annexed them.

Pretty much its all about USA vs Russia, political power and geopolitics, and IMF trying to make some money from people's blood.
Much truth to this, except I disagree with the last sentence. I think it's pretty much about a deeply divided Ukraine, that has seesawed in its Presidential elections between leaders wanting better ties with the West, and leaders wanting better ties with Russia. If it wasn't for that, outside parties would have little to exploit.
Appreciate 0
      05-22-2014, 02:51 PM   #54
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
All of this smells like pure and utter BS, especially in the absence of supporting evidence. But that seems to be par for the course for this Ukraine thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Issue is pretty simple, USA/NATO promised NOT to expend toward Russia, then 1991 USSR collapsed and became weak, NATO started to expend and Russia couldn't do shit about it. Fast-forward to today, Russia is strong now and multiple time warned USA/NATO not to make any moves towards Ukraine.
When did NATO promise not to expand towards Russia? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but what treaty/summit/agreement were you referring to when you made this statement?

Also, what you like to call NATO expansion, I would say is more accurately called 'good defense' by the formerly subjugated states of the USSR (Poland, Latvia, half of Germany, Estonia, Georgia)... all of these countries took the initiative to build closer ties with NATO and the US because they remember much better than you how badly they were treated under Soviet domination.

Also, Russia isn't strong now..it's economy is paper thin, it's military is poorly funded and trained (by western standards) and it is on the verge of experiencing a level of global isolation that it hasn't felt since the height of the Cold War.

GW Bush tried to rewarm relations with the Russians in the aftermath of 9/11, and for a while we were partners together in the War on Terror...then in 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, claiming that the Georgian government was persecuting the Ossetian minority. Though there were human rights abuses on both sides of the conflict, Russia's claims of ethnic massacres were fabricated; an excuse for Russia to invade and parcel off Georgia in an attempt to dissuade it from closer ties with the US (Georgia had been seeking NATO membership on its own accord in order to protect itself from this very aggression). GW Bush partially sanctioned Russia and also sent US military training missions to Georgia in response.

In 2007 GW Bush also initiated a project to build long-range missile defense silos in Poland...a project that the Polish government was more than eager for, but certainly something the Russians didn't want.

2009 and Obama spelled a total reset to US-Russian relations: sanctions on Russia were lifted, long-range missile defense project in Poland was cancelled (though a short-range missile system was intended to replace it).

There was a facade of normality in eastern Europe until Russia yet again invaded another country with dubious justification to say the least. The result of this action has been discussed ad nauseam on this thread. But Ukraine is now asking for the very same aid and support that Georgia received and has yet to receive anything but empty promises and low-interest loans.

The point of this history lesson is to show that Russia's aggression has been aimed at intimidating its former satellite from seeking greater independence (NATO membership is an obvious solution to countries like Poland and Georgia who remember vividly how they were invaded and occupied after WWII). I would argue that this expansion of NATO, which is real in some cases and perceived in other cases (Ukraine hadn't really been considered for NATO membership until Russia invaded), is a symptom of these former Soviet-bloc nations desiring greater independence from Russia's influence, and not the cause.

Russia's aggression has literally been its own worst enemy these last ten years, because the more it scares its eastern neighbors, the more incentive they have to seek greater ties with western Europe and the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Maidan was financed by west and west installed pro-USA puppet government, its a big threat to Russia
Some supporting facts for this statement would be nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Crimea was annex because it was Russia to begin with, it had major Russia naval base, and most people there are Russian.
It was Russian to begin with, but Russia agreed to give it to the Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR; in return the Ukraine gave all of its nukes back to Russia. So the argument that Crimea was always Russian, therefore the invasion was justified holds no water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
And then there are IMF sharks that wanna play too. After IMF "rescues" UA, people and country will be piss poor, Crimean people will soon be praying that Russia annexed them.
IMF might be full of sharks, but its loans are much more credible and desirable than anything Russia can offer. Certain Russians in Crimea are already praying for Russian annexation, but many minorities (Tatars) are without a voice in this process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Much truth to this, except I disagree with the last sentence. I think it's pretty much about a deeply divided Ukraine, that has seesawed in its Presidential elections between leaders wanting better ties with the West, and leaders wanting better ties with Russia. If it wasn't for that, outside parties would have little to exploit.
And as usual you bring nothing useful to this conversation. Divisions in the Ukraine exist for sure, but you ignore that the majority of Ukranians are united in their disapproval of Russian intervention.

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-22-2014 at 03:19 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-22-2014, 09:36 PM   #55
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

All your questions above are answered here. Thats what I have for links:

1. US Army strategist:

https://medium.com/the-bridge/54892d22ccbb

2. Former US Ambassador:



3. Ron Paul:

http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/video/...e-paying-bill/

4. Gregor Gysi (Subtitled):



5. IMF discussion:



6. More on IMF:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...not-its-people

Last edited by Kolyan2k; 05-22-2014 at 10:18 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-22-2014, 10:09 PM   #56
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

"It was Russian to begin with, but Russia agreed to give it to the Ukraine after the breakup of the USSR; in return the Ukraine gave all of its nukes back to Russia. So the argument that Crimea was always Russian, therefore the invasion was justified holds no water."

Russia didnt agree to give it to Ukraine in return for nukes. I dont know where u got that from. Budapest Memorandum had nothing to do with Crimea. As a result of referendum in 91 Crimea was left with UA with "special" rules. Just like as a result of referendum it came back to Russia now.



"Also, Russia isn't strong now..it's economy is paper thin, it's military is poorly funded and trained (by western standards) and it is on the verge of experiencing a level of global isolation that it hasn't felt since the height of the Cold War."
"IMF might be full of sharks, but its loans are much more credible and desirable than anything Russia can offer. Certain Russians in Crimea are already praying for Russian annexation, but many minorities (Tatars) are without a voice in this process."


^ and as far as this goes (its also covered in links as well)...... IMF loans come with terms to raise taxes, energy bills, lower pensions, and much more. Thats done in order for UA to pay interest rates to west. People and country will be piss poor for generation with IMF rules. On top of it IMF loan will first pay off itself its previous defaulted loan and then Russian loans. I am 99.9% sure UA people will not see a dime from that money. Russian loan was just a loan without any rules to suck the country dry.

USSR till 1990 always had top of the line military and power (and space program) to match USA. It was always a battle between USA and USSR. From 1990s to 2000 everything went to hell. After Putin came to power this what happened:

"Between 2000-2008, Russia's economy saw the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) double, climbing from 22nd to 11th largest in the world. The economy made real gains of an average 7% per year ( 1999: 6.5%, 2000: 10%, 2001: 5.7%, 2002: 4.9%, 2003: 7.3%, 2004: 7.2%, 2005: 6.4%, 2006: 8.2%, 2007: 8.5%, 2008: 5.2% ), making it the 6th largest economy in the world in GDP(PPP). In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of 1990, meaning it has overcome the devastating consequences of the recession in the 1990s. The industry grew by 75%, investments increased by 125%, and agricultural production and construction increased as well. Real incomes more than doubled and the average salary increased eightfold from $80 to $640. The volume of consumer credit between 20002006 increased 45 times, and during that same time period, the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million, an increase of 7 times. The number of people living below the poverty line also decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008."

Today Russian economy is #8 and who knows how far it can grow with China (and soon India) to be its top allies. They already done the gas deal and will be working on its own space program that doesnt include NASA, also forming military forces to stop NATO/USA bulling.

If you look at Military Power Ranking, Russia is #2 in the world and USA is #1. But USA is also greatest threat to peace today according to this: http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-b...merica-1525008

Last edited by Kolyan2k; 05-22-2014 at 11:44 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-22-2014, 10:17 PM   #57
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

Also note my sources are USA and EU. I dont watch RT/CNN-like shitty propaganda
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 12:09 AM   #58
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Kolyan2k, dude you're being way too lazy in your responses. I'm not going to read through every article or watch every video you posted and try to correlate them the different points of my argument. If you have a counter-argument to make against what I posted earlier, I suggest you state your case instead of showcasing other peoples' opinions.

The few things of yours that I did read/watch were simply editorial or opinionated pieces...some referenced facts and some just made baseless claims.

1) The Guardian's piece on the IMF bailout is unashamedly biased. The Guardian itself is known to be one of the most liberally-biased media groups in the world and is not a big fan of the IMF. The IMF's terms for lending are very similar in terms of severity to the bailouts that were offered to countries like Greece. And if you honestly think Russia is going to offer loans to the Ukraine with no strings attached, you are kidding yourself.

2) The Jeremy Kotkin piece on "Crimea: Russia is harvesting the seeds in 1990's" is also very opinionated. He interprets any attempt by a former soviet-bloc nation (ie Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Romania) to join NATO or build closer ties with EU/USA as "NATO aggression." What he blatantly ignored throughout his lengthy piece was that all of these nations had suffered greatly for the last half century under Russian rule and were eager to solidify their defense against possible Russian aggression.

Also he claims Russia was ostracized from Europe and the West by NATO. The reality is that Russia has been largely responsible for its own isolation: a refusal to seek membership in the EU; refusal to adopt a true democracy or recognize the rights of its own people.

The majority of eastern European countries that joined NATO did so in 2004 and 2009 and they did so partly because NATO was seeking allies to fight the war on terror. As well, the establishment of NATO bases in Uzbekistan was largely in order to establish better lines of communication into Afghanistan and had nothing to do with trying to instigate Russia as he claims. Up until Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, Russia was mostly a non-issue for NATO. The NATO military mission was focused on Afghanistan and fighting terrorism abroad. To suggest there was some conspiracy on the part of Europe and the US to encroach on Russia's territory is a vague claim that has no backing.

Also of note, all of those nations that have joined NATO recently (Poland, Latvia, Romania, Czech Republic, Lithuania) are free to do as they like, regardless of whatever implicit agreement GHW Bush and Gorbachev made...they are free countries with the freedom to do as they please in their foreign policies.

3) Russia's military is extremely weak right now...regardless of what an online website claims. It's equipment is old, it's still relying on Cold War tactical and operational doctrine, and it's a conscript force (not nearly as reliable as career professionals). It steamrolled Georgia in 2008 and is on the verge of doing so with the Ukraine simply because of overwhelming numerical superiority.

4) And the Georgia-Kosovo comparison is played out and lacks credibility. NATO didn't take action in Kosovo to create a new state; it took action to stop the ethnic slaughter being committed by the Serbs. The creation of Kosovo occurred after nearly 10 years of UN administration and peacekeeping efforts simply because the Kosovans refused to reintegrate with a Serbian regime that had committed murder rape and pillage. The only reason the UN did not authorize NATO's military actions and Kosovo's subsequent declaration of independence is because Russia and China (2 of the 5 on the Security council) vetoed those resolutions. The UN's failure to recognize Kosovo and provide a quick reaction to the killings was more of a reflection of the UN's inherent failings as a peacekeeping organization and had less to do with any moral objections to NATO's actions.

In stark contrast, Georgia was invaded by Russia in order to parcel off Ossetia; plain and simple. Though there were killings and some war crimes on both sides of the that conflict in 2008, HOWEVER there was no ethnic slaughter being committed by the Georgians, despite Russia's claims to the contrary.



I know my response was long and rambling, but like I said, I didn't bother trying to read through and watch all of your links. You should make your own arguments in order to counter what I said earlier instead of just posting other people's opinions.

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-23-2014 at 12:21 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 07:22 AM   #59
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

Don't really want to argue. I am not a politician or economist and don't have any degrees in those subjects. I think this subject is not transparent and it goes deep into politics. My opinion (or most people's opinions for that matter) is based on several news media outlets and I guess some previous knowledge that I accumulated over the years.....again from newspapers and TV etc. If I state you my opinion in my own words, most likely you will ask me for source, so instead of wasting time I gave u some of my sources right away.

Like you say Russian military is weak....OK. But you say all media is wrong, so can I assume you are inrolled in Russian military or been to Russian military bases in order to state it as a fact that its weak? I just don't see where u can get information on Russian military. Yes it was on top during USSR years, and yes every development and all financing most likely was stopped in 1990s and resumed in 2000s. So pretty much Russia lost at least 10 year there. And combined with the fact that many Russian intelligent minds immigrated to USA I can guess that US military is much ahead of Russia now but by no means weak or small.

Last edited by Kolyan2k; 05-23-2014 at 09:00 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 08:24 AM   #60
128Convertibleguy
Captain
13
Rep
625
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
Divisions in the Ukraine exist for sure, but you ignore that the majority of Ukranians are united in their disapproval of Russian intervention.
They don't want war in there backyard, sure. But a significant group, and a clear majority in eastern Ukraine, do want stronger ties with Russia.

And clearly the Kiev protestors who illegally ousted the last President also do not have the majority of the country on their side. He was elected fair and square, and many want him back. Ukraine is a tumultuous and difficult place for anyone outside to meddle with, including us. Recent events indicate the even Putin may be starting to realize that.

To ignore the truly divided nature of Ukraine is to badly misread the situation. To take any action that exacerbates the divisions is folly. The only course forward for Ukraine is internal reconciliation and compromise.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-23-2014 at 08:31 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 02:34 PM   #61
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
If I state you my opinion in my own words, most likely you will ask me for source, so instead of wasting time I gave u some of my sources right away.
You can state your opinions/arguments and then post supporting evidence; that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But all you did was post a bunch of editorial articles and opinionated videos with no indication as to what the points you were trying to make...that's lazy and no one has time to read/watch all that stuff to try and figure out their meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Like you say Russian military is weak....OK. But you say all media is wrong, so can I assume you are inrolled in Russian military or been to Russian military bases in order to state it as a fact that its weak? I just don't see where u can get information on Russian military.
When I say Russia has a weak military, I am speaking in relative terms. Russia military, relative to that of Georgia, Ukraine or Poland, is yes very strong and powerful. But compared to the global capabilities of the US and many NATO nations, it is considered by many to be a 2nd tier military that uses outdated equipment and tactics.

This DOD article, though it notes Russia has made some major advances since its 2008 Georgian conflict, is still a military that lacks a global capability and is plagued by issues of corruption and logistical problems.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122013

Also of note, Russia's military is a conscript military. Conscript forces have historically performed worse than professional or volunteer forces. And the majority of its aircraft, ships, and armored vehicles are old and outdated. Go wikipedia the russian army and you can see for yourself how old some of their stuff is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
They don't want war in there backyard, sure. But a significant group, and a clear majority in eastern Ukraine, do want stronger ties with Russia.
Proof for this? There may be a large number of people in the east who are protesting or fighting the Ukrainian government, but how do you know they are the majority?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
And clearly the Kiev protestors who illegally ousted the last President also do not have the majority of the country on their side. He was elected fair and square, and many want him back. Ukraine is a tumultuous and difficult place for anyone outside to meddle with, including us. Recent events indicate the even Putin may be starting to realize that.
I have addressed this argument of yours before, but you never respond directly to my counter-argument. The previous Ukrainian president may have been elected fairly but he broke his own laws by violating the rights of his citizens who were protesting.

And whether you consider the Kiev protests illegal or simply a democratic movement seeking to remove corrupt government officials, Russia's invasion of Crimea and infiltration into the East is in no way justified by the events in Kiev.

You 128Convertibleguy strike me as an extremely hypocritical person...you obviously support liberal/progressive ideas and the media/political groups that espouse those ideals and yet you are more than willing to convict the Ukrainian people of acting illegally. These people were seeking the same things that you believe in...democracy, freedom from corruption, and yet you label their actions as wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
To ignore the truly divided nature of Ukraine is to badly misread the situation. To take any action that exacerbates the divisions is folly. The only course forward for Ukraine is internal reconciliation and compromise.
I don't ignore the divisions that have exist in Ukraine. The problem is you over exaggerate them. Ukraine has always had a large minority of ethnic Russians...but the majority of the Ukraine is not Russian and the majority do in fact want greater independence from Russia.

You created a revisionist narrative when you earlier claimed that half of the Ukraine wants to become part of Russia. Why? I don't know. It is very clear from the fighting and tensions that have erupted so far in the east, that it's not half of the Ukraine that wants to join Russia, but select parts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27308526

So far only the far eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk are the only parts of the Ukraine that are trying to secede from the country.

I don't know why 128Convertibleguy you insist on propagating this propaganda and blatantly false story. Yes Ukraine has had divisions and still does. But you and many biased media outlets are keen on making everyone believe that half of the Ukraine was always Russian and that the international world shouldn't worry about any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

I do agree peace and reconciliation needs to happen in the Ukraine, but there is little chance of that happening with Russian forces occupying Crimea and fueling the tensions and violence in the east. Russia needs to step back from Ukraine if peace is to be achieved.

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-23-2014 at 02:40 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 02:56 PM   #62
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

^ Well Putin did say today that Russia will work with whoever is elected and will remove all troops from borders if NATO stays out

ps. not that its important but outdated doesnt always mean bad, it could be well proven technology. After all I dont think F-22 was ever in real combat.

Last edited by Kolyan2k; 05-23-2014 at 03:04 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 03:44 PM   #63
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
^ Well Putin did say today that Russia will work with whoever is elected and will remove all troops from borders if NATO stays out
What Putin says and what he does behind the scenes are usually two very different things. But I want to be optimistic about all of this, so hopefully there is some stable and fair solution at hand for Ukraine and its Russian minority somewhere in the near future.

NATO has never made any overt or covert efforts to move into Ukraine, so really it all comes down to if Putin will actually withdraw Russian troops, or if his talk is empty rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
ps. not that its important but outdated doesnt always mean bad, it could be well proven technology. After all I dont think F-22 was ever in real combat.
Technology is not the sole determining factor in military success on the battlefield...but it does provide a significant advantage when used properly. Russia's problem isn't just that it's military equipment is old, but that it is also poorly maintained, which can cause logistical nightmares on the battlefield. Tactics win battles, logistics win wars, and Russia's logistics have been in need of some serious upgrades since the fall of the USSR.

Now as to whether or not Russia's deficiency in logistics and equipment would translate into battlefield defeats in some notional conflict is pure speculation. All I can do is give my opinion of Russia's current capabilities, and based on the information available, its capabilities fall short when compared to NATO and even some non-NATO nations.

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-23-2014 at 09:34 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 05:17 PM   #64
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

You still keep trying to dismiss NATO. NATO/RU/UA are in every single article these days and in all my links. If you listened to US Ambassador, I think he even said that he was present at the meeting where NATO and USSR made an agreement that it will NOT expand. You should listen to him.

Now even the top presidential candidate in UA says that, he doesnt want to join NATO and he wants good relations with Russia. As long as UA can have its trade deal with EU and relations with Russia and USA/NATO to stay the fuck out, everything will be nice and peaceful.

Last edited by Kolyan2k; 05-23-2014 at 05:33 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 09:23 PM   #65
Patronus86
Banned
3
Rep
269
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
You still keep trying to dismiss NATO. NATO/RU/UA are in every single article these days and in all my links. If you listened to US Ambassador, I think he even said that he was present at the meeting where NATO and USSR made an agreement that it will NOT expand. You should listen to him.
What agreement/treaty is the ambassador referring to? An informal agreement means nothing unless something is signed on paper...that's been the case since the rise of nation-states.

I don't dismiss NATO nor do I deny that NATO has expanded into eastern Europe against Russia's preferences...I only argued that NATO expansion was a result of former Soviet-bloc nations wanting better protection and not a result of the US and UK trying to push its sphere of influence into Russia's doorstep. That being said, it is more than understandable that countries like Poland and Romania and Latvia were eager for NATO membership, especially in the context of Russia being run by a corrupt and greedy oligarchy that was built by left-overs from the Cold War (aka Putin and his cronies).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolyan2k View Post
Now even the top presidential candidate in UA says that, he doesnt want to join NATO and he wants good relations with Russia. As long as UA can have its trade deal with EU and relations with Russia and USA/NATO to stay the fuck out, everything will be nice and peaceful.
The Ukrainian President would be a fool to say anything other than that...because if he did even hint at a plan to seek NATO membership, Russia would have even more of an excuse to instigate further conflict. He realizes that even after Russia seized Crimea and violated his country's sovereignty, no one came to his aid. So why should he expect any different if Russia continued to act aggressively?

As I have said before, NATO has done absolutely nothing to aid or interfere in the Ukrainian crisis. Russia, on the other hand, has done a whole lot, and 100% of it is illegal. So your warning for NATO to stay out is unwarranted....I certainly don't hear you warning Russia to stay its hand.

And as for everything staying nice and peaceful, that won't happen until Russia retrogrades from its border with Ukraine and stops instigating violence and unrest. Withdrawing its troops from Crimea would also be a nice gesture to say the least...but that may be a bridge too far at this point.

Your argument on all of this looks suspiciously one-sided. Do you have friends or family from Russia?

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-23-2014 at 09:40 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-23-2014, 09:36 PM   #66
Kolyan2k
Brigadier General
60
Rep
3,962
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 S2000
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston

iTrader: (1)

^ I am Russian. It could be one-sided, but again I base my option on everyone BUT Russian media and Russian speakers.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST