Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Part Deux

[Bratislavskaya]

Well of course I am using it synonymous as if you will note the other russophiles do not make the difference between Russian and Soviet army in World War II, which is understandable.

Not really considering vast amounts of it was filled by Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakh's, Azerbaijanis and so on.

It is videly accepted that the USSR was de facto a version of Russia.

Most of it's leaders weren't Russians, considerable amounts of it's population weren't Russian, considerable amounts of everything in the USSR wasn't Russian. So not, it wasn't just a "version of Russia".

The Russian minorities in all Soviet republic were upper class citizens.

Yeah. No.

Yes, it is the faulth since Russia exported its mentality and state form into other countries

"It's the Russians fault because the not Russians were...thinking like Russians?" is pretty much what you just said. The former USSR states bar abotu 3 all did what Western Economists advised them to do. They went into a depression worse than the 1930's one (which didn't affect the USSR may I add). It's not the fault of the Russians. In fact Belarus, one of the Sates that was and still is very close to Russia didn't have the economic slump that most of the former USSR had, and became for a time the richest CIS state. So it's not the "Russian Mentality" you keep talking about.

It is thanks to long year Russian influence, so that I always say wherever the bear walked with its feet there is poverty.

I think "wherever the Eagle pecked there is poverty" is more accurate. The former USSR, much of the former Eastern Bloc, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, the list goes on.

Shock terapy would actually work well (which in fact did in Poland) if Russia did not exported its backward ideology.

Yeah, in Poland, where they didn't do shock therapy in about five seconds, against the advice of the Western Economists, and where they actually took some time in selling things off. It's actually quite a good example as to why shock therapy doesn't work, comparing Russia and Poland, or actual shock therapy to massively toned down shock therapy.

[Shofercia]

EDIT: Like which processes?

Abkhazia for example.

We're talking about countries, are you recognizing Abkhazia as an independent country?

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

Well it's a little more complicated than that. When Saakashvili get's accused of corruption by a government composed of ex crooks and an oligarch, he's guilty. But when Putin murders people within and outside his borders, it's ok because he almost got the per capita gdp to Poland levels.

No, it's really not. Amazingly enough, my analogy is just limited to, *gasps*, my analogy. Although it's funny that you bring up Saakashvili, while talking about others being warmongers. That's really fucking hilarious. Saakashvili assaulted South Ossetia in 2004. Failing that, he started building up his armed forces, spending obscene amounts of money on them, only to waste them in an operation that he launched on August 7th, against South Ossetia. Even though Saakashvili engaged the Georgian armed forces on August 7th, and the Russians didn't respond until August 8th, the Western Press "heroically" claimed that Russians started the war, because they're either idiots who don't comprehend that 7 precedes 8, or were pretending to be idiots who cannot comprehend that 7 comes before 8, or perhaps there was some other reason, like Putin actually providing an alternative to the Western system of government, and they're being butthurt about it, more more on that later.

Saakashvili rightfully gets accused of corruption, because, *gasps* he was corrupt. http://www.tol.org/client/article/23965 ... tions.html

For some odd reason, the most "freest of the free" in the Western Press didn't really pick up on how Saakashvili grew the economy. Must be magic. Since most people don't want to pay to read that article, let me cite a summary:

Here’s how the program worked: you buy prime tourist land worth $50k for a $1k, you invest about $24k into Georgia’s economy, (which you can get back if you’re investing in your firms,) you resell the land back to the Georgians for $40k and smile as you pocket the $10k and whatever you can glean from your investment. Granted, the numbers are made up, but you get the idea. Except there was a problem. He sold private land worth millions for a few bucks. Yes, you’re reading that right. PRIVATE land.

“In addition to questions of corruption, the property privatizations have given rise to dozens of court claims by people who say they are the rightful owners of some of the properties. If those rulings go against the government, the price tag could be enormous. Omar Akubardia said his son owned about 48 hectares of land in the small Black Sea town of Anaklia, where the family had planted 16,000 saplings of feijoa, kiwi, and lemon and had ambitious business plans. According to a report by a team of civic groups in 2012, almost all of that land was transferred to the Economy Ministry, without the family’s consent, after the region was selected as a tourism development zone in 2009. The family filed suit for restoration of their title but have lost a series of court decisions, and amid the legal proceedings the property was registered to a private company called Anaklia-Port. It was among 2,000 hectares that Anaklia-Port bought from the government for 6.34 million lari ($3.8 million) for the construction of a transport hub.

Akubardia said his family received no compensation “even though we had all the important documentation.” They have taken the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. “That’s my only hope to get my property back,” Akubardia said. Giorgi Chikaberidze, Akubardia’s advocate from the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, a human rights group, suggested that Georgian courts were under pressure to abide by the government’s decision even though his client is the legal owner of the property. “So both the private property rights and right to a fair trial have been infringed,” he said.”

Of course this "economic miracle" was spent on the military: http://militarybudget.org/georgia/

In 2003, Georgia's military budget was $96.3 million. In 2007, the year before Saakashvili's attack, it was $1,201 million. In 2003, that was 1.1% of the GDP. In 2007, it was 9.2% of the GDP. But you should continue to tell us all about how glorious Saakashvili is and how teh ubah ebul Putin is, after all, free speech is freedom to post no matter how uninformed you are.

Speaking of Putin, do I give a shit that he murdered Litvenenko, a backstabbing traitor with Polonium? Not really. I should point out that after Litvenenko's death, there really wasn't much, (or any,) murder, although the "most fair and balanced, trusted, and oh progressive name in news" wants to pretend that Putin also wacked Berezovsky, which is funny, because Berezovsky became worthless after losing his trial to Abramovich. Oh, you mean civilians? MH-17 was an accident and murder requires intent. During the Ossetian War, one of the reasons for not taking Tbilisi was the possibility of massive civilian casualties, so no, that doesn't count. Ukraine? Not sure if casualties would've been higher if Putin didn't intervene, after all, Neo-Nazi thugs deliberately burned pro-Russian protesters in Odessa, so their rampage through the DonBass might've caused even more civilian casualties.

Speaking of leaders that do have a really bad Human Rights record, hmmm, one comes to mind for invading that Middle Eastern country, I think that was Iraq. And here's you opining about a war, started over bullshit, that eventually led to the rise of mass murdering ISIS:

No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.

It's a little more complicated than that. Western governments are afraid to look like the ebul neocons who perpetrated Iraq, aiding freedom fighters in the war against totalitarianism is ok though.

Ahhh yes, New Werpland, you clearly care for Human Rights, as long as said rights coincide with certain geopolitical aims. And here's you on Gitmo, and promptly getting your butt kicked in debates, again:

keeping Gitmo open costs a lot of money?

Just north of $150 million a year.

Thing is, it's not about Human Rights, or fighting corruption, or whatever the slogan of the day seems to be. It's about Putin daring to do something completely different than what a small faction of the US/EU elites, and their supporters, want, and succeeding at it. If you take a look at the EU elections, support for said factions is falling, and is on an irreversible trend. In the US, Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, stands a chance of being elected. People are fucking sick and tired of this bullshit austerity and illegal immigration joint system, of using illegals to break up labor unions under the guise of Human Rights, of war profiteering under the guise of toppling dictators, of government coups under the guise of fighting corruption, and that really stings for said groups, the knowledge that eventually their wealth will be stripped away and that they'll be remembered as nothing but failures, a dark spot on the History of Planet Earth. Putin daring to offer an alternative, being one of the first people to do so, to a country whose leadership was previously sucking their cock, that's why he's reviled. Not because of Human Rights violations, or corruption, or any of that other crap, being used as mere guises. He started to become reviled after he wouldn't let Khodorkovksy steal from Putin, and after demanding that Khodorkovsky actually, *gasps*, pay his taxes. What a monster! That previous sentence, that was sarcasm.

[Shofercia]

Alright! Even more economic desperation for Eastern Europe, woohoo! Big Success! Mission Accomplished!

If the US/EU administrations think that Russia will transit through the idiotic regime in Ukraine after 2020, they're either stupid, or high, or both.

You seem not to be informed about the LNG terminas that are built to secure cheap gas to Eastern Europe. Also, Eastern Europe is doing better than Russia in economic terms. Everywhere where Russia used to rule is an economic hellhole and it takes time to get on the feet again.

LNG terminals and cheap gas, are you going for the laugh track? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/3 ... I220140930

Additionally, European spot gas prices would have to almost double to make LNG shipments to Europe attractive enough for producers such as Qatar, which otherwise sell most of their cargoes to Asia, where customers pay more... Groenendijk said that ships carrying LNG could be chartered from underused LNG terminals in Spain or Northwest Europe to go to Italy or Greece.

Yes, because what Italians and Greeks need to complete "love" austerity is a doubling of their gas prices. Also, places that Russia used to rule that aren't economic hell holes include Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Belarus... oh wait, that's already 3 counter examples. As far as Eastern Europe doing better than Russia, what, you mean like Greece that has 45% youth unemployment? Can't you at least check the basic facts before posting?

In the context that I've read his post in, he was talking about specific individuals, rather than a faction located on Rebel held territory.

And the context I read it in, he was implying that no one knew who shot it down, i.e whether it was the rebels or not.

So let's ask him what he meant, eh?

I didn't realize that Obama was going to help brutally topple Khadaffi, and then led the thugs parade his body on display, like some barbarous, infantile morons. And yet, it happened. Gotta wonder what the West's reaction would be if Russia and Serbia would do the same to Thaci's body.

I don't see how that's relevant.

My point is that MH-17 is being used in an attempt to bash Putin. For instance, there's already a resolution to investigate: http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11483.doc.htm

Because then, every time a group obstructing said prosecution would act, (irrespective of their ties to Putin, or lack thereof,) the Western Press would scream and shout and let it all out about how, "on Putin's direct orders, group so and so will not have justice for the planes' victims!" Despite their best efforts, they couldn't tie Putin to the shooting down of the plane, so now they were going to try and do it through obstruction. Russia vetoed that.

Two things wrong with this statement. Firstly, the only media outlets that directly blamed Putin were mostly British tabloids and thus not representative of all media and secondly, Russia's obstruction of the investigation process and the fact that the launcher itself just happened to be taken to Russia after the shotdown occurred at least has some implications that the state, whether or not on Putin's orders, was helping the rebels in covering up evidence that they were behind it.

You also have Russian media blaming Ukraine for it by trying to claim that a Ukrainian fighter jet shot it down with air to air missile and cannon fire. So if I were you, I wouldn't stand on the whole "Western media is biased against Russia" thing when Russian media basically did exactly the same thing.

Secondly, if Russia didn't have anything to do with it, why does it feel the need to act the way it does? Why does it feel the need to be obstructive in this investigation?

Mostly British tabloids... like Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/mh17-put ... rld-2014-7

Mr Putin has blamed the tragedy of MH17 on Ukraine, yet he is the author of its destruction... Russia's president is implicated in their crime twice over. First, it looks as if the missile was supplied by Russia, its crew was trained by Russia, and after the strike the launcher was spirited back to Russia.

Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/ ... own-mh-17/

While investigations continue, at this point most people accept that the missile that shot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 was supplied by Russia, came from an area that its separatists controlled and involved training—if not outright participation—from the Russian military. It has also become clear that the person most responsible for the tragedy is Vladimir Putin. None of this could have happened without not only his approval, but his active support.

Sources are really not that hard to find. Regarding the investigation, I've already explained it for you; because the purpose of the new resolution is to put Russia in the spotlight. Look at the resolution I cited, why not use that to investigate the crash?

Mostly because MH-17 is the only card that Obama wants to desperately play against Putin, since it has some resonance. When your sanctions backfired and you just lost Schumer's endorsement for the Iran Deal, when your foreign policy is a disaster and you legacy is a foreign policy of failure, as well as a failing immigration policy, which are tied together by Obama's actions in Latin America, you ignore the facts and become desperate.

Schumer is a Republican. Their opposition to Iran was going to occur regardless, as they've been gunning for war with Iran for decades. Secondly, in what way is Obama's foreign policy, or immigration policy, a disaster? The wave of migrants earlier this year was unprecedented and I seriously doubt that anyone could have handled it any better. I think that this is as desperate attempt to portray Obama as a bumbling failure of a President as you claim Obama is.

Let's not forget that Russia isn't in any better straits at the moment. Three million people have fallen into poverty in Russia.

How could anyone have handled it any better? Are you fucking kidding me? That's really easy. Just off the top of my head:

1. Heavy fines on corporations employing illegal immigrants
2. Investment in Latin America's infrastructure
3. Not aiding the anti-democratic coup of Zelaya
4. Punishing sanctuary cities that specifically shelter known felons who are also illegal immigrants
5. Actually securing the border

Damn, that was easy. Also, Schumer's a Democrat.

"And others", yeah, well, I don't really care about the others. I do care about MH-17. Speaking of MH-17 not being redirected, erm:

(Image)

(Image)

Looks fine to me. Although I am surprised that you're grasping at straws this early in debate.

My point was that MH-17 was redirected. As the quote above, states: I don't really care about the others. I do care about MH-17.

You do realize that KLM, Lufthansa and Thai Airways are actually not part of Malaysia Airlines, right? My point, once again, was that the 9 flights before MH-17 took a different route, and that said flight was, indeed, redirected. In order to prove that, I showed charts showing the route of 9 MH-17 flights, followed by the one that was redirected. If you call factual statements as "grasping as straws", well hey, that's up to you and British tabloids.

[LA Cheese]

i never thought i would see sanctuary cities on this thread lol

[Shofercia]

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

Being better than the other guy doesn't excuse corruption.

Depends on the type of corruption. If it's just skimming from greater economic growth than you've promised, one that was achieved in a large part due to your policies, quite frankly, (from a pragmatic POV,) I don't see that as a problem.

If your choice is between a leader who quadruples your standard of living and skims 5% from that, or a leader who's 100% honest, but under whom the economy stagnates, who would you choose? I'd go for the first guy. Hands down. Every time.

ok. that still doesn't make corruption ethical of course. you said a corrupt, successful leader actually deserves the fruits of his corruption. a bit different than just making it out to be a pragmatic decision imo.

My mistake. I should've made it clearer that I was speaking from a pragmatic point of view.

i never thought i would see sanctuary cities on this thread lol

I have no issues with sanctuary cities like LA. Garcetti shelters some illegals, but his administration lets ICE know when the felons are around. Mirkarimi on the other hand... Besides, their only reason reason for appearance is that Costa asked me what Obama could've done differently on immigration. You're new here, so I should let you know that Costa and I have an, erm, history of passionate debates

[The balkens]

i never thought i would see sanctuary cities on this thread lol

Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

[Shofercia]

i never thought i would see sanctuary cities on this thread lol

Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

Let's see here:

Costa: "how should Obama have improved his immigration policies?"
Me: "here are the ways"
You: "hurr durr, someone's just scoring points back at home..."

I live in California, and do you have anything aside from barbs to contribute to the debate, balkens?

[The balkens]

Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

Let's see here:

Costa: "how should Obama have improved his immigration policies?"
Me: "here are the ways"
You: "hurr durr, someone's just scoring points back at home..."

I live in California, and do you have anything aside from barbs to contribute to the debate? Anything at all, balkens?

Gee, the "Make opponent look like a absolute retard" tactic. Hallmark of Eastern debating skills.

10/10 Gr8 DB8 M8.

[Shofercia]

Let's see here:

Costa: "how should Obama have improved his immigration policies?"
Me: "here are the ways"
You: "hurr durr, someone's just scoring points back at home..."

I live in California, and do you have anything aside from barbs to contribute to the debate? Anything at all, balkens?

Gee, the "Make opponent look like a absolute retard" tactic. Hallmark of Eastern debating skills.

10/10 Gr8 DB8 M8.

You're the one that started out by making a post that does nothing but launch an attack on me. And now you're shocked that you're being called out on it?

[LA Cheese]

I have no issues with sanctuary cities like LA. Garcetti shelters some illegals, but his administration lets ICE know when the felons are around.

I hate Fresno.

It's not a sanctuary city.

I just hate Fresno.

[The balkens]

Gee, the "Make opponent look like a absolute retard" tactic. Hallmark of Eastern debating skills.

10/10 Gr8 DB8 M8.

You're the one that started out by making a post that does nothing but launch an attack on me. And now you're shocked that you're being called out on it?

An attack on you?
Dont flatter yourself sweetheart and i dont find it surprising that someone like you would go defensive over the slightest anti-Russophile thing.

[Shofercia]

You're the one that started out by making a post that does nothing but launch an attack on me. And now you're shocked that you're being called out on it?

An attack on you?
Dont flatter yourself sweetheart and i dont find it surprising that someone like you would go defensive over the slightest anti-Russophile thing.

Oh, so this wasn't an attack?

Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

That's just how you usually act around everyone? Funny thing is that I didn't say that the West was an immigration hell hole, I said that Obama's immigration policies are failing. Those aren't the same. In the interest of less bullshit, you can skip pretending that you were just replying to LA Cheese's post, and it had nothing to do with my post, even though LA Cheese's post's sole purpose was asking for a clarification of why I brought up sanctuary cities. If you're done with pretending, perhaps you could respond to something of substance:

Thing is, it's not about Human Rights, or fighting corruption, or whatever the slogan of the day seems to be. It's about Putin daring to do something completely different than what a small faction of the US/EU elites, and their supporters, want, and succeeding at it. If you take a look at the EU elections, support for said factions is falling, and is on an irreversible trend. In the US, Bernie Sanders, a Socialist, stands a chance of being elected. People are fucking sick and tired of this bullshit austerity and illegal immigration joint system, of using illegals to break up labor unions under the guise of Human Rights, of war profiteering under the guise of toppling dictators, of government coups under the guise of fighting corruption, and that really stings for said groups, the knowledge that eventually their wealth will be stripped away and that they'll be remembered as nothing but failures, a dark spot on the History of Planet Earth. Putin daring to offer an alternative, being one of the first people to do so, to a country whose leadership was previously sucking their cock, that's why he's reviled. Not because of Human Rights violations, or corruption, or any of that other crap, being used as mere guises. He started to become reviled after he wouldn't let Khodorkovksy steal from Putin, and after demanding that Khodorkovsky actually, *gasps*, pay his taxes. What a monster! That previous sentence, that was sarcasm.

Of course responding to that is a tad more complicated than being able to type "G8 D8 M8".

[The balkens]

Like i care about immigration on a thread that is about some obsolete cold war wannabe trying to assert its dominance over its former territory.

[Dortmundia]

LNG terminals and cheap gas, are you going for the laugh track? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/3 ... I220140930.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-security

Actually not, espeically as Lithuania did it and it has even cheaper gas after stop using Lithuanian gas.

Yes, because what Italians and Greeks need to complete "love" austerity is a doubling of their gas prices. Also, places that Russia used to rule that aren't economic hell holes include Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Belarus... oh wait, that's already 3 counter examples. As far as Eastern Europe doing better than Russia, what, you mean like Greece that has 45% youth unemployment? Can't you at least check the basic facts before posting?

You know very well who I had on mind under "Eastern Europen countries", it was former communist countries. The are doing better than Russia, and would have even better if it had no been under the rule of backward Moscow. Greece actually an example that Christian Orthodox culture has negative impacts on the economy of the said country just like in the case of Russia. Also, such countries are likely to be poor and to get under autocracy.

[Shofercia]

Like i care about immigration on a thread that is about some obsolete cold war wannabe trying to assert its dominance over its former territory.

So if you don't care about immigration, what exactly was the point of your post? Hint, it's this one: Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

[The balkens]

Like i care about immigration on a thread that is about some obsolete cold war wannabe trying to assert its dominance over its former territory.

So if you don't care about immigration, what exactly was the point of your post? Hint, it's this one: Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

Youre still mad about that?

Now i cant take you seriously, well...implying a lot of things there but i stand by my statement.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

3. Not aiding the anti-democratic coup of Zelaya

The United States condemned the removal of Zelaya from office and still recognized him as President of Honduras after the coup.

[Shofercia]

LNG terminals and cheap gas, are you going for the laugh track? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/3 ... I220140930.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-security

Actually not, espeically as Lithuania did it and it has even cheaper gas after stop using Lithuanian gas.

When posting a source, you actually want it to have some facts that somehow support your point. You claimed that LNG was cheap gas. Your source says that Croatia and Poland are spending billions on infrastructure construction. Do you understand that billions of dollars isn't cheap for Poland and Croatia?

Yes, because what Italians and Greeks need to complete "love" austerity is a doubling of their gas prices. Also, places that Russia used to rule that aren't economic hell holes include Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Belarus... oh wait, that's already 3 counter examples. As far as Eastern Europe doing better than Russia, what, you mean like Greece that has 45% youth unemployment? Can't you at least check the basic facts before posting?

You know very well who I had on mind under "Eastern Europen countries", it was former communist countries. The are doing better than Russia, and would have even better if it had no been under the rule of backward Moscow. Greece actually an example that Christian Orthodox culture has negative impacts on the economy of the said country just like in the case of Russia. Also, such countries are likely to be poor and to get under autocracy.

Former communist countries are doing better than Russia? Like Ukraine? Moldova? Georgia? Really? Thus far you have the Baltics, which will start doing worse than Russia once a demographic crisis hits. Or do you mean countries like Bulgaria, with 18.8% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

Romania with 23.3% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

See Dortmundia, those are sources that actually support my facts. That's how you should use sources.

[Shofercia]

So if you don't care about immigration, what exactly was the point of your post? Hint, it's this one: Somehow making the west look like a immigration hellhole is scoring points back home.

Youre still mad about that?

Now i cant take you seriously, well...implying a lot of things there but i stand by my statement.

I've never taken you seriously, so I can't really be mad at you.

3. Not aiding the anti-democratic coup of Zelaya

The United States condemned the removal of Zelaya from office and still recognized him as President of Honduras after the coup.

Yeah, about that: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... coup-obama

The Organisation of American States, the Rio Group (most of Latin America) and the UN general assembly have all called for the "immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya... The coup leaders have no international support, but they could still succeed by running out the clock – Zelaya has less than six months left in his term. Will the Obama administration support sanctions against the coup government in order to prevent this? The neighbouring governments of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador have already fired a warning shot by announcing a 48-hour cut-off of trade. By contrast, one reason for Clinton's reluctance to call the coup a coup is because the US Foreign Assistance Act prohibits funds going to governments where the head of state has been deposed by a military coup. Unconditional is also a key word here: the Obama administration may want to extract concessions from Zelaya as part of a deal for his return to office. But this is not how democracy works. If Zelaya wants to negotiate a settlement with his political opponents after he returns, that is another story. But nobody has the right to extract political concession from him in exile, over the barrel of a gun. There is no excuse for this coup...

In this case, Washington has a very close relationship with the Honduran military, which goes back decades. During the 1980s, the US used bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, Nicaraguan paramilitaries who became known for their atrocities in their war against the Sandinista government in neighbouring Nicaragua. The hemisphere has changed substantially since the Venezuelan coup in April of 2002, with 11 more left governments having been elected. A whole set of norms, institutions and power relations between south and north in the hemisphere have been altered. The Obama administration today faces neighbours that are much more united and much less willing to compromise on fundamental questions of democracy. So Clinton will probably not have that much room to manoeuvre. Still, the administration's ambivalence will be noticed in Honduras and can very likely encourage the de facto government there to try and hang on to power. That could be very damaging.

By delaying sanctions and other measures until the coup succeeded, Obama's Administration indirectly aided the coup, while pretending to be against it.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2 ... olicy.html

The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government “rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries,” opening the door for further “violence and anarchy.” The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras’ police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity. Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In “Hard Choices,” Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

Oh yeah, one more thing:

Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,” Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

[Dortmundia]

When posting a source, you actually want it to have some facts that somehow support your point. You claimed that LNG was cheap gas. Your source says that Croatia and Poland are spending billions on infrastructure construction. Do you understand that billions of dollars isn't cheap for Poland and Croatia?

Of course not, the EU will pay them the LNG terminals since they alone have not a lot of money. My point to you is that your source is saying that the current situations with LNG terminals is to expensive to ship them from US and Qatar, and I am pointing out new LNG terminal were build (Baltic-Adriatic coridor), Lithuania done its part of job and it is profitable for her.

Unfortunately I have no English source but this one says the EU will give 5 billion for the terminal in Croatia (to be precisely on the island of Krk)

Former communist countries are doing better than Russia? Like Ukraine? Moldova? Georgia? Really? Thus far you have the Baltics, which will start doing worse than Russia once a demographic crisis hits. Or do you mean countries like Bulgaria, with 18.8% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

Romania with 23.3% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

See Dortmundia, those are sources that actually support my facts. That's how you should use sources.[/quote"]

Like Poland, Estonia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia (has the 5th richest regio in Europe), like Czech Republic, like Hungary... Thoose that ou mentioned are culturally Orthodox countries so the Russian influence had even greater impact on them than on the countries I have mentioned. It will take them long time untill they liberate themself from backward Muscowite influence.

[Dortmundia]

Russia has a dangerous government and the Russians are fanatised to serve the Vožd Putin. So it is necesarly to secure Europe from the depency of russian gas and oil.

[Shofercia]

When posting a source, you actually want it to have some facts that somehow support your point. You claimed that LNG was cheap gas. Your source says that Croatia and Poland are spending billions on infrastructure construction. Do you understand that billions of dollars isn't cheap for Poland and Croatia?

Of course not, the EU will pay them the LNG terminals since they alone have not a lot of money. My point to you is that your source is saying that the current situations with LNG terminals is to expensive to ship them from US and Qatar, and I am pointing out new LNG terminal were build (Baltic-Adriatic coridor), Lithuania done its part of job and it is profitable for her.

Unfortunately I have no English source but this one says the EU will give 5 billion for the terminal in Croatia (to be precisely on the island of Krk)

No, you said that LNG will be cheap. Thus far, you've failed to prove that. I cited a source that says that LNG will almost double the gas price. You failed to counter it.

Former communist countries are doing better than Russia? Like Ukraine? Moldova? Georgia? Really? Thus far you have the Baltics, which will start doing worse than Russia once a demographic crisis hits. Or do you mean countries like Bulgaria, with 18.8% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

Romania with 23.3% youth unemployment? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/bulgari ... yment-rate

See Dortmundia, those are sources that actually support my facts. That's how you should use sources.[/quote"]

Like Poland, Estonia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia (has the 5th richest regio in Europe), like Czech Republic, like Hungary... Thoose that ou mentioned are culturally Orthodox countries so the Russian influence had even greater impact on them than on the countries I have mentioned. It will take them long time untill they liberate themself from backward Muscowite influence.

Right, because Orthodox countries, like Russia, cannot grow economically, oh, wait:



That's known as an 100% growth in 10 years. It's what all countries aspire to, in the best of days. That's also taking purchasing power parity into account. Are you quite done bullshitting for the day?

Russia has a dangerous government and the Russians are fanatised to serve the Vožd Putin. So it is necesarly to secure Europe from the depency of russian gas and oil.

Apparently not. The pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine's "awesome gas theft deal" has yet to be shut down, but feel free to continue with your factless fear mongering campaign.

[Dortmundia]

No, you said that LNG will be cheap. Thus far, you've failed to prove that. I cited a source that says that LNG will almost double the gas price. You failed to counter it.

Would the EU funded it if it would not be profitable?

Also you sources said it would not be cheap if it would be according to current capacity and it does not mentio the EU will build new LNG terminals.

Right, because Orthodox countries, like Russia, cannot grow economically, oh, wait:

Russia can thank to the oil which started to increase in 1999. If Yeltsin had such fortune than he would be remembered as hero in Russia. Russia itself has no industry besides being depended on oil and this is a clear example of Russian economy suffering of Dutch disease.

The all countries you have mentioned are Orthodox which is clear evidence that Orthodox culture has a negative implication on economy. It is producing clientelism and corruption so Orthodox societies are having hard to develop.

Once the oil prices started to decrease so did the russian "economy" withit.

Apparently not. The pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine's "awesome gas theft deal" has yet to be shut down, but feel free to continue with your factless fear mongering campaign.

This is not fear mongerin. The russian society is illiberal and autocratic, so it cannot be trusted and the Russians are fanfatical enugh to die for the Vožd despite opressing them. Look a good exampl of stalins rule.

[Estruia]

Of course not, the EU will pay them the LNG terminals since they alone have not a lot of money. My point to you is that your source is saying that the current situations with LNG terminals is to expensive to ship them from US and Qatar, and I am pointing out new LNG terminal were build (Baltic-Adriatic coridor), Lithuania done its part of job and it is profitable for her.

Unfortunately I have no English source but this one says the EU will give 5 billion for the terminal in Croatia (to be precisely on the island of Krk)

No, you said that LNG will be cheap. Thus far, you've failed to prove that. I cited a source that says that LNG will almost double the gas price. You failed to counter it.

Like Poland, Estonia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia (has the 5th richest regio in Europe), like Czech Republic, like Hungary... Thoose that ou mentioned are culturally Orthodox countries so the Russian influence had even greater impact on them than on the countries I have mentioned. It will take them long time untill they liberate themself from backward Muscowite influence.

Right, because Orthodox countries, like Russia, cannot grow economically, oh, wait:



That's known as an 100% growth in 10 years. It's what all countries aspire to, in the best of days. That's also taking purchasing power parity into account. Are you quite done bullshitting for the day?

Russia has a dangerous government and the Russians are fanatised to serve the Vožd Putin. So it is necesarly to secure Europe from the depency of russian gas and oil.

Apparently not. The pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine's "awesome gas theft deal" has yet to be shut down, but feel free to continue with your factless fear mongering campaign.

I'm not contributing anything, but I wanted to know if you have any figures from within the last 2 years on Russia's Per capita growth?

[Byzantium Imperial]

No, you said that LNG will be cheap. Thus far, you've failed to prove that. I cited a source that says that LNG will almost double the gas price. You failed to counter it.





Right, because Orthodox countries, like Russia, cannot grow economically, oh, wait:



That's known as an 100% growth in 10 years. It's what all countries aspire to, in the best of days. That's also taking purchasing power parity into account. Are you quite done bullshitting for the day?




Apparently not. The pipeline that doesn't go through Ukraine's "awesome gas theft deal" has yet to be shut down, but feel free to continue with your factless fear mongering campaign.

I'm not contributing anything, but I wanted to know if you have any figures from within the last 2 years on Russia's Per capita growth?

Its not exactly fair to compare the economic health of a country under financial sanctions and one that isnt