Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[barbos]

By Barbos :The rest of your bullshit I am not going to comment.

Do you think you are gaining any credibility by not addressing what was duly documented while labeling it as "bullshit"? Why do you not provide counter documentation (rather than your mere opinions) to justify your labeling?

No, I am just tired of bullshit certain individuals are constantly spewing.

 

[dystopian]

Baltic states economic growth is a function of economic growth in Russia.
Their growth is basically due to transit and food to Russia.

Oh god, you're having a laugh. There is absolutely no way that their GDP per capita increased more than 2 fold because of transit and food to Russia. That's such a ridiculous assertion. The reason they experienced such growth is a direct consequence of independence; this enabled them to implement many economic reforms and attract large quantities of foreign investment, the vast majority of which came from the EU. Food export is most certainly *not* to thank. Only about 3% of Estonia's GDP is agricultural, 4% for Lithuania, and less than 5% for Latvia.

And demography is not good, they experienced 30% drop in number of young people.

While this is a problem (mostly for Latvia and Lithuania, since emigration is very light in Estonia); it is absurd to make this an argument against them joining the EU; this demographic situation would have occurred regardless of whether or not they joined the EU, and might in fact have been worse since without joining the EU their economy would not have received the same level of European investment and and liberalisation and would not have grown as much as it did, which would further encourage young people to emigrate to EU countries.

maybe better material than Greece but still not good.

This is an absurd statement. The baltic states recovered from the crisis far faster than any other EU country, were never in need or at risk of needing a bailout, and in fact have far lower debt to GDP ratio's than other European countries (only 6% for Estonia). Their phenomenal growth disproves your assertion and makes it clear that they were excellent candidates, with their economic success an example to other peripheral economies.

And Ukraine is even bigger joke than Russia. I mean Russia should get to EU first.

If you think that the demographic issues facing the baltic states are reason for them not joining the EU, then there is no reason whatsoever the EU should ever allow Russia to join (not that it has any interest in doing so). It has a mortality rate that is literally worse than that of many 3rd world countries. A country whose male life expectancy ranks in the bottom 50 countries of the world is not a country that would be an asset to the EU. I will say that Russia has a leg up over Ukraine in terms of corruption; Ukraine ranks as the most corrupt country in Europe... Russia 2nd. Unlike Russia however, at least Ukraine's trying to do something about it (and trying to do so is what ultimately caused all this shit to begin with). So if we're going to allow one of two countries with just about the same level of corruption to join us... we'll obviously go with the one trying to improve things.

The rest of your bullshit I am not going to comment.
Actually I would like to comment that:

"I'm not going to comment! Actually I'm going to comment."

Except that the share of Ethnic Russians compared to the share of ethnic natives has gone down. Quite dramatically.

And how exactly they achieved that? murdering them?

Yes, by doing satanic rituals in the night.

Honestly, the monumental bias shining through in every statement you make and every question you ask is astonishing.

No, of course they didn't murder them. The reason the share of ethnic Russians has decreased is simple... emigration; the very same thing you've kept harping on. Who do you think has done most of the emigrating since independence? Russians, Ukrainians, and Belararussians.

 

[barbos]

Oh god, you're having a laugh. There is absolutely no way that their GDP per capita increased more than 2 fold because of transit and food to Russia. That's such a ridiculous assertion.

You sure do have fun with your retarded arguments
I have never claimed that that their GDP recovery was due to transit and food.
I merely claimed that their economy is dependent on services which Russia buys.
Recovery has nothing to do with that. Russia recovered too, well, they had no real downturn actually too.

The reason they experienced such growth is a direct consequence of independence;

I thought you were saying it was direct result of EU membership?
May I remind you they got independence in ~1990.
Correlation != causation.
Oil prices, Russia recovered because of that and baltic states took advantage of increased demand from Russia. Independence and EU had nothing to do with it.

this enabled them to implement many economic reforms and attract large quantities of foreign investment, the vast majority of which came from the EU. Food export is most certainly *not* to thank. Only about 3% of Estonia's GDP is agricultural, 4% for Lithuania, and less than 5% for Latvia.

Bullshit!
Food industry != agriculture.

And demography is not good, they experienced 30% drop in number of young people.

While this is a problem (mostly for Latvia and Lithuania, since emigration is very light in Estonia); it is absurd to make this an argument against them joining the EU;

I made no such argument.

this demographic situation would have occurred regardless of whether or not they joined the EU,

Not if emigration was difficult.

and might in fact have been worse since without joining the EU their economy would not have received the same level of European investment and and liberalisation and would not have grown as much as it did, which would further encourage young people to emigrate to EU countries.

maybe better material than Greece but still not good.

This is an absurd statement. The baltic states recovered from the crisis far faster than any other EU country,

Bullshit again. Baltic states had no banking industry and debt to have any kind of meltdown. The fact they "recovered" faster merely illustrates they had no crisis to begin with.

were never in need or at risk of needing a bailout, and in fact have far lower debt to GDP ratio's than other European countries (only 6% for Estonia). Their phenomenal growth disproves your assertion and makes it clear that they were excellent candidates, with their economic success an example to other peripheral economies.

And Ukraine is even bigger joke than Russia. I mean Russia should get to EU first.

If you think that the demographic issues facing the baltic states are reason for them not joining the EU, then there is no reason whatsoever the EU should ever allow Russia to join (not that it has any interest in doing so). It has a mortality rate that is literally worse than that of many 3rd world countries. A country whose male life expectancy ranks in the bottom 50 countries of the world is not a country that would be an asset to the EU. I will say that Russia has a leg up over Ukraine in terms of corruption;

Utter bullshit, Corruptian is high in Russia but it is way higher in Ukraine.
And Ukraine has the same life expectancy as Russia.
Also, life expectancy means nothing, it's mere reflection of the lifestyle of older generation. Younger generation does not smoke/drink that much.
Your utter hate for Russia is showing. You clearly way ahead of finns in hating russians

Ukraine ranks as the most corrupt country in Europe... Russia 2nd. Unlike Russia however,

LOL, you contradict yourself here.
All these rankings are bullshit. Europe is as just as corrupted, they are just hiding it better.

at least Ukraine's trying to do something about it

LOL, where did you get this idea? Sorry to disappoint you but it's opposite of that. Russia is trying and Ukraine was not and still is not, they have fucking war going on and speaking of corruption, how about fake bullet-proof vests? that's recent ukrainian invention.

(and trying to do so is what ultimately caused all this shit to begin with).

Bullshit. their previous orange president was just as corrupt as Yanukovich.

So if we're going to allow one of two countries with just about the same level of corruption to join us... we'll obviously go with the one trying to improve things.

The rest of your bullshit I am not going to comment.
Actually I would like to comment that:

"I'm not going to comment! Actually I'm going to comment."

Except that the share of Ethnic Russians compared to the share of ethnic natives has gone down. Quite dramatically.

And how exactly they achieved that? murdering them?

Yes, by doing satanic rituals in the night.

Honestly, the monumental bias shining through in every statement you make and every question you ask is astonishing.

Look who is talking.

No, of course they didn't murder them. The reason the share of ethnic Russians has decreased is simple... emigration; the very same thing you've kept harping on. Who do you think has done most of the emigrating since independence? Russians, Ukrainians, and Belararussians.

Russians in baltic states are not emigrating, certainly not to Russia.
So, stop making shit up.

 

[dystopian]

You sure do have fun with your retarded arguments
I have never claimed that that their GDP recovery was due to transit and food.

Recovery? I was not talking about recovery; 2000-2014 is the period we're talking about, with growth happening *before* AND after the crisis.

Secondly, you most certainly *did* say that their economic growth was because of exactly that. Here, your exact words:

"Their growth is basically due to transit and food to Russia."

I merely claimed that their economy is dependent on services which Russia buys.

Does it? Because as I pointed out, Russia is not the primary export partner of Estonia. Even Lithuania and Latvia don't export more than 18% of their total exports to Russia. While Russia of course represents a sizeable chunk of their exports; it is false to state that the Baltic economy is dependent upon Russia. There are other people to sell their stuff and services to.

Recovery has nothing to do with that. Russia recovered too, well, they had no real downturn actually too.

Are you so fuzzy on the timeline that you think Baltic growth since joining the EU happened AFTER the global financial crisis?

Incidentally, it is false to claim that Russia had no real downturn. It did; look up its GDP numbers for 2009.

I thought you were saying it was direct result of EU membership?
May I remind you they got independence in ~1990.

I said no such thing. I explained the reasons to you, EU membership was part of that, but not the direct cause. Of course, anyone who understands basic economics would know that the effects of independence and the subsequent economic reforms would take *time* to manifest themselves. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of economic growth happened after the 90's. Incidentally, the majority of economic reform was only implemented in the 2000's, and the Baltic states joined the EU in 2004. You can not seriously claim that these countries should not have joined the EU when they now have more than twice the GDP per capita than what they had before they joined.

Correlation != causation.

Ignoring the fact that I already explained the real cause to you, which any economist will tell you also: "Economic reform resulting in the attraction of foreign direct investment (the vast majority of which was/is European)"; this, coupled with a relatively low wage climate, resulted in economic growth, further strengthened by becoming part of a common market (the EU) allowing these countries to fully capitalize on their economic growth. This is basic economics, and the chain of causality is well established here.

Oil prices, Russia recovered because of that and baltic states took advantage of increased demand from Russia. Independence and EU had nothing to do with it.

Which again, is absurd. Russia does not represent a big enough chunk of the Baltic export economy to explain a 200%+ increase in GDP per capita; and Russian investments in the Baltic economy are dwarved by those from the EU. Anyone who understands the concept of numbers can see you're making easily refuted claims.

Bullshit!
Food industry != agriculture.

Oh, if only you knew you were shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.

Yes, it is true that the food exports are not the same as agricultural exports; this is because agricultural exports also encompass things like flowers, fishing, and biofuel. However, food produced by farms and factories, including meat, fruit, and vegetables, are also considered agricultural products. In other words, a country's agricultural industry is going to be bigger than just its food industry.; this means that you have even less of an argument in claiming that baltic growth is due to food exported to Russia, since the food exports will only represent a percentage of agricultural exports, which themselves represent only a tiny percentage of the baltic economy.

I made no such argument.

You did. You were blaming their demographic issues on them joining the EU.

Not if emigration was difficult.

Well, given your rabidly pro-russian mentality, I'm not surprised you would be okay with a country implementing draconian anti-immigration laws. Perhaps you'd like to suggest the Baltic states return to the cold steel embrace of the iron wall, next?

Bullshit again. Baltic states had no banking industry and debt to have any kind of meltdown. The fact they "recovered" faster merely illustrates they had no crisis to begin with.

Once again, you'll regret making these sort of absolute arguments. The financial crisis was of course not limited to the banking industry; all sectors of the economy experienced problems as a result of it, and countries without a banking industry would not be immune (of course, the statement that the baltic states had no banking industry is completely absurd; in fact, Estonia has a very large and competitive banking/financial industry; and of course both Lithuania and Latvia have their own banking industries, as almost all countries do). As for 'not having a crisis to begin with', the gdp of the baltic countries contracted by between 15 and 17% in 2009. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what is.

Utter bullshit, Corruptian is high in Russia but it is way higher in Ukraine.

Ah, the old favorite returns; "Yes, we're bad... but they're worse!"; in actuality, Russia does not rank far behind Ukraine at all: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results - a mere 3 point difference; to put that into perspective, the difference between Norway and Sweden is also just 3 points, but nobody would ever claim that corruption is "way higher" in Norway than it is in Sweden.

And Ukraine has the same life expectancy as Russia.

Wow, looks like you finally managed to say something that's actually true. *Both* countries are below the world average. Congratulations on being inferior together, I guess?

Also, life expectancy means nothing, it's mere reflection of the lifestyle of older generation. Younger generation does not smoke/drink that much.

Sure, blame it on the old people. However, the mortality rates are in fact far higher among young people in Russia than they are in the developed world. The infant mortality rate for instance (a good indicator of healthcare quality), is 2.3 times as high as the average for the EU. And mortality rates for people of working age are 3.5 times higher. Russia is also a world leader in youth suicides. What all this means is that the low life expectancy is NOT just because of the lifestyle of older generations (and there's no evidence presented by you, by the way, that said lifestyle is exclusive to older generations).

Your utter hate for Russia is showing. You clearly way ahead of finns in hating russians

Pointing out the facts and doing so in order to counter the blatant pro-russia propaganda thrown about does not demonstrate a hatred of Russia. I do not hate Russia, I just hate its leaders and clueless nationalists.

All these rankings are bullshit. Europe is as just as corrupted, they are just hiding it better.

"She's a witch!"
"But she passed all our tests!"
"That's bullshit, she's a witch, she just knows how to hide it better than the others did."

Bullshit. their previous orange president was just as corrupt as Yanukovich.

So you admit he was corrupt, at least. I assume you have some sort of evidence to claim that the previous one was just as corrupt?

Russians in baltic states are not emigrating, certainly not to Russia.
So, stop making shit up.

I'm not. It's a demographic fact. In 1989, the total number of ethnic Russians in Estonia was 474,834; just over 30% of the population. In 2011, there were only 332, 816 ethnic Russians there; or 25.2% of the population. Obviously, most of the Russians went back to Russia following independence; but the share of Russians has been falling in more recent years as well; in 2000, they represented 25.6% of the population versus that more recent 25.2%; ethnic Estonians in that same timespan went from representing 67.9% of the population in 2000 to 69.7% in 2011. The numbers are too high to be explained except through emigration.

Of course, if you say they're not emigrating to Russia... you're directly contradicting Russian immigration officials who say that most of the immigrants are from former soviet states; many of them illegal immigrants. Well given the way Russia treats its immigrants; to the point of the police doing nothing against vigilante groups that openly assault immigrants; I'm not surprised you'd prefer to just deny the immigration takes place to begin with.

 

[Harry Bosch]

By Barbos :The rest of your bullshit I am not going to comment.

Do you think you are gaining any credibility by not addressing what was duly documented while labeling it as "bullshit"? Why do you not provide counter documentation (rather than your mere opinions) to justify your labeling?

Because he is having difficulty finding documentation that supports his agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not Putin's right to allow it or not. They are sovereign counties that have the right to chose international organizations, alliances and treaties they want to join. That Russia is acting aggressively toward former colonies that make decision not in Moscow's interest proves the necessity of those countries seeking NATO protection.

What about the Nato encroachment of Russia? That's not to mention the sizeable number of Russian speaking people who prefer to be Russians.

What of it? The reason why Ukraine is moving west is due to Russia treating them like assholes.

 

[arkirk]

Have we forgotten about the coups that brought the current regime to Kiev? Who paid the coup leaders? Countries that once had huge empires have a hell of a time coping with the loss of that empire. Russia has that problem. So do most of the countries of western Europe. Ukraine has got to be a booby prize for whoever "wins" it. Part of the conditions in the deal made in the '90's was that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, a military alliance dedicated squeezing the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there really is no reason for its continued existence. All it has done is get in trouble in the middle east and south Asia and Libya. I don't blame the Russians (even Putin) for not wanting Ukraine in either NATO or the EU. In my opinion, partition would make the most sense. Then, the warriors could go home.

 

[Jayjay]

I also used to think that NATO had no reason to exist after fall of the Soviet Union. It seemed like there was no enemy anymore now that Russia was friends with the West. But Putin's Russia has shown that NATO is in fact very much needed. Not to mess with the world and engage in wars it doesn't belong to, but in its core function of defense of its member states. Before this whole incident, Ukraine had no plans to join Nato. Now they are begging to get in... not that Nato will just let a country mired in civil war to waltz in, but it shows exactly what the appeal of Nato is. Other countries bordering Russia that were ambivalent about Nato are now also more likely to seek cooperation if not membership with it, and who can blame them?

 

[barbos]

I'm not. It's a demographic fact. In 1989, the total number of ethnic Russians in Estonia was 474,834; just over 30% of the population. In 2011, there were only 332, 816 ethnic Russians there; or 25.2% of the population.

You ARE making shit up!
We were talking about emigration to EU since EU membership not since independence.
Yes some russians left when independence was declared, some were forced to leave.
and that statistics, I bet it includes Soviet Army stationed in Baltic in their "before 1989".
And you don't even have mental capacity to read statistics, confusing food industry with agriculture.
Everything you say is utter distortion of the facts and bullshit, and it is clear to me that you are biased against Russia because when you are presented with argument which disproves your bullshit you just jump elsewhere ans continue to to spew your hate.
You are being put on ignore, so save your and everybody's time and stop concocting elaborate bullshit comments on my posts.

 

[barbos]

I also used to think that NATO had no reason to exist after fall of the Soviet Union. It seemed like there was no enemy anymore now that Russia was friends with the West. But Putin's Russia has shown that NATO is in fact very much needed. Not to mess with the world and engage in wars it doesn't belong to, but in its core function of defense of its member states. Before this whole incident, Ukraine had no plans to join Nato. Now they are begging to get in... not that Nato will just let a country mired in civil war to waltz in, but it shows exactly what the appeal of Nato is. Other countries bordering Russia that were ambivalent about Nato are now also more likely to seek cooperation if not membership with it, and who can blame them?

Bullcrap, here is why.
There is a no bigger friend of US than Saakashvili (ask McCain if you don't trust me), and there were no bigger friend of Saakashvili than their speaker of parlament at one time, don't remember her name. long story short she went to opposition to him eventually and there were demonstrators all that crap.
She once said I (am paraphrasing) that politics on former Soviet Republic is very easy, you go and say crap about Putin or Russia and you are automatically friend of US and you get money and everything. That's what she said, and she was closest ally of Saakashvili, that was before he started violent crackdown on opposition. So this formula works 100% In Georgia, Baltic states, Poland, now in Ukraine.
Facts be damned, as a long you say Putin/Russia is bad you get round of applause and bag of cash.

Now, about Ukraine NATO, Ukraine had been talking about that (and EU) long before this coup. For the simple reason - cash, yes they got about $250bil in the form of gas over the years.
So this has been formula for Ukraine, but they had two distortion tools - Navy base and gas pipe.
Now pipe is slowly becoming less relevant and base is gone, time to switch to distortion money from the US/West.

 

[Jayjay]

I also used to think that NATO had no reason to exist after fall of the Soviet Union. It seemed like there was no enemy anymore now that Russia was friends with the West. But Putin's Russia has shown that NATO is in fact very much needed. Not to mess with the world and engage in wars it doesn't belong to, but in its core function of defense of its member states. Before this whole incident, Ukraine had no plans to join Nato. Now they are begging to get in... not that Nato will just let a country mired in civil war to waltz in, but it shows exactly what the appeal of Nato is. Other countries bordering Russia that were ambivalent about Nato are now also more likely to seek cooperation if not membership with it, and who can blame them?

Bullcrap, here is why.
There is a no bigger friend of US than Saakashvili (ask McCain if you don't trust me), and there were no bigger friend of Saakashvili than their speaker of parlament at one time, don't remember her name. long story short she went to opposition to him eventually and there were demonstrators all that crap.
She once said I (am paraphrasing) that politics on former Soviet Republic is very easy, you go and say crap about Putin or Russia and you are automatically friend of US and you get money and everything. That's what she said, and she was closest ally of Saakashvili, that was before he started violent crackdown on opposition. So this formula works 100% In Georgia, Baltic states, Poland, now in Ukraine.
Facts be damned, as a long you say Putin/Russia is bad you get round of applause and bag of cash.

There was a referendum in Georgia back in 2008 and 75% voted to join Nato. Were all those who voted in favor also getting bags of cash from the US? I AS for bribing the leaders, if there really were bags of cash paid by US government in all countries that are not too friendly with US, then someone would have uncovered it already. Far more likely than this conspiracy theory is the shared experience of these countries as former soviet republics or client states.

Now, about Ukraine NATO, Ukraine had been talking about that (and EU) long before this coup. For the simple reason - cash, yes they got about $250bil in the form of gas over the years.
So this has been formula for Ukraine, but they had two distortion tools - Navy base and gas pipe.
Now pipe is slowly becoming less relevant and base is gone, time to switch to distortion money from the US/West.

Ukraine's EU partnership was in no way threatening or excluding Russia.

 

[barbos]

Bullcrap, here is why.
There is a no bigger friend of US than Saakashvili (ask McCain if you don't trust me), and there were no bigger friend of Saakashvili than their speaker of parlament at one time, don't remember her name. long story short she went to opposition to him eventually and there were demonstrators all that crap.
She once said I (am paraphrasing) that politics on former Soviet Republic is very easy, you go and say crap about Putin or Russia and you are automatically friend of US and you get money and everything. That's what she said, and she was closest ally of Saakashvili, that was before he started violent crackdown on opposition. So this formula works 100% In Georgia, Baltic states, Poland, now in Ukraine.
Facts be damned, as a long you say Putin/Russia is bad you get round of applause and bag of cash.

There was a referendum in Georgia back in 2008 and 75% voted to join Nato.
Were all those who voted in favor also getting bags of cash from the US?

Yes, indirectly they were getting that cash. And 2008, before that little war or after?

AS for bribing the leaders, if there really were bags of cash paid by US government in all countries that are not too friendly with US, then someone would have uncovered it already.

I did not mean literal bribing, however in Iraq and Afghanistan they were literally bribing people.
Same with NATO base in Kyrgizstan, it was all based on bribes, everything in Central Asia is based on bribes.

Far more likely than this conspiracy theory is the shared experience of these countries as former soviet republics or client states.

Bullcrap, it is and was all about money. You show typical for westerner ignorance and susceptibility of your own propaganda and revisionist history. Soviet Union dissolved because it was in bad economic shape not because all these republics were fed up with being client states (which they were not) Every single republic thought that they would be better off (economically) being independent. Most turned out to be wrong. Only Baltic states managed to be relatively OK. The rest including Russia turned out worse. Only when oil prices went up Russia and other oil producing states got better. Ukraine had no oil. Life in Soviet Union was nothing like your propaganda was picturing at the time.

So it's all about money and economy not about freedom versus communism.
Even Crimea referendum was to some large degree bought by Russia.
People who voted YES to leaving Ukraine for Russia knew that they were about to get their income doubled. and if they had voted NO they would get economy even worse than before
Can you blame them for voting YES?

Now, about Ukraine NATO, Ukraine had been talking about that (and EU) long before this coup. For the simple reason - cash, yes they got about $250bil in the form of gas over the years.
So this has been formula for Ukraine, but they had two distortion tools - Navy base and gas pipe.
Now pipe is slowly becoming less relevant and base is gone, time to switch to distortion money from the US/West.

Ukraine's EU partnership was in no way threatening or excluding Russia.

Not according to Eurocrats, they directly said to Yanukovich - No Custom Union if you are in EU.
Russia was vague but in the end they said the same - Russia can't allow that.
Regardless of the rules, it was determined that close economic ties will be severed and it will cost Russia $100bil per year.
Basically Ukraine has some manufacturing which was crucial to Russia and was not easily replaceable.
Also EU would no doubt have tried to force Russian business out of Ukraine

 

[angelo]

Have we forgotten about the coups that brought the current regime to Kiev? Who paid the coup leaders? Countries that once had huge empires have a hell of a time coping with the loss of that empire. Russia has that problem. So do most of the countries of western Europe. Ukraine has got to be a booby prize for whoever "wins" it. Part of the conditions in the deal made in the '90's was that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, a military alliance dedicated squeezing the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there really is no reason for its continued existence. All it has done is get in trouble in the middle east and south Asia and Libya. I don't blame the Russians (even Putin) for not wanting Ukraine in either NATO or the EU. In my opinion, partition would make the most sense. Then, the warriors could go home.

I never thought I'd see the day that I agree with you!

 

[dystopian]

Have we forgotten about the coups that brought the current regime to Kiev? Who paid the coup leaders?

Repeating the claim that it was a coup does not change the fact that it doesn't qualify as a coup.

Part of the conditions in the deal made in the '90's was that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, a military alliance dedicated squeezing the Soviet Union.

Part of the conditions of that deal also meant that Russia would respect and defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine. At no point prior to this was there any talk of Ukraine joining NATO; nonetheless, Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity. It is Russia that violated the deal, not the west.

 

[angelo]

Repeating the claim that it was a coup does not change the fact that it doesn't qualify as a coup.

Part of the conditions in the deal made in the '90's was that Ukraine would not be joining NATO, a military alliance dedicated squeezing the Soviet Union.

Part of the conditions of that deal also meant that Russia would respect and defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine. At no point prior to this was there any talk of Ukraine joining NATO; nonetheless, Russia violated Ukraine's territorial integrity. It is Russia that violated the deal, not the west.

As I Said before. Russia has , and I don't blame them, have phobia about been encroached. It would be a nightmare scenario for Putin and Russia were the Ukraine to fall in Nato's clutches.

 

[dystopian]

You ARE making shit up!

These numbers are not made up.

We were talking about emigration to EU since EU membership not since independence.

No, we were not. Just because you're harping on that does not mean I was specifically talking about that. The fact is that emigration from these countries was *much* worse in the 90's as compared to today. And the fact remains that the share of Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians emigrating from the Baltic states is greater than the share of ethnic natives doing so. The numbers don't lie.

Yes some russians left when independence was declared, some were forced to leave.

I'm sure you have evidence of the claim that they were forced to leave. Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to, of course you don't.

and that statistics, I bet it includes Soviet Army stationed in Baltic in their "before 1989".

Of course it doesn't, don't be absurd. It involves registered citizens.

And you don't even have mental capacity to read statistics, confusing food industry with agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

"Agriculture, also called farming or husbandry, is the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel, medicinals and other products used to sustain and enhance human life."

Unless you want to claim that the industries supporting this chain/taking advantage of it are so big in the baltic states as to represent almost the entirety of their economy (and you can't, because they don't), then you have no basis for your claims that the baltic food industry is the reason for their growth.

Everything you say is utter distortion of the facts and bullshit, and it is clear to me that you are biased against Russia because when you are presented with argument which disproves your bullshit you just jump elsewhere ans continue to to spew your hate.

This is amusing for the irony. Oh, and then there's the claim that when I'm "presented with argument which disproves my bullshit, I just jump elsewhere..."; when exactly have I done that? Everything you respond to one of my posts with an argument of some sort, I directly address and refute that argument. You, however, have certainly established a pattern of making arguments only to bugger off when you can no longer figure out how to 'refute' the arguments people make in response. As evidenced in part by:

You are being put on ignore, so save your and everybody's time and stop concocting elaborate bullshit comments on my posts.

Contrary to what your persecution complex is telling you, I'm not particularly interested in convincing you of anything. It's obvious that you're not receptive to arguments that run counter to your personal reality. The point of my replies to you are to refute your claims for the benefit of others, who might otherwise be duped by you. I will continue doing this whenever I feel like it, regardless of whether or not you've put me on ignore (or are just pretending to). If nothing else though, putting me on ignore does establish quite nicely that you do not have the ability to actually address my arguments; putting me on ignore so you don't have to see my arguments anymore is a good way to decrease the amount of cognitive dissonance you're experiencing, after all.

 

[dystopian]

As I Said before. Russia has , and I don't blame them, have phobia about been encroached. It would be a nightmare scenario for Putin and Russia were the Ukraine to fall in Nato's clutches.

Which completely ignores the fact that Ukraine joining NATO was NEVER on the table before Russia started acting like a paranoid schizophrenic. It also ignores the fact that in no way does it legally or morally justify an invasion and annexation of neighbor's territories.

 

[angelo]

Russia hasn't invaded anyone. It's pro Russian rebels who caused the uprising before Russia agreed to give these people any aid.

 

[dystopian]

Russia hasn't invaded anyone. It's pro Russian rebels who caused the uprising before Russia agreed to give these people any aid.

This again. Firstly, yes, Russia invaded Crimea; the arrangement that allowed them to have up to 25K troops in the region did *not* allow for those troops to attack and occupy airfields, bases, roads, and government buildings. Doing so constitutes a break of the arrangement as well as an invasion. Secondly, there is ample evidence that Russia has been actively propping up the pro-russian rebels with troops and material. Some people may be dumb enough to believe the rebel leaders who claim that the thousands of Russian soldiers in their ranks are "just there on vacation", but the rest of us aren't. While the current situation (as opposed to that which took place in Crimea) may not be a full blown open invasion, it sure as fuck looks like an invasion of *some* kind.

 

[angelo]

Perhaps a pre-emptive strike before Ukraine fell into the clutches of the EU? Putin cannot have a EU country on his doorstep it's as simple as that.

 

[Jayjay]

Far more likely than this conspiracy theory is the shared experience of these countries as former soviet republics or client states.

Bullcrap, it is and was all about money. You show typical for westerner ignorance and susceptibility of your own propaganda and revisionist history. Soviet Union dissolved because it was in bad economic shape not because all these republics were fed up with being client states (which they were not) Every single republic thought that they would be better off (economically) being independent. Most turned out to be wrong. Only Baltic states managed to be relatively OK. The rest including Russia turned out worse. Only when oil prices went up Russia and other oil producing states got better. Ukraine had no oil. Life in Soviet Union was nothing like your propaganda was picturing at the time.

If the former Soviet states were running away from the union as soon as they had a chance, that just shows they had no loyalty or ties there whatsoever, which is exactly my point. Only thing keeping these countries in SU was military force and without it they would have left a long time ago... it'snot as if the Soviet economy just started tanking in late eighties, it was in deep trouble even before that.

Ukraine's EU partnership was in no way threatening or excluding Russia.

Not according to Eurocrats, they directly said to Yanukovich - No Custom Union if you are in EU.
Russia was vague but in the end they said the same - Russia can't allow that.
Regardless of the rules, it was determined that close economic ties will be severed and it will cost Russia $100bil per year.
Basically Ukraine has some manufacturing which was crucial to Russia and was not easily replaceable.
Also EU would no doubt have tried to force Russian business out of Ukraine

Ukraine is not and has never been a member of the EEC customs union. Ukraine did have some free trade agreements with the customs union, but I am not aware if any of those existing agreements would have been incompatible with the EU partnership.

AS for EU forcing businesses who deal with Russia out of Ukraine, that's laughable. They would have neither the power nor any reason to do so. If Ukraine were a member of European free trade area, Ukraine's profitable exports to Russia would be a net benefit for EU.