Ukraine crisis: Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

[longknife]

Another positive foreign policy move. Hurt the people who live there just because he's ticked that Putin's more popular than he is. Just what good effect will this have? It will only hurt the common people and won' change a single thing.


Read the story @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

 

[georgephillip]

Another positive foreign policy move. Hurt the people who live there just because he's ticked that Putin's more popular than he is

It's also possible Obama is walking on eggshells over the prospect of whistle-blowers inside the US government revealing the role played by US agents in the recent regime change in Kiev.

"

f the US State Department's Victoria Nuland had not said 'Fuck the EU,' few outsiders at the time would have heard of Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the man on the other end of her famously bugged telephone call.

"But now Washington's man in Kiev is gaining fame as the face of the CIA-style 'destabilization campaign' that brought down Ukraine's monumentally corrupt but legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych."

Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev

 

[Stratford57]

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented Western sanctions today: it means that USA, Canada and EU admitted that the decision of Crimea people about being with Russia in March,2014 was free and basically unanimous.
All the time since March Western countries through their Media tried to convince their people that Putin had annexed Crimea from Ukraine against the will of Crimean citizens. So, if that was correct and Crimea was a victim of Russian aggression (as all Western Media tried to present), then what sense does it make to put sanctions on the victim? All this just proved: Western Media is untrustworthy and Crimea became a part of Russia in democratic way. Then what is there to argue about?

 

[Bleipriester]

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented Western sanctions today: it means that USA, Canada and EU admitted that the decision of Crimea people about being with Russia in March,2014 was free and basically unanimous.
All the time since March Western countries through their Media tried to convince their people that Putin had annexed Crimea from Ukraine against the will of Crimean citizens. So, if that was correct and Crimea was a victim of Russian aggression (as all Western Media tried to present), then what sense does it make to put sanctions on the victim? All this just proved: Western Media is untrustworthy and Crimea became a part of Russia in democratic way. Then what is there to argue about?

Its just its ugly grimace the west cannot hide. Its leaders are the most reprobate elements the world suffers.

 

[Mindlight]

Another positive foreign policy move. Hurt the people who live there just because he's ticked that Putin's more popular than he is. Just what good effect will this have? It will only hurt the common people and won' change a single thing.


Read the story @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

Putin and Obama are playing games here. The Crimea is a done deal and no one doubts its Russian sympathies. The East of the Ukraine is more controversial but I would not have a major issue if it went to Russia. But Putin does not seem interested in simply dividing the country. He is playing for regional hegemony. Obama also is playing a long game here that ultimately involves pushing Russia out of the Ukraine and bringing the country into the EU and NATO. But the EU are horrified at the prospect of picking up the bill for a Mafia dominated Ukraine. It is doubtful that the Ukraine would add any military advantage to NATO and would probably prove to be more of a fifth column.The Ukrainian economy is heavily dependent on Russia and would probably collapse completely if the borders were closed as it is massively uncompetitive in European terms.

Both Putin and Obamas strategies are ultimately not achievable and are doing no one any good. The Russians have to face the fact that the NATO members of Eastern Europe are lost for good and the regional hegemony they had in Soviet days is gone forever. This strategy of bleeding the Ukraine dry is not going to work but will harm their own economy in the long run. The Americans have to realise that the Crimea is Russian and maybe even Donetsk also. The Ukrainian people have been playing with the European dream while failing to deal with endemic corruption in their economy and culture. They remain economically dependent on Russia and will not thrive without better relations with Moscow.

This is a desperate situation with no end in site and neither Putin or Obama are helping right now.

 

[georgephillip]

Then what is there to argue about?

Possibly, the extent to which US and other western interests played in the recent regime change in Kiev?
"Detailed evidence provides the answers. For all the courage of the Ukrainian minority who took to the barricades, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and his team spurred the protests in Kiev and exercised extensive – though never complete – control over them. Tactically, Pyatt and his fellow diplomats showed unexpected skill. Strategically, they should have stayed home."
The link I'm quoting is long and detailed, and, if it's accurate, the regime change that happened last winter in Ukraine was made possible by the US State Department working in conjunction with major international players like George Soros.
Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev

 

[Stratford57]

Victoria Nuland has spent 5 billion dollars for supporting Ukrainian protests before the coup. God knows how much US have spent since then. Biden comes to Kiev very frequently, in Ukraine he's already got a nickname "Papa of Ukrainian policy". At the picture (it's real, by the way) he's sitting in the Presidential chair. (At the same time US through their Media keep spreading information about Putin invading Ukraine. It's either Biden or Putin in Ukraine, not both! However the picture clearly shows: it's definitely and unfortunately not Putin ).

Former speaker of Ukrainian Parliament at the left side and Prime-minister at the right side. Long live "independent" Ukraine!

 

[Mindlight]

Then what is there to argue about?

Possibly, the extent to which US and other western interests played in the recent regime change in Kiev?
"Detailed evidence provides the answers. For all the courage of the Ukrainian minority who took to the barricades, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and his team spurred the protests in Kiev and exercised extensive – though never complete – control over them. Tactically, Pyatt and his fellow diplomats showed unexpected skill. Strategically, they should have stayed home."
The link I'm quoting is long and detailed, and, if it's accurate, the regime change that happened last winter in Ukraine was made possible by the US State Department working in conjunction with major international players like George Soros.
Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev

Its an interesting link but it seems that Putins response is to make the Euromaidan a Pyrric victory. Having taken the Crimea it seems he will continue to bleed the Ukraine until America backs off.

But the thing is when The USSR did this in Cuba the Americans went to the brink of nuclear war to defend their backyard. Russia regards the Ukraine as its own and unless you are prepared to stare Putin down or call his bluff there is no way forward here. In the meantime European is paying the price for this brinkmanship and there is no real change in the level of corruption endemic to the Ukraine.

 

[georgephillip]

But the thing is when The USSR did this in Cuba the Americans went to the brink of nuclear war to defend their backyard. Russia regards the Ukraine as its own and unless you are prepared to stare Putin down or call his bluff there is no way forward here. In the meantime European is paying the price for this brinkmanship and there is no real change in the level of corruption endemic to the Ukraine

The USSR introduced nuclear weapons in Cuba while the US seems to be relying on economics to support its role in Ukraine; it's hard to know how far the economic warfare will spread:
"Moving west, formerly Soviet countries with significant exports to Russia and Ukraine are the next in line to take a hit from Russia's impending recession.

"Central and Eastern Europe could lose 0.3 to 1 percent of GDP growth next year due to slowing growth in Russia, macroeconomic research company Capital Economics said in a report late last week.

"The Baltic states — which comprise Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — are particularly vulnerable, as is Poland.

"The Baltics all send between 10 and 20 percent of their merchandise exports to Russia, while Poland sells more than 5 percent of its exports there, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) reported.

"A Russian recession could, in a bad scenario, cause growth in the Baltics to slow from around 2-3 percent to around 1 percent. … It's a significant headwind, but not a disaster," Capital Economics analyst William Jackson told The Moscow Times.

"Both Poland and the Baltics are buffered by strong domestic demand and, in Poland's case, exports to Germany, Jackson said."

How Far Will Russia s Recession Spread Beyond Its Borders Business The Moscow Times

 

[Mindlight]

The biggest issue here is how long this will last. Will the US keep the pressure on till Obama leaves the Whitehouse for instance. Also what are the real reasons for this. America talks in terms of the Sovereignty of the Ukraine and the agreement made with the country after the removal of nukes. But if it can be shown that America violated the terms of this agreement by supporting the Euromaidan and that the Crimea did indeed choose to secede from a state that no longer had a democratic legitimacy then Americas moral outrage falls to the ground. Some suggest the background antagonism here is Obamas support for gay marriage which the Russians see as an example of Western decadence. Putins highly public defiance of this in contrast with the French and British has earnt him Americas anger. Also Russian support of the Syrian regime also put Putin on the wrong side of Obama until Obama realised the extent of the Americans anger against IS which he was supporting by opposing Assad.

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

 

[georgephillip]

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

I think it is likely about long term geostrategic goals by US elites in both major political parties to surround and control both Russia and China; I don't think it will matter in the slightest which corporate tool occupies the White House in the future:
"The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war – with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China.

"This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

"The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an 'invisible government'.

"It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies."

CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda Print

 

[Sunni Man]

If a person digs a little deeper.

They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine. .....

 

[georgephillip]

They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine. ...

Do you have any names/links?

 

[Mindlight]

So i think it comes to a clash of personalities and some really bad decisions by Americas state department and at the end of the day The whole thing is all rather murky. It will take real leadership to clean up and in the meantime Europe suffers for superpower stupidity

I think it is likely about long term geostrategic goals by US elites in both major political parties to surround and control both Russia and China; I don't think it will matter in the slightest which corporate tool occupies the White House in the future:

I do not understand this strategy of isolating both. Because it seems to me all it does is drive the 2 together and create a bigger long term threat. Russia should be split off from China not encouraged to seek gas and infrastructure deals such as it has signed since Obama started getting tough. The Ukraine is a mess and the people have only chosen Europe in a superficial way. Their culture is riven with neo Nazi anti-Semites and Mafia types and there is this massive split between East and West. We should be looking to cement secure borders that articulate the commitments and sense of belonging of people on each side of them. But instead we try and push NATO and the EU into places it has no business going and where to be honest it will do little good.

Regarding the bias in the media - yes it is very clear.

 

[Mindlight]

If a person digs a little deeper.

They will find that western Jewish bankers are funding the unrest in the Ukraine. .....

This is a powerful myth in the Muslim world but it has little basis in reality in the Ukraine. Think it through. Some of the most deeply antiSemtic people are those who vote for Svoboda (10%) for instance and mainly come from the Western Ukraine. If you were a rich banker regardless of your race would you invest your money in a country where Mafia groups were so powerful and where much of your money would most likely disappear into the shadow economy that represents more than 40% of Ukrainian GNP. Jews are actually treated reasonably well in the Russian dominated areas in which the unrest is occurring and a lot better than Conservative Evangelical Christians if the reports are to be believed. So even if this mythical Jewish rich mans elite that pulls all the strings in world politics exists why would they want anything to do with the Ukraine? No one gets an economic return from this unrest.

 

[georgephillip]

I do not understand this strategy of isolating both. Because it seems to me all it does is drive the 2 together and create a bigger long term threat. Russia should be split off from China not encouraged to seek gas and infrastructure deals such as it has signed since Obama started getting tough.

I certainly don't understand the morality behind total US control of the global economy, but it seems clear Eurasia is key to that hegemony:
"The Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington is right in boldly asserting that,

"'a world without US primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs. The sustained international primacy of the United States is central to the welfare and security of Americans and to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world.'"

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical.

"Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial.

"A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent."

The Grand Chessboard - US Geostrategy for Eurasia

 

[TheOldSchool]

Another positive foreign policy move. Hurt the people who live there just because he's ticked that Putin's more popular than he is. Just what good effect will this have? It will only hurt the common people and won' change a single thing.


Read the story @ BBC News - Ukraine crisis Obama orders ban on Crimea trade

So you're against all sanctions then? Weren't you just complaining about Obama supporting Cuba?

 

[Mindlight]

I do not understand this strategy of isolating both. Because it seems to me all it does is drive the 2 together and create a bigger long term threat. Russia should be split off from China not encouraged to seek gas and infrastructure deals such as it has signed since Obama started getting tough.

I certainly don't understand the morality behind total US control of the global economy, but it seems clear Eurasia is key to that hegemony:

It is not just about American primacy it's about the global system that it as developed with its friends. Chinas economy looks likely to overtake Americas in the next decade or few decades if it has not already done so. But they will remain number 2 because America has a global network of alliances in place that more than double / triple its economic weight and because militarily the USA remains dominant. One of Chinas best plays is a relationship with Russia. Russia has the raw materials and energy supplies it needs to develop its economy further. Putin is understandably wary of that cause he is also scared of the rise of China and has an independent vision for the future of Russia. But Putin has signed gas deals and infrastructure deals with the Chinese as his hand has been forced by the West.

So Obamas strategy of squeezing the Russians into a tighter and tighter fist is simply antagonistic and short sighted. We should be making friends with these guys and encouraging reforms not driving them into the hands of the Chinese.

So also with China - the strategy is surely to welcome them into the world community and system so that independent action and aggression becomes more damaging and problematic for them. By antagonising Russia , impoverishing Europe and blocking out India America is simply pushing the rising world to form its own new world system in which American primacy is no longer central.

History shows that not knowing whose the top dog and having to fight it out is usually the biggest cause of war and global instability.

 

[Sunni Man]

So Obamas strategy of squeezing the Russians into a tighter and tighter fist is simply antagonistic and short sighted. We should be making friends with these guys and encouraging reforms not driving them into the hands of the Chinese.

Why does the US insist other countries must "reform" to our standards?

Russia has its own culture and heritage which is far older than America's.

And the Russian people do not want the western nations dictating to them how to live. .....

 

[georgephillip]

History shows that not knowing whose the top dog and having to fight it out is usually the biggest cause of war and global instability

Unfortunately, the world's top dog is committed to controlling the most valuable real estate on the planet, and it will tolerate no contender or alliance of contenders:

"Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence."

The Grand Chessboard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia