Posts from Forum

Putin's interests are obvious; he doesn't even hide them – he's restoring Russia's influence within the borders of the USSR.

the population benefits.

Someone already ran by, boasting about their knowledge of history, but quickly faltered when asked simple questions.

Ah, yes, imperial ambitions... It's a persistent desire. I understand. But why only within the USSR? Or is this just a starting point?

Please elaborate on this! What are the benefits for the population?

Added 1 minute ago
Damn, Vic, you don't even let me work!

Be more careful with your words, don't resort to personal attacks, because that's the first sign that you've lost the argument. :)

The fact that people are stupid doesn't mean they prefer lies. No one likes lies.

If you stop brainwashing people with the television and tell them the truth, they will all go to the Kremlin and impale Putin on a stake.

Do you know the difference between Putin and an honest person?))

Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a well-known honest politician? Just one example.

It's unlikely that there were any agreements. Yanukovych desperately needs money, and he doesn't care where it comes from (the EU didn't provide it, it seems that things aren't going well with China either, but Putin is providing it), so he's playing along with Putin, and Putin is just taking advantage of the situation.

But he attacked the wrong person and it's not entirely clear what he's planning next. Yanukovych will take the money and won't fulfill the agreements (you'll see: he'll get the money, and the issue of association will resurface if he lives that long...)

I didn't notice... Can you insert a quote?

It already depends on the electorate. It's not quite like Moscow here (I wrote about it above); it won't just go away. It seems that things are serious there. They will either achieve their goals, or there will be a coup or a bloodbath. In any case, the president and the government are living out their last days. The only question is how long they can keep it up...

Well, don't say that. And how, I wonder, will Putin achieve his goals without Yanukovych (what did they even agree on?). He will have to start from scratch. That's why he took precautions, saying that they will review gas prices every quarter. In general, the game has begun: who can hurt whom more.

Oh! The news broke that the government will not make concessions to the opposition. They are disrupting the vote on the law on releasing participants in mass protests from criminal prosecution. They are planning something, the bastards. Bold! Could it be that Putin promised to send troops if necessary?! He's not a fool. There will be trouble...

Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a well-known honest politician? Just one example.

The population benefits in that, all other things being equal, the larger the collective, the stronger the effect of the division of labor, and as a result, the higher the standard of living.

Russia's colonial policy, both under the tsars and under the general secretaries, was the opposite - the periphery was lifted up both economically and infrastructurally, protected from external aggression, and even the local elite was not particularly humiliated, but integrated into the existing power hierarchy. Even in Afghanistan, during the war, they built so many infrastructure facilities that the Afghans still remember how well they lived under Soviet "occupation." And they compare it with the Americans, who only shoot and support drug production.

Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a well-known honest politician? Just one example.

Maybe we can broaden the search a bit, at least one honest person.

Now, let's talk about the money. Here, everything adds up to a fairy tale. Instead of giving money directly to Yanukovych, Putin is buying Ukrainian Eurobonds worth 15 billion, which instantly raises their price by almost 6%. These 6%, as stockbrokers say, easily cover the deficit in the Ukrainian budget. That is, Putin didn't give money, but he solved the problem.

However, there is a nuance. As soon as Putin announced the placement of funds in Ukrainian Eurobonds, their price immediately jumped. But did Putin actually buy them, or is he just planning to? If he is only planning to, he will have to buy them at a high price. And here, a certain story emerges, which happened a few days ago. We suddenly learned that the American investment company "Franklin Templeton" bought Ukrainian debt securities worth $5 billion, which, according to reports, is 20% of the national debt.

Franklin Templeton, as far as I know, carries out speculative transactions on behalf of anonymous clients. That is, someone knew that Putin would promise to buy Ukrainian bonds and that they would rise in price after that. And they bought them in advance, just before the announcement, in order to resell them profitably. And make about a billion in a month.

But who could have known about Putin's decision not only before it was announced, but also before the meeting where this decision was agreed upon? Wasn't it Putin himself? Or someone close to him? Or maybe this operation was carried out by some Russian structure, such as the Central Bank?

It's very profitable: through front companies, they bought Ukrainian bonds, officially announced the intention to buy Ukrainian bonds on behalf of the Russian Federation, withdrew money from American jurisdiction for these purposes, and sold the bonds purchased through front companies. Making a billion in profit. And then we will decide: whether to buy Ukrainian bonds at all, and if so, in what tranches and within what timeframes?

In short, they made a good profit by deceiving the Americans and Europeans.

Well, it's all in theory, but in practice, quantity doesn't always mean quality. A clear example: Russia (who would have thought?!), with a population of over 100 million, has a low standard of living, not to mention the rapid decline in this very population. Or India - the second most populous nation on the planet, if I'm not mistaken, but they live like paupers. But in Austria, with a population smaller than that of Kyiv, there is some kind of unhealthy order. I'm not even talking about Switzerland and the like.

I am interested in how the lives of the population of Ukraine and Russia will improve specifically after the unification (if I understand you correctly, and you meant ordinary people)? At whose expense? Is there a development plan?

Well, firstly, I would not compare monarchy and communism with modern democracy in Russia. The interests are different now.

Secondly, you yourself have a lot of problems, both economically and infrastructurally. And you want to help other countries? Maybe you should put things in order at home first?

I don't believe that Russia is so eager to share its invaluable experience and lift Ukraine to new heights. Rather, it seems that Russia needs Ukraine for the same reason that the United States does - as a source of raw materials.

In your article, it is directly stated that industry is needed.

46 million new slaves, that's not a bad appendage either.

And, of course, to take control of the local capital - that's sacred!

Oh, and of course, to move NATO missiles further away and put their own in their place, how could we do without it...

So, no matter how you look at it, you still have a lot of work to do (first of all, on yourselves) to convince us that it will be better for us with you. So far, there is no such trend... unfortunately.

Yes, in general, that's how it is. But I don't understand your confidence that there were no preliminary agreements; money doesn't suddenly disappear from your pocket. This process is visible to the country's president and many others, including neighboring countries.

Probably, he is counting on compliance with the signed agreement. Or on secret appendices to it, if any. And there are many ways to force compliance with the obligations taken...

I already provided a link - http://chipstone.livejournal.com/1142834.html

So what should all our heroes in this drama do with the Maidan? Maybe someone knows an elegant answer to this question?

Should we bet 1 hryvnia on it...

States negotiate, not just leaders. Even if Yanukovych leaves, the contracts will remain, and the means of influencing each other will also remain.

The organizers of the mess will be sentenced to significant terms, and the perpetrators and participants will not be touched.

But it depends on what goals are set.

In fact, we can judge future intentions based on the outcome of this process.

Easy. Accepted.

Let's clarify the subject of the dispute so that the outcome can be determined objectively.

This isn't quite like Moscow (as I mentioned above); it won't just blow over. It seems to be a serious situation. They will either achieve their goals, or there will be a coup or a bloodbath. In any case, the president and the government are living out their last days. The only question is how long they can hold on...

As I understand it, your arguments are:

1) Yanukovych will leave the presidential post.

2) The government will resign.

3) There will be clashes between the Maidan protesters and law enforcement, leading to casualties (specify how many - 5? 20? 100?).

4) The Maidan will continue for a long time (specify how long - a month? two?).

And specify the timeframe for the forecast - a month? two? three? six months?

I only argued for the first two points. I don't know which scenario will unfold; I just suggested possible options. And how can I give a timeframe when I'm asking myself the same question?

I see the essence of the argument as follows: The question is about the power of the people's will. If Yanukovych and Azarov resign due to the Maidan, we consider that they have achieved their goal – I win. If the Maidan dissipates on its own or is dispersed, and the aforementioned individuals remain in their positions, then you win.
It's unlikely to drag on for too long, but I won't risk predicting specific dates.