Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Putin's interests are obvious; he doesn't even hide them – he's restoring Russia's influence within the borders of the USSR.
Ah, yes – imperial ambitions... He can't resist. I understand. But why only within the borders of the USSR? Or is this just a starting point?
Wicc
the population benefits.
Please elaborate on this! Which population, and what are the benefits?
Added 1 minute later
Damn, Wicc, you don't give me a break :)
Roger DAltavilla
12 years ago
Auto-translated
We cannot assess the events on Maidan from a historical perspective. We are too close to these events to do so. It's like trying to get a bird's-eye view of the entire city while standing on one of its streets. We can only act based on our historical experience, in the interests of our children.
I would also like to say that I would very much like to avoid war in Kyiv and other forceful solutions.
Added 1 minute ago Wicc
Someone already ran by, boasting about their knowledge of history, but quickly faltered when asked simple questions.
Be more careful with your words, don't resort to personal attacks, as that is the first sign that you are losing the argument. :)
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!
The benefit for the population is that, all other things being equal, the larger the group, the stronger the effect of the division of labor, and consequently, the higher the standard of living.
Simply put, if you are thrown into the jungle alone, you will not survive. If there are two or three of you, your chances are better, but not by much. A group of 100 people is quite capable of building a settlement from scratch and providing for themselves. If there are 10,000 people, life will be quite good. And 1 million people will build modern infrastructure there.
In the case of the EU and the United States, this principle does not work because they consider their sphere of influence as colonies – territories from which they need to extract as many resources as possible, invest as little as possible, and protect from external encroachments as little as possible. That is, they improve the metropolis at the expense of resources from the colonies. And then they promote this as achievements of democracy, human rights, and so on – all these benefits are only for the inhabitants of the metropolis, and the colonies pay for the feast.
100 years ago, this scheme was exactly as described in the previous paragraph; now it is more veiled, but the essence is the same.
The colonial policy of Russia, both under the tsars and under the general secretaries, was the opposite – they lifted the periphery up, both economically and in terms of infrastructure, protected it from external aggression, and did not particularly humiliate the local elite, but integrated it 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.
Independence is needed when an external force robs you or forces you to work for it. That is, when the losses exceed the profits. The example of the interaction between Russia and Belarus shows that this is clearly not the case.
Added 2 minutes ago Roger DAltavilla
Be more careful with your words, don't resort to personal attacks, because that's the first sign that you've lost the argument. :)
Resorting to personal attacks during an argument is possible (although not always), but resorting to personal attacks as a way of summarizing the results is out of the question.
Added 12 minutes ago Ihtiandr
The fact that people are stupid doesn't mean they prefer lies. No one likes lies.
Stupidity prevents people from distinguishing truth from lies, so they "choose with their hearts," and as observations of women show, it somehow more often leads them to sweet-talking, preening jerks. The same situation exists in electoral politics.
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.
Once you figure out where the truth is and where the fecal matter that has been poured into your ears is, you will stop being stupid. As a criterion for success (or the right direction), you can use, for example, the realization of the fallacy of the quoted phrase.
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, even just one honest person :). But in reality, if we set aside the global concept of honesty, then Mahatma Gandhi would definitely be among the first examples of honest political figures. There may not be many such people, but they definitely exist, and for them, the idea comes first, rather than their own self-interest.
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.
Well, 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 appear in your pocket. This process is visible to the country's president and many others, including neighboring countries.
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...)
Perhaps he's counting on the signed agreement being honored. Or on secret addenda to it, if any exist. And there are many ways to force compliance with the commitments made...
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...
Should we bet 1 hryvnia on that...?
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.
States negotiate, not just leaders. Even if Yanukovych leaves, the contracts will remain, and the means of influencing each other will also remain.
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...
It's hard to say; it seems like some kind of political maneuvering. Maybe they're bluffing, or maybe they really decided to crack down on the opposition.
On average, the most likely outcome is that the organizers of the "baragoz" will be sentenced to significant prison terms, while the perpetrators and participants will not be touched.
But it depends on what goals are set - if the goal is to nip possible unrest in the bud during the elections, then the number of prisoners should be increased, and low-level organizers and particularly zealous activists should be added to them. And if the goal is to provoke unrest, then, on the contrary, no one should be imprisoned.
In fact, the outcome of this process will reveal their future intentions.
Well, in principle, Hitler could also be included in the list of honest politicians. He did everything he promised! He is probably the only politician in world history who fulfilled all his promises.
There was a case when Hitler was wounded during one of the battles of World War I. He was lying there, and a French soldier approached him and pointed a rifle at him. Hitler shouted something like, "I will kill all of you French dogs someday." The Frenchman probably didn't shoot him because he laughed. Imagine, a wounded enemy is lying there and shouting something that is basically impossible. And he didn't finish him off. But he should have, considering what happened next – Hitler defeated France.
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.
But this is all in theory, and in practice, quantity does not always mean quality. A prime example: Russia (who would have thought?!), with a population of over 100 million, has a standard of living that leaves much to be desired, not to mention the rapid decline in that very population. Or India - the second most populous nation on the planet, if I'm not mistaken, and its people live like savages. But in Austria, with a population smaller than that of Kyiv, there is some kind of unhealthy order. I'm not even talking about places like Switzerland, etc.
I'm interested in how the lives of the people of Ukraine and Russia will specifically improve (if I understand you correctly, and you meant ordinary people) after unification? At what cost? Is there a development plan?Wicc
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.
First of all, I wouldn't compare monarchy and communism with modern democracy in Russia. The interests are different now. Secondly, things are far from perfect for you, both economically and infrastructurally. And you want to lift up other countries? Maybe you should start by putting your own house in order? I don't really believe that Russia is so eager to share its invaluable experience and lift Ukraine to new heights. Rather, it seems that Ukraine is needed by Russia for the same reason that it is needed by the United States - as a source of raw materials. Your article even states that industry is needed. 46 million new slaves is also a considerable asset. And, of course, to bring the local capital under control - that's a must! Oh, and to push NATO missiles further away and place its own, how could it be without that... 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
Ihtiandr
12 years ago
Auto-translated
Dirty_Player
Just out of curiosity, can you give me an example of a well-known honest politician? Just one example.
The_
Maybe we can broaden the search a bit, at least one honest person.
All people lie, as the doctor said. The question is how brazenly a person allows themselves to lie.
In developed countries, if a politician is caught in a blatant lie, they have to resign. If they withheld something, journalists conduct an investigation, expose the omissions, and they again have to resign. The politician, as an individual, may not have honor or integrity, but in that case, society obligates them to tell the truth.
Putin is not just a dishonest person; he is a criminal and a bloodthirsty murderer. His cunning mind and serpentine cunning allowed him to control all major media outlets, all courts, and establish an absolute dictatorship. Police lawlessness is rampant in the streets, and repression is escalating – all of this is done deliberately to put pressure on society so that it wouldn't dare to even squeak in response. So that this monster can rob the people with impunity and brazenly lie on television all day long, portraying himself as an angel.
All these theses, such as "politics is a dirty business, and nothing can be changed," are deliberately promoted by the Kremlin to make the people resign themselves and be silent. The people should control the government, not the other way around. The more control the people have over the government, the more developed the state is. Because punishing criminals is necessary not only for moral reasons but also for the sake of the system's efficiency. A society where violations of the law are punished is more efficient than an anarchic society. The same applies to government – the more the people control the government, the more efficient the system is.
Therefore, it is important to understand that politics is not some distant, parallel world from us, but quite the opposite – politics directly affects our daily lives. As Daniil Konstantinov, a political figure who was subjected to repression (in the video I posted), said: "The Motherland is US," that is, the people. Their goal is not to let evil take over Middle-earth and destroy the One Ring, which Sauron periodically creates.
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.
From the comments:
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.
Added 33 minutes ago Snooppy
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.
As I wrote, "all other things being equal." The standard of living depends on too many parameters.
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?
1) Simplification of trade - abolition of duties, abolition of customs restrictions, reduction of paperwork.
2) Lowering prices for gas and other export goods reduces production costs.
3) Simplification of relocation and employment, reduction of bureaucratic red tape in this matter.
4) A single currency reduces losses and delays in conversion, simplifies bill payments, and reduces risks caused by exchange rate fluctuations.
5) The absence of inspections at the border reduces logistical costs and reduces the time for transporting people and goods.
6) For a number of goods, it is not necessary to build separate factories in each state, but to use one factory that serves the entire country. Reduction of costs due to production volume.
7) Reduction of expenses on the state apparatus - duplicate ministries, consulates, etc. become unnecessary.
That is, this is not manna from heaven that falls into your hands, but an optimization of economic processes that increases the efficiency of doing business, thereby increasing well-being.
8) The absence of Maidan protests. I understand that for some this is a plus, but for the economy it is objectively a minus.
Well, firstly, I would not compare monarchy and communism with modern democracy in Russia. The interests are different now.
Interests depend on opportunities, not on the form of government. And opportunities have been growing rapidly in the last 15 years.
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?
Putting things in order is an ongoing process; the state exists as a structure in order to do this.
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.
Hmm? It seems to be the other way around now; Ukraine mainly consumes Russian resources, rather than supplying them.
In your article, it is directly stated that industry is needed.
Well, being an industrial appendage doesn't sound as bad as being a raw material appendage. Or is the word "appendage" the key here? Maybe it should be "industrial"?
46 million new slaves, that's not a bad appendage either.
It seems like Ichthy bit you :)
And, of course, to take control of the local capital - that's sacred!
What does it mean to "take control of local capital"? Judging by the statements of Ukrainians in this topic, the main "local capital" is held by Yanukovych's gang, to whom the population does not feel any particular sympathy.
Oh, and of course, to move NATO missiles further away and put their own in their place, how could we do without it...
That goes without saying. Missiles are a guarantee of sovereignty; I described how this works above.
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.
Do you think it will be worse? If so, describe in detail what exactly and why. As I wrote above.
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.
I expressed my confidence above: the chess players are not at that level. Money didn't suddenly run out, of course. And besides, who said it ran out? We have temporarily prolonged economic difficulties here:rolleyes:. I'm sure Putin is aware of this, as he is aware that Yanukovych is a notorious swindler (he doesn't even try to hide it), so I don't understand Putin's altruism. Unless the agreement is properly drawn up. If they did agree, then the only possible scenario is this: Yanukovych sells Ukraine to Putin, and Putin provides Yanukovych with a carefree pension... Putin is an honest politician, so this is quite possible. Wicc
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...
The signed agreement will probably have to be observed. And I won't be surprised if there are conditions written in it, the fulfillment (or impossibility of fulfillment) of which will automatically lead us to an alliance with Russia. Wicc
Thank you, I haven't gotten around to it yet... But there is no answer there either, as to how to eliminate the Maidan. Only rambling about options, and the author himself asks:
So what should all our heroes in this drama do with the Maidan? Maybe someone knows an elegant answer to this question?
But where is the solution?Wicc
Should we bet 1 hryvnia on it...
Easily. Accepted.Wicc
States negotiate, not just leaders. Even if Yanukovych leaves, the contracts will remain, and the means of influencing each other will also remain.
This is in civilized countries, but we have our own specifics. After Yulia, contracts remained, and what happened? They were revised... ;) Wicc
The organizers of the mess will be sentenced to significant terms, and the perpetrators and participants will not be touched.
Let's clarify the subject of the dispute. So that the result can be determined in an objective way.
This isn't exactly Moscow (as I wrote above), so it won't just fade away. It seems like it's serious. They will either achieve their goal, 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...
As I understand it, your main points 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?
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 asserted 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 dispute as follows: The question here is about the strength of the people's will. If Yanukovych and Azarov resign due to the Maidan, then they will have achieved their goals - 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 giving specific timeframes.
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.
OK, then let's formulate it as "Yanukovych and Azarov will resign before their term ends."
We can't delay on the timeframe – the elections are on March 29th. And the Maidan, due to weather conditions, cannot last very long. Therefore, it is reasonable to set a deadline of about a month.
