Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Sep 24, 2011.
It's certainly not inevitable and I wouldn't even say it's likely. The power of Russia does not stand up to the power of NATO and Russia knows it.
The thing that would completely bankrupt Russia would be a refusal to buy it's oil made by the Western democracies. Putin would crumble
What's important is that Russia supplies 30% of Europe's natural gas. The U.S., being a major natural gas producer itself and having closer ties to other producers of natural gas, buys a negligible amount. The EU can't just suddenly cut off nearly 1/3rd of its supply.
They most certainly can in an analysis where war between NATO and Russia is inevitable.
basically trinity's child is going to happen irl and im going to be really excited about it
The United States could become Europe's energy provider now.
But that would also push Russia into becoming much closer to China.
Just what the U.S. needs. More gas exploration.
That seems optimistic. We have all of 3 LNG export terminals approved, of which one was only approved Friday, which means its years away from export. The one closest to being done, Sabine pass, won't be able to start exporting until 2015, and it already has long term export contracts in place.
LNG trains (liquification plants essentially) and export terminals and LNG carriers take years to put into service. We should probably look to export to Europe, but that is years away from being true in reality.
The invasion has begun.
Russian vehicles have entered Ukraine's territory, firing artillery, according to reports on major news channels.
I'm not so sure yet. Remember that 'Russian military column' that Ukraine reportedly destroyed that the US couldn't confirm?
Do you mean the illegal crossing of the aid convoy? Or is something else happening?
NATO is reporting that Russian artillery has moved into Ukraine.
im not sure why even russia is expected to countenance a proto-fascist regime on its doorstep. you can bet if canada was... well no wait, we'd probably be fascist already by the time it got that bad in canada...
While it's true that the Fatherland party isn't the bastion of liberalism that Ender would bend over for, it's hardly close to fascism. In addition, Putin's United Russia party isn't exactly better.
yah hence "even russia" and "proto-fascist" but i think "hardly close" is being generous/ahistorical
That sentence literally conveys no meaning.
im sorry. ill try to be clearer: you said the fatherland party is "hardly fascist". and obviously i was talking not about a single party but about the government, which, given its a coalition at present, including svoboda, is a bit of a dodge on your part, but i ignored that. instead, i suggested that you're being "generous" (giving them the benefit of the doubt) and "ahistorical" (presenting a viewpoint that ignores context and comparable past situations)
furthermore, i asserted that my previous statement was that "even russia" (accounting for united russia's disturbing right wing nationalist bent) should not be expected to countenance a "proto-fascist" (meaning not "fascist" but ideologically reminiscent of the foundations of fascism) state on its borders. in sum, i never claimed russia was any better nor did i claim ukraine was a fascist state, only that it currently resembles the conditions that historically precipitate fascism from germany to austria to italy -- unrest among the working classes, turned to focus on nationalist fervor and disdain for specific outsiders/minorities (russians/russian-speaking ukrainians)
hope that helped
There are several issues with your post.
1) Of the 237 members of the Ukraine parliament which constitute the government, 35 are Svoboda. The plurality belong to Fatherland and they're the clear party in control of the coalition.
2) I have been anything but generous for the current government of Ukraine. A cursory reading of my posts in both this thread and in the European Ultra-nationalists thread I've started should show you.
3) While it's true that they've banned the Communists from parliament, it's not enough to state they're 'proto-fascists.' Do we even have an agreed up set of criteria to determine what makes a state proto-fascist?
4) The thing about charging someone with ahistoricism is that there actually needs to be historically similar situation to look at. We're not watching the rise of a new Nazi Germany in Ukraine. I'm not seeing any specifics similar here, just vague notions that you've mentioned. Perhaps you can go into detail? Because, really, those notions could describe the Russian Revolution.
5) Russia is most certainly expected to countenance a government it doesn't like on its border, regardless of any whataboutisms you present.
okay. again. whole government. not a single party. also svoboda members constitute the prosecutor general and a vice prime minister, last i checked, along with other government ministries, so if you're trying to paint them as irrelevant within the coalition, you'd be mistaken
we're not discussing your thread history. we're discussing your response to a single post of mine and the dismissive statement that ukraine's government is "hardly fascist". i characterized this statement as "overly generous/ahistorical", which it is
i already gave you a run-down of historical parallels. apparently you disagree, which is fine. the "marking" of russian ukranians is another disturbing trend, kicked off by the coalition's action of removing russian as an official language
in what way lol?
this is fair, i think. they should probably leave it at asserting their claim to the historically russian crimea and its high concentration of ethnic russians. russia probably should tolerate ukraine's paroxysms for now. maybe they'll turn it around?
1) That's how a coalition government works. Members from all parties get put into the cabinet. Nowhere have I said Svoboda is irrelevent, but Fatherland is in control, not Svoboda. To present Svoboda as having a disproportionate amount of power is incorrect.
2 and 3) Except it's not. You've yet to show what is fascist about it or what history I'm supposed to be looking at. Yes, I disagree with your rundown. Mainly because it's overly ambiguous and can describe many non-fascist set ups.
4) You're really not seeing any unrest among workers or overt nationalism in the build up to the creation of the Soviet Union and the immediate aftermath?
lol @ the Crimea being "historically Russian."
well thats fair i guess but i havent heard of the ukranian government expressing an interest in returning the crimean lands to the crimean tatars so im not sure how it negates the consistant presence of ethnic russians in the region and indeed their plurality there for 150 years. similar to how i accept that the jewish claim of ancestral possession of the lands of israel is a bit fraught, but now that there's a **** ton of israelis living there we're cant expect to remove them so the dissolution of the state of israel is an unreasonable demand
in any case, i have erred in that the focus of my concern is on the ethnic russians that currently predominate in the crimea, not on the disposition of the land per se
What would 'returning Crimea to Crimean tartars' look like? Making it a separate country?
i dont know. i havent thought about it. i was responding to darth guy's joke/insinuation
i assume it would either entail a seperate country like the zionist project or, more likely given ukraine's economic interests, the ukraine would simply turn it into some sort of "autonomous oblast" for crimean tatars
again, darth guy brought up crimean tatars, an ethnic group i am quite unfamiliar with to be honest. my concerns itt lie with the xenophobic policies and rhetoric towards ethnic russians, who form the majority in the crimea region. i think its probably a good thing if that chunk of potential scapegoat population is out of the current regime's reach