United States of Europe vs. Stalinland: Ukraine, pt. II

[germanos]

Originally posted by Colon
They're saying Belgium is an artificial creation too. For almost 175 years already.

It's also breaking up in two, even after the 175 years

[Serb]

Originally posted by DanS


I think many Americans and Euros were inclined to give Russia the benefit of the doubt in its political journeys. However, Russia's political proclivities are reinforcing Western prejudices.

Russia's recent political atmosphere feels decidely totalitarian. Under such an atmosphere, the West starts grasping to keep as many countries free as we can and to turn as many countries to freedom while there is still time.

Good luck in your holy quest.
Just a couple of pictures regarding Ukraine (the source of both figures is Statistic Commitee of Ukraine).
This is the structure of Ukranian import in 2003:
From top to bottom:Kazakhstan, China, USA, France, UK, Italy, Poland, Turkmenistan, Germany and Russia:

[Serb]

And this is the structure of Ukranian export in 2003:
From top to bottom: Swiss, Romania, USA, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, China, Germany, Italy and Russia:

[Serb]

Any questions?

[Serb]

Freeedom, my ass.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Most American and Euros are clearly prejudiced against Russia. But at the same time, they may like us on a personal level, if they get to know us closely.

I've seen several Russian women whom I'd like to get to know on a very personal level.

Unfortunately, I'm far away from them.

[Heresson]

Russi is the most important trading partner of Ukraine.
And what?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, that's not true: France can destroy America, so can the UK. China has the ability to build plenty of nuclear weapons (I don't know about their delivery means).

France, UK and China can cause a significant damage to US, but not wipe it out completely. But Russia can. For example China has only about 20 nukes (or even less) that can reach only the western coast of the US. Russia has thousands (2000 at least).

So, Russia shares the "honor" of being a nuclear threat with at least three countries, but these countries are extremely unlikely to attack the US.

So, as you see, Russia possesses quite a huge share of this "honor".

The US has all interests to follow the same policy in Russia that what has worked with the others: make cooperation something much more interesting than rivalry or war.

It would be great if it worked. But that it worked with others does not guarantee that it will work with Russia. And the plausible reason is not just the inherent evil of the US or Russia, but rather the objective (i.e. existing beyond our will) laws of how the world functions.

The fact is that thus far the US has been able to establish such kind of relations only with lesser powers. Can it do so with equal powers (and in terms of nukes and certain strategic issues, Russia is an equal power). For instance, can it do so with China when it grows into a superpower, or a confrontation is genuinely inevitable? This remains an open question.

Although Bush did idiotically in this regard (thanks to his amazing incompetence), Clinton clearly did try to integrate Russia into cooperation with the New World Order.

I wouldn't say that Bush did here any worse than Clinton. On the contrary, two key events that turned around (drastically changed) Russia's perception of what was going on in the world happened under Clinton. These events are obviously the NATO expansion and the agression against Yugoslavia.

[Last Conformist]

IIRC, the US is our biggest single trading partner. I guess we're an American dependency ...

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Russi is the most important trading partner of Ukraine.
And what?

We don't need tanks to bury the Ukraine. We can do it anytime via economy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, that's not true: France can destroy America, so can the UK. China has the ability to build plenty of nuclear weapons (I don't know about their delivery means). So, Russia shares the "honor" of being a nuclear threat with at least three countries, but these countries are extremely unlikely to attack the US.

Not least because the American response would destroy the attacker. Even a sneak attack would not get the nuclear ballistic submarines which are always rotated out at sea and which always had the ability to nuke both the USSR and China at the same time even if all of the nukes in the US itself were knocked out.

This little problem weight heavily on the minds of Soviet military planners.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Serb


Good luck in your holy quest.

Hey man, this is DanS "The I-Cannot-Stand-European-Gloominess Uberuppermost Sunny Optimist" you're talking to. Especially regarding Russia. If he talks negatively about your state of affairs, you screwed up real badly.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Serb
We don't need tanks to bury the Ukraine. We can do it anytime via economy.

Not without heavily damaging your own economy in the process.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Serb


We don't need tanks to bury the Ukraine. We can do it anytime via economy.

Just out of curiosity, how much of the Russian Federation's import/export is from/to Ukraine?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Colon


Hey man, this is DanS "The I-Cannot-Stand-European-Gloominess Uberuppermost Sunni Optimist" you're talking to.

Couldn't resist.