Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Big Bad Sven]

I was reading an article that mentioned in Obama's conversation with Putin, he warned Putin that the 'people of Ukraine had the right to determine their own future.'

I guess it's only alright when the USA interfere with internal affairs in foreign countries.

LOL pretty much this.

I saw something similar, an american politician was saying how russia simply cant invade a country, redraw borders, annex territory and decide who goes into power.

The yanks must have short memories. I wonder how the serbs feel when the yanks annexed kosovo from them, or how macedonians feel when the yanks pretty much gifted the shiptars control of macedonia.

Its just typical politics. When one super power has the upper hand and exploiting the situation the weaker side takes the moral high ground and acts innocent.

The yanks are just upset that they are getting a taste of their own medicine and are getting scared that instead of being number one in the world they will slowly be number three

Estonia, latvia, lithuania, poland, Romania and moldova would be shitting themselves right now. Maybe selling their souls (and asses) to the EU/NATO and treating russian minorities like shit was perhaps not the smartest choices.

[Big Bad Sven]

Meanwhile, getting back to Ukraine specifically, I found this simple explanatory article on the Budapest Memorandum, and it reminds me about how fruitless international laws and treaties are, when in reality, we know it's force that determines outcomes, not justice and right versus wrong. It reminds me of the Macedonian case with Greece and about every other case of international disputes. We are at the mercy of those with the bigger guns...they make and break the rules as they please. In the end, it doesn't really matter what the UN Charter says or what the Interim Accord says. Laws are made by men with the biggest sticks, just as history is written by the victors.

Exactly.

The UN, human rights watch, all these useless agreements - they are just a waste of time, worthless.

Its all about power and money. Every one knows greece treats its minorites like shit, and same as the albanians and 'kosovars', but no one speaks about them because they are on the side of the 'good guys' and have powerful backers to protect them so they can keep on doing what they want with no consequences.

[vicsinad]

If corporations are anything like countries (which they are), they sure as heck will collaborate even though they are competing for the same share of profits. Remember how Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria were somewhat collaborative on ridding Ottoman presence from Macedonia...only to tear at each other for the same limited amount of resources? Or how about why France, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, did not want to intervene to help Macedonians gain their freedom? Because France had too many investments in the Ottoman territory and she was afraid that stirring up problems with Turkey would hurt her economically. They collaborate to act, and to not act. I think it's sometimes in multinational corporations' interests to work together, and after they achieve "x" goals, to let the "market" determine who is the wealthier corporation. Sometimes corporations can't reach certain markets and resources without collaborating. Thus, in their minds, some profit is better than no profit.

Any way, it's not about conspiracy. It's reality. I could give two hoots about Freemasons and all that other jargon. But doubting that money is the driving force of outside nations and corporations (not the people of Ukraine) to intermingle in Ukraine is discrediting the evidence that the lessons of history and the nature of human beings provide for us. However, more than that, it's making a mockery of the available facts. Russia and the US would not be there if it was purely about "humanitarian" efforts or "upholding justice and law." Money drives them, be it in the form of natural resources or investments.

The US knows that it's not like the old days: you don't need to conquer a nation to own it (although we'll do it if need be). You just need to have a big stick and a selling point for the citizens. Our military is our big stick; our promise of either financial investment, the free market or democracy are our selling points. Then we go in with our corporations, create meaningless low-paying jobs that are worse for the people than their "unemployed" agricultural lifestyles, extract their resources, give them some crumbs of the leftovers, and over-stuff the materialistic appetites of the ignorant and arrogant Americans citizenry. As Big Bad Sven suggested, my country is upset because others are learning how to play our game.

The US is an uncontrollable machine that needs to be stopped. No one politician or person will make a difference. Decades of laws and financial tradition and apathetic citizenry have allowed us to operate how we do. Sure, Ukrainians may need this revolution for their country. But US (along with UK, Russian and China) need their citizens to revolt and take legitimate and meaningful power for the world's sake. A new system and culture of living is needed on this planet, and the change is going to have to start with the "big" boys and trickle down. Or else, the future looks bleak for a greedy world running short on resources...

[vicsinad]

Another analysis in the Washington Post. Seems as it comes down to energy and money, as usual.

Russia

●President Vladimir Putin wanted Ukraine to be part of his new Eurasian Economic Union, based in Moscow. If Kiev signed on with the European Union, thus reducing trade barriers to Europe, it would have scotched Putin’s plan.

●Part of the ideology behind the Eurasian union is that Russia and its neighbors have a different value system than the West. Putin has been pushing that idea hard. It contains a thinly veiled ethnic appeal, to fellow eastern Slavs. If Ukraine joined Europe, and prospered while abiding by European values, that would contradict Russia’s contentions.

●Russia feared that if Ukraine and the EU reduced trade barriers, European companies would use Ukraine as a conduit for flooding the Russian market. (Russian tariffs for Ukraine are lower than they are for Europe)

●Integration with Europe might be a prelude to integration with NATO, which Putin would see as a disaster. Russia bases its Black Sea fleet in Crimea; it would be unthinkable to maintain that base if Ukraine joins NATO.

●Much of the natural gas that Russia sells to Europe flows across Ukraine, and Russia’s state-owned Gazprom would very much like to gain control of Ukraine’s pipeline system.

●Putin was not a fan of ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, and he apparently decided that the way to handle him was to smother him in the Kremlin’s embrace.

●Standing up for ethnic Russians abroad — millions live in Ukraine — is good politics at home.

The downside: Russian dominance of Ukraine would force Moscow to deal with extremely strong anti-Russian feeling among a significant part of the population.

The European Union

●Poland was the most enthusiastic proponent of the Ukraine trade deal. Polish leaders believed that it would lead to having a competently managed, largely democratic, non-corrupt nation as a neighbor. And that, they thought, would be better for Poland than the Ukraine that currently exists.

●Many in Europe — and in the United States — saw Ukraine as a nation not yet fully formed, and worried that without assistance toward becoming one it could turn into a flash point of East-West tension. (They were right.)

●The EU has launched a legal case to force Gazprom to divest itself of pipelines feeding Europe. Allowing Gazprom to assume control of Ukraine’s pipeline system would be a step backward.

●European leaders were also not fans of Yanukovych, and they decided that the way to handle him was to smother him in their embrace.

●European leaders are not fond of Putin. Denying him control of Ukraine might take him down a peg or two.

The downside: Owning Ukraine’s myriad problems.

So what’s their prize?

●For Russia: Putin offered Ukraine a $15 billion bailout in the fall. He had committed $3 billion by the time Yanukovych’s government came undone. That’s a write-off, but Russia gets to keep the other $12 billion.

●For Ukraine: The country is appealing to the EU and the International Monetary Fund for short-term and long-term loans. They will most likely be forthcoming, and for far more than $15 billion.

●For Ukraine: The Ukrainian people will have to bear the austerity that comes with the international assistance.

●For the West: They will be blamed for the austerity.

●For Russia: It may decide to keep control of Crimea. It will gain Russia plenty of enmity in Ukraine — and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/despite-its-problems-ukraine-is-a-prize-for-russia-europe/2014/03/02/f009459e-a263-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

[Vangelovski]

Victor, you talk about corporations as if they are some amorphous mass. Lets test your (and that of some others) claims.

In relation to the present Ukrainian crisis, which corporations are you talking about exactly, McDonald's, Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, General Motors? And who exactly of the literally millions of shareholders is the driving force behind the whole Ukrainian situation? Can you name anyone specifically?

How are have they convinced the US and/or Russian Governments to orchestrate this whole thing? Why have these public officials listened to these particular shareholders of these corporations? What about other corporations and their millions of shareholders who would lose out in this particular scenario? Are they in on it too? How, why?

Finally, what actual evidence have you got aside from some vague historical examples that are highly debatable?

[vicsinad]

Public officials listen to corporate giants because the corporations are the ones financing their power trips. They convince them by saying: "hey look, this is in the geopolitical interests of our country...if we don't do this, we face this threat or that threat....and here's how we sell it to the citizens." Because I'm not privy to the conversations between corporate lobbyists and politicians and public officials (who go back and forth from corporation to public office), I can only give you what common sense and history says regarding this particular instance. I do know that high up politicians and public officials are the ones making these deals, and your ordinary government worker is just following through with what he thinks is policy that is meant to be in the best interests of the US people.

Let's see what we have, though, directly related to Ukraine:
-Exxon Mobile (doesn't need explanation) $700 million dollar investment in Ukraine's Black Sea oil and natural gas development in August 2013
-Koch Industries (financier of the Tea Party and their platform) acquiring Molex this past winter, which does major operations in Ukraine and is seeking to expand throughout Ukraine and Eastern Europe
-Gazprom (one of the largest companies in the world) wants Ukraine for the most obvious of reasons...control of the gas the flows into Europe
-OJSC United Shipbuilding Corporation (Russian corporation...thinks of all the ships using the Black Sea) was in talks with ousted Ukrainian leaders about opening several production areas for shipyards, including Sevastopol (Crimea), and several other Ukrainian towns/cities.


I'm sure I would find a lot more if I dig deeper than just a 15 minutes google search. And a lot more will be coming to the surface as this unfolds. If you want to do your own research on the Ukrainian oligarchs who have controlled Ukraine and the deals they have made with either Western or Russian corporations, go forth. I don't need to explain those. They're obvious, and their record is enormous on the internet.

But Tom, not everything is going to be spelled out for you. Somethings you have to read between the lines. Further, if you can't see the obvious money-making system that's in place, not much can be said to you. Companies fund politicians. Politicians need money to win campaigns. Politicians return the favor by giving in to what companies want, or by placing former company men in public official positions. Oil and gas industries lobby congress and hire experts to write reports on the need for energy extraction in other countries. Defense industries write reports and lobby congress about the dangers stemming from other countries. Bankers lobby and write reports on the need and opportunities to loan money to countries that need democratic changes.

Even though I'm sure a lot is spoken between these lobbyists, politicians, and public officials who some years are public officials and other years they are company men or lobbyists themselves...nothing really needs to be said. War makes the military industry profit. Loans to poor, developing countries make banks rich. Opening up the country to free market makes multi-national corporations richer.

[Gocka]

Tom,

In my opinion your mentality and that of people similar to yours stems from being purists. I think you are so in love with the essence of our democratic and capitalist systems that you fail to or refuse to recognize that both systems are severely flawed and corrupted. I think also a part of it has to do with your conservative bias as well. It is common for conservatives to be anti change and anti progress, as much as it is common for liberals to be constant unsatisfied complainers.

On a more serious note, in my opinion the first step to fixing our broken system is admitting that we have a problem. Playing naive and pretending that everything is working just fine won't ever facilitate the change that is needed. I am not saying we have a better option at this point in time but we will never have a better option if this status quo is accepted as "business as usual".

The things that are going on around the world are wrong, people are dying usually for no apparent reason, the average person is totally left our of the political process, this is not democracy.

The last presidential election in the USA in 2012, the Democratic party spent a total of 1.107 Billion dollars while the republican party spent 1.238 Billion. That is over 2.3 billion spent directly by the parties themselves, and another 2.6 billion was spent by private organizations and individuals in promotion of a candidate. We are talking 5 billion for one election. Almost every higher level election in the USA for years has been decided by who was the bigger spender. Democracy? No, this is the capitalization of democracy.

[Vangelovski]

Let's see what we have, though, directly related to Ukraine:
-Exxon Mobile (doesn't need explanation) $700 million dollar investment in Ukraine's Black Sea oil and natural gas development in August 2013
-Koch Industries (financier of the Tea Party and their platform) acquiring Molex this past winter, which does major operations in Ukraine and is seeking to expand throughout Ukraine and Eastern Europe
-Gazprom (one of the largest companies in the world) wants Ukraine for the most obvious of reasons...control of the gas the flows into Europe
-OJSC United Shipbuilding Corporation (Russian corporation...thinks of all the ships using the Black Sea) was in talks with ousted Ukrainian leaders about opening several production areas for shipyards, including Sevastopol (Crimea), and several other Ukrainian towns/cities.

Victor, this is the only thing you provided that was of any specific use. The rest was just generalisations that may be the case in specific instances, but not this one. All of these corporations that you have provided (except for OJSC) have something to lose should a war happen in the Ukraine, for example, billions of dollars worth of assets that could go up in flames. They already have a presense in the Ukraine and a load of money invested. Do you actually believe that they would be lobbying governments to stir up trouble? What would be the point? More specifically, which of the thousands upon thousands of shareholders are you saying are behind this?

Then we come to the OJSC - why would it (a Russian company) lobby western governments to orchestrate the overthrow of Yanukovich (their man) and have him replaced by a pro-Western President? How on earth would that help them entre the Ukranian market or build shipbuilding yards in the Ukraine?

The other point I want to make here is that you have absolutely no evidence for anything, which you yourself admit. Its only vague speculation which is fairly illogical at best. It merely attempts to fit your one percenter world view, though even that is a ridiculous notion as some of these companies are state-owned and belong to "the people", while others have tens or even hundreds of thousands of direct shareholders, potentially going into the millions when indirect shareholders are counted. Most of these are 'mum and dad' shareholders, supposed 99 percenters.

In one of the other threads - on the Iraqi war - similar claims were made and no evidence was provided (even though its 11 years on). In fact, what actually happened was that most western companies lost out in bids to Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Asian companies for the vast majority of reconstruction work and oil drilling/refining contracts.

While I have no doubt that corporations lobby the government on specific issues and that they can be fairly influential - most of these meetings are public knowledge, you just need to read the business section of the paper in most instances - I do doubt the level of influence that is prescribed to them by some of the posters here and the whole 99 percenter movement in general. This is because while one particular policy position may favour some corporations, it will ultimately be harmful to others. There are competing interests here - do you understand what that means? While Haliburton (far from a one pecenter company) may gain financially through war because it may obtain some very profitable supply contracts, other companies like Koch Industries or ExxonMobile could lose billions in damaged assests and disrputed supply lines regardless of the temporary rise in oil and gas prices (which are irrelevant if you can't get your product out of the ground, refined and into the market). This would also be a huge issue for Gazprom. It already controls the gas market in the Ukraine - it doesn't need a partial Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory. Sure, it may save some dollars on transit fees, but how much does it stand to lose in the potential desctruction of its assets in western Ukraine from random bombings of its pipelines and stations and the inevitable disruption of supplies? On the whole, very few businesses actually profit from war and instability.

Secondly, American politics (or the politics of any other country) are not as simple as corporations paying politicians and expecting them to do what they are told. Politicians don't just work for corporations like some zombies. They have their own pet interests. They have lobbyists and donars from all over the place that have competing interests - not just the (insert which ever company happens to be relevant today) corporation.

These simplistic generalisations that are thrown around like "its all politics" or "its all money" and the "evil oil companies are behind it" is for the most part just nonsense and misses out on the more pervasive issues on the ground, namely, the irreconcilable differences between Ukrainians on the one hand and Russians and Russophiles on the other. The whole Ukrainian mess has not been orchestrated by some Mr Burns sitting in his $100,000 swivel chair stroking his cat. He may have thrown his two million dollars worth of campaign funds into the ring, but that only goes so far - particularly when the other Mr Burns has done the same and wants the opposite. The real issues revolve around identity politics, the rule of law, corruption, clientelism/nepotism and a raft of other domestic problems in the Ukraine. Finally, these problems didn't start a few months ago - identity politics, for example, have been a point of contention for over a century, long before oil companies even existed. This is just the latest in a long history of problems in the Ukraine. No doubt some countries and corporations will try to benefit from the situation (I've never denied this), but many will also lose out.

[Vangelovski]

Tom,

In my opinion your mentality and that of people similar to yours stems from being purists. I think you are so in love with the essence of our democratic and capitalist systems that you fail to or refuse to recognize that both systems are severely flawed and corrupted. I think also a part of it has to do with your conservative bias as well. It is common for conservatives to be anti change and anti progress, as much as it is common for liberals to be constant unsatisfied complainers.

On a more serious note, in my opinion the first step to fixing our broken system is admitting that we have a problem. Playing naive and pretending that everything is working just fine won't ever facilitate the change that is needed. I am not saying we have a better option at this point in time but we will never have a better option if this status quo is accepted as "business as usual".

The things that are going on around the world are wrong, people are dying usually for no apparent reason, the average person is totally left our of the political process, this is not democracy.

The last presidential election in the USA in 2012, the Democratic party spent a total of 1.107 Billion dollars while the republican party spent 1.238 Billion. That is over 2.3 billion spent directly by the parties themselves, and another 2.6 billion was spent by private organizations and individuals in promotion of a candidate. We are talking 5 billion for one election. Almost every higher level election in the USA for years has been decided by who was the bigger spender. Democracy? No, this is the capitalization of democracy.

Gocka, in my opinion you fail to carefully read and understand my posts and have a very disjointed view of what I've actually written.

[Risto the Great]

And if all the corporate greed fails, the military move in and the other corporates are satisfied.

[Vangelovski]

And if all the corporate greed fails, the military move in and the other corporates are satisfied.

How does that help Gazprom for example? If its pipelines and stations and refineries are damaged, it could take it decades just to get back to where it is now - not to mention all of the potential growth it would miss out on in the meantime and eventual loss of customers because they'll look to find other suppliers?

What about the sharemarkets? I read today they've taken a dive - how does having billions wiped off your portfolio help you get richer?

[Risto the Great]

In one of the other threads - on the Iraqi war - similar claims were made and no evidence was provided (even though its 11 years on). In fact, what actually happened was that most western companies lost out in bids to Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Asian companies for the vast majority of reconstruction work and oil drilling/refining contracts.

You should speak to a few Iraqi Kurds about the USA sphere of influence in their region (that never existed previously).

Just because the USA didn't get some deals over the line does not mean a new playing field doesn't exist. Opportunities have been created out of nothing.

KBR, once known as Kellogg Brown and Root. The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, was awarded at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade.

Other collateral opportunists:

The second sets of companies that have profited from the wars are the health care providers to the military. TRICARE is the medical insurance provider for active duty troops, retirees, and dependents. This has been the fastest growing component of the Defense Department’s budget for some years now, growing at more than 85 percent in real terms in the past decade. It’s now about 10 percent of the total defense budget, up from less than 6 percent in 2001. Three companies – Humana, Healthnet, and Tri-West Health Care – administer TRICARE’s three regions. If combined, they would actually be the sixth largest defense contractor: bigger than KBR, and just below the biggest defense contracting names such as Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

Sounds all very Keynesian to me.

[Risto the Great]

How does that help Gazprom for example? If its pipelines and stations and refineries are damaged, it could take it decades just to get back to where it is now - not to mention all of the potential growth it would miss out on in the meantime and eventual loss of customers because they'll look to find other suppliers?

Insurance sorts that out. We are talking about massively profitable companies here. Insurance is factored into the equation, including self insuring.

What about the sharemarkets? I read today they've taken a dive - how does having billions wiped off your portfolio help you get richer?

It doesn't make one bit of difference to the value of the assets of the company. Just people's perception of the value of the company. People like Warren Buffett has known this for eons.

[Vangelovski]

You should speak to a few Iraqi Kurds about the USA sphere of influence in their region (that never existed previously).

Just because the USA didn't get some deals over the line does not mean a new playing field doesn't exist. Opportunities have been created out of nothing.



Other collateral opportunists:


Sounds all very Keynesian to me.

You're ignoring the fact that it wasn't just "some deals". It was the vast majority of deals that it didn't get over the line. You're also ignoring the Ukraine, which is the real issue at the moment.

[Vangelovski]

Insurance sorts that out. We are talking about massively profitable companies here. Insurance is factored into the equation, including self insuring.

Insurance generally doesn't cover war, terrorism and in many instances natural disaster. Perhaps Gazprom does self-insure, I don't know. I do know that it's income was $38 billion in 2012. I also know that about 35 per cent of its sales are to Europe. With the potential loss of that income from Europe, how long do you thing it would take to rebuild assets worth billions?

BUT MORE TO THE POINT, why risk having the assets destroyed when it already controls the gas market in the Ukraine? What exactly is it gaining?

It doesn't make one bit of difference to the value of the assets of the company. Just people's perception of the value of the company. People like Warren Buffett has known this for eons.

It is partly people's perception of the company, but that perception is based on the risks a company faces. For example, if ExxonMobile has its assets destroyed or seized in the Ukraine, its value will actually drop, not just the perception of its value.