Russia, Ukraine and the West

[Risto the Great]

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.

The money from the military deals were on par and/or more than the oil deals. It is money. Who cares where it comes from?

The deals won by the USA in the Kurdish sections of Iraq (Kurdistan) have been less publicised.

I wasn't ignoring the Ukraine, I was just looking at your Iraq example. The Ukraine presents itself as another defence contractor goldfield. And there are huge resources there. It's simply another opportunity.

[Gocka]

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.

I could say the same about you, that you are misconstruing what many of us are saying, taking it to extremes that make it sound silly.

From what I understand the jist of your argument is simple. You believe that there are way to many competing interests in the world be it political corporate and social for an one person, politician, country, or corporation to have any real influence or ability to single hand-idly cause any of the incidents that are playing out in Ukraine and in other places around the world. If corporation X wants one thing to happen in Ukraine, corporation Y wants another thus in some way these competing interests and forces balance each other out and neither can have that big of an impact. Its sound logic that is very reasonable.

I think there are flaws in the argument though. For example even if you have a 100 competitors in any given situation, doesn't at least 1 win? In any competition dont you have a winner of some kind? In a war both sides can have heavy causalities and set each other back 100 years but in the end doesn't one technically win? So I'm not sure just solely based on the fact that there are many competing interests in a given situation that no one can come out on top and no one can have any influence for their benefit.

We jumped around a lot in this debate and if we are to talk solely about Ukraine then before there are questions to be answered before we jump to conclusions.

One thing that bothers me is that phone call that was tapped. Can you just explain to me why The top US diplomat for the EU is discussing with the US ambassador to Ukraine who will be part of the interim government in Ukraine and who won't before an interim government was even needed in Ukraine? The phone cal was from February 6th. Yanuhovich was still President, and the protests had yet to escalate to what they eventually did. Secondly why were they already bringing in the UN to "glue" it together (legitimize) it before "it" even happened? She even says "fuck the EU", because for what ever reason the US and the UN omitted the EU form these discussions. Toward the end she is telling the ambassador that they should speak to Klitchko to break the bad news to him that he wont be part of the interim government, again an interim government that was not yet called for.

Please explain to me how all of this could be talked about weeks before Yanukovich was ousted. I am not suggesting anything but would like to know how a logical person like yourself could explain this. Also if you could explain to me (sincerely) how you can then turn around and say that everything that is happening is because of competing interests among Ukrainians, when the US was talking about things that were going to happen that I'm sure most Ukrainians didn't even know were going to happen at the time. Then it all played out as was discussed, the people they wanted to take charge did, the people they wanted on the outside remained on the outside.

This is not a theory but a wire tapped conversation that can be found on every major news organizations website. Date time and full transcript.

Hey maybe its coincidence, but it sure looks a lot like the US knew that Yanukovich would be ousted, and was already in contact with the people who were going to take over. Where does the average Ukrainian citizen liberal, or conservative, Ukrainian or Rusophil, play into any of this?

[Vangelovski]

The money from the military deals were on par and/or more than the oil deals. It is money. Who cares where it comes from?.

Not quite. And they are miniscule compared to the reconstruction contracts of which western companies virtually got none. But I'm not denying large amounts were made by various American corporations, like Haliburton and its subsidiaries. Nor am I denying that it may have lobbied for war. What I am questioning is its actual influence and pointing out that American companies lost out for the most part in Iraq.

The deals won by the USA in the Kurdish sections of Iraq (Kurdistan) have been less publicised.

I wasn't going by the media, I was looking at the official register of contracts run by the Iraqi Government.

I wasn't ignoring the Ukraine, I was just looking at your Iraq example. The Ukraine presents itself as another defence contractor goldfield. And there are huge resources there. It's simply another opportunity.

The west won't be invading the Ukraine. In fact, Russia is/has. So the real question relates to companies like Gazprom. Again, why would Gazprom want to risk it assets and supply routes when it already controls the entire Ukrainian gas market? What will it gain?

[Gocka]

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

You only lose if you sell, there is a whole investing strategy based on waiting for just these types of moments where markets go into a nose dive and buying at the bottom to ride it up. You dont lose a cent unless you sell at the bottom.

Warren Buffet himself said "buy when there is blood on the streets"

[Gocka]

Gazprom was going to lose if the overthrow of Yanukovich led to a western leaning replacement. You forget that the initial instigation was the overthrow of the Russian favoring President. After that happened and Russia was already aware that the USA was behind it because of wire tapping I already spoke about. That is when Russia sent in its Army to protect its interests and the interests of its economy.

Not quite. And they are miniscule compared to the reconstruction contracts of which western companies virtually got none. But I'm not denying large amounts were made by various American corporations, like Haliburton and its subsidiaries.

I wasn't going by the media, I was looking at the official register of contracts run by the Iraqi Government.

The west won't be invading the Ukraine. In fact, Russia is/has. So the real question relates to companies like Gazprom. Again, why would Gazprom want to risk it assets and supply routes when it already controls the entire Ukrainian gas market? What will it gain?

[Vangelovski]

I could say the same about you, that you are misconstruing what many of us are saying, taking it to extremes that make it sound silly.

From what I understand the jist of your argument is simple. You believe that there are way to many competing interests in the world be it political corporate and social for an one person, politician, country, or corporation to have any real influence or ability to single hand-idly cause any of the incidents that are playing out in Ukraine and in other places around the world. If corporation X wants one thing to happen in Ukraine, corporation Y wants another thus in some way these competing interests and forces balance each other out and neither can have that big of an impact. Its sound logic that is very reasonable.

I think there are flaws in the argument though. For example even if you have a 100 competitors in any given situation, doesn't at least 1 win? In any competition dont you have a winner of some kind? In a war both sides can have heavy causalities and set each other back 100 years but in the end doesn't one technically win? So I'm not sure just solely based on the fact that there are many competing interests in a given situation that no one can come out on top and no one can have any influence for their benefit.

We jumped around a lot in this debate and if we are to talk solely about Ukraine then before there are questions to be answered before we jump to conclusions.

One thing that bothers me is that phone call that was tapped. Can you just explain to me why The top US diplomat for the EU is discussing with the US ambassador to Ukraine who will be part of the interim government in Ukraine and who won't before an interim government was even needed in Ukraine? The phone cal was from February 6th. Yanuhovich was still President, and the protests had yet to escalate to what they eventually did. Secondly why were they already bringing in the UN to "glue" it together (legitimize) it before "it" even happened? She even says "fuck the EU", because for what ever reason the US and the UN omitted the EU form these discussions. Toward the end she is telling the ambassador that they should speak to Klitchko to break the bad news to him that he wont be part of the interim government, again an interim government that was not yet called for.

Please explain to me how all of this could be talked about weeks before Yanukovich was ousted. I am not suggesting anything but would like to know how a logical person like yourself could explain this. Also if you could explain to me (sincerely) how you can then turn around and say that everything that is happening is because of competing interests among Ukrainians, when the US was talking about things that were going to happen that I'm sure most Ukrainians didn't even know were going to happen at the time. Then it all played out as was discussed, the people they wanted to take charge did, the people they wanted on the outside remained on the outside.

This is not a theory but a wire tapped conversation that can be found on every major news organizations website. Date time and full transcript.

Hey maybe its coincidence, but it sure looks a lot like the US knew that Yanukovich would be ousted, and was already in contact with the people who were going to take over. Where does the average Ukrainian citizen liberal, or conservative, Ukrainian or Rusophil, play into any of this?

Gocka, intra and inter-governmental conversations like that take place all the time in relation to almost any issue you can thing of at all levels - from the most junior officers to the most senior officers. Its what they are paid to do - plan for all possibilities and work to try and get the best possible outcome for their government. What is it you think the state department does all day? That's just business as usual.

You may find it sinister that this conversation happened weeks in advance, but that is only because you are looking at it from a blinkered perspective. This struggle between the two key communities (Ukranians vs Russians and Russophile Ukrainians) has been playing out for over a century. The struggle between there respective leaders (like Yanukovich) has been going on since the 80's. Further, this is not the first time that Yanukovich has been ousted and judging from the Russian invasion, it may not be the last. When the protests started (months before this conversation happened), it was no big guess (for anyone that even remotely follows Ukrainian affairs) that the Ukrainian side would try and oust Yanukovich AGAIN. He is, afterall, in Kiev, which is in Ukranian nationalist territory.

Your shoch and suprise at this particular conversation tells me two things - you've never worked in government and you don't really follow Ukrainian affairs. Many Macedonians (I'm not saying you) are shocked and surpirsed when something happens in Macedonia. The explanation is not sinister and consipiratorial, its just that they don't know their history, have no expierience in government and don't really follow what's going on.

More to the point - why are you ignoring the real factors in this situation - the Ukrainian people themselves and a tussle over their identity which has been ongoing long before any corporation even existed?

[Vangelovski]

Gazprom was going to lose if the overthrow of Yanukovich led to a western leaning replacement. You forget that the initial instigation was the overthrow of the Russian favoring President. After that happened and Russia was already aware that the USA was behind it because of wire tapping I already spoke about. That is when Russia sent in its Army to protect its interests and the interests of its economy.

Gocka, Yanukovich has been overthrown before (see post above). Gazprom lost nothing. Why would it fear another political tussle this time around?

[vicsinad]

First, I never suggested that OJSC would lobby western governments to overthrow. You asked me which corporations have something to gain. OJSC had a lot to gain with Yanukovich in power. He was overthrown and ousted. OJSC has something to gain with Russian intervention. With Crimea under Russian control, OJSC does not need to make a deal with the Ukraine.

Exxon has a lot to gain if Ukraine can fend off Russian interests. Exxon will be granted more access, and reap more benefits, from the Black Sea. A Ukraine closely allied to Russia does not bode well for them. Instead of Ukraine's seas being given access to American corporations, they will be under Russian control. Less profit for Exxon.

Furthermore, Gazprom has a lot to gain. Now, of course it's not in most corporations primary interest to go to war...unless other means fail. Gazprom needs a Ukraine under Russia's control. Almost at any cost. They supply Europe...and they know Europe depends on them. There's more money to be made than lost in a regional conflict. Just yesterday Gazprom said they were going to raise gas prices for Ukraine 40% because Ukraine has unpaid debts to them. That's a blatant threat: side with us, or will keep on raising your gas prices.

Second, I never admitted I don't have any evidence. And I don't have a one-percenter world view. And because these corporations are either state-owned or have thousands of share owners doesn't really mean anything and doesn't do anything for any argument you're making. Most share owners receive a quarterly update on how much their making and that's all they care about. They're not involved in any actual control or running of the company, and they sure aren't making the same money as corporate executives or some rather big-share owners who are involved. Further, many state owned companies are only as good as the government that's running them, which in most cases, is not that good. Further, in Russia, being a state-owned corporation just means that the government has a controlling share. Despite all that, we know that the VP of Russia in the 1990s was the former chairmen of Gazprom. When he stepped down as VP, he went back to chairman of Gazprom. Gazprom evaded taxes for years. Putin supposedly "cracked" down on them, and it became state-owned only after Gazprom sold some shares for well under its value. Coincidentally, this allowed Gazprom to be open to foreign investors. Being state-owned doesn't really mean anything other than supposedly, somehow, some folk people are seeing some cents. But the majority of it? No way.

Next, I don't think I'm arguing that most of these meetings aren't public knowledge, or can at least not be found out about publicly. But certainly your common person doesn't have any idea on how it works...and what is specifically going on. The head of the farm I work on went to "lobby" congress for organic and local sustainable farms. He and other local farmers brought fresh made ice cream, fresh eggs, and dinner made directly from the farm. After them, big agricultural came in hosting a black-tie event with $500 meals, all the drinks they could possibly want, and quite a bit of entertainment (music and females). Who the heck do you think Congressmen are going to "hear?" Cash speaks. Give most politicians some money, stroke their egos and let them fall into temptation. Congressmen could give two shits that most farmers are small-farm owners getting raped by their policies. No, all the local organic farmers could manage to muster was locally and sustainably made food and common sense solutions.

Don't be so naive. I know how it works. Money talks. It's not more complicated then a few things for most politicians and public officials: money, power, legacy. Usually, whoever can do the most for you, you do the most for them in return. So what if some other company or competing interested donated to you? You give them a speech, or a yes vote, or a no vote. You say you tried. You do something little for them. From the tobacco industry to the health industry to the agricultural industry to the energy industry: it's all the same...money talks. Money wins over most of the time. Money defines American politics more than anything else. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's the reality.

I'm not saying this mess was entirely orchestrated by Russia and the US. I'm saying Russian and US have been too heavily involved in what's going on there for interests that aren't so pure. There are profits to be made and to be lost, and that's what this is about for Russia and the US, and the corporations that drive them.

[vicsinad]

Oil corporations have been around since at least the 1870s. But corporations have been around since at least the medieval times as for profit entities. I think, Tom, you should do some research into corporations and how they have acted as arms of states and kingdoms for centuries. One just needs to do some simple reading on the horrors of the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson Bay Company and the Brittish East India Company. The things these corporations did in the name of profit, oh man. History repeats itself. Because we have supposed democracies now does not mean the whole "profit first and at any cost" mentality of organized business ventures has dissipated into the folk tales.

[Vangelovski]

First, I never suggested that OJSC would lobby western governments to overthrow. You asked me which corporations have something to gain. OJSC had a lot to gain with Yanukovich in power. He was overthrown and ousted. OJSC has something to gain with Russian intervention. With Crimea under Russian control, OJSC does not need to make a deal with the Ukraine.

Exxon has a lot to gain if Ukraine can fend off Russian interests. Exxon will be granted more access, and reap more benefits, from the Black Sea. A Ukraine closely allied to Russia does not bode well for them. Instead of Ukraine's seas being given access to American corporations, they will be under Russian control. Less profit for Exxon.

Furthermore, Gazprom has a lot to gain. Now, of course it's not in most corporations primary interest to go to war...unless other means fail. Gazprom needs a Ukraine under Russia's control. Almost at any cost. They supply Europe...and they know Europe depends on them. There's more money to be made than lost in a regional conflict. Just yesterday Gazprom said they were going to raise gas prices for Ukraine 40% because Ukraine has unpaid debts to them. That's a blatant threat: side with us, or will keep on raising your gas prices.

Second, I never admitted I don't have any evidence. And I don't have a one-percenter world view. And because these corporations are either state-owned or have thousands of share owners doesn't really mean anything and doesn't do anything for any argument you're making. Most share owners receive a quarterly update on how much their making and that's all they care about. They're not involved in any actual control or running of the company, and they sure aren't making the same money as corporate executives or some rather big-share owners who are involved. Further, many state owned companies are only as good as the government that's running them, which in most cases, is not that good. Further, in Russia, being a state-owned corporation just means that the government has a controlling share. Despite all that, we know that the VP of Russia in the 1990s was the former chairmen of Gazprom. When he stepped down as VP, he went back to chairman of Gazprom. Gazprom evaded taxes for years. Putin supposedly "cracked" down on them, and it became state-owned only after Gazprom sold some shares for well under its value. Coincidentally, this allowed Gazprom to be open to foreign investors. Being state-owned doesn't really mean anything other than supposedly, somehow, some folk people are seeing some cents. But the majority of it? No way.

Next, I don't think I'm arguing that most of these meetings aren't public knowledge, or can at least not be found out about publicly. But certainly your common person doesn't have any idea on how it works...and what is specifically going on. The head of the farm I work on went to "lobby" congress for organic and local sustainable farms. He and other local farmers brought fresh made ice cream, fresh eggs, and dinner made directly from the farm. After them, big agricultural came in hosting a black-tie event with $500 meals, all the drinks they could possibly want, and quite a bit of entertainment (music and females). Who the heck do you think Congressmen are going to "hear?" Cash speaks. Give most politicians some money, stroke their egos and let them fall into temptation. Congressmen could give two shits that most farmers are small-farm owners getting raped by their policies. No, all the local organic farmers could manage to muster was locally and sustainably made food and common sense solutions.

Don't be so naive. I know how it works. Money talks. It's not more complicated then a few things for most politicians and public officials: money, power, legacy. Usually, whoever can do the most for you, you do the most for them in return. So what if some other company or competing interested donated to you? You give them a speech, or a yes vote, or a no vote. You say you tried. You do something little for them. From the tobacco industry to the health industry to the agricultural industry to the energy industry: it's all the same...money talks. Money wins over most of the time. Money defines American politics more than anything else. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's the reality.

I'm not saying this mess was entirely orchestrated by Russia and the US. I'm saying Russian and US have been too heavily involved in what's going on there for interests that aren't so pure. There are profits to be made and to be lost, and that's what this is about for Russia and the US, and the corporations that drive them.

In your entire post Victor, this one line betrayed your blinkered view:

So what if some other company or competing interested donated to you?

So only the companies that you consider bad have any financial influence over politicians - other companies, no matter how much they donate (possibly even more) are irrelevant? That makes no sense whatsoever and is completely illogical.

Exxon cannot conceivabley think it could "fend off Russian" interests in the Ukraine. That would only be naive of them. I don't think they are that naive. Exxon is lucky to even be in the Ukraine and any instability can only be a loss for them, particularly a Russian invasion.

As for Gazprom, you still didn't spell out exactly what they had to gain...just something about more profits from war..how is that? On the point about Ukrainian gas prices, the Ukraine has never paid market rates for its gas. And even then it has failed to pay its bills. Why should Gazprom give them below market rates in the first place and then put up with non-payment? But how has that got anything to do with Gazprom somehow gaining from conflict in the Ukraine?

As for your organic farm, while I support organic food, the reality is that they are only a fraction of the whole agricultural industry, including small family owned farms...though what Americans consider organic could be very different to what Australians consider organic. I'm sure there's a lot more at stack than just drinks and hookers. Yes, financial donations, but also votes and many more small farmers who don't produce organic food and also pressure their local representatives, know them on a first name basis and have them over for dinner every second sunday.

[Vangelovski]

Because we have supposed democracies now does not mean the whole "profit first and at any cost" mentality of organized business ventures has dissipated into the folk tales.

Show me where I said that it has. My whole point has been that they are NOT AS INFLUENTIAL AS YOU PAINT THEM OUT TO BE. THERE ARE MANY OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS IN SOCIETY THAT LIMIT CORPORATE INFLUENCE OVER GOVERNMENT. There are hundreds of laws and regulations that govern labour, polution, health standards etc etc. Had corporations been as influential as you make them out to be, none of these laws and regulations would even exist. They are a huge pain the arse for corporations in terms of financial expense and reporting obligations. Corporate taxes would be much lower, possibly non-existant if corporations were as all pervasive as you suggest they are.

[vicsinad]

Your distortion of what I wrote makes it appear illogical. No where did I mention bad or good. I mentioned those who give a lot versus those who give a little bit.

I never said Gazprom has to gain only from a war. They have to gain from Western supported Ukrainian politicians not being in power. Since they are in power, they have to gain from Russia usurping, or threatening to take over, Ukrainian territory. Contrary to your belief, Gazprom does not control Ukraine's pipelines. Naftohaz does. A Ukrainian company who has been in several heated disputes with Gazprom. Read up on it.

Exxon would have a lot more to gain if Western backed Ukrainian leaders ruled Ukraine.


Of course there are laws and regulations relating to pollution and etc. Why do you think many US corporations move to developing countries? Hardly any environmental regulations there, and the minimum wage laws are essentially nonexistent. So yes...there are other societal interests. And we Americans think we solved some problems through laws, but rather we shifted them and created new ones. Still, knowing just something about the law, I know that corporations help write a lot of them, especially the loopholes in many of the statutes. And if you know something about laws, federal laws especially, the bite of the enforcement and the oversight usually depends on the administration...which is all politics...which boils back down to the money.

There are many competing societal interests. But money wins out most of the time. My point, then, is that corporations are more influential than you paint them out to be. Great. All settled.

[Risto the Great]

Vangelovski, you are an early USA democracy lover. Here is Abraham Lincoln's take on it:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

I think he was right and the near future is here.

[Gocka]

Vangelovski, you are an early USA democracy lover. Here is Abraham Lincoln's take on it:



I think he was right and the near future is here.

That's a good one, there are many more form Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams.

The glory of those early days was short lived and many of the people who fought in the American revolution had their doubts shortly after about where the Republic was heading in the future.

In 1896 the US presidential election came down to William McKinley (R), and William Jennings Bryan (D). McKinley's platform was lower taxes for corporations and that the best way to pull the USA out of tough times was a trickle down economic policy. His contestant Bryan, campaigned on going after corporate greed, and bringing corrupt politicians and corporate heads to justice, and helping the common man through these tough times. He was an amazing speaker and had given some the most memorable speeches in US political history.

Bryan was off to a strong start and possessed a solid lead. During his campaign he traveled 1000'S of miles and gave over 600 speeches.

His opponent McKinley was not charismatic and was a poor speaker, he mostly only spoke to people that would come see him, and did very few public speeches.

In the end Bryan lost.

In the 1896 presidential election, direct contributions from corporate treasuries helped swell William McKinley’s Republican campaign fund to $16 million against the $600,000 raised by the Democrat-Populist William Jennings Bryan. "All questions in a democracy [are] questions of money," said McKinley’s campaign manager, Mark Hanna, prophet.

Public recoil against the corruption of politics by business led McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, to act. In his 1905 message to Congress, Roosevelt condemned the perception that the dollar speaks louder than the vote. "No enemy of free government [is] more dangerous,” he stated, “and none so insidious." Roosevelt called for a ban on "all contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose." In 1907, Congress obliged, passing the Tillman Act. Its sponsor found it a "sad thought that the Senate is discredited by the people of the United States as being a body more or less corruptible or corrupted.

Look at us today we have just come out of the great recession and come full circle back to where we started.

Why do people never learn?

[Gocka]

Back to Ukraine,

I dont doubt nor down play the political and social struggle that exists and that is going on between Ukrainians themselves. At the same time I also dont doubt that both the US on one side and Russia on the other side are egging on the more radical components of the two sides in order to sway the struggle to one side or the other.

Why else would Russia take such a big risk to invade a region of Ukraine that it already de facto controlled if not for some kind of gain? They could have waited for eastern Ukraine to be attacked by a radical western faction and then intervene, why take over so rapidly if there is nothing to protect?

Another thing that sticks out is how quickly Russia occupied Eastern Ukraine. It was only hours after Yanukovich was ousted and the Russians already had special forces guarding airports government buildings, and cut telecommunications. The next morning they moved in the whole army. They were ready, the knew he was going to be ousted and knew exactly what they were going to do when he was. Same thing with the US, they knew he was going to be ousted and knew exactly who would take over when he does. Even if nothing sinister took part by either the US or Russia, isn't it scary that both of them are so well prepared and can so easily predict what is going to happen in sovereign state before it happens?

At a minimum we can say that both the US and Russia are meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state that is on the verge of a civil war.