The bonus for China is they don’t have to spend the capital (right now) to develop their own vast natural gas resources. Hell, it’s a double or even triple bonus for China. Wonder what they have to give in exchange for this great deal with Russia? Perhaps staying neutral on this whole Ukraine mess, regardless of what Russia ends up doing?
I hadn’t even thought of that. The Chinese must be just snickering at these crazy Westerners going at it thusly. And frankly, I don’t blame them.
There is no error. The reason most of us don’t support unrestricted votes on secession is this: more chaos. Are you ready to stop cheerleading this yet?
It has become clear the majority of Crimea’s inhabitant’s got their way following the coup in Kiev, and the parliament in Kiev has voted to withdraw troops from the eastern regions and provide more autonomy for those regions as well.
The significance of the Donbas:
So who’s getting their way in the Donbas? Is it the (A) Yanukovich ally 13 x billionaire who owns the steel mills, coal mines (subsidized by Kiev?) and electric power plants? Is it (B) Putin? The (C) armed occupiers of government buildings seeking separation/autonomy/Federalism?
Is Malthus’ concern “If Putin gets his way” now dead? It seems so to me just going by the scant news coverage regarding Ukraine crisis and Putin’s plan to restore the Soviet empire with land grabbing that will never end.
Another surprising tidbit in the above link:
subsidized by whom?
And the gas deal with China is significant too.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_306481/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=szFV8MSp
LOL, at various times reading that article I couldn’t help but noting the many uncanny parallels between Ukraine’s separatists and the Tea-Baggers/Bundy-Bunch types.
“More chaos” is an argument that could be used against any attempt to secede, including the British colonies in North America’s attempt to secede from the motherland. If there has to be chaos before a fairer and more stable form of governance is reached then just maybe it’s worth it. And only the people immediately concerned are in a position to make that judgment.
[quote=“John_Mace, post:3323, topic:682513”]
There is no error. QUOTE]
I wrote a factual statement" All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.
But Yesterday at 09:12 AM John Mace challenged that statement wiith this
Mace’s error begins with moving the goal posts… from what I wrote: ‘all states in the US joined the union voluntarily’ to his version: ‘99.9% of the people in the US never agreed to join the US’
And then Yesterday at 03:11 PM I corrected John Mace backed up with this link:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...tehoodproc.htm. says otherwise:
its too bad for John Mace - that cite shows the US States joined the Union voluntarily.
There appears to be a failure in John Mace’s response thus far to respond to any of my specific points from the link that I have in good faith provided. That is not an error in itself because we all are granted all the time in the world to respond here. Just pointing out that Mace has not made an effort to address the points I made.
Many here regard ‘chaos’ subjectively whenever their picked favorite Molotov cocktail throwing mob causes chaos in the first place, when they harm the economy and violently overthrows an elected president. The Euro-Protests which crossed into chaos for weeks but is seen subjectively by many here as a valid expression of hope and the wholesome desire of being close to their friends in the west and apart from the sinister and dark region in the east of the former Soviet Union. These Molotov cocktail throwing dreamers of green pastures of EU driven austerity had absolutely no concern for a large block of fellow Ukrainians who might not share the dream of becoming joined to Reaganesque’ trickle down economics by force and coup.
You do not appear to be responding to John Mace’s assertion, meaning you are the one who is moving the goalposts.
He quoted a significant block of text from your typical wall of words with eight separate paragraphs and accurately labeled it mostly BS. You picked a single phrase out of that entire quote and are pretending that he was only responding to that phrase.
Seriously, what are you on about? Reaganesque economics? Have we somehow gone back to the 1980s? How do you explain that Russia is much more unequal than pretty much every country in Europe? Maybe Ukraine should follow the European example rather than the Russian one if they’re looking for low income inequality. And I haven’t even mentioned civil and political rights, where we all know which side sets a better example for Ukraine.
Anyway, these potential changes won’t be imposed through a coup. There are elections on Sunday, remember? Ukrainians will hopefully be allowed to freely decide their future - something the Crimeans couldn’t do.
As others have pointed out, the big winner on that deal appears to be China.
The Russians and Chinese have been trying for a long time to broker a deal - now, with Russia having the worst bargaining power in years, a deal is hastily signed. The outlines of which appear to be - China gets heavily subsidized by Russia long-term; China supports, or at least doesn’t oppose, Russian foreign policy adventurism short-term, in Ukraine and Syria (China recently joined Russia in vetoing Security Council intervention in Syria).
I find it hard to see this as anything other than a desperate attempt to buy some friends. Assuming I correctly understand the economic case, I can’t see this ending well for Russia: it does not have the cash to afford to subsidize Chinese energy needs. Nor do I think it at all likely that friends so purchased will stay bought, long-term.
And what specific assertion is that?
Replying by labeling something I wrote as ‘mostly BS’ may be valid or appropriate argument in your mind, but I don’t see it that way and no one should.
“The Constitution that tied Crinea to the central authority of Ukraine was unfairly and undemocratically dropped when Yanukivuch was violently deposed and forced to flee.”
Why is that BS that I just made up? Is it constitutional and democratic to violently depose an elected leader and force him to flee? What is made up here?
Btw your link doesn’t prove John Mace wrong at all. It talks about territories becoming States. Alaska for example was bought and paid for to become part of America. It was 90 years or something before it became a state. Puerto Rico is part of America and is not a State.
Just thought you’d like to know.
I have been accused of not responding to all of John Mace’s assertions, so here’s more:
[QUOTE=John Mace;17396545The only “chaos” is in your mind, or it was created by Russia and the separatists trying to split Ukraine apart.[/QUOTE]
This current round of chaos in Ukraine began as a result of euro-maidan protests turned violent and resulted in a political mob rule coup of the elected president. That is reality that should not be ignored.
The people in the eastern parts of Ukraine had nothing to do with the chas that was created in Kiev.
Look at my original statement (All states in the US joined the union voluntarily. That was not the case for Crimea to Ukraine.)
Look at my quoted source:
I believe Puerto Rico did recently vote to join the Union to become the 51st state.
Crimea had no such vote to becomes legally bound to Ukraine. My point stands well.
Mace is in error.
Bollocks, that’s irrelevant. The Basque Country never ‘joined’ Spain voluntarily. Catalonia never ‘joined’ Spain voluntarily. Hell, Scotland chose to join the UK but that was a whole 307 years ago! How is that more democratic than the Crimean situation?
Nor, however, should you take one tiny, arguable point and pretend that that single element was the thrust of another poster’s contribution, then accuse that poster of moving the goalposts when you are trying to change the playing field.
I doubt that you are capable of any better, however, so carry on.
Let’s ignore the salient fact that the passive voice “turned violent” is a notably disingenuous phrase to describe these events: