What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

The "uprising" wasn't fake, but (a) it involved thousands of people in Maidan out of 40 million (b) there was a network of organizations funded by the US $5 billion "democracy" initiative that played a role and (c) the leadership  of the demonstrators were controlled by the US.

(a) and (b) are misleading, and (c) is just not true.

And this post is factually challenged.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

The disagreement here is - do the Ukrainian people have agency and aspirations, or is the U.S. a "puppet master" diverting them from their proper destiny as vassals of Russia.

In order to believe the latter, then you have to deny the agency and aspirations of East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and other Eastern Europeans (all of whom pulled at and eventually broke the chains that bound them to Moscow). I'm not so "U.S,-centric" as to believe that these weren't genuine public movements in all of these countries.

Whataboutism is OK now.

One major difference between these examples and Ukraine, is that Ukraine had a functioning democracy, with a President who was legally elected. Maidan was an undemocratic coup.

And in their cases, there were earlier insurgencies that were put down by force, but in the end ended peacefully, with the establishment of a new political order. Likewise, the Soviet Union broke up without a shot being fired.

You can't even use the term "whataboutism" correctly, can you?

There is no "major difference", and your simplistic description doesn't demonstrate that there was.

The bottom line - I gave examples of popular uprisings against rule from Moscow.  When the Ukrainians do the exact same thing, you call them puppets of the U.S.

[Edited to add] And with respect to this statement -

"And in their cases, there were earlier insurgencies that were put down by force, but in the end ended peacefully, with the establishment of a new political order."

It depends on how far back you decide to draw the line in history, as you well know.

Ukrainians didn't do "the exact same thing". None of the others involved the illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected government (coup).

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

b. Open Society was funded by the U.S.?

c. sigh. as you know I lack the relevant super-powers to discern the conspiracies that you claim are in that phone call. Here's a transcript. Maybe you can point out the most damning parts. When you say leadership, are you referring to Yatseniuk?

a. kind of deceptive to ignore the huge demonstrations that started the movement, don't you think? also, to compare the 4 hour 1/6 riot to the many days of Ukraine demonstrations is sophistry of the highest order.

(b) Open Society is a US organization

(c) Another case of @drummerboy amnesia

(a) Started the movement but petered out to 15,000 when the coup took place. A "revolution" of 15,000. I think 1/6 was bigger.

open society is George Soro's organization. it's not funded by our government. kind of hard to believe you don't know that.

you still refuse to actually point out the damning parts of Nuland's call.

ridski said:

nan said:

ridski said:

You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:

"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."

He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.

In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this: 

"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.

Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

Emphasis mine.

In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.

I don't know why you are changing the topic. 

We were talking about austerity related to the EU deal; I used that quote to show it was the IMF who attached the auterity to the EU deal.  Yanukovich did not want the Ukrainians to suffer that and in the end they did when he was disposed. 

Because you presented Parry’s article as evidence of this and Parry’s article is inaccurate.

I don't agree but that does not affect the part about the IMF austerity attached to the EU offer.  Why can't you acknowledge that?

Visiting friends just outside DC this weekend -- an appropriate weekend for it. Planning on taking the metro into the city and showing the kids the sites; will be their first time here. Just resting up at the hotel for a bit before headed out. Listened to Hamilton on the way down. Good background for thinking about revolutions, and when they're justified or not.

I have to admit I find the American revolution pretty morally ambiguous. For all the acknowledged contradictions and shortcomings of the revolution, its expressed justifications on the basis of democracy and human rights were powerful concepts, and have influenced democratic aspirations worldwide. I see my own political identity as a large part rooted in the idea that we can, and should, work toward realizing the promise and implications of the founding generations rhetoric -- it's umbras and penumbras if you will, which to my mind clearly go beyond "mankind" to "humankind" and take "liberty" as being far more expansive than merely "property." But the revolution was a civil war, with the attendant violence, death, and misery, and arguably resulted in less liberty, especially for native Americans and enslaved African Americans.

1/6, on the other hand, was unambiguously not justified. I trust there's no need to argue that case here.

But all that is really a tangent, as I wasn't raising the question of whether Maidan was a justified revolution, but whose revolution was it. I say it was Ukraine's. Paul says it was America's.

And on that framing, Pauls' referencing 1/6 actually goes against the point he's hoping to make, because 1/6 was most certainly America's movement, not Russia or anyone else's. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to fear Trumpism. It's precisely because Trumpism -- and it's expression on 1/6 -- is a significant American movement that it worries everyone who thinks American constitutional democracy is important.

Let's pretend for a moment that we learned that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys received some funding, and maybe even some training, from Russian operatives. What would that change? Not much -- Trumpism would still be an American movement threatening everyone with an interest in the stability of the American constitutional order. Trumpism has disquieted our European allies and NATO fellow members with the way it threatens their interests, and that would be true whether Russian operatives played any part or not. And if we imagine some scenario where 1/6 succeeded and Canada, backed by NATO, reacted by fomenting a secessionist war in New England, then a full invasion eight years later, arguments over the justice of that war would not rest on whether Russia was involved in 1/6 or not.

PVW said:

Visiting friends just outside DC this weekend -- an appropriate weekend for it. Planning on taking the metro into the city and showing the kids the sites; will be their first time here. Just resting up at the hotel for a bit before headed out. Listened to Hamilton on the way down. Good background for thinking about revolutions, and when they're justified or not.

I have to admit I find the American revolution pretty morally ambiguous. For all the acknowledged contradictions and shortcomings of the revolution, its expressed justifications on the basis of democracy and human rights were powerful concepts, and have influenced democratic aspirations worldwide. I see my own political identity as a large part rooted in the idea that we can, and should, work toward realizing the promise and implications of the founding generations rhetoric -- it's umbras and penumbras if you will, which to my mind clearly go beyond "mankind" to "humankind" and take "liberty" as being far more expansive than merely "property." But the revolution was a civil war, with the attendant violence, death, and misery, and arguably resulted in less liberty, especially for native Americans and enslaved African Americans.

1/6, on the other hand, was unambiguously not justified. I trust there's no need to argue that case here.

But all that is really a tangent, as I wasn't raising the question of whether Maidan was a justified revolution, but whose revolution was it. I say it was Ukraine's. Paul says it was America's.

And on that framing, Pauls' referencing 1/6 actually goes against the point he's hoping to make, because 1/6 was most certainly America's movement, not Russia or anyone else's. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to fear Trumpism. It's precisely because Trumpism -- and it's expression on 1/6 -- is a significant American movement that it worries everyone who thinks American constitutional democracy is important.

Let's pretend for a moment that we learned that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys received some funding, and maybe even some training, from Russian operatives. What would that change? Not much -- Trumpism would still be an American movement threatening everyone with an interest in the stability of the American constitutional order. Trumpism has disquieted our European allies and NATO fellow members with the way it threatens their interests, and that would be true whether Russian operatives played any part or not. And if we imagine some scenario where 1/6 succeeded and Canada, backed by NATO, reacted by fomenting a secessionist war in New England, then a full invasion eight years later, arguments over the justice of that war would not rest on whether Russia was involved in 1/6 or not.

Russia went to war with Ukraine in 2014 because the Maidan revolution threatened its interests, and escalated in 2022 because it was failing to accomplish its goals.

I don't agree with you but have a nice vacation.   That sounds like a great trip!

When Ukraine broke off from the Soviet Union it expected to do well because of resources and industry.  Unfortunately, it had a lot of corruption also and fell victim to meddling from other countries, especially the West.  The 2014 US backed coup was just the next chapter in Western control of Ukraine.  NATO justifies it's existence by making Russia/China the enemy and so they fomented the conflict that eventually became our current proxy war, which even the NYTs admits is being run by the CIA on the ground.  

It's a dangerous conflict and not likely to turn out well for anyone involved.  I blame this on the neocons who are now in charge with no restraint.  That's why I wanted you to read this article, which is from a more mainstream source than my usual.   None of you seem to want to comment on this except for Jaime essentially saying "yuck" with no reason. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

I'd also like to mention, that if the Democrats actually cared about ordinary people and worked hard to make life better for us there would be no worry about a Trump/DeSantis takeover.   It is only because they are just a more moderate version of the same that people are not inclined to trust or vote for Democrats. This is how countries slip into dictatorships and we seem to be on a runaway train in that direction.  

nan said:

I don't agree but that does not affect the part about the IMF austerity attached to the EU offer.  Why can't you acknowledge that?

Because I’m still looking for the IMF austerity attached to the EU offer. Well, to be honest I’m actually doing yard work, but I couldn’t find it yesterday during office hours, so maybe I’ll take bother look later. Do you have a link to it? It will save me some time.

This touches a little on a point that I was trying to make - Russia will have an excuse to attack anything 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/02/world/europe/russian-civilian-attacks-ukraine.html

At the end of the day who and how will they be held accountable?  The sheer volume makes it an impossible task and Russia knows this.

jamie said:

This touches a little on a point that I was trying to make - Russia will have an excuse to attack anything 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/02/world/europe/russian-civilian-attacks-ukraine.html

At the end of the day who and how will they be held accountable?  The sheer volume makes it an impossible task and Russia knows this.

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

ridski said:

nan said:

I don't agree but that does not affect the part about the IMF austerity attached to the EU offer.  Why can't you acknowledge that?

Because I’m still looking for the IMF austerity attached to the EU offer. Well, to be honest I’m actually doing yard work, but I couldn’t find it yesterday during office hours, so maybe I’ll take bother look later. Do you have a link to it? It will save me some time.

I already posted a link.  If you need another you will have to find it.  I have to go  clean now.  My house looks like  a tornado came though.  

nan said:

I already posted a link. If you need another you will have to find it. I have to go clean now. My house looks like a tornado came though.

You posted a link to Parry, whom you quoted and whom you cited as your source for showing that the IMF attached austerity requirements to the EU deal.

It hardly needs to be added that quoting Parry is not the same as providing a more authoritative link to the IMF austerity requirements, which was ridski’s request. Is there a link along those lines that we missed?

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Paul's adoption of arguments which justify Israel's military actions in Gaza is a surprising turn of events.

In all wars, the question is whether a target is a military target is whether it is hosting military equipment or activities. When Israel is attacked by rockets from Gaza it is justified in retaliating against military targets as defined above.

Nice try. I cannot recall you ever defending an Israeli strike on Gaza, the same way you defend Russia here.

I've always called for Hamas to renounce violence as a strategy to oppose Israeli aggression.

What an absolutely bullsh!t response, not to mention a total deflection. 

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

I already posted a link. If you need another you will have to find it. I have to go clean now. My house looks like a tornado came though.

You posted a link to Parry, whom you quoted and whom you cited as your source for showing that the IMF attached austerity requirements to the EU deal.

It hardly needs to be added that quoting Parry is not the same as providing a more authoritative link to the IMF austerity requirements, which was ridski’s request. Is there a link along those lines that we missed?

Given the time period in question, it would be odd for the IMF not to have austerity requirements. Austerity was the governmental finance name of the game back then.

Much to the world's detriment.

Google seems to find a lot of documentation for that. 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imf+austerity+ukraine

nan said:

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

again you’re quite the cheerleader!  Russia is winning and destroying Ukraine!  Why no issue with that - ever!  OMG

It’s a land grab!  Stop the spin and call it what it is for once’

Ramping up the war?  Yes vlad is- he cares zero about dead Russian soldiers.

Nice that you’re more concerned over the price of gas then the destruction of a sovereign nation.

nan said:

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

you have an odd definition of "lie"

drummerboy said:

Given the time period in question, it would be odd for the IMF not to have austerity requirements. Austerity was the governmental finance name of the game back then.

Much to the world's detriment.

Google seems to find a lot of documentation for that.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imf+austerity+ukraine

The claim is that it was a condition of the EU offer.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Given the time period in question, it would be odd for the IMF not to have austerity requirements. Austerity was the governmental finance name of the game back then.

Much to the world's detriment.

Google seems to find a lot of documentation for that.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imf+austerity+ukraine

The claim is that it was a condition of the EU offer.

ok

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imf+austerity+ukraine+eu+deal

not much difference in the results

if the IMF was involved back then, so was austerity most of the time.

Here’s a nub paragraph:

“A major factor in the crisis that led to deadly protests and eventually Yanukovych’s removal from office was his rejection of an EU association agreement that would have further opened trade and integrated Ukraine with the European Union. The agreement was tied to a 17 billion dollars loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth 15 billion dollars plus a 33 percent discount on Russian natural gas.”

What I’m looking for is the primary source for this. I’m saying this didn’t happen, but it definitely wasn’t the only factor. So I’m not rejecting that the EU agreement was tied to an IMF loan, or an austerity package, just that I haven’t seen that outside of secondary sources.

DaveSchmidt said:

You posted a link to Parry, whom you quoted and whom you cited as your source for showing that the IMF attached austerity requirements to the EU deal.

It hardly needs to be added that quoting Parry is not the same as providing a more authoritative link to the IMF austerity requirements, which was ridski’s request. Is there a link along those lines that we missed?

I'm sure there is.  Robert Parry was an exceptional journalist.  Why don't you look?  I'm still cleaning.  I have a long way to go.  This is my couch. 

jamie said:

nan said:

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

again you’re quite the cheerleader!  Russia is winning and destroying Ukraine!  Why no issue with that - ever!  OMG

It’s a land grab!  Stop the spin and call it what it is for once’

Ramping up the war?  Yes vlad is- he cares zero about dead Russian soldiers.

Nice that you’re more concerned over the price of gas then the destruction of a sovereign nation.

I'm most concerned with avoiding nuclear war. 

nan said:

jamie said:

This touches a little on a point that I was trying to make - Russia will have an excuse to attack anything 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/02/world/europe/russian-civilian-attacks-ukraine.html

At the end of the day who and how will they be held accountable?  The sheer volume makes it an impossible task and Russia knows this.

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

That's a disturbingly callous response.

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

again you’re quite the cheerleader!  Russia is winning and destroying Ukraine!  Why no issue with that - ever!  OMG

It’s a land grab!  Stop the spin and call it what it is for once’

Ramping up the war?  Yes vlad is- he cares zero about dead Russian soldiers.

Nice that you’re more concerned over the price of gas then the destruction of a sovereign nation.

I'm most concerned with avoiding nuclear war. 

Those people over there should give up, to protect me.

Stupid, stupid reason to give Russia whatever it wants, whenever it wants it.

OK, I'm taking a quick cleaning break and with the power of Google, I found that Yatz did indeed have the deets!   I consider this more evidence of the US backed coup.  

Western media was mostly silent or positive about the austerity (check out this happy headline!) They portrayed the former president as pro-Russian and the people as pro-EU.  I wonder how many  Euromadian protesters were aware of the auterity measures that came with the deal?  Probably the  NGO propaganda left that part out. They found out the hard way.

Congress was excited about selling US oil and gas to Ukriane instead of Russia (which is next door).  I seem to remember from the Oliver Stone movies that actually happened and, no surprise, it costs a lot more to get your fuel from a remote location than from your neighbor. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/03/28/ukraine-welcomes-imf-austerity-regime/?sh=3ff8a3bb5192

Ukraine Welcomes IMF Austerity Regime

Mar 28, 2014,09:23am EDT

EXCERPT

Ukraine's new leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk held firm to his promise this week that he will become the country's worst-ever Prime Minister. On Thursday, he agreed to a minimum of $14 billion to as much as $18 billion in an International Monetary Fund package that requires massive reforms of Ukraine's weak economy.
. . . ..
While the IMF’s board must still agree to the loan, Kiev’s interim government will need to solidify its end of the bargain by committing to certain prior actions to receive the first installment by April. In other words, the quid pro quo of austerity-for-aid is at the heart of Ukraine’s bailout program, and it promises to devastate Ukrainian living standards, according to the take by analyst Vlad Signorelli of Bretton Woods Research in Mt. Tabor, New Jersey.

Among some of the details coming to light are a 47% to 66% increase in personal income tax rates; a 50% increase in monthly gas bills; a 40% increase on gas tariffs for heating companies; and an increase in taxes on agribusiness. In addition, while some at the IMF have speculated the currency's devaluation against the dollar year-to-date (35+%) is enough to satisfy the fund’s penchant for ‘correcting imbalances,’ others are maintaining the currency needs to get even weaker.
For his part, Yatsenyuk has characterized his approach as a “kamikaze mission”. He admitted that such policies will likely cause GDP to shrink by 3% and inflation to rise to 12-14% during the next twelve months as subsidies, primarily from Naftogaz, are axed under the austerity regime. Worse yet, Gazprom will no longer honor below market rate gas supply deals cut with Ukraine in December when ousted President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a trade deal with Europe to please Moscow. That Christmas present has been returned to sender.

"The preconditions of the IMF’s stand-by agreement appear to have yoked the new government to an austerian death march," Signorelli said. "At the least, we hope a forthcoming European agreement might facilitate Ukrainian emigration to Western Europe to keep this geopolitical pressure cooker from exploding."

A handful of American congressman seem willing to turn up the heat.

Most of them are staunchly anti-Russian, including Senators John McCain and Ted Cruz, both Republicans that have visited Ukraine and are strong Yatsenyuk allies in Washington.

This week, Cruz told Fox News host Neil Cavuto that the U.S. should lend a hand to Kiev by immediately signing a free trade agreement with the country, whose GDP is roughly half the size of Massachusetts GDP. Of course, Cruz is mostly salivating over the prospect of future oil and gas exports to Ukraine and Europe. Right now, Rosneft and Gazprom of Russia are the main suppliers of oil and gas to the region.

“We are on the cusp of a great American energy renaissance that will create both a stronger economy and a stronger America,” Cruz told Congress on Thursday.

Cruz's love for Ukraine has more to do with U.S. energy profits than anything else, however.

“The energy revolution that is already underway can produce the jobs and opportunities that our country needs to grow. A booming new energy economy can also provide critical resources to our allies so they are no longer energy dependent on petro-tyrants, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin,” Cruz said.

nohero said:

Those people over there should give up, to protect me.

Stupid, stupid reason to give Russia whatever it wants, whenever it wants it.

Incredible huh?  Selfish bovine.

nohero said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

I've noticed an increase in anti-Russian propaganda stories like this, with debatable claims.  The bottom line seems to be a strong reminder that Russians are untrustworthy monsters that seek to kill and maim innocents. So we can forget about the US agreeing to a peace deal. Continue the Ukrainian grind up machine. 

Don't really want to debate the individual claims, but I am thinking about the larger meaning of why these stories are suddenly prominent again. Why the pattern?  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Biden announced he's sending long-range missiles to Ukraine which means they can be shot right into Russia, escalating the war. The Ukrainians assured Biden they would not do that, but even he knows Saint Zelensky is not perfect.

The Russians are at the moment victorious in Ukraine and it's going to be a big embarrassment for the West since, despite sanctions, Putin is the winner and our economy is going down the toilet. So, I guess it's time to play chicken with a nuclear power!   And the neocons are probably frothing at the mouth for blood. Biden must feed his monsters.

They are ramping up for war and they want you to be on board!  Maybe a bunch of you need to go enlist now. You need to go personally hold those Russian orchs accountable.   Who cares that the price of gas will hit $10 a gallon and we are all going to blow up in a nuclear war.   Who cares if this was all easily preventable?   Russia is just full of excuses and the US does not stand for anyone who has excuses (except for Democrats). 

Besides The New York Times would never lie about a war, right?   

again you’re quite the cheerleader!  Russia is winning and destroying Ukraine!  Why no issue with that - ever!  OMG

It’s a land grab!  Stop the spin and call it what it is for once’

Ramping up the war?  Yes vlad is- he cares zero about dead Russian soldiers.

Nice that you’re more concerned over the price of gas then the destruction of a sovereign nation.

I'm most concerned with avoiding nuclear war. 

Those people over there should give up, to protect me.

Stupid, stupid reason to give Russia whatever it wants, whenever it wants it.

Did not say that.  Have been saying they need to negotiate.  In a negotiation both sides say what they want and they figure it out and settle.  Granted, at this point, Russia has the upper hand, but Ukraine would not come to the table. You can thank the West for that, although now they are bringing in long range missiles to try to turn the tables and get us even closer to nuclear war.  

That's a stupid, stupid, extra stupid with a cherry on top stupid neocon strategy that we will all be very sorry happened.  

ridski said:

Here’s a nub paragraph:

“A major factor in the crisis that led to deadly protests and eventually Yanukovych’s removal from office was his rejection of an EU association agreement that would have further opened trade and integrated Ukraine with the European Union. The agreement was tied to a 17 billion dollars loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth 15 billion dollars plus a 33 percent discount on Russian natural gas.”

What I’m looking for is the primary source for this. I’m saying this didn’t happen, but it definitely wasn’t the only factor. So I’m not rejecting that the EU agreement was tied to an IMF loan, or an austerity package, just that I haven’t seen that outside of secondary sources.

curious why this issue is getting so much attention. nan posts a lot of sketchy stuff - this seems to be minor in the scheme of things, unless I'm missing something.

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

Here’s a nub paragraph:

“A major factor in the crisis that led to deadly protests and eventually Yanukovych’s removal from office was his rejection of an EU association agreement that would have further opened trade and integrated Ukraine with the European Union. The agreement was tied to a 17 billion dollars loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth 15 billion dollars plus a 33 percent discount on Russian natural gas.”

What I’m looking for is the primary source for this. I’m saying this didn’t happen, but it definitely wasn’t the only factor. So I’m not rejecting that the EU agreement was tied to an IMF loan, or an austerity package, just that I haven’t seen that outside of secondary sources.

curious why this issue is getting so much attention. nan posts a lot of sketchy stuff - this seems to be minor in the scheme of things, unless I'm missing something.

That's a mischaracterization.  I post stuff out of the mainstream news, but there are plenty of excellent alternative journalists who do a better job than the regulars.  Robert Parry was top shelf and a legend. 

The reason this is important is because it puts the Maidan coup in a new light for some of you (not me).  In Western media, Yanukovych's hard decision about which country to sign a deal with was ignored and he is usually portrayed as being on the Russian side (and bad so it's good they took him out).  This makes the cartoon about the Maidan story work just like the cartoon about Putin being crazy and land-grabbing makes the unprovoked invasion cartoon story work.

In reality, Yanukovych wanted to sign with the EU but he did not want the austerity deal and Russia's deal was better (not great, but better) for the people of Ukraine.  I'm not actually sure which one he chose because I think he was still thinking about it when they took him out.  I think the fact that he was considering the Russian deal might have been the reason they moved in and pushed him out so fast.  The EU was going to let him have an early election (hence Nulands, "F the EU" remark).

I know that anything Russian being good is impossible for many MOLsters to accept, but they would have been better off going with that.  I doubt they would have this invasion now.  Yanukovych was corrupt, but he was democratically elected and he cared about the Ukrainian people.   

The installed puppet, Yatz, just wanted to get the EU deal signed for his overlords and then I think he was out of there.  People in congress were drooling about getting their paws on Ukraine for profit.  You think the US gives a crap about Ukraine--it's all about the money and the power and the proxy war to destroy Russia.  

I'm watching a video now (because I need to wash dishes) from Multipolarista (Ben Norton--good journalist) on how NATO is not the defensive organization it claims and that Mike Pompeo even opened his trap and said so.  NATO just wants to keep the US dominating the world, even if we all have to die to accomplish that. 

Nan,, that lamp on the sofa is a fire hazard…keep your hair away from it 

Jaytee said:

Nan,, that lamp on the sofa is a fire hazard…keep your hair away from it 

It does not work.  It's attached to a lap desk and I should have listened to the reviews which all said it sucked.  Now it just gets in the way and I can't remove it.  They did a great job of attaching it, just not making it work. 

nan said:

I'm watching a video now (because I need to wash dishes) from Multipolarista (Ben Norton--good journalist) on how NATO is not the defensive organization it claims and that Mike Pompeo even opened his trap and said so.  NATO just wants to keep the US dominating the world, even if we all have to die to accomplish that. 

Mike Pompeo, of course, said no such thing.