Ukraine Soon to be Back in the Headlines

I can't help but think the reason for the escalation in the war in Eastern Ukraine is because Putin has armed the rebels. He can claim he's trying to protect them but if he wasn't arming and actively supporting them there would be no rebellion.

Again, I harken back to the Amnesty International statements in the article I previously linked. An organization that is a nation-agnostic as any in the world. They've stated that there is no evidence to support the Russian exaggerations of ethnic cleansing or massive human rights violations.

In reply to:


 
Brazil's disdain for America can be tied directly to the Snowden NSA spying revelations. With that said I think any country with the technology to spy like that is currently doing so, Russia included.
 
The US hasn't had its thumb on countries like Bolivia, Ecuador and the like. Those are socialist states that have little to no relationship with the US. There are more aligned with Venezuela who is aligned with Cuba who is aligned with Russia. The false statements written by Musberger are many.

The blustery statements about the Russia/China relationship hide the truth of the matter. Russia can make all the deals they want with China. They still have to build expensive infrastructure to get the petrochemicals to the China population centers. China's demand for oil and gas is stagnant and starting to wane. There economy is struggling right now and they face a serious shift in economy if they are ever going to grow again. So they aren't going to pay for pipelines. Russia could possibly but the price of oil has decreased to the point that financial justification for projects like that have become pretty thin. All in all, China is probably not going to be the savior of the Russian economy that Musberger paints them as.

Brazil's economy has also faltered after growing at 10% about 10 years ago. Their government corruption and central planning of the economy has hurt them. The government is redistributed money from South to North. Pretty much everyone there is pissed off about how it is going. They have plenty of oil and gas but they don't have the technology or money to extract it without the help of US companies. The fact that Petrobras is at least partially nationalized also limits their capability due to waste and corruption. Brazil should follow the US economic model and even more so Chile's. This is a country whose President is a Communist (she was officially for a while and in essence today) and inherited a thriving economy and society and has run it into the ground. I know because I work with Brazillians, have been to Brazil and have seen how deflated they have become over the last 5 years.

And I will counter the assertion that the US is where they shouldn't be (in Ukraine). Number 1, our troops aren't there. Number 2, the US can and should pursue its interests around the world. Number 3, even granting that the US should have 0 involvement in Ukraine, Russia is also where they shouldn't be and are there physically and militarily. Spare me the idea that Russia is justified to pursue their interests but Western Europe or the US can't. Give me a break.
 
Musburger-

That "information clearing house" site is a 1-man show. How does some guy working out of his basement have the "inside scoop" that media that was there don't have?

I honestly don't listen to any world leader as their statements are scripted or at the very least staged for specific audience consumption. No world leader will say what they REALLY think in a public setting. In fact, I think it's dangerous to take a world leader and believe what they say word for word. They are essentially Chief Marketing officers for their prospective governments.

Rather, the better view is to look at what they do
rather than say. Then you see the true measure of the leader. In this respect Putin is not to be trusted. What he says and what he does are nearly always in conflict. American Presidents are similar but not remotely on the same scale.

This is why Bill Clinton was the best US President of the last 40 years IMHO. I would have said Reagan but the Iran - Contra mess showed he too had a very dirty underbelly.
 
Clinton set the US on the disastrous path we are now on. Under him, deregulation of the banking system made possible the criminal financial dealings in the 2000's that ended up with the blowup in 2008. Ever since, the financial system has been centrally managed by the federal reserve because it is on life support.

Clinton's failures to deal with bin Laden came back to haunt us on 9-11. That lead to the emergence of what is becoming a de facto police state.

His illegal interference and bombing of the former Yugoslavia set the tone for further adventures like what we've seen in Libya and Syria. And his no fly zones and provocations on Iraq formed the basis for Bush to further deceive the public and wage a war that left the Middle East in chaos and has unleashed radical Islam.

Clinton's presidency was a total disaster. The only bright spot was the technology lead economy, which was due to private sector innovation; it had very little to do with Clinton.
 
We'll have to wait and see on China. The big issue right now is that their demand is slightly decreasing and OPEC countries aren't reducing supply. Russia's best option for selling oil and gas is in Europe. West Europe's demand is also stagnating but they work closely to Germany who needs their cheap energy sources because of poor planning on their part. Germany is lesson number one for anyone who wants to base their energy on renewable sources today. It's a bad choice, and now they are even more dependent on Russia. Same goes for most of Europe. Either way, I am not too concerned about it. People will buy oil and gas wherever they can get it.

As far as Brazil, I don't think the US should interfere with them at all. I don't know that we are either. The foreign investment came from all over the place not just the US. Part of it was due to the infrastructure building needed for the World Cup and Rio Olympics. The other part of that is that Dilma isn't doing the Brazilian economy any favors. Money goes where the most profit can be made. It ain't in Brazil right now. Partly due to her policies, but the average Brazilian wants hand outs like you wouldn't believe. Free college, free transportation, free everything. Well, they asked for the government to give them stuff so their economy will suffer. I don't know that the US has anything to do with that. I personally would love to see the US have closer relations with all of Latin American, but many countries don't think we will help them. It's their decision to make.

I really don't know where your last paragraph comes from. First, I don't necessarily support US involvement in Ukraine. I just don't trust the intentions or public statements of Putin. At the same time, I expect any nation to pursue their interests internally and externally. But that doesn't mean I support any specific action. I personally think Ukraine wants more US help than they are getting. I don't think that Ukraine is that important to the US in general. I know that to an old KGB agent, controlling Ukraine is a must for the purposes of national Russian security. The Iron Curtain was a geopolitical necessity to the USSR to provide stability to their regime. I don't think Putin is trying to recreate it per se but has decided which countries he thinks are critical to the interests of Russia. Ukraine and Belarus are 2 of the most important potential allies for Russia.

I also don't know how the world is fighting back against US power. Of course no other nation wants to be told what to do. I don't blame them, but the US is just too important economically and too powerful militarily to not pay attention to. Consequently, when smaller, less powerful nations meet regional threats, they usually appeal to the US for aid. Who else can provide it? Who else in the world is even willing?
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top