Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

cant you answer the questions?

Russian gas pipeline - cut off.
who benefits and who loses out?

[Paphitis]

cant you answer the questions?

Russian gas pipeline - cut off.
who benefits and who loses out?

I don't think Ukraine cares. at the moment they are too busy trying to defend their country from Russia so I don't think they are too interested in Russian Gas which has now proven to be an enemy.

If you are talking about the US, EU and Russia, the possible embargo against Russian Gas will be costly to all involved. It does not completely suit EU or US interests to forbid Russian Gas from getting to market but they are using the embargo as leverage against Russia so they can butt out of Ukrainian Affairs.

[Maximus]

cant you answer the questions?

Russian gas pipeline - cut off.
who benefits and who loses out?

I don't think Ukraine cares. at the moment they are too busy trying to defend their country from Russia so I don't think they are too interested in Russian Gas which has now proven to be an enemy.

[Robin Hood]

The one country that could stop the violence in Ukraine is the USA. One word from Obama to Kiev to stop the violence and withdraw the Ukraine army to barracks or else, and the regime in Kiev would have no alternative but to comply. It worked with Yanukovich ..... It should work with Yatsenuk and Poroshenko? But the US is unwilling to do this and instead demand that Russia tells the ‘Pro-Russian’ Ukraines to lay down their arms and surrender to a Neo-Nazi/Fascist government. This assumes of course that Russia actually has the influence over the separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

Because a very obvious solution to the crisis is presented continually by Putin and ignored by the US the obvious question is raised .... why?

A couple of articles that made some sense to me that you may find interesting viewpoints:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/10/putting-the-ukraine-crisis-in-context/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-vs-syria-the-only-standards-are-double-standards/5385719

It is obvious that no matter the source of information there is always a degree of bias.

RT is quite clearly a limb of the Russian Government and gives the Russian views of events. On the BBC this evening they are still pushing the ‘Russian tanks in Ukraine’ story but in spite of claims that the US has ‘proof’ it has not presented evidence to back the story. How many times did Kerry claim the US had clear evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons on Ghouta in Syria .............. to date this ‘clear evidence’ has not materialised? It is again the same story with Iran and their so called Nuclear weapons program ......... plenty of accusations from the US and Israel but never any hard facts and, even when evidence comes to light that indicates the opposite of the US line, it is rejected by the US and is never published in the MSM.

But, in my quite recent switch to RT as a source of information, I found that their stories inevitably are supported by hard evidence and therefore have more credibility. This was true over Nuland’s explanation of her views on the government for Ukraine before the coup took place and with the Estonian Foreign Minister’s suggestion that the sniper shootings on the Berkut were a false flag operation. In both cases the evidence presented with the story on RT was unequivocal. The same can be said for other events up to and including the claims about the rocket attack on the regional administration building in Donetsk and the attacks in Odessa, Slavyansk and Mariupol. Very little of this news made it to the MSM.

In the western media they omit parts of the story which are ‘inconvenient’. A commentator on a blog (that I cannot find now) said there are four aspects of the western media that stand out:

• They re-cycle almost verbatim whatever the Kiev regime or US spokesman says.
• They often claim to have evidence but somehow never get round to presenting it.
• They never make a serious attempt to evaluate the information provided by these sources and assess the probability or feasibility of the report.
• You never see the MSM engaging with those in Eastern Ukraine that the Kiev government and the US refer to as ‘terrorists’ or with the Russians.

I find RT a far more credible source for information than any of the MSM channels ...... including the BBC.

IMO: the US is the cause of the problems in Ukraine and are making things worse but they could be the solution if they were just to admit they got it wrong and told Kiev to call off their death squads.

Paphitis:

Russia for example has invaded 2 countries and they play for keeps.

Wow! In fact you are wrong it is three since WWII. They invaded Georgia (2008), Afghanistan (1979) and Hungary (1956)

Americas record of invasion over the same period makes Russia look like a hand maiden of Mother Teresa:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

It is Russia massing its troops on the border and declaring dangerous and threatening military drills.

Russia has every right to put its defence forces where it perceived the threat to be. But, they remain within their own territorial borders. Another case of US double standards.

http://rt.com/news/165464-russia-baltic-drills-nato/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10732676/Ukraine-crisis-British-forces-to-join-Nato-wargames.html

Maximus:

OK, well prove with evidence that the US or the EU for that matter is not the instigator of what is going on in the Ukraine or the sh*t they take from the other excursions around the world is not their fault.

You cannot prove they are NOT involved! What you can do is present credible evidence that shows they ARE at least involved to a degree of probability. The more evidence that points the finger, the stronger the positive case for the argument. Irrefutable proof positive is the smoking gun that proves the argument! As yet, in Ukraine there is a case for a high degree of probability of US involvement but unless Nulands blunders are taken as proof positive, then high degree of probability is the best you can do.

But if you are one of the 90+% any argument that is contrary to the US/EU/NATO stance is totally unknown to you. Therefore as one that does not tread the path ordained by the US and its cronies, you will always be a minority, because even if you come up with the truth nobody will listen. I know, I have been down that path but it is satisfying on occasions when you are proved right at a later date to be able to say .......... “What did I tell you?”

Paphitis:
You are doing what the MSM and Government's do! You are making wild statements but without anything to support it. For instance:

I am certain that Ukrainians will want to tell Russia to stick their pipeline up their bum

.
Well, my local supermarket has LPG (not LNG) in canisters but they would want to be paid up front and Kiev's record says it is not a good customer if you want to make a profit. Or are you suggesting that the US is going to provide them with all the gas they need .... for free?

Russian interference is not welcome amongst Ukrainians.

What interference? Plenty of accusations coming out of Kiev and repeated by Washington but as yet very little proof.

IMO: it would be stupid to believe that Russia was not helping the Ethnic Russians in the Eastern provinces with light weapons and ammunition but, the evidence on the ‘tanks’ so far is that Kiev and the US cannot actually agree on which model of tank it is T-34 or a T-70. which is significant. Kiev says it has destroyed at least one ..... but don’t have any pictures to prove it!!!! Another bit of evidence provided by Kiev is that the tanks and other vehicles mentioned had no markings ..... therefore they are Russian.

They took to the street when Viktor Yanukovych rejected the EU for Russia almost leading to civil war!

You are not thinking it out! That is the western explanation but in fact Yanukovitch was aware of the implications and consequences of getting the IMF and the World Bank to lend Ukraine money ..... with strings ..... it is called Debt Slavery!

Russia actually offered them a better deal and with no strings. Once the Kiev goons signed on the dotted line (and received their ‘bonus’) salaries and pensions were cut by up to 50% and a whole bunch of prices escalated. Another Greece/Cyprus in the making. The Russian deal would have left Ukraine with subsidised gas and no austerity as their package was offered in Russian Roubles.

The US keeps imagining threats to the supply of gas to the EU but, once again it is all hot air as Russia has made no threats. You are a businessman? If your best customer told you that he had been warned to not rely upon you for the provision of your product and that he would be looking elsewhere for it, what would you do? I suggest, just what he Russians have done ..... find another customer and the other guy would lose any preferential treatment when it suited you, not when it suited him.

The EU, no doubt under instructions from the US as it came shortly after a visit to Bulgaria by McCain, have stopped work on the southern Black Sea pipeline which would have supplied gas to the EU bypassing the Ukraine. Another miscalculation? But of course none of this will affect the US directly and will have little effect on Russia either, only the EU will suffer.

Is that right! They (Ukraine) are lapdogs now for wanting to be a part of the EU

They are not going to be ‘part of the EU’ any time in the foreseeable future and will have to apply like every other country and that could take years ........ of austerity and hardship ..... and for what?

[Maximus]

Maximus:

OK, well prove with evidence that the US or the EU for that matter is not the instigator of what is going on in the Ukraine or the sh*t they take from the other excursions around the world is not their fault.

You cannot prove they are NOT involved! What you can do is present credible evidence that shows they ARE at least involved to a degree of probability. The more evidence that points the finger, the stronger the positive case for the argument. Irrefutable proof positive is the smoking gun that proves the argument! As yet, in Ukraine there is a case for a high degree of probability of US involvement but unless Nulands blunders are taken as proof positive, then high degree of probability is the best you can do.

But if you are one of the 90+% any argument that is contrary to the US/EU/NATO stance is totally unknown to you. Therefore as one that does not tread the path ordained by the US and its cronies, you will always be a minority, because even if you come up with the truth nobody will listen. I know, I have been down that path but it is satisfying on occasions when you are proved right at a later date to be able to say .......... “What did I tell you?”

They are involved, I think that's obvious. The question is to which degree they are responsible for the situation?

I think the EU is well in to damage control. They want to be seen like they are doing something about "The Russian invasion of Ukraine" but they cant quite put their finger on which sanctions are appropriate, a miscalculation in their plans perhaps. They cant sanction without hurting themselves so they sanction a few Russians not being able to travel to Europe. Whats that?

They don't do anything like that for Cyprus to Turkey.

The US on the other hand doesn't give a dam, they just want to hurt Russia's economy and cutting a big part of Russia's gas income from Europe would do that. That's 10% of government revenue lost and a weaker Russia, plus a weaker rouble. No Russian gas also means there will be more expensive gas prices for Europe and more dependency on the US. A weaker euro. They also get a US compliant government in the Ukraine and sell her some debt and weaponry.

Also, they have created the necessary fear in the every day Ukrainian, (or European) that there should be a NATO military base in their country from the new enemy, Russia. They didn't need it before.

[Maximus]

What does Russia get?

[Paphitis]

The one country that could stop the violence in Ukraine is the USA. One word from Obama to Kiev to stop the violence and withdraw the Ukraine army to barracks or else, and the regime in Kiev would have no alternative but to comply. It worked with Yanukovich ..... It should work with Yatsenuk and Poroshenko? But the US is unwilling to do this and instead demand that Russia tells the ‘Pro-Russian’ Ukraines to lay down their arms and surrender to a Neo-Nazi/Fascist government. This assumes of course that Russia actually has the influence over the separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

Because a very obvious solution to the crisis is presented continually by Putin and ignored by the US the obvious question is raised .... why?

A couple of articles that made some sense to me that you may find interesting viewpoints:

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/10/putting-the-ukraine-crisis-in-context/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-vs-syria-the-only-standards-are-double-standards/5385719

It is obvious that no matter the source of information there is always a degree of bias.

RT is quite clearly a limb of the Russian Government and gives the Russian views of events. On the BBC this evening they are still pushing the ‘Russian tanks in Ukraine’ story but in spite of claims that the US has ‘proof’ it has not presented evidence to back the story. How many times did Kerry claim the US had clear evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons on Ghouta in Syria .............. to date this ‘clear evidence’ has not materialised? It is again the same story with Iran and their so called Nuclear weapons program ......... plenty of accusations from the US and Israel but never any hard facts and, even when evidence comes to light that indicates the opposite of the US line, it is rejected by the US and is never published in the MSM.

But, in my quite recent switch to RT as a source of information, I found that their stories inevitably are supported by hard evidence and therefore have more credibility. This was true over Nuland’s explanation of her views on the government for Ukraine before the coup took place and with the Estonian Foreign Minister’s suggestion that the sniper shootings on the Berkut were a false flag operation. In both cases the evidence presented with the story on RT was unequivocal. The same can be said for other events up to and including the claims about the rocket attack on the regional administration building in Donetsk and the attacks in Odessa, Slavyansk and Mariupol. Very little of this news made it to the MSM.

In the western media they omit parts of the story which are ‘inconvenient’. A commentator on a blog (that I cannot find now) said there are four aspects of the western media that stand out:

• They re-cycle almost verbatim whatever the Kiev regime or US spokesman says.
• They often claim to have evidence but somehow never get round to presenting it.
• They never make a serious attempt to evaluate the information provided by these sources and assess the probability or feasibility of the report.
• You never see the MSM engaging with those in Eastern Ukraine that the Kiev government and the US refer to as ‘terrorists’ or with the Russians.

I find RT a far more credible source for information than any of the MSM channels ...... including the BBC.

IMO: the US is the cause of the problems in Ukraine and are making things worse but they could be the solution if they were just to admit they got it wrong and told Kiev to call off their death squads.

Paphitis:

Russia for example has invaded 2 countries and they play for keeps.

Wow! In fact you are wrong it is three since WWII. They invaded Georgia (2008), Afghanistan (1979) and Hungary (1956)

Americas record of invasion over the same period makes Russia look like a hand maiden of Mother Teresa:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

It is Russia massing its troops on the border and declaring dangerous and threatening military drills.

Russia has every right to put its defence forces where it perceived the threat to be. But, they remain within their own territorial borders. Another case of US double standards.

http://rt.com/news/165464-russia-baltic-drills-nato/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10732676/Ukraine-crisis-British-forces-to-join-Nato-wargames.html

Maximus:

OK, well prove with evidence that the US or the EU for that matter is not the instigator of what is going on in the Ukraine or the sh*t they take from the other excursions around the world is not their fault.

You cannot prove they are NOT involved! What you can do is present credible evidence that shows they ARE at least involved to a degree of probability. The more evidence that points the finger, the stronger the positive case for the argument. Irrefutable proof positive is the smoking gun that proves the argument! As yet, in Ukraine there is a case for a high degree of probability of US involvement but unless Nulands blunders are taken as proof positive, then high degree of probability is the best you can do.

But if you are one of the 90+% any argument that is contrary to the US/EU/NATO stance is totally unknown to you. Therefore as one that does not tread the path ordained by the US and its cronies, you will always be a minority, because even if you come up with the truth nobody will listen. I know, I have been down that path but it is satisfying on occasions when you are proved right at a later date to be able to say .......... “What did I tell you?”

Paphitis:
You are doing what the MSM and Government's do! You are making wild statements but without anything to support it. For instance:

I am certain that Ukrainians will want to tell Russia to stick their pipeline up their bum

.
Well, my local supermarket has LPG (not LNG) in canisters but they would want to be paid up front and Kiev's record says it is not a good customer if you want to make a profit. Or are you suggesting that the US is going to provide them with all the gas they need .... for free?

Russian interference is not welcome amongst Ukrainians.

What interference? Plenty of accusations coming out of Kiev and repeated by Washington but as yet very little proof.

IMO: it would be stupid to believe that Russia was not helping the Ethnic Russians in the Eastern provinces with light weapons and ammunition but, the evidence on the ‘tanks’ so far is that Kiev and the US cannot actually agree on which model of tank it is T-34 or a T-70. which is significant. Kiev says it has destroyed at least one ..... but don’t have any pictures to prove it!!!! Another bit of evidence provided by Kiev is that the tanks and other vehicles mentioned had no markings ..... therefore they are Russian.

They took to the street when Viktor Yanukovych rejected the EU for Russia almost leading to civil war!

You are not thinking it out! That is the western explanation but in fact Yanukovitch was aware of the implications and consequences of getting the IMF and the World Bank to lend Ukraine money ..... with strings ..... it is called Debt Slavery!

Russia actually offered them a better deal and with no strings. Once the Kiev goons signed on the dotted line (and received their ‘bonus’) salaries and pensions were cut by up to 50% and a whole bunch of prices escalated. Another Greece/Cyprus in the making. The Russian deal would have left Ukraine with subsidised gas and no austerity as their package was offered in Russian Roubles.

The US keeps imagining threats to the supply of gas to the EU but, once again it is all hot air as Russia has made no threats. You are a businessman? If your best customer told you that he had been warned to not rely upon you for the provision of your product and that he would be looking elsewhere for it, what would you do? I suggest, just what he Russians have done ..... find another customer and the other guy would lose any preferential treatment when it suited you, not when it suited him.

The EU, no doubt under instructions from the US as it came shortly after a visit to Bulgaria by McCain, have stopped work on the southern Black Sea pipeline which would have supplied gas to the EU bypassing the Ukraine. Another miscalculation? But of course none of this will affect the US directly and will have little effect on Russia either, only the EU will suffer.

Is that right! They (Ukraine) are lapdogs now for wanting to be a part of the EU

They are not going to be ‘part of the EU’ any time in the foreseeable future and will have to apply like every other country and that could take years ........ of austerity and hardship ..... and for what?

Yes absolutely! The Russian Militias must surrender not the Ukrainian Security Forces and Military.

The Ukrainian Military has a right to be there, the Militias are illegal and Russia meddling and assistance to them is also illegal.

Whether the Ukrainian Government is Fascist or NAZI or not is irrelevant. They were elected by their Parliament after Yanukovych abandoned his post and went into self exile to Russia.

[Paphitis]

What does Russia get?

They have annexed Crimea!

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Yes absolutely! The Russian Militias must surrender not the Ukrainian Security Forces and Military. The Ukrainian Military has a right to be there, the Militias are illegal and Russia meddling and assistance to them is also illegal.

Your application of legality is rather selective!

The so called ‘government’ in Kiev is illegal. The ‘Ukraine military’ you refer to is not a military it is a mainly militia doing the killings, composed of political thugs and put in place by an illegal government. These militias need to ‘back-off’, nobody needs to surrender. There can be no dialogue to resolve differences all the time there is a war going on. Russia may well be aiding the ethnic Russians which is illegal but the US is also advising, funding and supplying military equipment to a regime which came to power through a coup, which they initiated, which of course is also illegal.

Had the US not started this conflict with their usual attempt to impose a regime change for their benefit as part of an overall bigger global strategy, none of this would have happened. Klytchko and the original protestors got Yanukovitch to back down and give concessions. A good starting point for a complete solution. Instead of nurturing this chance for a peaceful settlement the US gave assistance to Nazi/Fascist elements who were willing to use violence to achieve the desired US regime change ..... which they did. Some of their first announcements they made as a self appointed government was a string of proposed anti-Russian actions such as; the scrapping of Crimea’s special status as an Autonomous Region of Ukraine; the shutting down of Russian language media; a threat to tear up the Sevastopol base agreement with Russia and various limitations directed at ethnic Russian Ukrainians.

Surprisingly, this caused some consternation in the Eastern regions, particularly Crimea, where the ethnic Russians were located and they wanted nothing to do with this unelected fascist government as they were an existential threat to them, so they instituted a civil takeover of the local governments from Kiev installed Governors, (the local system was mainly Russian Ukraine run anyway) to protect their region. Illegal? Maybe, but understandable under the circumstances.

There was no violence until the regime in Kiev decided to put down this uprising through force of arms, I might add, fully supported by the US and their allies although they had warned Yanukovitch against using force just a few weeks previously. Up to that point there was absolutely no evidence that Russia was in any way involved ...... they were too busy running the Winter Olympics. Don’t forget that as Putin pointed out these people had their part of Russia annexed without them even being consulted ........ I assume you consider this was perfectly legal at the time and now irreversible? Does that concept also apply to Cyprus?

Whether the Ukrainian Government is Fascist or NAZI or not is irrelevant.

It is very relevant if you happen to be a Russian living in an area which was now under serious threat from a fascist regime. Even a bigger threat when installed by a foreign power which is anti-Russian anyway.

They were elected by their Parliament after Yanukovych abandoned his post and went into self exile to Russia.

They were not elected they attacked the elected Parliament and put several MP’s into hospital, and then set up their own Parliament with fascist goons installed in certain vital positions as Nuland had previously discussed on the telephone (It is all on record) and the US recognised them instantly.

If I had been Yanukovich I would have done exactly the same ........... although I would not have had to go off sick for a few days at the height of the crisis to arrange for the transfer of my stolen wealth. (BTW: He may well be in Russia but he is as welcome as Snowden! It is just a case that Russia tends to conform to International Law and he has committed no crimes in Russia.)

They (Russia) have annexed Crimea!

Given the above, the people of Crimea held a referendum which the Russians assisted in to ensure that, as far as possible, it was free and fair. They ILLEGALLY left their bases and locked down the Ukraine military, who put up only token resistance as many of them were ethnic Russians anyway, and the referendum went ahead. The residents of Crimea exercised their right to self determination, voted overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and decided through their elected government to ASK Russia to annex Crimea. Russia complied with their request. So far no bloodshed and very little violence.

Did Russia invade Crimea? If you get your news from the MSM, US or EU sources, then yes you would believe so. However, the reality, which was not covered/explained in the MSM, was that they already had 16,000 military legally in Crimea, as part of the agreement this new government now wanted to renege upon. They flew in more troops but still remained within the 25,000 allowed by the agreement and within days these additional troops returned to Russia, leaving no blood, no destruction and no refugees.

So, in all the picture you paint is not reality ........... you are applying Law selectively, ignoring previous events which were questionable at the time that annexed Crimea to Ukraine and would seem to get your info primarily from the Main Stream Media?

In this instance I think Maximus has the far more realistic, balanced and less distorted view of events in Ukraine.

[Paphitis]

As far as Putin's so called solution which you portray as being the only way out, does this involve the return of Crimea and the disarmament of all Russian supported Militias?

If not then that is not at a solution. Ukraine has its own territorial Integrity to consider and its own right to decide whether they want to join the EU and NATO.

Without this, then I am not surprised that Putin's proposal is not being taken seriously by anyone and there are UN Resolutions on the matter.

The Government is not illegal. All were elected and the previous incumbent fled his post.

The Russians have no right to hold this country to ransom. If they do not like being in Ukraine then they could always leave and go to Russia and leave the Ukrainians to their own devices.