A premature history of the second Cold War and Putin

[Toppa]

Look like Russia decide to take in front before in front take them.

Markets fear Russia has cut US treasury bill holding over Ukraine crisis
Transfer of more than $100bn out of US prompts speculation Russia is moving funds out of reach of possible sanctions

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/russia-us-treasury-bill-bonds-ukraine-sanctions#start-of-comments

When the west and specifically the USA decides to impose sanctions and individuals or a country  , they do  not telegraph  it   as in the case with Iran , They just do it
 This is a facade or a shell game to give the Russians enough time to move assets  so that it cannot be touched .
 This is just for show  for  the gullible people in the west ,   to pretend as if they are doing something to stop Russian aggression in Crimea ,
 The west  has basically conceded the Crimea to Russia and the negotiations are really about   how to stop the Russians from moving into The east and southern Ukraine to protect Ethnic Russians.
 T he Russians has leverage to hit back at   Europe  because  they are an energy  superpower .
 Right now if I am not  mistaken , Coca Cola  and GM 's second largest market is in Russia plus Boeing is also heavily invested in Russia . I can imagine the the lobbyists for these companies are  working overtime with  the Obama administration to proceed with caution . I forgot about the major oil companies    .

Yuh have a point there.

[Bakes]

Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA spent 5 billion since 91 to promote democracy and good Governance  in Ukraine .  What democracy , overthrowing elected govt by Nazi thugs ?  Do you expect the EU and the Americans to openly admit that they financed these these criminals ?
 Like another poster stated , don't read the lines read between them  for   the evidence
 If you cannot see this then you are denser than I give you credit for

Tun tun... I mean Ramgoat, pardon de confusion.  So in 23 years of expenditure, the only thing that the US have to show for it is the EuroMaidan... is that your assertion?

What is your proof that the "Nazi thugs" are responsible for Yanukovych's ouster?  Do you understand Spanish?  Maybe I should phrase the question in Spanish... since English eh yielding no answers.

To question the  US  involvement the incidents cited demonstrates to me that the fool BAKES is not just ignorant but also just plain  fcking stupid and by the way the latin phrase .. non compos  mentis means not of sound mind

You have to be the world's biggest penis receptacle.  People does read but cyah understand... no wonder yuh fishing latin malapropisms out yuh expansive kakahole.

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question

That the US was involved in the incidents you highlight "may or may not be logically valid" but fails, nonetheless to address (read, offer any proof as to) the assertion that the US financed a Neo-Nazi overthrow of the Yanukovych regime.  Ah dunce like you I could understand, you was out of yuh depth ab initio... Asylumseeker though should have recognized that the parallel phrasing was deliberate and independent of any substantive treatment of the issue of US involvement elsewhere.  More and more I realize I wasting my time with allyuh on this site yes.

[Ramgoat]

Victoria Nuland admitted that the USA spent 5 billion since 91 to promote democracy and good Governance  in Ukraine .  What democracy , overthrowing elected govt by Nazi thugs ?  Do you expect the EU and the Americans to openly admit that they financed these these criminals ?
 Like another poster stated , don't read the lines read between them  for   the evidence
 If you cannot see this then you are denser than I give you credit for

Tun tun... I mean Ramgoat, pardon de confusion.  So in 23 years of expenditure, the only thing that the US have to show for it is the EuroMaidan... is that your assertion?

What is your proof that the "Nazi thugs" are responsible for Yanukovych's ouster?  Do you understand Spanish?  Maybe I should phrase the question in Spanish... since English eh yielding no answers.

To question the  US  involvement the incidents cited demonstrates to me that the fool BAKES is not just ignorant but also just plain  fcking stupid and by the way the latin phrase .. non compos  mentis means not of sound mind

You have to be the world's biggest penis receptacle.  People does read but cyah understand... no wonder yuh fishing latin malapropisms out yuh expansive kakahole.

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question

That the US was involved in the incidents you highlight "may or may not be logically valid" but fails, nonetheless to address (read, offer any proof as to) the assertion that the US financed a Neo-Nazi overthrow of the Yanukovych regime.  Ah dunce like you I could understand, you was out of yuh depth ab initio... Asylumseeker though should have recognized that the parallel phrasing was deliberate and independent of any substantive treatment of the issue of US involvement elsewhere.  More and more I realize I wasting my time with allyuh on this site yes.

  .. and you are a lawyer ? Have  you ever heard of circumstantial or anecdotal evidence ?
 The other poster was right about you , You are a pseudo intellectual probably working in legal aid

[Ramgoat]

 BAKES  you scream  shout and hurl insults and pretend that you are the smartest here  but most folks   knows that you are an idiot and sees right  through for the lightweight that you are  .
 You aint no intellectual .

[Toppa]

Reuters report the prime minister’s words in more detail.

Ukrainian prime minister Arseny Yatseniuk vowed on Sunday to track down and bring to justice all those promoting separatism in its Russian-controlled region of Crimea “under the cover of Russian troops”.
“I want to say above all ... to the Ukrainian people: Let there be no doubt, the Ukrainian state will find all those ringleaders of separatism and division who now, under the cover of Russian troops, are trying to destroy Ukrainian independence,” he told a cabinet meeting as the region voted in a referendum on becoming a part of Russia.
“We will find all of them - if it takes one year, two years
- and bring them to justice and try them in Ukrainian and international courts. The ground will burn beneath their feet.”

[ribbit]

ah hate this fella but is a good soundbite:

Ambassador John Bolton: We sent Sec Kerry to negotiate with Sergey Lavrov. That's like sending a cupcake to negotiate with a steak knife.

[Tiresais]

Meanwhile, Russia's MICEX index continues its slide, falling 1% today. At it's lowest point today, it was down 5.2%. Year-to-date, it's down 20.4%.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-micex-index-falls-2014-3#ixzz2wCyM3zpw

[ribbit]

May or may not have been US involvement in the incidents cited?

I have no interest in debating whether they are or are not, they are immaterial to the question at hand.

The question was raised because the comment implied doubt as to credence regarding US involvement in the respective countries. There is nothing to debate. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is space for debate on the historical record.

The question stood on itself rather than in cementing commonality vis-a-vis the present situation.

bakes does get paid by de hour to argue. de quality of the argumentation is irrelevant is only quantity dat matter to bakes.

[Toppa]

Meanwhile, Russia's MICEX index continues its slide, falling 1% today. At it's lowest point today, it was down 5.2%. Year-to-date, it's down 20.4%.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-micex-index-falls-2014-3#ixzz2wCyM3zpw

Market reaction suggests sanctions over Crimea are slap on the wrist for Putin
The US and Europe can ill afford to impose penalties that really hurt Russia without risking their own fragile recovery

The reaction of the financial markets to the west's sanctions over Crimea spoke volumes. Up went the rouble and shares on the Moscow stock market, down went the price of crude oil.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/market-reaction-sanctions-crimea-russia

[Ramgoat]

 I know dick all about stock markets and finance but I will   advise my broker   to  liquidate
   my tiny portfolio and invest it all in the Russian stock  market.
 These sanctions are a joke because the Russians   individuals who were supposed to have their assets frozen has already moved  it out of harms way as I predicted and these so called sanctions are about denying visas and I  am sure that the Russian are quaking in their boots
 Russian stocks has only one way to go and that is up , it might go lower still but ultimately it will skyrocket .
 This is the time to be a contrarian

[ribbit]

I know dick all about stock markets and finance but I will   advise my broker   to  liquidate
   my tiny portfolio and invest it all in the Russian stock  market.
 These sanctions are a joke because the Russians   individuals who were supposed to have their assets frozen has already moved  it out of harms way as I predicted and these so called sanctions are about denying visas and I  am sure that the Russian are quaking in their boots
 Russian stocks has only one way to go and that is up , it might go lower still but ultimately it will skyrocket .
 This is the time to be a contrarian

likely the sanctions they will be imposing will impact investment into russia.

[Tiresais]

I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

[Toppa]

I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.

They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".

[Tiresais]

I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.

They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".

Europe has other options in the medium term - Russian sanctions will only work in the short-run. So yes in the short run Russian sanctions will bite Europe, but Europe will be busy sorting out other supplies of energy - British gas is only 1% Russian for example. Indeed the most powerful European countries have much less dependency on Russian gas.

[Toppa]

I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.

They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".

Europe has other options in the medium term - Russian sanctions will only work in the short-run. So yes in the short run Russian sanctions will bite Europe, but Europe will be busy sorting out other supplies of energy - British gas is only 1% Russian for example. Indeed the most powerful European countries have much less dependency on Russian gas.

Oh really? Is there a more powerful European country than Germany? They get 30% of their gas from Russia.

And the UK were very firm on stating that London will be left out of the sanctions - so no Russian assets in London will be affected.

[Tiresais]

I wouldn't do that Ramgoat, the Crimean crisis won't disappear tomorrow and it's causing Europe to move to non-Russian gas alternatives - the Georgian crisis was a scare, this is a wake-up call. Check this BBC article for imports/exports; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

They buy complex good, we buy simple natural resources, and the EU is their biggest market by far. Without the EU, Russia's gonna go to hell in a hand basket.

*sigh* And when Russia imposes its own santions on the EU nations, what then? When Russia locks off the gas flowing through Ukraine, onwards to the rest of Europe, what then? If the EU had an alternative to Russian gas they would have already been using it.

They can't inflict harm on Russia without it coming back to bite them. So now they're just left with nominal "sanctions".

Europe has other options in the medium term - Russian sanctions will only work in the short-run. So yes in the short run Russian sanctions will bite Europe, but Europe will be busy sorting out other supplies of energy - British gas is only 1% Russian for example. Indeed the most powerful European countries have much less dependency on Russian gas.

Oh really? Is there a more powerful European country than Germany? They get 30% of their gas from Russia.

And the UK were very firm on stating that London will be left out of the sanctions - so no Russian assets in London will be affected.

Yes that's 30%, meaning 70% is not contingent on Russia. Bear in mind Germany has much to fear from Russian belligerence. Moreover, Germany's energy policy is set to change dramatically in the future (20% already is renewable) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

I'm not sure currently, I know that we said we weren't going to freeze Russian assets (well this was a photo of a document going into downing street), but possibly the situation has changed; http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/10/ukraine-crisis-russians-face-having-their-assets-frozen-if-putin-doesnt-back-down-4517820/ Given the recent rhetoric from William Hague it's possible they changed their position but I'm not sure.

edit: the BBC actually just did an article on this; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26627041

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

[Tiresais]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

[Ramgoat]

 Europe will be dependent on Russian gas in the foreseeable future and that is a fact .
 If the USA is ever in a position to export LNG , it will never go to Europe but instead to China and Japan where they will get higher prices ,
 In spite of all the successes of the gas fracking industry in the USA , it is still a net importer oil and gas  .
 On a side note, Nitrogen fertilizers   are made from natural gas  and Trinidad is a big player  here . America imports all its Ammonia gas from Trinidad and Tobago .

[Toppa]

As a side-note, ah starting to feel bad fuh Ukraine yes. Is not like they could do much to retaliate - and all their government could do is mouth off...as they did just instal themselves after a coup...but yeah - feeling kinda bad for Ukraine.

Shortly before President Putin's amazing imperial rant in the Kremlin on Tuesday, another speech was broadcast on a Ukrainian TV channel. Speaking in Russian, the interim Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said that "for the sake of preserving Ukraine's unity and sovereignty" the Kiev government is prepared to grant "the broadest range of powers" to the mainly Russian-speaking regions in the east. This would include giving cities the right to run their own police forces and make decisions about education and culture.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/crimea-ukraine-shooting-pivotal-struggle-heartlands

[Ramgoat]

As a side-note, ah starting to feel bad fuh Ukraine yes. Is not like they could do much to retaliate - and all their government could do is mouth off...as they did just instal themselves after a coup...but yeah - feeling kinda bad for Ukraine.

Shortly before President Putin's amazing imperial rant in the Kremlin on Tuesday, another speech was broadcast on a Ukrainian TV channel. Speaking in Russian, the interim Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatseniuk, said that "for the sake of preserving Ukraine's unity and sovereignty" the Kiev government is prepared to grant "the broadest range of powers" to the mainly Russian-speaking regions in the east. This would include giving cities the right to run their own police forces and make decisions about education and culture.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/crimea-ukraine-shooting-pivotal-struggle-heartlands

I wonder as to why the sudden change .
 One of the first act on the illegal  Ukraine parliament  was to ban Russian as a second language . I guess reality has stepped in . I listened to parts of Putin speech and there was no imperial ranting but rather  a   very eloquent speech in exposing the West's hypocrisy in recognizing Kosovo which  was  wrenched from Serbia  in similar circumstances . . I can even add South Sudan to the mix.

[Toppa]

Well you must expect editorial pieces in the "West"to inject snide remarks about anything related to Putin. Well the UK papers certainly, haven't really read  much of the US coverage of things.

I'm about to take in the full speech on YouTube just now.

[Ramgoat]

• 
  
  
   

• 
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  •  
  
   
  
  
  By Robert EnglishMarch 13, 2014
  
  It's become popular to dismiss Russian President Vladimir Putin as paranoid and out of touch with reality. But his denunciation of "neofascist extremists" within the movement that toppled the old Ukrainian government, and in the ranks of the new one, is worth heeding. The empowerment of extreme Ukrainian nationalists is no less a menace to the country's future than Putin's maneuvers inCrimea. These are odious people with a repugnant ideology.
  Take the Svoboda party, which gained five key positions in the new Ukrainian government, including deputy prime minister, minister of defense and prosecutor general. Svoboda's call to abolish the autonomy that protects Crimea's Russian heritage, and its push for a parliamentary vote that downgraded the status of the Russian language, are flagrantly provocative to Ukraine's millions of ethnic Russians and incredibly stupid as the first steps of a new government in a divided country.
  These moves, more than Russian propaganda, prompted broad Crimean unease. Recall that this crisis began when Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovich retreated on a deal toward European integration. Are the Europe-aspiring Ukrainians who now vote to restrict Russians' cultural-language rights even dimly aware that, as part of the European Union, such minority rights would have to be expanded, not curtailed?
  
  • ]
    PHOTOS: A peek inside 5 doomed dictators' opulent lifestyles
    More to the point, why wave a red flag in front of a nervous bull? The answer is that for Svoboda, Right Sector and other Ukrainian far-right organizations, it was barely a handkerchief. These are groups whose thuggish young legions still sport a swastika-like symbol, whose leaders have publicly praised many aspects of Nazism and who venerate the World War II nationalist leader Stepan Bandera, whose troops occasionally collaborated with Hitler's and massacred thousands of Poles and Jews.
    But scarier than these parties' whitewashing of the past are their plans for the future. They have openly advocated that no Russian language be taught in Ukrainian schools, that citizenship is only for those who pass Ukrainian language and culture exams, that only ethnic Ukrainians may adopt Ukrainian orphans and that new passports must identify their holders' ethnicity — be it Ukrainian, Pole, Russian, Jew or other.
    Is it so hard to understand Russians' shock that senior U.S. officials (such as Sen. John McCain, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland) flirt with extremists who have been denounced as anti-Semitic, xenophobic, even neo-Nazi by numerous human rights and anti-defamation groups? That they were snapping pictures and distributing pastries among protest leaders, some of whose minions were at that same moment distributing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on Independence Square?
    In the few instances where concern over such extremists is acknowledged, it is usually dismissed along the lines of, "Yes, the new government isn't perfect, but moderates will soon prevail." But Russian worry is well-founded. Since the Soviet Union's collapse, millions of ethnic Russians or Russian speakers have endured loss of citizenship in the Baltic republics (where many lived for generations), have been driven out of Central Asian jobs and homes and have suffered particularly virulent discrimination in Georgia (the root cause of the 2008 war with Russia, but also broadly ignored in the West).
    How did such extremists capture key posts in the new Ukrainian government? If Svoboda was only a minority faction in the parliament (and Right Sector just a fringe paramilitary group), and their ideology is not shared by a majority of Ukrainian moderates, then doesn't that mean that Putin is right? That Ukraine's cobbled-together-under-street-pressure new government is indeed unrepresentative, and therefore illegitimate?
    It recalls some extreme tea-party tail wagging the Republican dog. When Ukrainian ultranationalists can intimidate moderates into backing out of an agreement that would have eased Yanukovich from office and thus saved many lives, and then in-
    to supporting discriminatory moves toward Ukraine's Russians, we can appreciate why the latter are nervous. The U.S. has hardly stood up for the Russians suffering discrimination and violence since the Soviet Union's collapse. Now, with tacit U.S. approval of the Ukrainian extremists whose avowed goal is to ratchet up pressure on the country's Russian minority, Putin's warning doesn't seem quite so paranoid.
    Why wouldn't we ease those fears by forcefully denouncing the ethno-nationalists and embracing minority rights as vital to the stable Ukrainian democracy that we seek to promote? Given our own hypocrisy — don't violate agreements (except the one not to expand NATO eastward), don't invade countries on phony pretexts (except Iraq) and don't support minority secession movements (except Kosovo) — why wouldn't we want to restore U.S. credibility by living up to our principles in this critical case?
    The European Parliament in 2012 condemned Svoboda's racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia as "against the EU's fundamental values and principles." The U.S. should not hesitate to do likewise now. It is not only the right thing to do, it would also open a door to compromise with Russia over this dangerous crisis. To remain silent sends exactly the wrong message to extremists on both sides.
    Robert English is director of the School of International Relations at USC.
    Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
    • 
      
      

[Ramgoat]

 TOPOPA , here is a rather fair  editorial from the LA Times, a main stream news paper

[Tiresais]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

[Tiresais]

Europe will be dependent on Russian gas in the foreseeable future and that is a fact .
 If the USA is ever in a position to export LNG , it will never go to Europe but instead to China and Japan where they will get higher prices ,
 In spite of all the successes of the gas fracking industry in the USA , it is still a net importer oil and gas  .
 On a side note, Nitrogen fertilizers   are made from natural gas  and Trinidad is a big player  here . America imports all its Ammonia gas from Trinidad and Tobago .

Not the foreseeable future - as I've pointed out Europe is making moves away from Russian gas, and Britain and the USA have large deposits from shale gas that will be exploited in the next decade.

The fracking industry isn't at full capacity yet. At the moment the USA imports its gas mainly from Trinidad (roughly 60% of its imports), and one of our biggest threats is shale gas, which is why we're so keep to get China interested in it. The EIA did a graph that nicely shows how Shale gas output will double between now and 2040 - http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm

America is less likely to sell to China for strategic reasons, and depending how this crisis goes would happily sell gas to Europe at a loss as it has done in other sectors in the past for geopolitical reasons.

On ammonia -The USA makes 63.5% of its own Ammonia, importing the rest. Of these imports Trinidad makes up 62%, Canada 16%, and interestingly Russia 7% and Ukraine 6%. We export the vast majority of our ammonia to the US (5000 out of the 5300 thousand tons of nitrogen equivalent we produce)You can check the stats at the US Geological Survey's Mineral Commodity Surveys (I'm using them for my research right now - they're interesting).

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

[Tiresais]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

[asylumseeker]

Tiresais, which European nation is Russia's principal ally?

Not sure really, Belarus has been a pretty staple ally (helps being a dictatorship en all), but my knowledge on Russian politics isn't exactly extensive. I have a colleague who specialises in Russian politics if you had specific questions you wanted answering?

An anticipated crafty response re: Belarus ... except of course you had every reason to understand that it inherently called for a response outside of Moscow's sphere of influence. Somewhat a test of your bona fides. Ask your colleague. I know the answer. However, frankly, if yuh could come up with Belarus, yuh shouldn't have to phone a friend.

Why would it inherently call for an answer outside their sphere of influence? If you malformed the question don't blame me for the answer, and since you're so smart and clearly have ample evidence for your position why don't you go right ahead sweetie?

Some meaningful preliminary advice: limit your "continuum of sexuality" chatter to the other thread and save de sweetie talk fuh yuh social circle, since yuh looking for feathers to ruffle.

Now as to the residual detritus ... I'll leave you to unravel the redundancy of the Minsk proposition with your colleague, but as you seek him/her out, walk with a map, a pen, and a pad of paper to note the details of that illusory independent relationship in the context of the "Near Abroad", post-Soviet/Russian prerogatives in the construction of its foreign policy interests and subsequent engagement of Europe ... which, incidentally, Russo-scholars define as excluding Belarus. LOL @ malformed question. Ask your colleague.

More big talk - tell me was your courage surgically removed, or are you too stupid to ever back up your claims?

Hmmm, let’s see  I’m smart enough to know yuh can take a jackass to water but yuh cyah make him drink … which essentially leaves you trying to figure out whether this is a feast or famine.