I think I have enough of you. Russian weapons? Really? The whole of Ukraine and half of the former Soviet satellites use Russian/Soviet weapons. USA told Poland to ship their Soviet-time weapons to Ukraine and buy replacement NATO weapons instead. Russian artillery support?
On the video the scale of the Google-Earth angled image and the elevation of the virtual eye, and the small stretch of a water do not match. Could be anywhere in the region. Besides, the border is not exactly enforced. The freedom fighters could move their positions across the border to get a better vantage point and then drive to a new location. Now, what about Ukrainian armed groups (note that I am not saying that it was the Ukrainian army) artillery shelling the Russian cities?
Also, as other people point out, the lighting conditions in the video do not correspond to the stated time of day of the shelling - the sun setting in the north and it becomes dark at 16:00 in the middle of the summer? And this was already denied by OSCE observers in the area. Pull another one - it has bells on.
Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 15. (Read 58230 times)
Two lies in one sentence. Well done. It's been discussed before. *Sigh* No one invaded Crimea. The Russian troops stationed there were there from Russian (prior to 1917) and throughout Soviet times, even after Crimea was stolen from Russia in 1965 and again denied independence from Ukraine in 1993. And no one invaded East Ukraine. US intelligence watches that region like a hawk and still cannot even cook any evidence?
"after Crimea was stolen from Russia" so first of all crimea was reorganized into ukrainian ssr in 1954, so you're wrong at least once. second i'd like you to explain how can you steal from yourself and would you sue yourself for stealing from yourself? reorganization of regions is something that is being practiced everywhere and nobody calls this stealing - that's just retarded. and last point - if you're into history crimea originally wasn't even russia - why not returning it to turkey or even reestablishing independent country of Crimean Khanate? so you're not only wrong but also hypocritical.
"no one invaded East Ukraine. US intelligence watches that region like a hawk" so how exactly do you call organizing separatist groups led by russian military using russian weapons and having support of russian artillery? or can you properly debunk this very compelling evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqcFHcrpcWg ?
"Any previous invasion of Russia was preceded by a strong anti-Russian information" says russian who's army have invaded crimea and who's government invaded eastern part of ukraine by starting hybrid terrorism war there.
Two lies in one sentence. Well done. It's been discussed before. *Sigh* No one invaded Crimea. The Russian troops stationed there were there from Russian (prior to 1917) and throughout Soviet times, even after Crimea was stolen from Russia in 1954 and again denied independence from Ukraine in 1993. And no one invaded East Ukraine. US intelligence watches that region like a hawk and still cannot even cook any evidence?
Please provide links to such videos first.
And for name calling: Knowing swearwords and their contextual place in several languages does not mean that I am proud of them. The same applies to name calling. No I am not proud of them, and much less so than Ukrainians who lately have a habit of using "maskal'" and "kacap" in everyday language and in political circles. Name calling in Russia is limited to private use in a heated situation by some angry individuals. In other words, it's marginalised. Any public appeal to violence or segregation based on national attribution is criminally punishable under the law of the Russian Federation. So if you do find such videos, you can and should report them to the authorities.
I thank you staying on topic and strengthening it, though. Any previous invasion of Russia was preceded by a strong anti-Russian information and propaganda onslaught.
And for name calling: Knowing swearwords and their contextual place in several languages does not mean that I am proud of them. The same applies to name calling. No I am not proud of them, and much less so than Ukrainians who lately have a habit of using "maskal'" and "kacap" in everyday language and in political circles. Name calling in Russia is limited to private use in a heated situation by some angry individuals. In other words, it's marginalised. Any public appeal to violence or segregation based on national attribution is criminally punishable under the law of the Russian Federation. So if you do find such videos, you can and should report them to the authorities.
I thank you staying on topic and strengthening it, though. Any previous invasion of Russia was preceded by a strong anti-Russian information and propaganda onslaught.
"Please provide links to such videos first." here's a compilation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSBePY0yWVg and there's more https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC which is only tip of an iceberg
"No I am not proud of them, and much less so than Ukrainians who lately have a habit of using "maskal'" and "kacap" in everyday language and in political circles." and why are you speaking for all ukrainians? are you so sure there are no russians using "hohol" and "ukrop" whenever they talk about ukrainians? or is it impossible for you to just accept the reality that namecalling is something that people do everywhere?
"Any previous invasion of Russia was preceded by a strong anti-Russian information" says russian who's army have invaded crimea and who's government invaded eastern part of ukraine by starting hybrid terrorism war there.
Just say "ukrop" or "hach" in the public place and you will have a good reason to call your lawyer. Unlike Ukraine, in Russia it's possible to get 1-2 years of jail or ~20000$ fine as punishment for "name calling" in the mass media, public places or internet sites.
suddenly you're an expert on ukrainian laws?
and yeah, i'm happy for you - russian courts are the most objective and just courts on the planet. like nobody has ever even complained about that right? /sarcasm
Just say "ukrop" or "hach" in the public place and you will have a good reason to call your lawyer. Unlike Ukraine, in Russia it's possible to get 1-2 years of jail or ~20000$ fine as punishment for "name calling" in the mass media, public places or internet sites.
Name calling is very spread: British call French for "Frogs", Mexicans call US people for "greengos", British call Germans for "Gerries". It's not a singularly Russian phenomenon.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
"Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things." and then you proceed to conveniently ignore the rest of my message where i ask you to compare amounts of videos that call for killing/beating/deportation with origins in ukraine and in russia
okPlease provide links to such videos first.
And for name calling: Knowing swearwords and their contextual place in several languages does not mean that I am proud of them. The same applies to name calling. No I am not proud of them, and much less so than Ukrainians who lately have a habit of using "maskal'" and "kacap" in everyday language and in political circles. Name calling in Russia is limited to private use in a heated situation by some angry individuals. In other words, it's marginalised. Any public appeal to violence or segregation based on national attribution is criminally punishable under the law of the Russian Federation. So if you do find such videos, you can and should report them to the authorities.
I thank you staying on topic and strengthening it, though. Any previous invasion of Russia was preceded by a strong anti-Russian information and propaganda onslaught.
Name calling is very spread: British call French for "Frogs", Mexicans call US people for "greengos", British call Germans for "Gerries". It's not a singularly Russian phenomenon.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
"Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things." and then you proceed to conveniently ignore the rest of my message where i ask you to compare amounts of videos that call for killing/beating/deportation with origins in ukraine and in russia
ok
Name calling is very spread: British call French for "Frogs", Mexicans call US people for "greengos", British call Germans for "Gerries". It's not a singularly Russian phenomenon.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
Calling names and calling for someone's death are two very different things.
You should do your homework better, keymone2. "Churki" does not refer to Caucasus region people. Want a second try? 
School kids is a prime target for indoctrination. What school kids are taught to chant today, will reflect in international politics in 15 year's time.
School kids is a prime target for indoctrination. What school kids are taught to chant today, will reflect in international politics in 15 year's time.
"Churki does not refer to Caucasus region people" of i'm sorry if i was mistaken, i'm sure you know better, you have names for all your neighbours. and you're proud of it aren't you?
"What school kids are taught to chant today" how does that correlate with immense amounts of racist videos around youtube where russian kids are offending just about everyone from chechens/ingushs/"dags" to africans and japanese? do compare that to amount of videos with ukrainian origin.
or do you disagree that quantitative analysis shows better picture of mindset of masses?
so far russia is being a dick and europe (from perspective of ukrainians i remind you) is being a nice guy.
Hmm.... let me guess...
See this video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07e_1395830142
Ukrainian schoolchildren chanting "hang the Russians" and "death to the Russians". And now tell me why the Russians should behave like the nice guy.
what does bunch of retarded schoolkids have to do with international relations? and you can find same videos about russia where same kind of retards are chanting shit about khohols(russian name for ukrainians) or churkas(russian name for people from caucasus region).
You should do your homework better, keymone2. "Churki" does not refer to Caucasus region people. Want a second try?
School kids is a prime target for indoctrination. What school kids are taught to chant today, will reflect in international politics in 15 year's time.
so far russia is being a dick and europe (from perspective of ukrainians i remind you) is being a nice guy.
Hmm.... let me guess...
See this video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07e_1395830142
Ukrainian schoolchildren chanting "hang the Russians" and "death to the Russians". And now tell me why the Russians should behave like the nice guy.
what does bunch of retarded schoolkids have to do with international relations? and you can find same videos about russia where same kind of retards are chanting shit about khohols(russian name for ukrainians) or churkas(russian name for people from caucasus region).
so far russia is being a dick and europe (from perspective of ukrainians i remind you) is being a nice guy.
Hmm.... let me guess...
See this video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07e_1395830142
Ukrainian schoolchildren chanting "hang the Russians" and "death to the Russians". And now tell me why the Russians should behave like the nice guy.
I don't really know, so someone else may want to explain what was the cause for the discount. Also, if this was not explicitly said in the contract, it doesn't in the least mean that it was not stipulated implicitly or negotiated separately.
Gazprom is effectively a state-run company, so there is nothing strange or surprising that it is used as a political pressure tool, whether you like it or not. Actually, you should clarify for whom it is right and wrong.
Gazprom is effectively a state-run company, so there is nothing strange or surprising that it is used as a political pressure tool, whether you like it or not. Actually, you should clarify for whom it is right and wrong.
"what was the cause for the discount" as i see it the situation was that yanukovich's party of regions had to have a nice ratings for elections, for that premier minister azarov had to report something good, for instance "victory" in price negotiations. from azarov's point of view - he gained a major victory in negotiations. from gazprom point of view is perfect - gaz price is 350+ and discount can be canceled at any moment russia choses so. and as soon as yanukovich and azarov fled the country discount got cancelled.
"nothing strange or surprising that it is used as a political pressure tool" this is great, now put all russia/ukraine gas wars into that context and many things will become obvious to you. whenever ukraine tries to become less dependent on russia or elects a government russia doesn't like - bam, gas prices!
"for whom it is right and wrong" right and wrong from ethical and moral perspective, not talking about financial gains here. it's essentially a question of whether you want to achieve your geopolitical goals by being a dick or by being a good guy that smaller kids wants to hang out with. so far russia is being a dick and europe (from perspective of ukrainians i remind you) is being a nice guy.
This has everything to do with Crimea in fact. The $100 discount was granted to Ukraine because of the Russian navy base in Sevastopol. But since Crimea declared independence, this discount was no longer making sense, and it was canceled.
Yes, the transit price that Ukraine requests to pay for transporting the gas through its territory. Gazprom may actually behave like a monopolist extorting high prices from countries, but wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same?
Yes, the transit price that Ukraine requests to pay for transporting the gas through its territory. Gazprom may actually behave like a monopolist extorting high prices from countries, but wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same?
"$100 discount was granted to Ukraine because of the Russian navy base in Sevastopol" wrong, that part of contract is gone since 2004, check your facts.
I don't really know, so someone else may want to explain what was the cause for the discount. Also, if this was not explicitly said in the contract, it doesn't in the least mean that it was not stipulated implicitly or negotiated separately.
"wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same" yes, he would. question is do you think it's right and don't you think it is/can be used as a political pressure tool?
Gazprom is effectively a state-run company, so there is nothing strange or surprising that it is used as a political pressure tool, whether you like it or not. Actually, you should clarify for whom it is right and for whom it is wrong.
The lowest natural gas price that Gazprom gets is in Great Britain since it has the lowest presence there (read there are many competitors there).
Well... the gas prices are not constant in the EU. In the winter, when the demand is more the European pay more for the gas. And the gas is a lot cheaper during the summer. UK supplies were probably delivered in the summer months.
The exact prices are not disclosed by Gazprom's buyers, so it is difficult to get the average.
I don't know how accurate this map is, but it might give a general idea about the prices charged by Gazprom for the European consumers. Some countries are paying mroe than $500 per Kilo Cubic Meter.
The lowest natural gas price that Gazprom gets is in Great Britain since it has the lowest presence there (read there are many competitors there).
This has everything to do with Crimea in fact. The $100 discount was granted to Ukraine because of the Russian navy base in Sevastopol. But since Crimea declared independence, this discount was no longer making sense, and it was canceled.
Yes, the transit price that Ukraine requests to pay for transporting the gas through its territory. Gazprom may actually behave like a monopolist extorting high prices from countries, but wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same?
Yes, the transit price that Ukraine requests to pay for transporting the gas through its territory. Gazprom may actually behave like a monopolist extorting high prices from countries, but wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same?
"$100 discount was granted to Ukraine because of the Russian navy base in Sevastopol" wrong, that part of contract is gone since 2004, check your facts.
"wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same" yes, he would. question is do you think it's right and don't you think it is/can be used as a political pressure tool?
The exact prices are not disclosed by Gazprom's buyers, so it is difficult to get the average.
I don't know how accurate this map is, but it might give a general idea about the prices charged by Gazprom for the European consumers. Some countries are paying mroe than $500 per Kilo Cubic Meter.
In the first quarter of 2014 the natural gas price for Ukraine was at $268.5 per 1000 cubic meters. After April, 1, the price has become $385.5 (Russia dropped the discount it provided to Ukraine before). The average price for European countries (except Ukraine) in the first half of 2013 has been calculated to be $413, and a few countries paid more that $500 (such as Greece and Macedonia). The exact prices are not disclosed by Gazprom's buyers, so it is difficult to get the exact figures.
"Russia dropped the discount it provided to Ukraine before" yeah, this has nothing to do with the fact that ukraine ousted corrupt pro-russian president that has agreed for a loan of $15bn to refuse signing EU association. nothing at all.
This has everything to do with Crimea in fact. The $100 discount was granted to Ukraine because of the Russian navy base in Sevastopol. But since Crimea declared independence, this discount was no longer making sense, and it was canceled.
and those prices you listed include price of transfer while price in ukraine is bought at border with russia so comparing averages means nothing. yet if you look at price map you will immediately see how russia behaves like a offensive monopolist extorting high prices from countries it doesn't like politically. which is just another evidence that gas is russian political weapon.
Yes, the transit price that Ukraine requests to pay for transporting the gas through its territory. Gazprom may actually behave like a monopolist extorting high prices from countries, but wouldn't any other monopolist do exactly the same?
In the first quarter of 2014 the natural gas price for Ukraine was at $268.5 per 1000 cubic meters. After April, 1, the price has become $385.5 (Russia dropped the discount it provided to Ukraine before). The average price for European countries (except Ukraine) in the first half of 2013 has been calculated to be $413, and a few countries paid more that $500 (such as Greece and Macedonia). The exact prices are not disclosed by Gazprom's buyers, so it is difficult to get the exact figures.
"Russia dropped the discount it provided to Ukraine before" yeah, this has nothing to do with the fact that ukraine ousted corrupt pro-russian president that has agreed for a loan of $15bn to refuse signing EU association. nothing at all.
and those prices you listed include price of transfer while price in ukraine is bought at border with russia so comparing averages means nothing. yet if you look at price map you will immediately see how russia behaves like a offensive monopolist extorting high prices from countries it doesn't like politically. which is just another evidence that gas is russian political weapon.
Jump to: