Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

jimeryan22

realweirdo wrote: »

The LA times article was about anti tank weapons in the hands of moderate FSA...so what are you talking about? I see no mention of the US delivering weapons to Al Nusra in that article by the way. You are just making this up as you go along.

As for Del Ponte, nothing has been heard from her since on this, she even says in that article there is no concrete evidence to back up her suspictions. In other words she's sitting in her armchair in Italy or Geneva or wherever and guessing, but has no proof.

As opposed to the Assad regime which we now know for certain have over 1000 tons of chemical weapons.

I posted 3 articles.. 1 about about sarin gas, 1 about the "rebels" having US missiles... And 1 about Obama making it law for them to arm the rebels, and basically arm al queda.. Have another look.. And as I had posted before. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

Red Nissan

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Agreed, I would go as far to say the US has wanted a real war with Russia going back to the end of WW2.... General Patton wanted to attack Russia seeing as they had all the troops and gear already in Europe as an example

He sure did. It has taken me nearly 60 years to understand him, I'm one of those 50's brainwashed children where the USA are our saviours, it's akin to faith, hard to realise it's not actually correct.

jimeryan22

For whoever posted these photos as distinct proof earlier in thread

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27104904

Conas

realweirdo wrote: »

See my comments in bold

Well off with you then when the next war breaks out, you go and fight. It's always the poor mans child, who's brainwashed then sent to fight, and die for nothing. But it'll be a cold day in hell, before I'd go and fight and die for someone like George W Bush, or Barack Obama.

Well if Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, then let them fight their war with Iran, and Syria. Let them go and do the fighting, and finance it themselves. What do they expect, for others to go and do it for them.

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I posted 3 articles.. 1 about about sarin gas, 1 about the "rebels" having US missiles... And 1 about Obama making it law for them to arm the rebels, and basically arm al queda.. Have another look.. And as I had posted before. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

There is a Syria thread where this has been addressed

Jonny7

Russia's credit rating has just dropped today, one step away from non-investment grade

The Russian finance minister also said growth may be close to zero this year

and more potential sanctions on horizon

International relations are at a low point, but the country might financially suffer from all this

jimeryan22

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is a Syria thread where this has been addressed

Read back and see why it was mentioned instead of just posting a smart Alec response and you will see I wasn't the person who brought it up

Wurzelbert

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia's credit rating has just dropped today, one step away from non-investment grade
[...]

and now think about who sets those „credit ratings“ and who “dropped” it…

Jonny7

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Read back and see why it was mentioned instead of just posting a smart Alec response and you will see I wasn't the person who brought it up

fine so, I'll respond to it in this thread

There's no evidence Obama is directly arming, training or funding Al Qaeda or Al Nusra in Syria, quite the contrary. There is little or no evidence the rebels carried out the chemical attack, whereas most of the evidence points towards pro-Syrian forces, and yes the FSA and other rebel groups have started to receive US lethal aid as was officially announced by the US last year

Jonny7

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and now think about who sets those „credit ratings“ and who “dropped” it…

yup Standard and Poor, the other major ratings agency is Moody's but I haven't checked what they are at

It's a gauge for how the financial world feels toward investing in Russia right now and the financial "risk" of investing in that country

Internally, most large banks will have their own ratings of countries, which is based on a complex process of analysis - which does include the political climate, Ukraine for example is approx 8 levels below investment grade right now, which is pretty damn accurate considering the risk of return on investment (essentially one step above bankruptcy)

Wurzelbert

Jonny7 wrote: »

yup Standard and Poor, the other major ratings agency is Moody's but I haven't checked what they are at

It's a gauge for how the financial world feels toward investing in Russia right now and the financial "risk" of investing in that country

Internally, most large banks will have their own ratings of countries, which is based on a complex process of analysis - which does include the political climate, Ukraine for example is approx 8 levels below investment grade right now, which is pretty damn accurate considering the risk of return on investment (essentially one step above bankruptcy)

yes, and these are all american companies and as such part of the system…it could be seen as an act of aggression against russia in a way, and of course credit ratings only work as long as people “believe” in them…

comongethappy

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, and these are all american companies and as such part of the system…it could be seen as an act of aggression against russia in a way, and of course credit ratings only work as long as people “believe” in them…

Well, their 10 year bonds are trading at 9% -10% at the moment.
Practically junk levels.

So credit ratings aside, purchasing Russian debt is perceived as carrying more risk & that has been the case for some time now.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/government-bond-yield

I'm not sure if this graph could be considered a 3 year long 'act of agression' against Russia.

(Just like Ireland's crazy bond rates in 2011 was not an act of aggression by America on Ireland)

Jonny7

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and of course credit ratings only work as long as people “believe” in them…

Try that one on your bank manager

Wurzelbert

Jonny7 wrote: »

Try that one on your bank manager

haha, yes of course…what i meant is only as long as the financial world and investors believe in them…basically as long as that world is still run the way western nations defined it in previous decades and centuries…

Jonny7

Wurzelbert wrote: »

what i meant is only as long as the financial world and investors believe in them…basically as long as that world is still run the way western nations defined it in previous decades and centuries…

Take my bank manager analogy and apply it to investing, lending or crediting millions.. or billions of euros. Rating agencies and internal ratings function on facts, figures, information, experience, etc.. so, much like your personal credit rating, they make the same analysis, and apply the same criteria - just on a much larger scale

These are guideline ratings, and they are taken seriously, by Russian banks (e.g. VTB) as much as anyone else. When S&P downgraded France, I can guarantee that Russian investors got rates to reflect that increased risk

At the end of the day, it's all about risk, and if X country is faced with imminent sanctions, large capital flight, international isolation and a stagnant economy they are definitely going to provide lenders and investors a higher rate of return.. something we know well about

Red Nissan

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia's credit rating has just dropped today, one step away from non-investment grade

The Russian finance minister also said growth may be close to zero this year

and more potential sanctions on horizon

International relations are at a low point, but the country might financially suffer from all this

They are not buying into the western credit rating thing and ruining their lives with nonsense.

Wall Street is more likely to get a thermonuclear detonation from an ICBM and they can stick their credit rating where [you know].

comongethappy

Red Nissan wrote: »

They are not buying into the western credit rating thing and ruining their lives with nonsense.

Wall Street is more likely to get a thermonuclear detonation from an ICBM and they can stick their credit rating where [you know].

So, where does the Russian government sell its bonds?

And what return do they pay?

Sand

Red Nissan wrote: »

They are not buying into the western credit rating thing and ruining their lives with nonsense.

I don't think you've got the credit rating thing straight - its the western credit that isn't buying into them.

sopretty

Irish bonds were junk status not that long ago.

Conas

Let them sanction Russia into the ground, and ruin Russia's economy. Nobody really cares in most other European countries what's going on in Ukraine. So long as we Irish don't get effected, we have other more important things to be worrying about. Obama and America should minds their own business aswell.

sopretty

Conas wrote: »

Let them sanction Russia into the ground, and ruin Russia's economy. Nobody really cares in most other European countries what's going on in Ukraine. So long as we Irish don't get effected, we have other more important things to be worrying about. Obama and America should minds their own business aswell.

Europe has been at the centre of two world wars while Russia and the US were on the periphery. Europe DOES care about another war breaking out - which is why they will use diplomacy to the level end. The US is quite far removed geographically. They have financial interests (surprise surprise). They're more inclined towards aggression than Europe. The American civil war is the last time they saw or experienced war. 9/11 is their only other measure of what it's like.

Russia has form for being an aggressive and oppressive regime. It is not in anyone's best interests to allow Putin to reek havoc on neighbouring countries.

Conmaicne Mara

Conas wrote: »

Let them sanction Russia into the ground, and ruin Russia's economy. Nobody really cares in most other European countries what's going on in Ukraine. So long as we Irish don't get effected, we have other more important things to be worrying about. Obama and America should minds their own business aswell.

"I'm alright Jack"

S.R.

sopretty wrote: »

Europe has been at the centre of two world wars while Russia and the US were on the periphery.

What?!?!?! Russia was on the periphery?!?!?!

Sand

In fairness, in a conflict described as a world war, Russia only had a single theatre to worry about and only then after Germany broke the alliance the Soviets had struck with them. European powers like Germany, UK, France and even Italy had to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously against multiple foes. It's a fair description to describe Russia's position on second world war as peripheral.

Conas

sopretty wrote: »

Europe has been at the centre of two world wars while Russia and the US were on the periphery. Europe DOES care about another war breaking out - which is why they will use diplomacy to the level end. The US is quite far removed geographically. They have financial interests (surprise surprise). They're more inclined towards aggression than Europe. The American civil war is the last time they saw or experienced war. 9/11 is their only other measure of what it's like.

Russia has form for being an aggressive and oppressive regime. It is not in anyone's best interests to allow Putin to reek havoc on neighbouring countries.

There isn't going to be another War in Europe, give us a break. I'd rather Putin as a leader than that puppet in the White House.

Ireland stayed neutral during WW2, and it turned out to be a great decision. It was more likely that Churchill was going to invade Ireland than Hitler. Then again with the whole issue of partition in Northern Ireland, I think many Republicans would have been happy to see Hitler win the war. Allies did win WW2 in the end, but Ireland got nothing out of it.

Conas

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, in a conflict described as a world war, Russia only had a single theatre to worry about and only then after Germany broke the alliance the Soviets had struck with them. European powers like Germany, UK, France and even Italy had to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously against multiple foes. It's a fair description to describe Russia's position on second world war as peripheral.

Were it not for the Soviets, Germany would have won WW2.

Americas economy was in a terrible state under Roosevelt (the most overrated President in History) So America needed to enter the war, and then their economy grew, because Americans were sent to fight in a war, while others were sent to work in war centres. It's true!

handlemaster

Russia can't manage the land and resources it has effextively never mind trying to take over another country and its people.

comongethappy

Conas wrote: »

Were it not for the Soviets, Germany would have won WW2.

Americas economy was in a terrible state under Roosevelt (the most overrated President in History) So America needed to enter the war, and then their economy grew, because Americans were sent to fight in a war, while others were sent to work in war centres. It's true!

Course.

Sure they begged Japan to attack Pearl Harbour, didn't they?

S.R.

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, in a conflict described as a world war, Russia only had a single theatre to worry about and only then after Germany broke the alliance the Soviets had struck with them. European powers like Germany, UK, France and even Italy had to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously against multiple foes. It's a fair description to describe Russia's position on second world war as peripheral.

Only a single theater?!?!!?

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/06/russia.secondworldwar

"Few paid public tribute to the relief that swept through all of Europe with the victory of Stalingrad in 1943, bringing for the first time a sense that the fascist tide had turned. How many European or American politicians, let alone school textbooks, admit the Red Army inflicted 80% of the Nazi war machine's casualties, or that at the D-day landings the allied troops faced 58 German divisions in the west while Soviet forces had to overcome 228 divisions in their march to Berlin - and did?"


DON'T F*CKING TELL ME ABOUT PERIPHERY!!!

S.R.

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, in a conflict described as a world war, Russia only had a single theatre to worry about and only then after Germany broke the alliance the Soviets had struck with them. European powers like Germany, UK, France and even Italy had to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously against multiple foes. It's a fair description to describe Russia's position on second world war as peripheral.

What multiple fronts simultaneously did, for example, France fight?