Putin is crapping bricks!

[callmeslick]

Barack, hold on, do not be discouraged, get out of the fucкing policy. You all will be well.

How's about Russia gets out of the **** Crimea. THEN all will be well.

Do not misunderstand
Where America is and where the Crimea? Who are you to tell us what and how we do in our country? Martians have more relations to the Crimea, than the Americans.
P.S. I will definitely give your friendly attitude of Americans to Crimeans

you have no more right to occupy the Crimea than the US does to occupy Nova Scotia(thus affecting Canadian sovereignity). Given the global nature of commerce, I suspect that the US does have far more relations with the Crimea than you surmise.

[callmeslick]

Generally the answer to your question is laid in my previous comment. The fact that Crimea is subsidized region. To feed themselves, in any case they need help from the outside. Given that neither the EU nor the U.S. is not interested in the development of Ukraine's economy, and they can give money to a beggar Crimea just to accommodate NATO bases, of course, Russia can not allow them to do so.

if Russia simply stayed the hell out, I have no doubt that European investors and corporate entities would cooperate with the Ukraine to develop a rather robust natural gas production. And, given that the Ukraine(not Russia) owns the pipeline system of the Ukraine to deliver natural gas to Europe, it could end up with significant cash flow and prosperity. Of course, that might come at the expense of your real rulers, the energy oligarchs whose puppet-master is Putin. It would also come at great cost to the Russian economy, which put far too much stock into energy alone, without supporting industries to balance that out.

[Duper]

No, actually, Slick, from all I've read, Russia owns the pipeline and pretty much a monopoly on natural gas on most of eastern Europe.
The Ukrain has had an on-going history of having trouble or simply not paying (over the last decade or better) its "bill" for the gas it has been using.

That's why it's been shut off a couple of times.

[flip]

That's why we should build that pipeline here. Creates jobs, undercuts Putin and increases our exports to Europe.

[sigma]

That's why we should build that pipeline here. Creates jobs, undercuts Putin and increases our exports to Europe.

Hallelujah! I really want to turn Russia into Europe and America to feed quality wheat and meat, as before. We have to do are all possibilities. It's just dream!

[flip]

No, it's the biggest game of Chess.

[callmeslick]

No, actually, Slick, from all I've read, Russia owns the pipeline and pretty much a monopoly on natural gas on most of eastern Europe.
The Ukrain has had an on-going history of having trouble or simply not paying (over the last decade or better) its "bill" for the gas it has been using.

That's why it's been shut off a couple of times.

supply of gas got shut off, but the pipeline belongs to Ukraine(they get a cut of gas piped to Eastern Europe, in fact). Much talk in the Energy sector about just what I mentioned. Apparently(not a geologist, merely an investor) the geography of parts of the Ukraine are VERY conducive to relatively shallow fracturing for NG.

[callmeslick]

That's why we should build that pipeline here. Creates jobs, undercuts Putin and increases our exports to Europe.

except, if you're referring to the Keystone pipeline, it does few of those things. It creates some jobs, largely Canadian based, it carries really dirty petroleum down to your way, for use mostly by refiners, not for export to Europe, who has access to North Sea oil(far better grade, btw).

[flip]

I said what it could do.

[callmeslick]

I said what it could do.

and I stated that it seems unlikely that could happen. Plus, we get to screw up a thousand miles of farmland and maybe an aquifer. Not a great deal.

[flip]

After looking at a map of Haiti, I recant my earlier statement concerning sanctions against Cuba, but only if they were to also establish the 1 million orphans trapped in Haiti.

[Spidey]

Jeezzee, except there is already 55,000 miles of “trunk” oil pipeline in the USA.

This one is political for some reason…I wonder why.

[callmeslick]

Jeezzee, except there is already 55,000 miles of “trunk” oil pipeline in the USA.

This one is political for some reason…I wonder why.

The aquifer....although the re-route seems to have real issues(not sure why, but seems to involve ranchers). The other problem is the nature of the oil being sent through it. It's an ecological disaster for Canada to bring it up, it's dirty as hell, and expensive to make useable.

[flip]

Yeah, but there's only just so much of it

[Spidey]

Wrong answer.

[Z..]

Does nothing for this country. It's cheaper for Canada to have a route to the Gulf than to build something that goes across the Rockies to the Pacific. Only reason they want to send it through the states and then sell it on the market. Why even take the risk?

[Spidey]

You do know its only phase 4 of this pipeline that hasn’t been built, and there is already a completed line from Canada to the Gulf coast.

Basically a “shortcut” or “bypass” was proposed and became a political football.

[woodchip]

The aquifer....although the re-route seems to have real issues(not sure why, but seems to involve ranchers). The other problem is the nature of the oil being sent through it. It's an ecological disaster for Canada to bring it up, it's dirty as hell, and expensive to make useable.

The problem with the aquifer is it is being drained by agra business and population pressure.

[callmeslick]

at least the water in the aquifer is presently useable.

[Spidey]

And is already crisscrossed by hundreds of miles of older leaky pipeline.

[callmeslick]

And is already crisscrossed by hundreds of miles of older leaky pipeline.

likely true. As I said, I don't understand why this became a political football, unless it is simply a sign that people are waking up to the potential risks.

[Tunnelcat]

Again the same . TC, the Soviet Union gave full independence to its former republics. And what we got in the end ? We got millions of refugees to Russia from these countries , when those countries were not able to survive on their own , without Russia. You know a lot of countries that have been given independence and they were able to thrive ? Incidentally, the same thing happen when the U.S. invasion of other countries. Wealthier countries receive only a big headache from the huge number of refugees who are fleeing from war or "independence" in their countries. They are taking jobs from the indigenous population , they are unwilling to accept the rules of conduct or religion of the indigenous population . And besides, these refugees are not want to assimilate into the countries that gave them shelter, jobs , or have to spend huge amounts of money on their unemployment benefits . In other words , the activity of the United States to protect the world from the " Russian threat"(?!) only contributes to the displacement of the population of the Third World in a civilized countries.

You're joking, right? If all those people wanted to enter Russia, why did the Soviets build a wall between them and the West on the western edge? And why did so many people get shot by Soviet guards or blown up by land mines trying to cross that guarded border, most of them escaping towards the West, not East? I also see Europe, in the past and presently, taking in more work refugees than the Soviet Union ever did in the past. The only reason that Russia didn't lose people after WWII was because of the Iron Curtain. You had to imprison them behind concrete, barbed wire and land mines to keep them from leaving your Union.

[sigma]

I mean the history of Russia from 1991 to the present time, of course.

[callmeslick]

I mean the history of Russia from 1991 to the present time, of course.

and, since you're currently led by a few guys who go back WELL before that time and were actively involved in the previous incarnation of Russia, we can't, fairly, look at those years as well?

[Tunnelcat]

Too bad Russia's leaders can't escape that old isolationist Soviet way of thinking when dealing with the modern world.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think Russia is sparing themselves the modern world, personally. They're not perfect, but I expect to see them excel us if things keep going the way they're going.

[Spidey]

The problem is…Russia had a bloodless revolution, you don’t get real change without blood.

(not in this scenario anyway)

[Top Gun]

I think Russia is sparing themselves the modern world, personally. They're not perfect, but I expect to see them excel us if things keep going the way they're going.

Yeah man good on them for avoiding all those pesky modern-day trappings like free speech and freedom from political persecution and anti-discrimination laws and not illegally invading other countries and stuff.

[Spidey]

You actually said that last one with a straight face...

[Sergeant Thorne]

The thread just wouldn't be complete without the idiot straw-man perspective.

[Top Gun]

If you really think that Russia can "excel us" in any real sense other than vodka manufacture, then you're the one introducing the idiocy here.

[Spidey]

Two words.....Math and Physics.

[sigma]

Too bad Russia's leaders can't escape that old isolationist Soviet way of thinking when dealing with the modern world.

With exactly the opposite . The Russian leadership in 1991 was ready to have normal relations with the West, the very fact of the restructuring of the former Soviet Union and many very large concessions for the West. West apparently considered it a sign of weakness and began to act even bolder than before. Only the West is to blame for the fact that Russia is now returning to the thinking of the Cold War. You know , I see every article of central western buildings blatant anti-Russian propaganda . The impression that the United States remained in the twentieth century . In Russian mainstream media is nothing like that for over 20 years .

[sigma]

I mean the history of Russia from 1991 to the present time, of course.

and, since you're currently led by a few guys who go back WELL before that time and were actively involved in the previous incarnation of Russia, we can't, fairly, look at those years as well?

Right after NATO creation, the Soviet Union expressed desire to become the member of NATO for full cooperation. As you know, refusal gave NATO. And protection against the Russian military threat was the cause of creation of NATO. Though the Soviet Union didn't pose any threat while it wasn't attacked by Germany. Now each child knows that now a task of NATO is attack to Russia. Though today Russia besides doesn't pose absolutely any threat if not to attack it.
By the way, anybody here too couldn't call any reason which would be motive of attack of Russia on other country.
And anybody also couldn't explain the reason of military operations of NATO in 30 independent countries. Protection against the Soviet threat, or the struggle for world peace?

[Sergeant Thorne]

If you really think that Russia can "excel us" in any real sense other than vodka manufacture, then you're the one introducing the idiocy here.

No you!! I said that it was an idiot straw-man perspective. You introduced the ridiculous straw-man, insinuating that I was speaking against freedoms which are guaranteed us by our constitution, which I have always been vocally in favor of. I would grant you or anyone else that the U.S. has a significant trade/economic advantage. What really makes a country great, though? The U.S. is destroying itself in many ways, and it's becoming weak. I look at the big picture and I see that while Russia may have many disadvantages when it comes to individual freedom, they are refusing to become weak. The U.S. is interested in gain, not strength. I think this will ultimately be our undoing. You can only shoot yourself in the foot so much...

[Top Gun]

If Russia's "strength" is what you'd consider an ideal, then I will happily pass on that.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I guess if we were really going to debate the point we'd have to be using the same definition...

[sigma]

In compliance with my assumptions that sooner or later the example of the American aggressive solution of political problems can become an example for other countries, and apparently, Russia became the first country which decided to use the American style of the solution of problems of the national security. If the USA doesn't cease to step on a rake, on mine good it won't end with anything...

[Burlyman]

All you people do is let the TV tell you what's the latest important issue that you need to focus on, then you come here and QQ about it, and most of your opinions generally don't even make any sense.

[sigma]

All you people do is let the TV tell you what's the latest important issue that you need to focus on, then you come here and QQ about it, and most of your opinions generally don't even make any sense.

Maybe already will suffice to confuse the American mass media to the Russian? Today I can tell surely to you that the thinking of Americans is the victim of daily professional information attack to your brain for formation of negative attitude to Russia. To understand it, it is rather simple to read news on any western information resource. While the Russian mass media provide only the facts for Russians. Believe it or not. I am sure that you good are informed about this, but you can't simply have courage to recognize it

Add: As for the meaning of the utterance of his opinions on the forum on the internet. On mine, and yours, and my opinion matters, as long as we express it and discuss. I'm pretty sure that our opinions are somehow reflected in the analytical reports of special services, which are laid on the table of major politicians. Or maybe not. It's even better. At least we have the freedom to express our opinions and to debate on political issues here, as free citizens in free countries.