[paraclete]

yes by all means take advantage of the Ukrainians in their crisis, there are profits to be made and coffers to be raided

[tomder55]

I would offer it at discount rates ...sorta a 21st century Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe.

[paraclete]

you don't really think you could discount Russian prices without passing the costs into your own economy do you? I doubt you have the financial capacity for such a plan these days, afterall you are already screaming about the deficits of this administration

[talaniman]

Exxon Welcomes Russia's Rosneft Into Gulf of Mexico

Russia signs exploration deal with Exxon - Europe - Al Jazeera English

Lots of big deals would go south really fast if Russia was to trigger additional sanctions.

[tomder55]

and ? Since when do you care about Exxon Mobile ?

[paraclete]

Fact is noone cares about an individual company unless they are an investor but there is a ripple effect forget teh pipedream of supplying Ukraine from North America, perhaps your saudi friends can profit. Ukraine should have thought about the implications before shaking hands with the EU

[talaniman]

Exxon Welcomes Russia's Rosneft Into Gulf of Mexico

Russia signs exploration deal with Exxon - Europe - Al Jazeera English

Lots of big deals would go south really fast if Russia was to trigger additional sanctions.

I don't, but big profits is the leverage against further Russian aggression in the region.

Fact is noone cares about an individual company unless they are an investor but there is a ripple effect forget teh pipedream of supplying Ukraine from North America, perhaps your saudi friends can profit. Ukraine should have thought about the implications before shaking hands with the EU

The investor class is who rules Russia. An a sovereign Ukraine doesn't have to take orders from Russian thugs. They can shake hands with who they please. You talk as if they should just rollover for Putin.

[tomder55]

I don't, but big profits is the leverage against further Russian aggression in the region.

Or maybe Putin is an enviro-wacko and wants west Ukraine to prevent them from fracking .

Russia has environmental concerns over Ukraine's fracking plans

[paraclete]

you talk as if they should just rollover for Putin

Put it this way Tal there are many implications for their turning away from traditional and long relationships and cultivating the EU which is just as expansionist as Russia, It isn't as though they didn't have competing offers on the table, whereas they have little relationship with the US who is using them to prod Putin, who would feel very vulnerable, just as you would if Mexico wanted to join the EU

You really don't understand the paranoia left over from WWII, and that is because your neighbours didn't invade you and murder millions of your population

[talaniman]

Don't be so dramatic Clete. Its all about the money, and Putin playing hardball after they kicked his stooge out of Keiv.

[paraclete]

Or maybe Putin is an enviro-wacko and wants west Ukraine to prevent them from fracking .

Russia has environmental concerns over Ukraine's fracking plans

I can't believe that Tom, it's a ploy to protect their markets. However we do need take a second look at fracking, there are serious environmental concerns which cannot be ignored just because some multinationals think they have a new nation to exploit

[tomder55]

Yes All those neo-cons in the Obama Adm prodded Vlad the Invador to move .

[paraclete]

Vlad does what Vlad does, he needs no encouragement from the west but as I said before the Russians are paranoid

[tomder55]

fine I get that . They have reasons to be. Geography . They have no natural land borders separating them from any of their neighbors. That's why they are always pushing West and South.

I'll also concede that we blew a golden opportunity when the Soviets fell to support democracy there . NATO ,an organization without a mission started to invent them by pushing east (and lately into Africa ) . When Vlad justifies his actions by comparing them to our land grab against Serbia ,he has a point.
Under normal circumstances I would've supported a democratic secession of Crimea and an annexation by Russia. But Vlad had made it his doctrine that all his neighbors are but appendages in his attempt to restore Russia to it's former glory .

[paraclete]

Yes and he may be mad enough to do it, but a war with Europe will bankrupt his economy which is heavily dependent on oil and gas sales. It is actually Hitler in reverse. Hitler wanted "living space" and minerals, particularly oil, whereas Putin has no shortage of those but has lost a lot of people and has a declining population.

The great problem with the west is it is confrontational while shouting democracy from a base that is far from democratic. The people of Crimea made a decision we don't like the way it was done, but it was democratic, at least as democratic as we might do it, but there was no outside oversight

[Athos]

There is no simple answer to the question of whether people should be allowed to secede from their country.

Woodrow Wilson proposed the idea of "self-determination", but that was in the context of WW1 after the Imperial powers had been defeated, and Austria-Hungary having been a state full of different ethnic groups. The Balkans didn't shake themselves out until 70 years later.

Abraham Lincoln believed the American South had no right to secede since they were part of a "Federated Republic". The South saw it differently and formed a "CON-federation", a different system

Colonies, of course, are an altogether different proposition, and would seem to always have the right to secede from the mother country.

The Crimea was not really a secession. It was an annexation by a neighboring country. But this is probably semantics. Ukranian law prohibited the Crimean action, but, in the face of Russian tanks, law took a back seat.

Bottom line - if you want to secede, better have plenty of firepower.

However, an interesting situation looms with Scotland. My guess is that it will be done without force of arms as long as the Scots want it.

[paraclete]

obviously the Scots want it otherwise it wouldn't be a question. The Scots have had hundreds of years of oppression and follow the people of Ireland in wanting out from under the english thumb. The people of Crimea felt they were oppressed. fact is; the american south should have been allowed to secede since what Wilson proposed was one rule for some and something else when the policy supported it. It might be inconvenient but all people should have the right to form their own nation. I would support the australian aboriginee creating their own nation in the north if they wanted it, what's one more failed state in a world of failed states?

[Athos]

Wilson and the South were two widely separated eras.

But, why would you support a state to fail in Australia? (If I read you correctly).

Btw, the Scotland issue is not as obvious as you may think.

[paraclete]

I have lived in Scotland, the issue is obvious. and entirely transparent. I wouldn't want a failed state in either place, but in the case of Australia the creation of such a state may even be a positive since it would give the aboriginal people something to aspire to and living conditions could hardly be worse. If they were a seperate state we could provide them with foriegn aid, a different regime to the provisions existing at the moment, they would be deregulated and could attract industries, etc

[Athos]

I don't know much about Australia. How would foreign aid be different from "existing provisions"? Is this a racial thing? I'm not criticizing, I'm asking.

If the Scotland issue is so obvious, why is it still not achieved?