Gazprom seeks to halt Ukraine gas contracts as dispute escalates

Should I remind you that the intervention by US was done without the consent from the UN security council?
US has too far away from its borders interests and too close to the borders of Russia, I would say. For the gas issue it means that it is non of business of the US of how Russia sells gas to Ukraine and for which prices, and on which conditions.Does your polititians tell to the managers in Microsoft or GE what kind of business model should they use to sell their products and to whom their products should be sold and on which conditions?

 

There are Russian living everywhere not just EU.
What happened in the Balkans will happen in Ukraine too. All people with education will go to richer countries. Those who are left will go seasonally to the west to clean toilets, paint houses, pick strawberries in Sweden etc.

Not a good situation either way.

 

How can it be Milosevics fault for the break up of Yugoslavia? You can criticise him for his actions during the war, I do too. But to say that he is the fault that Yugoslavia went the way it did is just nonsense.

Yugoslavia broke apart because of to many ethnicities wanting their own with help of external powers. Same thing would happen even if Mandela was President of YU. Milosevic is an easy scape goat that the west can refer to. Typical Hollywood story, good guy bad guy situation.

 

If they start killing the French, of course they will.

Zee laughing peegs, will not kill zee great France
​

 

,Lol, US has too far away from its borders"? That's rich...vis, SUs meddling in cuba, putting bases there, providing advisors for Ortega in Nicaragua to f**k over our "interests" there, covert support for anti apartheid groups in South Africa, the list goes on. Don't lecture me veesko on "away borders", like I said the filthy Marxist/Leninist swine was pissing in our hemisphere a while longer than we even considered there)).

Uh, as far as gas issue, I'm assuming only Russia has the right to sell products/energy to Europe....we the US should keep our nose out, even though some energy/industries prefer to do business with us? I didn't see the russian "rulebook" on that anywhere, maybe you can point one out to me.

 

Eh, where did you got information about Russian missiles set in Cuba? Visited some UFO forum? Is Nicaragua close to the borders of the US? You are talking nonsense. Maybe because Germany wants to make business with you it is going to introduce import taxes on american goods?

 

A closer example about France would be Belgium and France need to have a serious enemy (like England in times of 100 years war or germans in times of world wars). So if this rival overthrows government and establishes government which starts to fight with French language and ties with France and naturally invades southern states of Vallonia telling lies and some small truth about French people as aggressors and the need to remake them into good flemmish people, if there are plans of aa big rival to use Vallonia for a quick and devastating blow to Paris... Of course the French people will have to react.

 

Oh, no I didn't visit UFO forum, although I've been to Roswell NM, which is debatable.

Hmmm, I see you've haven't heard of Cuban missile crisis of 62, and Nicaragua isn't too far from US, it's in western hemisphere in case you haven't checked....Panama Canal not far from there....US supported, built, veez?

 

Now that they killed Milosevic so he couldn't present his defense, the Hague declared him innocent of all crimes.

Washington's main weapon: Deception and lies.




Yesterday Milosevic, today Assad.

......

 

There is a lot of misunderstanding precisely because in the West they try to operate with existing analogies in the case of Ukraine, but there are no direct analogies in modern history. Hypothetical analogy (also not exact, but it is closer):

- President Trump for simplification of logistics gives Alaska to Russia.
- It takes 40 years.
- Russia is divided into several smaller territories. Alaska remains to belong to the "Far Eastern Republic".
- In the emerging "Far Eastern Republic" for 25 years, anti-American sentiments are growing, not least under the active influence of the European Union, which is interested in domestic problems near North America.
- Alaska continues to remain 95% American in spirit and language in the country, but the "Far Eastern Republic" begins to actively oppress the English language and American culture.
- In the "Far Eastern Republic" under the influence of the European Union there is a coup d'état and aggressive nationalists and anti-Americans come to power. Premeditated reprisals against pro-American activists of Alaska.
- In the prevailing conditions, Alaska (like several other regions that are dissatisfied with such a coup d'état) announces its independence.
- The US supports the pro-American forces that came to power in Alaska, conducts a general Alaska referendum on the status of Alaska.
- 96.6% of Alaska residents vote for return to the United States.
- Alaska joined to the United States.

You can in this situation condemn the United States for the fact that they have regained Alaska in these conditions?

 

You mean the Quebecois? Hard to say what the rest of Canada would do if Quebec were invaded and seized by France, but then it hardly matters. France behaves itself and respects other countries' borders and sovereignty. It does not manipulate their elections, feed propaganda to their people and invade and annex their territory.

It also helps that Canada (and France) are in NATO and enjoy that protection. Poor Ukraine has only the starving, raging bear next door.

 

This idea of being tough with Russia will make them buckle is nothing but a bunch of garbage.

What the American people are not being told, is that the missiles going to Cuba were in response to the American missiles in Turkey. Khruschev said if JFK removes our missiles, the Russian ship will turn back - which it did.

 

I take issue with exactly why that anti-American sentiment is growing (its causes) and the notion that English language and American culture are being "actively oppressed." Are we talking about Jenny's idea of oppression, where a law is passed to mandate use of the national language in public universities (or whatever it is that the Latvian law did, exactly)? Because that sounds like the sort of thing that your hypothetical US would then be using as anti-Latvian propaganda to gaslight the Alaskan Americans and prepare them for annexation down the road.

As for the referendum, who knows how honest that was. Putin isn't exactly pro-democracy so much as pro forcing the "right choice" every time.

 

Anyone can go and check it. No other region of Russia is as pro-Russian as Crimea.

 

A lot of effort has been put into that, no doubt.

 

Not Russian of course. A lot of western money was invested into modern Ukrainian leadership. And with the latest news from Gazprom the west received nothing but losses.

 

double

 

France couldn't give half a rat's behind for Quebec(LaBelle Provence), as PQ like to refer to it. They don't even speak proper French according to the French(France).)

 

Alaska was bought and paid for fair and square....$7.2 mln, or 2¢ per acre.
There'll never be any kind of "referendum" or any kind secession, so apologies for bursting any bubbles.)

 

Hey Durandal, stop flipping and turning the perpetrators into victims, and the victims into perpetrators.

​

 

Oh yeah! Tell it to these guys.

 

Yeah but force them to change their language, and to start killing them the way the Gallicians are killing the Russians in Ukraine, and you'll find out how much of a damn the French give.

 

If we return to the growth of anti-Russian trends (because analogies can not be developed) in the countries of the former USSR, this is precisely in all cases clear. In each case, the question has a long history. If you look at Ukraine, then:

- When Ukraine planned to secede from the USSR, the separatist politicians told all local people about the story of how well Ukraine will recover after separation. The fact is that during the collapse of the Soviet Union, the separatists actively propagated the myth that the republics of the USSR are feeding Russia. And therefore after independence they will live even better. In Ukraine it has always been said that after secession from the USSR it will become one of the richest countries in Europe.

- In fact, as a rule, Russia was the financial and resource donor. And Russia contained the rest of the Soviet republics. In addition, the entire economy and industry were designed for a single state. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, instead of the promised paradise, chaos came. The standard of living has fallen everywhere. For a while this could be explained by revolutionary processes, but not for long. To justify their own failures, the enemy's image is required. Since Ukraine initially sought to the West, the only available enemy is Russia. The formation of various nationalist movements began. The government as a whole was wiser and understood that Russia is the most profitable economic partner. But the government of Ukraine did not try to crush the nationalists for the presence of an instrument of pressure on Russia. I remember the appearance of Ukrainian nationalists back in the early 1990s.

- This went on for 26 years. And the process has a positive feedback. Russia emerged from a state of devastation and began to develop rapidly. In development, Ukraine began to lag far behind. Who is guilty? Of course, again Russia! She lives richer! Ukrainians go to Russia for work, like Mexicans in the United States. This is a shame for national identity. And Russophobia begins to grow.

- The last stone on these unstable scales was the election of Yanukovych. He was a relatively pro-Russian president. And for him voted mostly residents of Donbass, who traditionally had a pro-Russian attitude. After these elections, Ukraine began to split. This split first gave rise to growing riots, and later - a coup d'état. Of course, the pro-Russian Donbas did not accept the overthrow of their president and the coming to power of not just anti-Russian, but anti-Donbass radicals. And the Donbas broke away. At first, peacefully, the first month did not go beyond words. But then the first blood appeared (organized by criminals, ruled by Kiev radicals) and further down the hill a bloody commotion rolled.

The overwhelming majority of Crimean residents have lived and dreamed of returning to Russia for 26 years. Even much more than they wanted in Russia In the same Donbass most of the population was politically neutral. They did not care who is in power until they are oppressed. Therefore, the Donbass was pro-Russian, but did not aspire to secession or accession to Russia. And when the split of Ukraine began in February, the Crimea reacted instantly, but the Donbass hesitated for months. If in Ukraine immediately abandoned the anti-Russian policy and from the oppression of the Russians, the Donbass would remain a peaceful part of Ukraine. But in Kiev they were interested in a bloody war, so they did everything possible to fan this war. And Russia turned out to be too indecisive and did not know what to do with the Donbas. And I suspect that if Russia annexed the Donbass in early 2014, it would have a pro-Ukrainian separatist region on its territory. By early 2014, people in the Donbas were not yet inclined against Ukraine, and annexation would have been perceived as a violent gesture of Russia. Hatred of Kiev in the Donbas began to develop after the incitement of war. At what without any occasion. Let me remind you that the first blows of the Ukrainian army were generally against the peaceful population of Donbass and without any reason. Then, most likely, Russia tried to maintain a neutral position before the world community, not believing the growth of anti-Russian hysteria in the West. Even later, the Donbas was bogged down in a full-fledged war and Russia could not interfere for domestic political reasons. It would have been many thousands of victims among Russians, which would have affected unpredictably the domestic policy.

 

Of course, I heard. It was as usual US that started it by location missiles in Turkey just on the borders with Soviet Union. Now looks like the history repeats, there are so far no missiles in Cuba, but maybe it is time to put it there? Nicaragua does not have common borders with the US as Ukraine, or Georgia does where US is currently heavily involved.