A crime in Crimea?

[PieterSteidelmayer]

An excellent post. You make extremely valid point regarding just how intermixed we are. Just a little research into the derivation of AngloSaxon for those who had previously not considered to do so will surprise many I am sure.

Having spent long periods of time in England I have only ever encountered good natured leg-pulling, but I am sure there are many who harbor real dislike of Germans to this day purely because of the war even though they may not have had any direct experience of it. The only ones who have ever been openly hostile are those that resent my unwillingness to assume the guilt for the actions of generations past. The English also are renowned for an even greater dislike of the French which is curious given that their cultural and genealogical influences are significantly more recent than those my ancestors may have had.

 

[PieterSteidelmayer]

keep foreign interests out of what is a national matter.

What is a national matter, energy? If so, why is energy different to any other product that is cheaper imported than can be produced domestically, if at all?

 

[Mr. Charts]

Energy and food are basics and if you rely on foreign imports you need to be confident they come from friendly sources. In absolute terms you are correct, but we live in a practical world.

 

[Splitlink]

What is a national matter, energy? If so, why is energy different to any other product that is cheaper imported than can be produced domestically, if at all?

IMO, it is not a good idea to have foreign interests owning the service companies of another country. Regardless, of what intelligent people may think, the population gets very irritated when they have to go short of the product but the owners are paying fat profits to their sharehiolders. It causes bad feeling. Far better to have everythng nationally owned.The UK has problems with that, already, and so does the electricity services in Spain. If oil is not essential to the life blood of any nation right now, then tell me what is. I know that BP is in Russia. That is their problem, but we do not have to be be same.

If a producer can sell its oil to another because it has more than it needs, so be it, but if Germany, UK, or any other company finds oill on their soil, I hope that the governments make sure that it becomes nationally owned. With fracking, even more so. Can you imagine what could happen if the water supply became contaminated, or if there were earth tremors in populated areas?

 

[Mr. Charts]

The world has moved on and the benefits of globalisation are many, though there are a few downsides.
I agree that essential domestic natural resources should remain under national control, although we could always expropriate them in extremis.
Or freeze foreign owned assets like we are threatening to do to the Russians for their sin of facilitating self-determination in Crimea......

 

[PieterSteidelmayer]

If a producer can sell its oil to another because it has more than it needs, so be it, but if Germany, UK, or any other company finds oill on their soil, I hope that the governments make sure that it becomes nationally owned.

Mineral rights generally resolve to territorial rights so that isn't ever going to be an issue excepting cases where there are existing territorial issues (such as who owns the oil off the Falklands or if it were discovered off Gibraltar?) That aside, import of essentials is a beggars can't be choosers situation. International commerce trumps international tensions any time. Your currently friendly nation supplying your oil may some day become less friendly, but you still need oil and they still need export income from selling it to you so it will take an awful lot to push one side or the other over the brink. Which is as it should be. You're more likely to go to war with a country with which you have no ties or dependencies. One of the tangential benefits of the globalization of commerce which is often overlooked.

 

[Atilla]

Mineral rights generally resolve to territorial rights so that isn't ever going to be an issue excepting cases where there are existing territorial issues (such as who owns the oil off the Falklands or if it were discovered off Gibraltar?) That aside, import of essentials is a beggars can't be choosers situation. International commerce trumps international tensions any time. Your currently friendly nation supplying your oil may some day become less friendly, but you still need oil and they still need export income from selling it to you so it will take an awful lot to push one side or the other over the brink. Which is as it should be. You're more likely to go to war with a country with which you have no ties or dependencies. One of the tangential benefits of the globalization of commerce which is often overlooked.

There are international rules for calculating/dividing up such issues where one may have several borders to sea areas. I believe it is subject to total area of land, size of population, coastline and proximity.

This is going to be a major issue re: North Pole if/when should the ice caps melt a little more and jostling starts for resources under those caps.

Hopefully, logic and reason will prevail rather than might and bullets.


Europe seem to have done well with their fishing policies. Some people/fishermen in particular think it is ridiculous however. Fact no one has died yet is a good sign to me.

 

[spreader_legger]

Hmmm not so sure Europe has sorted these things out. I site continued dispute regarding Spanish fishermen and Gibraltanean territorial waters. Also on going border disputes between Canada and US. These issues always arise whenever there is money at stake. No such thing as fair objective partitioning. If that existed there would be no need for lawyers

 

[Atilla]

Hmmm not so sure Europe has sorted these things out. I site continued dispute regarding Spanish fishermen and Gibraltanean territorial waters. Also on going border disputes between Canada and US. These issues always arise whenever there is money at stake. No such thing as fair objective partitioning. If that existed there would be no need for lawyers

Yes certainly but better to get hot under the collar than 6 feet under I'd say.

I'm sure it's not within the reason of the International Community. As with most things people will want tilt the table in their favour no surprises there.

 

[Splitlink]

Mineral rights generally resolve to territorial rights so that isn't ever going to be an issue excepting cases where there are existing territorial issues (such as who owns the oil off the Falklands or if it were discovered off Gibraltar?) That aside, import of essentials is a beggars can't be choosers situation. International commerce trumps international tensions any time. Your currently friendly nation supplying your oil may some day become less friendly, but you still need oil and they still need export income from selling it to you so it will take an awful lot to push one side or the other over the brink. Which is as it should be. You're more likely to go to war with a country with which you have no ties or dependencies. One of the tangential benefits of the globalization of commerce which is often overlooked.

I agree with what you say but would ask that attention be paid to the red part of you quote. Beggars cannot be choosers and that is a situation that any country should be careful to avoid, if at all possible.

If the EU has no choice but to import energy from Russia, a country that has a president like Putin as leader, then the EU will fall under Russian domination, sooner or later, in much the same way that the West has been under US influence, which is something that Stalin wanted, but was unable to achieve. Whether they need to export to us, for their own survival is another matter.I an not Russian but, knowing the character of the Russians, in WWII, they are capable of taking a lot of hardships.

Let them be desperate to export to us----yes, but we must not be desperate for their oil, if at all possible. That, last, is going to be difficult for us, at this stage, but we have to get cracking

 

[Splitlink]

There are international rules for calculating/dividing up such issues where one may have several borders to sea areas. I believe it is subject to total area of land, size of population, coastline and proximity.

This is going to be a major issue re: North Pole if/when should the ice caps melt a little more and jostling starts for resources under those caps.

Hopefully, logic and reason will prevail rather than might and bullets.


Europe seem to have done well with their fishing policies. Some people/fishermen in particular think it is ridiculous however. Fact no one has died yet is a good sign to me.

In my lifetime, might has, always, been right.

Logic has, always, been used by the good guys, but Chamberlain's logic and reason did not keep us out of WWII and Western might kept Russia out of Europe.

 

[Pat494]

I am only surprised that idiot Haig hasn't parachuted himself into the Crimea and got captured !!

People talk about war as if it were an afternoon's sport, which WW3 isn't obviously going to be. Once it goes nuclear then that is the end of planet earth.
The warmongers and those irresponsible politicians should be kept well out of control of events. Just because we have 2 turkey cocks squaring up to each other, it definately doesn't have to escalate into total destruction.
Let's hope those 2 lunatics start de-escalating as soon as possible or get sacked !!

 

[Pat494]

The US says it respects democracy etc. So when they had a vote in the Crimea why did they not respect it ? Most of the Eastern Ukrainians are really Russian nationals speaking Russian, so why does the US and EU not respect that ?

Apparently the Eastern lot don't like how they were treated by Kiev and the Western lot. It would cause a lot less bloodshed to just let them go imho. It would be different if the Russians were seizing them against their will. It will all depend on the scum at the top and their killers as to who wins, the people are more like sheep apparently.

Shooting down airliners for sport can't be helpful nor hindering the investigation except to cover up unpleasant facts.

 

[Splitlink]

Shooting down airliners for sport can't be helpful nor hindering the investigation except to cover up unpleasant facts.

I don't understand this paragraph, Pat.

 

[Pat494]

I don't understand this paragraph, Pat.

Was it a mistake ? Or is it to ramp up this already volatile situation ?
Putin is a chess player, so remembering this makes it understandable usually.

Removing the evidence is virtually admitting it was Russia or its special forces ( spetznats ) in Crimea that had something to cover up.

Despicable really. Obama and Putin should not play so recklessly with the future of the planet imho

 

[counter_violent]

Russia under Putin is in danger of becoming an economic backwater. There is zero chance the west will get involved militarily, and quite rightly so. But the western leaders, increasingly supported by others can and will ensure a return to serfdom if that's what it takes. Don't think for a second that Russia will be able to play the energy trump card. Moves are already well under way to neutralise that particular angle.

 

[Splitlink]

Putin would not have dared do this prior to Obama---and I mean starting fom the Crimean incident.

We have been weak ever since Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded and I do not say this is a bad thing, only that is the wrong thing.

We do not want wars and it seems as if Putin is using the old communist method of pushing against weakness and retreating against pressure, trying to see how far we will go. If he thinks that we are soft, we've had it. It's as simple as that.

The Israelies may be wrong in our eyes but they are protecting themselves and have the willpower to do it---right or wrong. We have lost that and it is a very dangerous situation to be in.

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

We do not want wars and it seems as if Putin is using the old communist method of pushing against weakness and retreating against pressure, trying to see how far we will go. If he thinks that we are soft, we've had it. It's as simple as that.

Interesting point. Putin is a strong leader and despite whether you like him or not, he has years of experience as PM, President and KGB before that. His years of experience on the physical and psychological battlefield make him far more experienced than the likes of any other US/EU bureaucrats.

Looking at Crimea, he took Crimea then pushed further into Ukraine only to then pull out. This was a tactic that allowed the West to think 'We made him retreat back out to Crimea' whilst he could then hold on to Crimea if he behaved. He is once again pressing the nerves of the West, and so far the EU has looked weak leaving just the US to impose sanctions.

The Israelies may be wrong in our eyes but they are protecting themselves and have the willpower to do it---right or wrong. We have lost that and it is a very dangerous situation to be in.

Interesting you mention the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It has seemed to me over the last few years the US has tried to distance itself from Israel as the world grows frustrated with Netanyahu. Recently Putin has been cosying up to them giving them his full support. Perhaps he is looking for support there knowing the influence they hold in the US.

 

[Splitlink]

Interesting you mention the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It has seemed to me over the last few years the US has tried to distance itself from Israel as the world grows frustrated with Netanyahu. Recently Putin has been cosying up to them giving them his full support. Perhaps he is looking for support there knowing the influence they hold in the US.

If we had gone into Syria, there seems to have been a real danger that we could have picked the wrong side, bad as the Assad regime is. This is born out by the ISIS uprising in Iraq. Since Russia is as worried about Muslim Fundamentalists as we are, friendship with Israel seems to make sense. Which begs the question, what are Russia and the West quarreling about, when we have the same mutual enemies?

It's all about being top dog, really, isn't it? The US has had it's nose put out of joint by China and the old Communiasst countries and Russia is a bit too grabby for comfort.

 

[Pat494]

If we had gone into Syria, there seems to have been a real danger that we could have picked the wrong side, bad as the Assad regime is. This is born out by the ISIS uprising in Iraq. Since Russia is as worried about Muslim Fundamentalists as we are, friendship with Israel seems to make sense. Which begs the question, what are Russia and the West quarreling about, when we have the same mutual enemies?

It's all about being top dog, really, isn't it? The US has had it's nose put out of joint by China and the old Communiasst countries and Russia is a bit too grabby for comfort.

imho the USA hasn't made a sensible foreign policy move yet. So what they squander trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Middle East, you may well say. The trouble is having bought Blair ( still employing him ) and probably Cameron they use the UK as their attack dog and squander our reserves too, also with no tangible rewards. Are the Iraquis, Afghanis etc. thankful ? Not that I have noticed. They give weapons away like no tomorrow and then discover Al Quaida etc are running that side ! How stupid can one country get ? Once the bastion of high morality ( before Vietnam ), now just another of the dirty dozen, money grubbing.