Ukraine crisis affects start of EU talks with Cuba
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - The European Union told Cuba on Wednesday it disagreed with its support of Russia in the Ukraine crisis as the dispute cast a shadow over talks aimed at improving relations between the communist-run island and European countries.
"It's a point of great concern to the EU," the EU's chief negotiator in the talks, Christian Leffler, told reporters in Havana.
Negotiators for the 28-nation bloc and Cuba met on Tuesday and Wednesday in Havana for a first round of talks. Only the European side spoke about the meetings afterward.
Leffler said the differences over Ukraine did not affect the talks but were an example of what would be discussed in future discussions.
Speaking hours before the first meeting, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez publicly criticized the European Union and the United States for imposing sanctions on a number of Russian officials.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/01/us-cuba-eu-idUSBREA4001U20140501
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)George W. Bush style diplomacy rides again.
Everyone must support Western Imperialism in Ukraine or they cannot cooperate with the West at all? While the World watches Ukraine devolve into something far worst than even Greece's current situation, that policy may meet with some resistance.
Have you seen what Christine Legarde has announced today?
'Bold program of reforms'http://rt.com/news/156056-imf-approves-ukraine-aid/
Lagarde argued that Ukraine has already shown its ability to undertake “comprehensive reforms,” listing a few of the sacrifices that have been made. “Whether it was a question of letting the exchange rate float, whether it was a question of reforming the procurement law, whether it was a question of modifying the price of gas to customers or to corporate. They’ve (Ukrainian government) done all these things to demonstrate their determination to endorse a very bold program of reforms,” Lagarde stated.
The IMF money comes with stringent terms, asking for various cuts and economic reforms. In the case of Ukraine, the requirements include a 50 percent increase in the price of gas for households, as well as a quick pension reform and lower government spending. The World Bank warned on April 10 that the loan terms set by the IMF would cut 2014 consumption in Ukraine by 8 percent, as well as erode capital investment.
The increased cost of household gas and district heating “will affect purchasing power and limit the government’s ability to boost capital spending this year. Thus, in 2014, we expect to see a decline in both consumption and fixed investment,” the World Bank said in a statement.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Why talk about what's going on in front of your eyes when you can speculate until the cows come home instead?
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)until the cows come home when you see what's going on in front of your eyes. "See" being the operative word here. The West and Europe to a lesser extent since Clinton's pro-expansion of the NATO (Eurozone) has left Russia ONE final answer with former SU satellites lining up on their border being coaxed into joining the EU, where they can borrow more money from the American taxpayer, who is now broke. And now we are at approximate end-game time.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)What does that mean? Russia has no choice but to interfere and possibly invade Ukraine? I no get.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)Ukraine unilaterally. What happens next? There will be an emergency meeting of the US and the Eurozone (spelled NATO) to force the Ukraine into NATO. Then in comes the defense equipment courtesy of the West's oligarchs. And suddenly Russia is surrounded and watches as its energy shipments are blocked. THIS IS THE NEOCON PNAC plan. Russia is finally taking a stance, courtesy of the Keive tire burning. Russia has to have one or two buffer states or they may as well push the red button. And China understands this too. Although China is not as strong as Russia, when they join them there is a synergistic effect.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)How Russia is taking any type of admirable "stance" in my book, I have no clue.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)slowly vanquished by its Number One Enemy is primarily concerned with "admirable"? Having said that, I would speculate that Ukraine will do far far better under Russia than themselves due to more support from a power with 3 times the GDP not to mention Economies of Scale. What will happen to Eukraine if they are left alone? Austerity? People roaming the streets looking for food? Help from the Eurozone? Which Eurozone country would that be?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)I think you are missing that huge fact.
Talk all you want about the EU or IMF or whatever. That's all secondary when it comes to the matter of Russian interference, meddling and domination of Ukrainian affairs.
Ukrainians have had enough of living under Russian control. That's not something they desire. It's something that is clear given centuries of past history.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)85% pro vote in Crimea to join the Russia, the Crimeans did NOT want to join Russia? The fact you are missing is why the Russians are doing what they are doing. Now, I think South and East Ukraine are pretty much split in the direction they want to go--Independence or Russian. But at least you have a reason for your point. But for arguments sake, let's say you are right about what the Ukrainians want. This has nothing to do with the position Russia is in now in with the West. Putin can die on the vine like a wrinkled grape and lose his entire country but have a happy Ukraine or fight to stay viable and maybe help Ukraine. This is the Russian motivation--fight or die. I'm not missing anything. It is an abstract thing with me. Putting pieces together and seeing why something is being done. Remember, this is all going to be so much more than academic real soon.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)"Fewer than one-in-five Ukrainians (12%) and Russians (16%) think the two countries should unite as a single state. Those living in Ukraine’s East (26%) and South (19%) are somewhat more enthusiastic about the idea of reuniting Ukraine and Russia, but support falls to the single digits in the country’s Center (5%) and West (1%). Similarly, a 32%-minority of Russian-speakers think the two countries should merge, compared with just 9% among Ukrainian-speakers."
Even in the South and East, a super-majority of Ukrainian citizens do not want to join Russia.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)it's only one poll. But my other point still stands. Why is Russia is fighting in East Ukraine? Because they have to-- Had the Kiev protests not occurred Russia would still be in waiting mode. Now, the cat is out of the bag. Russia has rearmed and are holding May Day celebrations in Moscow after a 22 year absence. I know what your position is now, Carcetti, and understand it. But I think you know what's going to happen with all these Western and NATO jets dumping men in formerly controlled SU satellites. High Noon On the Black Sea.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)What happens in Ukraine is Ukraine's business, not Russia. Whatever geopolitical ramifications between Russia and NATO or the EU or whatever, at the end of the day only one thing is certain: Ukraine is its own sovereign nation. It is not a Russian territory, nor does it desire to be a Russian territory. And it doesn't need to be Russia's punching bag just so Russia can assert itself to the West.
What Russia did was attempt to exploit an uncertain situation in Ukraine due to the recent shakeup in the government. It started with Crimea because they figured Crimea would be easy thanks to the large number of ethnic Russians living there due to decades of Russification years ago. Once that was secured, Putin figured Eastern Ukraine was fair game. After all, it was--in his own words--Novorossyia..."New Russia". It's just a big fat imperialistic land grab on Russia's part on a country that Russia simply cannot come to grips with the fact that Russia no longer controls.
Russia needs to mind its own fucking business. It's as bloody simple as that.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)your reasoning behind the Crimea annexation is pure fantasy. The SU will reform somewhat with former satellites a long distance from Russia years away.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)For 22 years since the breakup of the USSR, there was never any serious talk about annexation of Crimea by Russia. There was talk of an independent Crimea, but not Russian annexation.
So there's no question that Russia waited until the Ukrainian government was at its weakest and most vulnerable state before making its move on Crimea. Ditto on Eastern Ukraine. There's no coincidence on the timing there.
Regardless of whether or not you think a reunification of former Soviet states under some New Russian Empire is likely, couldn't you at least agree that such imperialist actions on Russia's part are immoral and wrong?
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)caused the Russians (Putin) to annex Crimea was the West's 5 billion dollar orchestration of the crises in Ukraine; tire burning, etc. in Kiev. I won't mention names though they are well known. That's why Crimea was annexed; it more or less was offered to Putin on an inflamed platter. The East and South Ukraine are different. These are "make hay while the sunshine" attempted takeovers with Russia using the treatment of pro-Russian Separatists as the precipitating factor. Could Putin himself be responsible for this precipitating factor? Sure. It also could be the other side. East and South Ukraine are weak because they are corrupt. So, I can agree with you more on East and South Ukraine than Crimea. Crimea is a done deal. South and East Ukraine are works-in-progress. But the West arching for military involvement is not helping settle the matter. The rest of Ukraine is really not on the table. I would have agreed that Russia's imperialist action would have been wrong had they not been caused by Western manipulation.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)That's total BS and you have been shown before that is total BS, so you continuing to push the "5 billion" figure reeks of something else, like the "50 Ruble army".
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/
The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related to weapons of mass destruction
former9thward
(31,949 posts)And what happens in Ukraine is Ukraine's business, not the U.S.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Russia is widely suspected of having sent its military operatives to mix in with armed militants in Ukraine to demand the annexation of certain portions of the country to......Russia.
The U.S. hasn't. The U.S. has no plans to annex portions of Ukraine for itself.
It's not the same.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)is considered that the aggregate amount Ukraine will need to borrow over a period of 10 years or so is c. $220 billion - secured against state assets , or any that remain unsold meanwhile , and covered by English, not local , law which means no write downs.
The EU has already caused Ukraine to agree to the sale of agricultural land on which there had been a moratorium since 1992.
Try servicing $220 billion let alone repaying it. The IMF has also already made clear there is to be no debt forgiveness.
Russian influence as opposed to control may have been a more accurate statement.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)I think the Ukrainians are being childish, those that haven't already moved out of the way. Expecting the EU to carry them as a dependency....haven't they been paying attention to Greece, Italy, Spain , Portugal and France? Even Finland is getting pinched now, because there will never be enough to satisfy the German and US banksters.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)we don't really know how the Ukrainians feel. We only know what we are fed. I get info from Turkey but I don't really know if that is good. However, I think you are right. German and US banksters is right. The upcoming war will be once again caused by global banking. Course, you know, Demeter, all this Russian--Ukraine stuff takes attention away from TPP, Immigration, Interstate Freeway Tolls and Internet Regulation, so the powers that be cannot be too unhappy minds are stuck on Ukraine. Oh, and your EU demolition timetable... I'll say closer to five. It's basically just Germany now anyways and Merkel is not real happy with information on her taken by the NSA not being released to her. What a wicked web we weave...
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)By not ceding themselves to the Russians?
Please, explain.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Cool prophecies.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yeah, they were just fooled into it. Nope, wouldn't be the centuries of imperial occupation by Tsarist and Soviet Russia and the attempted annihilation of their cultural identities through Russification that made them want to have some protection from an imperialist power.
Russia having NATO and EU countries right at their border is the cumulative blowback from centuries of their imperialist aggression in the region.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)was Bill Clinton's Quest. First he sold European Unity Abroad. Then he sold concert. Inertia would have kept your suggestion from happening--and fear. Clinton didn't have those roadblocks. But believe as you will. Or look it up: there are many references.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Russia can hardly be blamed for playing the game by the same rules we follow.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Yeah, let's forget Yanukovich essentially selling Ukraine to the Kremlin. Let's pretend that he and his cronies didn't fleece the Ukrainian treasury. Yeah, let's blame ALL that on the "West overthrowing the Ukrainian government."
Anything to defend your buddy Putin and support his goals.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"The West acted first..." Assuming the weak premise of your editorial is correct...
And in Crimea? And in Georgia?
(Insert distinction without a difference here)
Demeter
(85,373 posts)if they continue on their path of austerity to destruction....5 if they clamp down harder, faster.
Better to sell to Asia. I'm sure there are lots of sweet tooths to satisfy there...3 billion or so...
pampango
(24,692 posts)Euroscepticism is a common belief of the the European right. (The French National Front, the Dutch Freedom Party, the UK Independence Party are some of the leading examples but such parties exist in every European country.) Polls indicate that the right stands to gain ground in the EU parliamentary election coming up on May 22 largely on their support for weakening or destroying the EU and their opposition to immigration (particularly Muslim immigration).
It will be interesting to see how the Left campaigning in terms of these issues. Do they continue their traditional stance in support (with modernization) of the EU or do they move more the middle and meet the right halfway?
The EU has definitely been stupid about austerity over the past several years. As Paul Krugman said:
My problem isn’t with Europe, it’s with the bad policies that are ripping Europe apart, and with the officials who for whatever reason — intellectual inflexibility, ideological blinders, or, I suspect, sheer personal vanity, an unwillingness to admit that they were wrong — have refused to consider any modification of these policies despite years of disastrous results. And the attempt of these officials to wrap themselves in the mantle of European unity is truly contemptible.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/bushifying-the-berlaymont/
Krugman didn't say it specifically but the 'bad policies' - austerity - adopted by the EU since the beginning of the US-inspired Great Recession have given the far-right all the more ammunition to achieve their long term goal of weakening or eliminating "one of the best things to have happened to humanity over the past century". I hope the liberals in Europe wake up before it is too late.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It just means they don't buy the propaganda and swallow it whole. Especially when it is obviously propaganda.
I have no truck with the right. They are monsters. But they are not necessarily wrong about their opposition.
The EU has no intention of abandoning austerity. The ECB and IMF and World Bank are only starting to pay a little lip service to growth...in the belief that will calm the masses. It isn't working.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The left counters with propaganda (which they themselves 'swallow whole') about a decades-old belief about a united, open Europe? And the left displays an inability to add and subtract?
It is nice to know that "monsters" can "not necessarily be wrong" sometimes while the left is not only wrong but spreads false propaganda. That all sounds like the reverse of the situation in the US where the far-right is oblivious to the facts, science and history which the left uses to make its case.
I disagree. Liberals make mistakes (just not as often as conservatives) - austerity being one - but they learn from them (something conservatives rarely seem to do). Perhaps European liberals are now only paying 'lip service' to growth and not undertaking a real change in policy. I hope not. If it is just 'lip service' then European liberals are stupid. I prefer to believe they are not.
I hope you are wrong but you may be right. If you are right, the EU will fall apart and I know where most of the celebrating will take place.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)There will be repression and riots, which has already started in several places, if not outright war...which some groups are trying desperately to get off the ground.
There are no parallels between European politics and American. The names may sound the same, but the goals and policies couldn't be more unalike.
And the Euro-Left has lost its base, btw. That's what happens when the 1% jumps in the river of politics...lots of churning and mud, but no place to drink.
NO LIBERAL wanted austerity....those were NEOCON/NEOLIBERAL 1%ers. They called themselves "Liberals" for propaganda purposes, and stuffed the EU down everyone's throats by offering nirvana and delivering hell.
pampango
(24,692 posts)If liberals just use the term for propaganda purposes but are not really liberal, does the far-right to the same? Are they really liberals but call themselves far-right for PR purposes?
Europe still has the best distribution of income and the strongest safety nets in the world even if they are not as good as they were 5 years ago before the Great Recession. If the EU is "hell", please give us hell here in the US.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)France is just on the verge of tipping into the 3rd world hell that that EU has created for Greece (and more to follow)
These people are losing everything, just as we have lost everything, and it all boils down to bad economic policy and deregulation of finance. They are getting the hell we permitted the 1% to create for us. It worked so well here, they want to take it global.
And the far-right are still far right. And very proud of it. But they aren't the 1%, either. The 1% finds the far-right are cheaply bought and love to destroy stuff, so fascists are very useful tools, indeed.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Europe has had over the past few decades because of the problems it has had in the past few years of the Great Recession. If you look at European history the peace and prosperity they have had over the past decades is not a common occurrence there.
And what do you wish to replace it with? A continent of competing nationalistic governments with tariffs and visa requirements on each other. The "free market" of each country for itself - kind of the large version of the conservative 'free market' of each man for himself. That has not worked real well in European history.
Since you claim that the 1% owns the EU explain why they have not "bought" the far-right. It would be a 'cheap' investment to bring the fascists around to supporting their goals as well. In your world, the 1% may regret not making this investment. The right is poised to make gains in the EU parliamentary elections later this month. If that happens there will be more pressure from the far-right to weaken or end the EU which, under the scenario you construct, would be something the 1% would not want to see.
Or perhaps your explanation is that the 1% have 'bought' the Left (hopefully not as 'cheaply' as the far-right can be bought) but has strategically propped up the far-right as the main opposition to the EU so that they can point to Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders (among many others) and say "Look at the people who oppose us. They are all far-right wackos." The far-right of course does not realize that it is being played, genuinely believing that the destruction of the EU will bring about a return to strong, nationalistic countries that value competition more than cooperation. Will the 1% wait until just the right time to 'buy' the far-right so that they do not realize their dream?
And the left is the 1%?
The tea party has a lot to learn from your analysis.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)The goal of the EU is to reduce Europe, to cut out all the safety net. Watch what they do, not what they say, these 1% Elitist banksters.
pampango
(24,692 posts)France's Far-Right's High Hopes On May Day Display
Hundreds of supporters of France's far-right National Front political party attend
the party's annual May Day rally in front of the Paris Opera on Thursday.
The National Front is in high spirits for its annual rally this year. In March, the party won the mayoral races in 11 cities across the country. The party hopes to increase its influence by electing National Front candidates to the European Parliament on May 25.
The marchers chanted, "Non to Brussels, oui to la France," expressing their disgust with the European Union. There were many young people in the crowd. Twenty-five-year-old Jean Baptiste Vondeville took a bus to the rally with a group from the northern city of Lille. He says this year there's an electricity in the air.
These people say the European Union controls France's destiny. And they say that years of uncontrolled immigration from Africa and Muslim countries are decimating the country's culture and values. One of the National Front's favorite slogans is "On est chez nous," or "We are in our home."
They're also against the new trans-Atlantic trade agreement currently being negotiated between Europe and the United States. One man calls the treaty "a way for America to colonize Europe."
http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/frances-far-rights-high-hopes-may-day-display
So the goal of the EU is to destroy the safety net created in Europe since the EU's inception. (That requires some mental gymnastics but I can handle that.) By the way, the far-right did not create the safety net in Europe (liberals did that), so it is unlikely that the fascists will come to the rescue as you seem to think they will.
You will note that the National Front focuses on hating the EU and opposing immigration (both stances sound like the tea party if you substitute the UN for the EU). They make little mention of protecting the safety net. Nor should you expect them to.
What makes you think that the 1% has it worse in countries that aren't members of the EU or that have limited immigration? Can you think of any examples of countries that have followed the National Front's policies and have better distributions of income and stronger safety nets than you find in EU countries?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)
The goal of the 1% Elitists who are mismanaging the EU is to trash the social network.
The social network predates the Euro.
The 1% Elitists are not Liberals. Even if they say they are. Watch what they do, not what they say.
I have no idea what you even mean by the rest of your post. Perhaps you should lie down with a cold compress on your head for a bit....
pampango
(24,692 posts)You have been trashing the EU not just the Euro.
"So the goal of the EU is to destroy the safety net created in Europe since the EU's inception. (That requires some mental gymnastics but I can handle that.) By the way, the far-right did not create the safety net in Europe (liberals did that), so it is unlikely that the fascists will come to the rescue as you seem to think they will."
That means: You said that the EU's goal is to reduce the safety net. My response was the safety net was created under the EU. (Incidentally, this safety net along with strong unions and progressive taxes has created the most equitable nations in the world.) you posted that with respect to the far-right "But they aren't the 1%, either." My conclusion from your posts is that the EU (controlled by the 1% who call themselves liberals) is trying to destroy the safety net that it fostered, the far-right is not controlled by the 1% and the far-right is trying to destroy the EU which is trying to destroy the safety net. That certainly cast the far-right in a rather positive light.
"You will note that the National Front focuses on hating the EU and opposing immigration (both stances sound like the tea party if you substitute the UN for the EU). They make little mention of protecting the safety net. Nor should you expect them to."
That means: The far-right makes no pretense of being interested in protecting the safety net that you think the EU "liberals" are out to get. They are interested in "US vs THEM" issues like immigration and national sovereignty. The idea of everyone working together for the common good is not popular on the right - whether it is within countries or among countries.
What makes you think that the 1% has it worse in countries that aren't members of the EU or that have limited immigration? Can you think of any examples of countries that have followed the National Front's policies and have better distributions of income and stronger safety nets than you find in EU countries?
That means: What do you have in mind to replace the EU? A continent of competing countries with closed borders and tariffs against each other? History shows that the 1% thrives in that scenario just as well, or better, than it does currently.
There are several posts in the last few days here on DU pertaining to the fact that the 1% in Europe received a much smaller percentage of the income gains since 1975 compared to the 1% in any other part of the world - including those countries where national sovereignty (strict immigration laws and tariffs that the National Front would love to see) is used to keep THEM and THEIR stuff away from US.
There must be examples of countries that do not belong to the dreaded EU with its relatively open immigration and no/low tariffs, which have stronger safety nets, a stronger middle class and a better distribution of income than EU countries have. Russia? China? India? The US? Some small island nation somewhere?
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)facilitating the demise of Ukraine by turning them into Greece redux. Do people think folks impoverished by austerity are going to thank the people who did this to them, which ain't Russia. Up is down. Down is up. You sure are on top of this stuff, dipsydoodle. I wonder how much longer the EU will remain viable.