West and Russia accuse each other of 'coercing' Ukraine

Reuters ^ | Feb.1, 2014 | Stephen Brown and Missy Ryan

[1rudeboy]

(Reuters) - The United States and Europe exchanged angry words with Russia on Saturday in a tug-of-war over Ukraine, with U.S., EU and NATO leaders saying Moscow must not strong-arm Kiev into an unpopular alliance.

At conference in Munich where Western diplomats met leaders of the Ukrainian opposition, United States Secreatary of State John Kerry said the protesters believe "their futures do not have to lie with one country alone, and certainly not coerced".

"Nowhere is the fight for a democratic, European future more important today than in Ukraine," he said. "The United States and EU stand with the people of Ukraine in that fight."

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, outnumbered in Munich by supporters of Ukraine's overtures to the European Union that were suddenly ditched by President Viktor Yanukovich last November, hit back with the same charge.

Lavrov said "political choice was preordained for Ukraine" when NATO offered Kiev potential membership of the western military alliance in 2008. Ukraine demurred but does cooperate with NATO on international peace missions such as Afghanistan.

"Here a choice is being imposed," said Lavrov, accusing some EU politicians of fomenting anti-Yanukovich protests by people who "seize and hold government buildings, attack the police and use racist and anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans".

They were trading barbs at the annual Munich Security Conference. Differences between Russia and the western allies on Ukraine and Syria, where Moscow backs President Bashar al-Assad, made for a chilly atmosphere on the podium there.

On the sidelines, boxer-turned-politician Vitaly Klitschko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, an ally of jailed former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, as well as lawmaker Petro Poroshenko and pop star Ruslana Lyzhychko lobbied for support for the opposition.

[Greysard]

Russia doesn't spend money to modernize its own industry, WHY, in all that is holy, would they spend money on Ukraine's?

If I were to guess:

• Because it's cheaper there:
  • The labor is cheaper, and plentiful, and highly educated.
  • There are many railways and roads, as well as water transport (very cheap.) This includes access to Black Sea and, consequently, export paths through Bosphorus.
  • There are existing facilities, so that the investments can be smaller. It's much cheaper to renovate an existing steel mill in Donbass rather than to build a new one somewhere in Siberia, in the middle of nowhere.
• Because the pollution stays in Ukraine. Immoral, but actively used by every "green" European country like Sweden (they exported most of their dirty energy production to Poland.)
• It benefits Russia because it creates economic links to Ukraine that are not as easy to break (compared to Ukrainian President today deciding something and tomorrow undeciding that, as a true master of his word.)
• Some technologies stayed in Ukraine, like production of specific sorts of steel and other alloys. Some Russian designs call for those alloys. Redoing the design costs more than just getting the material that works.
• It benefits Ukraine because it gets richer and happier. You want happy neighbors. A politically unstable Ukraine is dangerous. They do have nuclear power stations, and an "accident" on one of them will be heard (and measured) all around the world.
• Many Russians have relatives in Ukraine (and vice versa, of course.)
• Politically, friendly Ukraine is a barrier against NATO.

This is not to say that development within Russia is out of question... but Ukrainian resources are already there, right across the border - they are just poorly managed (which is obvious.)

A similar set of facts is the reason why your computer is built in Taiwan from parts made in Malaysia. It's not a conspiracy of Dell and IBM and HP - it's caused by natural reasons that apply to everyone. This is why the USA buys steel from China instead of upgrading domestic steel mills (say, in Pittsburgh.) [Today you'd die from old age before you negotiate all the red tape paperwork with EPA.]

[cunning_fish]

>>>You’re not serious, are you? Ukraine was independent under Stalin? Ukrainians were so happy under Stalin? Then one must ask why they welcomed the Nazis as liberators.

Forced collectivization under Stalin hit Ukraine especially hard.<<<

Not everyone has welcomed Nazis as liberators.
There were two poor peasants and one urban shoe polisher who got jobs in newly established industries per every kulak sent to gulag in 1930s. Czarist regime before Stalin was a feudal tyranny and it wasn’t pretty. It is a primary reason why commies got an upper hand, and Stalin was popular in USSR, including Ukraine.

[Ivan Mazepa]

Your points make too much sense, unfortunately, this is not how FSU Russia and Ukraine operate. There is no economic vision, neither country is making investments, and if there are investments, a large portion is wasted through corruption. In all, Russia is just as inept as Ukraine (I mean there is less than a week left till the Olympics and they're still building hotels in Sochi)

It benefits Russia because it creates economic links to Ukraine that are not as easy to break (compared to Ukrainian President today deciding something and tomorrow undeciding that, as a true master of his word.)

Conclusion for Ukraine should be the exact opposite. If Russia throws a tantrum and closes border when Ukraine makes a political decision, it is not a reliable trading partner, and Ukraine should not walk, but run the other way