Ukraine gold sent to America

[Nemo1024]

Lookin on history, russia is a wolf. When Sovjet get formed millions died, millions have died in the russian wars. Know with a new leader Russia is starting to look out of its own boarders. To be a neighbour country to Russia would scare the hell out of me If I was a leader (not under russia hands). If I were them I would send all my gold to a neutral country that shown international stability during any event the 150 last years. US have not have a war in the country, only pearl harbour bombing. Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

If more parts in Ukraine becomes a fedaration of Russia, I rather keep the Ukrainian gold reserve a other place. This if something happens, then "Ukraine" has resources that backs up the people elected goverment if they go in exile, if a intervention are started.

What is strange I think, is that a russian speaking minority are so rude that they want to rip a country to pieces just because they talk russian and are from or born by russians. Regardless of historical border lines. in the 21 century we can not look on history and do claims from that, there will be wars over and over again because everybody is entitled to their history. And never be peace and social growth. If they love Russia so move to the promised land russia.
Such beheavior just encourage other countries not to help  people needing it into their countries to help, because later they will have independence, in 10, in 50 or 100 years....and civil war arises.

Norway for example could go to war to Sweden and claim the land their lost for hundreds a year of. Norway with is echonomy could build a military that Sweden could dream off. Also Norway could got to war towards Denmarkbecause historically it was Norwegian. What about claiming Iceland also, it was Norwegian also during the Viking area. There is plenty of reasons to claim land for any country if looking historical on it.

Just my thoughts...

Russia has a great interest in having a destabilised country for a neighbour, for just long enough to take advantage of the destabilisation to take over the country.

That logic fails. By taking a destabilised state and incorporating it into your own country, you take all the instability, which would undermine your country from within. Russia is interested in a neutral, stable buffer state. That's one of the reasons Russia was subsidising gas and giving grants (not loans) to Ukraine. This is also the reason why Russia now pushes for constitutional reforms so that Ukraine becomes a federation, which should keep the interests of both Eastern and Western regions in balance. And Russia is prepared to give financial help to Ukraine (again) once a legitimate government is formed.

Since when of 60-80 percent of a population constituted a minority?
You appear to have absorbed too much to the Western media propaganda. Sigh.
You know that when Soviet Union was formed, millions of Russians died too, right?

You parallel to Norway is not applicable as those territories that Norway could historically lay claim to are not populated by Norwegians and have no local support for secession to Norway. Though the relation between Norwegians and Swedes reminds to some degree relation between Russians and Ukrainians.

The situation can be better compared to Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I'll let others respond to your other statements.

[1715664113]

1715664113

[1715664113]

1715664113

[1715664113]

1715664113

[1715664113]

1715664113

[Onar]

Thats the point, and what I ment. when Sovjet get formed, Millions of Russians died. After Sovjet get formed also millions was killed by Stalin. It says something about the one that is power (I am not talking about the people).
 I have not absorbed the western propaganda, its about neutral data in the historical books. For example some still talks that the judecamps germans had in ww2 not existed, due to the fact of historical documentation. Many people have also died in many substitud US wars, also in Russian substituded wars. In general any superpower always has bad influence, thats the backside of being a super power. In the western world (at least where I live) I can look up russian media, US media, europe media etc. But Russia government control the media almost 100%, so the people just get one side of the story and thereby also support that side. I seen news programs so antiwestern that is to get seek of. The western media I look on does not say bad words about russia in general, but bad words about what they do when they do something considered wrong. And regards to international law, that russia also support, its not legal to incorporate Crime into Russia the way they done. But since it isin their interest they do it. If the people in crime not see that Russia just do it since it is in Russias best interest, and not to be deliberatior. Russia has military and strategic interest in claiming Crime. If it not had they had let Crime sail alone. It's not good for the security of small countries around the world, that superpowers can support and eventually somehow incorporate a country to a federation. This is colonizing, something that belongs to the history.

In Ukraine in total there is not 60 - 80% of the population that not is Ukrainian. At least 60 -80% are not Russians, I think I can claim this without check the data. In Crime maybe 60 - 80% are russians, but Crime is a part of ukraine. Crime and Ukraine should works towards understandment rather than build up conflict towardseach other. Since Crime is ukrainian, they need to respect the borders, in same way Ukrainian should respect the russians in Crime and give them the rights in same way as all ukrainians.  Even if a country eventually would have 80% that is not original habitants, this population should not work towards destabilisating the original structure of that country. It do not make social growth in the long run, but puts a country developement back to zero. It takes years to build up a good social existens for all habitants in a country. If for example sweden in future would have 60% Muslims or from a other one country, it does not entitles them to sease land and create/claim a own country or federation. Such thing will make sure there always is a war waiting in the future. Instead all minorities and the one in plural should work towards solutions that gain the country as a hole in the long run. And if country will vote to be federation, all habitants will be able to vote. And if you have other meanings than the majority you do not get beaten or in worse case a gun to your head (this may be "wetern" propaganda"), or lose your job or other. You are respected of your individual stand point, and if the majority means something other the voting shows it and you respect the result.

My point in general is that secrecation, minority or not should be a issue in the 21 century. People should work towards other goals. No mather where you come from religious, rase, political or other.

Regards to Norwegian claiming, it can apply to Denmark and greenland. But in general the first "western" human seting foot on Iceland and Greenland were a norwegian. Even the North America. But in Greenland and N america have their own natives that already were there. But Iceland  population is from Norway back in time (even also danish and swedish but mostly Norwegians).

In general I think its sad what happening in Ukraine, regardless of which side you are on. Its just reinforce that history repeats itself over and over again. Crime is a hotspot regards to historical events. 

Since when of 60-80 percent of a population constituted a minority?
You appear to have absorbed too much to the Western media propaganda. Sigh.
You know that when Soviet Union was formed, millions of Russians died too, right?

I'll let others respond to your other statements.

[bryant.coleman]

Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

I can't believe this BS. It has been almost 70 years since the US stole Germany's gold reserves and they are yet to give that back. And adding to that the US debt now exceeds $17 trillion. I'd say that US is the worst place to send the gold reserves right now.

[Nemo1024]

Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

I can't believe this BS. It has been almost 70 years since the US stole Germany's gold reserves and they are yet to give that back. And adding to that the US debt now exceeds $17 trillion. I'd say that US is the worst place to send the gold reserves right now.

Agreed. As ironical as it may sound, Ukraine would have had better chance of having its gold back if they sent it for safekeeping to Russia. 

[Onar]

I agree that US is  not the ideal place to send the gold due to debth and other. But historicaly its the country wich been stable within its borders. I would not send the gold to China, or a small country in general that not has the military power itself to keep biger countries outside. But today, US will not get away with stealing Ukraine gold. They are a Nato member, and if they somehow would steal the gold I bet at least germany would have a saying since they have historical experience.

Regards to Russia, I would not send gold or anything else there because of the corruption and how closed things are. I am not talking abount the people, but people high up. Russia have a "closed" democracy that not allows who ever party to go to elections. If you look on how rich a small part of the people are compared to the average for me its looks like the system is designed to enrich a small portion of the population. Even the rich are living and moving to the western world. Russia has one of the worlds biggest rawmaterial resourches, and still they are in debth and other issues.
 Its not entirely a russia having that problem, but beacause so many few gets the wealth, the population inheritage the problems. If Russia were runed for the population, they would distributed the wealth to the benefit of country, federations and population.
US also have similar problems where capitalists are sitting with the main wealth, and the poorest are strugling very hard. US also have a partysystem I not entirely support. But its more open than the Russian though.
In general I do not like the split and concquer strategi superpowers in general has. 

But in general when a country like Ukraine has problems, who can they trust? They trust the one that helsp and support them....

Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

I can't believe this BS. It has been almost 70 years since the US stole Germany's gold reserves and they are yet to give that back. And adding to that the US debt now exceeds $17 trillion. I'd say that US is the worst place to send the gold reserves right now.

Agreed. As ironical as it may sound, Ukraine would have had better chance of having its gold back if they sent it for safekeeping to Russia. 

[Balthazar]

Onar
Well... It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

After Sovjet get formed also millions was killed by Stalin. It says something about the one that is power.

Stalin's real surname is Dzhugashvili, he was georgian... Lenin was half-german.. So, according to your logic, Georgia and Germany are wolves here.

Since Crime is ukrainian, they need to respect the borders

People is a source of power in the democratic state. That's why UN Charter, article 1 paragraph 2 has greater priority.

in same way Ukrainian should respect the russians in Crime and give them the rights in same way as all ukrainians.

Central government did absolutely nothing for the people of Crimea during the last three decades. No roads, no schools, no language recognition, absolutely nothing. Only dictatorship, corruption and humiliating bills (de facto withdrawal of autonomy in 1993, multiple attempts to edit national anthem and many other cases). And that's a major issue here.

Even if a country eventually would have 80% that is not original habitants, this population should not work towards destabilisating the original structure of that country. It do not make social growth in the long run, but puts a country developement back to zero. It takes years to build up a good social existens for all habitants in a country.

Are you saying that Crimea residents staged a Nazi coup in Kiev?  

If for example sweden in future would have 60% Muslims or from a other one country, it does not entitles them to sease land and create/claim a own country or federation.

Sorry, but that's how democracy works. Obama is afraid of real democracy just like a vampires are afraid of holy water, that's why whe see all these hysterical screams about violation something there.

And if country will vote to be federation, all habitants will be able to vote.

Your approach violates an international law.

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Pay some attention, it says peoples, neither states nor governments. That's the point here.

Such thing will make sure there always is a war waiting in the future.

... or prevent it in the future, which is much more likely. An autonomy of Crimea has been unilaterally withdrawn by Kiev's government in 1993, which is a direct violation of constitution and all treaties between Sebastopol and Kiev. So, it seems that your approach doesn't work here. People have already seen that they can't trust Kiev's promises and decided to declare the republic of crimea. Here's the end of old story, and beginning of another...

[Balthazar]

Regards to Russia, I would not send gold or anything else there because of the corruption and how closed things are. I am not talking abount the people, but people high up. Russia have a "closed" democracy that not allows who ever party to go to elections. If you look on how rich a small part of the people are compared to the average for me its looks like the system is designed to enrich a small portion of the population.

The same is correct for any "liberal" society, without exceptions. USA, Germany, France, Russia, et cetera they are all "imitative"/"managed"/"moderate" democracy states. Money always wins here, that's why liberalism is a cancer of the civilization.

[Onar]

Regards to Us debths, its huge, but the echonomy is also huge also outsie borders. The thing is noone can collect the depth, it will result that countires and banks around the world loses their money. If this happens they only have a toilet paper to use. Because the debth gets worthless.

For Ukraine US might be the best option. In worste case, if things goes in a away it probably not will, they can be in war and if that happens there is no more Ukraine. By transporting the gold out of country, the government have control of it no matter what happens. Maybe aGermany would be better?

Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

I can't believe this BS. It has been almost 70 years since the US stole Germany's gold reserves and they are yet to give that back. And adding to that the US debt now exceeds $17 trillion. I'd say that US is the worst place to send the gold reserves right now.

[Nemo1024]

Regards to Russia, I would not send gold or anything else there because of the corruption and how closed things are. I am not talking abount the people, but people high up. Russia have a "closed" democracy that not allows who ever party to go to elections. If you look on how rich a small part of the people are compared to the average for me its looks like the system is designed to enrich a small portion of the population.

The same is correct for any "liberal" society, without exceptions. USA, Germany, France, et cetera they are all imitative democracy states. Money always wins here.

Onar, after my last reply to you I was sitting thinking which country I would send gold too if I had to evacuate it from Ukraine and actually had authority to do so. I came up short.

By transporting the gold out of country, the government have control of it no matter what happens. Maybe aGermany would be better?

The question is, which government? 

[bryant.coleman]

Regards to Us debths, its huge, but the echonomy is also huge also outsie borders.

I had a hard time understanding the posts. Anyway I'll make that simple.

1. USA is not a good place to store another nation's gold reserves. Because they similarly took the gold from Germany and never gave back.
2. The best option for Ukraine was probably Germany or France, but I don't think there was enough threat to move the gold reserves in the first place.

[Onar]

Onar
Well... It seems that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not have any 100% idea of all, only my interpretantions.
[/quote]

After Sovjet get formed also millions was killed by Stalin. It says something about the one that is power.

Stalin's real surname is Dzhugashvili, he was georgian... Lenin was half-german.. So, according to your logic, Georgia and Germany are wolves here

Yes and Germany have been a superpower historical and has been a dangerous power. They had a war builder that resulted in WW2.
I am not talking about Russians as wolfes, I talking about the ones running the countries. I would in no circumstances call and generalize a hole people to onee therm. It looks like rulerships methods are inherited, no where where you are from. For example Russia government still uses Sovjet methods. For example Putin is a formal KGB worker. He is thought the Sovjet way. It does not mather where in Russia he is from.
[/quote]

Since Crime is ukrainian, they need to respect the borders

People is a source of power in the democratic state. That's why UN Charter, article 1 paragraph 2 has greater priority.

[/quote]

Yes thats through, but do Crime represent entire Ukraine. What about the Tatars that are the natives of Crime. Maybe they should decide what Crime do? They are a minority group in Crime, just as russian Crimes are in Ukraine.

in same way Ukrainian should respect the russians in Crime and give them the rights in same way as all ukrainians.

Central government did absolutely nothing for the people of Crimea during the last three decades. No roads, no schools, no language recognition, absolutely nothing. Only dictatorship, corruption and humiliating bills (de facto withdrawal of autonomy in 1993, multiple attempts to edit national anthem and many other cases). And that's a major issue here.

Thats why I say that Ukrainians need to respect Crime russians also, recognition goes both way and history must be left to be history and work towards similar goals. Otherwise all this will repeat itself in future. In general the formal government of ukraine are no longer, isn't the formal governmental the blame of the bad 3 decades?
My discussion is not about repressing russian Crimes, I think entire country should recognice every minority and not surpress, if you are a tatar, russian, Ukrainian or other minority anywhere in the country.
[/quote]

Even if a country eventually would have 80% that is not original habitants, this population should not work towards destabilisating the original structure of that country. It do not make social growth in the long run, but puts a country developement back to zero. It takes years to build up a good social existens for all habitants in a country.

Are you saying that Crimea residents staged a Nazi coup in Kiev?  

No, I do not believe that Crimea residents staged a Nazi coup or other coup in Kiev. The coup in Kiev was because of the former presidents corrupt behavior  and neglect over years. But what happend in Crime was that they took advantage of the vacuum that appeared in Kiev, to make a vote to join Russia. Also the options to vote on was like this. Do you want to be a own country or be a russian federation. This exclude many that had voted otherwise.

If for example sweden in future would have 60% Muslims or from a other one country, it does not entitles them to sease land and create/claim a own country or federation.

Sorry, but that's how democracy works. Obama is afraid of real democracy just like a vampires are afraid of holy water, that's why whe see all these hysterical screams about violation something there.

[/quote]
Then we need to close our borders, do not help other minorities group. In future they may claim your land so is better to turn the back to them!
In general territoral borders that exists today should be respected by citizens and foreign countries. And the aim should be to build better social conditions for all citizens. not one group. History shows civil war, and war towards other countries just fuel future wars.

And if country will vote to be federation, all habitants will be able to vote.

Your approach violates an international law.

[/quote]
In Crime, only Crime people made a vote. I mean entire Ukraine should have voted. I may take wrong regards to international law, but have not claimed I have right. Its just an opinion. But thats maybe because I am from a country where minority groups are taken care of positive.

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Pay some attention, it says peoples, neither states nor governments. That's the point here.

Such thing will make sure there always is a war waiting in the future.

... or prevent it in the future, which is much more likely. An autonomy of Crimea has been unilaterally withdrawn by Kiev's government in 1993, which is a direct violation of constitution and all treaties between Sebastopol and Kiev. So, it seems that your approach doesn't work here. People have already seen that they can't trust Kiev's promises and decided to declare the republic of crimea. Here's the end of old story, and beginning of another...

It may be. But the old Kiev government does not exist any more. How long did the last president be in power? Hopefully the new government will run by democratic principles and also care about the minorities..

In general I do not think it will be better to be a part of a huge country as Russia. A small area like Crime would be neglected because of the bigger picture. But this is a subjective opinion. In general when looking on Russia most parts are neglected unless area is located in central parts.

[Onar]

The same is correct for any "liberal" society, without exceptions. USA, Germany, France, et cetera they are all imitative democracy states. Money always wins here.

Thats true. Money wins everywhere, thats why people want power. Russia, China US, and other.

By transporting the gold out of country, the government have control of it no matter what happens. Maybe aGermany would be better?

The question is, which government? 
[/quote]

Thats a good point. My assumption is the original government and that it is shipped to a trustable country.
If I were to choose, I would choose one of the Nordic countries thats protected by Nato.

Or a option is to dig a hole in the ground. Draw a map, hide the map and live cryptaded message of where to find in a bitcoin hash, that will be released sometime in the future.
This would be a trye Goldcoin, compared to many of the other fake coins that are created.

[Onar]

Regards to Russia, I would not send gold or anything else there because of the corruption and how closed things are. I am not talking abount the people, but people high up. Russia have a "closed" democracy that not allows who ever party to go to elections. If you look on how rich a small part of the people are compared to the average for me its looks like the system is designed to enrich a small portion of the population.

The same is correct for any "liberal" society, without exceptions. USA, Germany, France, Russia, et cetera they are all "imitative"/"managed"/"moderate" democracy states. Money always wins here, that's why liberalism is a cancer of the civilization.

In general I do not believe in 100% "liberal" nor "communistic". echonomy. I believe in the nordic solution a hybrid, between cpital and social echonomy. Where the desgn of the echonomy is to help, protect also the poor. This to avoid dividing society in different groups that in long run fuels revolution and not social growth.
But even here, money talks.

[Kiki112]

Germany still demands it's gold reserve back (as does France).

It was Russia who defeated the Nazi Germany. And how did the US got to keep all the gold?

they both did it, Russia and US/GB/FR..

[Nemo1024]

Germany still demands it's gold reserve back (as does France).

It was Russia who defeated the Nazi Germany. And how did the US got to keep all the gold?

they both did it, Russia and US/GB/FR..

Yes, but the war would have been shorter and the losses would have been some million fewer if GB and US responded to Soviet's multiple pleas for help and opened the second front in 1942. So excuse Russians (and by that I mean Soviets from all the involved republics) when they feel a little peeved.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-allies-second-front-in-world-war-ii-why-were-canadian-troops-sacrificed-at-dieppe/32403

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on the other hand, was an outspoken opponent of a second front. He may have feared, as some historians suggest, that a landing in France might lead to a duplication of the murderous warfare associated with the battlefields of northern France in the First World War. But it is more likely that Churchill liked the idea that Hitler and Stalin were administering a major bloodletting to each other on the Eastern Front, and that he believed that London and Washington would benefit from a stalemated war in the East. Since he already had nearly three years of war experience, Churchill had much influence on Roosevelt, a newcomer to the war in Europe. It is therefore understandable that the opinion of the British leader ultimately prevailed, and that plans for opening a second front in 1942 were quietly discarded. In any event, Roosevelt himself discovered that this course of action – or rather, inaction – opened up some attractive prospects.

[Kiki112]

they have every right..

even before WW2, GB,France and the US were trying to hussle Germany into marching east, you can see that from various illustrations and smaller things

they didn't want a communist country start anywhere in the world as they were afraid of it spreading out to their own country

[Nemo1024]

"Fear of communism", was just a pretext for the public's benefit. We see the same pattern of fomenting anti-Russian sentiment before WWI, and nowadays. The simple and more correct answer would be: they didn't want the competition, and they wanted the resources.

[Kiki112]

yep, you got it right

they have established an order where everything seems equal to the public but in reality we're all just capitalist slaves of bigger countries

[niothor]

Regards to stability and its power US is the best place to send a country gold. If you sends it to a neighbour country that might be under russian influece somehow, the chance is bigger to never see the gold.

I can't believe this BS. It has been almost 70 years since the US stole Germany's gold reserves and they are yet to give that back. And adding to that the US debt now exceeds $17 trillion. I'd say that US is the worst place to send the gold reserves right now.

Agreed. As ironical as it may sound, Ukraine would have had better chance of having its gold back if they sent it for safekeeping to Russia. 

It's 99 years since Russia is safe keeping romanian gold , but that of course it's normal

[Balthazar]

It's 99 years since Russia is safe keeping romanian gold , but that of course it's normal

It seems that somebody is misinformed... According to Central Bank records, ~64 tonnes were already returned during 1930-1990. Another ~7 tonnes were arrested as reparations for the damage, which was caused by WW2. I think that it's much better than situation with Germany.