Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:59 pm


Yes, I am sure Ukraine is going to invade Crimea and arrest her. Of course, I am sure a 34 year old prosecutor will be added to the targeted sanctions and must be trembling at the loss of her Swiss bank accounts.


Considering she's been speaking out against the events in Kiev before Russia took over Crimea and when she was actually in Kiev then yes that's courage. She left for Crimea after her resignation in protest was not accepted.

Also it would stop her from traveling to any western country.

No, it looks like 1/3 of the country has no problem speaking out against it. To speak out in favour of Kiev would have been the brave thing to do in Crimea, given that so many of the people there are pro-Russian.


Perhaps. Although they've got tanks rolling in the streets in the eastern part of Ukraine. Also why speak in favor of Kiev? What exactly have they do to merit any praise?

So she's not being brave, she's just being bought?


People were bought overall with promises of a better life. Promises that are being fulfilled. Explain to me why a local citizen in Crimea would oppose the takeover of Russia when you've got some of the most corrupt public institutions in Europe running the show in Kiev. When armed gang men in Kiev threaten to wipe out the Russians in Ukraine ( before Russia intervened ) and an interim PM that is going to raise prices by a substantial amount.

Actually, I think we probably agree on this. I'm not keen on popular movements trying to overthrow democratically elected governments - whether in Egypt, Thailand, Venezula or Ukraine. The current international trend towards this is very concerning - it's very destructive of constitutional politics and tends to result in authoritarian strongmen emerging. Much better if possible to wait for the next elections. That said, Yanukovich was apparently very corrupt (i.e. illegal and illegitimate) and repressive.


Yanukovich is no more repressive and corrupt then those in power right now. What you think they are in any different? They aren't. In fact they worse since at least he didn't order the freaking army against armed protesters in Kiev, and yes they were armed with AKs besides shields and bats.

An army in any country cannot easily be expected to turn on it's own people. You can't send tanks and APCs inside cities to "restore order" and think that will go well. Libya, Syria, Egypt showed that very fucking well.

International law. Invading weak neighbours to annex their territory is so 19th century. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.


There is no international law, at least not one recognized globally ( or has the International Criminal Court stature been signed let alone ratified world wide? Certainly not, especially by Russia and the US ).

Countries do whatever the fuck they want if they have political/military and economic power to do so. Invading other countries for your own gain is still a thing of the 21st century.

Forecast close to zero growth this year though - perhaps due to the current adventurism.


Still better then many of ours which are in decline.

Cry me a river. My country, the UK, has not done any better. And it's nothing to do with the EU, btw. The global financial crisis of 2008 - the hint is in the name - started in that well known EU state, the USA. I cannot conceive of how leaving the EU - my country's major trading partner - would have made it any easier for the UK to cope with the aftermath. Ditto Romania (I think you avoided joining the Eurozone, which is probably constraining some EU economies such as Greece, which probably have not done well out of the EU).


The point was that for us joining the EU was not a really beneficial move economically, nor would be for Ukraine. The only things they would get would be higher costs then they are paying today just as we got. Oh sure there was an increase in wages but no match for the large price increases.

Consider this. Prices in a country like France are only 2 or 3 times higher, while other prices for food/utilities etc. are only marginally higher, and that's in expensive parts of the country, but wages are 6-10 times higher in France.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:52 pm

Whether she is a hero or a traitor depends on who gets to win the conflict and write history.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:37 am

Last I checked, Russia is a signatory to the UN charter, which specifically states that war of aggresion is illegal (I haven't checked the precise wording).

Also, High food prices or high prices would not be better outside the EU, as you would then also have tolls and duties for import/export. And I think I can say that, as Denmark has the highest consumer prices in the EU (Nota Bene: that statistic is adjusted for income), while also having had the worst gini score change from 2008-2012 in the EU, so for the poor part of the population, its been worse for the poorest since Romania joined the EU, than it has for Romania (or any other EU country).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:02 am

The UN charter does not define Wars of Aggression, but rather the relevant articles are:

Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
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; [/quote

Article 2, paragraph 4
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.


Now based on that you might make the claim that Russia broke UN "law" with regards to Acts of Aggression ( except the charter is a treaty not a law in itself ), but here's the catch to that.

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.[13]


So that's the issue here. The Security Council is the only UN body with any real authority that can determine whether or not a country was responsible for a breach of the UN charter. The catch? Veto power on US Security Council resolutions.

Even the International Court of Justice, even if it were to rule that Russia broke it's commitments to the UN, would still be unable to force Russia to comply to it's rulings unless the Security Council passed a binding resolution on the subject, which it never will with Russia vetoing them.

Also, High food prices or high prices would not be better outside the EU, as you would then also have tolls and duties for import/export. And I think I can say that, as Denmark has the highest consumer prices in the EU (Nota Bene: that statistic is adjusted for income), while also having had the worst gini score change from 2008-2012 in the EU, so for the poor part of the population, its been worse for the poorest since Romania joined the EU, than it has for Romania (or any other EU country).


Except that countries like Ukraine and Romania are capable of producing most of their food.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby econ21 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:02 am

Io.Draco wrote:In fact they worse since at least he didn't order the freaking army against armed protesters in Kiev, and yes they were armed with AKs besides shields and bats.


The red line for Kiev is the Russian military coming into East Ukraine. They said they don't want to use force against their own people protesting but they will fight if Russia tries to do to East Ukraine what it did to Crimea. The army was called in after those men in green shot up Krammatorsk police station and took the airbase.

Watch the video of the assault of the police station here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27005783

Tell me - how should a government respond to that? It's not a protest - it's a military attack.

And very likely it's a military attack by Russian soldiers. Those same green men, who later captured 6 Ukrainian APCs, seem to be Russian, according to what they said to Western journalists:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... WEML6619I2
econ21
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:47 am

The guys in the east right now don't seem that much different then those who were in Kiev who took down Yanukovich. I am supposed to believe that Russian special forces only have a couple of AKs and Molotovs?

This is how the people look in the east who are armed: Old AKs, very few balistic vests and Molotovs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wxEIWu9c94#t=1m40

This is how the troops in Crimea looked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBLs_AsBtjg#t=3m36s Balistic vests, green uniforms, black AK-100s

Don't believe the crap in the western media, look at other sources as well. Look at footage on the ground yourself at statements from more neutral parties. The head of Finland's intelligence was recently quoted as saying that there no Russian Special Forces in Eastern Ukraine.

Also when the Ukranian military moved it's troops in local people: Men, Women, Elderly stopped them in same cases, in other cases they clashed with unarmed civilians. Ukraine is own it's way towards becoming a failed state.

If any government needs to move in the military against it's own regions and then get confronted by unarmed civilians, beyond the armed confrontations, then that government has failed.

The people in the east want to leave the country and join Russia, or they want federalization of the country and they are willing to fight for that, if the government doesn't understand that only negotiations along with a referendum give the country the only chance it has of staying intact then they are bumbling fools.

As it stands Russia doesn't even need to move it's military to take over Eastern Ukraine. They can just wait for chaos to set in, for basic services to collapse in Ukraine and for the whole country to collapse in anarchy and then take over the pieces that they want.

If the central government had some economic strength, had a loyal military that was well supplied then they could take the regions by forces and impose the rule of law by crushing the rebellion ( human rights issues or not ), but they don't...in fact the oligarchs of Ukraine have had to give the military millions to pay for fuel, food and ammo.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:57 am

Io.Draco wrote:As it stands Russia doesn't even need to move it's military to take over Eastern Ukraine. They can just wait for chaos to set in, for basic services to collapse in Ukraine and for the whole country to collapse in anarchy and then take over the pieces that they want.

Which is entirely by design. It's the whole reason Russia is helping to destabilise the country - so they can gain without invading.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:36 am

Io.Draco wrote:The catch? Veto power on US Security Council resolutions.
[...]
unless the Security Council passed a binding resolution on the subject, which it never will with Russia vetoing them.

See, looking up article 27 (it was easy to find, as I assumed it must be there), its easy to see that Russia couldn't vote against, and thus veto, anything regarding russia in the current case (china on the other hand would possibly veto) - its not the threat of a veto that keeps it from being in teh sec.con., but a matter of not wanting to escalate it further. It is basically a Russia v NATO standoff, where Ukraine is up for grabs, as NATO won't enter militarily. Putin is testing the waters to see how much NATO wants to do, it has NOTHING to do with the lives of the ethnic russians in Ukraine, and everything to do with playing up the cold war that, for Russia, never ended.

Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.


Also note Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.



Io.Draco wrote:
Also, High food prices or high prices would not be better outside the EU, as you would then also have tolls and duties for import/export. And I think I can say that, as Denmark has the highest consumer prices in the EU (Nota Bene: that statistic is adjusted for income), while also having had the worst gini score change from 2008-2012 in the EU, so for the poor part of the population, its been worse for the poorest since Romania joined the EU, than it has for Romania (or any other EU country).


Except that countries like Ukraine and Romania are capable of producing most of their food.

Exception to what?
If its in exception to denmark, thats a false exception. Denmark exports more 1st tier produce than it imports, by a large amount. That doesn't men denamrk could sustain itself tomorrow if we cut off stuff, but you have to remember that denmark has been a member of the EU/EC since 1972 - so the open market has been a fact for so long that it doesn't make sense to try to be selfsuficient on all food fronts for instance - we produce what we can produce well and export it to thos ethat want it (bacon and butter amongst the most noted), and import what we would produce less well from those that prodce it well.

Being able to satisfy the demand for basic products (like food) also isn't a thing that inherently lowers prices, unless in a planned economy (and only hen if the planing is actually functional).

Romania (and the rest of europe) has suffered from an international trust crisis in regards to the financial markets that drive the way the west handles its economy (not just the west) - its purely a crisis of trust, but that affects the value of printed money (including coins), because money has no inherent value, as its basically an agreed upon system of IOUs. Currency is purely based on the trust that the issuing entity will honor the value ascribed - hence why currency fluctuates.

This has happened everywhere.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:59 am

I don't see how that would prevent a Russian veto. Russia can't be kicked out from the security council or be prevent from voting on resolutions.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:42 am

The piece Nooska quoted specifically says they'd be required to abstain from voting on matters concerning themselves.


So, how about the latest news: Some group in Donetsk has been handing out fliers outside synagogues claiming that the newly declared pro-Russian local government requires all Jews to register and declare their assets or face deportation. The fliers are marked up as official stuff from the head of that pro-Russian faction, but it's pretty clearly an attempt to discredit them by some other group, by associating them with antisemitism.
I don't play WoW any more.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Io.Draco » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:02 am

Is that so. Then how come when there was an actual vote on the legality of the Crimean takeover by Russia it was Russia who vetoed it? Doesn't seem to me that that's what it's mean as, but rather refers to how many votes it takes if a member abstains from voting.

I can find numerous instances of Security Council votes which concerned permanent and non-permanent members who did vote when the decision concerned them. For instance the UK vetoed a number of resolutions aimed at them with regards to Rhodesia.
User avatar
Io.Draco
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:33 pm

Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:47 pm

KysenMurrin wrote:The piece Nooska quoted specifically says they'd be required to abstain from voting on matters concerning themselves.


So, how about the latest news: Some group in Donetsk has been handing out fliers outside synagogues claiming that the newly declared pro-Russian local government requires all Jews to register and declare their assets or face deportation. The fliers are marked up as official stuff from the head of that pro-Russian faction, but it's pretty clearly an attempt to discredit them by some other group, by associating them with antisemitism.

Probably done by western media...I kid, though I can't say I'd be surprised.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:42 am

Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:35 am

fuzzygeek wrote:https://twitter.com/statedeptspox/status/448944053741031424/photo/1

Seriously?


That's pants-on-head retarded.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11020
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest