|
|
On March 28 2014 20:36 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 20:10 zeo wrote: Because asking the people of your country to decide their own destiny through a referendum is only something an evul dicktator would do. Assuming, of course, that the referenda are held with a fair process. Of course. But the same could be said about the upcoming elections in Ukraine, having elections or any type of voting so close to a very polarizing event is silly. Having a referendum about the federalization of Ukraine in a year or two would be perfectly fine. When Montenegro split from Serbia they needed 55% of the vote for it to be legal, 55,5% voted yes and no one objected. If the population of eastern Ukraine want to distance themselves from Kiev so they are not held hostage every ten years, even if 55,1% percent want it, it should be an option given to them.
|
On March 28 2014 20:10 zeo wrote: Because asking the people of your country to decide their own destiny through a referendum is only something an evul dicktator would do.
"The majority of the country of ukraine doesn't have a clue what's going on in the ukraine right now."
"Let's have a vote."
I'm paraphrasing since i needed to googletranslate.
Seems like an awesome premisse to call for a referendum, if you literally just said "those guys are clueless".
On a different note: the idea actually would not be bad, inherently. But we all saw how fair and happy the referendum in crimea was, based on that, i can understand every single person calling bullshit on that.
Of course. But the same could be said about the upcoming elections in Ukraine, having elections or any type of voting so close to a very polarizing event is silly.
You mean, after armed forces of a foreign country are marching through the streets? I'd call that as polarizing as it gets, wouldn't you?
|
On March 28 2014 20:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 20:10 zeo wrote: Because asking the people of your country to decide their own destiny through a referendum is only something an evul dicktator would do. "The majority of the country of ukraine doesn't have a clue what's going on in the ukraine right now." "Let's have a vote." I'm paraphrasing since i needed to googletranslate. Seems like an awesome premisse to call for a referendum, if you literally just said "those guys are clueless". On a different note: the idea actually would not be bad, inherently. But we all saw how fair and happy the referendum in crimea was, based on that, i can understand every single person calling bullshit on that. I'm not talking about a referendum immediately. In a year or two.
You mean, after armed forces of a foreign country are marching through the streets? I'd call that as polarizing as it gets, wouldn't you?
Euromaidan would of course be the main polarizing event in this whole story because it was the catalyst for the demographic and political turmoil in Ukraine right now.
|
On March 28 2014 21:01 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 20:59 m4ini wrote:On March 28 2014 20:10 zeo wrote: Because asking the people of your country to decide their own destiny through a referendum is only something an evul dicktator would do. "The majority of the country of ukraine doesn't have a clue what's going on in the ukraine right now." "Let's have a vote." I'm paraphrasing since i needed to googletranslate. Seems like an awesome premisse to call for a referendum, if you literally just said "those guys are clueless". On a different note: the idea actually would not be bad, inherently. But we all saw how fair and happy the referendum in crimea was, based on that, i can understand every single person calling bullshit on that. I'm not talking about a referendum immediately. In a year or two.
Well, in two years, you might be right. But if googletranslate doesn't cheat me, it's not about other regions wanting to go away from kiev (as you said), but about the other regions voting if the referendum of crimea "has to be accepted".
Might be wrong there since googletranslate cheated me a couple of times already, so take it with a grain of salt.
Edit:
Nevermind, got cheated again. After reading what he really said, it seems a bit more like a russian puppet trying to make daddy happy. He knows as much as everyone else here, that there won't be any referendums after the last one. And the ukraine would be stupid to do so, whoever is leading it, knowing that they won't create "states" but "more regions for russia".
As populistic as it gets. I wonder where his "referendum-happiness" were when people were demonstrating for him to go away. Didn't come to mind back then, what a surprise.
|
Why Europe's Far Right Is on the Kremlin's Side
Given that one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated reasons for invading Crimea was to prevent “Nazis” from coming to power in Ukraine, it is perhaps surprising that his regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe. But, in both cases, Putin’s motives are not primarily ideological. In Ukraine, he simply wants to grab territory that he believes rightly belongs to him. In the European Union, he hopes that his backing of fringe parties will destabilize his foes and install in Brussels politicians who will be focused on dismantling the EU rather than enlarging it. overall a very good article showing Kremlin's double standards.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141067/mitchell-a-orenstein/putins-western-allies
|
72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state.
http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427
72% of 1500 respondents from 43 regions, you wanted to say :D
|
On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427 How is this different from the people in the US and EU that say that Snowden and Assange are traitors?
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
i see bitter pro-maidan ukrainians trying to kick dirt in Russia' face
good
thats all you can do after destroying your country
User was warned for this post
|
Someone can be critical of government secrecy while also considering the actions of Snowden illegal. Nice distraction though.
|
On March 28 2014 23:28 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427 How is this different from the people in the US and EU that say that Snowden and Assange are traitors? I don't think many people outside of USA call these persons traitors, since the static betrothal is monogamous in these circles. Distortion is usually ubiquitously frawned upon in the western countries, to the point of being illegal in many cases (and yes, USA has problems with a certain general "not being entirely truthful" in congress.). Concealment is a diffrerent issue entirely, but that has to be understood in delineated settings to really make sense.
|
On March 28 2014 23:33 farvacola wrote: Someone can be critical of government secrecy while also considering the actions of Snowden illegal. Nice distraction though. So if the poll stated 54% of Americans are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state, it would be somehow more acceptable than '54% of Russians are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state'.
|
Neither is acceptable. In fact I will be horified that such a large proportion of Americans would think it would be ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state.
Of course in zeo's world, it appears to be perfectly ok if the Russian government does it, it appears. Also "but USA!" ; Zeo never get tired of using it to distract.
Reasonable point? "But USA". I though we've been through this. So many times. The actions of another country does not make the action of another country any more or any less acceptable.
|
On March 28 2014 19:24 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 19:14 PaleMan wrote: i don't use "russian sources" at all, i'm just speaking to my ukrainians buddies - every day brings several deaths in cities they live in it's a matter of time when critical point will be reached Breaking news, people are dying sometimes due to several reasons! Carcrashes, illnesess and other, not necessary due to revolutions. Critical point already passed, personally about me, I've changed my point of view after Crimean annexation, after few interviews by mr. Putin when he told than non-russian forces but self-protection Crimean activists acting there, and few days later he told that if ukrainian army will start to fire, russian soldiers will hide behind womens and childrens. I just don't get, how can u say this on public if u're a leader of nuclear country. And by the way, everybody might be involved in information war. If u want, I can make a pictures from our central park in this weekend, u'll see that people are tired of all this and they simply relaxing and enjoying the spring. So many teenagers, above and beyond this ages people aswell, young generation with love in their eyes, not with thoughts about civil war. Next picture is for fun and was made like month ago, this person reminds me about one hollywood actor :D + Show Spoiler + Leonardo DiCaprio lol
|
On March 29 2014 00:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Neither is acceptable. In fact I will be horified that such a large proportion of Americans would think it would be ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state.
Of course in zeo's world, it appears to be perfectly ok if the Russian government does it, it appears. Also "but USA!" ; Zeo never get tired of using it to distract.
Reasonable point? "But USA". I though we've been through this. So many times. The actions of another country does not make the action of another country any more or any less acceptable. When did I say it was perfectly acceptable for the Russian government to distort facts? I was just replying to a 'but Russia!' thread of thought.
|
On March 28 2014 23:28 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427 How is this different from the people in the US and EU that say that Snowden and Assange are traitors? I thought only US goverment hates them. EU goverments have show support for Snowden and Assange.
|
On March 28 2014 22:45 Cheerio wrote:Why Europe's Far Right Is on the Kremlin's Side Show nested quote +Given that one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated reasons for invading Crimea was to prevent “Nazis” from coming to power in Ukraine, it is perhaps surprising that his regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe. But, in both cases, Putin’s motives are not primarily ideological. In Ukraine, he simply wants to grab territory that he believes rightly belongs to him. In the European Union, he hopes that his backing of fringe parties will destabilize his foes and install in Brussels politicians who will be focused on dismantling the EU rather than enlarging it. overall a very good article showing Kremlin's double standards. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141067/mitchell-a-orenstein/putins-western-allies
+ Show Spoiler [full article] + Given that one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated reasons for invading Crimea was to prevent “Nazis” from coming to power in Ukraine, it is perhaps surprising that his regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe. But, in both cases, Putin’s motives are not primarily ideological. In Ukraine, he simply wants to grab territory that he believes rightly belongs to him. In the European Union, he hopes that his backing of fringe parties will destabilize his foes and install in Brussels politicians who will be focused on dismantling the EU rather than enlarging it.
In Hungary, for example, Putin has taken the Jobbik party under his wing. The third-largest party in the country, Jobbik has supporters who dress in Nazi-type uniforms, spout anti-Semitic rhetoric, and express concern about Israeli “colonization” of Hungary. The party has capitalized on rising support for nationalist economic policies, which are seen as an antidote for unpopular austerity policies and for Hungary’s economic liberalization in recent years. Russia is bent on tapping into that sentiment. In May 2013, Kremlin-connected right-wing Russian nationalists at the prestigious Moscow State University invited Jobbik party president Gabor Vona to speak. Vona also met with Russia Duma leaders including Ivan Grachev, chairman of the State Duma Committee for Energy and Vasily Tarasyuk, deputy chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Utilization, among others. On the Jobbik website, the visit is characterized as “a major breakthrough” which made “clear that Russian leaders consider Jobbik as a partner.” In fact, there have been persistent rumors that Jobbik’s enthusiasm is paid for with Russian rubles. The party has also repeatedly criticized Hungary’s “Euro-Atlantic connections” and the European Union. And, more recently, it called the referendum in Crimea “exemplary,” a dangerous word in a country with extensive co-ethnic populations in Romania and Slovakia. It seems that the party sees Putin’s new ethnic politics as being aligned with its own revisionist nationalism.
The Kremlin’s ties to France’s extreme-right National Front have also been growing stronger. Marine Le Pen, the party leader, visited Moscow in June 2013 at the invitation of State Duma leader Sergei Naryshkin, a close associate of Putin’s. She also met with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and discussed issues of common concern, such as Syria, EU enlargement, and gay marriage. France’s ProRussia TV, which is funded by the Kremlin, is staffed by editors with close ties to the National Front who use the station to espouse views close to National Front’s own perspective on domestic and international politics. The National Front wishes to replace the EU and NATO with a pan-European partnership of independent nations, which, incidentally, includes Russia and would be driven by a trilateral Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance. Le Pen’s spokesman, Ludovic De Danne, recently recognized the results of the Crimea referendum and stated in an interview with Voice of Russia radio that, “historically, Crimea is part of Mother Russia.” In the same interview, he mentioned that he had visited Crimea several times in the past year. Marine Le Pen also visited Crimea in June 2013.
The list of parties goes on. Remember Golden Dawn, the Greek fascist party that won 18 seats in Greece’s parliament in 2012? Members use Nazi symbols at rallies, emphasize street fighting, and sing the Greek version of the Nazi Party anthem. The Greek government imprisoned Nikos Michaloliakos, its leader, and stripped parliamentary deputies of their political immunity before slapping them with charges of organized violence. But the party continues to take to the streets. Golden Dawn has never hidden its close connections to Russia’s extreme right, and is thought to receive funds from Russia. One Golden Dawn**–linked website reports that Michaloliakos even received a letter in prison from Moscow State University professor and former Kremlin adviser Alexander Dugin, one of the authors of Putin’s “Eurasian” ideology. It was also Dugin who hosted Jobbik leader Vona when he visited Moscow. In his letter, Dugin expressed support for Golden Dawn’s geopolitical positions and requested to open a line of communication between Golden Dawn and his think tank in Moscow. Golden Dawn’s New York website reports that Michaloliakos “has spoken out clearly in favor of an alliance and cooperation with Russia, and away from the ‘naval forces’ of the ‘Atlantic.’”
Finally, a cable made public by WikiLeaks shows that Bulgaria’s far right Ataka party has close links to the Russian embassy. Reports that Russia funds Ataka have swirled for years, but have never been verified. But evidence of enthusiasm for Russia’s foreign policy goals is open for all to see. Radio Bulgaria reported on March 17 that Ataka’s parliamentary group “has insisted that Bulgaria should recognize the results from the referendum for Crimea’s joining to the Russian Federation.” Meanwhile, party leader Volen Siderov has called repeatedly for Bulgaria to veto EU economic sanctions for Russia.
In addition to their very vocal support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea within the EU, Jobbik, National Front, and Ataka all sent election observers to validate the Crimea referendum (as did the Austrian Freedom Party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, Italy’s Forza Italia and Lega Nord, and Poland’s Self-Defense, in addition to a few far-left parties, conspicuously Germany’s Die Linke). Their showing was organized by the Russia-based Eurasian Observatory For Democracy & Elections, a far-right NGO “opposed to Western ideology.” The EODE specializes in monitoring elections in “self-proclaimed republics” (Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh) allied with Moscow, according to its website.
The Putin government’s cordial relations with Europe’s far right sit oddly, to say the least, with his opposition to “Nazis” in the Ukrainian government. Yet Putin’s dislike for Ukrainian “fascists” has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with the fact that they are Ukrainian nationalists. The country’s Svoboda and Right Sector parties, which might do well in the post–Viktor Yanukovych Ukraine, stand for independence in a country that Putin does not believe should exist separate from Russia.
Similarly, Russian support of the far right in Europe has less to do with ideology than with his desire to destabilize European governments, prevent EU expansion, and help bring to power European governments that are friendly to Russia. In that sense, several European countries may only be one bad election away from disaster. In fact, some would say that Hungary has already met it. As support for Jobbik increases, the anti-democratic, center-right government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has tacked heavily to the right and recently signed a major nuclear deal with Russia. Russia plans to lend Hungary ten billion euro to construct two new reactors at its Paks nuclear plant, making Hungary even more dependent for energy on Russia. Jobbik’s Vona wants to go even further, taking Hungary out of the EU and joining Russia’s proposed Eurasian Union.
European parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for the end of May, are expected to result in a strong showing for the far right. A weak economy, which was weakened further by the European Central Bank’s austerity policies, has caused the extreme right vote to surge. Current polls show the far-right parties in France and Holland winning the largest share of seats in their national delegations. Brussels strategists worry that 20 percent of members of the new European parliament could be affiliated with parties that wish to abolish the EU, double the current number. That could cause an EU government shutdown to rival the dysfunction of Washington and deal a major blow to efforts to enlarge the Union and oppose Russian expansionism.
It is strange to think that Putin’s strategy of using right-wing extremist political parties to foment disruption and then take advantage -- as he did in Crimea -- could work in southern and western Europe as well. Or that some of the extreme right parties in the European parliament, who work every day to delegitimize the European Union and whose numbers are growing, may be funded by Russia. Yet these possibilities cannot be dismissed. Russia might soon be able to disrupt the EU from within. To counter Russia, European leaders should start launching public investigations into external funding of extreme-right political parties. If extensive Russia connections are found, it would be important to publicize that fact and then impose sanctions on Russia that would make it more difficult for it to provide such support. Pro-European parties must find a way to mobilize voters who are notoriously unwilling to vote in European parliament elections. Europe will also have to rethink the austerity policies that have worsened the grievances of many Europeans and pushed them to support the anti-system, anti-European right. Although Germany has banned extreme right parties from representation, other countries have not. Germany may have therefore underestimated the extent of damage austerity policies could do to the European project and should rethink how its excessive budget cutting, monetary prudence, and export surpluses are affecting politics in the rest of Europe.
Putin’s challenge to Europe must be taken seriously. Rather than making another land grab in his back yard, he might watch patiently from the sidelines at the end of May as pro-Russia far-right parties win a dramatic election victory in European parliamentary elections. These elections could weaken the European Union and bring Russia’s friends on the far right closer to power.
I'd like to add that Putin's Russia (or his Party One Russia), isn't just funding far-right parties, but pretty much any populist party willing to distance themselves from the EU and support `closer ties with Russia'. In Estonia, the Center party (I guess you could call them center-left, but they have no actual party line left) is a partner party to One Russia. For example, the security police in Estonia, Kapo, (think FSB or CIA or MI6) stopped Yakunin from handing over 1.5 million euros to the Center Party leader Savisaar in November 2010 (before parliamentary elections). Note that most parties spend less than 2 million euros on elections in Estonia. As the party's chief officer is currently under investigation for inserting `donations' into their budget from sources known to be fraudulent, it's fair speculation to say that the funding was merely provided differently.
|
On March 28 2014 20:36 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 20:10 zeo wrote: Because asking the people of your country to decide their own destiny through a referendum is only something an evul dicktator would do. Assuming, of course, that the referenda are held with a fair process.
Majority rules is not without it's problems; it can ignore the will of the oppressed minority
|
On March 28 2014 23:28 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427 How is this different from the people in the US and EU that say that Snowden and Assange are traitors? Assange isn't a US citizen he can't be a traitor, Snowden violated a contract he signed, then fled punishment. He could have easily stayed and faced the obvious consequences like bradley manning, federal prisons are actually quite nice in the US, if you're going to commit a crime make it a federal one. But then that would be standing up and believe in what you did was right. Technically he could only be considered a traitor if they could prove he was moving state secrets to other states, i don't think they ever did. The fact because he flees to counties that would pay for such state secrets makes it questionable. Btw, wiki leaks should do a better job in protecting their sources instead of how they treated bradley manning imo.
On March 29 2014 00:19 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2014 00:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Neither is acceptable. In fact I will be horified that such a large proportion of Americans would think it would be ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state.
Of course in zeo's world, it appears to be perfectly ok if the Russian government does it, it appears. Also "but USA!" ; Zeo never get tired of using it to distract.
Reasonable point? "But USA". I though we've been through this. So many times. The actions of another country does not make the action of another country any more or any less acceptable. When did I say it was perfectly acceptable for the Russian government to distort facts? I was just replying to a 'but Russia!' thread of thought. Well considering Russia govt owns most news in Russia and bans any dissent about the russian government. I'd say informal nationalism is less worse than government backed nationalism.
|
On March 29 2014 00:20 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2014 23:28 zeo wrote:On March 28 2014 23:01 Cheerio wrote:72% of russians consider it acceptible to conceal some information in the news when its required, and 54% are confident that its ok to distort information to protect the interests of the state. http://fom.ru/SMI-i-internet/11427 How is this different from the people in the US and EU that say that Snowden and Assange are traitors? I thought only US goverment hates them. EU goverments have show support for Snowden and Assange. Ask your neighbors Sweden how much their government has been supporting Assange
|
|
|
|
|
|