|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2014 20:56 Acertos wrote:
The FN's position with Russia and Putin is clear: it is their example (a xenophobic, nationalist, ultra conservative and profoundly antiamerican state which tries to promote an homogeneous and traditional society). Actually some of the international observers of the Donbass elections were from the FN. Russia always involve politics wity economy, we can just look at the prices of the gaz for the various countries in Europe, they vary depending on the degree of Putin friendliness of the country.
And I'm sure the FN could have easily found some deals in France and Western Europe but because of its friendship with the Kremlin they must have worked out a juicier deal. Like Sub said, the director of the bank is affiliated with Putin, and the FN has multiple influencial members who have a lot of contacts in Russia so it isn't surprising at all.
For the comment above: I don't know if you are being sarcastic but you have to understand that voting for nationalist loonies like Farage, Le Pen or Putin is what led and will lead to wars. Farage is the antithesis of being level headed, he is a loud biggot who only knows demagogy ans populism.
You don't need a xenophobic, nationalist. ultra conservative government to start wars. Just look at America.
Sure it's easier to dismiss Farage and the others as "nationalist loonies" but they raise real issues, issues that the ruling parties could deal with but they are not willing to.
|
On November 24 2014 23:09 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 20:56 Acertos wrote:
The FN's position with Russia and Putin is clear: it is their example (a xenophobic, nationalist, ultra conservative and profoundly antiamerican state which tries to promote an homogeneous and traditional society). Actually some of the international observers of the Donbass elections were from the FN. Russia always involve politics wity economy, we can just look at the prices of the gaz for the various countries in Europe, they vary depending on the degree of Putin friendliness of the country.
And I'm sure the FN could have easily found some deals in France and Western Europe but because of its friendship with the Kremlin they must have worked out a juicier deal. Like Sub said, the director of the bank is affiliated with Putin, and the FN has multiple influencial members who have a lot of contacts in Russia so it isn't surprising at all.
For the comment above: I don't know if you are being sarcastic but you have to understand that voting for nationalist loonies like Farage, Le Pen or Putin is what led and will lead to wars. Farage is the antithesis of being level headed, he is a loud biggot who only knows demagogy ans populism. You don't need a xenophobic, nationalist. ultra conservative government to start wars. Just look at America. Sure it's easier to dismiss Farage and the others as "nationalist loonies" but they raise real issues, issues that the ruling parties could deal with but they are not willing to.
that's how I would describe the Bush government
|
edit Oshuy answered clearly
|
|
|
oh ok, that makes sense. thanks oshuy. this makes the deal with the russian bank quite curious indeed.
|
On November 24 2014 16:01 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 09:08 nunez wrote:
sounds like a juicy conspiracy, i love those.
especially the ones relating to soft imperialism,
like this is.
and even moreso when russia is a culprit, because then
i can count on my best buddie sub40 backing me up.
however if it's US on the business end he will demand
that you produce and post a detailed paper trail in thread,
and scream bloody murder while you don't!
i could never wrap my head around how someone is
able to cope with that kind of cognitive dissonance.
rofl, actually it's hillarious. because
sub40 was shielding the ultranationalist and neonazi
elements of the maidan movement with his big 'ol
juicy butt, whose movement was and is receiving
funding from US.
will he ever go full-circle and ask how these
ultranationalists in ukraine got so popular?
depends on how buddy, buddy they get with
big Vlad. not very likely. Why did you format this like a poem.
I'm just sitting here trying to figure out a pattern to some secret message that might or might not be woven in there. Like "combine first letter of every paragraph" or some shit like that.
Havn't found anything yet.
|
On November 24 2014 23:09 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 20:56 Acertos wrote:
The FN's position with Russia and Putin is clear: it is their example (a xenophobic, nationalist, ultra conservative and profoundly antiamerican state which tries to promote an homogeneous and traditional society). Actually some of the international observers of the Donbass elections were from the FN. Russia always involve politics wity economy, we can just look at the prices of the gaz for the various countries in Europe, they vary depending on the degree of Putin friendliness of the country.
And I'm sure the FN could have easily found some deals in France and Western Europe but because of its friendship with the Kremlin they must have worked out a juicier deal. Like Sub said, the director of the bank is affiliated with Putin, and the FN has multiple influencial members who have a lot of contacts in Russia so it isn't surprising at all.
For the comment above: I don't know if you are being sarcastic but you have to understand that voting for nationalist loonies like Farage, Le Pen or Putin is what led and will lead to wars. Farage is the antithesis of being level headed, he is a loud biggot who only knows demagogy ans populism. You don't need a xenophobic, nationalist. ultra conservative government to start wars. Just look at America. Sure it's easier to dismiss Farage and the others as "nationalist loonies" but they raise real issues, issues that the ruling parties could deal with but they are not willing to.
Most wars America has fought have been geopolitical fights and proxy wars over spheres of influence in third world countries. That's not what he is talking about. He is talking about the potential of wars between nations on the European continent caused by nationalism fuelled by people like Putin, Le Pen and Farage. And no, America is not promoting this kind of nationalism and actually never has in the past.
|
us backing fascists and or nationalists happened many times, and still is happening, re: ukraine.
dat political expediency, maybe you were making some other point?
|
On November 25 2014 00:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2014 23:09 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 24 2014 20:56 Acertos wrote:
The FN's position with Russia and Putin is clear: it is their example (a xenophobic, nationalist, ultra conservative and profoundly antiamerican state which tries to promote an homogeneous and traditional society). Actually some of the international observers of the Donbass elections were from the FN. Russia always involve politics wity economy, we can just look at the prices of the gaz for the various countries in Europe, they vary depending on the degree of Putin friendliness of the country.
And I'm sure the FN could have easily found some deals in France and Western Europe but because of its friendship with the Kremlin they must have worked out a juicier deal. Like Sub said, the director of the bank is affiliated with Putin, and the FN has multiple influencial members who have a lot of contacts in Russia so it isn't surprising at all.
For the comment above: I don't know if you are being sarcastic but you have to understand that voting for nationalist loonies like Farage, Le Pen or Putin is what led and will lead to wars. Farage is the antithesis of being level headed, he is a loud biggot who only knows demagogy ans populism. You don't need a xenophobic, nationalist. ultra conservative government to start wars. Just look at America. Sure it's easier to dismiss Farage and the others as "nationalist loonies" but they raise real issues, issues that the ruling parties could deal with but they are not willing to. Most wars America has fought have been geopolitical fights and proxy wars over spheres of influence in third world countries. That's not what he is talking about. He is talking about the potential of wars between nations on the European continent caused by nationalism fuelled by people like Putin, Le Pen and Farage. And no, America is not promoting this kind of nationalism and actually never has in the past.
Yeah and not the European Institutions (and core countries), who forced on europe a stupid economic policy that lead to 10 % average unemployment, 25 % in Greece, an all out increase in disease (to the point that paludisme is surging back in Greece...), who let the NATO run all the way back to Russia's frontier ? This does not help fuel the hatred and dreaded "nationalism" ? Like attacking and destroying Irak played no role in the surge of islamic radicalism ?
Europe has been lead by incompetent for too way long, and we participated in today's mess. Let's take some responsabilities.
|
NATO didn't run to Russia's frontier, it's the other way around. The Ex-Soviet countries ran into the NATO, which they are allowed to do because they actually are sovereign nations. It's also hard not running into Russia at some point given the fact that it covers a pretty huge area. The country isn't exactly cramped when it comes to territory.
Russia has occupied her neighbouring nations until barely twenty years ago. They're using their resources to put pressure on them until today, don't forget the occasional war (e.g Georgia) if something doesn't happen they way Russia would like it to happen. Is it really so hard to understand why the majority of Eastern European countries has had enough of this?
|
On November 25 2014 02:00 Nyxisto wrote:
NATO didn't run to Russia's frontier, it's the other way around. The Ex-Soviet countries ran into the NATO, which they are allowed to do because they actually are sovereign nations. It's also hard not running into Russia at some point given the fact that it covers a pretty huge area. The country isn't exactly cramped when it comes to territory.
You don't get into NATO by paying a subscription like some tennis club you know.
Russia has occupied her neighbouring nations until barely twenty years ago. They're using their resources to put pressure on them until today, don't forget the occasional war (e.g Georgia) if something doesn't happen they way Russia would like it to happen. Is it really so hard to understand why the majority of Eastern European countries has had enough of this?
You know that the Georgia war was also linked to the enlargement of the NATO ? It was one of the justification for the war to Russian authorities.
NATO would have expanded by now to admit ex-Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia in 2008 to defend a rebel region, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.
Moscow has strongly opposed the expansion of the Western military alliance to include former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine.
NATO promised Georgia eventual membership at a summit in 2008, but enthusiasm for Tbilisi's entry cooled after the brief war later that year, which saw Russian troops invade Georgia to protect Georgia's tiny rebel region of South Ossetia.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/idINIndia-60645720111121
Eastern europe can desire to be finished with Russia, it doesn't mean that Russia has no justification for refusing NATO going all the way back to their border. And when Russia ask politely, nobody care.
|
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?" And actually NATO did listen to Russia. Institutions like the Nato-Russia council were created in 2002 to intensify cooperation. What the NATO is not willing to do is to accept Russia's ridiculous claims about her neighbouring states that are now independent countries.
Russian leaders should ask themselves why every country around them is running away from them instead of pointing the finger at Brussels or Washington.
|
On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?"
Maybe because NATO is a military group built to "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". When you promess not to go all the way to Russian's borders, you respect that promess, that's not that hard. I'm not sure NATO really need Georgia in for its fighting power.
|
georgia actually initated that war, don't put the blame on russia alone.
it took two to tango, said the eu investigative comission.
|
On November 25 2014 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?"
Maybe because NATO is a military group built to "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". When you promess not to go all the way to Russian's borders, you respect that promess, that's not that hard. I'm not sure NATO really need Georgia in for its fighting power.
This comes up really often. The thing about it is that Kohl and Genscher made the promise at a time when the Soviet Union still existed and at a time when no one really anticipated the dissolution happening so quickly. Only a few years afterwards all countries were fully sovereign. In this context it simply makes no sense to treat them like Russian puppet states whose political decisions are made in Moscow. The thinking in influence spheres is over, people are fed up with it. If Russia wants to increase their influence they actually need to compete and become an attractive country, which would first and foremost mean dealing with the mess that is their domestic political system and stop screaming about fantasy Nazis in Kyiv.(there are some of these people in Ukraine, but that is also the case in Hungary, where Putin is happily cooperating with the Jobbik party)
|
On November 25 2014 02:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 02:17 WhiteDog wrote:On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?"
Maybe because NATO is a military group built to "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". When you promess not to go all the way to Russian's borders, you respect that promess, that's not that hard. I'm not sure NATO really need Georgia in for its fighting power. This comes up really often. The thing about it is that Kohl and Genscher made the promise at a time when the Soviet Union still existed and at a time when no one really anticipated the dissolution happening so quickly. Only a few years afterwards all countries were fully sovereign. In this context it simply makes no sense to treat them like Russian puppet states whose political decisions are made in Moscow. The thinking in influence spheres is over, people are fed up with it. If Russia wants to increase their influence they actually need to compete and become an attractive country, which would first and foremost mean dealing with the mess that is their domestic political system and stop screaming about fantasy Nazis in Kyiv.
People are fed up with it, yet when you bypass it, you wake up Russia, you create civilian wars in countries (who think no ukrainian and no georgian were pro russian ?).
And this feeling of superiority coming from europeans is pretty boring really... Their "domestic political system" : you know they have gone from a totally corrupt "communist" system to a capitalist "democracy" since just 20 years ? Last time I checked, it took a revolution and eighty years of political trouble in France to set up a democracy, and a civilian war in the US.
|
On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?" And actually NATO did listen to Russia. Institutions like the Nato-Russia council were created in 2002 to intensify cooperation. What the NATO is not willing to do is to accept Russia's ridiculous claims about her neighbouring states that are now independent countries.
Russian leaders should ask themselves why every country around them is running away from them instead of pointing the finger at Brussels or Washington.
What about the people who didn't want anything to do with EU and NATO in these countries? Oh geez guys, half the country is extremely opposed to the EU and NATO. Lets topple their democratically elected president in a violent coup and have street thugs sign the country away on behalf of people that didn't elect them.
'Whats the worst that could happen?'
|
On November 25 2014 02:46 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?" And actually NATO did listen to Russia. Institutions like the Nato-Russia council were created in 2002 to intensify cooperation. What the NATO is not willing to do is to accept Russia's ridiculous claims about her neighbouring states that are now independent countries.
Russian leaders should ask themselves why every country around them is running away from them instead of pointing the finger at Brussels or Washington. What about the people who didn't want anything to do with EU and NATO in these countries? Oh geez guys, half the country is extremely opposed to the EU and NATO. Lets topple their democratically elected president in a violent coup and have street thugs sign the country away on behalf of people that didn't elect them. 'Whats the worst that could happen?'
Even Yanukovych was in favour of the European trade agreement and further integration up until the end of 2013 when Russia finally started to put on the thumbscrews. Actually Yanukovych was part of the negotiations that lasted several years. Serbia as a very pro Russian country has been talking about joining the EU for a very long time now. There is no real dilemma, except for the one that Russia has been fabricating.
That's the core difference between Russia and the EU. From an European standpoint you can be both "pro-Russian" and "pro-European". That doesn't work so well from the Russian point of view because the authoritarian government's whole legitimization stems from the fictional view that Russia is the worlds most bullied victim. If the enemies across the border go away so goes the justification for their domestic policies and grip on the population.
|
On November 25 2014 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 02:46 zeo wrote:On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?" And actually NATO did listen to Russia. Institutions like the Nato-Russia council were created in 2002 to intensify cooperation. What the NATO is not willing to do is to accept Russia's ridiculous claims about her neighbouring states that are now independent countries.
Russian leaders should ask themselves why every country around them is running away from them instead of pointing the finger at Brussels or Washington. What about the people who didn't want anything to do with EU and NATO in these countries? Oh geez guys, half the country is extremely opposed to the EU and NATO. Lets topple their democratically elected president in a violent coup and have street thugs sign the country away on behalf of people that didn't elect them. 'Whats the worst that could happen?' Even Yanukovych was in favour of the European trade agreement and further integration up until the end of 2013 when Russia finally started to put on the thumbscrews. Actually Yanukovych was part of the negotiations that lasted several years. Serbia as a very pro Russian country has been talking about joining the EU for a very long time now. There is no real dilemma, except for the one that Russia has been fabricating. That's the core difference between Russia and the EU. From an European standpoint you can be both "pro-Russian" and "pro-European". That doesn't work so well from the Russian point of view because the authoritarian government's whole legitimization stems from the fictional view that Russia is the worlds most bullied victim. If the enemies across the border go away so goes the justification for their domestic policies and grip on the population.
That's a lie tho. Europe never included Russia in any of its endeavour. Countries like Poland are not ready to see Russia as a partner really.
|
On November 25 2014 03:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 02:52 Nyxisto wrote:On November 25 2014 02:46 zeo wrote:On November 25 2014 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I know that, but how exactly is that a "justification"? "Yeah Georgia wanted to do it's own thing and we didn't like it, so let's fuck them, right?" And actually NATO did listen to Russia. Institutions like the Nato-Russia council were created in 2002 to intensify cooperation. What the NATO is not willing to do is to accept Russia's ridiculous claims about her neighbouring states that are now independent countries.
Russian leaders should ask themselves why every country around them is running away from them instead of pointing the finger at Brussels or Washington. What about the people who didn't want anything to do with EU and NATO in these countries? Oh geez guys, half the country is extremely opposed to the EU and NATO. Lets topple their democratically elected president in a violent coup and have street thugs sign the country away on behalf of people that didn't elect them. 'Whats the worst that could happen?' Even Yanukovych was in favour of the European trade agreement and further integration up until the end of 2013 when Russia finally started to put on the thumbscrews. Actually Yanukovych was part of the negotiations that lasted several years. Serbia as a very pro Russian country has been talking about joining the EU for a very long time now. There is no real dilemma, except for the one that Russia has been fabricating. That's the core difference between Russia and the EU. From an European standpoint you can be both "pro-Russian" and "pro-European". That doesn't work so well from the Russian point of view because the authoritarian government's whole legitimization stems from the fictional view that Russia is the worlds most bullied victim. If the enemies across the border go away so goes the justification for their domestic policies and grip on the population. That's a lie tho. Europe never included Russia in any of its endeavour. Countries like Poland are not ready to see Russia as a partner really.
You have it backwards again. Putin's is not prepared to participate in a system governed by laws. The West was perfectly fine with him and Yeltsin rigging their respective elections, they were even fine with him after 2008 for the most part. They were fine with him rigging the 2012 elections too, and suppressing the domestic democracy movement. They would have even let him annex Crimea. The problem is -- from the perspective of Merkel is that he no longer can be trusted. He lied to her about troops in Crimea, he lied to her about troops in Donbass, he goes on television and bashes all of Europe as a haven of homosexual fascism. Its a regime that is fundamentally afraid about staying in power, and this fear began in 2011 with the return of Putin directly to the Kremlin instead of just living in the shadows and letting his pet Medvedev be president for the full 2 terms.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/48e6fa76-70bd-11e4-8113-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Jvqvr3XP
What Podemos still needs to do is offer a coherent vision of life after a debt restructuring. It would be a good idea if the party organised itself at eurozone-level beyond its alliance with Syriza in the European Parliament, because that is where the relevant policy decisions are made. A debt resolution for Spain, necessary as it is, can only be the start of a wider policy shift.
The tragedy of today’s eurozone is the sense of resignation with which the establishment parties of the centre-left and the centre-right are allowing Europe to drift into the economic equivalent of a nuclear winter. It is a particular tragedy that parties of the hard left are the only ones that support sensible policies such as debt restructuring. The rise of Podemos shows that there is a demand for alternative policy. Unless the established parties shift their position, they will leave a big opening to the likes of Podemos and Syriza.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
