|
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 25 2014 03:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 03:10 WhiteDog wrote: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#axzz3Jvqvr3XPShow nested quote +
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.
I say europe never asked Russia to take part in anything and you talk to me about Putin and Merkel. I'm was talking about what happened since the end of the berlin wall.
Here is what Gorbatchev said about it :
The Soviet Union used to be not just an adversary but also a partner of the West. There was some balance in that system. Even though the U.S. and Europe signed a charter for a new Europe, the Charter of Paris, to demonstrate that a new world was possible, that charter was ignored and political gains were pursued to take advantage of the vacuum. The struggle for spheres of influence -- contrary to the new thinking we propounded -- was resumed by the U.S. The first result was the crisis in Yugoslavia in which NATO was brought in to gain advantage over Russia.
[...]NATO decided it would be an organization that intervenes anywhere on "humanitarian grounds." We have by now seen intervention not only in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq -- intervention without any mandate or permission from the United Nations.
So much for the new thinking of 20 years ago the West so eagerly embraced when I announced it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/gorbachev-post-cold-war-west_n_6116654.html
I don't know why you talk about trust, it's not about friendship but partnership and diplomaty. I wouldn't trust Germany either, or any country / politicians. You think I trust the french politician I vote for ?
|
To some extend this may be true, but a lot of countries interests are being neglected all the time. When the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of European countries were pissed. Did we start destabilizing whole countries just for retaliation? Russia's response is simply disproportionate and based on a highly biased and twisted version of history. Russia is obsessed with antagonizing the West because that is where they draw their identity from.
|
On November 25 2014 04:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 03:48 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2014 03:10 WhiteDog wrote: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.
I say europe never asked Russia to take part in anything and you talk to me about Putin and Merkel. I'm was talking about what happened since the end of the berlin wall.
Here are all the things Russia was invited to by Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relations#Partnership_and_Co-operation_Agreement
The reality is that Russia either under Yeltsin or Putin was not going to join an organization of democracies trying to build institutions based on the rule of law. It would be like cutting their own throats. Its the reason why Spain joined the European Community only after Franco died, not before.
Here is what Gorbatchev said about it : Show nested quote +The Soviet Union used to be not just an adversary but also a partner of the West. There was some balance in that system. Even though the U.S. and Europe signed a charter for a new Europe, the Charter of Paris, to demonstrate that a new world was possible, that charter was ignored and political gains were pursued to take advantage of the vacuum. The struggle for spheres of influence -- contrary to the new thinking we propounded -- was resumed by the U.S. The first result was the crisis in Yugoslavia in which NATO was brought in to gain advantage over Russia.
[...]NATO decided it would be an organization that intervenes anywhere on "humanitarian grounds." We have by now seen intervention not only in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq -- intervention without any mandate or permission from the United Nations.
So much for the new thinking of 20 years ago the West so eagerly embraced when I announced it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/gorbachev-post-cold-war-west_n_6116654.htmlI don't know why you talk about trust, it's not about friendship but partnership and diplomaty. I wouldn't trust Germany either, or any country / politicians. You think I trust the french politician I vote for ?
Yes, evil Americans, stopping Serbian genocidal wars are the proof that Europe and NATO area against Russia. The reality is all Russian nationalists were terrified of NATO intervention in the Balkans because they saw a parallel between the Serbian war crimes and their own in Chechnya. Gorbachev the great liberal had no problem drowning dark skinned Muslim citizens of the USSR on blood so why should anyone else.
|
On November 25 2014 04:29 Nyxisto wrote:
To some extend this may be true, but a lot of countries interests are being neglected all the time. When the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of European countries were pissed. Did we start destabilizing whole countries just for retaliation? Russia's response is simply disproportionate and based on a highly biased and twisted version of history. Russia is obsessed with antagonizing the West because that is where they draw their identity from.
Was Al-Qaeda in Iraq before 2003? Was ISIS anything more than a pipe dream in Syria until the arab spring? I'm sure these countries are thriving now after 'we' helped them. 'We' didn't even need to ask the people in these countries what they wanted because of course only 'we' know whats best for them. 'We' know everything, don't 'we'?
Russia has been on the back foot and defensive for the entire year this crisis has been going on in Ukraine. What we have now was the only outcome of a gung-ho, jingoistic, pants-on-head retarded foreign policy imposed on European nations by Obama (McCain) and his long line of puppets in Europe. You mention the US going into Iraq and Afghanistan as 'not that big of a deal' and yet somehow Russia is acting in accordance to 'a highly biased and twisted version of history'.
There was a vote in the UN last week, explain how this got absolutely zero media coverage because guess which countries voted no? Point out how this is antagonistic:
http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf
|
ok in that vote US and Ukraine voting no doesnt surprise me, but Canada? Where did that come from :o
|
On November 25 2014 05:08 Skilledblob wrote:
ok in that vote US and Ukraine voting no doesnt surprise me, but Canada? Where did that come from :o
1.2 million Ukrainians live in Canada and election season is just around the corner.
|
On November 25 2014 05:00 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 04:29 Nyxisto wrote:
To some extend this may be true, but a lot of countries interests are being neglected all the time. When the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of European countries were pissed. Did we start destabilizing whole countries just for retaliation? Russia's response is simply disproportionate and based on a highly biased and twisted version of history. Russia is obsessed with antagonizing the West because that is where they draw their identity from. Was Al-Qaeda in Iraq before 2003? Was ISIS anything more than a pipe dream in Syria until the arab spring? I'm sure these countries are thriving now after 'we' helped them. 'We' didn't even need to ask the people in these countries what they wanted because of course only 'we' know whats best for them. 'We' know everything, don't 'we'? Russia has been on the back foot and defensive for the entire year this crisis has been going on in Ukraine. What we have now was the only outcome of a gung-ho, jingoistic, pants-on-head retarded foreign policy imposed on European nations by Obama (McCain) and his long line of puppets in Europe. You mention the US going into Iraq and Afghanistan as 'not that big of a deal' and yet somehow Russia is acting in accordance to 'a highly biased and twisted version of history'. There was a vote in the UN last week, explain how this got absolutely zero media coverage because guess which countries voted no? Point out how this is antagonistic: http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf
How France and Germany can abstain that kind of vote makes me wonder.
On November 25 2014 04:44 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 04:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 25 2014 03:48 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2014 03:10 WhiteDog wrote: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.
I say europe never asked Russia to take part in anything and you talk to me about Putin and Merkel. I'm was talking about what happened since the end of the berlin wall. Here are all the things Russia was invited to by Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relations#Partnership_and_Co-operation_AgreementThe reality is that Russia either under Yeltsin or Putin was not going to join an organization of democracies trying to build institutions based on the rule of law. It would be like cutting their own throats. Its the reason why Spain joined the European Community only after Franco died, not before. Show nested quote +Here is what Gorbatchev said about it : The Soviet Union used to be not just an adversary but also a partner of the West. There was some balance in that system. Even though the U.S. and Europe signed a charter for a new Europe, the Charter of Paris, to demonstrate that a new world was possible, that charter was ignored and political gains were pursued to take advantage of the vacuum. The struggle for spheres of influence -- contrary to the new thinking we propounded -- was resumed by the U.S. The first result was the crisis in Yugoslavia in which NATO was brought in to gain advantage over Russia.
[...]NATO decided it would be an organization that intervenes anywhere on "humanitarian grounds." We have by now seen intervention not only in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq -- intervention without any mandate or permission from the United Nations.
So much for the new thinking of 20 years ago the West so eagerly embraced when I announced it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/gorbachev-post-cold-war-west_n_6116654.htmlI don't know why you talk about trust, it's not about friendship but partnership and diplomaty. I wouldn't trust Germany either, or any country / politicians. You think I trust the french politician I vote for ? Yes, evil Americans, stopping Serbian genocidal wars are the proof that Europe and NATO area against Russia. The reality is all Russian nationalists were terrified of NATO intervention in the Balkans because they saw a parallel between the Serbian war crimes and their own in Chechnya. Gorbachev the great liberal had no problem drowning dark skinned Muslim citizens of the USSR on blood so why should anyone else.
I guess you did not understand Gorbatchev's point. He is not rambling about the action in itself, but about the lack of discussion with Russia, the lack of "respect". His point is that NATO was still used as a tool for the occidentals to gain power and influence on the world, despite his desire to create a "new world".
|
On November 25 2014 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 05:00 zeo wrote:On November 25 2014 04:29 Nyxisto wrote:
To some extend this may be true, but a lot of countries interests are being neglected all the time. When the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of European countries were pissed. Did we start destabilizing whole countries just for retaliation? Russia's response is simply disproportionate and based on a highly biased and twisted version of history. Russia is obsessed with antagonizing the West because that is where they draw their identity from. Was Al-Qaeda in Iraq before 2003? Was ISIS anything more than a pipe dream in Syria until the arab spring? I'm sure these countries are thriving now after 'we' helped them. 'We' didn't even need to ask the people in these countries what they wanted because of course only 'we' know whats best for them. 'We' know everything, don't 'we'? Russia has been on the back foot and defensive for the entire year this crisis has been going on in Ukraine. What we have now was the only outcome of a gung-ho, jingoistic, pants-on-head retarded foreign policy imposed on European nations by Obama (McCain) and his long line of puppets in Europe. You mention the US going into Iraq and Afghanistan as 'not that big of a deal' and yet somehow Russia is acting in accordance to 'a highly biased and twisted version of history'. There was a vote in the UN last week, explain how this got absolutely zero media coverage because guess which countries voted no? Point out how this is antagonistic: http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf How France and Germany can abstain that kind of vote makes me wonder. Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 04:44 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2014 04:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 25 2014 03:48 Sub40APM wrote:On November 25 2014 03:10 WhiteDog wrote: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.
I say europe never asked Russia to take part in anything and you talk to me about Putin and Merkel. I'm was talking about what happened since the end of the berlin wall. Here are all the things Russia was invited to by Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–European_Union_relations#Partnership_and_Co-operation_AgreementThe reality is that Russia either under Yeltsin or Putin was not going to join an organization of democracies trying to build institutions based on the rule of law. It would be like cutting their own throats. Its the reason why Spain joined the European Community only after Franco died, not before. Here is what Gorbatchev said about it : The Soviet Union used to be not just an adversary but also a partner of the West. There was some balance in that system. Even though the U.S. and Europe signed a charter for a new Europe, the Charter of Paris, to demonstrate that a new world was possible, that charter was ignored and political gains were pursued to take advantage of the vacuum. The struggle for spheres of influence -- contrary to the new thinking we propounded -- was resumed by the U.S. The first result was the crisis in Yugoslavia in which NATO was brought in to gain advantage over Russia.
[...]NATO decided it would be an organization that intervenes anywhere on "humanitarian grounds." We have by now seen intervention not only in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq -- intervention without any mandate or permission from the United Nations.
So much for the new thinking of 20 years ago the West so eagerly embraced when I announced it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/gorbachev-post-cold-war-west_n_6116654.htmlI don't know why you talk about trust, it's not about friendship but partnership and diplomaty. I wouldn't trust Germany either, or any country / politicians. You think I trust the french politician I vote for ? Yes, evil Americans, stopping Serbian genocidal wars are the proof that Europe and NATO area against Russia. The reality is all Russian nationalists were terrified of NATO intervention in the Balkans because they saw a parallel between the Serbian war crimes and their own in Chechnya. Gorbachev the great liberal had no problem drowning dark skinned Muslim citizens of the USSR on blood so why should anyone else. I guess you did not understand Gorbatchev's point. He is not rambling about the action in itself, but about the lack of discussion with Russia, the lack of "respect". His point is that NATO was still used as a tool for the occidentals to gain power and influence on the world, despite his desire to create a "new world".
He wasnt rambling about any kind of philosophical point of view about "occidental power", he was spelling out to you the fear of Russian nationalists: that NATO interfered with a genocide of brown people at the same time as Russian was conducting a genocide of brown people. Yugoslavia was never in the Soviet's 'Sphere of Influence' so no, it was not a 'lack of respect'.
|
I do wonder what the reasoning behind voting no on something like this would be. For reference this seems to be the resolution. By the list of sponsors, it appears to be ouvert political maneuvering but reading the resolution I couldn't spot anything too egregious.
So my question would be why the US and Ukraine would vote no. If they would have voted yes, I don't see in what way they could have been inconvenienced as they are already part of the relevant treaties. And this remains true even if Ukraine was indeed run by neonazis. What could the consequences be?
I mean this resolution appears to be constructed as a publicity stunt, exactly so that Ukraine and the US would vote no but I just don't understand the mechansim.
Can someone with a grip on international politics enlighten me?
|
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.
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?
Of course as sovereign nations they can ask to join NATO but that doesn't mean that NATO has to accept them.
How do you think Russia feels when they have NATO jets with 5 minutes flight time to St. Petersburg?
They feel threatened of course.
How would the US feel if suddenly Russian jets were stationed 5 minutes from LA, or Germany if stationed 5 minutes from Hamburg? We even feel uneasy now about increased Russian air patrols over the baltic sea.
It might be great for these countries that they are part of NATO now and it might be great for the US too but if it has lead to increased security for Europe as a whole is questionable.
|
Being a member of the NATO doesn't actually mean that your country is full of NATO troops. There are barely any NATO troops in Eastern Europe right now. Apart from that the "threat" is purely virtual. Russia is so stacked up with nuclear weaponry that they're untouchable.
The NATO expansion is essentially a political and not a military problem for Russia.Russia wants respect as a superpower, this is not about genuine security concerns. The smaller Eastern European countries on the other hand really have military concerns when it comes to Russia.
|
but if you are part of nato you are obliged to support in any kind of war effort. militarily. this is no game that's being played here and the nato has not given up on its original intent on which it has been founded on.
russian fears are surely exaggerated and fueled by their lack of living in the present, but not unreasonable.
and they do not acknowledge to play to the tune of the US.
|
On November 25 2014 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:How France and Germany can abstain that kind of vote makes me wonder.
It would appear all (I think) of the EU countries actually abstained. It's the majority of so-called "Democratic" Centre-Left to Far-Right countries (that's a lot ;-/ ), anyone that can scare anyone opposed to them with the thought of Fascism (using extremists as tools of war)
|
Hats off, Sub40APM, this one is by far your best way to camouflage the anti-Russia thread. The opening statement with fake "i wonder why there is no thread about Europe on TL" helps a lot too.
It is obvious today (unfortunately) that politics/economics in EU cannot be discussed without consideration of the Ukraine crisis and its causes/consequences, while a lot of people on TL.net know now very well how badly this usually ends. Hence no such thread.
In other/normal conditions having such a thread would be a brilliant idea, while today its much better to focus on separate/focused subjects (like Germany-Japan or EURO crisis), rather than on European politics. But obviously this is not what you wanted, right?
|
On November 25 2014 07:29 Doublemint wrote:
but if you are part of nato you are obliged to support in any kind of war effort. militarily. this is no game that's being played here and the nato has not given up on its original intent on which it has been founded on.
russian fears are surely exaggerated and fueled by their lack of living in the present, but not unreasonable.
and they do not acknowledge to play to the tune of the US.
To be honest, I bet most European countries would not honour the treaty if Russia ever attacked one of the eastern or central european countries. It would not have any popular support. People don't really feel connected to those countries anyway.
|
On November 25 2014 05:21 WhiteDog wrote:How France and Germany can abstain that kind of vote makes me wonder.
The same resolution is presented each year and accepted with similar votes. Votes against and abstentions are absolutely not votes stating that "glorification of Nazism" or racism in any form should not be worked against.
Main reason France abstains is paragraph:
Reaffirms the relevant provisions of the Durban Declaration (9) and of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference,(10) in which States condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-Fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial and national prejudice and stated that those phenomena could never be justified in any instance or in any circumstances;
France abstained on the vote of the Durban Declaration, voting for the resolution that reaffirms the outcome would be the clear message of a change of opinion, which is not wanted.
What would the clear message be then and what is the opinion that should be kept ? This leads to why France abstained on the Durban end report, and it is trickier.
There were a number of pitfalls in that one. One is the definition of scionism as a form of racism. An interpretation of the wording is that signing is accepting that the existence of Israel is an act of racism against arabic communities (which is not the french position diplomatically speaking). Others have tried in Durban to put forward the actions of China in Tibet as an illustration of racist behavior, which would appear as an opposition to China France is not ready to accept.
I'm not saying Chinese actions in Tibet or Israeli actions towards their neighbours do not diserve some focus, but France did not decide to take such a clear stance when signing the Durban document, and even if its not strictly the content of the document, accepting any resolution that reaffirms the declaration would be seen as a change of opinion on those subjects.
Note that Germany has voted against the Durban declaration, but has amended to an abstention on the resolution.
|
On November 25 2014 20:30 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
Hats off, Sub40APM, this one is by far your best way to camouflage the anti-Russia thread. The opening statement with fake "i wonder why there is no thread about Europe on TL" helps a lot too.
It is obvious today (unfortunately) that politics/economics in EU cannot be discussed without consideration of the Ukraine crisis and its causes/consequences, while a lot of people on TL.net know now very well how badly this usually ends. Hence no such thread.
In other/normal conditions having such a thread would be a brilliant idea, while today its much better to focus on separate/focused subjects (like Germany-Japan or EURO crisis), rather than on European politics. But obviously this is not what you wanted, right?
hahaha, another takedown.
|
Well yes... As some have already said, in order to analyse the European geopolitical situation without talking about Russia's bullying is hard.
On a side note my stance is clear : I'm profoundly anti Putin and I think he created one of the worst regime in modern day, a true fascist dictature and I've got a lot of arguments to prove that. You can say I'm pro-West but I just care about what's moral, and in Europe one of the bigger evil is Russia. Anyway I won't discuss this here.
I don't see why people think Russia was treated badly at the end of the Cold War, on the contrary I think it was treated softly. The economic problems it faced were caused by the (shitty) neo liberal model and not directly by Western countries.
As for the expansion of NATO, it was created to counter Russian expansionism during the Cold War, the alliance didn't rly have any utility at the end of the Cold War Western leaders even talked about dismantling it. What a lot of Russia's apologists always overlook is the fact that the expansion of NATO was not active, russophobic countries of Eastern Europe wanted to join.
Just look at the time of adhesions: 1999 for Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, it's the date of the second chechnya war and one year later Chechnya got annexed.
Russia has the tradition of bullying severely its neighbours if they step too much out of the line traced by Moscow.
The question has never been why the US expand NATO? But why are there still many neighbours of Russia who wish to join it?
Both NATO expansion and Russia's economic problems was not something the West wanted. They would have gladly reduced their military budgets and see Russia as a big partner and market to conquer but it didn't happen as Russia is still the nationalistic and agressive oligarchy it has always been.
|
On November 25 2014 20:30 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
Hats off, Sub40APM, this one is by far your best way to camouflage the anti-Russia thread. The opening statement with fake "i wonder why there is no thread about Europe on TL" helps a lot too.
It is obvious today (unfortunately) that politics/economics in EU cannot be discussed without consideration of the Ukraine crisis and its causes/consequences, while a lot of people on TL.net know now very well how badly this usually ends. Hence no such thread.
In other/normal conditions having such a thread would be a brilliant idea, while today its much better to focus on separate/focused subjects (like Germany-Japan or EURO crisis), rather than on European politics. But obviously this is not what you wanted, right?
Its impossible to discuss the 'Euro' crisis without understanding European domestic politics -- the rise of a brand new political party in Spain or the Communists in Greece --, just like its impossible to discuss perceived German stagnation without understanding the current state of post-party politics in Germany -- Merkel controls 80% of parliament and there isnt a viable opponent. Hence a unified thread -- the 'different topics' were not separate or focused, they inevitably glided down to a broader discussion and then were lost because they were hidden in threads. This brings unifies them. I didnt force the French fascists -- or I guess not according to WhiteDog -- to borrow money from Putin but it brought up an interesting discussion on the different forms of far right thinking and it really was interesting to see what essentially is a hard leftist like WhiteDog defend French nationalism in the face of German, and have a pushback.
Its not my fault noted ballistics expert nunez is having some downtime in between solving crimes so he tried to get himself banned and this thread locked for successfully trolling me into discussing a topic banned on this board. Last time I checked discussing Russia has not been banned here, so your addition of Russian self centered paranoia was very valuable and appreciated. Thank you.
|
On November 26 2014 03:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2014 20:30 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
Hats off, Sub40APM, this one is by far your best way to camouflage the anti-Russia thread. The opening statement with fake "i wonder why there is no thread about Europe on TL" helps a lot too.
It is obvious today (unfortunately) that politics/economics in EU cannot be discussed without consideration of the Ukraine crisis and its causes/consequences, while a lot of people on TL.net know now very well how badly this usually ends. Hence no such thread.
In other/normal conditions having such a thread would be a brilliant idea, while today its much better to focus on separate/focused subjects (like Germany-Japan or EURO crisis), rather than on European politics. But obviously this is not what you wanted, right? Its impossible to discuss the 'Euro' crisis without understanding European domestic politics -- the rise of a brand new political party in Spain or the Communists in Greece --, just like its impossible to discuss perceived German stagnation without understanding the current state of post-party politics in Germany -- Merkel controls 80% of parliament and there isnt a viable opponent. Hence a unified thread -- the 'different topics' were not separate or focused, they inevitably glided down to a broader discussion and then were lost because they were hidden in threads. This brings unifies them. I didnt force the French fascists -- or I guess not according to WhiteDog -- to borrow money from Putin but it brought up an interesting discussion on the different forms of far right thinking and it really was interesting to see what essentially is a hard leftist like WhiteDog defend French nationalism in the face of German, and have a pushback. Its not my fault noted ballistics expert nunez is having some downtime in between solving crimes so he tried to get himself banned and this thread locked for successfully trolling me into discussing a topic banned on this board. Last time I checked discussing Russia has not been banned here, so your addition of Russian self centered paranoia was very valuable and appreciated. Thank you.
I'm not defending the FN, just stating some facts. The core problem of europe is the european system and its inability to face the crisis and propose a positive project to the european citizens. I'm a kind of guy that believe that a society based on work, as the first mean to acquire money and as the first way to realize yourself, cannot work when unemployment is at 10 % on average. The FN capitalize on that first and foremost, and everybody who focus on their so called "facist" side are, my opinion, biased ideologically and didn't hear any of the FN last political messages.
But it's pretty normal that germans politicians, who forced a stupid economic policy on europe and who have, my opinion again, no clue on how a global / regional economy work, will try to push away all the political message that the FN defend to focus on its antisemitism, facism, and whatnot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
