NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 03 2022 19:40 Vinekh wrote: I still don't know why Germany decided to shutdown their nuclear plants so abruptly. Also I'm wondering why the prosecution is not interested in people like Schroeder and Merkel, but that is for the German citizens to figure out.
It was as un-abrupt as it could possibly be. The green party had been campaigning for years/decades, slowly but steadily generating support against nuclear power. And then the power plants were not shutdown asap, but rather in a step-by-step process that was going to last 15-20ish years and is still ongoing. Regarding the "why", I'm sure you can find explanations in more than one wikipedia article.
What exactly should Merkel/Schröder be prosecuted for? Making morally questionable political decisions isnt a crime.
Schröder went straight from being Chancellor and signing a deal with Gazprom for NS1 to being on the board of directors of NS1. If that doesn't scream CORRUPTION for You than I don't what would...
Also, Schröder and Merkel both presided over Germany's energy sector transformation, which left Your country totally dependent on Russian energy resources. Some would call this treason, as they acted in the interest of the other country.
In case of Merkel, one can argue, she merely continued policy which she was left with and was oblivious to the consequences. But I doubt anyone really believes she didn't know what she was doing... In case of Schröder, who remains on Russian payroll and supports Putin regime, the case is much clearer. He is and was an agent of Russian influence.
What? I mean, again, which other country should we gave gotten our gas from and oil from? Germany benefitted massively from these deals, I thought that's what the country is currently hated for. It's not like suppliers of fossil fuels without shady track records are that common in the world right now, and both Schröder and Merkel were no driving factors for renewing energies or opposing nuclear power. I think Merkel should be humbled a bit for showing no sign of remorse for her failed policies with Putin. Schröder is very much disgraced for years now, there are very few people that look fondly back to the decisions he made, also because he made immediately clear that he was just a sly politician without any moral compass. But nothing that he did can be considered treason.
On August 04 2022 01:15 Silvanel wrote: Schröder went straight from being Chancellor and signing a deal with Gazprom for NS1 to being on the board of directors of NS1. If that doesn't scream CORRUPTION for You than I don't what would...
Also, Schröder and Merkel both presided over Germany's energy sector transformation, which left Your country totally dependent on Russian energy resources. Some would call this treason, as they acted in the interest of the other country.
In case of Merkel, one can argue, she merely continued policy which she was left with and was oblivious to the consequences. But I doubt anyone really believes she didn't know what she was doing... In case of Schröder, who remains on Russian payroll and supports Putin regime, the case is much clearer. He is and was an agent of Russian influence.
"Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade) was one of the corner stones of German foreign policy for decades, not always for the better. The hope, that Russia would open up and its people would profit and aspire change and democracy at some point was real for a lot of people including Merkel. I honestly think she believed it. Not a fan of hers btw.
Yeah Schröder is a corrupt, power hungry asshole and destroyed the party i supported when younger (never voted for them again, as many others).
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict.
This is wrong on so many levels...
1. Ukraine isn't a "new" country. You have to remember that in the beginning it was all called Kievan Rus, so technically the original center of power was in Kiev, not Moscow. Ethnically UA is like 80% Ukrainian and only 13-15% Russian so there's that too. Most countries in Europe can be considered "new" if you go just by their most modern names, borders and country names shifted a lot in Europe over the period of last 1000+ years. 2. Hard line separating Russia and the rest of Europe was always there, and it was mostly created by Russia itself, not USA. 3. What "old lands" do you speak of when talking about Russia and Ukraine? Technically Poland could lay claim to all of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and even Moscow as their "old lands", yet no one is actually doing that. 4. EU are not reluctant and have a lot to gain from this conflict. 5. The war wasn't set up and prepared by both sides. Ukraine knew Russia would attack because after their 2014 invasion they wouldn't stop. I would like to remind you that fights have been ongoing in the Donbas region for the past 8 years so you could technically just call it the continuation of that.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine You start with "Ukraine isn't new" then follow with "Most countries in Europe can be considered "new". I don't know how to argue with it. At least we can agree that Ukraine is one of the newest country in Europe, born after the colapse of Soviet Union. The ancient Kievan Rus are considered the origine of many countries, not only for the Ukrainian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus' 2. I consider there hasn't any hardline between EU and Russia when their interactions are mostly win-win coorperation back then not loss loss after the Ukraine war. But hardline is an open term so it's up to you and your definition 3. When I said "old land" i said from Russia's perspective. You said I'm wrong and asking a question, what kind of argument is it? And yes once in the past it was Poland land, so technically Poland could claim it as its old land. Technically and Old and so what? 4. For example? 5. And I would like to remind you the NATO member ship offer happened before the Donbas conflict. I don't see any counter argument in your text, just a different interpretation.
I see you're missing the point of quotation marks around words... Your claim that Ukraine belongs is the "old land" of Russia is also faulty. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, which was not a country but rather a union of republics, similar to EU. It's akin to saying that now France or Germany can claim UK as their "old land" after it left the EU...
As to the NATO membership being offered to UA before the Donbas conflict, that's also false. Ukraine applied to join NATO itself in 2008 but this plan was shelved in 2010. Ukrainian people didn't really want to join NATO at this point, even in 2012 such plans had less than 30% public support and even after 2014 it was around 50% and didn't really get into majority support before 2017.
In 2021 the original UA application from 2008 was brought back to the table, it wasn't a new "offer" or anything like that. The application could not proceed though because of the invasion.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict.
This is wrong on so many levels...
1. Ukraine isn't a "new" country. You have to remember that in the beginning it was all called Kievan Rus, so technically the original center of power was in Kiev, not Moscow. Ethnically UA is like 80% Ukrainian and only 13-15% Russian so there's that too. Most countries in Europe can be considered "new" if you go just by their most modern names, borders and country names shifted a lot in Europe over the period of last 1000+ years. 2. Hard line separating Russia and the rest of Europe was always there, and it was mostly created by Russia itself, not USA. 3. What "old lands" do you speak of when talking about Russia and Ukraine? Technically Poland could lay claim to all of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and even Moscow as their "old lands", yet no one is actually doing that. 4. EU are not reluctant and have a lot to gain from this conflict. 5. The war wasn't set up and prepared by both sides. Ukraine knew Russia would attack because after their 2014 invasion they wouldn't stop. I would like to remind you that fights have been ongoing in the Donbas region for the past 8 years so you could technically just call it the continuation of that.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine You start with "Ukraine isn't new" then follow with "Most countries in Europe can be considered "new". I don't know how to argue with it. At least we can agree that Ukraine is one of the newest country in Europe, born after the colapse of Soviet Union. The ancient Kievan Rus are considered the origine of many countries, not only for the Ukrainian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus' 2. I consider there hasn't any hardline between EU and Russia when their interactions are mostly win-win coorperation back then not loss loss after the Ukraine war. But hardline is an open term so it's up to you and your definition 3. When I said "old land" i said from Russia's perspective. You said I'm wrong and asking a question, what kind of argument is it? And yes once in the past it was Poland land, so technically Poland could claim it as its old land. Technically and Old and so what? 4. For example? 5. And I would like to remind you the NATO member ship offer happened before the Donbas conflict. I don't see any counter argument in your text, just a different interpretation.
I see you're missing the point of quotation marks around words... Your claim that Ukraine belongs is the "old land" of Russia is also faulty. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, which was not a country but rather a union of republics, similar to EU. It's akin to saying that now France or Germany can claim UK as their "old land" after it left the EU...
As to the NATO membership being offered to UA before the Donbas conflict, that's also false. Ukraine applied to join NATO itself in 2008 but this plan was shelved in 2010. Ukrainian people didn't really want to join NATO at this point, even in 2012 such plans had less than 30% public support and even after 2014 it was around 50% and didn't really get into majority support before 2017.
In 2021 the original UA application from 2008 was brought back to the table, it wasn't a new "offer" or anything like that. The application could not proceed though because of the invasion.
Please return to our original 1->5 points format otherwise it will quickly become unmanageable.
On August 04 2022 11:15 geod wrote: Please return to our original 1->5 points format otherwise it will quickly become unmanageable.
I'm not interested in returning to this topic. I've said what I had to say on the matter and I'm going to let it rest at that.
On August 04 2022 11:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Huge explosion in Kherson was an attack on a Military train, 40+ cars were destroyed and apparently countless soldiers as well.
On August 04 2022 11:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Huge explosion in Kherson was an attack on a Military train, 40+ cars were destroyed and apparently countless soldiers as well.
What is there for EU to gain from this conflict Manit0u? I saw the earlier conversation and this is not really a point i understand, because i don't really see what EU has to gain here that could be achieved without this carnage.
On August 04 2022 08:08 JimmiC wrote: Voting present is such a wuss out.
I know but I got to respect someone holding to their values even in the face of being wrong in the moment but also not being a dick and seeing that they might be wrong enough to not stand against something like this.
On August 04 2022 08:08 JimmiC wrote: Voting present is such a wuss out.
Why? Not showing up to the vote is a wuss out. This is explicitly going on the record that you don't give a crap. That's fair. I haven't read his statement, but I'm willing to bet his position is that he believes NATO should be abolished, but as long as it isn't he doesn't care who's in or out of it?
On August 04 2022 20:12 raynpelikoneet wrote: What is there for EU to gain from this conflict Manit0u? I saw the earlier conversation and this is not really a point i understand, because i don't really see what EU has to gain here that could be achieved without this carnage.
There are several benefits actually: 1. Weakening of Russia's influence over the Eastern Europe (and weakening of Russia's influence worldwide too I think). 2. Strengthening of Eastern EU border. 3. Modernization and strengthening of military for several countries. 4. Removing dependence on Russian fossils. 5. Having a potentially very valuable future ally in Ukraine - this is important for many reasons in and of itself: once the war is over the relief and rebuilding efforts will be great for the economy of countries interested in helping out, there might be some better terms for grain imports etc. etc. I know it might sound a bit heartless but overall I believe that even though Ukraine will probably have to take some concessions on the future deals it makes with EU countries it'll be mutually beneficial and UA will benefit more in the long term. If this war is over, UA joins NATO and Russia will be spent this should mean a relatively long peace and security for Ukraine which would help stymie its growth and development.
I think the biggest benefit of all would be the tightening of ties between EU and UA. Previously Ukrainians were rather skeptic when it comes to dealing with the EU but I think over the course of this conflict they warmed up to it a bit and the idea of maybe even joining it in the future might seem more appealing to them.
EU access to Ukrainian black sea natural gas would eliminate the need to tolerate Russian gas import shenanigans.
Even if they had a Norway deal rather than full membership it would jump the eus economic might to above the usas standing.
China's interest in Ukraine was also going way up. That Odessa -gdansk port rail port deal would have made Russia anxious as heck for China making an end run around them. Make a belt and road push between India and Russia that changes the globes trade situation. They wouldn't need to worry about the us chopping off their ability to function with a couple destroyers in the indian Ocean if there's a pipeline that ships middle Eastern oil north than east.
I'm in the base that the war makes sense from a dictator like Putin's perspective. The euro maiden revolution was an existential crisis for them that put a clock on their entire foundation for keeping power.
But that doesn't make this a grand western conspiracy. People in Ukraine want a better life and that's what the eu can give them.
EPT
