European politics

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
China fei123456
Jaeger
Posts: 3283
Joined: Apr 23, 2015
ESO: fei123456
Location: Alderaan

Re: European politics

Post by fei123456 »

When we talk about Russian Iran etc., it seems strange sometimes. Russia make illegal "votes" in Ukraine, while we don't know what's a vote. In Russia people debate on TV shows, discussing whether they should continue the war: that's not imaginable here. They can even call the phone of Peskov's son, while in our country you can never get any information of those leader's childs on our webs. Even in Iran women can strike on streets, while any strike is forbidden here.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: European politics

Post by duckzilla »

In contrast to Iran or Russia, China has been completely transformed towards the exploitation of the labor of the masses. Striking was forbidden in many western countries too, when industrialization began. The US has many infamous examples of striking coal miners (and the like) who were violently suppressed by government forces with many dead. Over the course of decades, the strikers became stronger and workers' rights were introduced. In consequence, capitalism looked outward for exploitation of labor and it found the reopening China. Today, China (at least the part of China visible to me) doesn't resemble anything of its past anymore. All powerful politicians and entrepreneurs in China seem to wear classic western suits and exploit their own people for the sake of a small percentage of people becoming rich. Capitalism conquered China absurdly fast and benefitted from the absence of strong democratic or religious traditions.

Russia and Iran are different. They were not able to become a worker exploiting pillar of capitalism due to a number of reasons such as bad geography, low population numbers, bad power structures and more.

But you can look forward. A country where dissent cannot be voiced grows to become a powder keg. You can try to alleviate that by increasing surveillance and security forces. But at some point this is going to explode. Given the current pace, I'm curious whether the PRoC will see it's 100 birthday.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: European politics

Post by harcha »

Unsanctioned protests are illegal everywhere, and probably in all of the places you mention it would be impossible to get a sanctioned/"legal" protest going. People are being jailed/beaten up/sometimes even killed in these protests. You probably could protest in China, but I think it would go even worse than it's going in those other countries.
I do agree that the "debates" in Russian state TV are strange, but I guess that's just how they do things. I would call it democracy theatre. As for Peskov's son that's just nepotism and incompetence at display.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

Image
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

Image

User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

If vids don't preload properly, do a forced refresh of the page (Ctrl Shift R) to force full preloading a 2nd time

No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by lejend »

Putin grants full citizenship to Edward Snowden -- and eligibility for the draft

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/09/26/b ... d-snowden/
Vladimir Putin has given Russian citizenship to former US security contractor Edward Snowden, according to Russian-owned state media outlet TASS on Monday, September 26.

Kevin Rothrock wrote: “By executive order, Vladimir Putin just granted Russian citizenship to Edward Snowden. Just to be clear: this means that Snowden can now be drafted into the Russian army.”
On the bright side, if he dies he'll go straight to heaven

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/artic ... sed-of-sin
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that Russian soldiers who die in the war against Ukraine will be cleansed of all their sins, days after President Vladimir Putin ordered the country’s first mobilisation since World War Two.

Patriarch Kirill is a key Putin ally and backer of the invasion. He has previously criticised those who oppose the war and called on Russians to rally round the Kremlin.

“Many are dying on the fields of internecine warfare,” Kirill, 75, said in his first Sunday address since the mobilisation order. “The Church prays that this battle will end as soon as possible, so that as few brothers as possible will kill each other in this fratricidal war.”

“But at the same time, the Church realises that if somebody, driven by a sense of duty and the need to fulfil their oath … goes to do what their duty calls of them, and if a person dies in the performance of this duty, then they have undoubtedly committed an act equivalent to sacrifice. They will have sacrificed themselves for others. And therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins that a person has committed.”
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

Image

User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

This whole saga with the exploded gas pipes is a live political experiment:

---Level 1 --- Event: unknown cause explodes gas pipe, let's say it's something random like unexploded WW2 ordnance lying on the bottom of the sea for more than half a century

---Level 2 --- Political reaction: countries blaming the most convenient target they can use to score political points (Russians saying it was the US, the US saying it was Russia, EU saying it was Russia etc)

---Level 3 --- Population from country A believes conspiracy theories that it was the Americans who blew it up because they threatened NS2 will be stopped by any means, others believe what the media tell them

Reality could be that none of them knows the real cause and they're all projecting what is convenient for them politically or what they want to believe. And it might have been some random rusted shell from WW2 that was dumped at the bottom of the sea after the war. The area is heavily patrolled by underwater drones and one of them might have hit a rusty WW2 shell by accident, triggering an explosion. The companies who built NS2 never bothered to spend money and research the bottom of the sea properly, as they didn't want to foot the bill.
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: European politics

Post by RefluxSemantic »

Its a pretty big assumption that it is a random event. As far as I can tell, there is reasonable evidence that this is sabotage.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

There was no need for any sabotage, Russia already stopped sending gas through NS2. The gas that was in the pipe was only for maintenance, it needs to keep a certain pressure.
And if they needed to stop gas flowing they could have used the same old excuses they've been using for months, that a piece of equipment malfunctioned and they need to shut the pipe down for maintenance. No need to blow up your own pipe you spent money on to get such an effect.
In fact, this creates problems for Russia too, as now they have to redirect the gas elsewhere or just let it go to waste.
This explosion is bad for everyone involved, including Russia and there's nothing significant to gain from it.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: European politics

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Dolan wrote: ↑
30 Sep 2022, 14:18
This explosion is bad for everyone involved, including Russia and there's nothing significant to gain from it.
This is probably the most compelling evidence that is was Russia lol
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: European politics

Post by harcha »

i think ukraine benefits most from this because tensions between russia and west increase. in second place i would put those who benefit from alternative gas pipes i.e. latvia
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

harcha wrote: ↑
30 Sep 2022, 16:46
i think ukraine benefits most from this because tensions between russia and west increase. in second place i would put those who benefit from alternative gas pipes i.e. latvia
More like NATO governments like to keep some degree of strategic ambiguity over any evidence on who did it, because maybe at some point it might be useful for them to use this as a pretext to get directly involved in the Ukro-Russian war, by claiming it was an art 5 event.
Like if Russia lobs a tactical nuke at Ukraine.
User avatar
Latvia harcha
Gendarme
Posts: 5136
Joined: Jul 2, 2015
ESO: hatamoto_samurai

Re: European politics

Post by harcha »

i think the appropriate answer to russia claiming annexed territories is to give ukraine some entry status to nato.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

harcha wrote: ↑
01 Oct 2022, 17:31
i think the appropriate answer to russia claiming annexed territories is to give ukraine some entry status to nato.
Yeah, I was thinking about this too. Why should NATO play by the book, if Russia plays dirty. They should make a surprising move and declare Ukraine NATO member overnight, like before the Russian Duma even adopts the annexation treaty.
Then give Putin an ultimatum to withdraw from those regions. I think Putin would shit himself on the spot, realising his nuclear bluff is over.
User avatar
Slovenia Javon
Musketeer
Posts: 94
Joined: Mar 16, 2021

Re: European politics

Post by Javon »

Starting a process to accept a nation at war into NATO would undermine NATO's credibility as a defensive alliance and with the amount of division sown by Russia now, it would put off NATO member's populace against membership (God knows there's already too much pro-Russia sentiment in my country, no need to put more oil to the fire)
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: European politics

Post by duckzilla »

Ukraine doesn't need to be accepted to NATO for NATO countries to intervene in the war. The Charter of the United Nations allows any single country or alliance of countries to intervene on the side of a country under attack. The point of western intervention is not about NATO but only about willingness to do it.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Slovenia Javon
Musketeer
Posts: 94
Joined: Mar 16, 2021

Re: European politics

Post by Javon »

I don't know the Charter of the UN, but what you say is optional ("allows"), while I believe Article 5 of the NATO, which was mentioned previously, expects a response from member states.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: European politics

Post by duckzilla »

Article 5 is not optional. But taking Ukraine into the NATO is. If defending Ukraine in this conflict is the only real purpose of getting her into NATO, then it's a stupid idea. We can already defend Ukraine if we want. What we have is a simple situation. Either we want to defend Ukraine, then we can already do so in the current state of affairs. Or we don't want to defend Ukraine beyond what we already do, then we don't need to do anything.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

The idea of using such an exceptional approach is to anticipate Russia's escalation and neutralise it before it happens. Russia's strategic doctrine says that they will escalate a situation to de-escalate it. In other words, they will act ultra-aggressively and move a conflict to the next stage (like using a nuclear strike) in response to a conventional attack on their territory.
This is now likely to happen, after they make their annexation of those 4 regions official. If Ukrainian forces continue to push into those regions, eventually Russia will use a tactical nuclear weapon against a military target in Ukraine, in accordance to its "escalate to deescalate" military doctrine.
Fast-tracking Ukraine's membership in NATO would prevent such a move, because it would declare that Ukrainian territory, including those 4 regions, are NATO territory. In such a case, NATO would play the same move that Russia is trying to play against Ukraine: locking those regions under the blanket of nuclear protection. Then Russia would be faced with the same situation they're trying to face Ukraine (and NATO) with.
Basically I'm saying that to thwart Putin's plans, NATO could have escalated to prevent Russia's escalation.
User avatar
Slovenia Javon
Musketeer
Posts: 94
Joined: Mar 16, 2021

Re: European politics

Post by Javon »

Yes, brinkmanship is the best course forward for all.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: European politics

Post by duckzilla »

I see your point on copying Putin's move of putting Ukraine under nuclear protection. It's just that I don't think that this is even necessary. On the one hand, NATO membership is very difficult to achieve (all members have to agree, even Turkey and Hungary). On the other hand, a simple defensive treaty between Ukraine and the more important NATO powers that takes direct effect would already do the job. Actually, even a simple announcement of full intervention on Ukraine's side - without any treaties being signed - would do the job.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: European politics

Post by Dolan »

I know that such a proposition is unlikely to happen because, during peacetime, politics work in slow and conventional ways, as they have to go through all the bureaucratic rules and laws which takes time.
Politicians also tend to think that big moves need time to be debated, to form a solid foundation for justifying such an approach.
But as we can see, an autocratic regime like Putin's has the advantage that it doesn't need much internal debate to make a fast and very effective move, like annexing a territory then using nuclear threats to force de-escalation.
So a bloc like NATO is at a disadvantage against such regimes, as it insists on following its usual reasonable approach, of internal debate and consultation, and ticking all the boxes on procedures and rules. Meanwhile countries like Russia and China can jump ahead with a strategic move, as their de facto one-party regimes don't need much internal bickering to react to a situation.

On your actual point, it's not clear why would a handful of NATO members closing a treaty with Ukraine have any legal effect of transferring NATO-guaranteed security to a non-member. France or the UK cannot engage or transfer NATO security guarantees to other non-members by signing separate treaties that other NATO members have no say in. Then let's say Ukraine gets hit by a tactical nuclear strike, activates this separate treaty with France and UK and another NATO member (Hungary) disagrees that the alliance should get involved. I doubt that separate treaties closed outside NATO can engage the whole alliance, legally speaking.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: European politics

Post by duckzilla »

Dolan wrote: ↑
02 Oct 2022, 17:17
On your actual point, it's not clear why would a handful of NATO members closing a treaty with Ukraine have any legal effect of transferring NATO-guaranteed security to a non-member. France or the UK cannot engage or transfer NATO security guarantees to other non-members by signing separate treaties that other NATO members have no say in. Then let's say Ukraine gets hit by a tactical nuclear strike, activates this separate treaty with France and UK and another NATO member (Hungary) disagrees that the alliance should get involved. I doubt that separate treaties closed outside NATO can engage the whole alliance, legally speaking.
I share your doubts in this and that's not what I tried to say.

What I mean to say is: getting signatures of all NATO members for ukrainian membership is a much more difficult task than just forming an ad hoc defensive alliance including all important NATO members. Say the US, UK, FR, GER, POL, EST, LIT, LAT, and ROM would favor ukrainian membership and, hence, would be willing to give Ukraine the level of defensive assurances that NATO offer. It would be much easier for these countries to just form an alliance without making use of NATO as a vehicle. In a similar way as NATO was not involved (to my knowledge) in the first gulf war.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV