Poll: Should EU sanction Russia for Georgian crisis?
This poll is closed.
yes
48.72%
19 48.72%
no
51.28%
20 51.28%
Total 39 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
EU sanctions against Russia
#51
It was my way to say that you can ignore mistakes in my english becouse it is not important as long as you can understand meaning of my words.
Reply
#52
Yalta1945 Wrote:No fools. Read it yourself. Your smiles cannot change an obvious lack of logic in your arguments. Even kids can see it. The king is naked.
So You say this was un-logical:
independent Wrote:Yes, it is - but so are a lot of things. And there are more or less unlawful actions.Using un-proportional
force is not even nearly the most criminal thing to do...
Or do You demand capital punishment also for speeding ?

Sorry, must be so that my english is not good enough for You to accept. For me its logical.

Yalta1945 Wrote:You actually did not respond to my guess that you had business with Russia, and that you wanted to profit from it at any means - I asked it some time ago. For South Korea, the most dangerous country may be their brothers in the North. For you - maybe, the Baltic States. If you really have your business with Russia and put it above human values.

Can't find where You have asked about my business - but don't You think it is out of topic anyway ?
What comes to Baltic States - they are not dangerous for me - they are not dangerous to anyone but
themselves. And not because they can't maintain good relations to russia - but because the only thing
they are doing is focusing to past.
Reply
#53
independent Wrote:
Yalta1945 Wrote:No fools. Read it yourself. Your smiles cannot change an obvious lack of logic in your arguments. Even kids can see it. The king is naked.
So You say this was un-logical:
independent Wrote:Yes, it is - but so are a lot of things. And there are more or less unlawful actions.Using un-proportional
force is not even nearly the most criminal thing to do...
Or do You demand capital punishment also for speeding ?
Don't cut off the most important part! The full text was the following:
independent Wrote:
Yalta1945 Wrote:It raises serious doubts if you can be "independent" from any EU country, in fact (which is even harder to believe because of other openly cynical remarks of yours) because unproportional response is against International Law.

Yes, it is - but so are a lot of things. And there are more or less unlawful actions.Using un-proportional
force is not even nearly the most criminal thing to do...
Or do You demand capital punishment also for speeding ?
Dou You understand what You wrote? Smile
It's exactly the question YOU (you, you, you!) should be asked if You say "Using un-proportional
force is not even nearly the most criminal thing to do"
Capital punishment is unproportional punishment for speeding, therefore - according to You - it is "not even nearly the most criminal thing to do"... So it is YOU who suggests capital punishment for speeding. :nonnon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you downplay the principle of proportionality, then you allow disproportional response/punishment, that is, capital punishment for speeding.

It’s so elementary! Anyway, you are challenging the principle which is the universally accepted norm of international law.
Jus ad bellum - the law of entering into war, is generally based on the UN Charter. A state can use force either with permission of the Security Council or in response to an armed attack under Article 51 of the Charter. The use of force must pass the test of necessity and proportionality.
So our discussion now is (I am soooo sorry, I beg your pardon) a discussion between the civilized and the barbaric, or between the informed/educated and the ignorant/undereducated.
independent Wrote:What comes to Baltic States - they are not dangerous for me - they are not dangerous to anyone but
themselves. And not because they can't maintain good relations to russia - but because the only thing
they are doing is focusing to past.
Sorry, but the Baltic States are not the most bullied ones by Russia. Information is freely available. Since the very restoration of independence the natural wish of the Baltic States was to follow the democratic way of development and have normal relations with Russia. It was Russia who started meddling in the domestic affairs of the Baltic States. The threat Russia poses is not invented by us – it’s what they do and what they declare to do. I hold, if you do not support democratic way of development it means you are anti-Russian (edit.: p.s. as this implicates you beleive in the ability of Russian people of self-government and their progress in building well-educated civil society less than in the dependence of Russians on a stern and forceful control). I really don’t understand people like you who have phobia for democratic prospects in Russia. Democratic Russia means peace, cooperation, and stability both for Russia and for her intl relations. We don’t fear a powerful democratic Russia who would stick to the norms of international law and who would show her good will to the neighbours. It would be strange to fear such Russia.
But if you still see no arguments of mine I am going to post one of them below this comment right now.
Reply
#54
Russia Hijacked and Lithuania Tremulous
“Is it an Orthodox church?” asked me some Russian whom I had met just 20 minutes ago at the Gariūnai market in Vilnius. We were passing by one of the central quarters of the city, close to the parliament building, in a taxi. I affirmed and pointed: “There is also a mosque over there”. I’d like everybody to know of the traditional tolerance of Vilnius tracing as far back in time as the city became Lithuania’s capital in the Middle Ages. Vilnius enjoyed its religious freedom in the times when intolerance was widespread in Europe. You can find churches of different Christian confessions, synagogues and mosques in Lithuania. You can now also find groups of local Buddhists and other believers. Vilnius has been the home for many different nationalities as well. But the man who came from Russia maybe just a few hors ago replied: “No, thanks. I would level all of the mosques to the soil.”
I recall it now as I wonder why I cannot find any signs of tolerance in so many comments coming from Russian internauts. They seem to be almost 100% imperialist, chauvinistic, and reactionary. They are often leaning towards fascism if we define it as “a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism”. Do they represent the face of real Russia? I think these people are just hijackers.
The population of the Baltic States is different from that of Russia, as well as Georgians are different from Ossetians, and any nation may said to be different from others to a certain extent – but why can’t all they be democratic and live in peace? I really see no natural reason why Russia could not develop democratically if they just wished it.
Japan, Italy, and Germany – all they changed after the WW II. Despite all the previous hysteria of German superiority, Germany is a fully democratic country. Should we call its people “anti-German” now? So I’d rather call “anti-Russian” the imperialists in Russia. (It’s so nasty that even the Orthodox Church in Russia gets incorporated into Putin’s statehood.)
Our different nationalities, different identities do not preclude us from living in peace and harmony. My wife is of a different nationality and from a different country. The same is about my parents. My mother is Russian. My children may hear five different languages spoken at home. When I visit the cemetery of my wife’s family I clearly see in the surnames of her relatives roots of four different ethnicities. It is also so about my family roots. When my grandmother used to teach me counting she did it in four languages. Well, maybe I’m too much of a mix myself, but I remember from my childhood we had different nationalities just in our yard, in the kindergarten and at school, including Russians, Jews, and Poles – and we were friends.
When I think of Russia today, I see it very much in line with the comment I found on some Estonian site (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://palun.blogspot.com/2008/08/kekkoslovakia.html">http://palun.blogspot.com/2008/08/kekkoslovakia.html</a><!-- m -->):
Quote:It was only yesterday, when I saw a documentary in Estonian national TV-channel (ETV) about restoring the independence of Estonia. The documentary was made only a few years after the actual events took place.<…> Well, today, 20 years later what we say about it? They're actions and statements were horrifyingly similar to those made by activists of the Night Watch and NASHI.
Brainwashed dummies? Maybe. But mr Putin himself said - collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. This statement makes mr Putin a traitor of his own country, because 20 years ago Estonians were treated in Moscow like heroes, people on the streets said "You're from Estonia? Cool! We're with you, we are trying to regain our independence too, we are restoring Russia!” These sentences are from another documentary, showed in ETV a few days ago.
People, who supported Interrinne in those days and who are supporting movements like Night Watch and NASHI and Putin and his neo-soviet-fascist ideas are probably not aware that they are actually acting as traitors of their own motherland Russia and are giving up the freedom that was handed them 17 years ago.
Russia gets radicalized but there are some troublesome tendencies in Lithuania, too. This year a bunch of youth made a surprise march along the central prospect of Vilnius on the day of restoration of Lithuanian independence. Some of them shouted the slogans of the Nazis. It is really something new for Lithuania and might be compared to such alien phenomena in Lithuanian culture as Satanist groups and celebration of Halloween (which is absolutely incompatible with the way this holly day is traditionally respected in Lithuania). The police didn’t stop them. V.Landsbergis called their manifestation anti-Lithuanian. It’s correct. Similarly, seeing freedom supporters in Russia as Russophobes is quite odd. (‘Russophobes’ pages: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/">http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/</a><!-- m --> ). It is also not the all deciding question if Putinists are in majority or minority in Russia. When the Bolsheviks usurped power they were in minority. On the other hand, Nazis step by step acquired the majority’s support.
It is easier for Putinists if they can sell their presumed success story to the people of Russia. The West is feeding Russia financially and helps it strengthen economically. Then the Kremlin and its agents channel the growing Russia’s economic strength to the military, to the other enforcing institution, to the covert operations (Plutonium for Litvinenko also cost something), propaganda, etc. Europe might be tempted to engage into the “non-participation” act that Russian people are already taking part in. That is, they might be tempted to close their eyes as not to notice many Russian dirty deeds in exchange for some economic benefits – for Europe it’s, chiefly, gas and oil. “I’m not interested in politics” is still the most popular refrain among Russian voters who, nevertheless, cast their ballots on the voting day in support of those whom the Kremlin nominates. Then the Kremlin may allow for existence of some tiny opposition – it will also bring benefits for the purpose of further propaganda. I also see no reason why the Kremlin should not be happy with European critics while it does not go any further than a mere lip service.
The temptation for the Baltic States is objectively much lesser as the implementation of Karaganov’s doctrine and the “3D [discredit, destabilize, divide] politics” is not going to stop any way. They want us and they are sure they will get what they want.
We can be very instrumental for Russia in several aspects. First, we are the doors they can use for filthily moving their capital, businesses, cargo, and persons to and through the EU. (Have you heard of the passports scandal in Latvia, when Russians bought Latvian passports? Some documents were issued for entirely fictitious persons who do not exist in reality. There are also attempts to legalize various shadow businesses, including arms export, via the EU, and move guns for Russian gangs in Europe. By the way, there are more than 215 thousand guns that disappeared from Russian military arsenals [official figure]). Second, they can use us for spying against NATO (but not NATO only) – just lately, the scandal of the classified NATO information being transferred to Russia broke up in Estonia. (“Estonia arrests senior official for spying“ <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/09/estonia-arrests-senior-official-for-spying/62360.aspx">http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/20 ... 62360.aspx</a><!-- m -->)
Third, they can use us for showing that the new (authoritarian) Russian regime is better (for some countries, at least) than the European standards. They can succeed in the latter if they can bribe and scare us, infuse distrust in us for the Western partners, and help destabilize the domestic situation, in general. It is not so impossible. To explain it, a new topic is actually needed to start in this forum. I’ll just mention briefly Paksas, the first impeached president of Lithuania. Russians played an important role in paving the path to power for him. In turn, he patronized some Russian business connected to arms export to Sudan. It is now prohibited by Lithuanian law for R.Paksas to take a seat in the parliament or be again the president but he’s still very active in politics, and there are still lots of people susceptible to his populism, despite all the compromising information on him.
There is still questionable if Russia does not influence the processes in Lithuania more than the EU. I mean that the EU may lose eventually but it cannot be said that the EU has already lost it to Russia. The EU does not care of its frontiers as much as any sovereign nation would do about it – it’s an obvious fact.
Reply
#55
Yalta1945 Wrote:If you downplay the principle of proportionality, then you allow disproportional response/punishment, that is, capital punishment for speeding.

It’s so elementary! Anyway, you are challenging the principle which is the universally accepted norm of international law.
Jus ad bellum - the law of entering into war, is generally based on the UN Charter. A state can use force either with permission of the Security Council or in response to an armed attack under Article 51 of the Charter. The use of force must pass the test of necessity and proportionality.

Un-proportional response.
Downplaying it ? Nope - But I'm not willing to overestimate it either. Before russia took any action,
georgia itself had already broken international law.

Yalta1945 Wrote:So our discussion now is (I am soooo sorry, I beg your pardon) a discussion between the civilized and the barbaric, or between the informed/educated and the ignorant/undereducated.

If You desperately need to backup Your ego - keep going...

Yalta1945 Wrote:Sorry, but the Baltic States are not the most bullied ones by Russia. Information is freely available. Since the very restoration of independence the natural wish of the Baltic States was to follow the democratic way of development and have normal relations with Russia. It was Russia who started meddling in the domestic affairs of the Baltic States. The threat Russia poses is not invented by us – it’s what they do and what they declare to do. I hold, if you do not support democratic way of development it means you are anti-Russian (edit.: p.s. as this implicates you beleive in the ability of Russian people of self-government and their progress in building well-educated civil society less than in the dependence of Russians on a stern and forceful control). I really don’t understand people like you who have phobia for democratic prospects in Russia. Democratic Russia means peace, cooperation, and stability both for Russia and for her intl relations. We don’t fear a powerful democratic Russia who would stick to the norms of international law and who would show her good will to the neighbours. It would be strange to fear such Russia.
But if you still see no arguments of mine I am going to post one of them below this comment right now.

Wrong conclusion - I'm not against democratic Russia - But I believe that they have right to choose what
kind of system they prefer. It is absurd to believe to "forced democracy".
What comes to Your view about Baltic States relations to Russia - for me it seems to be too much black
and white kind of thinking. You have used Your time to get familiar with events - but You have selected
only information and opinions which back up Your own point of view.
Reply
#56
independent Wrote:
Yalta1945 Wrote:If you downplay the principle of proportionality, then you allow disproportional response/punishment, that is, capital punishment for speeding.

It’s so elementary! Anyway, you are challenging the principle which is the universally accepted norm of international law.
Jus ad bellum - the law of entering into war, is generally based on the UN Charter. A state can use force either with permission of the Security Council or in response to an armed attack under Article 51 of the Charter. The use of force must pass the test of necessity and proportionality.

Un-proportional response.
Downplaying it ? Nope - But I'm not willing to overestimate it either. Before russia took any action,
georgia itself had already broken international law.

Good that you finally admit the need to adhere to law.
independent Wrote:
Yalta1945 Wrote:Sorry, but the Baltic States are not the most bullied ones by Russia. Information is freely available. Since the very restoration of independence the natural wish of the Baltic States was to follow the democratic way of development and have normal relations with Russia. It was Russia who started meddling in the domestic affairs of the Baltic States. The threat Russia poses is not invented by us – it’s what they do and what they declare to do. I hold, if you do not support democratic way of development it means you are anti-Russian (edit.: p.s. as this implicates you beleive in the ability of Russian people of self-government and their progress in building well-educated civil society less than in the dependence of Russians on a stern and forceful control). I really don’t understand people like you who have phobia for democratic prospects in Russia. Democratic Russia means peace, cooperation, and stability both for Russia and for her intl relations. We don’t fear a powerful democratic Russia who would stick to the norms of international law and who would show her good will to the neighbours. It would be strange to fear such Russia.
But if you still see no arguments of mine I am going to post one of them below this comment right now.
independent Wrote:Wrong conclusion - I'm not against democratic Russia - But I believe that they have right to choose what
kind of system they prefer. It is absurd to believe to "forced democracy".
What do observers say about the fairness in their elections (exercise of right to choose)? Russians have a proverb "Beat your men that strangers may fear you". It makes much sense to talk the power in Russia abuses their men.
independent Wrote:What comes to Your view about Baltic States relations to Russia - for me it seems to be too much black
and white kind of thinking. You have used Your time to get familiar with events - but You have selected
only information and opinions which back up Your own point of view.
We have probably more channels to watch, listen, and read than you in Finland (if you're really there). We can understand them much more better (as for me personally, it's my mother tongue, and I know Russian better than any other language, and I can speak Russian poetry from my heart for hours).
Reply
#57
Russia needs EU, EU needs Russia, more than both of them need Georgia.
The best political regime for the nation is a regime which was saved this nation like an entire one. (M. Montein)
Reply
#58
Yalta1945 Wrote:Good that you finally admit the need to adhere to law.

I prefer International laws being adhered - but because I'm realistic - I also know that
superpowers can and are breaking them. So there is clearly double-standards.

Yalta1945 Wrote:What do observers say about the fairness in their elections (exercise of right to choose)? Russians have a proverb "Beat your men that strangers may fear you". It makes much sense to talk the power in Russia abuses their men.

I believe most russians are supporting Putin - so questioning his position. makes no sense.

Yalta1945 Wrote:We have probably more channels to watch, listen, and read than you in Finland (if you're really there). We can understand them much more better (as for me personally, it's my mother tongue, and I know Russian better than any other language, and I can speak Russian poetry from my heart for hours).

These days You can watch whatever channels You want - so location is pretty much insignificant.
What comes to "(if you're really there)" - nope - at this moment I'm visiting Tallinn.

We can understand them much more better - I don't agree - Being afraid of something greatly
deduct capacity to understand it.
Reply
#59
Yalta1945 Wrote:Sorry, but the Baltic States are not the most bullied ones by Russia. Information is freely available. Since the very restoration of independence the natural wish of the Baltic States was to follow the democratic way of development and have normal relations with Russia. It was Russia who started meddling in the domestic affairs of the Baltic States. The threat Russia poses is not invented by us – it’s what they do and what they declare to do. I hold, if you do not support democratic way of development it means you are anti-Russian (edit.: p.s. as this implicates you beleive in the ability of Russian people of self-government and their progress in building well-educated civil society less than in the dependence of Russians on a stern and forceful control). I really don’t understand people like you who have phobia for democratic prospects in Russia. Democratic Russia means peace, cooperation, and stability both for Russia and for her intl relations. We don’t fear a powerful democratic Russia who would stick to the norms of international law and who would show her good will to the neighbours. It would be strange to fear such Russia.
But if you still see no arguments of mine I am going to post one of them below this comment right now.

Cant you understand that we do not care about democracy in other states? It is myth. We are against using democracy to justify crimes and as tool to create puppet government. That we are against. Now "democracy" is lable to reward loyal puppets.
Interesting that in occupied Iraq democratic elections took place easily, while in Russia it is impossible. First of all elections in endapendent countries are not taking place to elect someone suitable for west.
And last thing peace, cooperation, stability, international law, that is WORKING all that is in interests of Russia, but to achieve that west must DO something if they are interested too, now we see only NATO moving closer to Russia and US creating thier "shield" in eastern Europe. Europe can start with itself and it can enjoy great relationship with Russia, right now EU is not interested.
Reply
#60
Quote:These days You can watch whatever channels You want - so location is pretty much insignificant.
Some Russian TV companies offer different content for domestic and international viewers (marketing?). We have satellite dishes themselves, however we cannot see come channels that are available to us when we move to another place where we can use cable TV. The most important thing is however the ability of population in certain regions to understand Russian language and some context of the news or comments as well as be more familiar with personalities who appear to speak on air. So the place matters.
SiD Wrote:<...> now we see only NATO moving closer to Russia and US creating thier "shield" in eastern Europe. Europe can start with itself and it can enjoy great relationship with Russia, right now EU is not interested.
NATO enlarged because it admitted more sovereign states of Europe as the members of the organization. First, it was the will of those independent states to choose NATO as the core element in their national security policy and their way of development. It was their right to choose their system of collective security and their right to decide on what they wish to integrate themselves into. Second, it was the will of the older members of NATO to accept these states into the organization. NATO has an obvious value as the system of collective security and the ten newer members of NATO would have been blind not to see it. NATO cannot be said to exist just against any other block or country. It has a value per se. But Russia has a psychological problem in misunderstanding it. It is now Russia’s aggressiveness that drives even more states in their wish to join NATO. It is exactly your country’s politics that creates such reality. You also have no right to infringe their democratic development. Treat them as your partners, not servants of your “special interests”. It is now Russia who makes NATO react in this or other way, and rethink what measures NATO should take against the new threats and risks. I think the free world will never accept your policy of “privileged regions” unless it wants to risk its own development.
Reply
#61
Quote:These days You can watch whatever channels You want - so location is pretty much insignificant.[/size]
Yalta1945 Wrote:Some Russian TV companies offer different content for domestic and international viewers (marketing?). We have satellite dishes themselves, however we cannot see come channels that are available to us when we move to another place where we can use cable TV.The most important thing is however the ability of population in certain regions to understand Russian language and some context of the news or comments as well as be more familiar with personalities who appear to speak on air.

In Finland we have some 70+ common channels available through cable - when needed more / some
channel not present in the cable we use our own dishes.

Baltic Countries: - In at least Estonia there is pretty much the same possibilities and assortment.

Back in 80's and beginning of 90's also we mostly used our own dishes - but
today cable tv offers more channels than what You can usually expect with an ordinary own dish.

Yalta1945 Wrote:The most important thing is however the ability of population in certain regions to understand Russian language and some context of the news or comments as well as be more familiar with personalities who appear to speak on air.

The most important thing is the will to understand - preconceptions are not a good fundament for that.

Yalta1945 Wrote:So the place matters.
Nope - You look what You want to see - and pay for it. And If satelite orbits are not fitting - You can always
use something like Satelite TV for PC (over 4000 stations).
Reply
#62
Yalta1945 Wrote:NATO enlarged because it admitted more sovereign states of Europe as the members of the organization. First, it was the will of those independent states to choose NATO as the core element in their national security policy and their way of development. It was their right to choose their system of collective security and their right to decide on what they wish to integrate themselves into. Second, it was the will of the older members of NATO to accept these states into the organization. NATO has an obvious value as the system of collective security and the ten newer members of NATO would have been blind not to see it. NATO cannot be said to exist just against any other block or country. It has a value per se. But Russia has a psychological problem in misunderstanding it. It is now Russia’s aggressiveness that drives even more states in their wish to join NATO. It is exactly your country’s politics that creates such reality. You also have no right to infringe their democratic development. Treat them as your partners, not servants of your “special interests”. It is now Russia who makes NATO react in this or other way, and rethink what measures NATO should take against the new threats and risks. I think the free world will never accept your policy of “privileged regions” unless it wants to risk its own development.

it is from topic about Lithuania

SiD wrote:
Serbian people will decide if Milosovic is evil or not. You think serbs acted like they acted just becouse they are bad in nature? I think no one cared, they needed excuse and they created one. Western mass media shown serbs as bloothirsty monsters ignoring crimes from other side. And granting independance to Kosovo was great mistake. Why is it done? becouse Milosovic politics was evil?

Your answer

I remember very well what was going on in Yugoslavia as I was working with that information. Something urgent had to be done to stop Milosevic. Kosovo independence was not then on the agenda.


What if something will sudenly change in agenda of NATO in months? Or few years? Our government is responsible for thier own people and can not ignore NATO enlargement. Tell me what kind of fool would accept talk as garanties? If someone wants security, one must respect security of others.
Reply
#63
SiD Wrote:
Yalta1945 Wrote:NATO enlarged because it admitted more sovereign states of Europe as the members of the organization. First, it was the will of those independent states to choose NATO as the core element in their national security policy and their way of development. It was their right to choose their system of collective security and their right to decide on what they wish to integrate themselves into. Second, it was the will of the older members of NATO to accept these states into the organization. NATO has an obvious value as the system of collective security and the ten newer members of NATO would have been blind not to see it. NATO cannot be said to exist just against any other block or country. It has a value per se. But Russia has a psychological problem in misunderstanding it. It is now Russia’s aggressiveness that drives even more states in their wish to join NATO. It is exactly your country’s politics that creates such reality. You also have no right to infringe their democratic development. Treat them as your partners, not servants of your “special interests”. It is now Russia who makes NATO react in this or other way, and rethink what measures NATO should take against the new threats and risks. I think the free world will never accept your policy of “privileged regions” unless it wants to risk its own development.
it is from topic about Lithuania

SiD wrote:
Serbian people will decide if Milosovic is evil or not. You think serbs acted like they acted just becouse they are bad in nature? I think no one cared, they needed excuse and they created one. Western mass media shown serbs as bloothirsty monsters ignoring crimes from other side. And granting independance to Kosovo was great mistake. Why is it done? becouse Milosovic politics was evil?

Your answer

I remember very well what was going on in Yugoslavia as I was working with that information. Something urgent had to be done to stop Milosevic. Kosovo independence was not then on the agenda.


What if something will sudenly change in agenda of NATO in months? Or few years? Our government is responsible for thier own people and can not ignore NATO enlargement. Tell me what kind of fool would accept talk as garanties? If someone wants security, one must respect security of others.
It's a mad argument. You suggest Russia may fear NATO response in case Russia’s leaders do the same as Milosevic did. Were it the official position of the Kremlin, it would leave no doubts for the majority of Europeans that the most dangerous country for the peace in the world is Russia.
Reply
#64
Yalta1945 Wrote:It's a mad argument. You suggest Russia may fear NATO response in case Russia’s leaders do the same as Milosevic did. Were it the official position of the Kremlin, it would leave no doubts for the majority of Europeans that the most dangerous country for the peace in the world is Russia.


You misunderstood. I meant that now they speak about security but can start speaking about control. Our government must take no chances.
Reply
#65
What would have happened if this crisis would have happened while the Soviet Union would still be there?
[Image: PutinBushVolga.JPG]:haha
Reply
#66
clearman Wrote:What would have happened if this crisis would have happened while the Soviet Union would still be there?

You see it could not happen if Soviet Union was still there.
Reply
#67
Some weeks ago somebody wrote me here it was Russia who had started war with Georgia...they told they should use sanctions against Russia...and what their presidents say now??? Which country has used sanctions against Russia - who has torn their trading relations with Russian...stopped to buy gas or oil...manoeuvred their troops in Russia??? Your words were just a idle talk. The only thing you can do now - watch an economic collapse of your boss and write bosh... - nothing )))))))))))))))))
Reply
#68
Quote:Some weeks ago somebody wrote me here it was Russia who had started war with Georgia...they told they should use sanctions against Russia...
Maybe you see the Russian army dancing Smile
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=5WpYWpN0VXU
Reply
#69
Applying sanctions against Russia means applying sanctions against yourself. The economic world is more important than the moral one. Fortunately European authorities understood that and acted on their interest, not on USA's.
“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”
A really nice forum for Parisians
Reply
#70
Dmitry Wrote:Some weeks ago somebody wrote me here it was Russia who had started war with Georgia...they told they should use sanctions against Russia...and what their presidents say now??? Which country has used sanctions against Russia - who has torn their trading relations with Russian...stopped to buy gas or oil...manoeuvred their troops in Russia??? Your words were just a idle talk. The only thing you can do now - watch an economic collapse of your boss and write bosh... - nothing )))))))))))))))))
A very valuable comment followed by long silence (nobody was willing to answer) and then the post expressing the belief in the economization of politics:
M.Helen Wrote:Applying sanctions against Russia means applying sanctions against yourself. The economic world is more important than the moral one. Fortunately European authorities understood that and acted on their interest, not on USA's.
I'm not going to educate on the fallacies and pitfalls of the theory of economization of politics. Instead, I’ll reply to show the problem which is much older and more fundamental.
The above comments serve us right to see what demoralizing effect has a jelly-fish of the European type of Realpolitik. I think the common perception is that it is just gas and oil of Russia what really matters for Europe. When the EU looks at the mirror it must see the highly consumerist societies ready to sacrifice the defence of principal values they have declared in exchange for economic benefits. If it were about the US, citizens of the EU would be quick to unmask this hypocrisy. In general, people don’t like hypocrisy. This was the reason the USSR was not loved, and the US today are also disliked on any instances when people feel the US to be hypocritical. Now they should be ashamed of themselves but they will not be so necessarily in reality, for it is much easier to talk about others than ourselves: when people dislike their mirror, sometimes they blame the mirror. So I may bring curse just on myself while pointing to our low morality and lack of mutual solidarity (there are many other cases as well – within the EU).
Tell me if I am wrong in thinking we are trading with Russia on something that should never be traded in exchange of gas and oil. Tell me please if we are also right to support such regimes as presently in Turkmenistan in exchange of gas. Tell me please if Russians are wrong when they cynically claim on those bigger countries in the Western Europe to “dump” us, smaller and newer members of the EU. I have so far heard from you only questioning “are they more pro-American or anti-Russian?” Where were you, “great thinkers”, during our singing revolutions?!
Please, don’t hesitate - come forward: blame me for all bad things you can imagine.
To make it easier for you to start, I’ll show what Litvinenko (who thought he was under protection of British authorities until he got poisoned by Polonium) said in 2003 to Lithuanians (translated):
Quote: "They [the Baltic States] are now better protected than, for example, Chechnya or Georgia. However one has to understand that neither membership of NATO, nor of the EU guarantees 100% safety from Russian aggression and its meddling into domestic affairs, if the situation in Russia itself is going to develop according to the worst scenario. That is, if the fascistic elements in the Kremlin are going to remain, and this regime is fed by high oil prices.
<...> It has to be understood that the contemporary world is changing very dynamically and nobody can foresee what will happen to NATO and the EU in some five years. So the only guarantee to the security of Lithuania and other former countries of the socialistic camp is free and stable Russia run by civilized, educated and democratic people – but not by the former Saint Petersburg’s KGB “shpana”. Excuse me for the word “shpana”* but it’s probably the most exact Russian word to characterize V.Putin, his associates, and their activities in Russia. <...>
((* shpana - not so easy to be translated but underlying the lowest morality of some urchins starting usually from hooliganism and small crimes but ending as true criminals))
After the final takeover of the oil and gas industry, men from Russian state security will offer you barter: freedom for energy resources. <...> These people are not scrupulous of anything. They can undertake anything: starting with recruiting highest rank officials, blackmailing them, bribing, and scaring them, and ending with provocations on the border and the outright aggression. Their goal being the same – full control of the Lithuanian state.
It is necessary to understand that Western politicians are pragmatics and I assure you that they will not fight for Lithuania against Russia who has nuclear and bacteriological weapons. That’s why you have to primarily rely on your own strength and have no such illusions – “it will not touch us” or “the West will help us”.
I am well familiar with those who are in the Kremlin now, and I tell you: “it will touch you. I have lived for some time in the West and it was enough for me to realize: “The West will not help you”. Unfortunately, the leaders of the leading Western countries probably forgot the history, that’s why they’re flirting with V. Putin under whom Russia is increasingly becoming like fascist Germany in 1930’s.
The West exchanges democratic values for short-term tactical interests. Living from elections to elections, the West has no time to look forward to more than four years in advance.”
During the recent armed conflict in Georgia, "The Financial Times" published the results of the poll that showed that the public opinion in the majority of NATO countries confirmed what Litvinenko was warning us about. I think it’s now the high time for some newer members of the EU and NATO to start rethinking their policy of international integration. I do not think the majority in these countries will remain content with the hypocrisy in the EU as well as they are not content with their domestic plutocrats. There was no need to break away from the USSR to find the same hypocrisy in the Western Europe. In this case, the EU will sooner or later fall apart, and it would be better for us to prepare for it in advance.
As soon as the EU starts compromising its values, it is the beginning of its end.
Europe is far away from the notion that every investment is an ethical decision. (I wonder if Sarkozy mentioning “ethical capitalism” (not a brand-new and somewhat controversial term) is not merely paying his lip service to the public worried of the current financial crisis.) But without ethics, the EU is no more than a union of snakes.
Reply
#71
Parhaps you even know what should Europe do if they desided to make "ethical" desigion?
Do not forget that government holds RESPONSABILITY for THIER nation. They cant make desigions based on emothions or paranoic statments of some people.

Yalta1945 Wrote:union of snakes.
parhaps it will be officiall name of EU someday? Smile .
Reply
#72
SiD Wrote:Parhaps you even know what should Europe do if they desided to make "ethical" desigion?
Do not forget that government holds RESPONSABILITY for THIER nation. They cant make desigions based on emothions or paranoic statments of some people.

Yalta1945 Wrote:union of snakes.
parhaps it will be officiall name of EU someday? Smile .
The world saw enough of paranoics assuming responsibility for THEIR nation.
But if people like Trotsky, Litvinenko, Yushchenko, Politkovskaya, and so on were just some idiots (that is how dissidents in the USSR were commonly presented for public), why were they hunted and assassinated?
All right, I’m ready to reflect on modern idiotism as well. Lenin used to call people of Western countries who admired the USSR “useful idiots”. Some author wrote recently in “Foreign Policy” about the new idiotism (sorry, it’s not me) that made Germany so dependant on Russia. These were so-called Greens (named after “The New Red” by some commentators long ago) whom Germany should thank for its dependence on Russian gas. Germany could use more of their own resources – but they are using neither coal, nor even they try to use more nuclear energy. Under law, Germany is obliged to close all their nuclear power stations until 2020, because this was what the Green movements in Germany had fought for. It had been said that Germany would be using more of its renewable energy sources – but solar and wind energy in Germany accounts just for tiny 2% of all energy production.
_______________________________________________________________________---
There’s also another aspect that the EU states should consider in their foreign affairs. Elections in Russia do not take place fairly and with due respect to democratic values, so we do not know how strong or weak the real support for the current Kremlin’s politics is in Russia. The positive scenario for Russia is still possible. If some day people of Russia stop buying stories of success made by the Kremlin and turn against their current rulers, then the EU may find itself in a position when Russian people accuse Europeans of backing the regime they hated so much. It’s like people of Pakistan accusing the US of being blind in supporting the former dictator of the country Pervez Musharraf when he took drastically undemocratic and unpopular steps in Pakistan. The US went on supporting Musharraf when he already became so much hated political figure in his own country. The same might happen to the EU. If Russia puts itself in a position to uphold democratic development and takes over the moral command, then some European countries may start drifting away from the hypocritical EU - attracted by the quite new type of Russia as their romantic partner in the quest for another type of Europe. It’s just now bureaucratic rationalism seems to be so prevalent but later it may be changed by the new wave of spontaneity and rediscovering “the old European values” (in a positive sense). It may then bring about the end for the dream of “the economic stronghold” of the European Union.
Reply
#73
Actually imposing sanctions against Russia is a very hard task.
So let’s imagine EU does it. But in the same easy way it is hard to imagine if this will have any effect, and more importantly for who?
I think for any country the energy resources count first than the economic relations, as you cannot build them in a market that lacks the basic power to keep it alive.
Reply
#74
Yalta1945 Wrote:The world saw enough of paranoics assuming responsibility for THEIR nation.
But if people like Trotsky, Litvinenko, Yushchenko, Politkovskaya, and so on were just some idiots (that is how dissidents in the USSR were commonly presented for public), why were they hunted and assassinated?
All right, I’m ready to reflect on modern idiotism as well. Lenin used to call people of Western countries who admired the USSR “useful idiots”. Some author wrote recently in “Foreign Policy” about the new idiotism (sorry, it’s not me) that made Germany so dependant on Russia. These were so-called Greens (named after “The New Red” by some commentators long ago) whom Germany should thank for its dependence on Russian gas. Germany could use more of their own resources – but they are using neither coal, nor even they try to use more nuclear energy. Under law, Germany is obliged to close all their nuclear power stations until 2020, because this was what the Green movements in Germany had fought for. It had been said that Germany would be using more of its renewable energy sources – but solar and wind energy in Germany accounts just for tiny 2% of all energy production.

And you think Sarkozy is paranoic? He is pragmatic. Whanewer reasons one cant ignore reality. Germany cant ignore reality either. So thier position is reasanable that wont hurt thier own people. Ethic is fine and good but political desigions are not based on it.

Yalta1945 Wrote:There’s also another aspect that the EU states should consider in their foreign affairs. Elections in Russia do not take place fairly and with due respect to democratic values, so we do not know how strong or weak the real support for the current Kremlin’s politics is in Russia. The positive scenario for Russia is still possible. If some day people of Russia stop buying stories of success made by the Kremlin and turn against their current rulers, then the EU may find itself in a position when Russian people accuse Europeans of backing the regime they hated so much. It’s like people of Pakistan accusing the US of being blind in supporting the former dictator of the country Pervez Musharraf when he took drastically undemocratic and unpopular steps in Pakistan. The US went on supporting Musharraf when he already became so much hated political figure in his own country. The same might happen to the EU. If Russia puts itself in a position to uphold democratic development and takes over the moral command, then some European countries may start drifting away from the hypocritical EU - attracted by the quite new type of Russia as their romantic partner in the quest for another type of Europe. It’s just now bureaucratic rationalism seems to be so prevalent but later it may be changed by the new wave of spontaneity and rediscovering “the old European values” (in a positive sense). It may then bring about the end for the dream of “the economic stronghold” of the European Union.

Elections were fair. Medvedev like Putin got most support it is fact. You see i woted myself, no one forced me to make choice or forbid me to learn about any other condidate or political party, everything was calm and i seen no violations, i just voted and thats all. parhaps i am the only one who was allowed to vote fairly? Smile .
So anyone who turns against legitimate power must prepare to be dealt with as criminal if he breaks law. We do not need not orange, not rose, not blue, not any other kind of revolution, that ocasionaly happens near our borders. So do not worry Medvedev is not Musharraf, and no dictator.
Reply
#75
I recently heard that NATO is interested in Russian military equipment and, thus, is going to buy weapons from Russia in big amounts. So it seems that not only gas and oil are Russia's main values.
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did."

Vegan news | Vegan forums
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)