Politics... World events

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

I sometimes wonder what world you live in Bruce... the same world that expect Russia to hand over a large chunk of of its citizen to what is now a foreign country because someone in other foreign countries says so? It's not exactly that those same foreign countries respect any democratic processes when the outcome is undesirable. Oh yes, the same foreign countries that were happy to carve up another country (Serbia) when it fit their geopolitical narrative? The hypocrisy is strong in those foreign countries.

Gorthfuscious !!! I am too fond of you to insist on a proper spanking for this cheekiness 

But I am glad you asked what world I live in  because now you allow me  to explain to you that you are wrong about the ownership of the Crimea and this is an important point  because its also the reason that you cannot have an opinion that " Russia has a legal right to the Crimea " 

We have had this debate before but I didn't realize you really do believe that you cant demand and expect Russia to give back Crimea. And I really respect your intelligence too much to just accept that you wont understand why Russia can and will give back  Crimea. Yes you will have to change your well meaning and supportive of Russia's control of Crimea but I always welcome these types of changes personally because I do believe that I must have accurate views of events of history....so for me when I have learnt new things from you and your views on topics like the Chinese naval expansion I consider them both instructive and informative.

I will keep  it very simple, the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea has been declared illegal in international courts like the EU and courts that handle international issues like property rights. And  its based on the international recognition  that all countries have borders and these borders cannot just be redesigned by one party. So in other Russia has no legal right to decide it now owns Crimea without Ukraine agreeing

Ukraine will not agree to this so Russia is illegally occupying Crimea, its as simple as that and the only reasonable way you could possibly change this fact is if you can provide the link that has the legal document that says  " Russia legally owns Crimea "

And this needs to be internationally recognized. And this is the only information that matters so even though we can go your through your other reasons like " Serbia being  carved " none of them change the actual reality of who owns Crimea

I hope I am not coming across as condescending because  I am looking to your response, or other members response , to the Crimea issue 

 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, majestic said:

Like recognizing that Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, right?

You are so naughty....I know you joking right because  obviously the Russian Referendum was utterly pointless and had no international legal standing?

But on another note, I wanted to know  about Austrian food on the food thread ...but lets chat later about that one 

Edited February 5, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

I will keep  it very simple, the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea has been declared illegal in international courts like the EU

Bruce... seriously. Listen to yourself. Those same countries that had no problem whatsoever carving up Serbia when it fit their interests?

 

Let me ask you the opposite question. Why would Ukraine have any claims on Crimea other than Ukraine said so and some western countries thought it would annoy Russia and so they agreed to Ukraine's claims. It was never historically part of Ukraine. The population is sure as heck not Ukrainian. The only people with any legitimate claims on Crimea besides Russia are the Tartars and they don't have a nation state to represent them. Do you care at all about what the people in Crimea desire or is it enough that what they desire doesn't match how you want the map to look like?

 

Edit: So, yeah. Ukraine is really the only one here with no *legitimate* claim whatsoever on Crimea. Russians yes, Tartars yes (even more than Russians). Ukraine... only in Western geopolitical power plays. Like, because "We says so, therefore!"

 

Edit2: The Ottoman Empire effectively handed over the Crimean Khanate as part of a peace treaty between The Ottoman Empire and Russia and it has been Russian ever since. Even if the French and British waged war there almost a century later and completely laid waste to Crimea, causing a mass exodus of the surviving Tartars because of famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Küçük_Kaynarca

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Bruce... seriously. Listen to yourself. Those same countries that had no problem whatsoever carving up Serbia when it fit their interests?

 

Let me ask you the opposite question. Why would Ukraine have any claims on Crimea other than Ukraine said so and some western countries thought it would annoy Russia and so they agreed to Ukraine's claims. It was never historically part of Ukraine. The population is sure as heck not Ukrainian. The only people with any legitimate claims on Crimea besides Russia are the Tartars and they don't have a nation state to represent them. Do you care at all about what the people in Crimea desire or is it enough that what they desire doesn't match how you want the map to look like?

 

Edit: So, yeah. Ukraine is really the only one here with no *legitimate* claim whatsoever on Crimea. Russians yes, Tartars yes (even more than Russians). Ukraine... only in Western geopolitical power plays. Like, because "We says so, therefore!"

 

Edit2: The Ottoman Empire effectively handed over the Crimean Khanate as part of a peace treaty between The Ottoman Empire and Russia and it has been Russian ever since. Even if the French and British waged war there almost a century later and completely laid waste to Crimea, causing a mass exodus of the surviving Tartars because of famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Küçük_Kaynarca

I am going to do some research and get to you on something to add to my point

But Gorthfuscious I still dont think you are understanding my fundamental point, the Russian annexation is considered illegal by every international court. So this needs to be accepted because this is what matters for global recognition 

And you ask a good question around " do the people of Crimea get  a choice " ....they do but not when its against the country that the region belongs to. So in other words the legal answer is " no, the local people dont get to decide on their own " . If you allowed citizens in specific regions of any countries to just decide they didnt like their main country and wanted to break away their would be absolute chaos. Which is why you have laws and detailed strategies how it can be done but its complex and requires compromise and many meetings ...but it cannot possibly be done the way Russia decided to do it 

[213374U]

16 hours ago, majestic said:

Like recognizing that Crimea overwhelmingly voted to join Russia, right?

Self-determination is a serious minefield. Of course, politicians and useful idiots are always going to argue that it applies where it hurts their opponents while simultaneously suggesting that it doesn't where it would hurt them. Consistency is for chumps. Russians strongly -by force of arms strong- supported it in Crimea, but any discussion of it in the Caucasus is a non-starter. It is also Schrödinger's right in the case of Taiwan, with the US functionally treating Taiwan as an independent country but stopping short of recognizing it as such because that would immediately trigger Chinese military action. The US also famously has self‑determination as the essence of its very existence but denies it for many others, with the Sahrawi people being the latest example.

The principle is enshrined in the UN Charter... for all the good that does. It shouldn't be surprising that the usual suspects here and elsewhere apply it selectively -- almost everyone does.

Edited February 5, 2021 by 213374U

[Malcador]

https://apnews.com/article/wu-tang-clan-wuhan-canada-china-explain-cf389ee50b7db45853367f98f0656a2f

RZA must mediate this

[ComradeYellow]

ASEAN, China and partners sign world's biggest trade deal (msn.com)

China's version of the TPP, only this one was successful.  They almost literally ripped a page straight out of Obama's playbook to a tee.

EDIT:  "China is a sleeping giant, let her sleep, for when she awakes, she will move the world"  - Napoleon Bonaparte.....over 200 years ago.

Edited February 6, 2021 by ComradeMaster

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

ASEAN, China and partners sign world's biggest trade deal (msn.com)

China's version of the TPP, only this one was successful.  They almost literally ripped a page straight out of Obama's playbook to a tee.

EDIT:  "China is a sleeping giant, let her sleep, for when she awakes, she will move the world"  - Napoleon Bonaparte.....over 200 years ago.

Nostradamus is better at the doom and gloom stuff

https://nypost.com/2020/12/28/nostradamus-predictions-for-2021-dont-look-good-for-earth/

 

[Gromnir]

 

warning: potential unsettling video

 

Spoiler

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Gromnir
warning added

[ComradeYellow]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

Nostradamus is better at the doom and gloom stuff

https://nypost.com/2020/12/28/nostradamus-predictions-for-2021-dont-look-good-for-earth/

 

It's not really "doom and gloom" it's just the world is becoming more competitive now.  If the U.S. is Intel, China is AMD and quickly catching up and even overtaking the U.S. on performance and features, so the U.S. will eventually have to reform and adjust if it wants to stay #1.

[InsaneCommander]

Regardless of how accurate this will turn out to be, he makes some interesting statements (that will probably heat things up in the comments):

“If the West doesn’t sort out their social issues within the next 10 years China wins”

"I find it disturbing that significant parts of the western elite are more disturbed with microaggressions than a massive Orwellian authoritarian empire trying to take over the world"

 

If you are wondering why the thumbnail shows China taking over most of Asia, it is a guess based on the difference in population in China and central Asia/Siberia. But as it is also said in the video, China's population is aging, so I'm not sure how this would happen.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, InsaneCommander said:

 

 

If you are wondering why the thumbnail shows China taking over most of Asia, it is a guess based on the difference in population in China and central Asia/Siberia. But as it is also said in the video, China's population is aging, so I'm not sure how this would happen.

understatement. unless china invents cinema-grade time travel, they got what appears to be a massive and insurmountable population problem o' their own making. 

if china were gonna implement decades-long draconian population control to stave off their recurring famine problems, they shoulda' gone with logan's run life clocks and carousel. 'course is understandable why the old men running the chinese communist party didn't consider carousel. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[213374U]

GAO report finds that US sanctions exacerbated Venezuela's economic decline

Quote

The Venezuelan economy's performance has declined steadily for almost a decade and fallen steeply since the imposition of a series of U.S. sanctions starting in 2015. For example, the economy declined from negative 6.2 percent gross domestic product growth in 2015 to negative 35 percent in 2019 and negative 25 percent in 2020. 

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If Venezuela wanted a good economy, they should simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not be sanctioned by the US.

[Skarpen]

If Venezuela didn't have money they should just print more money...oh wait.

[Darkpriest]

https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-military-iran-china-idUSKBN2A81Q8

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, 213374U said:

GAO report finds that US sanctions exacerbated Venezuela's economic decline

 

Exactly the gradual intention with these types of sanctions but they are not the core reason for the Venezuela economic collapse. That was the fault of Chavez and his nationalization of the foreign oil companies  in 2006/2007

[Malcador]

16 hours ago, 213374U said:

GAO report finds that US sanctions exacerbated Venezuela's economic decline

 

See, it's proof Socialism doesn't work

[majestic]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Exactly the gradual intention with these types of sanctions but they are not the core reason for the Venezuela economic collapse. That was the fault of Chavez and his nationalization of the foreign oil companies  in 2006/2007

But he wanted to use the oil to make bootstraps for everyone.

[Gfted1]

Well dang, if you if you cant earn a living, and you cant be given a living, then the only solution is to qq into the internet.

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Exactly the gradual intention with these types of sanctions but they are not the core reason for the Venezuela economic collapse. That was the fault of Chavez and his nationalization of the foreign oil companies  in 2006/2007

"Venezuela has been one of the leading proponents of a new international economic order. As a major oil producer it was instrumental in the creation of OPEC. It has also realized a basic element of a NIEO — the nationalization of basic economic resources. The oil industry was nationalized on January 1, 1976, while the second-ranking export industry, iron and steel, had been expropriated one year earlier. "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/422789?seq=1

President Carlos Andrés Pérez was one who nationalized Venezuela's oil industry

Chávez set law in 2002 that big sunk of Venezuela's oil money needs to be put in social programs in such extent that oil industry could not sustain itself, which lead 12000 PDVSA's workers to go in strike and Chávez firing them and replacing them with people who didn't know anything about oil industry (Chávez referred to regaining control of the industry as "re-nationalization". ) and then in 2005 he started to sell oil to China in price that could not sustained for long period of time and then 2007 he also started to sell oil to Brazil under market value again, all these interesting decision lead Venezuela's oil industry fail to produce enough money to pay the social programs that made Chávez  popular and losing big sunk of Venezuela's oil reserve in ridiculously low price.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Elerond

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If I'm not mistaken oil companies are usually either nationalized or private firms that are heavily supported by the state, because otherwise it fails spectacularly lmao. By the numbers I think Germany actually has more nationalized industry than Venezuela.

[BruceVC]

52 minutes ago, Elerond said:

"Venezuela has been one of the leading proponents of a new international economic order. As a major oil producer it was instrumental in the creation of OPEC. It has also realized a basic element of a NIEO — the nationalization of basic economic resources. The oil industry was nationalized on January 1, 1976, while the second-ranking export industry, iron and steel, had been expropriated one year earlier. "

https://www.jstor.org/stable/422789?seq=1

President Carlos Andrés Pérez was one who nationalized Venezuela's oil industry

Chávez set law in 2002 that big sunk of Venezuela's oil money needs to be put in social programs in such extent that oil industry could not sustain itself, which lead 12000 PDVSA's workers to go in strike and Chávez firing them and replacing them with people who didn't know anything about oil industry (Chávez referred to regaining control of the industry as "re-nationalization". ) and then in 2005 he started to sell oil to China in price that could not sustained for long period of time and then 2007 he also started to sell oil to Brazil under market value again, all these interesting decision lead Venezuela's oil industry fail to produce enough money to pay the social programs that made Chávez  popular and losing big sunk of Venezuela's oil reserve in ridiculously low price.

No Elerond you are misunderstanding something about what Chavez did around nationalization, in the 1970's  Venezuela created its own state own oil company that had of degrees of control around oil distribution and production  and the idea was it was suppose to lead to a  form of a sovereign fund like Norway  

This is not the same thing as what happened in 2006/2007. Chavez forced international oil companies that were operating in Venezuela to give his government majority control of their assets...that is the nationalization I refer to, not what happened in the 1970's

We discussed this a couple of months ago where I posted a link that I asked you and Gorthfuscious to read, please read the link again below to understand what Chavez did.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/?sh=7b08053f7399

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-nationalizations-idUSTRE65N0UM20100624

The second link also mentions this, to quote

 "Chavez in 2007 nationalized multi-billion dollar projects in Venezuela’s vast Orinoco oil region, persuading companies such as BP Plc, to accept minority stakes in facilities they had built"

Last year he ordered the takeover of dozens of smaller oil service companies as PDVSA, reeling from a sharp plunge in oil prices, struggled to pay contractors.

When he was flush with oil cash during a boom in oil prices that ended in 2008, Chavez often compensated nationalized companies fairly, although the 2007 takeovers led to lawsuits from ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. " 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If I'm not mistaken oil companies are usually either nationalized or private firms that are heavily supported by the state, because otherwise it fails spectacularly lmao. By the numbers I think Germany actually has more nationalized industry than Venezuela.

No thats  completely inaccurate, the majority of oil companies are global, private sector companies that are listed companies and arent owned by any state ...so you very mistaken 

Edited February 9, 2021 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

The big issue with Venezuela's oil industry is that its oil is heavy and sour and intrinsically lower value/ hard to process, and the US embargoed items essential for maintenance. Chavez sacking some workers makes a lovely narrative, since it was 'commie' Chavez sacking brave striking workers, but if that was the case it took a very long time and plummeting prices to have an effect. It's a very 90s Iraq dichotomy, if you argue that people are in poverty because of sanctions then the argument is that sanctions have no effect and it's all Saddam/ Maduro's/ their economic system's fault and if they just left everything would be rosy, like it is in Iraq, Honduras, Kosovo or Libya currently; OTOH if you're arguing that sanctions have no effect and the people implementing them are incompetent then suddenly all the economic troubles have their root in sanctions. They key thing is, of course, to switch between the two in the same interview and get Madeleine Albright to say for posterity that 500k dead kids from sanctions is perfectly acceptable on camera.

Their main problem is that they can only produce oil very inefficiently because they cannot replace specialist parts, and customers at full price are hard to find because the US will sanction those dealing with them. Then, people wonder why Iran wants nuclear power...