Ukraine Conflict - Drei Kameraden

[Elerond]

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

No. That may be some edge interpretation of the American 1st Amendment, but not really what free speech is about. Free speech is a guiding principle that applies to everyone who is committed to an open society. You don't have a protected right while on that platform, but that doesn't immediately invalidate the principle itself. It is on the private entity running the platform to decide whether they want to uphold that principle and assume the costs and consequences.

I fully support YouTube's right to nuke RT, but I find the decision unfortunate, the execution ham-fisted, and the reasoning given laughable. They have chosen to remove the entire RT channel, but not everything in there was Russian gov't propaganda. Unless you somehow figure that documentaries about the life in deep Siberia of some 30-something guy that looks like a teenager is pro-war Kremlin tripe. All the while claiming to do so under the "violent content" protection guidelines.

What I don't support is ****ing Ursula von der Leyen deciding for some 450 million people what they can and cannot watch in the privacy of their homes. That is censorship, but after what we've been seeing lately, I'm not at all surprised that seldom anyone seems to have a problem with this.

Considering that message which I answered was "All you "Give me liberty give me death!1" people should be outraged. " , American 1st amendment is the we should look for guidance.

But my interpretation is based on on European and universal human rights.

 

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. 

 

About EU's decision to ban RT and Sputnik, it is one of those difficult questions where multitude human rights are in conflict with each other. EU banned RT and Sputnik for pro war propaganda, as it is seen that people's right for free speech can be limited when said speech is in support for breaking other people human rights in fundamental way (in this case Ukraine people rights given in article 3 in UDoHR and article 2 in ECoHR ). 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Elerond

[Elerond]

5 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

I know, especially the guy with NLAW should have been at least 1km away from the target

It is quite difficult to shot tank 0.5 km away with NLAW or some other light anti tank weapon.

NLAW's maximum range is 1km and it is effective from 20m-800m.

And it is not like Ukraine has NLAW's to waste, so they most likely take high risk in order to make sure that they destroy their targets instead of waste shots.

[213374U]

24 minutes ago, Elerond said:

About EU's decision to ban RT and Sputnik, it is one of those difficult questions where multitude human rights are in conflict with each other. EU banned RT and Sputnik for pro war propaganda, as it is seen that people's right for free speech can be limited when said speech is in support for breaking other people human rights in fundamental way (in this case Ukraine people rights given in article 3 in UDoHR and article 2 in ECoHR ). 

Again, no. "Speech in support for breaking other people's human rights" isn't grounds for censorship. Otherwise they could have banned any number of outlets and voices over the past 20 years that peddled bull**** (actual bull****) in support of frivolous wars all over the world. Also Chinese-affiliated media, Persian Gulf state-affiliated media, not to mention all the voices claiming for suspension of basic rights during the pandemic.

A fundamental principle stops having any use or being meaningful if you just claim "exceptional circumstances!" to ignore it whenever it suits you. Doing that while denying opponents the same is textbook hypocrisy. Either we have a free, open and mature democratic society that can not be seriously confused, contaminated and disrupted by propaganda and fake news, or we do and all the authoritarian garbage pushed by the likes of Xi Jinping and Putin is actually on point. You can't just have both simply because you claim to have the moral high ground.

[Raithe]

 

[Elerond]

28 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Again, no. "Speech in support for breaking other people's human rights" isn't grounds for censorship. Otherwise they could have banned any number of outlets and voices over the past 20 years that peddled bull**** (actual bull****) in support of frivolous wars all over the world. Also Chinese-affiliated media, Persian Gulf state-affiliated media, not to mention all the voices claiming for suspension of basic rights during the pandemic.

A fundamental principle stops having any use or being meaningful if you just claim "exceptional circumstances!" to ignore it whenever it suits you. Doing that while denying opponents the same is textbook hypocrisy. Either we have a free, open and mature democratic society that can not be seriously confused, contaminated and disrupted by propaganda and fake news, or we do and all the authoritarian garbage pushed by the likes of Xi Jinping and Putin is actually on point. You can't just have both simply because you claim to have the moral high ground.

But it is, which is why Russia and Turkey are able to censor their people so effectively even though they are under European court of human rights. EU has avoided using it ability to censor outlets so far, but now they decided to use tactics perfected by Russia in past two decades against Russia.

Of course it is slippery slope and easily lead more censorship in future, but as now it is accordance of European human right  principalities and EU laws.

[Darkpriest]

Some Russian air assault troops. 

@Guard Dog

These seem to be better equiped. 

Generally not much Russian footage is available

Edited March 12, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Again, no. "Speech in support for breaking other people's human rights" isn't grounds for censorship. Otherwise they could have banned any number of outlets and voices over the past 20 years that peddled bull**** (actual bull****) in support of frivolous wars all over the world. Also Chinese-affiliated media, Persian Gulf state-affiliated media, not to mention all the voices claiming for suspension of basic rights during the pandemic.

Yeah, that justification is absolutely awful. Not just because of the all the horrendous pro war propaganda you get from the west- which is of course aok because it's giving human rights* to brown people who live on the west's resources, those that survive at least- and the obvious selectiveness of who is effected but because it's a fundamentally stupid argument.

If you want actual democracy, which is supposedly the cornerstone of western ideology (lol), then you need free access to information, including information that the government doesn't like. Perhaps the single most important human right of all beyond not being arbitrarily killed or imprisoned, because it's the one thing that gives you context to decide on your own situation and your country's. It's an absolutely fundamental component of free speech, what's the point if Ursula holds the mute button? Otherwise you're just a bunch of ignorant sheep voting for whichever wolf looks whitest and woolliest- or whichever wolf a western oligarch** says you should. von der Leyen has been looking for an excuse to ban RT for ages because it's stridently anti EU. And let's not get started on that moron Borrell shooting his mouth off about MiG29s because he thought it would make his awful tenure look better. Just bring back Mogherini, the guy's a dud and you've got 3 (?) more years of him.

Under the Elerond Doctrine you can have a great argument for banning Ursula von der Leyen instead for violating the human right to free information. Remember this next time people think I'm anti EU, that suggestion would be the best thing to happen to the organisation since the CDU decided she wasn't a suitable successor to Merkel but knew too much to simply dump.

It's just so typical of the EU, an organisation that lest we forget would not be able to join itself because it doesn't meet its own standards for democracy.

*like, say, open air slave markets in Libya. The west breaks it, but they never buy it. It just goes into the collective unconsciousness via 'just uncivilised brown people things', nothing to do with us.

**and what else are Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos et al?

2 hours ago, pmp10 said:

I wouldn't put too much credence to it.
There are a lot of demonizing rumors about Russian forces going around right now.
'Not one step back' brigades, mobile crematoria, finishing off own wounded, mining corpses and so on.
Usually spread by the same people who said Putin fired multiple subordinates (presumably Darth Vader style), yet we still see them showing up in official news footage.

One of the less edifying things about the war is the number of old racist (meh, bigoted really) tropes that have been trotted out against Russians. Enemy at the Gates isn't a documentary, guys.

(Did you know Putin has Parkinson's and was to retire in January 2021? I love that one, because it was made up wholesale by the utterly unreliable 'The Sun' yet got repeated all over the place as if it was gospel)

[213374U]

5 hours ago, Elerond said:

But it is, which is why Russia and Turkey are able to censor their people so effectively even though they are under European court of human rights. EU has avoided using it ability to censor outlets so far, but now they decided to use tactics perfected by Russia in past two decades against Russia.

Of course it is slippery slope and easily lead more censorship in future, but as now it is accordance of European human right  principalities and EU laws.

Note that I'm not saying it's illegal -- there's always some loophole or bit of fine print somewhere buried in that document that no one bothered to read when they voted on that referendum fifteen years ago. What I'm saying though is that it's hypocritical. If we are willing to use the same tools as the likes of Turkey and Russia, then we have lost the moral authority to criticize them.

Either the ends justify the means, or they don't. "Sometimes" in this context means very much yes.

 

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

**and what else are Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos et al?

Why, "philantropists", of course.

Edited March 13, 2022 by 213374U

[ComradeYellow]

22 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I can give you an example of how dangerous this type of propaganda is, when the invasion started you use to believe that Ukraine was a Nazi country and it was justified. Ask yourself " why did I use to think that " ?

...Because East Europe (And admittedly some parts of Russia) has been a hotbed for neo Nazi's since like 1991 or something?  I mean sure Putin is no Lenin or Stalin but at least he's aligning himself against fascism and the Azov battalion and all these other white nationalists and terrorists from the Middle East who want to flock to Ukraine to fight the Muscovites.

[BruceVC]

14 hours ago, 213374U said:

What I don't support is ****ing Ursula von der Leyen deciding for some 450 million people what they can and cannot watch in the privacy of their homes. That is censorship, but after what we've been seeing lately, I'm not at all surprised that seldom anyone seems to have a problem with this.

Yes most people dont have a problem with RT being banned because its not objective news and we dont want people to be confused and manipulated by Russian propaganda 

I have huge respect for Ursula von Leyen and her latest public speeches I support and they recognize the new united future of the EU and, for example, the new energy plans for the EU 

Its a good time to be part of the EU because the unity we seeing makes a nice change and bodes well for the future of the EU

 

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, 213374U said:

. If we are willing to use the same tools as the likes of Turkey and Russia, then we ave lost the moral authority to criticize them.

Either the ends justify the means, or they don't. "Sometimes" in this context means very much yes.

 

Why, "philantropists", of course.

" then we have lost the moral authority to criticize them "  

I have heard this type of left-wing, SJW, socialist doublespeak before where someone says " but we dont have the moral authority to criticize Russia because of Iraq, Afghanistan ,Yemen, Libya , Colonialism and things like the Palestinian Israeli conflict " 

What have those conflicts got to do with the unquestionable sequence of events where Russia unilaterally decided to carve up the borders of a soverign country and then invaded that country after Putin lied blatantly to the entire world and said "we dont want to invade Ukraine " 

If you follow  the logic of your spurious corollary then the US and the EU should not have criticized or used sanctions against Apartheid South Africa because  slavery use to legal in the US and the EU and thats " much worse than Apartheid " 

The world and the UN responds to the actions and decisions of countries and how they act in real time. Each case is different and each conflict is different and their will always be different levels of global response and concern 

But to suggest "  then we have lost the moral authority to criticize them "is one of  the most unconvincing comments I have ever heard about Putins War. Of course its going to be criticized. Why wouldnt you recognize this type of appalling aggression and blatant contempt of international law and sovereignty ?

[ComradeYellow]

Looks like RT has found a home on Rumble, and also Odysee, which are both alternatives to Youtube.

Good.  When monopoly tech starts acting like the dictators they claim to hate, that's when other platforms start gaining traction and get competitive.

I don't know about Odysee but Rumble seems to be a haven for right wing views, as their Twitter page has a lot of comments about Youtube banning pro-Trump videos and stuff and welcoming them on their platform.  Sort of like Parler I guess which is like Twitter for banned Trumpers and other rightists.  Twitter hasn't mass banned the far left yet but I'm sure they'll get there at some point! 

EDIT:  Biden outright toppling RT America is a clear violation of the 1st amendment though, and liberal Democrats don't seem to care about that.

Edited March 13, 2022 by ComradeYellow

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

What have those conflicts got to do with the unquestionable sequence of events where Russia unilaterally decided to carve up the borders of a soverign country and then invaded that country after Putin lied blatantly to the entire world and said "we dont want to invade Ukraine "

The Ministry of Truth would like to interview you for a position they have... Don't count on me as an immigrant. I'm allergic to totalitarian regimes like the kind of society you seem in favour of. The sooner the EU falls apart, the better. It was never a union for the people, but a union for the political and economical elite (despite how it was sold on originally in 1957)

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

If you follow  the logic of your spurious corollary then the US and the EU should not have criticized or used sanctions against Apartheid South Africa because  slavery use to legal in the US and the EU and thats " much worse than Apartheid " 

Sanctions against Russia is fine. Just drop the hypocrisy and "holier than thou" attitude and call it what it is. On government levels it's geopolitical power play. Not to be confused with grass root levels, as plenty of people will boycott Russian products for all the right reasons.

A country that had legal racial segregation up until approx. 25 years before the end of apartheid (one of many gifts from England to Africa) is not the best example. Not that this has anything to do at all with what is being discussed of course.

Which, IIRC, is how close the EU is to evolve into something out of Orwell's 1984, where decisions are removed several levels from people and said people will now no longer have free choice of what information they want to access. Because, some information is dangerous to the regime? Do you even know how, what you are in favour of, sounds? The road to hell is paved with good intentions sometimes, except this crack down on civil liberties are not in any way good intentions. It's a tool of power, used to control people.

 

Hint: What you need is not less information, it's more information.

 

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Gorth said:

The Ministry of Truth would like to interview you for a position they have... Don't count on me as an immigrant. I'm allergic to totalitarian regimes like the kind of society you seem in favour of. The sooner the EU falls apart, the better. It was never a union for the people, but a union for the political and economical elite (despite how it was sold on originally in 1957)

Sanctions against Russia is fine. Just drop the hypocrisy and "holier than thou" attitude and call it what it is. On government levels it's geopolitical power play. Not to be confused with grass root levels, as plenty of people will boycott Russian products for all the right reasons.

A country that had legal racial segregation up until approx. 25 years before the end of apartheid (one of many gifts from England to Africa) is not the best example. Not that this has anything to do at all with what is being discussed of course.

Which, IIRC, is how close the EU is to evolve into something out of Orwell's 1984, where decisions are removed several levels from people and said people will now no longer have free choice of what information they want to access. Because, some information is dangerous to the regime? Do you even know how, what you are in favour of, sounds? The road to hell is paved with good intentions sometimes, except this crack down on civil liberties are not in any way good intentions. It's a tool of power, used to control people.

 

Hint: What you need is not less information, it's more information.

 

Nah, I think the world, and specifically the West and the EU,  should survive the banning\blocking of RT. Its going to be hard but I think we should be alright. Lets be positive 

[Gorth]

Those strange and often overlooked collateral damages of war in Ukraine... Chelsea FC and Bitcoin

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/60714952

Chelsea's credit card facilities have been temporarily suspended while banks assess the implications of sanctions imposed on Russian billionaire owner Roman Abramovich.

The club has been given a special licence to operate despite Abramovich having his assets frozen by the UK government.

Banks want to assess the licence criteria to ensure it does not breach the government's sanctions and Chelsea do not know when the suspension will be lifted.

As part of the licence terms, Chelsea cannot receive money for match tickets which have not already been sold, future gate receipts for FA Cup games or merchandise from the club shop.

That is likely to leave the club with a huge shortfall, with their monthly wage bill amounting to £28m a month.

 

The club *may* be able to play the remaining games this season, although that is currently in doubt. They will for sure not be able to participate in the Premiere League next season if current status quo is maintained. If the club folds (likely), it could leave a gap in London's economy worth billions of pounds. Abramovic? He'll probably just head off to Israel (he has Israeli citizenship, being a Jewish).

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/12/russians-liquidating-crypto-in-the-uae-as-they-seek-safe-havens

Crypto firms in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are being deluged with requests to liquidate billions of dollars of virtual currency as Russians seek a safe haven for their fortunes, according to company executives and financial sources.

Some clients are using cryptocurrency to invest in real estate in the UAE, while others want to use firms there to turn their virtual money into hard currency and stash it elsewhere, the sources said

“We have one guy – I don’t know who he is, but he came through a broker – and they’re like, ‘we want to sell 125,000 Bitcoin’. And I’m like, ‘what? That’s $6bn guys’. And they’re like, ‘yeah, we’re going to send it to a company in Australia’,” the executive said.

 

Bitcoin working as intended I suppose. I'm sure Scott Morrison will welcome some reasonable party donations to facilitate such business transactions....

Which leaves the question, is the anonymity going to remain part of the future of cryptocurrency, or will the current war put an end to it. It has for many years been the favourite money laundering tool for organized crime, but popular opinion may help politicians to finally get an iron collar put around the the neck of Crypto brokers.

 

[Raithe]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kremlin-arrests-fsb-chiefs-in-fallout-from-ukraine-invasion-chaos-92w0829c5

A Russian spy chief is said to have been placed under house arrest in a sign that President Putin is seeking to blame the security services for the stalled invasion of Ukraine.

Sergey Beseda, head of the FSB’s foreign intelligence branch, was arrested with Anatoly Bolyukh, his deputy, according to a leading expert on the Russian security services.

[Totally not Gorgon]

I haven't head anything like that, but then I don't get news from twitter. 

[Totally not Gorgon]

17 hours ago, pmp10 said:

I wouldn't put too much credence to it.
There are a lot of demonizing rumors about Russian forces going around right now.
'Not one step back' brigades, mobile crematoria, finishing off own wounded, mining corpses and so on.
Usually spread by the same people who said Putin fired multiple subordinates (presumably Darth Vader style), yet we still see them showing up in official news footage.

I haven't heard anything like that, but then I don't get news from twitter. 

[Darkpriest]

@Gorth

Regarding digital coins, these were so far accepted as they were a valve keeping excessive liquidity from going directly into the economy and muting overflow of money a bit. 

The moment coins become a 'real' threat of alternative payment system, which could rival fiat currencies, its convertibility to currencies will be banned, the same way as gold coins convertibility as means of payment was banned in 1933

[Gorth]

Just now, Darkpriest said:

@Gorth

Regarding digital coins, these were so far accepted as they were a valve keeping excessive liquidity from going directly into the economy and muting overflow of money a bit. 

The moment coins become a 'real' threat of alternative payment system, which could rival fiat currencies, its convertibility to currencies will be banned, the same way as gold coins convertibility as means of payment was banned in 1933

I suspect it's predominantly used for real estate purchases. In this case inside the UAE. Never mind that half of London is probably owned by Russians at the moment (money laundering being a primary industry in the UK, through Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Jersey etc.)

 

No idea sure how that counts for convertibility?

 

[Elerond]

14 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

 

Under the Elerond Doctrine you can have a great argument for banning Ursula von der Leyen instead for violating the human right to free information. Remember this next time people think I'm anti EU, that suggestion would be the best thing to happen to the organisation since the CDU decided she wasn't a suitable successor to Merkel but knew too much to simply dump.

 

It is just realism what is current state of affairs, not some ideological pipe dream that people forget as soon as it goes against their own opinions how things should be.

And it is not really EU, but it member states together deciding sanctions as EU does not have such powers even though people/countries always want to credit it for decisions that they made but don't want darken their name with them. Meaning it is not Ursula von der Leyen people should be mad about the RT/Sputnik bans even though she told about them to public. Shooting messenger usually don't lead better policies. 

And people now waking up reality that human rights are very conditional when they have voted for anti-human rights politicians in past decade because they don't want refugees in Europe. And politician that oppose sanctions against Russia and Turkey when they censor media and prevent ECHR giving them any sanctions. And politician that who make laws that prevent forbid religious apparel. Politician who for 'economic' reasons oppose building alternates for oil and gas in energy production. And politicians that oppose billionaires hiding their assets, founding shell companies that are owned by fictional people and are part of larger shell company that is also owned by fictional people which is owned even larger shell company and thousands of these shell companies somehow have their addresses in same building. And politician that prevent all regulations for buying and owning estate leading housing prices go sky high so that investors can make money and people be dammed and can always sleep under bridge at least until even that is too expensive for them.

And now people are so surprised that politicians aren't hold back by watered down human rights and principals that they themselves wanted to water down because they protected people they didn't like. People seem to have naive thinking that politicians are guided by higher principalities and morality, and there is no need for people's rights until it is too late.

Bold part is just fact, there is no need to hide your feelings about EU.

[Mamoulian War]

9 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

...Because East Europe (And admittedly some parts of Russia) has been a hotbed for neo Nazi's since like 1991 or something?  I mean sure Putin is no Lenin or Stalin but at least he's aligning himself against fascism and the Azov battalion and all these other white nationalists and terrorists from the Middle East who want to flock to Ukraine to fight the Muscovites.

I am wondering, who invited Putin to Russia in his last speech? Hmm, Looks like Syrian militants to me.  And I am also wondering who is the leader of Wagner Group, which got decorated by Putin himself in 2016 in Kremlin? Hmm, looks like Dmitry Utkin, who openly admires nazism

[Mamoulian War]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

Hint: What you need is not less information, it's more information who must follow the guidelines of independent journalism.

 

There, fixed it for you.

I wish you could spend a week reading all the russian troll farm **** spewed everyday in the eastern europe, where these "outlets" killed few thousand people with false medical information... Maybe it would recalibrate your view on free speech as well... Free Speech is about being free to tell anything I want, without being prosecuted for it. Not about being free to spread lies, which are causing real harm to gullible people...

If you want to air TV, radio or publish newspaper, you have to have a license, which can be void, if you break the laws of the country, where you are reporting. Nothing like that exists on the internet and mafia and russia is using that against east european countries to destabilize them... We are in hybrid war with since 2014, and before 2020, no one was willing to change anything, because former government was paid by mafia and russia. The ties to our previous government lead to n'drangheta as well and these people killed here one journalist and his soon-to-be-wife in 2018, who tried to uncover all this ****... So sorry but your free speech tantrum falls on deaf ears. Unless you are willing to admit, that all of the "news" published anywhere, needs to comply with local publishing laws... In that case, we can agree...

 

 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Mamoulian War

[Mamoulian War]

19 hours ago, pmp10 said:

I wouldn't put too much credence to it.
There are a lot of demonizing rumors about Russian forces going around right now.
'Not one step back' brigades, mobile crematoria, finishing off own wounded, mining corpses and so on.
Usually spread by the same people who said Putin fired multiple subordinates (presumably Darth Vader style), yet we still see them showing up in official news footage.

Report in slovak media.

https://dennikn.sk/minuta/2765142/?ref=pop&rtm_source=web&rtm_medium=article&rtm_campaign=share_button&rtm_variant=copy_url&rtm_content=b6506854-8b4e-4234-9075-2dbb89ce817f

Googletranslated for you:

"According to Ukrainian intelligence, Chechen Kadyrov troops shot dead 12 wounded Russian soldiers. This was to happen in Borodianka near Kiev. The Unian agency informed about it. She had previously reported that the secret services claimed that the Russian military command had resumed the practice of "execution squads" that followed the main forces and liquidated those who wanted to desert."

Keep in mind, the original report was published by UNIAN.

[xzar_monty]

16 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

**and what else are Rupert Murdoch, Jeff Bezos et al?

...than oligarchs, was the question.

I am not sure whether this is intended as satire, irony or something, or whether it's simply foolish. These are simply extraordinarily rich people -- but the means by which they have acquired their wealth is totally different from that of the Russian oligarchs, and their relations with the leaders of their respective countries are also totally different. It takes a lot more than just an awful lot of money for one to be an oligarch, but I suppose that obfuscation was the aim here anyway.

Please note that in saying this, I am in no way expressing any kind of support to these people, Murdoch least of all.

Edited March 13, 2022 by xzar_monty