Ukraine burns

[ShadySands]

My wife has a cousin in Kiev and we are trying to find out if he is okay

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Well why would you want to form an economic union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan when you could align yourself with the EU. The EU is a much better investment, its a no brainer in my books. What are we missing in your opinion?

 

A much better investment? For whom? The Germans? Some elite in Ukraine? I'm a bit tired of hearing all these buzz words and given assumptions thrown around when this sort of topic turns up. It's meaningless and repeating it over and over serves no purpose other than, perhaps, achieving the relaxing and mind-numbing effect that mantras have.

 

And why must it be either Russia or the EU? You'd think the Ukrainians would be a bit more reluctant to give up their sovereignty again so shortly after reclaiming it.

 

 

 

The biggest economy in the world is not an obvious choice, apparently.

 

If it's such an obvious choice, why don't you dial back on the snark and explain why? Should be easy right?

 

edit: herp derp

 

I want to ask you a simple question so I can understand your perspective.

 

If language wasn't a problem and you could choose between living in Russia ( or Belarus or Kazakhstan) and a country in the EU where would you choose? So basically this boils down to factors like the social conditions and where you feel most comfortable. Please don't provide any information expect for what's relevant to the question, we can get to everything else later.

 

Anybody else can also respond to this question if they are interested

 

 

Can I choose "neither"? If not, can I choose which EU country in particular?

 

This question also seems to imply that joining the EU is magically going to turn Ukraine into, say, the Netherlands. If only it worked that way...

 

Also, not having been to Russia, I feel I lack necessary judgment elements. Maybe I'd like Russian women better, or maybe I'd hate -50º C winters. Why is this relevant, again?

 

 

From reading your other posts and opinions I consider you a highly intelligent and informed person so you don't need to have travelled to particular country to answer the question. You can choose any EU country, I just want to know the reasons why you would choose that country to make your home. I'll explain the relevance once I get your answer

[Azdeus]

My wife has a cousin in Kiev and we are trying to find out if he is okay

 

Best wishes, I'm still trying to get hold of a bunch of friends that I played WoW with.

[213374U]

Because the alternative is being a satellite of the Russian Federation, a country which has a notoriously bad track record when it comes to Ukraine? Which, in practice, considers it a breakaway province (and that was the theme of the media campaign after Ukraine declared independence in 1991)? Which has a bad human rights record? And finally, because the people support it?

 

Huh? Why is "the alternative" anything but whatever course Ukraine decides to follow? Why must they go back to being Russia's breadbasket or become the latest addition to the EU bureaucratic bankocracy?

 

 

Oh, the EU is doing pretty fine and is on track to recovery. Check your facts. It remains the world's largest economy, estimated at between 400-800 million USD bigger than the United States.

 

Yeah, so a report from a neoliberal think-tank is now proof of... stuff. Did you actually read it or just linked it to appear to be "in the know"? I tried to but had to stop when stuff such (1) and (2) started to seriously threaten my ability to keep my lunch down. Quick as you are to demand that others "do research", I'm going to suggest that you take your own advice.

 

How about you take a look at this, instead. And for an even more terrifying perspective, check this out.  Is that Ukraine's "best shot"? Really?

 

 

(1) "the German Constitutional Court needs to let the ECB to do its job"

(2) "[...]slashed its unit labour costs, partly through the relentless shedding of its least productive workers" (~25% general unemployment, ~57% youth unemployment)

[213374U]

From reading your other posts and opinions I consider you a highly intelligent and informed person so you don't need to have travelled to particular country to answer the question. You can choose any EU country, I just want to know the reasons why you would choose that country to make your home. I'll explain the relevance once I get your answer

 

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

Edited February 19, 2014 by 213374U

[Tagaziel]

Huh? Why is "the alternative" anything but whatever course Ukraine decides to follow? Why must they go back to being Russia's breadbasket or become the latest addition to the EU bureaucratic bankocracy?

Because no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence? What other choice does an impoverished Ukraine plagued by rampant corruption have? Standing on its own against an aggressive Russian Federation is not going to cut it. 

 

Yeah, so a report from a neoliberal think-tank is now proof of... stuff. Did you actually read it or just linked it to appear to be "in the know"? I tried to but had to stop when stuff such (1) and (2) started to seriously threaten my ability to keep my lunch down. Quick as you are to demand that others "do research", I'm going to suggest that you take your own advice.

 

How about you take a look at this, instead. And for an even more terrifying perspective, check this out.  Is that Ukraine's "best shot"? Really?

 

(1) "the German Constitutional Court needs to let the ECB to do its job"

(2) "[...]slashed its unit labour costs, partly through the relentless shedding of its least productive workers" (~25% general unemployment, ~57% youth unemployment)

Yes, Europe isn't ideal. So? The report itself is based on assumptions that poverty will continue to rise. Trying to say what Europe will look in 2025 is pure speculation. If you want statistics, Eurostat is a good place to start. The number of people endangered by poverty was actually reduced by 10 million between 2006 and 2010. For reference, 2009 was the pitch black hole of the crisis.

 

To reiterate, just because Oxfam warns it could happen doesn't mean it will happen. Many people prophesied a breakup of the Eurozone and yet it didn't come to pass. Eurostat is actually a very good lecture and helps get your head around Europe.

 

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

Did you talk to a Swede lately? From my experience, they bitch and whine that everything is going to the dogs just like everyone else, despite living in, well, near-paradise. Doesn't mean they are right.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Tagaziel

[213374U]

 

Huh? Why is "the alternative" anything but whatever course Ukraine decides to follow? Why must they go back to being Russia's breadbasket or become the latest addition to the EU bureaucratic bankocracy?

Because no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence? What other choice does an impoverished Ukraine plagued by rampant corruption have? Standing on its own against an aggressive Russian Federation is not going to cut it. 

 

Yeah, so a report from a neoliberal think-tank is now proof of... stuff. Did you actually read it or just linked it to appear to be "in the know"? I tried to but had to stop when stuff such (1) and (2) started to seriously threaten my ability to keep my lunch down. Quick as you are to demand that others "do research", I'm going to suggest that you take your own advice.

 

How about you take a look at this, instead. And for an even more terrifying perspective, check this out.  Is that Ukraine's "best shot"? Really?

 

(1) "the German Constitutional Court needs to let the ECB to do its job"

(2) "[...]slashed its unit labour costs, partly through the relentless shedding of its least productive workers" (~25% general unemployment, ~57% youth unemployment)

Yes, Europe isn't ideal. So? The report itself is based on assumptions that poverty will continue to rise. Trying to say what Europe will look in 2025 is pure speculation. If you want statistics, Eurostat is a good place to start. The number of people endangered by poverty was actually reduced by 10 million between 2006 and 2010. For reference, 2009 was the pitch black hole of the crisis.

 

To reiterate, just because Oxfam warns it could happen doesn't mean it will happen. Many people prophesied a breakup of the Eurozone and yet it didn't come to pass. Eurostat is actually a very good lecture and helps get your head around Europe.

 

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

Did you talk to a Swede lately? From my experience, they bitch and whine that everything is going to the dogs just like everyone else, despite living in, well, near-paradise. Doesn't mean they are right.

 

 

 

(1) What do you mean it's "not going to cut it"? Suddenly nation-states are obsolete and I didn't get the memo? Now only supranational polar organizations are valid as a means to prosperity? That looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, more than anything else. Reminder that Yugoslavia fared pretty well between two superpowers until internal pressures tore her up (with NATO help).

 

(2) Nah, I didn't link the Oxfam article with the intention that it's taken as statistics, it's just one of the many worst-case scenarios circulating around. The OECD link is srs bsns though, and that's not exactly news—going on since the 80's—nor disputed by Eurostat data. You don't have to fast forward to 2025 to see that **** is bad in some parts of the EU (periphery, as they like to call it).

 

(3) What? Take a look and compare the figures for poverty and unemployment in Greece and compare them to Sweden's. I rest my case.

[rjshae]

I feel sympathetic and not a little fearful for the protesters. I hope it all works out for the best, but I fear it won't. More often than not, revolutions lead to conditions and governments that are far worse than the state it replaced.

[Tagaziel]

(1) What do you mean it's "not going to cut it"? Suddenly nation-states are obsolete and I didn't get the memo? Now only supranational polar organizations are valid as a means to prosperity? That looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, more than anything else. Reminder that Yugoslavia fared pretty well between two superpowers until internal pressures tore her up (with NATO help).

It's not going to cut it for reasons I've already listed. Yugoslavia survived because of its unique position and history during World War II. The two states are (well, were, since Yugoslavia's dead) fundamentally different.

 

(2) Nah, I didn't link the Oxfam article with the intention that it's taken as statistics, it's just one of the many worst-case scenarios circulating around. The OECD link is srs bsns though, and that's not exactly news—going on since the 80's—nor disputed by Eurostat data. You don't have to fast forward to 2025 to see that **** is bad in some parts of the EU (periphery, as they like to call it).

Yes, **** is bad, news at 11.

 

Seriously though, shaking a stick at Europe because it has problems and pretending other parts of the world don't (because that's the only situation in which doing that would make sense) is silly. The economic crisis is global in scope and causes problems everywhere. That doesn't mean a collapse is inevitable, as we had prophecies of doom since time immemorial, often fueled by adversity.

 

(3) What? Take a look and compare the figures for poverty and unemployment in Greece and compare them to Sweden's. I rest my case.

I might as well compare them to Iran. The point was that you focus on negatives and ignore the positives.

[213374U]

 

(1) What do you mean it's "not going to cut it"? Suddenly nation-states are obsolete and I didn't get the memo? Now only supranational polar organizations are valid as a means to prosperity? That looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, more than anything else. Reminder that Yugoslavia fared pretty well between two superpowers until internal pressures tore her up (with NATO help).

It's not going to cut it for reasons I've already listed. Yugoslavia survived because of its unique position and history during World War II. The two states are (well, were, since Yugoslavia's dead) fundamentally different.

 

(2) Nah, I didn't link the Oxfam article with the intention that it's taken as statistics, it's just one of the many worst-case scenarios circulating around. The OECD link is srs bsns though, and that's not exactly news—going on since the 80's—nor disputed by Eurostat data. You don't have to fast forward to 2025 to see that **** is bad in some parts of the EU (periphery, as they like to call it).

Yes, **** is bad, news at 11.

 

Seriously though, shaking a stick at Europe because it has problems and pretending other parts of the world don't (because that's the only situation in which doing that would make sense) is silly. The economic crisis is global in scope and causes problems everywhere. That doesn't mean a collapse is inevitable, as we had prophecies of doom since time immemorial, often fueled by adversity.

 

(3) What? Take a look and compare the figures for poverty and unemployment in Greece and compare them to Sweden's. I rest my case.

I might as well compare them to Iran. The point was that you focus on negatives and ignore the positives.

 

 

(1) Uh, no. Those are not reasons. You said countries cannot stand on their own under pressure from other superpowers. There is abundant historical evidence to the contrary, actually. Whether Russia is a superpower at this point is debatable, too. Sorry, but your opinions do not constitute evidence. You cannot simply dismiss counterexamples to your general principle by going "they are different". Well, of course they are, genius! No two historical situations are ever the same! The times are different too and Russia is nowhere near her position of strength post-WWII. Did anyone say false dichotomy?

 

(2) Do not misrepresent what I said—I was not heralding a collapse and the Oxfam story was more an afterthought than anything... yet the fact remains that it's simply a projection for the next decade if current trends continue; no reason to assume they won't except for the opinions of the usual suspects. Bottom line is the EU has not done anything to fix the ever-widening income gap in Europe, since the 1980's, as the OECD link I posted proves (which you have conspicuously ignored twice now, great going), while the austerity reforms dictated from Brussels are pushing a lot of people into poverty and the prospect of long-term or even permanent unemployment. What is your evidence that joining the EU would have substantial benefits for the Ukrainians? I don't see how this is "obvious" at all, and so far your counterpoints have focused on how the EU isn't dead yet. Whoop-de-****ing-doo.

 

(3) What? When did Iran join the EU? Oh, that's right, it didn't, so it's yet another irrelevant rebuttal. The point is that you focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. No, wait. There are ostensibly no positives, you just focus on... nothing much.

Edited February 19, 2014 by 213374U

[Cultist]

From what Google translate helped me to understand - peaceful and democratic people, simply wishing to improve situation with human rights and freedom in their country, captured a riot police officer and peacefully tore out his eye, then peacefully dropped him nearby to die. Well, I suppose it's a nice start.

[Tagaziel]

From what Google translate helped me to understand - peaceful and democratic people, simply wishing to improve situation with human rights and freedom in their country, captured a riot police officer and peacefully tore out his eye, then peacefully dropped him nearby to die. Well, I suppose it's a nice start.

I guess you missed the part where after three months of peaceful protests, the government attacked the protesters in an attempt to break them, with the police killing protesters and violence escalated by the deployment of paramilitary and military forces.

 

But yeah, it's the protester's fault. They prolly kill themselves just to put blame on poor Victor.

 

(1) Uh, no. Those are not reasons. You said countries cannot stand on their own under pressure from other superpowers. There is abundant historical evidence to the contrary, actually. Whether Russia is a superpower at this point is debatable, too. Sorry, but your opinions do not constitute evidence. You cannot simply dismiss counterexamples to your general principle by going "they are different". Well, of course they are, genius! No two historical situations are ever the same! The times are different too and Russia is nowhere near her position of strength post-WWII. Did anyone say false dichotomy?

Then what option does Ukraine have? You're claiming it can stand on its own. How? It has an ailing economy, high levels of corruption, and is currently torn apart by internal struggles. You're citing examples from totally different times and totally different geopolitical situations.

 

(2) Do not misrepresent what I said—I was not heralding a collapse and the Oxfam story was more an afterthought than anything... yet the fact remains that it's simply a projection for the next decade if current trends continue; no reason to assume they won't except for the opinions of the usual suspects. Bottom line is the EU has not done anything to fix the ever-widening income gap in Europe, since the 1980's, as the OECD link I posted proves (which you have conspicuously ignored twice now, great going), while the austerity reforms dictated from Brussels are pushing a lot of people into poverty and the prospect of long-term or even permanent unemployment. What is your evidence that joining the EU would have substantial benefits for the Ukrainians? I don't see how this is "obvious" at all, and so far your counterpoints have focused on how the EU isn't dead yet. Whoop-de-****ing-doo.

They aren't joining the EU. The revolution is over an association agreement, which can be the first step, but doesn't have to be.

 

That said, I did take that into account and I did find a full version of the study online. It has a lot of interesting conclusions, including an explanation that a large part of the rise in inequality was caused by countries that joined the Union. Their internal inequality contributed significantly to the coefficient.

 

It's also interesting to note that you seem to be putting the blame for income inequality on the EU, rather than its individual member countries. Why?

 

(3) What? When did Iran join the EU? Oh, that's right, it didn't, so it's yet another irrelevant rebuttal. The point is that you focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. No, wait. There are ostensibly no positives, you just focus on... nothing much.

You were the one comparing 2014 Ukraine to Cold War Yugoslavia. My comparison is as valid as yours.

[Fighter]

The sad thing is there really aren't good politicians in Ukraine. Yanukovich was already deposed once in a revolution. Remember? And the revolutionaries then proceeded to make him the president in the very next election, through no cheating but their own incompetence and impotence at leadership. No reason to believe the new ones are any different. Except this time there is blood and it may end up even worse, civil wars have happened before many times in former Soviet republics.

 

^ One reason why this doesn't happen in Russia and wont anytime soon. On one side Putin is stronger than Kuchma and Yanukovich but on the other the opposition is weak, incompetent, lacking unity, and often blatantly russophobic or shamelessly tolerant of such.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Fighter

[Zoraptor]

So you judge options entirely on the basis of how much money is up for grabs, am I reading that correctly? Yanukovych was acting in the best interests of himself and his clique, not the Ukrainians. As pointed out in this thread, the support for the association with the EU was not blind, Ukrainians knew what would happen.

Yeah, and Tymoshenko or whoever ends up ultimately as leader of her bloc would do exactly what was best for her clique- that is, after all what she did while in power. Indeed, rather like Khordokovsky in Russia I've not heard anyone significant say that she didn't do what she was convicted of, the only defence is that others did the same and didn't get prosecuted. I'm not going to get all morally indignant about having pro russian corrupt officials instead of pro west corrupt officials just on narrow ideological grounds. Still, one is the democratically elected corrupt President, the others are losers.

 

Did you even read the link I provided or are you really believing that Yanukovych and his party won in perfectly fair elections that accurately represented his support throughout Ukraine? And are you really dismissing the entire Euromaidan as a "vocal minority"?

Yeah, random link on internet tells Ultimate Truth. I read your link, but it was irrelevant. I was after all, talking about Yanukovich whose election was passably free and fair per OSCE. For reference, the OSCE reports for 2007, when Yuchenko was president, and 2012. The complaints are pretty much identical in each, it's just the wording that is different.

 

Furthermore, Euromaidan is three months old now. It started back in November, when Yanukovych did an U-turn and until Yanukovych initiated hostilities, it was a peaceful, democratic protest of disgruntled citizens.

Heh, so was Occupy Wall Street. Oddly enough when the po-po's moved in to break up them there weren't lots of police deaths, perhaps because they actually were peaceful protesters.

 

Disputing decisions at the election works in functioning democracies. Ukraine was turned by Yanukovych and his clique into a parody, the U-turn being a fine example of how he ignores the interests of Ukraine in favor of his own.

Yeah, and GWB didn't turn the US into a parody. Obama didn't get elected and then end up ignoring a bunch of stuff he said he'd do, or stop doing. Politicians everywhere say what they need to to get elected, then it's go asterisk yourself for x years until the next election cycle. $15 billion in low cost loans for Ukraine versus joining the EU, getting sweet FA for the decades it would take to get accession (if you ever do, per Turkey) and having your economy be subservient to Germany's in perpetuity. And all to join a system which is a blatantly undemocratic technocracy.

 

Ultimately the problem in Ukraine is the same as in any number of ex SSRs, they were designed with no intention of ever being independent, and you had leaders like Uncle Joe and Nikita K deciding to reward their home SSRs with bits of others. Chop the country in half, west can go clean Brit and German toilets for a living, east can go back to Mother Russia. Meh, whole post soviet thing is a clusterasterisk of western hypocracy, Kosovo must be independent, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia; apartheid is bad, but not in Latvia or Lithuania; democracy is wonderful and cures all ills, but only when it elects politicians we like.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Democracy is worthless without rule of law, it leads either to mob rule or the worst tyranny imaginable. Unfortunately it's much harder to establish the rule of law than a (temporary) democracy.

[BruceVC]

 

From reading your other posts and opinions I consider you a highly intelligent and informed person so you don't need to have travelled to particular country to answer the question. You can choose any EU country, I just want to know the reasons why you would choose that country to make your home. I'll explain the relevance once I get your answer

 

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

 

Thanks for responding, I need you to answer one more question. If you choose to live in a particular country would any of the following effect how you view if you could live in that country

 

• persecution of the free press
• arrests of journalists who don't tow the incumbent party line
•  blatant discrimination against minority groups, for example homophobia
• lack of rights for immigrants and abuse of there basic human rights
• egregious corruption and nepotism
•  

Its fine if these things don't bother you, the truth is for some people they don't. As long as they aren't on the receiving end some people can live anywhere. So please be honest about if these things would bother you and impact where you could live

[Tagaziel]

Yeah, and Tymoshenko or whoever ends up ultimately as leader of her bloc would do exactly what was best for her clique- that is, after all what she did while in power. Indeed, rather like Khordokovsky in Russia I've not heard anyone significant say that she didn't do what she was convicted of, the only defence is that others did the same and didn't get prosecuted. I'm not going to get all morally indignant about having pro russian corrupt officials instead of pro west corrupt officials just on narrow ideological grounds. Still, one is the democratically elected corrupt President, the others are losers.

Euromaidan began as a spontaneous, peaceful protest in November against the suspending of talks with the EU concerning the association agreement. You're big on pointing out that Yanukovych was elected somewhat democratically (passably fair and free isn't fully fair and free), but the right to protest is an inherent element of a democracy and Yanukovych repeatedly attempted to deprive Ukrainians of it (early Euromaidan protests were broken up by Berkut, which only pissed Ukrainians off further and amplified the scale). He acted in violation of the constitution of the state, which guarantees freedom of political expression, including the aforementioned right to protest, and establishes accountability to the common citizen.

 

The protests aren't instigated by losers. They were started by disgruntled citizens and developed in size afterwards, with opposition leaders becoming informal figureheads of the movement. Tell me, if the elected officials are acting in blatant disregard of the law and the interests of the nation, what would you do? Wait until the next election? Or protest, as is your right?

 

Yeah, random link on internet tells Ultimate Truth. I read your link, but it was irrelevant. I was after all, talking about Yanukovich whose election was passably free and fair per OSCE. For reference, the OSCE reports for 2007, when Yuchenko was president, and 2012. The complaints are pretty much identical in each, it's just the wording that is different.

 

So? In the previous segment and in this one you're asserting the futility of the protests, because it was bad in the past, it is bad now, and it's likely to be bad in the future.

 

Heh, so was Occupy Wall Street. Oddly enough when the po-po's moved in to break up them there weren't lots of police deaths, perhaps because they actually were peaceful protesters.

The difference being that U.S. policemen did not fire into the crowd, did not deploy hired thugs to provoke protesters (one of many links you'll find when you google for titushki), did not shut down lights before a massed attack on the protesters using armored cars, and weren't acting like enforcers of the current regime. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street weren't shot dead. Summary from the Kyiv Post on the Feb. 18 violence.

 

There's a big difference between Occupy Wall Street and Euromaidan.

 

Yeah, and GWB didn't turn the US into a parody. Obama didn't get elected and then end up ignoring a bunch of stuff he said he'd do, or stop doing. Politicians everywhere say what they need to to get elected, then it's go asterisk yourself for x years until the next election cycle. $15 billion in low cost loans for Ukraine versus joining the EU, getting sweet FA for the decades it would take to get accession (if you ever do, per Turkey) and having your economy be subservient to Germany's in perpetuity. And all to join a system which is a blatantly undemocratic technocracy.

Are you seriously comparing Bush to Yanukovych?

 

The EU isn't a blatantly undemocratic technocracy. It has its problems with democratic representation, but that's why you have eg. the Treaty of Lisbon implement changes to make it more fair and representative. Seriously, your entire argument boils down to "something's not perfect immediately, SO WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING OKAY."

 

Ultimately the problem in Ukraine is the same as in any number of ex SSRs, they were designed with no intention of ever being independent, and you had leaders like Uncle Joe and Nikita K deciding to reward their home SSRs with bits of others. Chop the country in half, west can go clean Brit and German toilets for a living, east can go back to Mother Russia. Meh, whole post soviet thing is a clusterasterisk of western hypocracy, Kosovo must be independent, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia; apartheid is bad, but not in Latvia or Lithuania; democracy is wonderful and cures all ills, but only when it elects politicians we like.

No ****, Ukraine's problems are caused by arbitrary decisions made by the Soviet empire, really? And here I thought that it was just random insanity, thank you for enlightening me.

 

Apart from stating the obvious, the fact that Ukraine was an SSR doesn't mean it had to fail. Latvia and Estonia were annexed as SSRs and yet they recovered. Poland was a ruined country that became a Soviet satellite (though some communists pushed for full-out incorporation of it as an SSR) and yet it recovered. Yes, the world isn't fair. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it.

 

I mean, seriously. From where I stand, you're basically looking like a cynic advocating total apathy and passivity because we can't make something perfect instantly.

[213374U]

 

From what Google translate helped me to understand - peaceful and democratic people, simply wishing to improve situation with human rights and freedom in their country, captured a riot police officer and peacefully tore out his eye, then peacefully dropped him nearby to die. Well, I suppose it's a nice start.

I guess you missed the part where after three months of peaceful protests, the government attacked the protesters in an attempt to break them, with the police killing protesters and violence escalated by the deployment of paramilitary and military forces.

 

But yeah, it's the protester's fault. They prolly kill themselves just to put blame on poor Victor.

 

(1) Uh, no. Those are not reasons. You said countries cannot stand on their own under pressure from other superpowers. There is abundant historical evidence to the contrary, actually. Whether Russia is a superpower at this point is debatable, too. Sorry, but your opinions do not constitute evidence. You cannot simply dismiss counterexamples to your general principle by going "they are different". Well, of course they are, genius! No two historical situations are ever the same! The times are different too and Russia is nowhere near her position of strength post-WWII. Did anyone say false dichotomy?

Then what option does Ukraine have? You're claiming it can stand on its own. How? It has an ailing economy, high levels of corruption, and is currently torn apart by internal struggles. You're citing examples from totally different times and totally different geopolitical situations.

 

(2) Do not misrepresent what I said—I was not heralding a collapse and the Oxfam story was more an afterthought than anything... yet the fact remains that it's simply a projection for the next decade if current trends continue; no reason to assume they won't except for the opinions of the usual suspects. Bottom line is the EU has not done anything to fix the ever-widening income gap in Europe, since the 1980's, as the OECD link I posted proves (which you have conspicuously ignored twice now, great going), while the austerity reforms dictated from Brussels are pushing a lot of people into poverty and the prospect of long-term or even permanent unemployment. What is your evidence that joining the EU would have substantial benefits for the Ukrainians? I don't see how this is "obvious" at all, and so far your counterpoints have focused on how the EU isn't dead yet. Whoop-de-****ing-doo.

They aren't joining the EU. The revolution is over an association agreement, which can be the first step, but doesn't have to be.

 

That said, I did take that into account and I did find a full version of the study online. It has a lot of interesting conclusions, including an explanation that a large part of the rise in inequality was caused by countries that joined the Union. Their internal inequality contributed significantly to the coefficient.

 

It's also interesting to note that you seem to be putting the blame for income inequality on the EU, rather than its individual member countries. Why?

 

(3) What? When did Iran join the EU? Oh, that's right, it didn't, so it's yet another irrelevant rebuttal. The point is that you focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. No, wait. There are ostensibly no positives, you just focus on... nothing much.

You were the one comparing 2014 Ukraine to Cold War Yugoslavia. My comparison is as valid as yours.

 

 

 

(1) Corruption in Ukraine is not going to be fixed by the EU. This is only relevant in the debate about independence in the sense that corrupt officials are more likely to be bought off by external parties rather than less. I don't see how a depressed economy means a country must absolutely become a satellite of another—there may be short-term economic advantages to doing so, but the long-term forfeiting of sovereignty is invariably glossed over. Again, closer ties would be advantageous to whom? The average Ukrainian? Because that's who's being killed on the streets.

 

(2) Take a closer look. The wealth differences have been increasing not only as an average but also within member states. This has been going on since the 80s (and possibly earlier). I'm not really interested in the aggregate index precisely because it can be misleading as you said. But wealth gap increases are a constant across the board even in the most well-off members of the EU (the link is for all OECD, disregard non-EU data). Same thing with poverty (analysis limited to 2011, no official data on expected increase; no expected decrease however). Even with the Europe 2020 reform package (2010), this keeps going. What does Ukraine stand to gain from all of this? Free transit?

 

(3) No, I made no such comparison. I was using post-WWII Yugoslavia to disprove your categorical statement that "no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence". More examples throughout history, but one counterexample is all that's needed to refute a general principle. Yet this got somehow derailed to a comparison between Iran, Sweden and Greece, based also on the assumption that "Swedes claim everything is going to the dogs"—suggesting by overextension that things aren't as ****ed up as I'm saying—only it's not me saying it, it's them statistics.

Edited February 20, 2014 by 213374U

[obyknven]

 
http://youtu.be/HigAlHruxlY

[Tagaziel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26268620

 

**** is hitting the fan. 15 protesters confirmed dead, possibly more.

 

A friend told me that apparently police snipers are targeting medics.

 

(1) Corruption in Ukraine is not going to be fixed by the EU. This is only relevant in the debate about independence in the sense that corrupt officials are more likely to be bought off by external parties rather than less. I don't see how a depressed economy means a country must absolutely become a satellite of another—there may be short-term economic advantages to doing so, but the long-term forfeiting of sovereignty is invariably glossed over. Again, closer ties would be advantageous to whom? The average Ukrainian? Because that's who's being killed on the streets.

And it wasn't supposed to. Again, the point of contention is the association agreement with the EU. This association would open the door for closer economic cooperation with the EU and development of Ukrainian economy, leading to long term welfare.

 

The average Ukrainian in the streets is fighting and dying for a free country and the ability to associate with the EU. That was the original reason the Euromaidan formed and it still is. There's a reason EU and Ukrainian flags are on the maidan.

 

Also, forfeiting of sovereignty? No country is truly sovereign in the modern world, maybe except for North Korea and other psychotic, insular regimes.

 

(2) Take a closer look. The wealth differences have been increasing not only as an average but also within member states. This has been going on since the 80s (and possibly earlier). I'm not really interested in the aggregate index precisely because it can be misleading as you said. But wealth gap increases are a constant across the board even in the most well-off members of the EU (the link is for all OECD, disregard non-EU data). Same thing with poverty (analysis limited to 2011, no official data on expected increase; no expected decrease however). Even with the Europe 2020 reform package (2010), this keeps going. What does Ukraine stand to gain from all of this? Free transit?

Which is a global phenomenon not limited to the European Union. I studied those statistics before and they do highlight a problem. However, the OECD study you linked to (a great piece of research, thanks) also points out that there isn't a consensus as to what accelerated the development of inequality. It's likely a combination of factors, including faster growth of income in the top brackets, not marked by an increase of a similar scope in the lower ones.

 

Ukraine stands to gain:

 

* More free entry into EU countries.

* Access to EU markets.

* Easier opportunities for work in EU countries.

* Exposure to European law order, leading to reforms (which may be actually required per the association agreement).

 

Also, it's apparent you start with the preconceived notion that the EU is bad and then refuse to acknowledge that it may do some good. I'm well aware of the EU's shortcomings, but it's still the best bet for Ukraine.

 

(3) No, I made no such comparison. I was using post-WWII Yugoslavia to disprove your categorical statement that "no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence". More examples throughout history, but one counterexample is all that's needed to refute a general principle. Yet this got somehow derailed to a comparison between Iran, Sweden and Greece, based also on the assumption that "Swedes claim everything is going to the dogs"—suggesting by overextension that things aren't as ****ed up as I'm saying—only it's not me saying it, it's them statistics.

Yugoslavia wasn't a strategic country between two superpowers that sat on the fence. It was firmly a part of the communist bloc, though due to the Tito/Stalin split, it developed on its own. A better example would be Poland, which was a strategic country between two superpowers prior to 1939 and tried to pursue a third way, according to the Two Enemies doctrine. It didn't work out in the end and after the Nazis and Soviets tag-teamed us, we got gobbled up by the USSR.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Fighter]

Things are going from bad to worse fast. Don't watch if you can't stomach (gunfire hitting multiple protesters).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QEOyj4TtNE

Edited February 20, 2014 by Fighter

[Tagaziel]

Armor and automatics on the other side. Jesus.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm not sure what you expect... cops with batons and wearing yellow shirts with "police" without body armor?

Obviously if you send people in a warzone, you don't send them 'naked'...

 

Also, are the agent provacateurs making molotov coctails, and howing stones to throw.

And according to CNN (heavily pro-US, anti-Russia) the protesters starting it by attacking the retreating riot police... if such an biased source says that... well...

[obyknven]

Police begin shot terrorists. Good. Opposition officialy sign peace treaty with president, only Nazi extremists continue fight and kill people. Government give order to police stop these bastards. For the emperor!

[Fighter]

And according to CNN (heavily pro-US, anti-Russia) the protesters starting it by attacking the retreating riot police... if such an biased source says that... well...

 

It doesn't matter anymore. Winners will write history and many people will suffer in the meanwhile.