Ukraine burns

[Walsingham]

Ignoring people doesn't solve the problem that lurkers and new boys still see the trolling.

 

The right wing aspect of the demonstrations should be tackled. But I noticed in tonight's BBC news that there's was simply no airtime given to that element.

 

Having said that, LoFoby complaining about right wingers OR the holocaust is a bit disconcerting.

[obyknven]

Are they really nazis or is that just you ?

 

Ultranationalist, Facist even. That's not the same thing. 

You try find difference between sorts of s**t? I easily recognize Nazi in them, just watch their video posted above (Nazi symbols, nazi rhetoric). Also i known who is these people, known what they say and do  before. They are Nazi, not softcore European Nazi parody, but real hardcore Nazi who dreamed about new Holocaust.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177113#.Uwksj9SGjrc

http://weknowwhatsup.blogspot.ru/2014/02/the-extreme-right-in-ukraine-victory.html

 

P.S. Dont trust to Poles in this question  - same movement's acting and quite popular in their land, they see nothing wrong in this. 

[Malcador]

It's just oby. I wholeheartedly recommend updating your ignore list, I've put two more people on it in this thread and the quality of posts improved immeasurably.

Heh, what on earth was in this thread that was worth the dramatics of ignoring them ? Well other than one guy disagreeing with you enough, heh.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Malcador

[213374U]

In what way am I giving up on national sovereignty? Subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe isn't giving up on sovereignty, it's subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe.

Furthermore, the Non-Aligned Movement isn't a group of perfectly sovereign countries. Every country is limited by international treaties it is a party of and other circumstances. That does not mean that the state is not sovereign.

 

Le sigh.

 

This is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own comments. You said:

 

"no country is truly sovereign in the modern world"

 

This was in response, and as a dismissal/justification of my point that integration into the EU entails a loss of sovereignty. This is you giving up on national sovereignty as an outdated concept. Are we on the same page?

 

You keep losing track of comments, running circles and shifting focus when a point is made that you can't handle. For someone so quick to flaunt their academic credentials, I'd expect at least a basic understanding of concepts such as sovereignty, and a working knowledge of the obligations that come from being a EU member. Let me lay it out for you. Members are obligated to:

 

• relinquish control over monetary policy once switching to the Euro (handled at the Union level by ECB) 
• acknowledge rulings and domestic ruling overturns by the ECJ and ECHR
• obey regulations and directives issued by the European Commission (secondary legislation, I'm sure you know what this is)
• fall in line with the common trading policy or face severe penalties
• etc.

 

Did they not cover this in law school? It may seem AWESOME!!! to you, but NEWSFLASH: the EU is not de jure a federation; it was not ever marketed as one, it was not designed as one. The transfer of powers to a series of higher, transnational organs is, by the very definition of the word, a loss of sovereignty.

 

Also, you are making the frankly mad implication that international treaties infringe upon national sovereignty. This is simply not so unless the treaties are actually imposed by third parties and are designed specifically as an intervention instrument on the country they affect (i.e. the military restrictions provisions of the Treaty of Versailles). But I guess international law is not your speciality?

 

 

 

I did not state or imply that the EU has accelerated the widening of the wealth gap, nor did I make any attempts to explain the reasons behind it; I pointed out that it's a tendency that has been going on since before EU integration in the 90's and the EU has done nothing to correct it. What I did say is that austerity reforms mandated by the Troika have not only not helped to recover from the crisis but have in fact had the opposite effect in the "periphery"—they are not even working at the macro level! This is well documented by the links I pasted in previous posts.

 

Of your list of things that Ukraine stands to gain, none directly entail economic growth. Workers migrating en masse outside of Ukraine (both blue and white-collar) is only going to make the already cutthroat competition for jobs in the EU worse, and except for those Ukrainians that find work abroad, is not going to help Ukraine any, either (migration of qualified workers is always bad news).

 

Finally, you clearly misunderstand what preconception means. I have been experiencing the EU since my country's accession in '86 so I have plenty of first-hand experience—I have also done my reading so I know what the EU is about, in concept and in practice.

While I've been experiencing the EU every since my country's accession in 2004, so I have plenty of first-hand experience. I also have done my reading (and have a law degree, but that's a separate matter), so I know that the EU is about, in concept and in practice. Spare me the condescending bull****, please. It sucks to be in Spain and Portugal, but don't pretend the EU forced your government to adopt unsafe policies, bloat public spending, and ignore the bubble. The Union does not micromanage countries, that's left to the individual national governments.

 

 

*golfclap*

 

And another uncanny dodge, and redirect into... the major cluster**** that is the policy of Spain? What does that have to do with what Ukraine stands to gain from joining the EU? Or, specifically outside of Spain and Portugal (I made a point of not naming any countries), the ongoing advance of poverty and inequality across the entire Union that EU institutions have failed to handle? You know, the stuff in the paragraph you quoted and that you were supposedly following up on? What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU? That was in reference to your comments that my views were "preconceptions" about the EU! Seriously, does that sort cheap prestidigitation work for you in court?

 

Sorry, but you have made it abundantly clear in this thread that you do not know what the EU is about, you do not know about the undemocratic and opaque character of its decision-making processes—either that or you are being intellectually dishonest. So which one is it, Your Honor?

 

 

 

 

Is this the same Yugoslavia of the history books? The country was a part of the communist bloc only briefly, because Tito and Stalin never saw eye to eye to begin with and Yugoslavia had to fend for itself from 1948 until it was dismantled. So yes, it stood on its own for 44 years. It's a perfect example of what I was saying before that your idea that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" is historically false.

Which superpowers was Yugoslavia stuck between? I specifically pointed out that while it split with Stalin and the Warsaw Pact, it was still a communist country, a part of the bloc. It wasn't, however, a vital strategic area like Germany, Czechoslovakia, or Poland, where Third World War would be fought.

 

 

Which superpowers? Are you for real? Wow.

 

So China was part of the "bloc" too after 1960? What about Cambodia after '76? Basically any country that has a socialist government was part of the "bloc" by your logic? What bloc are exactly talking about, because I cannot find any definition of a post-WWII "bloc" that includes Yugoslavia precisely because Tito made a point of non-alignment. Therefore, and henceforth, I'm going to refer to it as the "Tagaziel bloc". Yes, Yugoslavia formed part of that bloc. 

 

And please, stop with the navel gazing, it's getting embarrassing. Yeah, fine. Yugoslavia was not part of the great European plains that would have been the scenario of huge tank battles and possibly tactical nuclear warfare. It was, however, the only non western-aligned country that could allow the Eastern bloc (USSR + Warsaw pact) access to the Mediterranean. I guess that's why the Balkans area hadn't been a scenario of competing interests for any great powers for centuries and ostensibly the tug of war that led to WWI. Oh, wait...

 

But I guess it's not Poland, so it's not strategic. 

 

 

 

And no, Poland is not a valid example of that unless by "sitting on the fence", you really mean seizing as much territory as possible by means of force in the wake of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, and before permanent borders could be drawn. (1) (2) Your attempt to equate present-day Russia with Lenin and Stalin's militarily aggressive versions of Soviet Russia is cute, as is the implication that EU expansionism is comparable to Third Reich policy with regard to its neighbors, but the parallels fall apart beyond broad geography.

I cited an example of history that happened to disprove your assertion. Instead of responding, you're pulling a No True Scotsman counter.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dfXKRvUPR8

 

Sorry, but a No True Scotsman fallacy requires me to redefine the subject of analysis to take it outside of the scope of the general principle being applied to it. However, I am not redefining anything, I am, in fact, sticking to your own words:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

 

What definition of neutrality covers launching campaigns to grab land before anyone can react? I guess we'll call it "Tagaziel neutrality" from now on, i.e. "I'm neutral but I attack when it suits my purposes".

 

Also, just a heads up. I cannot be using a No True Scotsman because it only applies to redefinition of counterexamples to general principles. However... this was no such thing. It was actually an example you brought forth to support your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" (again, your words). A better example of a No True Scotsman fallacy is your dismissal of my example of Yugoslavia as "not strategic" because it's not Poland.

 

You are welcome.

[Zoraptor]

Are they really nazis or is that just you ?

 

Ultranationalist, Facist even. That's not the same thing. 

Here's the wiki article on Svoboda. It is wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt of course. There are plenty of pictures- including in streams and the like from 'reputable' news sources- that show their old party and other neo nazi symbols being used.

 

Personally, I'd lump them in with the BNP and similar. Beyond merely Nationalist, not as far as complete neo Nazi.

[obyknven]

Other news from Ukraine.

 

Right Sector demand ban Communist party of Ukraine and Party of Regions. Meanwhile office of Communist party is destroed in Kiev.

 

Ukrainian parlament prepare bill about restriction of foreighn media in Ukraine. "Wrong" media must be banned.

 

[obyknven]

Ukrainian life before and after Miaidan riots.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/life-in-kiev-before-and-after?src=soc_fcbks

[Tagaziel]

Le sigh.

 

This is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own comments. You said:

 

"no country is truly sovereign in the modern world"

 

This was in response, and as a dismissal/justification of my point that integration into the EU entails a loss of sovereignty. This is you giving up on national sovereignty as an outdated concept. Are we on the same page?

 

You keep losing track of comments, running circles and shifting focus when a point is made that you can't handle. For someone so quick to flaunt their academic credentials, I'd expect at least a basic understanding of concepts such as sovereignty, and a working knowledge of the obligations that come from being a EU member. Let me lay it out for you. Members are obligated to:

 

Did they not cover this in law school? It may seem AWESOME!!! to you, but NEWSFLASH: the EU is not de jure a federation; it was not ever marketed as one, it was not designed as one. The transfer of powers to a series of higher, transnational organs is, by the very definition of the word, a loss of sovereignty.

 

Also, you are making the frankly mad implication that international treaties infringe upon national sovereignty. This is simply not so unless the treaties are actually imposed by third parties and are designed specifically as an intervention instrument on the country they affect (i.e. the military restrictions provisions of the Treaty of Versailles). But I guess international law is not your speciality?

 

 

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? Let's take Spain as an example: The list of treaties it is a party to is long and each limits its sovereignty to a degree. You've referred to Westphalian sovereignty, but ignore the fact that the very definition of that concept requires absence of external interference in national affairs. Being party to an international treaty is allowing external interference, as each treaty restricts the ability to make sovereign decisions.

 

The European Union is the result of a series of such treaties, treaties that were entered by member countries voluntarily and without coercion. Do they limit certain aspects of sovereignty? They do. Do they abolish it, as you constantly state? No, they don't. Each member state is free to exercise their sovereign rule, but is bound by laws and regulations it voluntarily accepted. Furthermore, the EU doesn't micromanage countries.

 

You're only partially correct when you point out that legislation of the EU affects other member countries. It does, but the implementation of EU legislation in any given member country is left to the national parliaments.

 

Furthermore, the Court of Justice is focused on Union law, not national law. It interprets treaties and passes rulings on the Union level, it doesn't micromanage national courts. Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights is a court specifically intended for appeals in cases where human rights might be violated, as was the case with the Tysiąc case.

 

Last, given that you're quick to flaunt your time of living on the Iberian peninsula as some sort of credentials for understanding the EU, it's puzzling you think having an education and mentioning it is abhorrent.

 

*golfclap*

 

And another uncanny dodge, and redirect into... the major cluster**** that is the policy of Spain? What does that have to do with what Ukraine stands to gain from joining the EU? Or, specifically outside of Spain and Portugal (I made a point of not naming any countries), the ongoing advance of poverty and inequality across the entire Union that EU institutions have failed to handle? You know, the stuff in the paragraph you quoted and that you were supposedly following up on? What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU? That was in reference to your comments that my views were "preconceptions" about the EU! Seriously, does that sort cheap prestidigitation work for you in court?

 

Sorry, but you have made it abundantly clear in this thread that you do not know what the EU is about, you do not know about the undemocratic and opaque character of its decision-making processes—either that or you are being intellectually dishonest. So which one is it, Your Honor?

 

It isn't a dodge. You've been constantly redirecting the discussion, making irrelevant points. Again, the subject matter is not Ukraine joining the EU, but signing an association agreement, yet you're reframing it as if Ukraine wanted to do the former.

 

Furthermore, your point is somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, you're complaining that the EU destroys national sovereignty, yet at the same time you're complaining that the EU did not impose solutions across the Union to fix the inequality problem. I say, it's convenient. You're treating the EU as a federation whenever it suits your point, like when you complain that the EU is not fixing the inequality problem.

 

Given that poverty and inequality levels and cicumstances vary by country, the EU can only do so much. National policies are the crucial element of targeting it, as one overarching policy that applies across Europe would be either too generic to be of help or force countries to adopt policies not suited for their individual circumstances. What works in Sweden doesn't have to work in Germany, Italy, or Spain.

 

It's interesting that disagreeing with you automatically makes me an ignoramus, because I happen to not share your opinions about the Union. Yeah, I must be intellectually dishonest. Totally. Except I'm not the one claiming that living in the EU since '86 gives you grounds for speaking about it, except when someone else claims something similar, then it's "What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU."

  

Which superpowers? Are you for real? Wow.

 

So China was part of the "bloc" too after 1960? What about Cambodia after '76? Basically any country that has a socialist government was part of the "bloc" by your logic? What bloc are exactly talking about, because I cannot find any definition of a post-WWII "bloc" that includes Yugoslavia precisely because Tito made a point of non-alignment. Therefore, and henceforth, I'm going to refer to it as the "Tagaziel bloc". Yes, Yugoslavia formed part of that bloc.

 

And please, stop with the navel gazing, it's getting embarrassing. Yeah, fine. Yugoslavia was not part of the great European plains that would have been the scenario of huge tank battles and possibly tactical nuclear warfare. It was, however, the only non western-aligned country that could allow the Eastern bloc (USSR + Warsaw pact) access to the Mediterranean. I guess that's why the Balkans area hadn't been a scenario of competing interests for any great powers for centuries and ostensibly the tug of war that led to WWI. Oh, wait...

 

But I guess it's not Poland, so it's not strategic.

 

 

Did I say it's not strategic? No. I said it wasn't as strategic as Germany or Poland, which were to be the primary battlefields of World War III. In their relative strategic importance, Germany and Poland trumped Yugoslavia because they offered what was effectively a highway straight into the USSR, owing to the lack of natural barriers.

 

And yes, I use a loose, broad definition of what constitutes the eastern bloc. It's just as warranted as your alternating treatment of the EU as a federation (whenever it doesn't do something you want it to) or a Union that encroaches upon national sovereignty (whenever you want to bash it).

 

Sorry, but a No True Scotsman fallacy requires me to redefine the subject of analysis to take it outside of the scope of the general principle being applied to it. However, I am not redefining anything, I am, in fact, sticking to your own words:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

 

What definition of neutrality covers launching campaigns to grab land before anyone can react? I guess we'll call it "Tagaziel neutrality" from now on, i.e. "I'm neutral but I attack when it suits my purposes".

 

Also, just a heads up. I cannot be using a No True Scotsman because it only applies to redefinition of counterexamples to general principles. However... this was no such thing. It was actually an example you brought forth to support your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" (again, your words). A better example of a No True Scotsman fallacy is your dismissal of my example of Yugoslavia as "not strategic" because it's not Poland.

 

You are welcome.

 

I never said Poland was neutral and I never stated Yugoslavia was not a strategic country. What I consistently said was that Poland was pursuing a policy of non-alignment with any of the two superpowers it was stuck between (the wording might be off, but that was the point) and that it is a better example than Yugoslavia because the circumstances in which it existed are much closer to the ones in which Ukraine exists.

 

But, of course, instead of actually reading the point, you're focusing on nitpicking and twisting words. Yes, the EU and Russia aren't the Third Reich and the SU, but that wasn't the point. You're constantly moving the goal posts around and twisting the argument just to appear right.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Tagaziel

[BruceVC]

 

 

Le sigh.

 

This is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own comments. You said:

 

"no country is truly sovereign in the modern world"

 

This was in response, and as a dismissal/justification of my point that integration into the EU entails a loss of sovereignty. This is you giving up on national sovereignty as an outdated concept. Are we on the same page?

 

You keep losing track of comments, running circles and shifting focus when a point is made that you can't handle. For someone so quick to flaunt their academic credentials, I'd expect at least a basic understanding of concepts such as sovereignty, and a working knowledge of the obligations that come from being a EU member. Let me lay it out for you. Members are obligated to:

 

Did they not cover this in law school? It may seem AWESOME!!! to you, but NEWSFLASH: the EU is not de jure a federation; it was not ever marketed as one, it was not designed as one. The transfer of powers to a series of higher, transnational organs is, by the very definition of the word, a loss of sovereignty.

 

Also, you are making the frankly mad implication that international treaties infringe upon national sovereignty. This is simply not so unless the treaties are actually imposed by third parties and are designed specifically as an intervention instrument on the country they affect (i.e. the military restrictions provisions of the Treaty of Versailles). But I guess international law is not your speciality?

 

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? Let's take Spain as an example: The list of treaties it is a party to is long and each limits its sovereignty to a degree. You've referred to Westphalian sovereignty, but ignore the fact that the very definition of that concept requires absence of external interference in national affairs. Being party to an international treaty is allowing external interference, as each treaty restricts the ability to make sovereign decisions.

 

The European Union is the result of a series of such treaties, treaties that were entered by member countries voluntarily and without coercion. Do they limit certain aspects of sovereignty? They do. Do they abolish it, as you constantly state? No, they don't. Each member state is free to exercise their sovereign rule, but is bound by laws and regulations it voluntarily accepted. Furthermore, the EU doesn't micromanage countries.

 

You're only partially correct when you point out that legislation of the EU affects other member countries. It does, but the implementation of EU legislation in any given member country is left to the national parliaments.

 

Furthermore, the Court of Justice is focused on Union law, not national law. It interprets treaties and passes rulings on the Union level, it doesn't micromanage national courts. Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights is a court specifically intended for appeals in cases where human rights might be violated, as was the case with the Tysiąc case.

 

Last, given that you're quick to flaunt your time of living on the Iberian peninsula as some sort of credentials for understanding the EU, it's puzzling you think having an education and mentioning it is abhorrent.

 

*golfclap*

 

And another uncanny dodge, and redirect into... the major cluster**** that is the policy of Spain? What does that have to do with what Ukraine stands to gain from joining the EU? Or, specifically outside of Spain and Portugal (I made a point of not naming any countries), the ongoing advance of poverty and inequality across the entire Union that EU institutions have failed to handle? You know, the stuff in the paragraph you quoted and that you were supposedly following up on? What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU? That was in reference to your comments that my views were "preconceptions" about the EU! Seriously, does that sort cheap prestidigitation work for you in court?

 

Sorry, but you have made it abundantly clear in this thread that you do not know what the EU is about, you do not know about the undemocratic and opaque character of its decision-making processes—either that or you are being intellectually dishonest. So which one is it, Your Honor?

 

It isn't a dodge. You've been constantly redirecting the discussion, making irrelevant points. Again, the subject matter is not Ukraine joining the EU, but signing an association agreement, yet you're reframing it as if Ukraine wanted to do the former.

 

Furthermore, your point is somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, you're complaining that the EU destroys national sovereignty, yet at the same time you're complaining that the EU did not impose solutions across the Union to fix the inequality problem. I say, it's convenient. You're treating the EU as a federation whenever it suits your point, like when you complain that the EU is not fixing the inequality problem.

 

Given that poverty and inequality levels and cicumstances vary by country, the EU can only do so much. National policies are the crucial element of targeting it, as one overarching policy that applies across Europe would be either too generic to be of help or force countries to adopt policies not suited for their individual circumstances. What works in Sweden doesn't have to work in Germany, Italy, or Spain.

 

It's interesting that disagreeing with you automatically makes me an ignoramus, because I happen to not share your opinions about the Union. Yeah, I must be intellectually dishonest. Totally. Except I'm not the one claiming that living in the EU since '86 gives you grounds for speaking about it, except when someone else claims something similar, then it's "What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU."

  

Which superpowers? Are you for real? Wow.

 

So China was part of the "bloc" too after 1960? What about Cambodia after '76? Basically any country that has a socialist government was part of the "bloc" by your logic? What bloc are exactly talking about, because I cannot find any definition of a post-WWII "bloc" that includes Yugoslavia precisely because Tito made a point of non-alignment. Therefore, and henceforth, I'm going to refer to it as the "Tagaziel bloc". Yes, Yugoslavia formed part of that bloc.

 

And please, stop with the navel gazing, it's getting embarrassing. Yeah, fine. Yugoslavia was not part of the great European plains that would have been the scenario of huge tank battles and possibly tactical nuclear warfare. It was, however, the only non western-aligned country that could allow the Eastern bloc (USSR + Warsaw pact) access to the Mediterranean. I guess that's why the Balkans area hadn't been a scenario of competing interests for any great powers for centuries and ostensibly the tug of war that led to WWI. Oh, wait...

 

But I guess it's not Poland, so it's not strategic.

 

 

Did I say it's not strategic? No. I said it wasn't as strategic as Germany or Poland, which were to be the primary battlefields of World War III. In their relative strategic importance, Germany and Poland trumped Yugoslavia because they offered what was effectively a highway straight into the USSR, owing to the lack of natural barriers.

 

And yes, I use a loose, broad definition of what constitutes the eastern bloc. It's just as warranted as your alternating treatment of the EU as a federation (whenever it doesn't do something you want it to) or a Union that encroaches upon national sovereignty (whenever you want to bash it).

 

Sorry, but a No True Scotsman fallacy requires me to redefine the subject of analysis to take it outside of the scope of the general principle being applied to it. However, I am not redefining anything, I am, in fact, sticking to your own words:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

 

What definition of neutrality covers launching campaigns to grab land before anyone can react? I guess we'll call it "Tagaziel neutrality" from now on, i.e. "I'm neutral but I attack when it suits my purposes".

 

Also, just a heads up. I cannot be using a No True Scotsman because it only applies to redefinition of counterexamples to general principles. However... this was no such thing. It was actually an example you brought forth to support your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence" (again, your words). A better example of a No True Scotsman fallacy is your dismissal of my example of Yugoslavia as "not strategic" because it's not Poland.

 

You are welcome.

 

I never said Poland was neutral and I never stated Yugoslavia was not a strategic country. What I consistently said was that Poland was pursuing a policy of non-alignment with any of the two superpowers it was stuck between (the wording might be off, but that was the point) and that it is a better example than Yugoslavia because the circumstances in which it existed are much closer to the ones in which Ukraine exists.

 

But, of course, instead of actually reading the point, you're focusing on nitpicking and twisting words. Yes, the EU and Russia aren't the Third Reich and the SU, but that wasn't the point. You're constantly moving the goal posts around and twisting the argument just to appear right.

 

 

Tagaziel I'm really enjoying  your posts and I'm learning a lot or at least getting a different perspective

[Sarex]

@Tagaziel and 213374U

 

1)Yugoslavia was of strategic important to the west as can be seen from the end result from the conflict, but that was not the only reason. Yugoslavia at the height of it's power was emerging to be a power of it's own in Europe. It didn't answer to the west or the east and that didn't sit well with either. So after Titos death the west took advantage of the destabilization of the country and intervened. The rest is history.

 

An addendum to add is that after all was said and done, America ploped the lagrest foreign military base in Kosovo which is now conveniently in disspute.

 

2)Yugoslavia was a Socialist state, not Communist.

 

3)Parallels can be drawn between Ukraine and Serbia, I will not be surprised if it is latter discovered that the protests were bankrolled by the west, as was the case with the Milosevic protests in the year 2000.

[Mor]

The right wing aspect of the demonstrations should be tackled. But I noticed in tonight's BBC news that there's was simply no airtime given to that element.

 

Having said that, LoFoby complaining about right wingers OR the holocaust is a bit disconcerting.

The question you should be asking is if those "right wing" aspect define or unique to those supporting ties with EU, or highlighted by interested parties(supporters of ties with Russia), so they can dismiss grievances by public that grown weary of political corruption and Russian influence on Ukraine.

 

I liked this Q&A article by the BBC it gives a good summary of the issues and all interest parties(including protest leaders, escalation and Radicals).

[Tagaziel]

@Tagaziel and 213374U

 

1)Yugoslavia was of strategic important to the west as can be seen from the end result from the conflict, but that was not the only reason. Yugoslavia at the height of it's power was emerging to be a power of it's own in Europe. It didn't answer to the west or the east and that didn't sit well with either. So after Titos death the west took advantage of the destabilization of the country and intervened. The rest is history.

 

An addendum to add is that after all was said and done, America ploped the lagrest foreign military base in Kosovo which is now conveniently in disspute.

 

2)Yugoslavia was a Socialist state, not Communist.

 

3)Parallels can be drawn between Ukraine and Serbia, I will not be surprised if it is latter discovered that the protests were bankrolled by the west, as was the case with the Milosevic protests in the year 2000.

A very good post, though it also highlights why Yugoslavia is not a particularly good example. Ukraine has a vastly different geographic composition and, unlike Yugoslavia, after 20 years its economy is in the pigsty and the political elites are rotten to the core. Ukraine may have had a chance at pursuing a third route, but at the present it lacks the foundations to do so. It wasn't even doomed to suffer this state, as many other SSRs and satellite states in the region managed to pull through.

 

Calling Yugoslavia socialist is accurate as far as declarations go, but its ideology was derived from communism, its primary party until tito's death was the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and if we want to start defining the precise ideologies of the different communism states, we open a can of worms filled with communist newspeak.

 

As for bankrolling, the counter-demonstrations and thugs were explicitly paid for by Yanukovych's government.

[obyknven]

Right sector control Ukrainian parlament

Parlament today ban Russian language.

slogan "Ukrainian language or Death".

 

Meanwhile in Odessa. Jews from Odessa don't want into new Ukraine.

[213374U]

 

 

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? 

 

Not gonna fall for that bro. You claimed that international treaties infringe upon sovereignty. You have to prove it. Until you do, it's just your hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. Get with the program and stop using these bull**** delay tactics where you constantly demand that I prove a negative while you continue to make random unsupported claims in return.

 

 

 

Let's take Spain as an example: The list of treaties it is a party to is long and each limits its sovereignty to a degree.

 

How, precisely, and outside of the EU agreements, do any of those limit sovereignty "to a degree"? To what degree, really? The one that suits your stance depending on the moment? How is any of the following:  

 

• the principle of the right of political self-determination
• the principle of equality between states
• the principle of non-intervention in other states' internal affairs

affected by the treaties subscribed by Spain? Go on, for once, support your arguments. Present evidence. Give concrete examples.

 

 

 

Being party to an international treaty is allowing external interference, as each treaty restricts the ability to make sovereign decisions.

 

Unsubstantiated. International treaties place obligations on participating countries that are agreed upon during the negotiations for the treaty. This is fundamentally different from outsourcing the entire decision making process to a supranational entity that is outside of the control of the signatory. To make this perfectly clear, a treaty is a one-time deal whose conditions are clear to those involved a priori. The loss of sovereignty that becoming part of a federation entails is akin to giving someone else carte blanche to make deals on your behalf and take away your ability to question those deals.

 

 

 

Do they limit certain aspects of sovereignty? They do. Do they abolish it, as you constantly state? No, they don't.

 

Ah, so now what I've been saying is not important or relevant because "sovereignty isn't abolished", merely diminished. Thanks for proving my point. And please, show me where I said national sovereignty of members is destroyed, abolished, or any other hyperbolic participle you can think of to articulate your weak No True Scotsmans.

 

 

 

Each member state is free to exercise their sovereign rule, but is bound by laws and regulations it voluntarily accepted. Furthermore, the EU doesn't micromanage countries.

 

Each member is free to exercise their sovereign rule... except where this comes into conflict with ECJ rulings, EC regulations and directives, EP laws, or any other source of law at the Union level that contravene it, at which point it it's superseded because it was decided that Union legislation should take precedence. EC regulations are not voluntarily accepted by any stretch of the imagination, unless by "voluntarily" you actually mean "take it or GTFO", obviously.

 

 

 

You're only partially correct when you point out that legislation of the EU affects other member countries. It does, but the implementation of EU legislation in any given member country is left to the national parliaments.

 

So long as you do what we say, all will be well, is it?

 

 

 

Furthermore, the Court of Justice is focused on Union law, not national law. It interprets treaties and passes rulings on the Union level, it doesn't micromanage national courts.

 

Unless national law conflicts with EU law. It doesn't bother micromanaging national courts, it simply overrules them.

 

Seriously, who's the lawyer here? None of this is even serious academic stuff. It's on WP, for crying out loud.

 

 

 

Similarly, the European Court on Human Rights is a court specifically intended for appeals in cases where human rights might be violated, as was the case with the Tysiąc case

 

And in this sense, "human rights" can increasingly mean anything so long as it involves the "rights" of humans—including, but not limited to, legitimacy of life in prison sentences, retroactive application of judicial doctrines, voting rights, extraditions, etc.

 

Again, the EU court will simply overrule national courts if a justification can be found to do so under the European Convention on Human Rights. Once more, thanks for proving my point. I'm not even making value judgments, here; simply confirming what I've been saying all along, to wit, that joining the EU means a loss of sovereignty.

 

 

Last, given that you're quick to flaunt your time of living on the Iberian peninsula as some sort of credentials for understanding the EU, it's puzzling you think having an education and mentioning it is abhorrent.

 

Oh, cripes. The only thing that my time living in the EU proves is that my opinions (which I welcome the challenge of, btw) are not, in fact, preconceptions—and therefore baseless and grounded on emotion as being preconceived would imply—simply because a preconception is a mental representation built in absence of actual experience with the object in question.

 

Your credentials are not abhorrent, they are merely irrelevant. There are some users here with a strong background in law and bureaucracy and I'm more than happy to defer to their opinions. Not by virtue of their credentials (which rests on my willingness to believe them), but because they actually use their knowledge to make their cases and present evidence that is not just one Google click away. Unlike you, they never bring their credentials up in an effort to support their arguments. They don't need to.

Edited February 23, 2014 by 213374U

[213374U]

 

 

It isn't a dodge. You've been constantly redirecting the discussion, making irrelevant points. Again, the subject matter is not Ukraine joining the EU, but signing an association agreement, yet you're reframing it as if Ukraine wanted to do the former.

 

As I said, this is going to be difficult if you can't keep track of your own posts. You began framing this as a question of Ukrainian integration into the EU (which is partly what it's about, judging from some of the Euromaidan demands, and depending on the final scope of the DCFTA). Exhibit #1:

 

 

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).

 

 

 

This is not simply a Ukraine-EU association agreement, this is actually directly referencing economic and legal integration. Ukraine is not going to become a full-fledged EU member overnight, even if the DCFTA is a first step on that direction. The closer the relationship is to actual membership the greater the sovereignty loss. Simple, no?

 

 

Furthermore, your point is somewhat inconsistent. On one hand, you're complaining that the EU destroys national sovereignty, yet at the same time you're complaining that the EU did not impose solutions across the Union to fix the inequality problem. I say, it's convenient. You're treating the EU as a federation whenever it suits your point, like when you complain that the EU is not fixing the inequality problem.

 

How is it inconsistent? The loss of sovereignty in exchange for nothing much is precisely the point I've been making! I will rephrase the original question to solve this perceived inconsistency: what will Ukraine receive in exchange for relinquishing part of her sovereignty and independence?

 

I'm not the one treating the EU as a federation, you are. You are justifying the loss of sovereignty for reasons. Exhibit  #2:

 

 

Subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe isn't giving up on sovereignty, it's subscribing to the idea of a federal Europe.

 

It's starting to get old to do your work for you.

 

 

 

 

National policies are the crucial element of targeting it, as one overarching policy that applies across Europe would be either too generic to be of help or force countries to adopt policies not suited for their individual circumstances. What works in Sweden doesn't have to work in Germany, Italy, or Spain.

 

In practice, what happens is that the EU lays down specific requirements and goals for countries to legislate towards by means of the Stability Pact, look it up. In a sense it's even worse—the EU dictates a series of high-level directives countries must comply with, and they must do so without critical macroeconomic tools such as the ability to devalue currency. Pretty clever, huh?

 

 

 

It's interesting that disagreeing with you automatically makes me an ignoramus, because I happen to not share your opinions about the Union. Yeah, I must be intellectually dishonest. Totally. Except I'm not the one claiming that living in the EU since '86 gives you grounds for speaking about it, except when someone else claims something similar, then it's "What does it matter how long have you been living in the EU."

 

Nope, the issue is not the disagreement—it's your insistence that closer integration into a EU that has some serious democratic deficits is positive for everyone involved, for reasons. When I a) showcase the price that integration has on members and b) present economic figures that show that the EU is failing at addressing key problems in member states despite having and exercising broad powers to intervene in domestic affairs of member states, you go off on tangents to rebut my rebuttals without actually ever making the slightest effort to back up your own claims.

 

Where you live or have lived is irrelevant because I did not accuse you of having preconceptions; I accused you of not understanding basic concepts (sovereignty, neutrality) of international law and EU bureaucracy, based solely on your posts in this thread. You could be posting from the ass end of the universe for all I care.

 

 

 

Did I say it's not strategic? No. I said it wasn't as strategic as Germany or Poland, which were to be the primary battlefields of World War III. In their relative strategic importance, Germany and Poland trumped Yugoslavia because they offered what was effectively a highway straight into the USSR, owing to the lack of natural barriers.

 

Oh, but you did say it wasn't strategic. Exhibit #3:

 

 

Yugoslavia wasn't a strategic country between two superpowers that sat on the fence.

 

Pretty handy how the internets remembers everything, don't you think?

 

You were also drawing an irrelevant comparison to push forward the idea that, as Yugoslavia wasn't as arbitrarily strategic as XYZ, it therefore does not constitute a valid counterexample to your general principle that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence". A beautiful example of a No True Scotsman fallacy. The irony is so gleaming that I'm now writing these posts with my sunglasses on. 

 

[213374U]

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

[213374U]

 

And yes, I use a loose, broad definition of what constitutes the eastern bloc. 

 

And that would be fine, were it not for the fact that you are using this "loose, broad definition" as proof that Yugoslavia was aligned with the Soviets, thus attacking the other leg of the "strategic, unaligned" requirement for a counterexample you formulated yourself.

 

 

 

I never said Poland was neutral 

 

 

 

 

You didn't follow the link I pasted, did you? The idiom you used indicates neutrality. Political neutrality and non-alignment are different concepts. Stop with the equivocation, please. 

 

 

 

it is a better example than Yugoslavia because the circumstances in which it existed are much closer to the ones in which Ukraine exists.

But, of course, instead of actually reading the point, you're focusing on nitpicking and twisting words. Yes, the EU and Russia aren't the Third Reich and the SU, but that wasn't the point. You're constantly moving the goal posts around and twisting the argument just to appear right.

 

Which one? Poland in the interim between WWI and WWII? Poland after WWII? You are comparing Poland after WWII with SFR Yugoslavia and that is a valid comparison. But then you are bringing the historical circumstances of Poland after WWI to support the idea that "neutrality" didn't work out so well for Poland because it got annexed by Germany and the USSR—this makes no sense as post-WWII, Poland was a Soviet satellite from the get go, making it an unsuitable candidate to be an example to sustain your theory that "strategic countries between two superpowers cannot sit on the fence". They cannot sit on the fence if they are puppet states to begin with, duh!

 

And I'm the one moving the goal posts around?

 

But let's consider for a moment Poland's fate after the M-R pact's secret protocol went into effect. This is only proof that Poland could not survive in the geopolitical landscape of 1939 without some great power backing her up. That's the only conclusion that can be rigorously drawn from that historical episode. Using induction to make absolute predictions in geopolitics is a no-no.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biased_sample

 

[Tagaziel]

You know what, I give up. I don't see a point in continuing this exchange any longer. especially when it's obvious we aren't even on the same page as to the definitions we use.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Chilloutman]

I just hope Ukraine will not 'split'. It awefully remindes me what happend in Czechoslovakia before 2nd WW with Sudety (it was czech teritory on border with Germany where many germans lived and when Hitler get to power they just stated it as german terriory) seems quite similiar to what happening in UK. Bastard Russians in UK - if they want to be part of russia GTFO and leave

[obyknven]

Bastard Russians in UK - if they want to be part of russia GTFO and leave

No! UK is Russian colony now - shut up and lick our boots!

[TrashMan]

 

A very good post, though it also highlights why Yugoslavia is not a particularly good example. Ukraine has a vastly different geographic composition and, unlike Yugoslavia, after 20 years its economy is in the pigsty and the political elites are rotten to the core. Ukraine may have had a chance at pursuing a third route, but at the present it lacks the foundations to do so. It wasn't even doomed to suffer this state, as many other SSRs and satellite states in the region managed to pull through.

 

Calling Yugoslavia socialist is accurate as far as declarations go, but its ideology was derived from communism, its primary party until tito's death was the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and if we want to start defining the precise ideologies of the different communism states, we open a can of worms filled with communist newspeak.

 

As for bankrolling, the counter-demonstrations and thugs were explicitly paid for by Yanukovych's government.

 

 

As a former citizen of Yugoslavia, let me tell you this:

- the economy is a pigsty

- the political elite is rotten to the core.

 

Politicans are openly robbing the people and bragging about it on the TV, and the apathy is such that people just curse, shrug and go on with their day.

 

[Mor]

Just to clarify do you have a point or are you replaying to any of the points Tagaziel made? Or just ranting about Yugoslavia political and economical situation in general? If the later, then you preaching to the quire, if there is one thing that everyone agree on is that their country economy is ****e and their politicians are incompetent and or corrupt. Also I pretty sure that most of us would agree that people has become more apathetic (unless it directly involve them or a their daily quota of sensualized news has been filled, good luck to get them to care)

Edited February 24, 2014 by Mor

[TrashMan]

 

 

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? 

 

Not gonna fall for that bro. You claimed that international treaties infringe upon sovereignty. You have to prove it. Until you do, it's just your hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. Get with the program and stop using these bull**** delay tactics where you constantly demand that I prove a negative while you continue to make random unsupported claims in return.

 

 

Doesn't take a genius to see the truth.

 

Treaties are made to benefit the big powers. The laws and deals have loopholes that force you to accept some things you normally wouldn't.

 

Every since Croatia entered the EU, things have only become worse. Everything of worth in the country is now owned by foreign countries and interest groups.

And you can't say no.

 

There's talk of a new bill that "for global power market fairness" the cost of electricity and gas in the EU should be the same for all countries. Currently Croatia has the lowest costs there...but we don't earn nearly as much as people in GB or Germany do.

Do you know what a price change like that would do here? It would ruin the already over-taxed people.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

International treaties don't infringe on national sovereignty because... You say so? 

 

Not gonna fall for that bro. You claimed that international treaties infringe upon sovereignty. You have to prove it. Until you do, it's just your hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. Get with the program and stop using these bull**** delay tactics where you constantly demand that I prove a negative while you continue to make random unsupported claims in return.

 

 

Doesn't take a genius to see the truth.

 

Treaties are made to benefit the big powers. The laws and deals have loopholes that force you to accept some things you normally wouldn't.

 

Every since Croatia entered the EU, things have only become worse. Everything of worth in the country is now owned by foreign countries and interest groups.

And you can't say no.

 

There's talk of a new bill that "for global power market fairness" the cost of electricity and gas in the EU should be the same for all countries. Currently Croatia has the lowest costs there...but we don't earn nearly as much as people in GB or Germany do.

Do you know what a price change like that would do here? It would ruin the already over-taxed people.

 

 

Yeah its funny how EU preach equality in all things but sallaries seems to not reflect it at all. Looks like not all things can be forced by EU decrets

[Sarex]

I just hope Ukraine will not 'split'. It awefully remindes me what happend in Czechoslovakia before 2nd WW with Sudety (it was czech teritory on border with Germany where many germans lived and when Hitler get to power they just stated it as german terriory) seems quite similiar to what happening in UK. Bastard Russians in UK - if they want to be part of russia GTFO and leave

 

That is what is going to most likely happen. Half of the citizens in Ukraine are Russians from the old Soviet Union, the other half wants to get away from the east. I don't think that there is any future for the country like this, all it means is that the other side will start protesting when Ukraine starts moving towards the west and you are back to square one.

 

As a former citizen of Yugoslavia, let me tell you this:

- the economy is a pigsty

- the political elite is rotten to the core.

 

Politicans are openly robbing the people and bragging about it on the TV, and the apathy is such that people just curse, shrug and go on with their day.

 

 

I don't know about the rest of the countries from Yugoslavia (sans B&H) but in Serbia the muck is being moved. We are on the brink maybe, but we are not over it. As for the political elite being rotten, tell me what country is better.

 

You can't turn around a country in one year, I am not very optimistic about the current state of Serbia and I don't like the pro west attitude, but it's too early to call it bust.