|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
posted April 08, 2014 07:41 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:01, 09 Apr 2014.
|
xerox said:
You shouldn't read RT. It's controlled by the Kreml.
Ukraine needs the EU so that it can realistically embark on reforms that will reduce its state and corporatist corruption, protect its sovereignty from the Russian destabilization efforts that we already have seen so much of aswell as connecting their economy with the 500 million people EU internal market.
RT isnt bad. They just show the perspective of what the "Russians" or kremlin thinks. Its good because it allows another perspective to be considered.
They whitewash the russian side while being hilghy critical towards the US, while american news sources portray a different perspective on the situation aswell, mostly whitewashing US hypocrisy.
RT is like watching the news from the Soviet Union, not everything for the USSR was bad.
To be honest, i never watch or rarely read about news. Without even looking, there is some snow there.
Somebody, who was a religious nut, blew up, disasters, unemployment, crimes, eating XYZ is bad, my countrys politician has X million dollars he stole, neighboring country's X politican says Y and some politcians 1500 KM away talking about how I should live or some nuts thinking that anyother way of living except the way they do, is criminal...
To that I say **** that.
As for ukraine, the best sollution for them would be city states. Wanna do your own thing, city states for everyone!
[font]MOD EDIT: Please do not bypass the language filters.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 07:53 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:53, 08 Apr 2014.
|
It depends on what media you read. I agree the mass media like CNN (or RT) all suck but smaller ones like The Economist, Foreign Affairs or even the Washington Post tend to be way more in-depth and nuanced.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How does the EU expect loyalty and obedience from Ukraine in ways that are secret?
They are not "secret", they are just shown as something which they are not. If you forget your slogans for just one minute, I would encourage you to think this way: what is the EU benefit in helping a country in a very bad economic situation; with a rather dangerous neighbour which is quite unwilling to play the good boy; with quite a big and concentrated minority which can be used by the dangerous neighbour in many ways; and with virtually no traditions in pluralism and social control over the governmental institutions. Give me something that sounds at least remotely sensible and maybe we will talk.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:16 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 20:17, 08 Apr 2014.
|
EU is interested in solving its own problems using Ukraine.
- Cheap labor to solve the current Muslim problem;
- Allowing NATO to crawl further to the East;
- Fast loans for the big cut in future, made by forcing Ukrainian economics to import trade goods from the EU mostly;
- Dividing the Slavic countries even more preventing their possible union;
- Taunting Russia (already said in paragraph 2).
If NATO will station their rockets on the Russian border, Russian anti-air defence systems will turn to useless junk. So that be ready that further snow will happen - there is no turning back for Russia. The Ukraine is gonna be in a very bad shape. It's just used as a battlefield for the two giant snowballs.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:23 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:28, 08 Apr 2014.
|
The EU really doesn't want Ukraine as a member right now, but it would benefit them in the future provided there's increased stability and reforms (as part of long-term European integration). The NATO obviously has military interests in Ukraine but that's not related to EU integration.
Zenofex said:
Quote:
How does the EU expect loyalty and obedience from Ukraine in ways that are secret?
They are not "secret", they are just shown as something which they are not. If you forget your slogans for just one minute, I would encourage you to think this way: what is the EU benefit in helping a country in a very bad economic situation; with a rather dangerous neighbour which is quite unwilling to play the good boy; with quite a big and concentrated minority which can be used by the dangerous neighbour in many ways; and with virtually no traditions in pluralism and social control over the governmental institutions. Give me something that sounds at least remotely sensible and maybe we will talk.
They should start the long-term effort of integrating with the EU for the reasons I mentioned on the last page: Less corruption, more efficient institutions, better reinforced democratic liberties and rights, better protection of its sovereignty (harder for Russia to destabilize and assault the European sphere than small, independent states), access to the EU internal market. And again, this ain't a quick fix, but a long-term process which needs to start ASAP. The alternative is to stay as an independent, lone country with a corrupt and inefficient administration, influenced by oligarchs and the Kreml.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:28 PM |
|
|
|
No, no, you are turning the question upside-down. I asked you what do you think that the EU will benefit from this, not what you think will happen in Ukraine after the EU waves its long-term magic stick.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The NATO obviously has military interests in Ukraine but that's not related to EU integration.
One thing follows another, sooner or later. No exceptions.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:32 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:35, 08 Apr 2014.
|
Yes, of course, but NATO membership won't be something the EU is going to impose on Ukraine.
Zenofex said:
No, no, you are turning the question upside-down. I asked you what do you think that the EU will benefit from this, not what you think will happen in Ukraine after the EU waves its long-term magic stick.
Right now, nothing. Only losses. Long-term, its internal market expands and it gets a more reliable bulwark towards Russia. But obviously, there's some interest from European leaders seeing as how they are just waiting for Ukraine to sign the association agreement.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by seraphim at 20:44, 08 Apr 2014.
|
NATO really is just US + some european countries.
European countries have a bad military budgets, low interests in war and so on.
When it came to libiya, Nato needed US support to make anything happen, same with all the other NATO involvements
European interests are not the same as US interests. EU countries benefit from coopearation with russia, the US does not .
It is wrong to say the US interests and EU interests are the same thing. NATO is more of a armanent treaty than a powerful military union meant to deter russia.
I fail to see how people can vilify NATO. Same for the EU.
Its not the EU that is annexing a part of ukraine, its russia. The EU would not benefit at all from ukraine or imposing sanctions on Russia.
This is all the US and Russia playing "whose got a bigger one", while europeans want to be left alone and live in peace, at least some of them do,
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Right now, nothing. Only losses. Long-term, its internal market expands and it gets a more reliable bulwark towards Russia. But obviously, there's some interest from European leaders seeing as how they are just waiting for Ukraine to sign the association agreement.
OK, that's something. Now ask yourself this - can the EU afford yet another dead load even in mid-term? I'm not talking about full membership, even if the procedure is ridiculously speeded up, but about 44 million people (41.something if you count out Crimea) who have to be supported until their country actually gets back up. You think that someone will give billions and leave the population of a volatile country choose freely what to do?
Yes, there are strategic benefits from a potential Ukraine membership in the EU - although these benefits are for NATO and much, much less for the EU and yes, in a (very) long term Ukraine may also see some real benefit from this (although the same can be said if it turns back to Russia). Will this happen in a democratic way, taking into account what the Ukrainians really think and want? Not a chance in hell.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:58, 08 Apr 2014.
|
If the Ukrainian people vote for association agreements with the EU then Ukraine will have to follow the requirements that they consist of and not be free to do whatever it wishes. If European leaders estimate that Ukraine will keep its end of the bargain, then they are likely to see those loans as a worthy investment.
seraphim said:
European interests are not the same as US interests. EU countries benefit from coopearation with russia, the US does not
Unfortunately some European leaders cooperation with Russia *cough* gerhard schröder *cough* turned out to be dependence on Russia. The EU needs to cut its dependence on Russia's primary soft power weapon, gas, so that it's expansion to the rest of Eastern Europe can not be halted by such means.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the Ukrainian people vote for association agreements with the EU then Ukraine will have to follow the requirements that they consist of and not be free to do whatever it wishes
Except that nobody is planning to ask the people of Ukraine (plus those problematic Russian-speakers in the east that the Western media considers non-existent every time when it brings Ukraine and the EU in one sentence) if they want such an agreement and certainly nobody is planning to explain what it will really mean. Agreements are signed by governments. Governments consist of politicians and politicians are easily sold to the highest bidder, especially in countries which haven't had the historical chance to get rid of the nastiest forms of corruption for many reasons. I can tell you stories how nice are these agreements and how beneficial are they to the wannabe members, and other stories about how they are signed (hint - people are neither informed, nor asked about major topics), but that's not in the scope of this thread.
And let's not forget that NATO has even more interests in Ukraine than the EU so there are even lower chances for any sort of democratic accession.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 09:58 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:00, 08 Apr 2014.
|
I think it's pretty clear for the Ukrainian public which politicians support EU integration and thus association agreements and which do not. Then, when their country is ready, the Ukrainian people will vote yes or not to EU membership in a referendum. Nothing of this is undemocratic. It's standard representative democracy which means that the public does not have a direct saying on every single issue (which is good since people tend to be informed on very few issues).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 10:13 PM |
|
|
|
Why do you think that there will be a referendum on this? There wasn't any in Bulgaria - neither for the EU, nor for NATO, yet somehow we are members of both. If there is a referendum whether we should leave either of them now, the votes will be some 50/50 for the EU part and an overwhelming support for leaving NATO. But there won't be such a referendum any time soon. Guess why.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 10:41 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:42, 08 Apr 2014.
|
Bulgaria (and Romania) are special. They were kinda rushed into the EU and wrongfully so. European leaders have realized this and sharpened the membership requirements of the EU. I think it is very unlikely that we will see something like Bulgaria and Romania again, and I think demanding a referendum (like Croatia had) is a standard procedure since then. We will see if there are referendums in Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, which are the most likely countries to join the EU atm.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 11:03 PM |
|
|
|
Nonsense, they are no more rushed than Ukraine is at the moment, in fact both Bulgaria and Romania were more ready to become members when they signed their association agreements than Ukraine is now or will be in the near future, not to mention that their cost to the EU is much lower than that of Ukraine. Try again.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2014 11:08 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:12, 08 Apr 2014.
|
Considering the treatment of the Roma people in those countries, people who are now begging on the streets of Swedish towns and cities because that life is better than what they have in their home countries, I wouldn't say they were ready. And again, i'm not saying that Ukraine is going to become a EU member in the near future. I'm specifically saying its a long-term effort. To be more specific, I think EU membership for Ukraine is atleast a decade off.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2014 12:15 AM |
|
|
Ah...we had a good run in this thread.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2014 02:38 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
I think it's pretty clear for the Ukrainian public which politicians support EU integration and thus association agreements and which do not. Then, when their country is ready, the Ukrainian people will vote yes or not to EU membership in a referendum. Nothing of this is undemocratic. It's standard representative democracy which means that the public does not have a direct saying on every single issue (which is good since people tend to be informed on very few issues).
the people with who I talk about politics usually agree that access to information is crucial in a democracy (not a representative democracy btw, which we consider a negation of democracy) the press should be free, independent from other powers (executive, judiciary, legislative and monetary) and it should be guaranteed by the constitution. of course it isn't enough and doomed from the beginning if the control of money only stay in a few hands.
so you really think not informing people and not asking them under the pretext they aren't informed, is democratic?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2014 03:33 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:37, 09 Apr 2014.
|
Most democracies have a free press and thanks to the internet, access to information is more withspread than ever. However, politics cover a huge span of issues and it is understandable that the vast majority of people don't feel like spending time becoming experts at every issue. So one of the good things about a representative democracy is that you don't need to be informed about eveything. Instead, you can choose to vote on a candidate who's overall policy direction you're symphathetic to. That is much better than a direct democracy which will lead to stupid and short-term decisions, a lack of accountability for said bad policy (because unlike in a representative democracy, there are no representatives to blame) and generally, a low voter turnout which ironically damages that democratic legitimacy you're aiming for.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
