Crimea Join Russia FOR THE MOTHER LAND!

נכתב על ידי Unleashed, 27.03.2014 at 14:02

It's official. Russia invaded DC

http://youtu.be/nCjyPsjtVYI?t=1m25s

Song is epic

Someone filmed that with a toaster.

נכתב על ידי Guest, 28.03.2014 at 08:41

נכתב על ידי Unleashed, 27.03.2014 at 14:02

It's official. Russia invaded DC

http://youtu.be/nCjyPsjtVYI?t=1m25s

Song is epic

Someone filmed that with a toaster.

Here it is in HD, but the player is retarded

http://youtu.be/1DRE9blQAvA?t=20s

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 28.03.2014 at 06:45

נכתב על ידי zombieyeti, 28.03.2014 at 05:39

Tell me what you think blackmail means.

Really? You feel a need to discuss about definition of blackmail?

USA: alright EU, sanction Russia for not obeying our orders.
EU: Roger that.
Italy: I will not sanction Russia, we export food there which is 50% of our economic output. Russians are paying good, always on time and demanding more food every year.
USA: Italy do as i say.
Italy: No. We dont have problems with Russia. You have. Leave the rest of us out of your 1v1 conflict.
USA: Italy obey order or you wont export to USA anymore. Your choice.

I argue that the key component in blackmail is that the one making the demands *gain*. The second component is that the demander makes an unwarranted demand. The third is a threat, implied or concrete.
In your model, the demander (the USA) says 'stop trade with Russia because we are trying to punish it for invading Ukraine'. The threat is "or we will stop trading with you".

The USA is under no *obligation* to trade with Italy (certain parties in the USA or Italy may have contractual obligations which are nullified in the case of sanctions), and Italy is not forced to stop trading with Russia.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 04:47

נכתב על ידי zombieyeti, 29.03.2014 at 04:34

The USA is under no *obligation* to trade with Italy (certain parties in the USA or Italy may have contractual obligations which are nullified in the case of sanctions), and Italy is not forced to stop trading with Russia.

USA is obligated to trade with everyone. Every country is. Thats neoliberal capitalism US/EU is pushing towards since 1991. No borders, no import taxes, just free trade and commerce. USA cannot turn back italian goods exported to USA, because thats against their pact, alliance, trade agreement.

Like EU, they promote neoliberal capitalism, they throw junk to eastern europe and sell it for high prices, they never earned as much as last 20 years after collapse of Warsaw Pact. But when China created new car and sent it to EU, EU stopped shipment and turned them back to China, reason - ''quality of above mentioned automotive vehicle doesnt fullfill EU criteria''. Chinas car was like german volkswagen golf 5 class, they both had 4 stars quality.
Obviously EU sanctioned China because chinese cars are better, stronger, engine start and dont need repair, are comfort, and above all - cheap. EU cant allow that because they need to sell expensive cars to rich west europeans and junk to east europeans. Renault, Opel, BMW, Mercedes, Peugeot, Volkswagen. All lost credibility.

I guess you talk about the Qoros 3; it is allowed to be imported to Europe. The Qoros is imported by only a small group of merchants yet, thus it's a rare car and almost non-aviable atm. Soon the new model the Qoros 3 Hatch will be sold in Europe, too.

The Qoros 3 got (as first chinese car, many european cars reached that rating before btw) a five star rating in the EURO NCAP Crash-Test and was the safest car by security standards in 2013 (IN ITS CLASS; NOTE THAT A QOROS 3 IS NOT COMPARED TO HIGH CLASS EURO MODELS BUT MIDDLE CLASS CARS; to say it is better than any European car is just plain silly).

The reason Qoros doesn't distribute the car in European markets itself is, because the own market in China is still to be fully developed, not that it has been forbidden by the EU to do so. As said before, merchants and private persons are allowed to import the car nonetheless. Sources can be delivered; can you deliver sources for your claims?

Also about the USA "blackmails" EU shit; EU made up it's own opinions on this. The opinion is not to tolerate the aggression displayed by Russia. The U.S. doesn't have to blackmail the EU into this, nor does the U.S have to blackmail member states of the EU.

Even if the US would shut up about this whole Crimea topic, do you think the EU would just tolerate it? Support Russia in annexing a part of another European Country? It would be a unforgivable sign of weakness to do so. The EU cannot allow itself to show weakness if it wants to continue to exist. It is forced to show strength and to take actions in order to not lose it's face in front of all the member countries and the world.

Honestly, Americas opinion in this matter is very insignifacant. This is a regional conflict between the EU and Russia about Russia showing it's old soviet expansionist traits again.

נכתב על ידי Clovek30, 29.03.2014 at 05:32

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 04:47

נכתב על ידי zombieyeti, 29.03.2014 at 04:34

The USA is under no *obligation* to trade with Italy (certain parties in the USA or Italy may have contractual obligations which are nullified in the case of sanctions), and Italy is not forced to stop trading with Russia.

USA is obligated to trade with everyone. Every country is. Thats neoliberal capitalism US/EU is pushing towards since 1991. No borders, no import taxes, just free trade and commerce. USA cannot turn back italian goods exported to USA, because thats against their pact, alliance, trade agreement.

Like EU, they promote neoliberal capitalism, they throw junk to eastern europe and sell it for high prices, they never earned as much as last 20 years after collapse of Warsaw Pact. But when China created new car and sent it to EU, EU stopped shipment and turned them back to China, reason - ''quality of above mentioned automotive vehicle doesnt fullfill EU criteria''. Chinas car was like german volkswagen golf 5 class, they both had 4 stars quality.
Obviously EU sanctioned China because chinese cars are better, stronger, engine start and dont need repair, are comfort, and above all - cheap. EU cant allow that because they need to sell expensive cars to rich west europeans and junk to east europeans. Renault, Opel, BMW, Mercedes, Peugeot, Volkswagen. All lost credibility.

I guess you talk about the Qoros 3; it is allowed to be imported to Europe. The Qoros is imported by only a small group of merchants yet, thus it's a rare car and almost non-aviable atm. Soon the new model the Qoros 3 Hatch will be sold in Europe, too.

The Qoros 3 got (as first chinese car, many european cars reached that rating before btw) a five star rating in the EURO NCAP Crash-Test and was the safest car by security standards in 2013 (IN ITS CLASS; NOTE THAT A QOROS 3 IS NOT COMPARED TO HIGH CLASS EURO MODELS BUT MIDDLE CLASS CARS; to say it is better than any European car is just plain silly).

The reason Qoros doesn't distribute the car in European markets itself is, because the own market in China is still to be fully developed, not that it has been forbidden by the EU to do so. As said before, merchants and private persons are allowed to import the car nonetheless. Sources can be delivered; can you deliver sources for your claims?

Also about the USA "blackmails" EU shit; EU made up it's own opinions on this. The opinion is not to tolerate the aggression displayed by Russia. The U.S. doesn't have to blackmail the EU into this, nor does the U.S have to blackmail member states of the EU.

Even if the US would shut up about this whole Crimea topic, do you think the EU would just tolerate it? Support Russia in annexing a part of another European Country? It would be a unforgivable sign of weakness to do so. The EU cannot allow itself to show weakness if it wants to continue to exist. It is forced to show strength and to take actions in order to not lose it's face in front of all the member countries and the world.

Honestly, Americas opinion in this matter is very insignifacant. This is a regional conflict between the EU and Russia about Russia showing it's old soviet expansionist traits again.

*clapping*
I don't agree about America's opinion being insignificant, but there are at least three sets of obligations involved here.
- The obligation of the EU members, as a group, and individually, to a secure Europe. Their right to security is ultimately inviolate, should EU member nations choose to act, collectively and/or separately the USA's role is only to the degree permitted.
- The obligation of the USA to nations that have voluntarily said 'no' to domestic nuclear weapons systems to protect their territorial integrity. Whether enshrined in the Budapest Memorandum, or good common sense, this obligation is also separate from the EU. The security of the American people here is also threatened, but not as poignantly as that of EU member nations and other European countries.

Both of these obligations aren't just high-minded-civilized notions. Both obligations serve to enhance the security of the people of both 'regions'. I agree that the EU should be more concerned than the USA. If missiles fly, both have concerns. If Russian tanks roll, it will be the citizens of European Countries ground beneath their treads.

The third obligation is that this sort of aggression can't be tolerated in the world arena, wherever it happens. This is an obligation shared by EU and USA.
+++
I haven't heard of this car, I will look into it with great interest.

[edit]
Pleased to see that the steering wheel is on the correct side.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 04:47

נכתב על ידי zombieyeti, 29.03.2014 at 04:34

The USA is under no *obligation* to trade with Italy (certain parties in the USA or Italy may have contractual obligations which are nullified in the case of sanctions), and Italy is not forced to stop trading with Russia.

USA is obligated to trade with everyone. Every country is. Thats neoliberal capitalism US/EU is pushing towards since 1991. No borders, no import taxes, just free trade and commerce. USA cannot turn back italian goods exported to USA, because thats against their pact, alliance, trade agreement.

Like EU, they promote neoliberal capitalism, they throw junk to eastern europe and sell it for high prices, they never earned as much as last 20 years after collapse of Warsaw Pact. But when China created new car and sent it to EU, EU stopped shipment and turned them back to China, reason - ''quality of above mentioned automotive vehicle doesnt fullfill EU criteria''. Chinas car was like german volkswagen golf 5 class, they both had 4 stars quality.
Obviously EU sanctioned China because chinese cars are better, stronger, engine start and dont need repair, are comfort, and above all - cheap. EU cant allow that because they need to sell expensive cars to rich west europeans and junk to east europeans. Renault, Opel, BMW, Mercedes, Peugeot, Volkswagen. All lost credibility.

Regarding your first paragraph, WTO/GATT, and other bi/multi-lateral trade agreements have always permitted restriction on trade for security exceptions (yes, I knew the principle, no I didn't know the law, I looked it up): Article XXI of GATT
https://www.marxists.org/history/capitalism/gatt/ch21.htm < check the URL lolz.
In principle, I do agree with your statement, except that everything takes a back seat to National Security.

GATT XXI, 1, (b), (iii) and possibly (c).

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 06:31

Before america, EU was peaceful and helpful to Russia and vice-versa. Remember Great Turkish War, Napoleon War, 30 years war, 7 years war, world war 1, world war 2. Only exception is Anglo-French interfering in Russian-turkish war of 1850 where they invaded Krim. They proved there they dont tolerate Russia and have ambitions toward russian lands. But nevertheless they stick to the agreements EU-Russia made since all those congresses.

Let's stick to times after the establishment of the League of Nations. The comparison you brought up on this point is not representantive at all, as there was no EU and every nation had it very own interests in War. There have been enough military action between Russia and other European nations.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 06:31

Russia didnt annexed foreign land. Krim seceded from fascist govt in Kiev and voted to join Russian Federation. Thats the most democratic thing one nation could do - switch countries or gain independence by referendum where majority decides nation destiny. Russia gave Krim to Ukraine 1954 as the sign of the good will and brotherhood between two nations only so Ukraine leave Union in 1991 when hard time happened and not trying to help, and now after 20 years they become fascists and harass russians in Ukraine. Krim decision surprised us all, but it was all legit and legitimate. Krim is Russian again like before 200 years.

EU didnt had right to interfere, and moral, respect and honor doesnt let such blatant slanders like EU media did. They proved they have no honor and moral. They could get into dialogue and try to convince Krim people to stay and solve issues but instead they attacked Russia for ''annexing'' foreign land. Bullshit.

First point; EU had the right to interfere as the improvised Goverment of the Ukraine asked the EU for support.
Second; One sided secession are not legal, not by the countries usual constitution, nor by international law.

Let's take look at the following:
###"Can Crimea's secession be regarded as remotely legal under the Ukrainian constitution?"
###No it cannot. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states: "Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum". But Crimea has not allowed the rest of Ukraine's people to discuss the fate of the peninsula.

Therefore the secession is already illegal due to the constituion of the Ukraine. But not only that, it is also illegal to international law.

Countries can acquire territory by discovering uninhabited land, signing a treaty - as with Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 - or occupying an area peacefully over a long period of time. The legal methods for resolving questions of sovereignty are founded on widely recognized principles of international law. These do not include, and have never included, a simple referendum of people living in a contested territory. If that were the case, then under international law, any geographically cohesive group could vote on independence. That would mean the Basques should be free from Spain and France, and the Kurds would have an independent nation; the large community of Cubans living in Miami could vote to separate from the United States.

Also note: Russia is obliged to not violate the territorial integrity of other European states by several treaties, especially the OSCE. In a wider term Russia is obliged to the terms and conditions of the UN, which condem the act even more. Russia violated those treaties and it's own constituion (Article 15) which obliges the parliament and the goverment to not violate any of the terms and conditions in those international treaties Russia has signed.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 06:31

It isnt a conflict if there is only 1 side. Same like Cold War, that was fictional war between USA and CCCP started by USA and led by USA. CCCP didnt participate because they mind their own businesses. When CCCP collapsed, USA claim fictional victory. Same story with ukraine crisis, there is only one side - fascist ukraine and EU. Russia doesnt participate. They sent troops to their russian bases on Krim as they are doing that for the last 200 years, russians in Krim voted to join Russia and thats it, no Russian invasion or whatsoever. All that is made by EU bribed media to make Russia look bad.

The USSR didn't participate in the Cold War? In which reality do you live. I feel like ending this discussion at this point already, because this is a very irrational point of view.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 07:34

Let me ask you this way: Why EU and USA supported Kosovo independence before 6 years and now they dont Krim independence?

US words:

Serbia harassing albanians on kosovo
they kill them and deport them
albanians have no rights both political and human

Ukrainian situation:

crimeans harassed by ukrainians
they kill them and trying to deport
crimeans have no right both politican and human

And USA/EU sanction Russia. Very irrational.

You mix some things up there. Just note the word "Independence". Crimea is not independent, it is part of Russia now, that's a large difference.

The key factor in the NATO intervention in Kosovo has been that Serbia started to remove kebab genocide the muslime population in several countries. I. e. Bosnia, Albania / Kosovo. The conflict was already ongoing for a long time, we don't talk about weeks here. The conflict started years before the NATO took action. Years in which all diplomatic means and sanctions were used to calm the situation.
Second of all: Kosovo was given independence, it was not planned to give Kosovo to any other nation, like Crimea, which is defacto annexed by Russia. There was no real danger for the population of Crimea, no Mass Murders, no deportations.

This should not mean the intervention by the NATO was legal by international law. Though the Court in Den Hague has ruled the independence for Kosovo is rightful. The NATO started the intervention without UN support, which is crucial.

This on the other hand does not mean, that Russia is now allowed to violate international law themselfes. Note, that they already did the same thing the NATO did in Kosovo in Georgia some years ago, which didn't resolve in any sanctions by the EU or US.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 07:34

If USSR participated in Cold War we would speak russian now. They didnt interfered in Vietnam war and they could send 500,000 troops. That war would be over 1958 and 100,000 americans would die instead 50,000. USSR didnt interfered in Korea and they could send air force to protect infinite chinese infantry. USA wouldve lost 1000 planes and 100 ships and South Korea would be communist today. USSR could deploy missiles on Cuba but instead they made a deal with USA. They could protect Grenada from US invasion. USSR could fund communist guerillas in latin america and africa. Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Paraguay would all be socialist states today, Congo, DR Congo, Namibia, Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia would be socialist and funding USSR industry with rare african resources. USSR would then only have West EU and USA for enemies and there is no power invented on this planet to stop USSR Red Army(germans were closest to try but even they failed), only this time start wouldnt be fro Moscow, but from Berlin. Paris would fall in one week. Rome and Madrid would stay neutral and only UK would put up decent fight. But not for long as KGB will fund scots and welsh to guerilla in their states against english.

World is happy to have/had slavic people for communists because slavs are neutral and defensive nations like french and gauls. If germans were communists and had lands and resources like USSR they would try not twice, but 100 times to conquer the world and implement their new world order.

I won't even answer to this. This is just plain retarded. To wage an open conflict against the NATO would have been the most stupid thing the USSR could have done. You should know by now that there was a lot of support for any nation that waged war against the US by the USSR, hidden of course. Proxy Wars, never heard of them? You could easily educate yourself on the USSR participation in the cold war, but I guess you like to believe Russia, or the USSR, never did anything bad besides existing and the evil american NATO european axis of capitalism wants to crush the peaceful, not participating, minding its own business motherland of Russia.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 07:34

Let me ask you this way: Why EU and USA supported Kosovo independence before 6 years and now they dont Krim independence?

Ethnic Russians have been harassed by Ukrainians & vice versa. Comparing this to the mass killings Kosovo is ludicrous.

נכתב על ידי Skanderbeg, 29.03.2014 at 07:34

They didnt interfered in Vietnam war and they could send 500,000 troops.

The USSR "didn't interfere" in Vietnam just as the US "didn't interfere" in Afghanistan (1979-1989).

Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of 'Soviet' Russia: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481
Interesting BBC News article on Putin and the invasion of Crimea. Provides interesting background on Putin and makes the case that the invasion of Crimea was foreseeable.