View Full Version : Russia, Georgia and other ex-Soviet favorites
I am watching CNN and just seen something which is more than a little disturbing. Russia is getting up to some questionable policy changes. 143 Georgians deported, Georgian business's in Russia closed and Russian police asking for lists from schools of children with Georgian names. These moves are somewhat disturbing. Oh by the way I posted this and the news article link to follow as a point of information. Please lets avoid having a ton weight of ultra nationalist reponse's from anyone regardless your point of view. Please try to remain civil.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/06/russia.deportations.reut/index.html
Kap2406
10-07-2006, 10:55 AM
The reasson they are making lists of Georgian children, so officials could track illegal Geargian immigrants.
Oh my 143 of at least half a million georgians ( if not more) a tradgedy. How come when ethic russians were subject to verbal abuse on the streets and kicked out from their jobs in the late 80s-90s nobody from the human rights organisations said anything?
Russia is still heavely corrupted I bet all of these "legal georgians" bought their way in, and the 143 deported didn't want to pay.
Schizo
10-07-2006, 02:37 PM
koutch:
Because noone gave a ****/gives a **** about Russians. Remember, Soviet Union = Russia, Soviets = Russians, oppressors = Russians!
Caucasian people like to bitch about/hate Russia, but it doesn't seem to bother them when they run to Russia ILLEGALLY to get a job/trade drugs...
koutch:
Because noone gave a ****/gives a **** about Russians. Remember, Soviet Union = Russia, Soviets = Russians, oppressors = Russians!
Caucasian people like to bitch about/hate Russia, but it doesn't seem to bother them when they run to Russia ILLEGALLY to get a job/trade drugs...
Not totally true, a buch of Russian members here are from the Caucasus. But then again they consider themselves Russians first and not "chechen wolves" , "djigits" etc
Smersh
10-07-2006, 02:50 PM
How is Russia's actions against georgia any different then the USA policy towards Cuba?
Schizo
10-07-2006, 02:56 PM
kouch:
I wasn't talking about 'these' kind of Caucasians... I was referring to Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and even some Chechens.
Come on, there are more Georgians in Moscow than in Tbilisi!
Now as to the 'ethnic cleansing' of Russians from the ex-Soviet Asian republics: Yes, it happened and I can vouch for that from personal experience... sad but true.
How is Russia's actions against georgia any different then the USA policy towards Cuba?
Good question, but if there is no difference found ,then its democractic and freedom loving!
cepera
10-07-2006, 04:58 PM
I am watching CNN and just seen something which is more than a little disturbing. Russia is getting up to some questionable policy changes. 143 Georgians deported, Georgian business's in Russia closed and Russian police asking for lists from schools of children with Georgian names. These moves are somewhat disturbing.
I would be cautious about what I hear and see on CNN. They try their best to show Russia as an oppressor but fail to note some concrete facts: Over half of georgians in Russia are without regestration, thus illigaly. Numerous mafia and gang in Russia consist of georgians. Traditionally, the government simply closed its eyes about this issue but this crap cant go on forever.
How is Russia's actions against georgia any different then the USA policy towards Cuba?
No difference and thats exactly why Russia has every right to do what it does. US doesnt give sh!t about foreign opinion, they just do what they think is right. They didnt give what United Nations or Russia had to say about invading Iraq...so why should Russia bother ?
Not totally true, a buch of Russian members here are from the Caucasus. But then again they consider themselves Russians first and not "chechen wolves" , "djigits" etc
I was about to say that. I am from the Kavkaz, and so are a number of people here,like Alan, but like all decent caucasians put their Russian citizenship on the first place....Russia is an incredibly diverse country and if every nationality thought of first promoting themselves everything would go to ****.
Flamming_Python
10-07-2006, 05:30 PM
No difference and thats exactly why Russia has every right to do what it does. US doesnt give sh!t about foreign opinion, they just do what they think is right. They didnt give what United Nations or Russia had to say about invading Iraq...so why should Russia bother ?
Wrong, just because America does it dosn't mean Russia has to do it too. We should re-assert ourselves peacefully and quietly reduce American influence in our backyard, like China in a way.
cepera
10-07-2006, 06:03 PM
Wrong, just because America does it dosn't mean Russia has to do it too. We should re-assert ourselves peacefully and quietly reduce American influence in our backyard, like China in a way.
Im in no way saying Russia should do what the US is doing. All Im saying Russia should go with what it thinks is right and ignore all the "lectures" that America throws at it.
I would be cautious about what I hear and see on CNN. They try their best to show Russia as an oppressor but fail to note some concrete facts
I'm not entirely convinced of this plus if you follow the link provided you will see that while I discovered it there (CNN) the report came rom *******.
No difference and thats exactly why Russia has every right to do what it does.
No it doesn't. two wrongs do not make a right and before this gets out of hand the thread is not about Cuba so if we could stick to the topic (because sooner or later a completely off topic argument will develop). Certain elements in Russia seem to think they have the right to bully their former satalite states into doing what they want. It's not just concerning internal policy its foreign policy toward their former satalites that is attracting unwanted attention.
Now before another nations dealings in foreign policy are brought up in "if they can do it so can we" light lets try and stay on topic. Defend your points and make them without resorting to smoke and mirror behaviour.
How is Russia's actions against georgia any different then the USA policy towards Cuba?
yeap, where would you be if there was no America? instead of offering an argument that's related to Russia-Georgia all you guys can do is squeeze something stupid like this. if that's what you like - then let Chechnya go and keep supporting other separatist regimes, how about that?
Where were all those idiots from immigration/MVD before all of this has started? What, they didn't know that a lot of those Georgians were in the country illegaly? please ... this is all politically motived, racist BS. Noone's gonna respect or even like Russia with these kinda foreign policies. you guys just can't get over that fact that some of your neighbours have their own head and don't wanna be your protectorate anymore. Having said that i gotta add that there are some and I hope quite a few Russians that have their own heads, not brainwashed by this "patriotism" BS and who undertand that this is all wrong.
I was about to say that. I am from the Kavkaz, and so are a number of people here,like Alan, but like all decent caucasians put their Russian citizenship on the first place....Russia is an incredibly diverse country and if every nationality thought of first promoting themselves everything would go to ****.
Stop kidding yourself ... you think that DPNI, bunch of other fascist orgs or even just regular police in Moscow will give a damn about your citizenship? For them you are like you said from Kavkaz "litso kavkazskoi natsionalnosti". I bet that if you look like an average Kavkazets you'd be stopped at the first intersection to have your papers checked by police and treated like sh*t.
cepera
10-08-2006, 12:38 AM
Certain elements in Russia seem to think they have the right to bully their former satalite states into doing what they want. It's not just concerning internal policy its foreign policy toward their former satalites that is attracting unwanted attention.
Like what ??? Give me an example...
koozya
10-08-2006, 01:13 AM
yeap, where would you be if there was no America? instead of offering an argument that's related to Russia-Georgia all you guys can do is squeeze something stupid like this. if that's what you like - then let Chechnya go and keep supporting other separatist regimes, how about that?
Where were all those idiots from immigration/MVD before all of this has started? What, they didn't know that a lot of those Georgians were in the country illegaly? please ... this is all politically motived, racist BS. Noone's gonna respect or even like Russia with these kinda foreign policies. you guys just can't get over that fact that some of your neighbours have their own head and don't wanna be your protectorate anymore. Having said that i gotta add that there are some and I hope quite a few Russians that have their own heads, not brainwashed by this "patriotism" BS and who undertand that this is all wrong.
we have another russophobe to join kilgor and squid
Smersh
10-08-2006, 01:31 AM
I was pointing out the hypocrisy in US critisims of russian policy.
Stop kidding yourself ... you think that DPNI, bunch of other fascist orgs or even just regular police in Moscow will give a damn about your citizenship? For them you are like you said from Kavkaz "litso kavkazskoi natsionalnosti". I bet that if you look like an average Kavkazets you'd be stopped at the first intersection to have your papers checked by police and treated like sh*t.
If he wears adidas trackpants with a leather jacket, and singing to "chernie glaza" then yes he'll be stopped.
I also bet that in France you'll have your paper checked if you're arab, and you will be certanly pulled over in the USA if you're black on a firday night.
Digimon
10-08-2006, 03:01 AM
I'm not entirely convinced of this plus if you follow the link provided you will see that while I discovered it there (CNN) the report came rom *******.
No it doesn't. two wrongs do not make a right and before this gets out of hand the thread is not about Cuba so if we could stick to the topic (because sooner or later a completely off topic argument will develop). Certain elements in Russia seem to think they have the right to bully their former satalite states into doing what they want. It's not just concerning internal policy its foreign policy toward their former satalites that is attracting unwanted attention.
Now before another nations dealings in foreign policy are brought up in "if they can do it so can we" light lets try and stay on topic. Defend your points and make them without resorting to smoke and mirror behaviour.
First, if the examples of the US foreign policy that are brought up in analogy are, indeed, morally wrong, then, perhaps, such an attempt to justify Russian policy would fail. However, if they are not wrong but are justified, then if the analogy holds, it would illustrate that Russian policy is equally justified. So, Cuba, Mexico, or whatever other examples of sanctions one might think up are relevant to the issue, particularly, if we have already made an appropriate evaluation of them.
Second, you have made a claim that certain elements in Russia think that they can bully their former satellites into doing what they want. Is this justified? Well, that depends on what is meant by “bullying” and the context. If the Iran takes the staff of the US embassy hostage, and US threatens military action in order to make them release the hostages i.e. bully them into doing “what it wants”, then I believe it is justified. If North Korea rattles its armour and threatens a strike against South Korea, and the US tries to cool it by doing military manoeuvres in the proximity, again, I believe it is justified. In the end, the answer to your question depends on the details of the situation, i.e. what is the “bullying” state trying to achieve, what it is reacting to, how it is trying to achieve its ends, and whether these ends and chosen means are justified.
Now, the problem with the current situation is that Russia has lost any means of getting anywhere through negotiation at the table. So, they are going into an Italian Strike mode, i.e. they are doing as much as the law prescribes and allows. This comes down to sending out illegal immigrants and cracking down on illegal businesses, or businesses that violate regulations. Normally, they would not run after illegal Georgians, or bother with businesses that make minor infractions, but in this case they are doing it for political reasons. Their ultimate goal is to safeguard their personnel in Georgia and to stop the escalation towards a war in Abhasia and South Osetia. In their eyes, as in mine, the real goal of the spy incident is not to open the world’s eyes to the fact that Russia has spies in Georgia, which no sane person should doubt, but to escalate the relationship with Russia in such a way that its status as an honest peace broker in the region is undermined, and the international community demands the withdrawal of its forces or closes the eyes to Georgian offensive. The comment of the Minister of Defence in Georgia to the effect that the main thing that comes out of it is that the international community sees that Russia is not an impartial party in the issue of separatism, disclosed by BBC, supports this assessment. The arrest of the Russian military personnel is by far not the first case, it is a culmination of a series of harassments and arrests for such violations as expiration of visa and other minor infractions. These steps had the same goal of making Russia lose its cool. The last case, however, went too far in that not only there were charges of spying, but also charges of terrorism. Since Russia has no other means of putting pressure on Georgia in order to prevent this in the future, it is trying to do it through economic sanctions as described, which go hand in hand with the same petty harassment that the Russian citizens were subjected to.
Third. Russian government, as a government of any nation, is primarily accountable to its citizens, and it must protect these citizens and their interests. In other words, governments are legal but not moral agents, and that makes moral judgements in matters of evaluation as well as in matters of guiding policy inappropriate. As far as judgements are concerned foreign policies could be either illegal or ineffective. In the case of deportation of illegal immigrants, it is a legal but ineffective policy, while, the methods used (school children) are both, a violation of privacy laws and something reminiscent of a police state. The only relieve regarding this sad assessment is that these methods were met with public and media outrage in Russia, refusal of the education ministry to cooperate with MVD, and the denial of MVD that it had put such method into use and their claim that it was an improvisation on the part of the lower ranking officials. I am inclined to believe this, since the dictatorial mentality of the Russian bureaucracy and the idiocy of law enforcement cannot be overestimated.
Like what ??? Give me an example... One word answer, Ukraine. If you know not what I refer to say so and I'l start posting the info on it.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy in US critisims of russian policy. I know what you mean Smersh but this has nothing to do with what the U.S> thinks, I posted this thing on what appeared to be some worying looking developments over the recent days.
we have another russophobe to join kilgor and squid Well to some people the reds never came out from under the bed p-).
Digimon
10-08-2006, 05:27 AM
One word answer, Ukraine. If you know not what I refer to say so and I'l start posting the info on it.
If I may pick this one up. Ukraine, you say, please indulge me with some examples...
cepera
10-08-2006, 04:02 PM
One word answer, Ukraine. If you know not what I refer to say so and I'l start posting the info on it.
This is what Im talking about..none of you "smart" critics have lived in Russia nor do you actually have any clue regarding its issues. Little backgrownd info for you: Ukraine these days IS a fully independand country, who whith the help of US-brought government tries to break any remaining ties with Russia. Like georgia, its also a strong EU and NATO wannabe. The cost of russian gas for Ukraine was actually lower the the cost for Russia itself. How is raising gas prices (which still are btw loews then what most europeans pay) unjustified?
Woln't bother posting in this thread again..convincing a break wall is a waste of time, nor do we really give any sh!t about foreign criticism..
CPL Trevoga
10-09-2006, 12:35 AM
I am watching CNN and just seen something which is more than a little disturbing. Russia is getting up to some questionable policy changes. 143 Georgians deported, Georgian business's in Russia closed and Russian police asking for lists from schools of children with Georgian names. These moves are somewhat disturbing. Oh by the way I posted this and the news article link to follow as a point of information. Please lets avoid having a ton weight of ultra nationalist reponse's from anyone regardless your point of view. Please try to remain civil.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/06/russia.deportations.reut/index.html
Joseph Stalin is turning in his Moscow grave.
Ordie
10-09-2006, 01:22 AM
koutch:
Because noone gave a ****/gives a **** about Russians. Remember, Soviet Union = Russia, Soviets = Russians, oppressors = Russians!
Caucasian people like to bitch about/hate Russia, but it doesn't seem to bother them when they run to Russia ILLEGALLY to get a job/trade drugs...
This is not a true statement.
Armenia and Russia has close ties. Many of the Central Asian republics maintain a close reationship with Moscow.
Keep in mind that many of the former Republics were very poor and backwards before the Soviets came into power. Many republics benefitted from the Soviet educational system, and development. Were there exceptions? YES Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia come to mind.
The former Soviet Union and Russia today is a polyglot of peoples from all of the Republics. It is not uncommon to find an Armenian in Siberia, A 2nd generation Georgian in Bishkek, an Uzbek in Moscow, and Korean in Ozero Baikal. The former mayor of Moscow was Greek.
Moscow was the center of the Soviet universe. The goal for many was to attend Moscow State University or work in government. As a result, large populations segments from the republics settled in Russia before the break-up. After all they were Soviet citizens first. Not illegals.
After the break-up many people from the republics had a choice, many chose to be Russian citizens.
Sergei
10-09-2006, 03:36 AM
If I may pick this one up. Ukraine, you say, please indulge me with some examples...
Yep, I also wonder what does he mean by Ukraine example too. :D
Flamming_Python
10-09-2006, 06:34 AM
I certainly don't support Russian actions for the past week. I already wrote down my reasons in another thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=93474&page=2)
So don't assume that everyone is on board.
dimasorokine
10-09-2006, 06:49 AM
Stop kidding yourself ... you think that DPNI, bunch of other fascist orgs or even just regular police in Moscow will give a damn about your citizenship? For them you are like you said from Kavkaz "litso kavkazskoi natsionalnosti". I bet that if you look like an average Kavkazets you'd be stopped at the first intersection to have your papers checked by police and treated like sh*t.
Where are you from little guy? And where have you gotten your wealth of knowledge on Moscow and Russia?
-Dima
Doublethinker
10-09-2006, 07:48 AM
The reasson they are making lists of Georgian children, so officials could track illegal Geargian immigrants.
It is funny how politicians change course 180 degrees overnight.
A month ago TV talkingheads were sending the message that crime had no ethnicity.
Now all news flashes report that another georgian mafia group has been put out of business.
madpendos
10-09-2006, 08:40 AM
Thats what I like Russia for. None of that politically correct BS. If Putin was president in USA, All illegal mexicans would be in mexico. rofl
Ordie
10-09-2006, 01:52 PM
Thats what I like Russia for. None of that politically correct BS. If Putin was president in USA, All illegal mexicans would be in mexico. rofl
Russia is witnessing a declining population rate. (low birthrate, brian drain, AIDS, Alcholism, drugs. With a growing economy, they need people to work in the oil, manufacturing and growing service sector. I'm sure millions of Chinese would love to work in Russia!!
Schizo
10-09-2006, 02:24 PM
... I'm sure millions of Chinese would love to work in Russia!! Where have you been, man? They're already flooding the streets of Moscow and Russia's far east.
The Ukraine incident. Read the info at the following link.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=500625&ObjectID=10362266
Woln't bother posting in this thread again..convincing a break wall is a waste of time, nor do we really give any sh!t about foreign criticism..
One could say the same about you but that is neither here nor there. As for not giving a s*** about what the world thinks, well then why may I ask should the world care when Russia does not like something another nation does or plans to do. The answer is we all live on the same planet and are supposed to be making some effort to get along.
Russia is witnessing a declining population rate. (low birthrate, brian drain, AIDS, Alcholism, drugs. With a growing economy, they need people to work in the oil, manufacturing and growing service sector.
In short Russian needs outsiders to fill the crappy jobs Russians themselves would no longer be caught dead doing.
the fact that Russia has spies in Georgia,
Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. That said the idea is not to get caught. It's all fine when your not doing nothing but if your nabbed the game is up. Also what exactly were the spies caught doing if someone would be so good as to remind me. Lets be honest to get caught as spies they must have been caught doing something.
Stop kidding yourself ... you think that DPNI, bunch of other fascist orgs or even just regular police in Moscow will give a damn about your citizenship? For them you are like you said from Kavkaz "litso kavkazskoi natsionalnosti". I bet that if you look like an average Kavkazets you'd be stopped at the first intersection to have your papers checked by police and treated like sh*t.
believe me, I understand that far better than you, from personal experience,, but if you actually read my post, what I am saying is that this ****ty treatment is no reason for people from the Kavkaz to spit of their Russian citizenship and embrace russophobia.
The Ukraine incident. Read the info at the following link.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=500625&ObjectID=10362266
oh, understand now. by
Certain elements in Russia seem to think they have the right to bully their former satalite states into doing what they want
yeahhhh. we want payment for our gas supplies. if it hard for you to understand, then sorry, i can't help you here. maybe qualified psychologist...
p-)
daily666
10-10-2006, 12:55 AM
The fact is, Georgia overplayed that game with arresting of those "spies". You don't do that these days. If you suspect someone is an intelligence officer you just expell them. Poland did that couple of times in the last years and Russia did't make a big deal about that, simple expelled some of our guys from Moscow. That's it, no drama.
Sergei
10-10-2006, 03:26 AM
The Ukraine incident. Read the info at the following link.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=500625&ObjectID=10362266
Russia righteously claimed the market price for the gaz from the us-stooge government of Ukraine. Since Ukraine is an independent country it should earn itself a living but not stealing Russian gaz or buying it at $50 dollars per 1000 cubic meters and then selling it to Romania or Hungary at 260$ per 1000 cubic meters. In the market world this is called robbery at the highest echelon of power and should have been dealt with accordingly. Since the us-stooge government of Ukraine decided to pursue NATO and EU plans, it should be NATO and EU who are going to pay for it not Russia.
Why should Russia pay for activities which are not in her interests anyways?
Sergei
10-10-2006, 03:30 AM
The fact is, Georgia overplayed that game with arresting of those "spies". You don't do that these days. If you suspect someone is an intelligence officer you just expell them. Poland did that couple of times in the last years and Russia did't make a big deal about that, simple expelled some of our guys from Moscow. That's it, no drama.
Georgia didn't overplay it, stupid georgian leader has just returned from the States with instructions on what to do. It is the usual mistake of Washington that they never calculate the consequences of their actions, neither in middle east nor in caucasus. It looks like they don't give a damn if saakashvili will fall. The good thing Russia finally decided to bust georgian organised crime groups that have flourished in Russia. Sending them back to Georgia is a good solution, wonder how long will Misha last. :D
Russia shouldn't discuss anything with Georgia, but with US. When a rabid dog bites you, you don't deal with the dog you go to the owner and deal with the owner.
Insektor
10-10-2006, 06:31 AM
I don't understand what is the point of that discussion.
Doesn't any independent state in the world have the right to choose its own foreign and domestic policy?
yeahhhh. we want payment for our gas supplies. if it hard for you to understand, then sorry, i can't help you here. maybe qualified psychologist...
Do you know what keeping a conversation civil means, it means not resorting to petty insults. And I might agree with that assessment were it not for the timing of the sudden gas stopage and the fact that it had a an impact on more than just Ukraine.
Since the us-stooge government of Ukraine decided to pursue NATO and EU plans, it should be NATO and EU who are going to pay for it not Russia.
Why should Russia pay for activities which are not in her interests anyways?
And this gives Russia the right to opunish another nation for going pro E.U. how?
I agree that if gas prices were ass low (below the line) as you claim then they should have gone up but that is something like in any business you negogiate. Oh and you try and increase the price slowly but surely piece by piece not fourfold.
I don't understand what is the point of that discussion.
Doesn't any independent state in the world have the right to choose its own foreign and domestic policy?
Of course it does and no one is (I hope) saying to the contrary but foreign policy is a delicate issue and one has to be careful that when exercising it one does not anger too many. In essence we all as individuals have the right to do what we want within the law except if it should interefere with the rights of another person. Foreign policy is supposed to function on a similar basis.
As for domestic policy that is all your own bag to a point. If official domestic policy is in breach (major large uber breach) of human rights then it attracts attention. Also when a nation begins taking measures that look very like a police state it does tend to raise a few eyebrows. People get concerned about such trends.
Lokos
10-10-2006, 12:03 PM
I love the indignation over Russia using her natural resources as political leverage. It's so petty and hypocritical that it almost causes me physical discomfort. Why should the aforementioned state accept any sort of stigmatization over utilizing its most significant (currently) assets in the pursuit of the national interest? Sukhoi and a Russian arms export firm recently had 'sanctions' imposed on them by the US government. What one could label 'economic pressure', by all means. Yet the beads of frustrated sweat only begin forming when Russian oil and gas and the possibility of supply disruptions (and the political ramifications thereof) come into play.
Whilst the US and the rest of NATO merrily absorb Russia's 'near abroad' into the fold - and pretend that there's no threat to Russia in such powerplays - the respected public howls with rage when the Russians react in the only way they can, at this point. Cries of 'economic bully', 'neo-imperialism' and 'authoritarianism' go up, and once again there's a good old fashioned tangible villain to despise. And why shouldn't they react? Why shouldn't they punish anyone straying from their influence? If anyone believes that the US would allow any power to compromise its Monroe Doctrine, you should pinch yourselves, for you are dreaming, gentlemen.
In the world of geostrategy the grand chess game continues. But the thing that takes the cake is that some of you actually believe there's a 'good guy' in such a contest.
Lokos
I love the indignation over Russia using her natural resources as political leverage. It's so petty and hypocritical that it almost causes me physical discomfort. Why should the aforementioned state accept any sort of stigmatization over utilizing its most significant (currently) assets in the pursuit of the national interest? Sukhoi and a Russian arms export firm recently had 'sanctions' imposed on them by the US government. What one could label 'economic pressure', by all means. Yet the beads of frustrated sweat only begin forming when Russian oil and gas and the possibility of supply disruptions (and the political ramifications thereof) come into play.
Whilst the US and the rest of NATO merrily absorb Russia's 'near abroad' into the fold - and pretend that there's no threat to Russia in such powerplays - the respected public howls with rage when the Russians react in the only way they can, at this point. Cries of 'economic bully', 'neo-imperialism' and 'authoritarianism' go up, and once again there's a good old fashioned tangible villain to despise. And why shouldn't they react? Why shouldn't they punish anyone straying from their influence? If anyone believes that the US would allow any power to compromise its Monroe Doctrine, you should pinch yourselves, for you are dreaming, gentlemen.
In the world of geostrategy the grand chess game continues. But the thing that takes the cake is that some of you actually believe there's a 'good guy' in such a contest.
Lokos
WOW! well said,:) your english is very impressive Lokos
In the world of geostrategy the grand chess game continues. But the thing that takes the cake is that some of you actually believe there's a 'good guy' in such a contest.
"good guy". Hmm I may have missed it but I don't believe anyone suggested that here (in this thread). If I'm wrong let me know. And you are right it is more or less a grand chess game but that does not make it right. Yes people tend to notice less when someone like the U.S. or UK play their economic and political games and cards against Russia but is it not also true that Russia's involvement in Chechnya is barely noticed by world media while at the same time the UK an US are scrutinized and boo hissed almost every time their military makes so much as a fart.
In effect the world media latches onto different things for different nations and so therefore do the general masses. so while the US and UK must put up with similar righteous indignation for the Iraq war so must Russia suffer the same righteous indignation about her foreign trade policy.
Yet the beads of frustrated sweat only begin forming when Russian oil and gas and the possibility of supply disruptions
Of course, you see until it effects the voting population and corporate financiers it will not be noticed. The formula down is as follows. Shortage = angry business men + threats of varying kinds = worried politicians, worried politicians + alerted media (to trouble brewing)= scared populace (voting base). This formula roughly equates to (in the current discussion) political and economic pressure. No good guy just a lot of moppy politicians an business folk.
Whilst the US and the rest of NATO merrily absorb Russia's 'near abroad' into the fold - and pretend that there's no threat to Russia in such powerplays - the respected public howls with rage when the Russians react in the only way they can, at this point.
These nations are looking for a way out of the economic sink hole that the former Soviet union created. These nations have every right to look for a better way of life without having an ever constant threat held aloft over their heads. Also lest we forget who it was created this situation just after the fall of Nazi Germany. Russia annexed most of these states and when the Soviet union fell they were supposed to be free. Now we see the moment they try to do something contrary to Russia's wish's they receive what looks like nothing more than a punishment.
For all the above should not be construed as a defence of any nations foreign policy, it is merely designed to point out what I believe is the case with the current situation.
Lokos
10-10-2006, 09:45 PM
"good guy". Hmm I may have missed it but I don't believe anyone suggested that here (in this thread). If I'm wrong let me know. And you are right it is more or less a grand chess game but that does not make it right.
Let's not jiggle each other's balls. You make the admission that there's no 'good guy' in this chess game, before you contradict that sentiment in the very next sentence with 'but that does not make it right'. Ipso facto you are in fact saying that there is a 'good guy' in all of this by introducing the duality of 'good' and 'bad'. Without 'good' there's no 'bad'. Without 'right' there's no 'wrong'. Without 'left' there's no 'right'.
but is it not also true that Russia's involvement in Chechnya is barely noticed by world media
The 'world media' (a.k.a. Western media for Western audiences) knows that the 'public' doesn't really care what happens in Chechnya or any other -ya or -stan that isn't the temporary residence of thousands of Western troops. Beslan and Nord Ost, on the other hand, received plenty of coverage. A lot of bloodletting in one session makes for exciting viewing, after all. In Russian media, on the other hand, you can rest assured that Russia's involvement in Chechnya receives plenty of tender attention - and very little of it positive.
so while the US and UK must put up with similar righteous indignation for the Iraq war so must Russia suffer the same righteous indignation about her foreign trade policy.
Russia's indignation has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. I spoke of your indignation over trends in Russia's political economy. Since you seem to understand so well the non-existent practical difference in Russian and 'Western' politicking, I'm sure you can comprehend my position.
The formula down is as follows. Shortage = angry business men + threats of varying kinds = worried politicians, worried politicians + alerted media (to trouble brewing)= scared populace (voting base). This formula roughly equates to (in the current discussion) political and economic pressure. No good guy just a lot of moppy politicians an business folk.
Oh good, we're on the same page. So why do I still have to listen to children here (I'm not calling you a child) getting all hot and bothered over what are perfectly rational political decisions, as if some grave injustice is being committed? The Russians have the right to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal - just like the US has a right to erect a fence on its border, or arm Taiwan, or invade Iraq with an essentially non-existent pretext, or impose sanctions on Russian arms firms, or continue in its attempt to bypass Russia in shipping oil across the Caucaus and Central Asia etc. etc.
I have a distaste for the aforementioned actions. I may even think they're despicable. But never in my wildest dreams will I call them 'unjust', 'bad' or 'wrong'. It's far too far besides the point, this moral temper tantrum.
These nations have every right to look for a better way of life without having an ever constant threat held aloft over their heads
These nations have a right to do whatever they want. And so does Russia. Whatever they want, and whatever it wants. The only question is the balance of power. If those states have the ability to excise themselves from Russian influence, it is their right to do so. But don't cry 'Unfair!' or 'Unjust!' when the Russians respond in kind - pitting their influence and power against state actors who have opted to challenge it.
Russia annexed most of these states and when the Soviet union fell they were supposed to be free.
Stick to politics, your history is terrible. Russia didn't 'annex' most of these states after the fall of Nazi Germany. The Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Georgia were all part of the Soviet Union well before the war with Nazi Germany, and were part of the Russian Empire for centuries before the fall of that state.
Now we see the moment they try to do something contrary to Russia's wish's they receive what looks like nothing more than a punishment.
Of course it's punishment. And? Is punitive action supposed to be 'unacceptable' in my eyes? Morally outrageous? If those states have the right to directly threaten the Russian national interest by allowing foreign powers to place ABM systems, fighter squadrons, training facilities, radar stations etc. on their territories, they deserve everything they have coming to them. Might makes right - it always has, and it always will.
Lokos
And this gives Russia the right to opunish another nation for going pro E.U. how?
I agree that if gas prices were ass low (below the line) as you claim then they should have gone up but that is something like in any business you negogiate. Oh and you try and increase the price slowly but surely piece by piece not fourfold.
wtf? do you have any info about it except "Bad Russia cut gas to Ukraine"?
there is no deal about sudden 4x price increase, Einstein.
Flamming_Python
10-10-2006, 09:55 PM
Go get them Lokos!
Very effective style of arguement, and sounds about right to me.
Friendly Fire
10-11-2006, 05:05 AM
Lokos Strong!!!111
Ze herr professor reminds me of a well known gentleman on a political forum!
Back to the USSR ehem mean Russia.
I find personally this trend to be a continuation of the post-Cold war payback agenda.
As Bush stated it: "Russia must pay". It's practically impossible to silently eat some ideological choices and humiliating manoeuvres from Saakashvili. Turning these people in, to the OSCE instead of Russia showed the psycological aspect of this confrontation. Saakashvili could be labelled as the georgian Thugo...yet no US fanboy seems to care about how this gentleman was "elected" (was Thugo elected with 85,2%).
Yes Anti-Russian ressentiment is easy to mobilise in the Caucasus, and people fail to see that this was a classical nationalistic rant from a leader that has been failing to deliver on his "anti-corruption agenda" just like half of the populist leaders in LatAm and Eastern Europe. Russia, should I say Putin, is overreacting to the georgian provocation and perfectly camping the bad guy role for the western mass media.
Personally gradual hardcore sanctions would have been better than the "angry-bitch" reaction displayed by the Kremlin's boss.
wtf? do you have any info about it except "Bad Russia cut gas to Ukraine"?
there is no deal about sudden 4x price increase, Einstein.
:bash:
Asch, I ain't gonna mince words, I posted the link to a ******* report on the matter so read it. Now maybe you could try and take the example Lokos has set which is to make your point (if you have one) in a civilised and comprehensive manner. A little effort beyond insults wouldn't go astray. I am begining to see why most threads like this descend into a flame war so please lay off the insults or its the silent treatment for you
Let's not jiggle each other's balls. You make the admission that there's no 'good guy' in this chess game, before you contradict that sentiment in the very next sentence with 'but that does not make it right'.
Lokos,
Not quite, The pressence of good or bad, right or wrong does not mean that there must be by that rational a good guy and a bad guy. Just because something is wrong or not so good does not make the perpatrater of the act a bad guy. We as humans commit a variety of acts in our every day lives both right and wrong and sometimes indifferent. The fact that we on occasion do something wrong does not make us bad people. However we should note that right and wrong are subjective terms and the current boundaries (very fuzzy) are determined by current society. In essence right and wrong's boundries are not set in stone but mobile and change over time.
Russia's indignation has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. I spoke of your indignation over trends in Russia's political economy. Since you seem to understand so well the non-existent practical difference in Russian and 'Western' politicking, I'm sure you can comprehend my position.
No Lokos what I meant was that while the majority of the planet moaned and moans at the UK and US over Iraq (Russia included) and they must simply put up with it so too is Russia moaned at in a similar manner for exportation of its policy. The general world mopes at the larger players for a variety of reason and when what looks like a good one crops up the moans get louder (simple fact of life). Oh and yes I do understand your point of view, I don't particularly agree with it but I do understand and respect it.
Oh good, we're on the same page. So why do I still have to listen to children here (I'm not calling you a child) getting all hot and bothered over what are perfectly rational political decisions, as if some grave injustice is being committed? The Russians have the right to do whatever they want with the resources at their disposal - just like the US has a right to erect a fence on its border, or arm Taiwan, or invade Iraq with an essentially non-existent pretext, or impose sanctions on Russian arms firms, or continue in its attempt to bypass Russia in shipping oil across the Caucaus and Central Asia etc. etc.
The reason is that unfortunately for humanity as a whole people rarely have the same opinion about how things ought to be. This leads to one group doing something which while they may have every right to do it irks another group. The response is usually nothing more than blustering and moaning but in extreme cases can result in far worse. Personnaly i think what Russia is doing is at the very least questionable and would be worried as to what sort of direction Russia is heading politically. Lets be honest one thing can lead to another. This is my opinion (not fact) and I make no apology for it, Also it is not a case of me ignoring similar or like acts by other nations it is a case that this thread is specific and I am trying to remain on topic rather than whining about every nation on earth who's foreign policy I may happen to dislike.
Stick to politics, your history is terrible.
Apology for 2 things,
1: Bringing the history into it was off topic and ill thought through.
2: I muddled it and made mistakes. I'm better at WW2 history rather than post WW2 and my focus is usually on Irish history and Ancient Rome. If apology is accepted let us speak no more of it.
Might makes right - it always has, and it always will.
In the grand scheme this is true but the question I am asking is not can they it is, is this right and proper from an objective look at things. Being stronger does not confer right it merely confers ability to export your wishes on others.
I do believe this is turning into a fairly philosophical debate
Lokos
10-11-2006, 08:55 PM
Not quite, The pressence of good or bad, right or wrong does not mean that there must be by that rational a good guy and a bad guy.
We are entering the realm of political philosophy. The usage of terms such as 'good' or 'bad', like I said, introduces the duality of Good and Evil. But let's strike that duality at its core: the duality is entirely based on perception. One man's evil may be another man's good. An evil man in one land is a paragon of goodness in another. Universalist morality hasn't been in vogue since the late 1940s. The presence of good and bad, as you said, therefore presupposes the existence of good and bad. This is by no means assured, and by no means proven by anyone. It is essentially unprovable.
However we should note that right and wrong are subjective terms and the current boundaries (very fuzzy) are determined by current society. In essence right and wrong's boundries are not set in stone but mobile and change over time.
Much more than that - although you are correct. Morality does not simply evolve on one path. That would suggest the existence of only one system of morality. There are as many moralities as there are individuals accepting them to be the benchmarks of modes of living. And they are all evolving. Right and wrong are dangerous terms, therefore. Right for whom? Wrong for whom?
with it so too is Russia moaned at in a similar manner for exportation of its policy.
I also believe that the world has no right to moan at US-British Iraq/Afghanistan policy. But this analogy is marred by the concept of 'us' and 'them'. The 'world' - i.e. the vast majority of CNN/Fox/BBC viewers who invariably reside in the 'West' - can be critical of US/British policies, but such criticism is not laden with the 'beligerent rhetoric'. That is to say that neither the US or Britain are perceived as enemies by viewers for their actions. Russia, on the other hand, is quickly attributed shameful labels by an audience that continues to exist in a black and white world.
Personnaly i think what Russia is doing is at the very least questionable and would be worried as to what sort of direction Russia is heading politically. Lets be honest one thing can lead to another.
Of course one thing can lead to another. And, yes, you might perceive Russia's actions to be 'questionable'. I, on the other hand, perceive them to be actions of confidence and empowerment. Questionable morally, perhaps. But I'm observing them on a different level. An analytical level, if you will. By that same token I find the obvious US 'encirclement' of Russia's powerbase to be extremely hostile - and an open challenge to Russia. In my humble opinion, that warrants a significant response.
2: I muddled it and made mistakes. I'm better at WW2 history rather than post WW2 and my focus is usually on Irish history and Ancient Rome. If apology is accepted let us speak no more of it.
I shouldn't have been mocking your effort. My apologies to you. There's nothing to apologize for on your end.
is this right and proper from an objective look at things. Being stronger does not confer right it merely confers ability to export your wishes on others.
Objectively it is the way it must be - as morality, right, wrong and all that is entailed therein are purely subjective notions. There's no objective standard of right and wrong that we can apply to any situation. In Kosovo (1999) NATO bombed Serbia's infrastructure for over a month, killing hundreds of civilians. There's likely not a man, woman or child in the country who did not consider NATO a monster for having done so. NATO, on the other hand, undertook the bombing on moral grounds. Morality can be whatever one needs it to be.
I do believe this is turning into a fairly philosophical debate
The best usually do.
Lokos
Friendly Fire
10-12-2006, 05:56 AM
We are entering the realm of political philosophy. The usage of terms such as 'good' or 'bad', like I said, introduces the duality of Good and Evil. But let's strike that duality at its core: the duality is entirely based on perception. One man's evil may be another man's good. An evil man in one land is a paragon of goodness in another. Universalist morality hasn't been in vogue since the late 1940s. The presence of good and bad, as you said, therefore presupposes the existence of good and bad. This is by no means assured, and by no means proven by anyone. It is essentially unprovable.
Much more than that - although you are correct. Morality does not simply evolve on one path. That would suggest the existence of only one system of morality. There are as many moralities as there are individuals accepting them to be the benchmarks of modes of living. And they are all evolving. Right and wrong are dangerous terms, therefore. Right for whom? Wrong for whom?
I also believe that the world has no right to moan at US-British Iraq/Afghanistan policy. But this analogy is marred by the concept of 'us' and 'them'. The 'world' - i.e. the vast majority of CNN/Fox/BBC viewers who invariably reside in the 'West' - can be critical of US/British policies, but such criticism is not laden with the 'beligerent rhetoric'. That is to say that neither the US or Britain are perceived as enemies by viewers for their actions. Russia, on the other hand, is quickly attributed shameful labels by an audience that continues to exist in a black and white world.
Of course one thing can lead to another. And, yes, you might perceive Russia's actions to be 'questionable'. I, on the other hand, perceive them to be actions of confidence and empowerment. Questionable morally, perhaps. But I'm observing them on a different level. An analytical level, if you will. By that same token I find the obvious US 'encirclement' of Russia's powerbase to be extremely hostile - and an open challenge to Russia. In my humble opinion, that warrants a significant response.
I shouldn't have been mocking your effort. My apologies to you. There's nothing to apologize for on your end.
Objectively it is the way it must be - as morality, right, wrong and all that is entailed therein are purely subjective notions. There's no objective standard of right and wrong that we can apply to any situation. In Kosovo (1999) NATO bombed Serbia's infrastructure for over a month, killing hundreds of civilians. There's likely not a man, woman or child in the country who did not consider NATO a monster for having done so. NATO, on the other hand, undertook the bombing on moral grounds. Morality can be whatever one needs it to be.
The best usually do.
Lokos
On the social responsibility and morality. Morale is not dictated by the society but by the Context, the society is part of the context. To exchange your example with flawed morale OIF and the Second Chechen war come to mind. And to kill any possible perception about the "Society Moral Gap" (funny how society is involved when politicians need to evacuate their responsibility) the Afghan situation comes very handy. Do you think the alliance with the talibs would have been aproved by the US "civil society"? I know you've got my message on this. And we stand on the same side (the princeps side) we know morale is always surpassed by logic, even a biased one.
G-2...I don't get it? What is Russia supposed to do? An a caricatural tone, why should always the USA be on the strong tone (I mean when whas lately a problem the USA solved by discussing?)! Why should then Russia hush and bow?
Why is russia sending back georgians? Why is the state playing with the people's perception on georgia? Because it's politically advantageous on the internal level.
As barry Buzan would have stated it "security means less to the nation than to the State, yet the State can't do much against the nation's will?" Heh do the math! Lie to the nation so you can enforce your agenda. Leo Strauss would have been very handy too right now.
We are entering the realm of political philosophy. The usage of terms such as 'good' or 'bad', like I said, introduces the duality of Good and Evil. But let's strike that duality at its core: the duality is entirely based on perception. One man's evil may be another man's good. An evil man in one land is a paragon of goodness in another. Universalist morality hasn't been in vogue since the late 1940s. The presence of good and bad, as you said, therefore presupposes the existence of good and bad. This is by no means assured, and by no means proven by anyone. It is essentially unprovable.
Ah the old "one creatures torment is another creatures delight" factor. Well yes essentially that is in play here and while it may be hard for some of us to temporarily sling away our moral compas's we must do just that to gain a balanced view.
Much more than that - although you are correct. Morality does not simply evolve on one path. That would suggest the existence of only one system of morality. There are as many moralities as there are individuals accepting them to be the benchmarks of modes of living. And they are all evolving. Right and wrong are dangerous terms, therefore. Right for whom? Wrong for whom?
The perception of right and wrong or in extreme cases good and evil have led to war far too many times in the past to allow it to happen again and yet nobody (in the broader world) seems to be able to grasp this. But one must remember and try not to blame the ordinary (uneducated) masses. Let us remember that it is not what you do (as a nation) in the world but how you look that matters these days. Russia has no real experience at how to manipulate the outgoing media to their advantage and so to the general ignorant masses looks all the worse. The U.S. on the other hand has a series of major media players that are viewed throughout the world and so this affords them some level of control. You need look no further than that bad joke "bird flu" to find an adequate example of mass media manipulation to the advantage of large scale business.
After all that is what this is essentially about. The sudden shortage thing and its effect was explained in my formula,
Shortage = angry business men + threats of varying kinds = worried politicians, worried politicians + alerted media (to trouble brewing)= scared populace (voting base). This formula roughly equates to (in the current discussion) political and economic pressure. No good guy just a lot of moppy politicians an business folk.This can be refered to as the "politician/business man relationship" formula.
It pays for Russia to look like the "bad guy" because then hopefully there will be enough negative pressure for Russia to recind any policies which are ill news for other major players as per P/B relationship formula.
I shouldn't have been mocking your effort. My apologies to you. There's nothing to apologize for on your end.
Thanks, it is always good to find people willing to apologise. You are probably all to aware that they are in very short supply these days. Besides I was off topic and sometimes need a good slap back into place.
Objectively it is the way it must be - as morality, right, wrong and all that is entailed therein are purely subjective notions. There's no objective standard of right and wrong that we can apply to any situation. In Kosovo (1999) NATO bombed Serbia's infrastructure for over a month, killing hundreds of civilians. There's likely not a man, woman or child in the country who did not consider NATO a monster for having done so. NATO, on the other hand, undertook the bombing on moral grounds. Morality can be whatever one needs it to be.
So very true, Morality is made out to be set in stone and yet it is so vague. However where does that leave human rights which most of the world has signed up to. What way does that fit in because lest we forget human rights were derived from a form of morality.
G-2
Flamming_Python
10-12-2006, 06:51 PM
Personally gradual hardcore sanctions would have been better than the "angry-bitch" reaction displayed by the Kremlin's boss.
Yes, I do happen to agree :)
Digimon
10-12-2006, 08:38 PM
We are entering the realm of political philosophy. The usage of terms such as 'good' or 'bad', like I said, introduces the duality of Good and Evil. But let's strike that duality at its core: the duality is entirely based on perception. One man's evil may be another man's good. An evil man in one land is a paragon of goodness in another. Universalist morality hasn't been in vogue since the late 1940s. The presence of good and bad, as you said, therefore presupposes the existence of good and bad. This is by no means assured, and by no means proven by anyone. It is essentially unprovable.
Predictably your respective positions lead to the issue of universal norms. This was clear from the beginning, since you tried to take questions of moral legitimacy out of politics, and for G-2 it was all about moral legitimacy. So what we have here is a clash between Kissinger’s Political Realism and Liberal Internationalism, or, perhaps, the recent reincarnation of neo-conservatism in the form of Wilsonian realism – thanks to the efforts of Fukuyama.
Perhaps, now that it has reached this level of awareness this debate could revolve endlessly within the metaphysical limbo, but it does not have to be so. It does not have to be so because Russia’s actions could be equally well defended on the basis of a theoretical view of international politics that does not recognize any legitimacy other than Power, as well as a position that implicitly recognizes the status of legitimacy and fairness in international politics. So, I would like to formulate an argument that does not plead the relativity of mores. See my next post.
Digimon
10-12-2006, 08:40 PM
The perception of right and wrong or in extreme cases good and evil have led to war far too many times in the past to allow it to happen again and yet nobody (in the broader world) seems to be able to grasp this.
So very true, Morality is made out to be set in stone and yet it is so vague. However where does that leave human rights which most of the world has signed up to. What way does that fit in because lest we forget human rights were derived from a form of morality.
G-2
Here is my response to your request for moral legitimacy:
When the question is framed as “Is it fair that Russia uses energy supplies to manipulate another sovereign state’s foreign policy?” - it is misleading from the start. The question is framed in such a way as to presuppose that Russia is in fact attempting to use energy supplies to manipulate Ukraine’s policy – in the same manner as the question ”Is it reasonable that you drink a bottle of cognac every morning?” assumes that you are an alcoholic. So, what we must do is to get clear on the appropriate framework for the question, and this I propose to do by getting answers to the following questions:
Is it justified to attribute to Russia an intention to manipulate Ukraine’s foreign policy?
If it is fair to make such an attribution, would such acts on the part of Russia be legitimate?
If they are legitimate in principle, was the manner in which they were put into action equally legitimate?In order to get a grasp on the first question I propose to examine the following situation. A man X gets into a brawl with his neighbor Y. The next morning X goes to the store and buys an axe. Upon seeing this, Y calls the police and complaints that X is planning to kill him with the axe citing their brawl as the motive. When the police confronts X, he points out to the recently delivered wood in his backyard and claims that his intention was to chop that wood, not to chop the neighbor. Should the man be arrested? He should not. It is not justified to attribute a particular intention to an agent based on one set of motives when there are equally reasonable ways to explain his behavior on the basis of an alternative, and, which is important, a legitimate set of motives. In order to make the case for the illegitimate “murdering intention” it is necessary to show that the actions cannot be explained on the basis of alternative legitimate intentions. The problem in the case of increased gas price is that Russia’s action can be easily explained by the perfectly legitimate and rational need to sell its gas at commercially viable prices. Without the unjustified attribution of illegitimate intentions, the question “Is it fair that Russia uses energy supplies to manipulate another sovereign state’s foreign policy” becomes “ Is it fair that Russia sells gas to Ukraine at the same rate as the rest of the European states?” Unlike the answer to the first question, the answer to the second is affirmative.
But what if we did commit the Post Hoc fallacy and jumped to the conclusion that Russia’s intention in raising the gas prices does indeed stem from its desire to punish Ukraine for independent foreign policy? Would Russia’s action be legitimate in such a case? This is the second question, and hence, a different situation to illustrate it. Imagine a situation in which a man who works as the guy who flips the electric chair switch at the local Federal Prison finds out that this morning he is to execute a man who raped and killed his wife. “I am going to enjoy killing this bastard” he thinks as he goes to work. In this situation we have a man who has an illegitimate intention to kill another human being – his personal interest in the murder - combined with a legitimate reason for doing so – his professional obligation. Should we stop the man from throwing the switch? Were it the case that the man only had an illegitimate intention to kill the rapist, which would be in the case he was not employed in the prison in that capacity, then his action would be illegitimate, but he is so employed, and hence, his actions are legitimate. In order for an action to be deemed illegitimate, it is not sufficient that some of its causes lack legitimacy, it is necessary to show that none of its causes have it. If, in the case of Russian gas price hike, the price increase was illegitimate, as it would be if Ukraine paid at the same universal rate as other states, then the action would justifiably be called illegitimate. As the matters stand, it cannot.
The last question addresses the issue of the steep rise in gas prices, as opposed to an incremental increase. Could a rapid gas price be legitimate from an ethical perspective? The position that argues that it could not assumes that in the disagreement between Russia and Ukraine there can be only one loser – Ukraine. If the gas hike goes through - it is assumed – Gasprom has won and Ukraine has lost, but if it does not, no one loses. This is not so. Although Gasprom is a corporation with a state-controlled “controlling package”, it is still a business, which means that it must make up its loses somewhere. Given that it cannot increase the cost of gas for the European consumers without changing the universal formula on the basis of which it is calculated, it can only do it by charging more to Russian consumers and cutting down internal investment. That means that in this game the Russian consumers are the losers – they are the ones who are going to be paying the difference between the market price and the purchasing price during the “adjustment” period for Ukraine. Can this be deemed just or legitimate? I see no way in which it can. So much for incremental increases...
As can be seen, the arguments provided here do not rely on the Real Politick thesis that legitimacy is power, which, in international politics, is only constrained by other powers. The argument is not based on any particular notion of justice and does not require metaphysical constructs or ambitious defense of moral absolutism – it draws on our intuitions of what is just or fair. One might claim it is a drawback, but I think it is a strength, since its not the metaphysics that shapes the notions of international legitimacy, but rather implicit intuitions on these issues that international subjects and global public bring to political relations. Getting clear about theses intuitions is precisely what I attempted to do here on the basis of analogies and clear examples.
It is long, but I it was fun...
AK-Lover
10-12-2006, 08:53 PM
Top-tier posts Lokos my bro!
Flamming_Python
10-12-2006, 09:20 PM
I propose an arguement between Digimon and Lokos.
Then we will see who is really STRONG!!!!1111
Although G-2's arguements are quite reasonable as well...
Smersh
10-13-2006, 12:31 AM
Also lest we forget who it was created this situation just after the fall of Nazi Germany. Russia annexed most of these states
your confusing warsaw pact countries and the cold war with the soviet union.
edit: oh, this was already addressed. study your ww2 history more too :).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.