American Politics

[shionoro]

thank you for proving my point. But, this seems to fit the right and Trump supporters far more than it does Biden supporters. Though, one Biden supporter I think this would fit well would be shio.

Contradiction is Truth! Fear is Freedom!

 

[Sanity Check]

thank you for proving my point. But, this seems to fit the right and Trump supporters far more than it does Biden supporters. Though, one Biden supporter I think this would fit well would be shio.

Biden supporters look at skyrocketing gas and food prices.

And say "this is the best thing ever, Biden is the best President".

Billionaires love you, for being the guy who is enthusiastic to do more work, for less pay.

Who will fool themselves into thinking their life will improve that way.

 

[DeadCosmos]

To be fair, I made some good money shorting the market after Brandon crashed the economy. The war just topped it all off.

 

[Sanity Check]

Under Biden.

This could be what the US dollar is worth in the future.

Hold up a cardboard sign & smile if it happens.

 

[xi0]

If Russia leaves completely, including Crimea, but demands the sanctions to stop in exchange for it, of course I would do it.

Why? The current situation doesn't change the fact that Crimea prefers Russian rule. That wouldn't be about punishing Putin IMO.

 

[Kylenhangen]

The only real solution is going green. Until then, there are different scenarios.
The most dire scenario is a full stop of russian gas. Oil and Coal can be replaced, Gas cannot easily be replaced. If Russia cuts the gasline (which it won't, it would be suicide, unless it is at the brink of the end of Putin anyway), that would mean Europe will have to ration gas. As in, production cannot run on full force and some inhabitants will have to ration heating, too. It would also further the explosion of prizes for food and so on.

So the idea is to quickly get LNG gas from different countries (including the US) while investing a lot more money into green technology (solar, wind) to become less energy dependent.
It is going to be really hard to do this while maintaining a healthy economical momentum, but at the end of the day, the longer Europe waits, the harder it gets.

WE needed to turn green yesterday, so at least lets do it today.

Although buying LNG gas is an alternative solution, it will be difficult to find one or more producers for gas needs.

German minister heads to Qatar to seek gas alternatives | DW | 19.03.2022

Germany has vowed to wean itself off Russian gas imports in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. Economy Minister Robert Habeck is visiting Qatar, one of the world's largest exporters of liquified natural gas (LNG).

www.google.com

The largest producer of LNG gas doesn't speak positively about this.

Qatar Sees Little Chance of Replacing Russian Gas With LNG in Europe

Qatars energy minister said Tuesday that there is little chance that overseas LNG producers will be...

www.maritime-executive.com

Germany courts Qatar and UAE for alternatives to Russian gas

Economy Minister Robert Habeck visits Doha and Abu Dhabi as fears of gas shortages grow amid Russia’s war on Ukraine.

www.google.com

 

[M3J]

Biden supporters look at skyrocketing gas and food prices.

And say "this is the best thing ever, Biden is the best President".

Billionaires love you, for being the guy who is enthusiastic to do more work, for less pay.

Who will fool themselves into thinking their life will improve that way.

I've never seen even Biden supporters say he's the best president. You have a cute imagination though.

 

[shionoro]

Why? The current situation doesn't change the fact that Crimea prefers Russian rule. That wouldn't be about punishing Putin IMO.

Nobody knows what Crimea prefers (you cannot see the referendum as legit, it was a complete farce) and it is against international law either way.
Russia has to withdraw from Crimea, it is not theirs, it was illegally annexed by replacing the former Crimean government with puppets that then did a referendum that was boycotted by a large part of its society.

 

[xi0]

Nobody knows what Crimea prefers (you cannot see the referendum as legit, it was a complete farce) and it is against international law either way.
Russia has to withdraw from Crimea, it is not theirs, it was illegally annexed by replacing the former Crimean government with puppets that then did a referendum that was boycotted by a large part of its society.

Sure, you could say that if you ignore the entire history of Crimea up until 2014. Crimea is no more Ukrainian than it is Ottoman or Turkish.

But the current conflict is not about Crimea, so why would you expect for it to be included as a stipulation for a ceasing of it? If Ukraine has to make concessions in order for that to happen, why would them making out better than when they entered be a realistic expectation? It's far more reasonable to suggest that they will lose territory at the end of this with DPR and LPR, not gaining.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 20, 2022, Original Post Date: Mar 20, 2022 ---

"it is against international law either way".... yeah, well... international law has to actually be upheld for everyone for it to matter. Otherwise it's just a method to deal with third world countries.

 

[M3J]

Man, I really wish the right and centrists knew what words like "woke" and "cancelled" really meant before using it so incorrectly, almost every single time.

 

[DeadCosmos]

 

[M3J]

Gas prices are rising. But it started before Biden went into office | PolitFact

Gas prices have gone up under President Joe Biden, continuing an upward trend that began in May 2020.

www.tampabay.com

I feel like people blaming Biden for rising gas prices are extremely ignorant and unaware that there are other countries than just USA. Unless Biden is a leader of those countries, it makes no sense for him to be responsible for the increasing gas prices. Funnily, same people blaming him didn't blame Trump when gas prices went up under his term.

 

[shionoro]

Sure, you could say that if you ignore the entire history of Crimea up until 2014. Crimea is no more Ukrainian than it is Ottoman or Turkish.

But the current conflict is not about Crimea, so why would you expect for it to be included as a stipulation for a ceasing of it? If Ukraine has to make concessions in order for that to happen, why would them making out better than when they entered be a realistic expectation? It's far more reasonable to suggest that they will lose territory at the end of this with DPR and LPR, not gaining.

By international law, crimea is ukrainian. And that is what matters. One cannot just play games like "oh well a region is up for grabs because this and that".
What happened in Crimea was unconstitutional for both the Crimean and the Ukrainian constitution. That cannot just be denied.
The referendum that was held was also not legitimate, as the administration was exchanged at gunpoint before it and likewise the referendum was held with militias roaming around, while any campaigning for remaining in ukraine was banned.

You cannot really just disconnect that from the current situation too. It was the first landgrab Russia committed and it is what russia is trying now. Just that Crimea was easier than the rest.

This conflict is about the Russian aggression against Ukraine and Russia wanting to decide Ukrainian borders. It started in Crimea, and thus it has to end with Crimea falling into Ukrainian hands. Why should Ukraine cede it when Russia annexed it illegally?

"it is against international law either way".... yeah, well... international law has to actually be upheld for everyone for it to matter. Otherwise it's just a method to deal with third world countries.

International law is upheld for everone. We dont have a good mechanism for forcing countries to follow it, but it is not like international law does not apply to the west.
There are (and i guess it would come up) very convincing differences between states like kosovo and crimea. If Crimea would have had a referendum like that in peace times and an ongoing resolve to leave Ukraine and if Ukraine had tried to force Crimea by military violence to remain, then the situation would be different (much like i chechnya).

But that was not the case. This is as if a strongly democrat US state would have wanted to be annexed by Canada shortly after the Trump election and Canada would have marched in there and exchanged the government. Even if, at that point, the people in that democrat state would have actually wanted to go to canada in a 60/40 split because they were afraid of Trump, that would be an undermination of national souvereignity by Canada and it would be against the US and the state's constitution.

 

[DeadCosmos]

Ukraine at fault for hiding military in the schools and buildings. Stop being cowards and hide behind children, you are supposed to be brave and fight.

 

[shionoro]

I think the Ukraine conflict has a certain kind of singularity to it and should not be equivalenced with other kinds of conflicts.
Neither palestina, nor iraq, nor Taiwan really cut it.

To me, the difference lies in the reasons for the war and the communication of it.

The above conflicts are horrible, but they have a rationale to it and are confined inside the interests of the warring parties, much like conflicts in africa (ethopia for example).
Another conflict owuld be turkish/kurdish or armenia/azerbaidschan. All these conflicts, even the ones that have reasons in history, have very clear goals that, once achieved, end the conflict.

Turkey would love to get a region from Syria or some Greek islands, but Turkey would not try to reinstate the Osman empire because it knows that this is a pipe dream. The US did lots of horrible things but it is not actively trying to expand its territory or seek to destroy nations that are on friendly or neutral terms, likewise China's regional conflicts are confined to the places it claims but not to more than that. China does not suddenly start claiming Koreans are actually Chinese.

But with Russia, that is different right now. Russia does not give clear reasons for its war (not even a made up one) , they change their reasoning as they go along, because the reason does not actually matter. It is also not clear that Russia would stop making up conflicts once all of them are decided.
After all, Russia did not claim Crimea when Janukovich controlled it. It also did not Claim Abchasia before from from the get go.

Putin seems to actually think he can and he should reinstate the Russian Empire rather than the Sovjet Union, based on race. Wherever Russians live or should live is his to take, whether that is Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia or other places he deems Slavic.

This is not just a regional conflict as there is really no endpoint. If Russia takes Ukraine, that is not the end of it as it was when Azerbaidschan took nagorno karabakh. When Putin takes Ukraine, he will try to take moldova and georgia and he will look into getting the baltics too or at least destabilize them.

And then really what is the endpoint? It is not like Russia has to annex everything, but if they succeed in Ukraine, what stops them from giving Kosovo back to Serbia in exchange for control or grabbing all the -stan states?

Russians are as oblivious to it as germans were in world war 2. They either don't believe it or see nothing wrong with it (the majority of Russians at least), or at least are not actively fighting against it. If you compare the Russian resistance to the war to the Belarus resistance to the war, you see a striking difference, because Russian media control is much tighter.

We are looking at a situation where a leader uses ethnic reasons to expand his empire without a clear point where he intends to end and his people are on board with it, using insignia to show their support.
That is just a very different thing than what China does with Taiwan or Israel with Palestine or US with Iraq, even though these tihngs are bad individually.

 

[xi0]

By international law, crimea is ukrainian. And that is what matters. One cannot just play games like "oh well a region is up for grabs because this and that".
What happened in Crimea was unconstitutional for both the Crimean and the Ukrainian constitution. That cannot just be denied.
The referendum that was held was also not legitimate, as the administration was exchanged at gunpoint before it and likewise the referendum was held with militias roaming around, while any campaigning for remaining in ukraine was banned.

You cannot really just disconnect that from the current situation too. It was the first landgrab Russia committed and it is what russia is trying now. Just that Crimea was easier than the rest.

This conflict is about the Russian aggression against Ukraine and Russia wanting to decide Ukrainian borders. It started in Crimea, and thus it has to end with Crimea falling into Ukrainian hands. Why should Ukraine cede it when Russia annexed it illegally?

By "international law", Crimea would have been independent via referendum in 1991 or in the years that followed. Kyiv suppressed this action for years afterwards.

I can disconnect it though, as I don't see how Ukraine can tell Russia to leave their borders AND return Crimea to Ukrainian administration. What sort of position does Ukraine have to insist on that? You really think there will be an agreement between the two parties that contains such a thing? If Ukraine takes that position they are not actually interested in ending this conflict IMO.

Crimea was under Ukrainian administration only because of the existence of the Soviet Union. Only 15% of the population in Crimea is Ukrainian. Whether we want to question the numbers of the referendum or not, it was still called in the wake of Yanukovych's ousting for a reason. We cannot solely blame Putin's influence when 65-70% of the population is Russian. Regardless of the method of the annexation, there is no substantial evidence that the people in Crimea wish to be under Ukrainian administration. If that's the case, can that really be blamed solely on Russian propaganda? I would say no.

International law is upheld for everone. We dont have a good mechanism for forcing countries to follow it, but it is not like international law does not apply to the west.
There are (and i guess it would come up) very convincing differences between states like kosovo and crimea. If Crimea would have had a referendum like that in peace times and an ongoing resolve to leave Ukraine and if Ukraine had tried to force Crimea by military violence to remain, then the situation would be different (much like i chechnya).

But that was not the case. This is as if a strongly democrat US state would have wanted to be annexed by Canada shortly after the Trump election and Canada would have marched in there and exchanged the government. Even if, at that point, the people in that democrat state would have actually wanted to go to canada in a 60/40 split because they were afraid of Trump, that would be an undermination of national souvereignity by Canada and it would be against the US and the state's constitution.

I don't see how you can say international law applies to the west. Where is the international war crimes tribunal against Bush, Cheney, or Tony Blair?

International law really only exists as a reason to punish countries that have no recourse. If it can not be universally enforced against any country, then it is a farce, not law.

 

[shionoro]

By "international law", Crimea would have been independent via referendum in 1991 or in the years that followed. Kyiv suppressed this action for years afterwards.

I can disconnect it though, as I don't see how Ukraine can tell Russia to leave their borders AND return Crimea to Ukrainian administration. What sort of position does Ukraine have to insist on that? You really think there will be an agreement between the two parties that contains such a thing? If Ukraine takes that position they are not actually interested in ending this conflict IMO.

Crimea was under Ukrainian administration only because of the existence of the Soviet Union. Only 15% of the population in Crimea is Ukrainian. Whether we want to question the numbers of the referendum or not, it was still called in the wake of Yanukovych's ousting for a reason. We cannot solely blame Putin's influence when 65-70% of the population is Russian. Regardless of the method of the annexation, there is no substantial evidence that the people in Crimea wish to be under Ukrainian administration. If that's the case, can that really be blamed solely on Russian propaganda? I would say no.

THat is actually not true. Even if you accept crimean autonomy, the way the sovjet union handled these autonomous blocks after its disspiation was that they were then part of the state they were located in.
That is why Chechnya is a part of Russia even tho it had autonomy in the udssr.

By international law, crimea is part of ukraine much like chechnya is part of russia nagorno karabakh is part of azerbaidschan (even before the war) even tho the people who live there want to be independent or part of another country.

Whatever kind of math games you play about how many people there are russian or why it was part of ukraine does not matter at all for that question. You cannot just annex parts of other countries.
By your logic,, would Putin be allowed to annex parts of the baltics because they mainly have russian speakers in their east?

Russia illegally annexed land by force. That is against international law and that is why he should certainly not be rewarded for it. I find it really strange to say Ukraine "does not want this conflict to end if they do not cease crimea". Why should they allow Russia to break the law and steal its land and be the one to blame if they dont accept that?

Russia is stealing Ukrainian land and the response to that should not be 'its okay to steal a little bit if you are somewhat creative about making up historical reasons'. Crimea is Ukrainian and there is no real case to make against that regarding international law.

I don't see how you can say international law applies to the west. Where is the international war crimes tribunal against Bush, Cheney, or Tony Blair?

International law really only exists as a reason to punish countries that have no recourse. If it can not be universally enforced against any country, then it is a farce, not law.

It is a law, whether it is enforced does not change it. The UN is complex and the veto power is a problem, but that is also true for Russia and China (3 western countries can Veto). The US vetoed a formal investigation into iraq war from the international court of justice, BUT the UN made very clear that it deems the war illegal when kofi Annan said:

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia

There is international law and it is not like it is not applied to the West, but it cannot be enforced (and not just not be enforced against western states).
The point of it is to give or take legitimacy to certain actors.

Russia in Ukraine has no legitimacy, including the Crimean annexation. The Iraq war similarly had no UN mandate and as such is an illegal war.

You can lament the fact that international law is not enforced, but it exists and the Crimean annexation is against it while kosovo was not.

 

[kkck]

Would russia even stop the war if ukraine concedes crimea? To me it doesn't sound like that is in the cards tbh. As far as I can tell such a thing doesn't fit into russia's propaganda regarding the "special operation" nor does it address it's nonsensical security concerns from 30 years ago.

 

[shionoro]

Would russia even stop the war if ukraine concedes crimea? To me it doesn't sound like that is in the cards tbh. As far as I can tell such a thing doesn't fit into russia's propaganda regarding the "special operation" nor does it address it's nonsensical security concerns from 30 years ago.

I think any concession Russia makes would be tactical. THey might look for a ceasefire if Ukraine concedes something, but it would only be a matter of time until they try for more, possibly by hybrid warfare rather than warfare.
Ukraine, under Zelenskyy, conceded a lot to the Russians in the beginning (when it came to demilitarizing the easter warzone or other such matters), but the response from Russia was never 'alright now we do s th too' but 'okay, now do more'.
That was when ZElenskyy changed stance and went for confrontation.

Zelenskyy ran on seeking peace with moscow, him changing stance came only after there was no positive response for deescalation.

The First Six Months: An Assessment of Zelenskyy's Achievements | Wilson Center

A highly visible achievement likely to bear fruit in tamping down heated relations with Russia was the prisoner swap, concluded after several years of waiting. Seventy prisoners—thirty-five held by Ukraine and thirty-five held by the Russia-backed separatists, though fifty-five of the total were in fact Ukrainian citizens—were exchanged in September 2019. Another exchange involving a larger number of detainees is expected soon. This step toward easing the conflict is definitely a tick mark on the success side of the president's ledger.

A second real accomplishment was the start of the front-line withdrawal of troops. Three areas considered appropriate for troop withdrawal had been identified in 2016, but the pullback was initiated only on November 1, 2019, in Stanytsia Luhanska, one of the three sites identified earlier. Signaling the return of normalcy, reconstruction of the destroyed bridge over the Siverskyi Donets river will be finished shortly, reconnecting communities in the area of disengagement. Troops are expected to be withdrawn from two more areas, Petrivske and Zolote, by the end of November 2019. The areas of troop withdrawal were considered to be among the least dangerous on the front line. If effectively implemented, the troop withdrawal could mark the first in a series of steps bringing down the casualty toll among Ukrainian civilians and combatants alike.

Zelenskyy made an active push for peace initially and Russia wanted more and more . Any push for peace Ukraine or the West will commit now will be similarly treated, as a way to get more than Russia has now. Russia has to be completely defeated here, that is my stance on it and I am not someone who wants war. But the longer Putin thinks he can get more, the more he will try.

 

[ninjabot]

Anybody else watching the Ketanji Brown Supreme Court confirmation hearing?

Thoughts?