Ukraine Thread

[Fragony]

How will you vote?

Against, there is a civil war going on, it isn't just a trade treaty but also a military one. The EU shouldn't get too close to Russia. Ukraine is also very poor and pretty corrupt.

[Gilrandir]

Against, there is a civil war going on, it isn't just a trade treaty but also a military one.

This is the first time I hear of a military aspect of the treaty. Or is the EU a military organization?

The EU shouldn't get too close to Russia.

It may surprise you, but Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are the EU members and are as close to Russia as you may want - they have a common border with Russia. And Georgia with which the EU signed AA is in the same situation.

Ukraine is also very poor and pretty corrupt.

That is true, but in some EU countries at the moment of their joining the EU corruption was similarly severe. Some say that in Bulgaria, for example, it is still not eradicated.

[wooly_mammoth]

^Romania and Bulgaria are still very bad in this department, but I don't think they compare with countries like Ukraine or the Republic of Moldova. At least we are making some headway, but those guys are taffed until the next ice age, in the optimistic estimation.

[Fragony]

EU is no military organisation, I don't know the specifics but there certainly is a military aspect. Fair enough about other countries being just as close, but they aren't as devided, I think it's asking for trouble. But the treaty is going to come anyway, the EU has already said we can shove the outcome up our asses, good news for Ukraine but not for us, nor for our current government (that IS good for us), not the first time a referendum was just ignored.

[Gilrandir]

EU is no military organisation, I don't know the specifics but there certainly is a military aspect.

I doubt it, there is NATO for this purpose.

[Fragony]

I doubt it, there is NATO for this purpose.

It's not what I say but what others say, but that is not the only reason to vote against this treaty, in the most egoistical form, it's going to cost a lot and there aren't any benefits, the billions that go to Greece are nothing compared to what will go to Ukraine, economic experts expect a 36% increase of inflation (yeah I know 'experts'). It's just not worth the trouble, nothing personal

[Husar]

I doubt it, there is NATO for this purpose.

IIRC, similar to NATO, an attack on an EU member state is seen as an attack on the EU or so...

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glo...l_defence.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...t-does-it-mean

Of course if you ask me, I find it strange that France invoked the clause for armed aggression when there is a clause for terrorist attacks (see first link), but I assume in 10 years we are far enough to invoke a nuclear attack clause if a muslim so much as scratches someone.

I also like how you guys discussed this for several posts and noone spent the 2 minutes it took me to search and read up on it.

[Fragony]

If it only took you two minutes to look it up then why didn't you already know it?

[Husar]

If it only took you two minutes to look it up then why didn't you already know it?

Because if I always look up everything that takes me only two minutes to look up, I will spend a lot of minutes in total, no?
And why would I do that if I'm not even part of the discussion other than to make the two of you stop talking about how you do not know anything about it for several pages?
And yes, I knew about it in general, I looked up the details so that I wouldn't have to join with yet another "I do not really know, but...."

So why would you ask these silly questions after I just helped you not to waste much more time discussing things you do not really know anything about but heard from others but do not really check yet talk about but maybe and perhaps?

[Fragony]

Because you also didn't know about what your own police said, why you didn't ain't such a silly question to ask. I knew about Collogne day one, people who read quality media 4 days later when the rug was out of room

[Husar]

Because you also didn't know about what your own police said, why you didn't ain't such a silly question to ask. I knew about Collogne day one, people who read quality media 4 days later when the rug was out of room

Now you're changing the topic...

And yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

[Fragony]

Now you're changing the topic...

And yes, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

I answered your question.

[Crandar]

Yes, don't dare to attack the EU, unless you are prepared to be wrecked by the European Armada that obliterated 3rd world Libya in a matter of weeks!

Oh, wait...

[Gilrandir]

IIRC, similar to NATO, an attack on an EU member state is seen as an attack on the EU or so...

I also like how you guys discussed this for several posts and noone spent the 2 minutes it took me to search and read up on it.

Because if I always look up everything that takes me only two minutes to look up, I will spend a lot of minutes in total, no?
So why would you ask these silly questions after I just helped you not to waste much more time discussing things you do not really know anything about but heard from others but do not really check yet talk about but maybe and perhaps?

Funny enough, however hard you might have spent the two minutes you didn't help a tiny bit. We were speaking of ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, not of MEMBERSHIP. Here is the text of the former:

http://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/en/page/open/id/2900

No mentioning of any military aspect.

But even if it were about EU membership and a possible attack on a member state - the EU doesn't have any (joined) armed forces. Evidently, since most of the EU states are also NATO states it would be NATO article 5 that would be enforced in such a case.

It's not what I say but what others say, but that is not the only reason to vote against this treaty, in the most egoistical form, it's going to cost a lot and there aren't any benefits, the billions that go to Greece are nothing compared to what will go to Ukraine, economic experts expect a 36% increase of inflation (yeah I know 'experts').

You can read the agreement and figure out yourself if it is that costly or resposibilities-fraught as experts believe.

[Husar]

Funny enough, however hard you might have spent the two minutes you didn't help a tiny bit. We were speaking of ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, not of MEMBERSHIP.

EU is no military organisation, I don't know the specifics but there certainly is a military aspect.

I'm sorry that I overlooked the part where he said ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, but it's okay, I forgive everyone.

[Gilrandir]

I'm sorry that I overlooked the part where he said ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT, but it's okay, I forgive everyone.

The starting point of the discussion of us two lazybones was the Dutch referendum on Ukraine-EU ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT. So everything said further bore on this issue. Perhaps you were too lazy to get to post # 930 from post # 937 (where you joined the discussion), but I forgive you.

[Fragony]

nvm

[Gilrandir]

On the Dutch referendum:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/01/2...ch-referendum/

[Fragony]

On the Dutch referendum:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/01/2...ch-referendum/

A very big boooohooohooo they don't want to play with us there. There are very good reasons to be against this treaty when it comes to geopolitics alone, but there are much more things that are simply unacceptable. Urkarians don't have to worry it has already been decided, as Juncker said 'we decide something, if there is no revolt we push it through, nobody knows what what we do anyway'. Drunks and children speak the truth. I would consider the chance of the UK and the Netherlands blowing up the EU pretty considerable, or at least looming, we have kinda had it with the EU all we do is paying.

[Greyblades]

People are asked to vote against or in favor of the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine. Yet in fact it is like asking people to give their opinion on the Collected Works of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. It is not even important whether you read it – it is such a complex document that can be interpreted by laypersons in so many ways that it does not make sense.

Strange that gilrandir's article is presenting this as a reason not to do away with an agreement when it sounds like a great reason to get rid of it, or at least replace it..

People want to see strawberries on their Dutch table in December, but they do not want globalization. People want to be sure their yogurts are fresh and safe and with an appropriate expiration date, but they don’t want EU rules and regulations. People want to surf their smartphones 24 hours a day, but they don’t want modern technology to make jobs redundant. People want all the pleasures but not the other side of the coin. Quite normal, of course, but any intelligent person knows you can’t have one without the other. Yet the majority of those who will vote “no” on April 6 in Holland want only one, and not the other.

Yeesh what an elitist asshole, he'd fit right in here.

He also seems completely ignorant of the concepts of greenhouses, dutch rules and regulations, and protectionism

You can call Parliament a “fake Parliament”, male refugees “testosterone bombs” that need to be locked up in camps and shout “No more Maroccans” and somehow every time well-educated Dutchmen adjust their levels of acceptance and let him continue.

I take it back, he wouldnt fit in here, even the worst of us arent complaining about free speech in action.

However, by now he has reached a level that reminds me painfully of the gentlemen Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher, who had the same type of stereotype slogans regarding Jews in the 1930s. A person who would have hibernated for twenty years and wake up now would not believe his eyes and ears, yet we have basically accepted his sick behavior because it is a step by step process, every time a little bit further. Just like Hitler in the 1920s and early 1930s; don’t forget, Germany was a democracy then, and Hitler came to power in a democratic fashion, not through a coup d’état like the Soviets!

Wow nazi comparison combined with historical ignorance of the night of long knives, this guy is a gift that keeps on giving.

The truth is that Europe is a war zone. Putin and his criminal buddies have brought the war to Europe. They stimulate discontent through their social media trolls, they support the earlier mentioned right-wing politicians because they are a destabilizing factor, they do anything to bring Merkel down (even if only because she is a “people’s traitor” from East Germany); they create havoc in Syria to keep the refugees coming.

This makes it very hard for the “yes-campaign”. How to make a population understand that this is not about Ukraine, but about something else? How to explain that by voting “no” they play right into the hands of a criminal state that is collapsing and as a result all the more dangerous? And I wonder, what would have happened if in the late 1930s Germans had a referendum vote on the Jews: how many would have voted against their expulsion?

Wait...Wouldnt the jewish community be better off right now if germany had expelled them before the nazis got into power?

Unfortunately, my political party D’66 created an instrument that is now fundamentally abused. My only hope is that it will open people’s eyes before it is too late. Democracy is in mortal danger, but it is not too late. We can still stop the process.

This would carry more weight (which is to say any) if he had actually tried to explain to the supposedly ignorant masses what the agreement is.

[Fragony]

I cant stresx enough that those behind the referendum insist that those in favour of this treaty vote in favour of it. But is as usual with the eurocrats, they mistake Europe with the EU, nothing but godwins and doom is what they can come up with. In the end the EU is nothing but a very expensive and intrusive overhead. It isn't even about the EU but about seeking trouble where it isn't needed.

[Gilrandir]

Strange that gilrandir's article is presenting this as a reason not to do away with an agreement when it sounds like a great reason to get rid of it, or at least replace it..

First of all, it is not MY article.

Second of all, whatever people here may think, I was not going to sway anyone here (or elsewhere) this or that way concerning the voting. I just came across an article by a Hollander who might be in the know of emotions and motifs within the Netherlands and dared to share it.

Third of all, he has a right to offer his reasons why he seconds Holland accepting the Ukraine-EU AA, now doesn't he?

Wow nazi comparison combined with historical ignorance of the night of long knives

The Night in question was a matter of internal strife within NSDAP, it had nothing to do with Hitler's party legally and legitimately winning in the election and Hitler becoming chancellor.

[Greyblades]

First of all, it is not MY article.

You presented it; in this context it's yours.

Second of all, whatever people here may think, I was not going to sway anyone here (or elsewhere) this or that way concerning the voting.

I gathered that and I didnt say you were trying to.

I just came across an article by a Hollander who might be in the know of emotions and motifs within the Netherlands and dared to share it.

"In the know" is pushing it, he's a left wing pundit whinging how terrible the filthy plebs are for not toeing the line.

Third of all, he has a right to offer his reasons why he seconds Holland accepting the Ukraine-EU AA, now doesn't he?

Did I say he didnt?

The Night in question was a matter of internal strife within NSDAP, it had nothing to do with Hitler's party legally and legitimately winning in the election and Hitler becoming chancellor.

I was tired and meant to say reichstag fire. Sue me.

[Gilrandir]

"In the know" is pushing it, he's a left wing pundit whinging how terrible the filthy plebs are for not toeing the line.

This is your own subjective opinion which doesn't cancel the fact of the author's being more aware of Hollanders' sentiment than you.

I was tired and meant to say reichstag fire. Sue me.

Again a miss. Still tired?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Adolf Hitler, who was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany four weeks before, on 30 January, urged President Paul von Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany. After passing the decree, the government instituted mass arrests of communists, including all of the Communist Party parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazi Party went from being a plurality party to the majority; this enabled Hitler to consolidate his power.

We spoke of Hitler legally COMING TO POWER, not of the things he did AFTERWARDS. Now what's your lawyer's email?

[Greyblades]

This is your own subjective opinion which doesn't cancel the fact of the author's being more aware of Hollanders' sentiment than you.

Actually I think that is the subjective opinion, one that is somewhat diminished by his naked disdane for his fellow dutchmen is; destroying any pretensions to objectivity his article may posess.

Again a miss. Still tired?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
We spoke of Hitler legally COMING TO POWER, not of the things he did AFTERWARDS. Now what's your lawyer's email?

The nazis didnt come to power until they gained an overpowering majority, and your quote proved my point: He got his position in a plurality, meaning he was still restricted. Through the reichstag fire the nazis were able to replace the communist party members with their own, gain a true majority and thus COME TO POWER.

[Gilrandir]

The nazis didnt come to power until they gained an overpowering majority, and your quote proved my point: He got his position in a plurality, meaning he was still restricted. Through the reichstag fire the nazis were able to replace the communist party members with their own, gain a true majority and thus COME TO POWER.

Evidently, we have a different understanding of "power". I thought that any party having at least 1 seat majority in the parliament is at power. You seem to believe in the overwhelming majority needed to qualify a ruling party as a party at power.

[Fragony]

As it seems right now the M17 was shot down by Ukraine (no offence intended to Ukrainian members), but M17 seems to have been guided over hostile territory. Ukraine says the radar-stations were down, all? The Americans have the satelite-images nobody asked for here in the Netherlands, this is getting odd.

Allow me to be cynical, is the lives of over 200 innocent people worth less than an association treaty? Not looking at you Ukraine I am sure it was a mistake if it was you, just curious what really happened. Wouldn't call it a friend but someone I know (hardly) died there There were jets, there were high altitude weapon systems.

[Sarmatian]

This might be something new.

Dutch investigation a few months ago blamed Kiev in a sense that Ukraine should have closed the area off for civilian airlines, but couldn't prove who fired the missile.

[Gilrandir]

As it seems right now the M17 was shot down by Ukraine (no offence intended to Ukrainian members), but M17 seems to have been guided over hostile territory. Ukraine says the radar-stations were down, all? The Americans have the satelite-images nobody asked for here in the Netherlands, this is getting odd.

Allow me to be cynical, is the lives of over 200 innocent people worth less than an association treaty? Not looking at you Ukraine I am sure it was a mistake if it was you, just curious what really happened. Wouldn't call it a friend but someone I know (hardly) died there There were jets, there were high altitude weapon systems.

The source, please.

[Fragony]

The source, please.

Can't do right now sorry, there is nothing credible to post. nothing is clear at ths moment. 'looks like' is not the same thing as 'it is', I walk carefully when something could be big. You can probably find most on google, I am not going to say anything at the moment. A few things stand out, the Dutch government never asked for the info the Americans were more than willing to share, and the nature of the damage (exit damage, not impact)