United States of Europe vs. Stalinland: Ukraine, pt. II

[Spiffor]

LOTM, thanks for the article.

I think there are two other quotes from it that deserve emphasis:

In its 2003 annual report on human rights, the U.S. State Department warned that the "alleged espionage cases ... caused continued concerns regarding the lack of due process and the influence of the FSB in court cases. "

Human Rights Watch and other critics say that the defendants are often not allowed to see the charges against them, and that FSB officials sometimes publicly label the defendants guilty even before their cases go to court. '

The Vagabond:
I think these quotes that I emphasize can show a grave problem. The lack of due process, the lack of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, and the impossibility to know the charges against you are extremely anti-rule-of-law.
I would probably dismiss these problems as inherent to the difficult transition Russia is undergoing... But the really worrisome thing is that this situations seem to be increasing. If these bad processes were an avatar of the transition, they would be decreasing instead.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So I take it you have 4 networks that are largely hostile to Putin, and one that automatically defends him?

So you can take it we no longer have networks that irresponsibly destabilize the country at it core.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Err, secret services are needed indeed, but only to gather information about violent groups that cannot be fought with the rule of law. A secret police (the way we Westerners understand it) is not the same as ordinary secret services: it strikes people in a completely non-transparent manner, and without following the Law.

The rule of Law is extremely important to a functioning democracy (and the State can still function properly), and a secret police is by nature incompatible with this principle.

I don't know where DanS has it from, that your secret police is resurging. However, if he has good clues of tsuch a resurgence, it is something that you as a supporter of the democratic principles (even though you want a specific brand of democracy adapted to Russia), should be very wary of.

Well, I believe rumors about a resurging secret police are exaggerated. As for the secret services, they really need to be strenthened. They suffered badly under Yeltsin.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


So you can take it we no longer have networks that irresponsibly destabilize the country at it core.

I really feel sorry for you living in a country where the power of a single network are so strong that the system can't survive such a critisism. That must really be a very feeble system.

I don't know how much you know about Denmark, but news here, whatever it's printed, radio or tv, has a tendency to be critical to the current government whatever the current color may be.

Your crap about that a network are trying to destabilize the country are really far out. The only thing they may be trying to destabilize is the current government so the loose the next election, but if you aren't aware of it, it's a part of democracy - well, maybe you really don't know this .

[The Vagabond]

The Sutyagin case has nothing to do with secret police. It has to do with secret services.

The fact is that, during the disarray of the Yeltsin era, many scientists and specialists sold out a lot of Russian secrets for their personal benefit. This had to stop. Each country has to guard its secrets. What happens here is a step in this direction. But unfortunately it does not happen without excesses.

In the Sutyagin case, the key point is whether the report he prepared for Americans on Russian weapons systems was based solely on a stuff published in the open press, or a classified material was used. If the latter is the case, he deserves to be condemned. Although I really feel for the guy. He did this in the epoch of total permissiveness, and then suddenly the rules applied again. I think he should be amnestied.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM, thanks for the article.

I think there are two other quotes from it that deserve emphasis:

In its 2003 annual report on human rights, the U.S. State Department warned that the "alleged espionage cases ... caused continued concerns regarding the lack of due process and the influence of the FSB in court cases. "

Human Rights Watch and other critics say that the defendants are often not allowed to see the charges against them, and that FSB officials sometimes publicly label the defendants guilty even before their cases go to court. '

The Vagabond:
I think these quotes that I emphasize can show a grave problem. The lack of due process, the lack of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, and the impossibility to know the charges against you are extremely anti-rule-of-law.

I don't think the US State Department and Human Rights Watch are trustworthy sources in what concerns Russia. Personally, I don't believe them a bit. But it's true that there may be nasty excesses in these FSB cases (I don't say this on the basis of the above mentioned 'sources'). For example, a Siberian physisist was acquitted in a jury trial on the charge of espionage in favor of China. Yet he was charged again in a different trial. This is absolutely unacceptable. If acquitted, he cannot be charged again. Unfortunately, there has been no judicial reform in Russia. It's a long due. In part, the excesses may also be due to a sudden change from the epoch of total permissiveness. The inertia of the pendulum, so to say.

I would probably dismiss these problems as inherent to the difficult transition Russia is undergoing... But the really worrisome thing is that this situations seem to be increasing. If these bad processes were an avatar of the transition, they would be decreasing instead.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Does Sweden consider itself at war with Al Qaeda, after the Madrid attack?

Sweden doesn't consider Spain at war with AQ.

Did Sweden consider itself at war with AQ after the 9/11 attack on the United States? What im getting at is that I wonder if the same "could not imagine" applies to the US and Canada as well - yet Sweden is not in NATO.

I can't speak for him, but I'd assume not.

OTOH perhaps a conventional attack by a state would be considered differently, since some hold that its not legally meaningful to be "at war" with a non-state actor - in which case its not clear what it means to be neutral.

He was speaking in the context of a "traditional" war against a state actor.

He also said that traditional notions of war/peace are heading towards irrelevancy, citing precisely the meaningless of "being at war", "being neutral" and so on wrt non-state actors like AQ.

Combat Ingrid has a point, of course; there's precious little Sweden could do in a conventional war outside it's borders.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I really feel sorry for you living in a country where the power of a single network are so strong that the system can't survive such a critisism. That must really be a very feeble system.

Sadly, that was the case. But please note that there is criticism and criticism. Namely, constructive criticism on the one hand, and overzealous vilification and blackmail in favor of oligarchs-network owners on the other hand. It is the latter that our weakened country could not survive. And I seriously doubt that even a more stable country could survive that.

I don't know how much you know about Denmark, but news here, whatever it's printed, radio or tv, has a tendency to be critical to the current government whatever the current color may be.

Your crap about that a network are trying to destabilize the country are really far out. The only thing they may be trying to destabilize is the current government so the loose the next election, but if you aren't aware of it, it's a part of democracy - well, maybe you really don't know this .

Well, you have a well-adjusted system. For you, it could only mean the fall of the government. For us, destruction of the country. But I presume that you just have a civilized criticism on your TV. You have nothing similar to what we had.

Also please note that Denmark is a small country, without any geopolitical pressure on it. It just occupies a cushy place in the Western civilization, it does not depend on itself for survival. Russia, on the other hand, can rely solely on itself for survival in a hostile environment. In this sense, Russia should be compared to the US. Small wealthy and geopolitically irresponsible European countries cannot be an example for us.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Sweden doesn't consider Spain at war with AQ.

Then why did AQ attack Spain ? Besides, what are your rank in the swedish governemnt ?

I can't speak for him, but I'd assume not.

Why not ? After all, Sweden is a western country.


[QUOTE]
He was speaking in the context of a "traditional" war against a state actor.

He also said that traditional notions of war/peace are heading towards irrelevancy, citing precisely the meaningless of "being at war", "being neutral" and so on wrt non-state actors like AQ.
[QUOTE]

That may be because history haven't encountred such a thing like AQ before. Could be a reason to change something.

Combat Ingrid has a point, of course; there's precious little Sweden could do in a conventional war outside it's borders.

If i'm not wrong, then you are twisting CI's statement. She stated that Sweden in short time would be impotent to do anything; not that it should be that way.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Sadly, that was the case. But please note that there is criticism and criticism. Namely, constructive criticism on the one hand, and overzealous vilification and blackmail in favor of oligarchs-network owners on the other hand. It is the latter that our weakened country could not survive. And I seriously doubt that even a more stable country could survive that.

Well, you have a well-adjusted system. For you, it could only mean the fall of the government. For us, destruction of the country. But I presume that you just have a civilized criticism on your TV. You have nothing similar to what we had.

Don't by that. Those monsters you are referring to are created by the current system, but that is a simple matter of legislation to control them (of course, that demands that you have to deal with some serious "payment" problems witch will hurt many politicians). What i see is that anyone opposing the government is suppressed, and that's not good.

Also please note that Denmark is a small country, without any geopolitical pressure on it. It just occupies a cushy place in the Western civilization, it does not depend on itself for survival. Russia, on the other hand, can rely solely on itself for survival in a hostile environment. In this sense, Russia should be compared to the US. Small wealthy and geopolitically irresponsible European countries cannot be an example for us.

Agyhh ? What hostile environment ? For more than 60 years the only threat has been that if they attacked others, there would be retailiation. If the soviet hasn't been agressive they may have survived - why do you want to repeat that fault ?

You may have a point about irresponsibility when talking about Denmark - in the 80'ies the opposition to the current government could have pushed the fall of the soviet empire longer into the future - luckily they didn't succed.

If i'm not wrong, then the news - no matter type - is even harsher on the current government in USA than they are in Denmark, so this argument also falls hard to the ground.

[Saras]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If he can really assuage those concerns, good for him. Russian speakers have a vivid example of what happens to Russian speakers under the patronage of the EU and NATO (see Latvia and Estonia).

Vag, please tell me what you hear about Russian speakers in Latvia and Estonia from your media.

[Saras]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Agyhh ? What hostile environment ? For more than 60 years the only threat has been that if they attacked others, there would be retailiation. If the soviet hasn't been agressive they may have survived - why do you want to repeat that fault ?

Russians need "outside threats" to consolidate the population so that the rulers can carry on doing their thing.

OMG IT"S TEH LATVIAN NAZIS BEATING HUDREDS OF THOUSANDS RUSSIAN SPEAKERS!!!11!1!!!

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Then why did AQ attack Spain ?

They didn't like them? They wanted to get them out of Iraq? As it happens, I do not know the motivations of the AQ leadership.

Besides, what are your rank in the swedish governemnt ?

None, of course. Trying to be funny?

Why not ? After all, Sweden is a western country.

What's being western got to do with it?

I'd assume so based on how he expressed himself; he spoke only of the unimaginability of remaining neutral in case of an attack on a fellow EU member - had he included the US and/or Canada, presumably he'd done so explicitly.

That may be because history haven't encountred such a thing like AQ before. Could be a reason to change something.

I dunno if there's anything really new about AQ beyond scale. At any rate, it has already precipitated changes in Sweden's security arrangements. But as long as it lacks either an army to fight or a territory to occupy, it's hard to see what's to gain from seeing it as a traditional belligerent.

If i'm not wrong, then you are twisting CI's statement. She stated that Sweden in short time would be impotent to do anything; not that it should be that way.

How in hell is "there's precious little Sweden could do in a conventional war outside it's borders" as statement of how anything should be?

[Combat Ingrid]

I don't think anyone posted this yet so: Yanukovich hit by egg!

I'm especially amazed by how he's thrown to the ground by the violent force of the enemy projectile

[Last Conformist]

Teh egg!