Shed a tear for the Europeans

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Shed a tear for the Europeans

Originally posted by Spiffor

You understand absolutely nothing about Europe. The Energy Charter is barely a geopolitical document. It's meant for business.

The EU is fanatically devoted to private businesses, and tries to destroy all state monopolies within. It also tries to destroy state monopolies abroad, where it could bring money to European businesses. Duh.

I'm very happy that Russia didn't sign the Energy Charter, and will keep its sovereignty over its natural resources, Russia's most precious economic asset at the moment There's absolutely no reason that a country like Russia, which is technically and financially able to invest in its energy sector, has to give its natural resources to private interests

Yup Gazprom is so independent, its so much about sovereignty and national independence, that theyve put Schroeder on their board. Seems some countries soveriegnty are at risk, and its not Russia's.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


*tries to breathe*



You, the person who has managed to antagonize pretty much everyone on the board at some point with your self-important bull****, want Drake to leave? You can barely get into an argument without falling into curses and ad hominems. I have you on ignore, and I can tell just from people quoting you. Why don't you **** off for a while and come back when you can actually contribute something besides vitriol and easy target practice.

edit: by the way, I'm not going to bother reading any of your replies to this, so don't bother making them

You're just making noise and hoping that idiots will fall into it without trying to check the facts themselves.

Well speak of the devil, look who just walked in.

Ad hominem, or "against a person", means an attack against person who has delivered an argument. Curiously enough, "Lol you've antagonized everyone on the board with your self-important bull**** LOL LOL LOL LOL so your argument doesn't matter" is a prototype example of an argumentum ad hominem, doing nothing to adress the actual the arguments, opinions and facts presented and instead saying that the person is stupid so the logical argument he presented should be forgotten.

Ad hominem does not mean an attack against the facts. When a person has repeatedly given supposed facts at face value (exampli gratia "Russian state murders innocents") and the "facts" he provides are immediately proven false upon elaboration, it is not an ad hominem to attack the validity of the "facts" the same person keeps on giving at face value (face value as opposed to giving third party sources which support his claims, Drake is a good example of a poster who has started threads in the past where the source provided actually contradicts with the claims Drake makes in the original post. Of course, this works on people who don't read the source provided and instead just get excited of the labels "pwned" and ). Or, attacking the credibility of claims and presumed "facts" through pointing out that the person presenting them only from his own mouth has lied before is not an argument based on a personal attack.

So let's see: A person blaming falsely another person of an argumentum ad hominem while doing one himself -- looks like we have a person who uses the word "ad hominem" without realizing what it means.

It doesn't really suprise me that Kuci picks up foreign-based words that just sound cool into his vocabulary and keeps using them without understanding what they mean, his past words and actions have already made this impression.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by dannubis
Now, I could care less about what Russia thinks. If they fail to prove they are a thrustworthy energy supplier, we get it somewhere else no ?

Yes, absolutely, we agree. In a free market, the supplier has the freedom to decide how much he wants to ask from his product.

Now... I don't know if you realized it yet, but Putin also agrees with us, did you notice what he said in the article quoted in the OP?

But Mr Putin's response was sharp. He told the Europeans Russia would set its own terms on energy supplies, and not sign the Energy Charter Treaty, as they asked.

European reaction to this response:

Some of the Europeans were shocked.

--

This does however not mean that the weak in the society should not be protected. By not signing this deal Putin looks after the interests of himself and his rich friends. In Russia, the common man does not benefit from this action and in Europe the poorer will have to pay more for their heathing in winter due to the increased uncertainty over the supply.

This is a general "he's evil, so he'll do this" -response. Ask yourself: What facts do you have behind these presumptions of yours? You really think Russia should sell oil under market rate because it would somehow "benefit the poor" people of European Union? Are industry owners the "poorer" people of EU, for industry is a significant consumer of energy in modern societies? You really think an international corporation will share it's profits with poor people with a higher possibility than a democratic state will?

[Dinner]

VJ. just put Kuciwalker on ignore like I did. It greatly improves Apolyton not to have to read his useless dribble. I honestly never even considered ignoring anyone until Kuci started his down hill decent recently where he basically contributes nothing of value and just engages in one logical falacy after another. Make life better and just ignore him.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Treating the smaller eastern european states as vassals - hmm, I wonder what those smaller eastern european states think? Didnt they run to the EU and to NATO, at least in part out of dislike of their eastern neighbors enlightened views of soveriegnty? (Serbia is the exception)

Serbia held out for a while, but currently most of the former SFRY states are subjects to a greater or lesser extent. Croatia is regularly being subject to the levers of the EU carrot and the Hague stick, as is Serbia, which has foreign 'advisors' in every ministry. B-H is under direct rule. FYROM was forced to submit to the demands of a terrorist insurrection five tears ago, and ISTR that prior to independence, Montenegro was sometimes referred to as 'Solania', after EU Bureaucrat Javier Solano.

I'm not saying that these are all old-school colonial subjects, but they are subject to constant or regular intervention. Whilst it can be be argued that all of this involvement is good and proper, it still boils down to control by EU muscle. What it definitely involves is being lectured to in the same way that Russia is now being lectured to - which is why I made the comment that I did.

I did actually use the words : "many of the smaller eastern states", and whilst recognising that many people in the east are doing very well these days (good on ya Saras), it must also surely be true that many other people are not doing so well. NATO commitments can be expensive, I gather, and I think leading NATO countries benefit from hardware sales to the new members.

[Kuciwalker]

Oerdin doesn't read my posts - whatever shall I do? Sadly, he's far too entertaining to put on ignore.

[Cort Haus]

Now I come to think of it, in Civ 4 a vassal can come running in to your arms out of fear of a larger neighbour. So it appears is the case in E.Europe - but which neighbour?

One of the advantages of being in NATO is not security from attack by Russia, but security from attack by NATO.

[Drake Tungsten]

All the right people hate you, Kuci. I'm jealous...

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Oerdin doesn't read my posts - whatever shall I do? Sadly, he's far too entertaining to put on ignore.

Well, you could pay us to quote them.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by VJ

This is a general "he's evil, so he'll do this" -response. Ask yourself: What facts do you have behind these presumptions of yours? You really think Russia should sell oil under market rate because it would somehow "benefit the poor" people of European Union? Are industry owners the "poorer" people of EU, for industry is a significant consumer of energy in modern societies? You really think an international corporation will share it's profits with poor people with a higher possibility than a democratic state will?

I did not mean to imply what you said.

I never said Russia had to sell its energy commodities under the market price. I just argued that it would not be beneficial to the poorer segments of society if there were to exist some uncertainty over the supply of lets say natural gas during winter time. So if they can not be trusted to be a stable supplier (and we all know that putin's ego combined with the wallets of his rich friends often interferes in his thinking process), then we should try to get it from somewhere else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Serbia held out for a while, but currently most of the former SFRY states are subjects to a greater or lesser extent. Croatia is regularly being subject to the levers of the EU carrot and the Hague stick, as is Serbia, which has foreign 'advisors' in every ministry. B-H is under direct rule. FYROM was forced to submit to the demands of a terrorist insurrection five tears ago, and ISTR that prior to independence, Montenegro was sometimes referred to as 'Solania', after EU Bureaucrat Javier Solano.

I'm not saying that these are all old-school colonial subjects, but they are subject to constant or regular intervention. Whilst it can be be argued that all of this involvement is good and proper, it still boils down to control by EU muscle. What it definitely involves is being lectured to in the same way that Russia is now being lectured to - which is why I made the comment that I did.

I did actually use the words : "many of the smaller eastern states", and whilst recognising that many people in the east are doing very well these days (good on ya Saras), it must also surely be true that many other people are not doing so well. NATO commitments can be expensive, I gather, and I think leading NATO countries benefit from hardware sales to the new members.

Lets see.
Poland, whatever its arms budget, WANTED to be in NATO, and even more the EU, and wanted to leave the Russian orbit. Ditto Hungary. Ditto Czech Republic. Ditto Slovakia. Ditto Lithuania. Ditto Latvia. Ditto Estonia. Ditto Romania. Even Bulgaria, historically russophile, was eager to join NATO, and wants to enter the EU. Slovenia was an eager joiner of the EU. I think we're down to FYROM, minus Slovenia as potentially unhappy. But Croatia, whatever disputes shes had with the EU, never seriously thought Russia a preferred partner, AFAIK. And the Bosnian state, and I think the majority of Bosnias population, share that preference.

EU members are lectured to cause the EU itself is a political entity, and EU standards are criteria for membership. Russia wants A. Membership in the G8 and B. An alliance with leading EU states like France and Germany. If they are willing to forego those, they can ignore the lectures.

The EU also lectures the US. The US govt feels free to ignore it - whether that is wise geostrategy is a matter we debate here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Now I come to think of it, in Civ 4 a vassal can come running in to your arms out of fear of a larger neighbour. So it appears is the case in E.Europe - but which neighbour?

One of the advantages of being in NATO is not security from attack by Russia, but security from attack by NATO.

There is only one case of NATO attacking an eastern european country. Do you think Poland, Czecho, etc looked at that and feared NATO? Or do you think they looked at that and saw Slobo as a representative of the old order they were shaking off?

[RGBVideo]

and wanted to leave the Russian orbit.

There is no "Russian orbit", it's a phrase to replace the phrase "Warsaw pact" without sounding ridiculous. It's soon 20 years from the end of the cold war, but neo-conservatives in US government are still living in it (not referring to you, I don't know if you'd like to label yourself a "neo-conservative" anymore and you certainly aren't within the US government). They need a bad guy, and labelling Russia into the new Soviet Union fits in their minds perfectly.

I did not mean to imply what you said.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious, because you think Putin is a bad guy so he must be evil and wrong. Funny thing is, once you read the article and look what he said, and then look what most of the people are getting outraged over, you'll notice that he agrees with you, and the EU leaders (at least according to BBC) are the ones who disagree with you. Free market means that the supplier decides the price which he wants from the good, if the customer doesn't like it he can look for other suppliers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VJ

There is no "Russian orbit", it's a phrase to replace the phrase "Warsaw pact" without sounding ridiculous. It's soon 20 years from the end of the cold war, but neo-conservatives in US government are still living in it (not referring to you, I don't know if you'd like to label yourself a "neo-conservative" anymore and you certainly aren't within the US government). They need a bad guy, and labelling Russia into the new Soviet Union fits in their minds perfectly.


.

There is no "russian orbit" outside the FSU at rate. I did not mean to imply that there is one now. That there is NOT a russian orbit in east central europe, however, is at least in part due to the move of eastern european states towards NATO and the EU. And that certainly was ONE of their motives for moving towards the EU, and their principle motive for joining NATO. I mention that only to respond to the silly notion that the EU is somehow "imperializing" eastern europe.

And no, I dont consider myself a neocon, though I share some of their views. BTW, if you followed US politics more closely, youd be aware that few neocons (robert Kagan the principle exception) have any sympathy for the EU.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VJ

There is no "Russian orbit", it's a phrase to replace the phrase "Warsaw pact" without sounding ridiculous. It's soon 20 years from the end of the cold war,

wanted is past tense, in English. Yes its 15 years since the end of the cold war (dating from the end of the USSR). How long ago was that event when the Visograd states applied for NATO membership?

Of course some folks go on about european imperialism, 40 years plus after the ends of the empires, etc so its pretty silly to conside 15 years ago like the geologic past.