Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sheesh and how much we spent on the process to run that impeachment trial through...I for one would like to beat him with a stick...if JFK can tumble Marilyn Monroe in the White House then he epically failed on the establish "Bench Mark"....though the cigar bit might lessen the force of the impact...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, it isn't second world anymore as the second world ceased to exist after the Cold War. The 'three worlds theory' is pretty much outdated and invalid at this point, but if we still were to use it, Ukraine is much closer to the first world than it is to the third world.
People really need to come up with a new term for the area. Former Soviet Union is really getting outdated.


Aside from that, it is important to remember that the protesters in Kiev do not represent the entire Ukrainian people. They only represent the Western half of the country which is usually in favor of stronger ties to the EU, while the East and South are usually in favor of stronger ties to Russia.
Also, Yanukovich's government was democratically elected, so I would say that they are the most democratic side here. If the protesters disagree with the government, they should wait until the next election. That is how it is supposed to go in a democracy,
Protesting is a perfectly fine way to show your disagreement, but the barbaric way in which the protesters act is unworthy of a democracy. The same goes for the government's reaction.
They should all sit down, have nice tea and biscuits (or vodka and varenyky in this case) and discuss the matter in a civilized way.

Just because Viktor Yanukovich was democratically elected doesn't mean the action of the government under his leadership have been.

Elections in the Ukraine are like elections in Russia. Fake. The government decides who wins the election before it evens starts the election it self only serves the purpose of making the people think they have power.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Actually, it isn't second world anymore as the second world ceased to exist after the Cold War. The 'three worlds theory' is pretty much outdated and invalid at this point, but if we still were to use it, Ukraine is much closer to the first world than it is to the third world.

Thus far it's still the best option. But, instead of referring to which side a country may take, it refers to the level of industrialization in the country. So, under the "post cold war" model, Russia is a 1st World country, while Ukraine may be considered a 2nd world or even 1st (honestly have no idea their manufacturing/industrial capacity). The new "3rd world" refers to countries who are either extremely backwater, or unruly, etc. that they provide no significant products or services in GDP. These countries are like Uzbekistan, Kenya or Somalia. I've seen this exact model used wherein people will remove the 1st/2nd/3rd with "industrialized", "emerging", and I forget the third.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Thus far it's still the best option.

It's really not. The distinctions made by the theory are mostly superficial and meaningless to actually understanding a country hence why I don't subscribe to it. Functionally the Ukraine can look like a mode developed country all it wants, but there isn't much that separates it functionally from Iraq or Egypt or even Nigeria. You can draw such distinctions if you want, but if you actually look at the countries discusses and how they function you're likely to find the distinction isn't very valid.

being higher up on the economic totem pole ultimately says very little about a countries social or political development.

 LordofHats wrote:
Elections in the Ukraine are like elections in Russia. Fake. The government decides who wins the election before it evens starts the election it self only serves the purpose of making the people think they have power.

That is a rather wild and severe accusation to throw around without any evidence. Firstly because it relies on the assumtion that elections in Russia are fake, which I can assure you, they are not. There often are minor irregularities and some dirty tricks, but to call the entire elections fake because of that is an overreaction. It also makes no sense. Putin does not need false elections to maintain power. He still remains massively popular in Russia.
Elections in Russia are probably more fair than those in the US. There the big money decide who is going to win before the election even starts Making allegations like this really serves no purpose unless you can proof it.

Yanukovich enjoys a lot of support in the East and South of the Ukraine. And he was still elected in elections that were praised by the international community as being an "impressive display of democracy".
And I am not trying to say that Yanukovich is an epitome of democracy or something like that. On the contrary, some his actions are questionable at best.
But so are the demonstraters'. They are not any more democratic than the government is, and there are a lot of very questionable figures among them.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Thus far it's still the best option.

It's really not. The distinctions made by the theory are mostly superficial and meaningless to actually understanding a country hence why I don't subscribe to it. Functionally the Ukraine can look like a mode developed country all it wants, but there isn't much that separates it functionally from Iraq or Egypt or even Nigeria. You can draw such distinctions if you want, but if you actually look at the countries discusses and how they function you're likely to find the distinction isn't very valid.

being higher up on the economic totem pole ultimately says very little about a countries social or political development.

But the modern three (actually two now) world theory, is based on economy, not on politics. And there is a massive difference in economy and prosperity between Ukraine and Nigeria.
The distinction is more than valid. There is a massive difference on all levels between the Ukraine and Nigeria. Have you ever actually been to the Ukraine?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Elections in Russia are probably more fair than those in the US.

O'man, that's rich. Just rich.

Firstly because it relies on the assumtion that elections in Russia are fak

They are. The political factions in Russia have been deciding the outcome of elections ever since the ousting of Yeltsin. You can ask any expert on the politics of Russia about this and they'll confirm it. It's well known that the Russian politically establishment is only superficially democratic. In practice its really an oligarchy run by many of the same people who ran the Soviet Union.

A couple years ago it was apparently a very interesting time to be a specialist on Russia because of the dealings between the political supporters of Putin and Medvedev. The only reason Medvedev became president was because he agreed to allow Viktor Zubkov to be Prime Minister and would allow Putin to become president again in the future with Medvedev as his Prime Minister (current status quo).

At most, Russia does its best to appear democratic, but functionally the elections are meaningless as anything more than a public opinion poll. Current Russian politics are only different from those of the USSR in that people don't get sent to the gulag anymore (these days they just go to prison).

economy, not on politics

The original Three World's theory was all about politics of the Cold War; First World (US and its Allies, essentially NATO nations), Second World (USSR and its Allies, essentially Soviet Bloc + China and North Korea), and the Third World being everyone else who wasn't directly allied to anyone.

In practice around the late 80's and early 90's as the Cold War wound down people began using the theory more broadly to rank nations but this was quickly abandoned because it was mostly based in economics and the economic parity of a state says little about its political and social development. Many in economics and international politics use the model because its still useful (in international politics its mostly used in the same old political context to describe the political history of a region), but in other fields its pretty much worthless. The criteria used to create the 'second world' is bunk. It doesn't function when applied.

The distinction is more than valid. There is a massive difference on all levels between the Ukraine and Nigeria. Have you ever actually been to the Ukraine?

The difference is mostly economic which is kind of my point. Their economic difference belly social and political similarities. If anything I'd be so bold as to point out Nigeria is more politically stable than Ukraine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Elections in Russia are probably more fair than those in the US. There the big money decide who is going to win before the election even starts.

And there is where you loose all credibility.

Making allegations like this really serves no purpose unless you can proof it.

...like you just did?

For the most part we can reliably expect the winner of a US election to be the person who actually won via votes (electoral college criticism goes here). EDIT: Nationally anyway. I'd more skeptical of the reliability of specific local elections.

In the legislature though, I'd actually agree that money has a big roll in which way the winds blow but senators and representatives have to pay enough attention to their voters to not piss them off too much. In Russia there's fairly good job security for a politician, since he's elected via his peers rather than by the people (this applies mostly to Western but not Eastern Russia).

 LordofHats wrote:
For the most part we can reliably expect the winner of a US election to be the person who actually won via votes

It'd be great if it worked that way in Canada. Although I suppose with enough fraud, anything is possible.

Back on topic, however, for what it's worth, even if this guy was democratically elected, a lot of the things he's doing (ie, locking up his predecessor) are very un-democratic. Just because they gave him the keys does not mean he can go joyriding.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Elections in Russia are probably more fair than those in the US. There the big money decide who is going to win before the election even starts.

And there is where you loose all credibility.

Making allegations like this really serves no purpose unless you can proof it.

...like you just did?

I was hoping the at the end of the sentence would be enough to mark it as a joke.
US elections seem generally fair. Altough I have no doubts that big businesses and secret services do wield considerable influence behind the curtains, in the end I do not believe their influence is large enough to set the election results. The final decision is still made by the voters.

 LordofHats wrote:

Firstly because it relies on the assumtion that elections in Russia are fak

They are. The political factions in Russia have been deciding the outcome of elections ever since the ousting of Yeltsin. You can ask any expert on the politics of Russia about this and they'll confirm it. It's well known that the Russian politically establishment is only superficially democratic. In practice its really an oligarchy run by many of the same people who ran the Soviet Union.

A couple years ago it was apparently a very interesting time to be a specialist on Russia because of the dealings between the political supporters of Putin and Medvedev. The only reason Medvedev became president was because he agreed to allow Viktor Zubkov to be Prime Minister and would allow Putin to become president again in the future with Medvedev as his Prime Minister (current status quo).

At most, Russia does its best to appear democratic, but functionally the elections are meaningless as anything more than a public opinion poll. Current Russian politics are only different from those of the USSR in that people don't get sent to the gulag anymore (these days they just go to prison).

I would rather say that Russia has improved in democracy since Yeltsin. Yeltsin has most definitely rigged elections, and in his days all power was concentrated into the hands of Yeltsin and his gang, who subsequently lead Russia into the greatest disaster since WW2.

You can ask any expert on the politics of Russia and they will confirm that Russia's elections are reasonably fair.
The political power in Russia is firmly concentrated in the hands of the former KGB, the armed forces. These 'siloviki' do indeed supress any opposition that they deem a threat to their power.
That does not mean however, that Putin and United Russia are the only siloviki factions. There also is the 'recognized' oppossition (most notably the KPRF, the successor to the KPSS) which is usually not supressed and gets fair chances of competing in the elections (and it should be noted that the KPRF has been doing quite well the past few years). In order to maintain control of Russia, the siloviki do not have to resort to stuff like rigging elections. They are far more subtle and manipulating. They make sure that they are always in control of whatever party seems likely to gain power.
So while I would say that elections in Russia are relatively fair, the siloviki are always the ones that remain in charge. That is the way it almost always has been since the time of Ivan the Terrible and it likely that it will remain so for a very long time to come.

Russia is obviously not an actual democracy. I never claimed it was.
What I am trying to say is that you can't compare the situation in the Ukraine to the situation in Russia that easily.

 LordofHats wrote:

economy, not on politics

The original Three World's theory was all about politics of the Cold War; First World (US and its Allies, essentially NATO nations), Second World (USSR and its Allies, essentially Soviet Bloc + China and North Korea), and the Third World being everyone else who wasn't directly allied to anyone.

In practice around the late 80's and early 90's as the Cold War wound down people began using the theory more broadly to rank nations but this was quickly abandoned because it was mostly based in economics and the economic parity of a state says little about its political and social development. Many in economics and international politics use the model because its still useful (in international politics its mostly used in the same old political context to describe the political history of a region), but in other fields its pretty much worthless. The criteria used to create the 'second world' is bunk. It doesn't function when applied.

I agree with you on this.

 LordofHats wrote:

The distinction is more than valid. There is a massive difference on all levels between the Ukraine and Nigeria. Have you ever actually been to the Ukraine?

The difference is mostly economic which is kind of my point. Their economic difference belly social and political similarities. If anything I'd be so bold as to point out Nigeria is more politically stable than Ukraine.

I also fully agree with you on this
Ukraine is anything but a politically stable country. It has never really been a unified country anywhere in it's history, and it would probably be best if the country was split up. The East and the Crimea become part of the Russian Federation, while the West forms a seperate state/joins Poland. The regions in the middle and Kiev could vote on which of the two they want to be in.

Political Donors....

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I was hoping the at the end of the sentence would be enough to mark it as a joke.
US elections seem generally fair. Altough I have no doubts that big businesses and secret services do wield considerable influence behind the curtains, in the end I do not believe their influence is large enough to set the election results. The final decision is still made by the voters.

The problem is that all elections are won by votes, but all decisions are won by money.

Woaw Iron_Captain (Voor een Nederlander ben je toch mis geinformeerd als het om Rusland gaat).

IMHO is Russia a Democracy in Name only, the way it is run is more closely to China, the people have more to buy but government still limits what the people can do and say (remember Pussy riot?).

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Elections in Russia are probably more fair than those in the US.

O'man, that's rich. Just rich.

I'm not going to defend Russia, but your leaders did have one of their political opponents arrested for even trying to enter the same building as the presidential debates. That's fethed up.

 d-usa wrote:
What's more amazing is how this has pretty much gotten minimal attention on the news over here. I've been following it via the German news, but in the US this is hardly mentioned.

Well time is limited. We have to explore the Justin Bieber arrest fully. Priorities have to be made.

Is it me or does this revolution/crackdown have guys with really excellent cameras or something?

 Frazzled wrote:
Well time is limited. We have to explore the Justin Bieber arrest fully. Priorities have to be made.

Well, this has been going on since well before the archetype of Canadian teendom got arrested, but I take your point. Mentioning Ukraine might have, for example, interrupted the solid week MSNBC spent talking about whether Santa Claus was white or not.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Woaw Iron_Captain (Voor een Nederlander ben je toch mis geinformeerd als het om Rusland gaat).

IMHO is Russia a Democracy in Name only, the way it is run is more closely to China, the people have more to buy but government still limits what the people can do and say (remember Pussy riot?).

I am ill-informed about Russia for a Dutchman? Funny, considering that I am half Russian myself. I would guess I know more about Russia than 99% of the Dutch population. Most Dutchmen have never even been to Russia.
I've never said Russia is a democracy. Russia has never been a democracy and Russia will probably never be a democracy. Russia is as authoritarian as it has always been.

Aside from this, there is no country in the world that is a true (direct) democracy. Representive democracy is only a very flawed, light form of democracy.
Switzerland is the only country that comes close to being an actual democracy.

I love the conformation bias of everyone posting about what gets reported or not.

Yes it is bad that we see extremely irrelevant and minor things reported for the sake of hype, but this is merely a function of our click/controversy based news system in this country.

It pays to FOX to endlessly pander to there "Feth you got mine old people" demographic, it pays to MSNBC to pander to the "College white liberal" demographic.


They both suck, and if you honestly think Bengazhi hasn't gotten enough coverage your motherfething insane, and the reason Christ Christie is being investigated is because he not only used mob tactics to punish a political opposer, he also miss used federal aid.

Say what you want about Benghazi, the event itself was an a-politcal screw up, not a deliberate targeted of political opponents

There's been one post in this thread regarding Benghazi. *Whatever that new story is...

 Wyrmalla wrote:
There's been one post in this thread regarding Benghazi. *Whatever that new story is...

Whembly bit me in a thread a while ago and since then Iv been compelled to bring it up in counter arguments.


In all seriousness I was just discussing how the media works, and how without the filter of right or left wing pundits how scandals are politically lined.


Bengazhi: No politics involved, mess up of start department, used to bat american public over the head with and thus turning the deaths of 1 Ambassador, 2 seals, and 1 very brave computer techie into naught but political talking points.

"Bridgegate": Deliberate targeting of a person of opposite political alignment for personal gain, by nature a scandal with political intentions and ramifications

Hey!

Tell them that I don't bite that hard!

But, to your points... they have merits as the news channel is a defacto-entertainment business, rather than the ol' Hard. Hitting. News. journalism.

That's why I'd always advocate reading/watching sources across the political spectrum.

 whembly wrote:
Hey!

Tell them that I don't bite that hard!

But, to your points... they have merits as the news channel is a defacto-entertainment business, rather than the ol' Hard. Hitting. News. journalism.

That's why I'd always advocate reading/watching sources across the political spectrum.

Well it comes down to the fact nobody gives a crap about Bridgegate itself, or Bengazhi itself, merely the political ramifications of them.

Bridgegate is important because it harms the potential of a presidential hopeful, Bengazhi was important to the political campaigns at the time.


Why is noone in the USA coverage the Ukraine's Revolution? Because it doesn't affect Hillarys or Ted Cruz's chances at the polls.

ABC news had a story on the situation in Ukraine this morning, it was brief (probably less than 5 minutes long) and didn't really go into much detail other than a brief overview of "yeah, so stuff is happening in Ukraine because people disagree with the people, and both sides are warning things could get worse" overlayed with images of protesters and police setting gak on fire.

chaos0xomega wrote:
ABC news had a story on the situation in Ukraine this morning, it was brief (probably less than 5 minutes long) and didn't really go into much detail other than a brief overview of "yeah, so stuff is happening in Ukraine because people disagree with the people, and both sides are warning things could get worse" overlayed with images of protesters and police setting gak on fire.

Colbert Report is currently getting roasted for a really insensitive segment making fun of the protesters. Interesting he did enough research to find out they are, but not why or the amount of people who have died trying to throw out there corrupt government that's literally hiring thugs to beat down all there opposition.

I like that we're spending more time talking about how no one is talking about the event, then we are actually talking about the event.

 djones520 wrote:
I like that we're spending more time talking about how no one is talking about the event, then we are actually talking about the event.

I'm spending more of my time correcting others' grammar and spelling in my head, thank you very much.

The BBC World Service reported this afternoon that the president is threatening to declare a state of emergency and declare martial law, bringing in the military.

It went on to suggest this may facilitate the president calling on aid and 'intervention' from Ukraine's 'good friend' Russia.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The BBC World Service reported this afternoon that the president is threatening to declare a state of emergency and declare martial law, bringing in the military.

It went on to suggest this may facilitate the president calling on aid and 'intervention' from Ukraine's 'good friend' Russia.

What? Using a crisis to gain more power and restrict the rights of citizens? I've never heard of such a thing!
Yup, the ole' totalitarian hand book, page 47 I believe. In America we have the "War on Terrorism" as our government's excuse. As long as its in the interest of "national security" it must be alright.