World Politics

[blutto]

...things in Poland is getting real strange...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"WARSAW, Poland - A threat by Poland's president to strip an esteemed Polish-American scholar of a state honour in punishment for work that exposes uncomfortable historical episodes of Polish anti-Semitism has infuriated many people in Poland and abroad."

...and...

"The move against Gross is part of a broader effort by Poland's new conservative ruling party, Law and Justice, to focus on honourable episodes in Polish history and fight any messages that the new leaders feel are harmful to the country's image."

....and this bit of bs that is just breath-taking in its audacity...

"Liberal Poles accept the overwhelming evidence of Polish guilt in the Jedwabne massacre and have supported public apologies for it. But supporters of Law and Justice and other right-wing Poles argue that the Germans inspired the massacre and armed the local thugs — and that Polish society should not be saddled with the blame."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/polands-threat-strip-scholar-state-honour-sparks-anger-153242958.html?nhp=1

....though given that Poland was the home to several "black sites" used in pursuing the war on terror this kind of behaviour should maybe not be seen as a huge surprise....

Cheers

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Interesting article on censorship in Russia:

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/15/putin-doesnt-need-to-censor-books-publishers-do-it-for-him/

I am a Russian journalist who writes books in English. Only one of my books, about a mathematician, has been translated into Russian. The rest, it seems, have struck publishers as politically risky. Several publishers have inquired about buying the rights to a biography of Putin that has done very well in another 20 or so languages, but each time, negotiations have ended with a vague, “Well, you must understand,” often followed by an even vaguer “Maybe some day.”

The Soviet Union had censorship. Every publishing house and media outlet had its own censor, accountable to the censorship authority, who read every manuscript before it could be published. The censor worked with a complex but intelligible set of criteria. Some writers, both Soviet and foreign, were off-limits because they had been critical of the Soviet Union. Some topics were off-limits — one might argue that most topics, from state secrets, which included most of the country’s history, to sex, which included so much as the mention of genitalia, were off-limits. Literary styles were scrutinized, and whatever was not “socialist realism” was usually off-limits.

Prior censorship was outlawed in Russia [some time after the fall of the Soviet Union]. In the last 15 years, though, Russia has introduced a slew of laws and practices that have restricted publishing in ways that are much less clear than the old Soviet system. Danishevsky swims in murky waters. Like all editors, he engages in constant negotiation. It quickly emerges that all sorts of people are constantly telling him what to do

The fear of the censor has been replaced, to a great extent, by the fear of losing money. If a publishing house puts out a book that stores will not sell, it will face losses. Like when Danishevsky was readying an edition of the Russian emigre classic Romance with Cocaine, from the 1930s, and could secure no pre-orders. None. Booksellers were worried about the ban on the propaganda of drug use, which has been used to confiscate even harm-reduction booklets put out by AIDS organizations.

This is where things get complicated. The Russian reading public’s tastes have distinctly narrowed in the last few years: All the publishers I interviewed for this series mention that readers increasingly reject serious topics, be they politics or, say, cancer, in favor of escapist entertainment (so Danishevsky has named his most serious series Anhedonia). Then again, the Russian public’s tastes have been heavily influenced by the onslaught of official propaganda of which the censorship laws are but a small part. The ban on “homosexual propaganda,” for example, was a minor component of a major anti-gay campaign. As it turns out, bookstores fear their customers more than the law — or, they fear their customers before they fear the law.

The strange setup, in which the objects of potential censorship are running ahead of actual censors, has turned unlikely citizens into enforcers. These are library patrons who demand that certain books be banned, policemen who regularly visit Phalanstere to take books “for inspection,” the anonymous people who called the police to report certain books in the first place, and, of course, those who self-censor. For instance, the police came to Phalanstere a couple of months ago and removed a book on the Koran and an academic book on the period of the Khrushchev thaw, probably because its cover featured a classic Russian and Soviet protest slogan: “For your freedom and ours.” The police never return the books, Kupriyanov says, even though Phalanstere, unlike some booksellers and librarians, has not yet been dragged into court.

In 2005, someone set fire to Phalanstere, badly damaging the space and destroying the bulk of its books. During an unrelated trial a few months ago, one of the defendants, a member of a far-right nationalist group, testified that he had taken part in the arson along with a member of the Kremlin-affiliated youth movement Young Russia. This confirmed what Kupriyanov had suspected all along.

I am not surprised by this at all. I have also heard that some previously common history texts in schools are no longer allowed to be used and some teachers have been sacked for taking a stand on the issue. When you read what Russia has banned or wanted to ban over the past few years it's Looney Tunes similar in some ways to the religious right in the USA. Altering classic texts like Huckleberry Finn, editing movies and re-releasing them as so called family movies and so on.

 

[python]

i find it curious that the european members of the forum (who probably constitute a majority but instead post on the us elections) haven't posted about the brussells mtg. quite an important and interesting complex of issues is at stake if not the eu future altogether.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

not that i will shed many tears certainly fewer than if trump (or even hillary) occupy the white house.

 

[blutto]

....some good news...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yesterdays attack in Ankara has moved less than expected. While the Turks would like to enter Syria and fight the Syrian government troops as well as the YPG they are to afraid of the Russian forces to go alone. NATO and the U.S. are for now unwilling to give them any cover."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/02/no-strategic-changes-after-ankara-bombing.html

Cheers

 

[python]

^^that bolded bit is cerainly a good idea, and everything i read confirms the nato/us reluctance, but i am skeptical it will stop erdogan.

skeptical for several reasons:

1. the us nato leadership under obama is considered weak by the increasing number of both allies and non-nato members. it could be just a perception - and i actually think the us in syria is showing a willingness to learn from its failures in iraq, lybia etc, but that very perception is enough for a wild dog like sultan to fork up, especially if he think he's defending turkey's security as the nationalist fever whips him. also, check the 'emergence' of the saudi coalition or bilateral deals btwn the russians, israelis etc
2. just in recent months, erdogan on several occasions showed that he will not hesitate to act alone or w/o a prior endorsement from nato (ex.: sending toops to iraq, shooting down a russian plane and now shelling the kurds...)
3. as the military history teaches, it is easy to create a situation (a provocation, actually) that would look and sound innocuous, but in reality would act as a hook dragging everyone into fighting via upholding mindless and automatic alliances and allegiances (ww1 scenario...). lets call it 'a security zone for the refugees'
4. And finally, if one was to objectively look at the declared turkish goals in syria and the actual achievements, it is rather clear it was a walk from one abysmal failure to another.

-get rid of assad ? well, that's a pipe dream now...
-a no fly zone ? well indeed one was created. by the russians for turks...
-overt and covert arming the 'rebels' ? well, no more, they are now cut off from the turkish border lifelines...
-'no kurds west of euphrates will be allowed' ? well, that may be still holding but the taking of azzaz by the kurds is now a matter of days...they moved from the east instead!

iow, so many failures make wild dogs into mad dogs !

 

[Amsterhammer]

EU has just announced that the Britain in/out talks have been extended for a final 12 hours. If no agreement is reached by then, Britain can *** off. Seriously, I would be happy to see them leave.

 

[python]

Re:

i find it curious that the european members of the forum (who probably constitute a majority but instead post on the us elections) haven't posted about the brussells mtg. quite an important and interesting complex of issues is at stake if not the eu future altogether.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

not that i will shed many tears certainly fewer than if trump (or even hillary) occupy the white house.

i wonder what news has been delivered since my post almost a day ago about the same subject i found curiously lacking a discussion

 

[Amsterhammer]

Symbolic white tweets have appeared, in lieu of pieces of paper. They seem to have a deal.

 

[python]

a 'deal' has imo always been the only outcome b/c the dealers (after all) cant go back home w/o a deal indicating they have failed...the question is what are the areas of their compromise ?

the uk/eu split was/is in the 4 major and distinct areas...some, imo reasonably raised by the britts (like the local benefits obligations etc and their duration for non-brits) to an obviously arrogant british interference into the euro zone currency choices they explicitly chose to forfeit in favour of their own pound sterling. such are the brits --- always being on the edge of europe but unwilling to accept a less than a major european role.

 

[Amsterhammer]

According to Cameron just now, 'Europe' has capitulated to every British demand.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Literally can't believe what I'm hearing from Cameron. I can't believe that the rest of the EU didn't tell them where to go.

 

[python]

the euronews reports ' the deal was according to the uk proposals' and that france and beilgium weren't full on board during the talks.

it sounds like the eu has indeed capitulated. the lesson is - if you are a lightweight like greece you'll get forked in every orifice unless you bulk up like the brits.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Literally can't believe what I'm hearing from Cameron. I can't believe that the rest of the EU didn't tell them where to go.

the euronews reports ' the deal was according to the uk proposals' and that france and beilgium weren't full on board during the talks.

it sounds like the eu has indeed capitulated. the lesson is - if you are a lightweight like greece you'll get forked in every orifice unless you bulk up like the brits.

Yes, but Cameron is selling it, as expected, not merely presenting it, and his coevals on the mainland are backing him up. The devil is in the details. What kind of agreement did they actually make?

In any event, if you care about the concept of the EU - or for that matter the reality of it - and if you care about "ever closer union" and eventually arriving at a federal state, then it seems to me that you have to be in favor of keeping the UK in the EU. Because the EU is stronger with the UK; and, also, as long as the UK remains, there remains also the prospect that UK will, eventually, realize the need to better integrate itself.

 

[blutto]

....here is something from The Atlantic that seems very note-worthy ( ..especially given that its pretty high up the official food chain...not quite on the ex cathedra level but close enough...)....and this comes along with some reports from some , errr, off the beaten track sites that are mumbling about the Saudis having nuclear weapons ( bought from Pakistan supposedly )....an attempt to make themselves a real problem maybe , like , don't mess with us cause we can cause some serious damage....but that is a very speculative side issue....the article is a very interesting read and quite critical of the Saudis....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preparing for the Collapse of the Saudi Kingdom

It can’t last. The U.S. better get ready.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/saudi-arabia-collapse/463212/?

Cheers

 

[blutto]

....some comments about the Syrian situation...the following is a little strange but hey its a really weird situation...

"Making predictions about what the Turks and their Saudi friends will do makes no sense. We are clearly dealing with two regimes which are gradually “losing it”: they are lashing out at everybody (including their US patrons), they are terrified of their own minorities (Kurds and Shia) and their propensity for violence and terror is only matched by their inability in conventional warfare. Does that remind you of somebody else?

Of course! The Ukronazis fit this picture perfectly. Well, guess what, they are dreaming of forming an anti-Russian alliance with the Turks now. Amazing no? Just imagine what a Ukrainian-Turkish-Saudi alliance would look like: a real life “Islamo-Fascist” gang of thugs combining hateful fanaticism, corruption, incompetence, violence, strident nationalism and military incompetence. A toxic combination for sure, but not a viable one."

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/week-nineteen-of-the-russian-intervention-in-syria-would-russia-use-nukes-to-defend-khmeimim/

Cheers

 

[Brullnux]

BoJo campaigns for Brexit.

Selfish, opportunist, classless move for a classless buffoon of a politician. Purely motivated by self-interest. Nothing else. Just two or three weeks ago he was talking about how he would like to stay in a reformed EU as everyone thought Theresa May had already established herself as the anti-EU candidate for the 2020 Conservative leadership campaign, but then a week ago or so she said she will campaign to stay. That left a gap open for anti-EU candidate and in slides Boris. It's not like he believes that leaving the EU is better for the UK. He doesn't believe that it makes it safer, or that it's better for the City and business, or particularly believes in reducing immigration. At least Farage, IDS and co actually have reasons for not wanting to stay in it, even if you disagree with them. Which, as they come from IDS' mouth, you should, as nothing comes out but complete bull****; poor-hating, welfare-chauvinist bull. Apart from some 'the EU is not democratic' rhetoric, which is hyprocritical considering he supports the House of Lords. You know, the well known very democratic second chamber of the U.K. whose makeup is wholly decided by whoever the incumbent PM is.

He is doing it so that he gets the support of 106 (maybe more) Tory MPs that want to leave, and thus they support him in the Conservative leadership election and he gets into the final two, where he has just gained the support of the many grassroots Tories who wish to leave. Basically, he's playing to win. And win he very well might.

If Britain votes to Stay, then Cameron will be boosted. I will not be surprised if he does a quick mini-purge of IDS who is already hated by 90% of Britons, and a few others who campaigned against him. Not Boris, though. He will then lend his support to Osborne in the leadership election who will create an army of loyal-to-Dave MPs around him. Boris will have been hurt: he might not even run. He will have realised that on a national scale his support is not as strong as in London. Ofc, you also have the problem that he struggles to string two coherent sentences together in his press conferences. This will hurt among older Tories, who still remember the eloquent forceful speeches of Thatcher, who has basically been imitated by Osborne. It will be brought up time and time again. He cannot promise another election soon as moderate Tories will realise the nation has spoken that is their will. Hardline Tories will not be fazed by it. He may lose support of a lot of the MPs too, who might end up going to May or Osborne. Most likely, he'll still be the candidate in 2020, unless it's a 60/40 vote. However, at the election, he will not have the vote of the 50+% of the people who voted to Stay, along with the 10% who vote UKIP and the 5-10% of others (not Tories) who'll vote to Leave. This will hurt him in the General, even up against Corbyn, who is starting to really emulate Attlee pre-PM by being basically a non-entity. He needs to become more passionate when he talks if he's to win.

If Britain votes to Leave, then the real question then is if Cameron will resign. He has lost support of most the party: almost all of the grassroots and half of his MPs. I imagine Johnson will get 15 MPs to issue a vote-of-no-confidence against Cameron, which then the Tory MPs will vote in. Then the question is who replaces him? Will there be an election? I imagine not: difficult logistically and will ruin any remaining bargaining power in the EU. And if Corbyn wins due to the split among the Tories then who knows what will happen. The Conservatives cannot risk losing. They will not be ready by September 2016 for a General. They wouldn't even have a leader if Cameron were to go. That is another problem: who will be leader? Will it be Osborne, supported by donors and the cabinet, or Johnson who has his reputation intact by campaigning to Leave? If Johnson is leader then the EU will not concede anything, as he has campaigned out, despite all the concessions already made. If Osborne is leader then maybe some, but he will have no bargaining power post-exit as he was not there at the recent negotiations. Difficult one for the Tories. Good news is UKIP will die, as their only goal has been achieved.

The split here in the party is enormous. A part of me hopes it rips the party apart and by 2020 we have Osborne led Conservatives, Johnson led New-Conservatives and a dying UKIP occupying a small space on the right. This is a much bigger problem than any the Labour Party is facing despite all the media coverage.

Just to prove my point about him not actually believing in leaving, he has just suggested the idea of leaving, renegotiating a 'better deal' then rejoining. http://www.theguardian.com/politics...dicules-boris-johnsons-second-referendum-idea I'd never thought I'd say this but Cameron looks like a really decent guy next to Johnson, which is saying something. He has just shot himself in the foot. No one can really believe that he truly wants to leave. He wants to Stay, but politically it is better for him to campaign to leave. He is lying so viciously, on such an important matter that it is a new low even for a Tory. A 'Better Deal'?! Cameron got everything he asked for! I'm surprised the EU didn't just kick us out! They definitely will if Johnson tried to renegotiate.

 

[python]

just got home...turned up the euronews:

The us and russia had just agreed on the cessation of hostilities, or a seizing fire in syria, starting this sat, 27th february. the conditions and the framework are guaranteed by both the us and russia. otherwise, those not abiding may be attacked by both militaries, if i heard it right.

i haven't seen any links yet, but if true it is a significant development.

 

[Jagartrott]

God I'm hoping for a Brexit, so that we can get rid of these eternal fence-sitters that still think they are part of a global empire. And then let's see what that does with the Scots independence struggle.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

To the contrary I believe. The British have been playing the mole in the EU for a very long time now - a game that they have played many times before in European politics the past century. The EU should be for the willing, not for those that want to have it totally à la carte (which is a 'contradictio in terminis' of such a union, of course). This also goes for countries like Poland, that have received 100 billion euros EU support the past 7 years, but now give the middle finger when asked to house a minimal number of refugees, and some more middle fingers by voting new laws in contradiction with the core values of the EU. The EU has been far too soft for far too long.

 

[Brullnux]

Renzi was quite strong with Hungary and Poland. I was pleasantly surprised. Coupled with his anti-austerity approach, he has finally succumbed to 'Dì qualcosa di sinistra!'

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

God I'm hoping for a Brexit, so that we can get rid of these eternal fence-sitters that still think they are part of a global empire. And then let's see what that does with the Scots independence struggle.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

To the contrary I believe. The British have been playing the mole in the EU for a very long time now - a game that they have played many times before in European politics the past century. The EU should be for the willing, not for those that want to have it totally à la carte (which is a 'contradictio in terminis' of such a union, of course). This also goes for countries like Poland, that have received 100 billion euros EU support the past 7 years, but now give the middle finger when asked to house a minimal number of refugees, and some more middle fingers by voting new laws in contradiction with the core values of the EU. The EU has been far too soft for far too long.

Entirely agree. Like the old saying, 'shat, or get off the pot'.

 

[python]

Re:

God I'm hoping for a Brexit, so that we can get rid of these eternal fence-sitters that still think they are part of a global empire. And then let's see what that does with the Scots independence struggle.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

To the contrary I believe. The British have been playing the mole in the EU for a very long time now - a game that they have played many times before in European politics the past century. The EU should be for the willing, not for those that want to have it totally à la carte (which is a 'contradictio in terminis' of such a union, of course). This also goes for countries like Poland, that have received 100 billion euros EU support the past 7 years, but now give the middle finger when asked to house a minimal number of refugees, and some more middle fingers by voting new laws in contradiction with the core values of the EU. The EU has been far too soft for far too long.

you are preaching to the choir. if you read my opinion (just above) about the british euro role in general or the brexit in particular perhaps you wouldn't.

where we may differ is the eu functionality. not entirely, but i had become a euroskeptic. to me, an almost 30 head monster is dysfunctional by definition. don't get me wrong, there is a positive inherent core to the euro idea. but not the way it is constructed now.

had it been otherwise, the euro bureaucrats would not surrender to almost all british demands after so much posturing'. they would also not 'rape' greece during the last standoff if the elementary sense of responsibility governed the unlimited earlier euro loans to an obvious bankrupt govt. in both of the examples it was the short-term goals that governed the eventual decisions. even your concern with poland, which i share, was the result of the similar short-sighted mindset. that is, a too hasty an expansion of the eu to the east. those societies were and still are not ready for a bumpless incorporation. the same haste, if not a grave political blunder, the eu is now showing in ukraine where the neo-nazi elements make the hungarian and polish nationalist look like children... the ukraine case is a special topic, but look at the turkey eu association... more ill-considered bows and insincere promises to a non-european value system. all to just ease up the headache called 'refugees'.

many of those poorly conceived designs were NOT the result of someone's ill will, rather a mindless automatism, almost a routine procedural mindlessness, emanating from a 30-head monster which can not think as one. just cant by definition.

under those circumstances i'd hardly blame the uk for being selfish.

 

[gooner]

Jeez,

Hakan Sukur could be getting a 4 year sentence for insulting Erdogan on twitter.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/turkish-football-charged-insulting-president-erdogan-hakan-sukur?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[blutto]

....Dada does Syria:The Musical....nicely scored and good words too, eh...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/23/a-dose-of-dadaism-to-call-the-sultansaudi-bluff/

Cheers

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

not entirely, but i had become a euroskeptic. to me, an almost 30 head monster is dysfunctional by definition. don't get me wrong, there is a positive inherent core to the euro idea. but not the way it is constructed now.

had it been otherwise, the euro bureaucrats would not surrender to almost all british demands after so much posturing'. they would also not 'rape' greece during the last standoff if the elementary sense of responsibility governed the unlimited earlier euro loans to an obvious bankrupt govt.

I'm beginning to see the point of view of the UK euroskeptics. If you take them at their word, they object to lack of democracy and transparency, and to what is effectively taxation without representation. You mention Greece. That would seem a perfect example of what the euroskeptics object to, and must have been for them a cautionary tale.

This is from an article in the New Statesman that accompanies an interview with Yanis Varoufakis:

Days before Varoufakis’s resignation on 6 July, when Tsipras called the referendum on the Eurogroup’s belated and effectively unchanged offer, the Eurogroup issued a communiqué without Greek consent. This was against Eurozone convention. The move was quietly criticised by some in the press before being overshadowed by the build-up to the referendum, but Varoufakis considered it pivotal.

When Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the European Council President, tried to issue the communiqué without him, Varoufakis consulted Eurogroup clerks – could Dijsselbloem exclude a member state? The meeting was briefly halted. After a handful of calls, a lawyer turned to him and said, “Well, the Eurogroup does not exist in law, there is no treaty which has convened this group.”

“So,” Varoufakis said, “What we have is a non-existent group that has the greatest power to determine the lives of Europeans. It’s not answerable to anyone, given it doesn’t exist in law; no minutes are kept; and it’s confidential. No citizen ever knows what is said within . . . These are decisions of almost life and death, and no member has to answer to anybody.”

Now, if you're in the UK looking at this, it has to give you pause. Why, they ask, are we subject to laws and policies that are decided by people we haven't elected and who are answerable to no one?

I haven't followed the EU that closely, so maybe someone who has can help me out. What I don't understand is this: why don't these supranational bodies such as the eurogroup consist of elected representatives from each member country? If they did, the EU would have transparency and the beginnings of a federal system.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

....Dada does Syria:The Musical....nicely scored and good words too, eh...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/23/a-dose-of-dadaism-to-call-the-sultansaudi-bluff/

Cheers

That was awesome. Great find.