Padraig

37 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Is there an organization or entity that looks to guarantee, with enforcement, Palestinian rights or civil liberties? 

Isn't that the problem that people are trying to solve?  Setting up such an entity.

Less rhetoric, more common sense.

Very interesting.  Erdogan won last year in similar conditions but he wasn't running himself this time, which probably did matter.

There is a question about whether this is his last term.  He is 70 years old and his final term is supposed to end in 2028.  But there could still be shenanigans (e.g. apparently if they call for early elections, he is entitled to run since he didn't complete his full term).  The repeated failure of his party when he doesn't run may give him pause for reflection.  But he did say very recently that this was his last election.  Before he lost.

On 3/24/2024 at 6:38 AM, Bironic said:

Liberal Pro EU and opposition candidate Korcok wins the first round of the presidential election in Slovakia. Runoff against Pellegrini, the candidate of the current government is on April 6th.

Pellegrini must be favourite for the run off though, as the guy who came third seems much more aligned with him than Korcok.

Yes.  Weird to be a little down hearted by a championship success but we started on a high and its been downhill since then.  And even that high against France was probably a lot due to their WC hangover.  The Scottish game was frustrating to watch.

So, lots of questions.  It will be curious to see what happens on the tour to South Africa in the summer.

This is a good article on views in Europe about Ukraine.

Here is the full article.  Long though.

Probably more pessimistic than I was hoping for but it does play up the (lack of) leadership angle, which is what I have been thinking about.  Here is the conclusion...

Quote

European publics are not feeling particularly heroic. They appear sceptical that Europe’s support alone will be enough to lead to Ukraine’s victory. But they are not inclined to appease Putin either. A plurality of Europeans believe that, in the event of change in the United States’ position, the EU should either maintain or increase its support for Ukraine.

Politicians will not (and should not) design their policies around opinion polls. And it is clear that the EU and member states have an imperative to continue supporting Ukraine. Polls, however, can help to show leaders where things stand with the public, and how politicians can best make the case for the right policies. In this sense, European leaders – who for the last two years have sustained support for Ukraine and who recently adopted a €50 billion aid package for Kyiv – should find our results both sobering and encouraging.

The map of public opinion shows that many people in Europe believe that the war in Ukraine is a European war and that Europeans will be mostly responsible for its outcome.

When the war started, the major clash in Europe was between those who believed that Ukraine should win (the ‘justice camp’) and those who preferred the war to end as quickly as possible, no matter the cost for Ukraine (the ‘peace camp’).

But now a different division may be emerging around the idea of what achieving peace would mean. That is, many Europeans could now see some form of settlement as peace; others may hold onto the idea that the only peace is a Ukraine with its pre-2014 borders reinstated.

This new dichotomy could be due in part to the prospect of Trump’s return, which is already reshaping the choices that European leaders are facing. The danger is that Trump – and Putin, who has hinted that he is open to negotiations – try to portray Ukraine (and its backers) as the ‘forever war’ party while they claim the mantle of ‘peace’. 

It is crucial for Ukraine and its European backers to do all they can to prevent this distortion of the truth. The challenge is to define what being in favour of ‘peace’ means in practice. European leaders could begin by making a distinction between a ‘durable peace’ and ‘peace on Russian terms’. If people see that a Russian victory would involve stopping Kyiv from fulfilling its European aspirations, they can appreciate that this kind of peace would not just be a defeat for Kyiv but one for Europe too. 

This framing of the argument would put Kyiv in a better place to cope with any moves by Trump – or Putin – to change the debate. Many European leaders realise that Ukrainians will struggle to achieve any meaningful settlement from a position of military weakness. And Europeans will only have the moral right to advise Ukraine on its war aims if they have delivered the money and weapons they promised. What is more, meaningful security guarantees from the West and EU integration are likely to be the only way to convince Ukrainian society to accept any territorial sacrifices.

As Europe and the US enter election season, the quest to define peace will thus be a critical battleground in this war. Leaders will need to find a new language that resonates with the current sentiment if they are to maintain public support for Ukraine.

The best way to mitigate against war fatigue will be to define this idea of ‘durable peace’. Russian victory is not peace. And if the price of ending the war is turning Ukraine into a no man’s land, it will be a defeat not only for Kyiv but for Europe as a whole. In the event of negotiations, it is essential for both Ukrainian and Western publics to know what is on the table and what is not. What is not negotiable is Ukraine’s democratic and pro-Western future.

8 hours ago, Bironic said:

True that they are not actively supporting Putin as some feared but they're also not supporting Ukraine (even though you could make the argument that the previous government has given as much as they could, so there's not that much left to give anyways)

Meloni yes she has been surprisingly vocal in her support for Ukraine. But there are three major caveats to that: the highest ranking military officer in Italy has said that there's a limit to what Italy can afford to give, two parties in her coalition are Putin friendly and a large block of her own party is as well... All of that is probably the reason why Italy has been quite underwhelming when it comess to actual military help for Ukraine (rather than words)...

In other words, ignoring Germany, there is not a huge drop in support in Europe (to bring us back to how this started).  There was always some Putin friendly politicians but if Italy can't afford to give anything to Ukraine, that's primarily an economic factor not a Ukraine factor (and existed at the start of this conflict, its not new).

I think the media is rather lazy about this topic.  They see what is going on in the US and just applied it everywhere to make the story simple.

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

In Slovakia a pro russian government was elected (not necessarily because it was pro Russian but it was a side effect). In Italy two out of the three parties in government are pro Russia and the third one is halfway there. In France there is a reasonable chance that the next president will be pro russian (either right wing extreme or left-wing populist), in Germany you have constantly around 40 % of the population that thinks there should be less or no military aid to Ukraine. In the US Trump and the Republicans have a reasonable chance to win the elections (white house and/or Congress) If you look at the statistics who supports Ukraine and who doesn't do as much, you have a clear divide within Europe/the West and there is no sign that the countries that are at the lower end will step up, while there are clear indications that the more supportive countries seem to run out of material, money etc.

I don't agree with most of that also.  The biggest party in the Slovak government is friendlier towards Russia (but it wasn't the main reason it was elected, as you say) but the other parties are not.  When it was elected, I feared they would back Hungary in its maneuvering against Ukraine but Hungary was left on its own.  

Meloni in Italy has also been surprisingly positive on Ukraine.  There was a headline in the NY Times only a few days ago saying that "Biden Unites With an Unlikely Ally to Champion Ukraine".  The unlikely ally being Meloni.

In any French election, Russia isn't going to be the driver of votes but even Le Pen has put some distance between herself and Putin.

Germany, I give some credence since it has a post world war reluctance to get deeply involved in wars, but i'm not sure I believe the 40% figure.  Another I imagine the financing angle is driving more negativity than in other countries.

I'll ignore the comments about the US since I explicitly said I was talking about Europe.

There is a question about throwing more and more money at Ukraine.  I touched on that in my last email.  There is definitely some leadership lacking on that side.  Although, the EU did get a major 4 year package agreed for Ukraine only in February.  Generally, I think Scholz makes people jump to the wrong conclusion because of his dithering.  As he is reacting to shadows, when he could be leading on things.

2 hours ago, Bironic said:

The support for Ukraine is waning in a lot of countries and the idea of becoming ever more involved in this war is less and less popular. The destruction of the Kerch Bridge is seen by a lot of people and politicians as an "escalation" of the war and thus should be avoided if possible. Aside from the fact that a lot of military analysts think that the destruction of the Kerch bridge is not really useful and tactically not very sound anyway, even if it were possible...

I'm not sure about all of that.  I've seen surveys that say that other Europeans are much less confident that Ukraine can win the war.  But I haven't seen anything in Europe that says that there has been a significant increase in people thinking  European countries should reduce their involvement.  I could easily have missed some surveys in other countries though.

For example, I doubt many Europeans know anything about the Kerch bridge. If they are asked about it, the way they are asked about is would be very leading.

People are probably worried about whether Europe has a plan around Ukraine and would be unsure of spending money on something when a plan doesn't exist.  But that isn't the same thing as not supporting Ukraine.

13 hours ago, DMC said:

To be clear I wasn't intending to cast any aspersions at all on anybody else's opinion, just thought the coincidence was very amusing.

And you are right!  Shows that I should always read the preceding posts before I post!

19 hours ago, DMC said:

So, I see within the last 24 hours we've had people rewatch Godfather and LOTR with decidedly negative feedback.

I do think Godfather is a work of genius at least!

I finally got around to watching movies from the early 2000s.  That means Lord of the Rings.  Hate to say it, didn't hold up.  I really loved them when I watched them originally but this time all the flaws really jumped out.  The never ending Gollum scenes  I had forgotten how late the Shelob stuff was.  The elves, Gimli, Denethor.  The same things people have been complaining about for the last 20 years.  The first movie is by far the best.

Not that they are bad movies.  I just had built them up far more in my mind.

I did also see Almost Famous.  This seemed more magical, conversely.  Or maybe when you are older, you simply dig nostalgia more.

And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  Truly imaginative but brutally honest.  Great movie.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Power can collapse very suddenly, in the kind of tyranny where a tyrant depends, largely,  upon threats and bribes to keep control.

True.  But it can also last till the guy dies of old age.  Speculating about it seems kind of pointless given it is unknowable until something happens.  If it ever does.

While Ireland did well in the first half but the second half was not easy to watch until the end.  Scrum improved a lot but lineout was very shaky.  And then we started giving away a lot of silly penalties.  Ended up with a bonus point but certainly opened the door a little to Wales first.

Just now, Conflicting Thought said:

meh this is a typical anti communist argument, very lazy, very reductive. though the propaganda against communism is very strong as seen here, and i guess i agree that mentioning communism does garner anthipaty,

It sounds like you know something, the rest of us don't? 

When most people think of communism, they think of the USSR and its vassal states.  Hardly something to aspire to.  But sure, if you think of something more positive (Marxism or socialism?), good for you.  But it is certainly going to mislead people.  I'm not sure why you'd want to purposely mislead people.

I'd say that every country (including the US) has some level of socialism and capitalism.  All people are arguing about is where to balance things.

The problem with Big Pharma is that something like oxycontin should be one big conspiracy theory but its actually depressingly true.  Vaccines read much better.  In the end, while regulations are normally the whipping boy from capitalists, they are more essential than ever.

30 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Educated myself a bit on the Subianto. Nasty man tbh, certainly a war criminal due to his career in the indonesian military dictatorship under Suharto, including invasion of east timor etc., Son in law of Suharto, made a deal with Jokowi to secure the presidency. Quite Pro western and anti-chinese given his career.

Yes.  He and the new Vice President are not the most reassuring choices but hopefully it will be ok.

7 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Khan wanted to maintain relations with everyone and the Mighty West can’t have countries getting these weird ideas and going for this “aggressive neutrality”.

I don't think Khan's problem is that he fell out with the West though.  I don't think he particularly was "in" with the West in the first place.  At least once his political career became fruitful.

He had more internal problems.

6 hours ago, Bironic said:

Prabowo Subianto has won the presidential election in Indonesia. One of the largest states in the world. The election has been described as free and fair, which is not common for the region… He used to be military under dictator Suharto, and his prime minister is going to be the son of current popular president Jokowi…

Yes.  Interesting election.    One of the economic success stories in recent years, while embracing democracy, which seems to be rare these days.  The other interesting election recently was in El Salvador.  The implications there seem more ominous, beyond just El Salvador too.

Sure.  All I’m saying is that if there is a will, there is a way.  Although I thought we were referring to EU spending on military.

On 2/11/2024 at 10:31 AM, Bironic said:

Rich western countries don't want to pay for poor, corrupt, instable eastern countries, it's as simple as that (Mexico, Cuba and Guatemala would also never be accepted as 51 state, hell not even Puerto Rico is).

Just to go back a couple of days but I wouldn't say that is the full picture.  The EU has a rational side and an idealistic side.  After the Cold War ended, it saw an opportunity to finally bring peace and harmony right across Europe with the accession of the 10 Central/Eastern European countries in 2004, and Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia followed a few years later.

Those countries were certainly much poorer than the EU average before they joined.  This was the EU in idealistic mode.  Although, there were economic advantages in having them join also.

The tide did change after accession though.  The EU isn't designed to have so many countries.  The only way to solve that issue is to give more power to the EU itself but that would be to the detriment of individual countries, which most countries are wary of.  The rise of Orban in Hungary also crystalised the fact that being a member of the EU wouldn't in itself mean fully democratic.  Which made countries wary of allowing more countries to join.  But yes, the EU countries are also reluctant to throw money at other countries given internal needs.

But the tide has changed on that again with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  Now the "peace and harmony" angle is back.  I would expect more countries to join but the process will be more difficult than previously, as the EU will manage the criteria more strictly.  Except for Ukraine possibly but they have further to go, so that doesn't change much.  I doubt we'll ever see anything close to allowing 10 countries join, just because of the challenges involved with new members.

Although, that said, I do wonder when the EU faces up to its institutional challenges.

On 2/11/2024 at 10:31 AM, Bironic said:

There was no majority for a NATO or EU accession in Ukraine before 2014, hell even the prowestern politicians Yushtchenko and Timochenko were split about it, and ca. 50% of the population was pro Russian.

Even there, I don't fully agree.  Up to 2014, Ukraine was trying to balance itself across two stools.  Pro-EU and Pro-Russia but that eventually became exclusionary.  You had to choose.  The Ukrainian government choose Russia, there were mass protests and off we went...

EU accession was not on the table at that stage.  It was just closer ties with the EU.  If there had been a referendum on the issue who would have won?  I imagine most people would have wanted both but if they had to choose one?  Given the way things had gone in Ukraine, there seemed to be a trend back to the EU in 2014 (after a swing back to Russia a few years before), so I suspect the EU but I couldn't say for sure.

23 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Indeed, being hamstrung by being in the Euro makes it very hard for those countries to suddenly pump more money into the military without taking it away from other spending priorities or raising taxes.

I don't believe that.  If enough countries wanted to pump money into the military via the EU, it would happen.  The EU is relatively slow but it is flexible.  It is all about compromise.

EU countries want to control their own military.  Or are happy with NATO.

I would be less pessimistic about Europe than others, accepting that it is generally slow.  So it will hope things around it move slowly too.  If not, then I would worry.

On 2/10/2024 at 11:16 AM, ljkeane said:

Speaking of the Under 20's I thought Ireland looked really impressive winning away in France too but they scraped a win at home against Italy last night. We might have to reassess the relative strengths of the sides this year.

Yes.  A bit of a wake-up call.  France did have a good win against Scotland at U20 level but the simplest explanation is that England is the favourite at U20 level given that it seems to have easily dismissed both Wales and Italy?

Ireland had an ok win at senior level.  Ireland made a lot of mistakes but were never under any real pressure.  Harder games to come.

And the U20s won in France too.  That's a good sign for the next 4 years.  France may not put as much focus on the 6 Nations U20s but beating them in France is no small thing.

Great win for Ireland.  France may still be in shock from the WC.  It was almost sad to see our line out so strong, since if that had held up during the WC, we could have gone a lot further.  Scrum did struggle a little though.  But still, i've never seen us dominate France for such a long stretch of time (first 35 minutes of the game).  So we have to be very happy with most parts of the game. 

Crowley was reassuring, given he is still so inexperienced.  Going to France and winning is a great way to start for him!

The other games looked interesting enough also.  Might be an interesting tournament.

23 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Better guess is political powerplay.

That sounds like internet (perhaps Russian) manufactured nonsense.

Given Ukraine could be fighting this war for years, I really doubt Zelensky is thinking about post war elections.  He will want the army to be lead by the person he believes can win them the war.

It has been widely reported that they have fallen out since the failure of the summer offensive and they have publicly clashed a few times since then about the state of the war.  You really don't have to go searching for "why" beyond that.  Rightly or wrongly, Zelensky has lost faith in Zaluzhny.

The EU funding is positive at least, although it was clear a month ago that some sort of package would be agreed.  The US aid has always looked much more perilous.  Probably more so now.

19 hours ago, Altherion said:

However, when the handouts are financed by debt, the government is effectively increasing the amount of money in circulation without having changed anything else.

Well yes, that is the basic economic theory but it obviously did change other things.  Lots of people would have been sacked or furloughed, and would have no money.  And then they were given some assistance.

When it happened, economists didn't expect this level of inflation would be the result, so I would need to see a lot more evidence to justify any categorical statements about it being the main cause of the recent spike in inflation.  Economists spend most of their time being wrong.

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

A large fraction of it was direct handouts to individuals and businesses (which are purely inflationary)

Why?  I understand that it can be inflationary but you make it sound that it is inflationary as a rule (and significantly so, not that is causes a barely measurable blip).

Economics is way too nebulous for me to easily accept definitive rules, especially during COVID where things were exceptional.  So I can understand why HoI is questioning stuff also.

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

The supply shocks also play a part and profit-seekers will undoubtedly exploit opportunities to raise prices, but the money being spent must come from somewhere and in this case that was certainly the government.

Money came from all kinds of sources e.g. some people were able to save money during the pandemic (e.g. they weren't able to travel) and they then spent it afterwards.

Obviously the money the government gave was also spent but that was the whole point of it.  It was to replace the money that would be spent if people hadn't lost their jobs during the pandemic.  (Some obviously benefited more than that).

I find reading economic parties quite boring because they are riddled with techno speak (so I could miss stuff) but I haven't seen this research which says the majority of the inflation was driven by government support.  HeartofIce's info talks about 60% of the inflation was due to demand shocks, 40% due to sectoral supply shocks.  But you'd have to divide those generic terms into lots of subcategories to dive into specific factors.