Ukraine 11: Russian lies, guns, and money

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I was gonna pitch in with 'RB is good people but I agree that if even Scott isn't making a spin-off thread to continue this, we should probably wrap the discussion coz we're not in the emotional frame for it. But I see y'all got there first but also Scott did suggest a spinoff. 

Anyway. In other news. This thread is mostly focused on the immediate on-the-ground consequences of the war, obviosuly, but I just watched Real Life Lore's vid summarising some longer term and more international consequences and while most of it wasn't new news to me, just a good summation, I hadn't really known about or considered the importance of wheat from that area of the world to the Middle East and North Africa, and that could cause big problems. Like Lebanon imports 60% of its wheat from Ukraine apparently, and their reserve silos were mostly blown up by the Beirut explosion, so they only have a month's reserve. They were already in the shit - they're gonna struggle. And they're not the only ones. Pretty scary thought. 

 

Dr Sarah Taber is a tight follow on AG related stuff. 

 

 

[Rippounet]

14 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Certainly learned that. Wasn’t the appropriate place to bring these thoughts into.

Quite the contrary. You were absolutely right to voice your unease and objection(s) here and now, and I find it reassuring and heartwarming that you did.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So let's do better, or is that too much to ask?

By doing what?  Creating an entirely new international organization and not allowing Russia to join?  Again, what would that accomplish?  Also, that's pretty much NATO already.

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, JEORDHl said:

Dr Sarah Taber is a tight follow on AG related stuff. 

 

I used to follow her, unfollowed coz I saw repeated rumblings that she's a bit of a faker that I could never quite shake reading her after that...

...but in any case, while not wrong, that thread doesn't really do anything to counter the existence of immediate problem, which she mentions but kind of skates over, which is that countries in MENA don't have the wheat supply they've had, and while it's easy enough to say 'it's a shipping problem the wheat is there'... while it might not be 25% worldwide it apparently is 60% into Lebanon and that's just not gonna get solved in a couple months, especially since Ukraine is relatively nearby whereas the other sources she mentions... well, aren't. The wheat might exist but it's not there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary. You were absolutely right to voice your unease and objection(s) here and now, and I find it reassuring and heartwarming that you did.

But a separate threat to discuss these issues in the abstract may receive fewer flames.

[RhaenysBee]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary. You were absolutely right to voice your unease and objection(s) here and now, and I find it reassuring and heartwarming that you did.

Maybe, but it was kinda lofty and insensitive to get lost in the topic to this extent when the practical reality of the war is far more important than my thoughts about morality. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

By doing what?  Creating an entirely new international organization and not allowing Russia to join?  Again, what would that accomplish?  Also, that's pretty much NATO already.

Russia is now a pariah state. Is there anyone disputing that?

If we generally agree that's the case, how can we move forward with them having the ability to veto serious and necessary actions, including oversight of themselves? It's not going to work as presently constructed. Idk how anyone can deny that, shitty as it is.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia is now a pariah state. Is there anyone disputing that?

A whole lot of nations, IMO, including the most important ones: China and India. 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

If we generally agree that's the case, how can we move forward with them having the ability to veto serious and necessary actions, including oversight of themselves? It's not going to work as presently constructed. Idk how anyone can deny that, shitty as it is.

It worked with them (and China) being significantly shittier as well as the US being pretty shitty. The UN simply isn't meant for things like dealing with massive nuclear powers being really bad. 

And being a pariah still does not deny you being in the UN - North Korea is still a member. 

The whole point of having a UN is having everyone in it, regardless of anything else. Kicking people out is entirely against the whole idea of it. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

If we generally agree that's the case, how can we move forward with them having the ability to veto serious and necessary actions, including oversight of themselves? It's not going to work as presently constructed. Idk how anyone can deny that, shitty as it is.

Um, anyone can deny that because the United Nations never has been designed to provide oversight on the five permanent members of the security council.  In fact, the constraints we're discussing were precisely designed to ensure that never happened.  If you don't want to accept that, that's your own deal, but you seem to be acting like there's something we should be doing about it when there's clearly nothing that can be done about that will accomplish anything.

[mormont]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So let's do better, or is that too much to ask?

The problem is you don't want it to do better, you want it to do a different job.

The UN has condemned the invasion: it's done what it is there to do and it actually did it reasonably well. If you want it to also kick out a permanent security council member or strip Russia of rights, you're asking that the UN take on a completely different role than it exists to fulfil, and in fact to do things that would undermine its role.

The G20 can and should kick Russia out. The UN can't and shouldn't.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 I still think Fukuyama’s thesis is poor.

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

huge amount of low-key, low-visibility good work they do through disaster relief, famine relief, medical work and vaccine programmes (

You mean, like bringing typhus and rapists to Haiti after the earthquake?

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I hadn't really known about or considered the importance of wheat from that area of the world to the Middle East and North Africa, and that could cause big problems. Like Lebanon imports 60% of its wheat from Ukraine apparently, and their reserve silos were mostly blown up by the Beirut explosion, so they only have a month's reserve. They were already in the shit - they're gonna struggle. And they're not the only ones. Pretty scary thought. 

A good call out.  While a lack of wheat effects everyone, you just go to think about vaccines to realise who is going to suffer most from this.

And the UN is what it is.  I'm a big fan even if it fully reflects all our faults.  Maybe because it reflects all our faults.

[JGP]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I used to follow her, unfollowed coz I saw repeated rumblings that she's a bit of a faker that I could never quite shake reading her after that...

...but in any case, while not wrong, that thread doesn't really do anything to counter the existence of immediate problem, which she mentions but kind of skates over, which is that countries in MENA don't have the wheat supply they've had, and while it's easy enough to say 'it's a shipping problem the wheat is there'... while it might not be 25% worldwide it apparently is 60% into Lebanon and that's just not gonna get solved in a couple months, especially since Ukraine is relatively nearby whereas the other sources she mentions... well, aren't. The wheat might exist but it's not there.

I hadn't seen any of that before [the criticism] Good to know. 

[Zorral]

"Viktor Orban, Hungary's authoritarian leader, calls Zelensky an 'opponent' after winning reelection"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/03/europe/hungary-election-results-viktor-orban-intl/index.html

Quote

.... "We will remember this victory until the end of our lives because we had to fight against a huge amount of opponents," Orban said, citing a number of his political enemies including the Hungarian left, "bureaucrats" in Brussels, the international media, "and the Ukrainian president too -- we never had so many opponents at the same time." ....

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

"Viktor Orban, Hungary's authoritarian leader, calls Zelensky an 'opponent' after winning reelection"

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/03/europe/hungary-election-results-viktor-orban-intl/index.html

 

Was it a fair win?

[Martell Spy]

30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Was it a fair win?

 

Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?

Quote

Fidesz has dominated the political landscape since the 2010 election. The opposition remains fragmented, and opposition parties increasingly contend with obstacles and restrictions that detract from their ability to gain power through elections. These include unequal access to media, smear

campaigns, politicized audits, and a campaign environment skewed by the ruling coalition’s mobilization of state resources.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary/freedom-world/2021

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

The problem is you don't want it to do better, you want it to do a different job.

The UN has condemned the invasion: it's done what it is there to do and it actually did it reasonably well. If you want it to also kick out a permanent security council member or strip Russia of rights, you're asking that the UN take on a completely different role than it exists to fulfil, and in fact to do things that would undermine its role.

The G20 can and should kick Russia out. The UN can't and shouldn't.

And I would argue Russia's existence on the security council undermines its fundamental role and importance. You cannot have an unserious actor in that position and Putin's Russia has made it clear that it's not tethered to reality. 

[Darzin]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I would argue Russia's existence on the security council undermines its fundamental role and importance. You cannot have an unserious actor in that position and Putin's Russia has made it clear that it's not tethered to reality. 

Stalin and Mao both had seats on the council so I think it can survive Putin. The purpose of eh security council is to prevent the binding of the major powersby the UN so it's doing what it is supposed to. The UN works at all because it's a world forum kicking Russial out just turns it into the league of nations 2.0.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I would argue Russia's existence on the security council undermines its fundamental role and importance. You cannot have an unserious actor in that position and Putin's Russia has made it clear that it's not tethered to reality. 

 I'd rather have every possible avenue open when it comes to being able to deal with any country that could create a nuclear winter.

Even if you were able to somehow kick them off the security council it's not going to make anything better or give you more control of the situation.  

[Fez]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

It's Article 108, which requires the approval of all five permanent members:

 

Getting way off topic here, but something I've always been curious about is how, legally speaking, the Republic of China (aka Taiwan) was removed from the security council. They had the seat from the UN's founding until 1971; and then it seemed enough countries just decided to force a change? I guess the key difference is Taiwan didn't have nuclear weapons too maintain its status.