• 2 Posts
Joined för en månad sedan
Cake day: feb 20, 2023


Yes, it’s voted for by the parliament, which EU citizens vote for. Representative democracy. And can absolutely be held responsible by the people. The EU parliament can dissolve the comission if wanted.

Well for those 600 years they were Swedes. So I guess? Anyway, so Sweden could potentially claim the parts with a Swedish majority at least?

Haha yes, and Russia penalizes not participating.

Have you heard of the EU parliament? The one that EU citizen vote for?

The banks had the western countries force Ukraine to oust their leader who shot protestors which were angry over said leader who made a 180° turn towards Russia?

They’re imperialist though. Putin is raging about restoring the old Soviet bloc and these states not having a justification for existing outside Russia. And then invading another sovereign country with that excuse can’t get more imperialist.

And Finland belonged to Sweden for 600 years before Russia took it. Are Sweden allowed to invade and annex Finland? Of course not. And great voting lol. Vote yes or risk being shot.

Russia could just pack their shit and leave Ukraine. Solved.

Probably financial aid to keep the state functioning. Paying out pensions, wages for the government workers, keeping hospitals running, buying food and arms for the army and such. The regular costs to keep a country going. Last numbers I saw Ukraines economy shrank by 20% after a year since Russias invasion. Most of the aid from the EU is financial and not arms.

Isn’t it fairly cheap for the specs it have?

Neat! There’s also Fairphone if you want a phone with changeable parts.

The result of Russias imperialist action. Last Hitler, now Putin. Hopefully Ukraine will manage to drive the invaders from their territory and that all nations respect international law…

Foreign relations

You don’t have to know every partys platform to have a grasp about the politics lol. No, you made statements which I adequately replied to.

Well, thanks for the last word then I suppose.

Oh I have a pretty okay understanding about Ukranian politics since Euromaidan and the start of the war. I also think that I have a good grasp on why Zelensky was so popular. I suppose you believe yourself to have an equivalent grasp of it?

Since you won’t point out any faults in my comments, I’ll take it as there are none?

Well I reread the thread and no, it’s unclear. Could you please specify?

Sorry, what?

I think I made a pretty good point? There’s pictures of old elections showing a divided Ukraine chosing between Russia and Europe. I provided pictures of a more recent election showing a broad support, bridging that divide, for a pro-EU party with a presidential election with the same result.

What did I get wrong?

Well you said their party platform was about normalizing relations with Russia and implementing the Minsk agreements and I couldn’t find anything about that other than maybe restoring the territorial integrity and state sovereignty of Ukraine might include that since Zelensky talked about holding fair and free elections there.

The pictures posted before my replied gave the impression that you had two sides with one wanting to close ties with the EU and one with Russia. Since they were old elections from 2004 and 2010 the one from 2019 gives a much more different picture, telling us that the party with a platform of relaunching their relations with their western neighbours and implementing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and expand cooperation with the EU and NATO had a broad support over the country, not dividing it in two halves. So that’s why I included that if that’s what you mean. Otherwise I don’t quite follow what you’re asking.

Sure, I can explain the meaning of democracy for you again. :) It’s when the people have a say in either who will represent them or direct influence of legislation.

Where did I state that Russia had something against Ukraines relations with the west?

In that case you could say that North Korea is a democracy since almost 100% of the voters vote for Kim Jong-Un. I’m sure that you agree that that is rubbish.

Anyway, this obviously proves that the meaning of democracy is debated and not true for all, making the first comment true.^^

So I looked up their party platform of 2019, and it said that their goal was to restore the territorial integrity and state sovereignty of Ukraine. That might include the Minsk agreements, since I remember Zelensky talking about having free and fair referendrums in Donbass and Luhansk regarding autonomy.

However, nothing about relations with Russia, only stuff about implementing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and expand cooperation with the EU and NATO. Also something about relaunching their relations with their western neighbours?

What relevance does it have if it works or not? This is the actual meaning of democracy, from ancient Greek? You can tell them they got it wrong if you want but I hardly think they care.

Why did you ask if you already knew?

There were posted images of old elections, giving the impression of a country divided by pro-europe or pro-russia when in 2019 there was a big support for the pro-EU and pro-NATO party all over the country. Just wanted to provide some context there.

Ultimately, democracy means that the people can elect either their representatives or directly influence legislation. Democracy from demos (people) and kratos (rule). What matters is that people can chose who they are being represented by or how legislation will be themselves.

You could definitely argue that a democracy could elect a government that works against their interest. Like the US as an example.

No idea, I’m not ukranian! You’ll have to search for that yourself.

Oh my, I’m not going to continue this. I was curious about your claim of IAEA sideing with Ukraine and I got an answer for that, thank you.

Here’s a link to the 2019 presidential election if you’re interested. Zelensky is in green.

This is the result for the Servant of the People (Zelenskys party, which is pro EU and pro Nato)

No lol. But some of your reasoning is based on untrustworthy news outlets. As well as the video you uncritically linked tells me that maybe you’re not that picky with reliable sources. ^^

It is true that the Ukraine did hinder the IAEA from entering the occupied power plant, but that would argue that they wouldn’t side with the Ukraine. Your reasoning is contradictory and mostly based on unreliable news sources is all I’m saying.

Who knows. Or maybe they shelled those ukranian commandos you wrote about. The russians haven’t really been that careful about their troops in a nuclear environment.

Yes, and it was unclear who made them according to credible news sources. So it’s bold to say it’s Ukraine firing on their own staff, their own power plant and risking a nuclear accident in their own country? Can’t read russian and a Moscowbased newspaper is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Neither the iranian one… :P

Yes it seems like the ukranians was afraid that letting the IAEA in to inspect while Russia still controlled the power plant would somehow ‘cement’ their position there? Strange reasoning. Anyway, you claim that the IAEA sides with Ukraine even though they supposedly where hindered by them, glad to be protected against them and even pushed a statement reafirming Russias narrative about a ‘special military operation’. That’s an interesting train of thought.

Btw a quick web search can tell you that the subs in that video isn’t true.

Exactly. And I think that they also wouldn’t increase their arsenal to show that they don’t want to aggrevate the situation back to the cold war. Maybe Russia will say that since the US is modernizing it’s arsenal they will have to do the same?

IAEA taking a side, that’s an interesting claim? Can’t find any verified sources about Ukraine firing at their own nuclear power plant, can you provide one? Seems weird that they would risk such a huge catastrophe in their own country even though the russians in breach of the Geneva convention stationed forces there.

Probably. Interesting enough all of these except India, Pakistan and Israel (which claims to have no nukes lol) have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons where one of the pillars is decreasing their nuclear arsenals… One atomic bomb is one to much tbh. :/

Hopefully neither part will increase their nuclear arsenal. However I doubt that the US would even if Russia did.