bytebuster: (IT Crowd Jen)
archytector: Эммануэль


У наших «пассионарных патриотов», которые лупились по деснам с той самой Ле Пеншей, появилась хорошая возможность почухать репу и подумать, действительно ли они настолько же последовательные фашисты, как россияне или сторонники этого Национального фронта.

Нам с нашей колокольни и с нашими проблемами были действительно тяжело увидеть насколько национализм и популизм в последние годы приблизили Францию к пропасти. А Франция – это, таки, не Венгрия, если вы понимаете, о чем я.

Более того, Ле Пен – это далеко не Трамп. Это настоящая прокремлевская фашистка, которая действительно должна Путину. Но Эммануэль Макрон (ровесник нашего Гройсмана, кстати) разгромил Марин Ле Пен и все перспективы в отношении воскресения деструктивного национализма и господства на Старом континенте возрожденной имперской России под управлением царя нового типа, откладываются на неопределенное время.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (DeFunes3)
Тут цікаве знайшов:
Очень толковая статья Matthew Yglesias'а -- By firing James Comey, Trump has put impeachment on the table. В частности, эта подборка в ней хорошая.
Anonymously sourced journalism is not the same thing as sworn testimony or hard evidence. But it’s also indispensable to uncovering official wrongdoing. And Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning already brought forth plenty of evidence of wrongdoing:
  • The New York Times reports that “days before he was fired, James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, asked the Justice Department for a significant increase in money and personnel for the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election.” NBC News says it can confirm that story, as have several other outlets.

  • CNN reports that grand jury subpoenas were “issued in recent weeks by the US Attorney's Office in Alexandria, Virginia,” targeting business associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

  • A separate New York Times report states that Attorney General Jeff Sessions “had been working to come up with reasons” to fire Comey since at least last week, which partially explains why he eventually settled on reasons that contradict all of his previous statements about Comey.

  • Trump himself contradicted the stated reasons for the firing on Wednesday morning when he said Comey wasn’t “doing a good job” running the FBI.

  • A CNN report that Trump has since disputed says that Trump discussed firing Comey with Roger Stone, a longtime Trump political adviser with whom Trump has officially cut ties, and that Stone urged him to fire Comey.

  • Josh Dawsey of Politico reports that Trump “had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia.”
Some or all of this reporting may prove to be false. But it has all been published by credible journalists in credible publications. And it adds up to a very clear picture of a president deciding to fire an FBI director to obstruct an ongoing investigation and then stitching together a shaky rationalization for doing so. [...]

Congress ought to investigate what really happened here. Did Rod Rosenstein really write a memo about Comey’s handling of the emails that was so persuasive it convinced Sessions and Trump to both change their minds and fire Comey? Or, as seems much more plausible, was he tasked with writing up a memo that would validate an already-made decision on the theory that if the Trump administration aligned themselves with earlier Democratic criticism of Comey, they would be unable to knock him for the firing?

And if so, what was the real reason that Comey was fired — and how did it relate to the president’s anger over the Russia investigation and its forward progress?
bytebuster: (Default)

Q: Why did Ukraine give up nuclear weapons through Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances?

Through Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons between 1994 and 1996. According to the same source:

Before that, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical if not operational control.

The signatories offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for
its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

According to this article, this decision was not a wise one:

"As soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent," the University of Chicago scholar wrote in a 1993 Foreign Policy piece. "A nuclear Ukraine ... is imperative to maintain peace between Ukraine and Russia. ... Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee."

Question: why did Ukraine apparently give up the nuclear weapons so easily? What did it gain to counterbalance giving up to such a strategic advantage?


A:

Because it was a mutual effort of the West and the Ukrainian people.

It is undeniable that the West levied formidable pressure on Ukraine to dissuade it from holding onto its nuclear weapons. It is also undeniable that the nuclear disarmament of the post-Soviet successor states came at a low cost for the West […]
Yet it must be acknowledged that, ultimately, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons not because of Western pressure or of the things it thought it got in exchange, but because of the country it wanted to be: part of Europe and of the community of nations that are bound by common rules and values."Was Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament a blunder?" by EuroMaidan Press

Read more... )
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Jen)
О, яке чтиво я знайшов!
Q: Could the British government un-trigger Article 50?

At some point, probably early in 2017, the British Prime Minster is likely to trigger Article 50. A number of expert commentators and a large proportion of the British public still believe that it is a mistake for the UK to leave the EU. If it becomes obvious within the two-year countdown that triggering Article 50 was a bad idea, would it be possible to 'retract' a declaration under Article 50 and remain within the EU or would the UK be treated as a new applicant? How would this depend on whether this was supported by other EU members or not?


І докладна відповідь (читайте за посиланням; тут лише вирізка):

Article 50(3) provides that "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period".

It seems clear to me that the word "unless" (emphasised by me above) was intended by the drafters to cover the circumstances under which the rule which comes before it can be ignored. There is a principle of statutory interpretation, "the express mention of one thing excludes all others" (in latin: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius). The drafters of Article 50 have provided exactly one method of avoiding EU withdrawal 2 years following notification (in the absence of a withdrawal agreement) after the word "unless": unanimous agreement of the Council to extend the period for reaching agreement. Or to put it another way, it unambiguously states that unless there is a unanimously agreed extension, then the Member State will no longer be in the EU either after 2 years from notification, or in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. If the drafters had intended for a notice to be revocable, then they had their chance to provide for this after the word "unless". They didn't, so we must assume that it wasn't intended for this to be possible.

Another compelling argument is the actual provision for extending the 2 year period in which agreement must be reached, which requires unanimous agreement of the other Member States via the Council. Allowing a notice to be withdrawn would essentially make a nonsense of this provision, as a Member State wanting to extend beyond 2 years could simply withdraw their notice and resubmit it the next day, thus gaining an additional 2 years without any agreement from the other Member States. It can't have been the drafters' intention to allow this requirement to be so easily circumvented.

bytebuster: (Idiots)
Про жабогадюку :)

What are the current military objectives of Rojava(Syrian kurds)?

The relations of various factions in syrian war seems to be very complicated, as can be seen in this image.

Read more... )

Considering the Rojava, it seems like they are been supported by both Russian and US coalitions, and also by the Syrian Opposition, despite the fact that Russia is against Opposition, and US and Russia are against each other. Also Rojava is not liked by Turkey(as evident from the blockade turkey put ahead during kobane siege), even though Turkey is ally to US. This likely makes taking any hard stance difficult for Rojava.

As currently they are bordered with various factions, as shown in this image(YPG/SDF control, YPG is major part of SDF and is mainly Kurdish), what are their current objectives?
Syria control of terrain

Are they mainly looking to control and defend kurdish populated areas, or fight against ISIS, or to capture Turkey controlled regions, or is it something different?

bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Перепост допису [personal profile] skittishfox: Що ж відбулося в Сірії
Довго думав, що ж мені страшенно нагадує уся оця метушня в Сірії.

Та нарешті згадав:



My two cents Дашикі ваащє лапочка.
«You can take Dashiki out of the hood, but you can never take the hood out of Dashiki» ©
bytebuster: (Default)
Кльове запитання на Politics.StackExchange і кльові відповіді. Щиро раджу!

What specifically did Michael Flynn do wrong?

These are the three things which I understand about the situation:

  • He potentially discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador
  • He misrepresented or lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador
  • He was vulnerable to blackmail

This information has been published by many news organizations, but here's a specific source for the information above.

I have two questions about the current situation:

  1. Was the content of Flynn's discussions with the Russian amabassador illegal? If so, why?

  2. Why did he resign? Was it because of one specific bullet point listed above, or was it the combination of all three and the ensuing bad press?

bytebuster: (Alf)

Remember that dossier on Trump and Russia? Here are 16 reasons we now know it wasn’t “fake news.”


My two cents // Схоже, за Трампа і його московських трампаньєток взялися всерйоз. Кльове чтиво на вихідні.

Donald Trump continues to characterize the issue of his ties to Russia as “fake news,” and many in the GOP have colluded with him to avoid establishing a bipartisan independent investigatory body. But one of the central public documents at the core of the controversy continues to haunt them all.

Both CNN and Buzzfeed recently published contents of what came to be known as the Trump kompromat or Steele dossier. After it was published, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit the document and to create sufficient confusion as to deflect from the implications of its contents.

Here are 16 things we know:

Read more... )
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Originally posted by [profile] grzegorz_b at А вообще да, кацапы идут к Третьему Риму/Рейху
Умные это поняли в 1993 году (расстрел "парламента").
Середняки поняли это в 1994. После дирижерства.
Северный Карлик в 1999 был просто подтверждением.



bytebuster: (Villeret)

Q: Why is visa-free travel such a big deal in politics?

There is currently a motion within the European Parliament to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians. However for some reason I don't understand why it's such a big improvement - most Ukrainians who wanted to visit the Schengen area already have a visa, so it won't affect them. Likewise it won't significantly help Ukraine's economy as EU citizens can already travel there without a visa.

What are the reasons for treating a new visa-free agreement like a huge event?


A:

Yes, many would see the visa-free travel to the EU as an important thing, and the key words here are: reputation, acknowledgement, and recognition.

The EU officials make a clear link between the Ukraine's elimination the corruption and organized crime and, on the other hand, receiving the visa-free travel.


Visa-free travel is often perceived as an ability to hand your passport to the Immigration officer on the border and get your entry permit.

But inside, the process is much more complicated.
During maybe one minute, the officer must get enough information about the traveler: their criminal record, for example.
When you apply for the visa normally, a Consulate does essentially the same, but they have dramatically more time than an officer at the border check.

So, visa-free essentially means that a country X trusts the country Y:

  • integration of the databases between the countries;
  • sharing the criminal and financial records and other similar data;
  • recognition that these data are not forged;
  • effective prosecution of people who are accused in corruption, organized crime, etc.;
  • acknowledgement, formally declared in international agreements, plus hundreds of smaller technical regulations;

Ukraine Before

Read more... )
bytebuster: (Villeret)
Я тільки тепер зрозумів, що мені нагадують трампові манери. Авжеж! Це манери п'яної людини!

bytebuster: (ДеФюнес1)
My two cents Ай, який кльовий наброс на вентилятор!
Андрей Шипилов: Рыцари платка и зонтика

Эту информацию мне передали неделю назад. Исключительно для того «чтобы я ее имел ввиду». С запретом на публикацию деталей, разрешили дать только самый короткий бриф, что я и сделал. Сегодня с утра позвонили и сказали, что «будет лучше для всех, если я опубликую».
Публикую.

Суть информации сводится к тому, что в последние дни разразился грандиозный конфликт между спецслужбами России и КНДР, который грозит бросить сильную тень на традиционную дружбу между двумя странами.

А интрига этого конфликта тянется в далекие 70-е годы прошлого века.

В 1978 году товарищу Юрию Андропову передали просьбу товарища Тодора Живкова помочь ликвидировать болгарского диссидента Георгия Маркова, живущего в Лондоне. Никаких политических и вообще каких-либо рациональных причин для такой ликвидации не было, просто Георгий Марков нанес большую личную обиду товарищу Тодору Живкову. Изучив вопрос товарищ Андропов счел, что убивать Маркова не по чексистским понятиям, и запретил КГБ учавстовать в этом деле. Но поскольку и ссорится в Товарищем Живковым было не к чему, он разрешил передать болгарским товарищам спецсредство — зонтик с приспособлением для инъекции микрокапсулы с ядом рицином.

Весьма специфичесим белковым ядом, отравление которым невозможно обнаружить, если заранее не знать о причине смерти.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Q: What specifically did Michael Flynn do wrong?

These are the three things which I understand about the situation:

  • He potentially discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador
  • He misrepresented or lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador
  • He was vulnerable to blackmail

This information has been published by many news organizations, but here's a specific source for the information above.

I have two questions about the current situation:

  1. Was the content of Flynn's discussions with the Russian amabassador illegal? If so, why?

  2. Why did he resign? Was it because of one specific bullet point listed above, or was it the combination of all three and the ensuing bad press?


A:

Basically, he resigned due to violating the Logan Act and causing embarrassment to the Trump administration.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (CH-biang3biang3mien4)
Роджер Уотерс заспівав веселу пісеньку про Трьох Трампенят. (via)
Roger Waters - "Pigs (Three Different Ones)"

bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Мені одному здається, що Міхо перестав готуватися до виступів? Бо оце, якщо чесно, реально ппць, а не виступ.



(за наводку дякувати шановному френду [personal profile] chabapok)
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Jen)

  Виталий Портников: Эффект Трампа
My two cents // Коли малограмотний дібіл лізе керувати Лайками в Інтернеті, Лайки і Інтернет починають керувати дібілом. І скаржитися дібіл віднині може лише на себе і своє недолуге оточення.
Портніков смалить напалмом. Читати, конспектувати і запам'ятовувати побуквєнно!

Совершенно не важно, является ли подлинным компромат, который появился в американских СМИ накануне инаугурации нового президента Соединенных Штатах. В современном мире важность компромата – не в его подлинности, а в том, что он подтверждает уже имеющиеся подозрения.
Эффект компромата – не в том, что он подтверждается весь, а в том, что рано или поздно находят подтверждение какие-то упомянутые в нем детали, пусть и не очень существенные, и тогда обыватель начинает верить, что подлинной была вся картина. Особенность восприятия компромата – в том, что обыватель верит не в то, что произошло в результате его обнародования, а в то, что могло бы произойти в случае, если бы компромат был бы подтвержден.

Именно так было с электронной почтой Хиллари Клинтон – большинство американцев, которые хотели ее «наказать» за использование частной почты для государственной корреспонденции, очень плохо понимали себе последствия такого использования – не мнимые, перспективные, а реальные.
Но зато Дональд Трамп очень хорошо понял это обывательское восприятие – и блестяще его использовал.
Он задал тренд, которого не было – что серьезный, уважающий себя политик может использовать приемы из арсенала маргиналов.
Read more... )
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Вангую, що в якийсь момент часу усі розумні республіканці співатимуть приблизно так:

Сторінку створено Субота, 27 Травень 2017 11:41

Травень 2017

П В С Ч П С Н
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 262728
293031    
Створено з Dreamwidth Studios

За стиль дякувати