bytebuster: (Unnamed04)
Igor Aizenberg: Новости из США
• На протяжении всей недели Америка практически полностью погружена в историю встречи в Trump Tower в Нью-Йорке 9 июня 2016 года сына президента Дональда Трампа-младшего, его зятя Джареда Кушнера и руководителя предвыборного штаба Манафорта, как оказалось, с целой компанией людей, которые, словно из матрешки, в течение всей недели возникали в сообщениях СМИ одновременно с опровергающими одна другую версиями встречи от Дональда-младшего и самого Дональда-старшего. Об этой истории первой сообщила «Нью-Йорк Таймс», а затем она затмила собой все остальные события и стала не просто основной, но абсолютно доминирующей темой всех американских СМИ.

Как в итоге оказалось, три высокопоставленных представителя штаба Трампа встречались с российским юристом Весельницкой, в основном специализирующейся на «деликатной» кремлевской «миссии» по дискредитации Сергея Магнитского и оспаривании в американских судах санкций, наложенных на различных российских граждан и учреждения в связи с Актом Магнитского (законом, принятым Конгрессом в 2013 году), с посредником, организовавшим эту встречу (судя по его e-mail переписке с Трампом-младшим), с британским гражданином Голдстоуном, с американским гражданином, служившим еще в советской контрразведке, Ахметшиным, с представителем семьи российского олигарха Агаларова, близкого одновременно к Кремлю и к Трампу и, по всей, видимости, являвшемуся в данном случае посредником между Кремлем и Трампом и с переводчиком Весельницкой, американским гражданином, эмигрантом из России Самочерновым, который давно работает с Весельницкой и обеспечивает ее «деятельность» по дискредитации Сергея Магнитского и Билла Браудера, американского гражданина и владельца фирмы, в которой работал Магнитский в момент разоблачения им чудовищных коррупционных схем в российских верхах.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (Villeret)
My two cents // Це усе стосується питання про називання речей своїми іменами. Істинно кажу вам: усе інше — хуйня. Важливо лише називання речей своїми іменами.
Нє, брешу. Ще одна не-хуйня — це ваші плюсіки. Голосуйте, це дійсно, важливо.


Q: Was Russia really able to solve its 'Ukraine problem' by invasion?

As far as I knew, Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join the West.

Why was joining in NATO by Ukraine was a problem? Coz, Russia wanted to maintain a buffer zone between NATO and its border (e.g. Belarus, Finland, Georgia).

Why does Russia want a buffer zone? Coz, that would give them a military advantage over NATO in the case of a NATO invasion.

Nonetheless, Ukraine is moving forward with its plan to join NATO.

My question is, since, Ukraine's NATO membership is almost inevitable, wasn't invasion of Ukraine a miscalculation and waste of time by Russia?


A:

Was Russia really able to solve its 'Ukraine' problem by invasion?
wasn't invasion of Ukraine a miscalculation and waste of time by Russia?

Yes, there was a good evidence that Russia was able to stop Ukraine by invading it, just like Russia has successfully prevented Georgia's Eurointegration by armed invasion to Georgia in 2008, with no consequences for the Russia itself.
No, not waste of time. Stopping Ukraine's Eurointegration was Russia's last chance to avoid its own fall, both as an empire and as the unite state. They understood it very well, and they did everything to keep their own country from collapsing.
Yes, they miscalculated about the world's response on their actions this time.


Before expanding on the above, let me first say that some key points from the referenced video are not very accurate. Not that I'm saying it is deliberately false, but it is misleading as it forms a wrong cause-and-effect picture in the minds of its audience.

For example, Al Jazeera's video puts presidential elections (7-June-2014) before the Russia's armed invasion to Crimea (began on 20-Feb-2014, even according to Russia's official propaganda). This may make someone think that removal Yanukovich may be the cause to Russia's armed invasion to Crimea, but it was the opposite.

Russia's medal for invading CrimeaRussia's medal for invading Crimea that clearly says that the Russia's armed invasion to Crimea started on 20.02.2014 when the marionette president Yanukovich still remained in power (Yanukovich fled Ukraine two days later, on 22-Feb-2014).

Another wrong statement is that Ukraine is "split" between Russian and Ukrainian nationals. This has been debunked many times, incl. this site, so let me not reiterate this.

There are several other inaccuracies, too. Again, I don't say that Al Jazeera is lying, but one should always keep in mind such nuances before forming their understanding about what's going on.

Read more... )
bytebuster: (IT Crowd Moss)
Сенатор Джон Маккейн пригрозив блокувати кандидатуру трампаньєткі Патріка Шанагана, висунуту Трампом на посаду заступника міністра оборони, після того, як був незадоволений відповідями Шанагана на те, як США повинні реагувати на російську агресію. (via)

bytebuster: (TapeFace)
Igor Aizenberg: Новости из США My two cents // Стаття настільки важлива, що варта публікації цілком

Об основных событиях, находившихся в центре внимания ведущих американских СМИ в последние дни. Сегодня будет «многабукав», сейчас увидите, почему.

• Америку ошеломила в пятницу огромная статья в Вашингтон Пост «Тайная борьба Обамы за то, чтобы наказать Россию за предвыборную атаку Путина», с момента публикации обсуждаемая также на всех телеканалах. Например, в пятницу вечером на канале MSNBC Рэчел Мэддоу пригласила в свою передачу одного из авторов статьи Эллен Накашиму.

Статья начинается с того, что в начале августа 2016 года в Белый Дом был доставлен из ЦРУ пакет с грифом сверхособой секретности, означающий, что вскрыть его может только президент, а ознакомить он может с содержанием только трех своих ближайших помощников (их имена не называются). В пакете содержалось сообщение директора ЦРУ Джона Бреннана, о том, что из разведывательного источника, находящегося глубоко внутри российских руководящих структур, получена достоверная информация о том, что лично Путин отдал распоряжение о проведении операции по дискредитации кандидата в президенты Хиллари Клинтон и по способствованию победе на выборах кандидата Дональда Трампа. Распоряжение Путина содержало детальные инструкции о проведении хакерских операций и информационной кампании для достижения поставленной цели.

Read more... )

Минус Катар?

Понеділок, 5 Червень 2017 19:46
bytebuster: (TapeFace)
anti-colorados: Минус Катар? My two cents // Ця стаття варта публікації цілком

Пока в Штатах набирает обороты скандал вокруг людей Трампа и его самого с представителями России, явно входящими в обойму правящего конгломерата спецслужб и расхитителей, токсичность Кремля проявилась в давно ожидаемом месте. Хоть многие наблюдатели и предполагали подобное развитие событий, но той стремительности, с которой все произошло – не ожидал никто.

Речь идет о полном разрыве отношений шести арабских стран с Катаром. Еще вчера ничего не предвещало бури, а уже сегодня оглашено совместное заявление Египта, Саудовской Аравии, Объединенных Арабских Эмиратов, Бахрейна, Омана и Кувейта о разрыве дипломатических дипломатических и экономических отношений. Причем, дипломатам дано 48 часов на выход, а гражданам Бахрейна – 14 суток. Закрывается морское и воздушное сообщение с Дохой и более того – закрывается морское и воздушное пространство этих стран, для самолетов и судов Катара. Такая мгновенная и жесткая реакция последовала без открытой военной агрессии Катара на кого-то из соседей и это наводит на мысль о том, что указанные страны не собираются спокойно взирать на вещи гораздо меньшие, чем мы получили от России. Кстати, здесь тоже очень сильно смердит Москвой и вот почему.

В декабре минувшего года, произошло довольно яркое событие, которое оставило больше вопросов, чем ответов. Речь идет о приобретении 19,5% акций Роснефти консорциумом, под флагами швейцарского нефтетрейдера Glencore. Это произошло в критический момент как для всей России, так и для Роснефти. РФ, будучи под санкциями, жестко нуждается в оборотных средствах и гаснущая экономика отчаянно нуждается в финансовых вливаниях. Понятно, что такая сделка пошла вразрез усилиям стран, которые возлагают санкции на РФ. Здесь же речь шла о единовременном вливании в бюджет РФ €10,2 [млрд].
Но самое интересное оказалось в составе этого консорциума. Из явных участников, можно было прямо назвать только двоих: Glencore и Qatar Investment Authority (QIA). Причем, швейцарцы участвовали в мероприятии чисто символически и внесли в это дело всего €300 млн. Катарцы же заявили о внесении €2 ,5 млрд. Остальные средства якобы обеспечены кредитами некого пула банков.

Не погружаясь в подробности этой чрезвычайно мутной сделки отметим, что сделка была явно инициирована Катаром, а все остальные – присоединились к ней уже на технических условиях.

Read more... )
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!

Сторінку створено П'ятниця, 28 Липень 2017 10:43

Липень 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 26 27282930
31      
Створено з Dreamwidth Studios

За стиль дякувати