|
V. Illych L. posted:right but there's no formal suspension of the normal way of doing things, in which case the suppression of news outlets from unfriendly countries must be interpreted within the EU's normal institutional framework. such suppression does not obviously gel with a deep, institutional commitment to free speech.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
I don't think European countries would be particularly opposed to a foreign government taking targeted steps to sanction media properties of a hostile power as part of an international conflict. It just isn't the same as banning domestic outlets, or foreign ones without a diplomatic explanation and a clear delimitation of grievances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
i agree, but that's not the statement i'm presently locked in trying to defend, so i'm afraid i'm going to have to let that thread dangle for a bit. we'll have to wait and see how it shakes out, also - it's very possible that in this instance the americans decided to seriously put their foot down and herded the cats that way, for example
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't think European countries would be particularly opposed to a foreign government taking targeted steps to sanction media properties of a hostile power as part of an international conflict. It just isn't the same as banning domestic outlets, or foreign ones without a diplomatic explanation and a clear delimitation of grievances. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60257581
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Next time the D&D leftists call the EU an institution of liberal free market fanatic ghouls or whatever, I'll be sure to remind them how the 2022 freezing of Russian financial activities clearly put the lie to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/bbc-ban-02122021134227.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Next time the D&D leftists call the EU an institution of liberal free market fanatic ghouls or whatever, I'll be sure to remind them how the 2022 freezing of Russian financial activities clearly put the lie to that. aaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhh
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
That was weeks before diplomacy between Russia and the EU broke down, while Russia was denying anything was going on. Europe wasn't banning Russian media at the time either. Ironically that would have made Europe justified in taking retaliatory measures without being hypocritical, except the EU showed srong adherence to freedom of speech in NOT responding in kind until Russia started a war in the neighborhood. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
look you can't just say "THIS is the level at which shutting down press institutions doesn't constitute a restrictive attitude to free speech", that is nonsense which allows you to, effectively, say "we are good and they are bad" which is exactly what orange devil was criticising we *do* criticise foreign countries for this sort of behaviour. there's no real principle at play here, this is just the EU deciding to shut down an inconvenient media outlet controlled by interests deemed hostile. that is not unheard of and it may very well be the right course of action but it seems to have real friction with the statement that the EU has a deep, institutional commitment to free speech
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
It doesn't you are just being willfully dense and having one of the stupidest arguments over (misinterpreted) semantics I've ever seen. There are clearly established norms for this sort of things, the fact you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
what are those clearly established norms and where are they established
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:look you can't just say "THIS is the level at which shutting down press institutions doesn't constitute a restrictive attitude to free speech", that is nonsense which allows you to, effectively, say "we are good and they are bad" which is exactly what orange devil was criticising Free speech has well-accepted limitations, certainly in Europe, and even in the US: defamation, conspiracy, hate speech, fraud, etc. It’s not unreasonable nor devoid of a rational basis to shut down propaganda outlets supporting an entity while imposing sanctions on the same entity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
morothar posted:Free speech has well-accepted limitations, certainly in Europe, and even in the US: defamation, conspiracy, hate speech, fraud, etc. yes, fine, but then you're putting geopolitics above your deep institutional commitment to free speech. as i've noted before i think that can be acceptable, but it's placing us in the same general area of behaviour as actions which our own state media has been happy to criticise. like, i'm not arguing the morality or the appropriateness of the reaction here, i've got a pretty narrow point which i made and to which people objected, and which i'm now defending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yes, fine, but then you're putting geopolitics above your deep institutional commitment to free speech. as i've noted before i think that can be acceptable, but it's placing us in the same general area of behaviour as actions which our own state media has been happy to criticise. Which of these is “geopolitics” and not commonplace jurisprudence: defamation, conspiracy, hate speech, or fraud? There is absolutely no contradiction between being deeply committed to the principle of free speech, while recognizing and practicing its limitations. It’s codified into every current body of western law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
the executive shutting down an unwelcome foreign news source cannot be reasonably said to fall under any of those categories because the way you typically prove such things is by prosecution in a court of law the procedural part here is an important part of my argumentation. had RT been dodging their taxes, broken some content-directing law (not that these aren't often problematic re: freedom of the press but in principle) or failed to file for some kind of licence it would be a very different situation
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the executive shutting down an unwelcome foreign news source cannot be reasonably said to fall under any of those categories because the way you typically prove such things is by prosecution in a court of law Free speech by a propaganda entity in the service of a hostile foreign power can be limited easily in the interest of “public safety”. And you have the process backwards. The executive can absolutely shut down an unwelcome foreign news source in the interest of public safety as rational basis. The recourse is for the news source to sue for an injunction as well as subsequent damages. Should the executive have acted without a legal basis, or overstepped, the injunction will be granted, and the damages will be awarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
right so the sort of thing we complain about when the russians or the chinese, do it
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
I have to agree with VIL in all this. I understand why the EU et al blocked RT, etc but I do worry it's a bad precedent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:right so the sort of thing we complain about when the russians or the chinese, do it Except for the minor detail that you won’t be able to cite a single instance that’s remotely comparable, you mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I have to agree with VIL in all this. I understand why the EU et al blocked RT, etc but I do worry it's a bad precedent. Irregardless of any conflict there's going to be censorship. Even if the countries aren't directly involved in it. I mean this happens on the opposite end of the spectrum regardless of what precedent has been set. The fact that this is happening is proof perfect that it could happen at any time. The question is are enough people paying attention to it to notice? Had this Ukraine thing ended in a day or two most of these sanctions wouldn't even exist. Russia today wasn't blocked for what like a week? This thing is an opportunity, and banning the material convincing the people of the opposite is tantamount. Europe needs a national defense. And I'm using the term national as in the European Union as a nation. I think in the world now, there's enough options and rules to follow to make your military defensive if you choose to. A huge uptick in anti-missile and artillery defense, fortified civilian areas, POW channels and heavy rules set can actually work . If you pay your soldiers and feed your soldiers they will commit less war crimes. Especially if you educate them more So Europe can choose to make a European defense Force with the actual intention of defending Europe without being militaristic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I have to agree with VIL in all this. I understand why the EU et al blocked RT, etc but I do worry it's a bad precedent. Every european country has provisions for blocking websites, radios, televisions and newspapers if they start shilling illegal nonsense. This is not the first and it won't be the last. I am more irate about this action be so late than the action itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
VIL is my mortal enemy, but I agree with them on this. This shut down wasn't done right, and probably should not have happened in the first place. It's an overreaction that I prefer to the typical EU underreaction, but in an ideal world, we would have sued RT and Sputnik if there was something there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 08:44
|
|
|
This is neither am ideal world, nor an ideal time. If the EU wanted to shut them down via judicial decision, they should have started the process years ago. But that's not what they did, due to their far too naive and too absolute commitment to freedoms of speech and enterprise, and the action they are taking now is in an entirely different institutional ballpark as a retaliation against an enemy power. Let's talk about it being problematic if they don't lift the ban after - if relations with Russia become normalized. Until then, unless you are also deeply concerned about frozen oligarch assets and travel restrictions for Russian air lines, this is hypocritical concern trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 08:50
|
|
|
Uhmm, VIL isn't arguing whether or not the shutting down of RT is right or wrong, he's arguing that it demonstrates that the EU is not deeply institutionally committed to free speech as an ideal. I agree with him. He's also arguing that, again irrespective of whether shutting down RT is right or wrong, it is the type of thing which the EU criticizes other countries (and ideological rivals in particular) over all the time. Which I also agree with. And I would add that those criticisms from the EU are always voiced in the type of language that pretends the EU is deeply institutionally committed to free speech, which as we're arguing, is shown to be false. So starting from those two points I will go one further and say that we can conclude that the EU pretends to be deeply institutionally committed to certain ideals, including free speech, primarily to use as a weapon against ideological rivals. Haramstufe Rot posted:It has nothing to do with propaganda, it's a consequence of the EU founding principles. This is not an all-or-nothing affair, by the way. Ideals do not disappear with hypocritical actions, as long as the organization or person in question still genuinely strives towards them, or defines their identity by them. This is a crazy definition of ideals to me. Ideals aren't what you talk about, ideals are what you do. And you're going to have to make one hell of a case that the EU at the very least genuinely strives towards ideals such as respecting independent countries. How many times do you get to support a coup or an invasion before it turns from an oopsie to a revealing pattern? So to be clear I am not saying we should "give up our ideals". I am saying that examining the historical evidence I must conclude the EU never held those ideals in the first place and certainly does not currently. I also think this is bad, because many of them are certainly my personally held ideals, and I would prefer to live under a government structure equally committed to them, which is why I keep voting for parties promising to radically change the way the EU conducts its business. Haramstufe Rot posted:This is the crux though: There are many reasons why Ukraine could not have realistically become an EU or NATO member - at least in time. The major reason is that we simply could not have imagined that Putin had outright expansionist ideas. Until last week, many of us still bought the idea that NATO was somehow encroaching on Russia. Haramstufe Rot posted:Putin literally intends to destroy Ukraine. That's all there is to it. Stop pretending there's another out here. Haramstufe Rot posted:Well here I think delivery of medicine, food and weapons is the primary thing we can do. Economic sanctions might help the resistance in the long run, but I do not expect them to break the Russian military in the short term. Right so this is where I start to get very uncomfortable about the disconnect. Let's say for the sake of argument that Putin is indeed nakedly expansionist with no other motivating factors then wanting to paint the map his colour as if he were playing a Paradox game. Or even go further and hold that Putin is Hitler and Russia is Nazi Germany and intent on the total destruction of Ukraine and possibly the total eradication of the Ukrainian people and who knows who else? What should our response be then, if we really believe this to be true? Because if we really do believe this to be true, our actions seem wildly incongruent given how timid they are. Should we not immediately extend NATO invitations to, say, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia? Perhaps even Belarus in an ultimate attempt to drive a wedge between Lukashenko and Putin? If we believe the most extreme versions proposed by some posters in this thread, should NATO not immediately institute a no fly zone over Ukraine and mobilize its ground forces to go in and drive the Russians out? All the while accepting the huge risk of nuclear war this would bring? Because that to me is the only logical endpoint of some of the arguments being presented here. To me you sound crazy going "Putin is trying to utterly destroy Ukraine" and then in the next breath saying "and that is why we must institute economic sanctions and deliver food, medicine, and relatively small shipments of weapons". Like, in what world is this an appropriate response? Again I want to reiterate my point that this is why it is crucial not to immediately treat bad things that are happening as if they are automatically the worst possible thing. Furthermore, I think (or certainly hope) most in this thread do not support the most extreme scenario I just outlined, and certainly our leaders do not. And they have been and continue to be very explicit about that since before the war started. So given that, I do question what exactly the plan is when we support sending western nationals as volunteers and sending western weapons. It is not difficult now to imagine a situation in which western citizens, potentially with western military training, equipped with western weapons, and with the (tacit, but in some cases explicit) support of their governments, end up in a direct firefight with the Russian military. If Russia were to take that situation and go "hang on, doesn't this just mean we are at war with one another?" then uhh, they have a bit of a point? And again, there is a certain existential risk here getting into a war with a nuclear power. So given that our leaders seem on the one hand trying to avoid getting into that war, but on the other hand doing this kind of odd half-stepping that still takes a risk, I just want to ask, what in the actual gently caress are they doing here? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Mar 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Uhmm, VIL isn't arguing whether or not the shutting down of RT is right or wrong, he's arguing that it demonstrates that the EU is not deeply institutionally committed to free speech as an ideal. I agree with him. Maybe I'm biased because it's my friends and relatives being murdered by Russians right now, but regardless of whether or not he wants to make Ukraine the 51st Oblast or a puppet state like Belarus, yes I do think there should be a no flight zone and Russian armor should be bombed into poo poo. Putin can think whatever he wants about it. There's a long history of Soviets directly contributing manpower and equipment to their proxy wars and that never led to a nuclear war (so far  ). The weak-rear end response to 2014 is what showed him he could get away with this. But it's all a calculated risk betting on the fact that the West will chicken out, again, and not do anything more than some half-assed sanctions.Your larger point seems to be that stated ideals don't always perfectly line up with actions, which is, well, no poo poo. The world isn't black and white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 10:15
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:
Ideals are something you strive for, not something you necessarily reach. Ideals do no exist only if they are realized. I think it should be clear that any organization - as aggregation of indiviuals - can not conform to its ideals 100% of the time. It is also clear that no country or alliance exists (and has ever existed) that follows its ideals, or really any ideals we would call "good". It seems to me that in your view, any organization (state, alliance etc.) acts as a coherent individual. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of organizations of people. So I think if you say the EU can not claim that attacking a neutral country goes against its ideals and is therefore sanctionable, than this cannot be because of diverging actions of e.g. individual EU members. But to the point, showing that the EU never held ideals that would imply their current reaction: You gonna have to do the work and show the pattern of the entire EU "supporting a coup/invasion" that *important* was not in line with its other ideals. This is especially dubious to me, since the EU doesn't really have an army and federalist developments are really more a recent thing. To be sure, I can come up with a list of regrettable enterprisest, but some of them are based on "even higher" EU ideals, or here's also clearly things like the invasion of Iraq where EU members participated, but which has nothing to do with the EU (as strongly expressed during the discussions at the time) etc. So I am not saying the EU has a clean slate, far from it. But I would really like to see in detail the "pattern" you mention, because this pattern I don't see. And given that the EU as an real actor is a recent thing, I sort of doubt I'll be convinced by this pattern. Orange Devil posted:So to be clear I am not saying we should "give up our ideals". I am saying that examining the historical evidence I must conclude the EU never held those ideals in the first place and certainly does not currently. My response will be more concrete after you show me the historical evidence of the EU invading or disrespecting the integrity of other countries. Beyond the historical evidence of the EU intentionally doing that, I think your are also wrong because the EU's association treaties (aka, its law) and its "constitution" simply imply the ideals I am talking about. The EU is surely very imperfect in reaching its ideals, but these ideals are in "the law". Moreover, to a large degree (much more so than individual countries), the EU IS these treaties, and so holds these ideals - even if it is not yet very good in realizing them. Take NATO for example. It is in principle a defensive alliance with very much no ideals respecting third countries. I think in terms of this NATO certainly fulfills its ideals as well. On that basis alone, however, I think NATO countries should be much less outraged and active over Russia attacking a third country - unless this pertains to NATOs defensive posture. In this case, NATO countries do not want Russia to gain strength, because Russia is showing itself to be a threat. The US also has ideals, but I think no one can claim that these extend to Ukraine in any way. Instead, the US has an ideal of projecting power for its own gain and security, which explain their sanctions in a similar way. Edit: By the way, if you listen to the comments by the EU wrt. to the invasion, it would give you evidence that it is an ideological affair, more than a strategic one. First, compared to the US and other NATO countries, the EU is outraged and emotional. It's a feeling of compromising European ideals. Take quotes like "Russia has brought war back to Europe", "Russia is trampling European ideals" etc. Russia invaded a friendly country in Europe. More than compromising some rational strategic military posture, it seems to compromise some higher values. Concerns about refugees, even internal squabbles between west/east members - disappeared overnight. Europeans, including politicians and institutions, are downright furious over this attack, and they have literal emotional reactions in parliament when someone reports from Ukraine's valliant resistance to this attack on the collective ideals. This is why the sanctions are strong, the rethoric is emotional and some things (like banning RT) are even clear mistakes. If anything, I'd say it shows the EU more ideals-based than other entitites in the world. Orange Devil posted:I also think this is bad, because many of them are certainly my personally held ideals, and I would prefer to live under a government structure equally committed to them, which is why I keep voting for parties promising to radically change the way the EU conducts its business. I personally think that your perception of the reality of the EU, conflating it with NATO, the US and of course the "sins of the capitalist West" in general leads you to that conclusion. It's a discussion for another time, perhaps, because I already know we have a vastly different perception of reality. Concretely, it comes down to how strongly your believe in the aforementioned pattern showing that the EU does not really have ideals wrt. to independent third countries. Orange Devil posted:Right so this is where I start to get very uncomfortable about the disconnect. Let's say for the sake of argument that Putin is indeed nakedly expansionist with no other motivating factors then wanting to paint the map his colour as if he were playing a Paradox game. Or even go further and hold that Putin is Hitler and Russia is Nazi Germany and intent on the total destruction of Ukraine and possibly the total eradication of the Ukrainian people and who knows who else? I don't understand why you think the EU can not maximize non-military sanctions on Russia (esp. if they work). Why do you think that this line of reasoning implies that a war must be started between EU/NATO and Russia, given that the outcome would be the end of mankind? Your other proposals are, as far as I can see, simply not doable. For the alliance to work, any member must be guaranteed protection, and this could not be achieved by taking in any third country under threat from Russia. Attacking Russia directly or doing a no-fly zone is simply war, likely a nuclear one. Instead, maximizing economic sanctions seems totally reasonable to me and I have genuine problems understanding why this befuddles you so. I also find it interesting how you want to dissect the world. There can be third countries between the EU/NATO and Russia, and values and ideals can extend to them in the sense that violating their integrity is an affront to the EU, even if the EU "is not" these countries. I don't understand where your problem is with this? Orange Devil posted:
Given that Russia is engaged with a third country, we are essentially having our own little association with said third country under the pretense that it has "nutin' to do with Russia". We are trying to reach the point where our actions damage Russia's war efforts, while still forcing the conclusion that our actions are neutral vis-a-vis Russia such that they do not constitute an act of war. Not sure that these (to me) obvious things need to be explained. I hope you are not just faking your confusion for some weird gotcha. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Mar 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 11:10
|
|
|
I don't know if I want to go through the behaviour of western European countries post WW2 yet but I do know I don't have the time at this exact moment so I'm going to leave the discussion on the EU's principles where it is for now.Haramstufe Rot posted:I don't understand why you think the EU can not maximize non-military sanctions on Russia (esp. if they work). Why do you think that this line of reasoning implies that a war must be started between EU/NATO and Russia, given that the outcome would be the end of mankind? I think these are two distinct questions: 1. Why can't the EU maximize non-military sanctions on Russia? --> I think we can, actually, but ironically primarily because other countries (for example China and India) are not participating. If the sanctions were truly global and would cut off Russia completely from the world economy and threaten to implode the Russian state we'd leave Putin with only 2 options: escalate or de-escalate. If we also believe Putin to be a madman equal to Hitler, except with nukes, should we not expect escalation? Ultimately though I think the sanctions are a distraction from the fact that Europe remains hopelessly reliant on Russian fossil energy. What we should have done, and indeed what I have advocated for decades at this point, is to remove our dependency on fossil fuels completely by radically transitioning to renewables and nuclear. Where the purpose of nuclear is primarily to aid in achieving this transition as fast as possible. From a geopolitics perspective alone, getting out from dependence on countries like Russia and Saudi-Arabia, this has been a no-brainer for longer than I have been alive. Not even to mention the environmental and climate benefits. Unfortunately the liberal parties have fought tooth and nail against this, again for longer than I have been alive. 2. Why do I think the logical end-point of considering Russia as Nazi Germany and Putin as Hitler and Putin intent on destroying Ukraine utterly and pursuing naked expansionism is military intervention, the risk of nuclear war be damned? --> Because if we really believe these things about Putin and Russia, what is he going to do next? Commit a genocide right? And then declare his next war to gobble up another country right? And probably genocide those people as well. So yes, advocating for economic sanctions while claiming that you believe these things about Putin is utterly incongruous to me. I personally don't think Putin is Hitler, to be clear. It only makes sense to me if you believe that Putin is intent on doing all these things, and indeed will genocide the Ukrainians, but that we are too late to stop him. However, our economic sanctions might stop him from doing this to the next country. That's the only way this line of reasoning makes any sense to me. However, at that point we are basically resigned in the Ukrainians being completely hosed, which means I don't understand why we would risk escalation with Russia by providing them with weapons to fight while already having resigned ourselves to their ultimate fate. Would it not be better then to militarily stay out of it completely (so quit sending weapons) and letting the economic sanctions do their work to prevent a repeat? Haramstufe Rot posted:Your other proposals are, as far as I can see, simply not doable. For the alliance to work, any member must be guaranteed protection, and this could not be achieved by taking in any third country under threat from Russia. Attacking Russia directly or doing a no-fly zone is simply war, likely a nuclear one. Haramstufe Rot posted:Given that Russia is engaged with a third country, we are essentially having our own little association with said third country under the pretense that it has "nutin' to do with Russia". Right, so this looks like we're trying to avoid nuclear war while also being cutesy legalistic with a country being run by, in your worldview, an utter madman. I fail to see how this is a coherent policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't know if I want to go through the behaviour of western European countries post WW2 yet but I do know I don't have the time at this exact moment so I'm going to leave the discussion on the EU's principles where it is for now. Fair enough. Orange Devil posted:I think these are two distinct questions: I don't believe Putin is literally Hitler actually. I do think he intends to destroy the Ukraine (mainly because he said so), and I further think that he has expansionist goals for the region. Furthermore, I think that strategic posture against an encroaching NATO is not a real reason. Well at least until today, because after today the EU will probably have a real military. If we'd believe that Putin was completely insane, I do not know what we would do. Trust the CIA would take him out? I think we lack such concepts, because up until today no EU country really ever considered the necessity of going to war with modern Russia. Orange Devil posted:Ultimately though I think the sanctions are a distraction from the fact that Europe remains hopelessly reliant on Russian fossil energy. What we should have done, and indeed what I have advocated for decades at this point, is to remove our dependency on fossil fuels completely by radically transitioning to renewables and nuclear. Where the purpose of nuclear is primarily to aid in achieving this transition as fast as possible. From a geopolitics perspective alone, getting out from dependence on countries like Russia and Saudi-Arabia, this has been a no-brainer for longer than I have been alive. Not even to mention the environmental and climate benefits. Unfortunately the liberal parties have fought tooth and nail against this, again for longer than I have been alive. I agree with the entirety of this paragraph. Orange Devil posted:2. Why do I think the logical end-point of considering Russia as Nazi Germany and Putin as Hitler and Putin intent on destroying Ukraine utterly and pursuing naked expansionism is military intervention, the risk of nuclear war be damned? Where does this Hitler comparison come from? I mean, it is clear that Putin intends to destroy the Ukraine as a country - not even as an independent country, but break it up outright. So, attacking an independent and free country with (at this point) a democratically elected government and trying to literally end it - and all that against the will of said people. This happening at our borders is reason enough for full, maximal, non-war deterrence. I also fully believe that Putin will purge a good number of people, and might also institute internal displacements or whatever, but I don't see him going "full Hitler" or whatever you want to say. It's bad enough as is, of course. Orange Devil posted:It only makes sense to me if you believe that Putin is intent on doing all these things, and indeed will genocide the Ukrainians, but that we are too late to stop him. However, our economic sanctions might stop him from doing this to the next country. That's the only way this line of reasoning makes any sense to me. However, at that point we are basically resigned in the Ukrainians being completely hosed, which means I don't understand why we would risk escalation with Russia by providing them with weapons to fight while already having resigned ourselves to their ultimate fate. Would it not be better then to militarily stay out of it completely (so quit sending weapons) and letting the economic sanctions do their work to prevent a repeat? I mean, take out the genocide bit (see above) but yeah, absolutely, that's an element of deterrence. We do hope of course that Ukraine pulls through, but Russia in its current Putin-dominated form must perish, otherwise the EU will have no non-military deterrence in the future. Helping Ukraine is important, but there's very little we can do. If we however manage to crush Russia without ending up in an actual war, we will be able to leverage this in the future and I think it will deter a lot of wars and suffering, at least in Europe. Orange Devil posted:Right, so this looks like we're trying to avoid nuclear war while also being cutesy legalistic with a country being run by, in your worldview, an utter madman. I fail to see how this is a coherent policy. I fail to see how it is not, given that I do not think Putin is literally nuts. I think not standing up to him (aka the other safe choice) is not safe long term, and military conflict is not an option. Delivering weapons straddles the line, but is also sort of an expression of our "support of a free and independent country" that probably gets around Putin declaring it acts of war. All in all, I guess we mostly disagree on the detail of "what is reasonable maximal deterrence"... Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Mar 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It only makes sense to me if you believe that Putin is intent on doing all these things, and indeed will genocide the Ukrainians, but that we are too late to stop him. However, our economic sanctions might stop him from doing this to the next country. That's the only way this line of reasoning makes any sense to me. However, at that point we are basically resigned in the Ukrainians being completely hosed, which means I don't understand why we would risk escalation with Russia by providing them with weapons to fight while already having resigned ourselves to their ultimate fate. Would it not be better then to militarily stay out of it completely (so quit sending weapons) and letting the economic sanctions do their work to prevent a repeat? Wait what? Why are you constructing some batshit insane strawman argument. The goal of Ukraine (and the west) is to make the war too expensive for Russia to force a favorable peace treaty. Both the sanctions and the weapons have this same goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:yes, fine, but then you're putting geopolitics above your deep institutional commitment to free speech. as i've noted before i think that can be acceptable, but it's placing us in the same general area of behaviour as actions which our own state media has been happy to criticise. I think this "deep institutional commitment" you are talking about only exists in your head, especially in the absolutist way you personally ascribe to. The entire world doesn't revolve around the extremely narrow view you personally think is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
The EU banning RT and co. is bad from a free speech perspective. But this step shouldn't be a surprise to you, when certain EU member states like Poland were very close from voiding all TV licenses of TV stations that were not majority owned by EU corporations. They backed down (mostly because the biggest victim of that law would have been an US station), but still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I think this "deep institutional commitment" you are talking about only exists in your head, especially in the absolutist way you personally ascribe to. The entire world doesn't revolve around the extremely narrow view you personally think is good. this whole tangent has been me quoting a specific post and people being flippant. i am not a free speech absolutist and i'm trying very hard to not be overly moralistic about this. i agree that restrictions on free speech can be reasonable in certain cases and have given examples of roughly where i think the line goes. the executive shutting down unwanted foreign media outlets in formally normal times (i.e. no martial law or state of emergency or similar) is, in countries we don't like, interpreted as problematic in free speech terms. the EU executive has just done this. this indicates that the commitment to free speech in the EU is not deep and institutional (in which case i would expect that such an action would at the very least cause serious protests from within the institution), but contingent on geopolitical considerations. i do not think this is necessarily unreasonable, but i think it contradicts a claim made itt, and one which is often deployed to characterise the EU as a fundamentally moral institution. this does not mean that the EU is necessarily an *immoral* institution (that's a broader discussion), but it means that it's at best problematic to use the EU's deep and institutional commitment to free speech as the reason why it's a fundamentally moral institution compared to e.g. nation states. many nation states are less committed to free speech than the EU, but some are more committed to free speech than the EU. i don't know how many times i have to restate this position for it to not be misconstrued. i don't mind people arguing the actual point i'm making, but it would be nice if it were possible to post in a d&d where people don't seem to actively attempt to misinterpret statements they dislike sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
Every human right the EU recognises apart from torture has a public interest carve out where it is well recognised that these rights aren't absolute and you don't have to let someone rules lawyer you into letting them attack your society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
ok but who decides who's attacking your society? it is not obvious to me that what RT was putting out was seriously attacking EU society. it was just an open propaganda outlet for the russians in a situation where almost nobody wants to hear what the russians have to say. the normal way to do this is to institute a legal system to handle this kind of case, where one has to determine carefully what exactly counts as an attack on society and whether it's worth compromising important values to act on it, rather than a political executive just shutting it down. this, again, does not necessarily mean that this way of doing it is *wrong*, tout court. it simply means that it's problematic from a narrow free speech perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
You have just rephrased attacking one's society in so many words to show it wasn't attacking one's society
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You have just rephrased attacking one's society in so many words to show it wasn't attacking one's society is propaganda illegal in the EU? that's a big problem free-speech wise, a ton of political speech is propaganda is it specifically russian propaganda? where's the law or norm stating this? should we be shutting down Fox News for doing psycho yankee propaganda? do you seriously not see how it's problematic, from a free speech perspective, to let ursula von der leyen decide these things?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:is propaganda illegal in the EU? that's a big problem free-speech wise, a ton of political speech is propaganda Again. No. Just because you keep insisting the Executive should follow a certain process that you put on a pedestal as the “only way things can be done” does not mean other processes are not valid and legal. There is recourse for RT to fight Ursula’s overreach; injunctions can be granted within a matter of days if not hours if the alternative is irreparable harm. The Executive acting first based on a set of powers delegated to it is a process that’s codified and aligned with the values of free speech, as well as any other value we hold dear. The judiciary exists as a means to achieve recourse in that case. As long as Ursula can demonstrate a rational basis for her actions and doesn’t ignore injunctions to the contrary, she’s acting in line with the system that we set up to protect our values.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
legal recourse is not the same thing as having something administered by the legal system in the first place. that czech law banning pro-russian sentiment is still problematic in free speech terms even if it would hopefully be overturned upon appeal to the ECHR: such things take years and a great deal of money to fight and constitute meaningful censorship *even if they're eventually overturned*. i honestly haven't been able to find the specific legal justification for banning the russian outlets - the only justification i can find is borrel saying: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-rolls-out-new-sanctions-banning-rt-and-sputnik/ "“Systematic information manipulation and disinformation by the Kremlin is applied as an operational tool in its assault on Ukraine. It is also a significant and direct threat to the Union’s public order and security” which is a pretty vague assertion. i am also not alone in reacting to the freedom of speech aspect of this: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-sputnik-illegal-europe/ The European Parliament "is kept in the dark. So far we have received no official information nor have we been asked to participate,” said German center-left MEP Tiemo Wölken. “We need to have a serious debate about whether fundamental rights (e.g. media freedom) should be interpreted differently in war times.” so the executive is doing something that the parliament didn't see coming and which at least some parliamentarians don't think they've endorsed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:I think we lack such concepts, because up until today no EU country really ever considered the necessity of going to war with modern Russia. The Baltic states would like to see you in their office. The idea of war igniting with Russia has been a very long-standing concern for them, as it has been to a lesser extent for Poland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Also Finland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 18:54
|
|