Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[TheDarkStar]

Right.

Best Korea it is, then.

[BlindKitty]

tell me more about sikorski

what are his preferences, most notably

seems like a 5/5 politician right now

Well, he likes his money (he has gained a few nicknames after the aforementioned recorded tape leaked, because it turned out that he paid for the (not work related) dinner with his MP's credit card, not a private one, and refused to pay back after being exposed; and the dinner costed about my monthly food budget), and besides that, it's hard to tell. He changes his parties every so often, went from conservatist to somewhat liberal, considers himself somewhat of a noble (he insist on renaming a village where he has his home palace from "Chobielin", which is just a generic name, to "Dwor Chobielin", where "Dwor" means "Manor", as in place where a noble lives), and spends more tolime twitting than doing diplomacy, as far as I can tell.
As for the Speaker of the Sejm, it is somewhat complicated, due to fact that we don't really have any estabilished tradition in this regard. Current president took post after being Speaker, and one could say that becoming Speaker is like being 'kicked upwards', as the post is, as was noted before, prestigious but without much power. On the other hand, what little power it has can be somewhat abused, because Speaker can stall voting on any bill for as long as he pleases - there is no rule in regards as to how long the bill project can wait for the vote, and there are some projects that current party in charge doesn't like, but doesn't want to vote 'no' (usually because they are popular in the society), so they just wait indefinitely.

[Sheb]

Well, why wouldn't Russia be interested in the Baltic States? Sure, they're in NATO already, so Russia has to be more cautious, but this also mean that the prize is much better: if they can have Little Green Men over there, and NATO doesn't invoke Article 5, they effectively destroyed much of the alliance, and found new tools to influence policy over all the Eastern European states.

Also, Ukraine is now certain to join NATO ASAP, and as for the EU, Cyprus was able to join with its territorial problems (granted, it's because the Greeks threatened to veto all the Eastern European states otherwise).

[scriver]

@TheDarkStar - I feel I must apologize for my outburst yesterday, it was pretty dumb of me to react like that. So yeah, I'm sorry.

[miljan]

Well, why wouldn't Russia be interested in the Baltic States? Sure, they're in NATO already, so Russia has to be more cautious, but this also mean that the prize is much better: if they can have Little Green Men over there, and NATO doesn't invoke Article 5, they effectively destroyed much of the alliance, and found new tools to influence policy over all the Eastern European states.

Also, Ukraine is now certain to join NATO ASAP, and as for the EU, Cyprus was able to join with its territorial problems (granted, it's because the Greeks threatened to veto all the Eastern European states otherwise).

What prize is much bigger?
They plan to destroy nato with little green man protesting? Are you serious?  I am not sure do you even know what is article 5 if you can interpret it to be used with catching a fishing ship or arresting some dude.

Ukraine will not be joining nato (especially not ASAP, where did you get that anyway? NATO is not prepared to accept them) nor any time soon, and the same thing will happen what happened with georgia after russian invasion there. 

[Sheb]

Well, if Russia can send in troops under the pretense that they're spontaneous demonstrators (like in Crimea) into one of the Baltic states, and NATO doesn't react, then everyone know that Article 5 is a joke, and NATO cease to have a meaning. Since Russia sees NATO's eastward expansion as a threat, it logically follows that it would be a great prize for them is NATO stop having much meaning: for one thing they would have a much freer hand for dealing with what they consider their backyard.

Sending troops across a border to capture an intelligence agent could be seen as an 'armed attack' under article 5, same with using force to seize shipping. Granted, in both case it's clear that it's no important enough to make it worth invoking Article 5. But my guess is that the near future will see increasingly aggressive actions from Russia toward the Baltic states, because Putin will try to go as far as he can get away with.

[scrdest]

@TheDarkStar - I feel I must apologize for my outburst yesterday, it was pretty dumb of me to react like that. So yeah, I'm sorry.

Goddammit, scriver, your avatar made me think Owlbread posted -_-

[Guardian G.I.]

@TheDarkStar - I feel I must apologize for my outburst yesterday, it was pretty dumb of me to react like that. So yeah, I'm sorry.

Goddammit, scriver, your avatar made me think Owlbread posted -_-

Owlbread has a solemn black rectangle avatar now.

[scrdest]

@TheDarkStar - I feel I must apologize for my outburst yesterday, it was pretty dumb of me to react like that. So yeah, I'm sorry.

Goddammit, scriver, your avatar made me think Owlbread posted -_-

Owlbread has a solemn black rectangle avatar now.

Tell that to my brain.

E: Appears that there's some demonstrations in Moscow against Russian involvement in Ukraine.

[miljan]

Well, if Russia can send in troops under the pretense that they're spontaneous demonstrators (like in Crimea) into one of the Baltic states, and NATO doesn't react, then everyone know that Article 5 is a joke, and NATO cease to have a meaning. Since Russia sees NATO's eastward expansion as a threat, it logically follows that it would be a great prize for them is NATO stop having much meaning: for one thing they would have a much freer hand for dealing with what they consider their backyard.

Sending troops across a border to capture an intelligence agent could be seen as an 'armed attack' under article 5, same with using force to seize shipping. Granted, in both case it's clear that it's no important enough to make it worth invoking Article 5. But my guess is that the near future will see increasingly aggressive actions from Russia toward the Baltic states, because Putin will try to go as far as he can get away with.

First, Russian troops where already in Crimea so its bad example (they did not need to cross border like they would in any baltic state). Second, there was support from locals, as same as people that come from russia, so they were mixed (you are implying here that there was no local support, and that all  demonstrators are from russia, and that is not correct). Third, I suggest you to read what is article 5 in detail because taking  a person under arrest or a ship in international waters can not be consider a armed attack on a state no matter how you spin it.

Your guessing that putin will be more aggressive to baltic states because on (probably propaganda) that he is ready to go that far for something that simply will not work.

[scriver]

@TheDarkStar - I feel I must apologize for my outburst yesterday, it was pretty dumb of me to react like that. So yeah, I'm sorry.

Goddammit, scriver, your avatar made me think Owlbread posted -_-

Oops, I've forgotten to change back from Hypeday Scotland.

[Sheb]

Well, like he's doing now in Eastern Ukraine. And I never said that there was no local support, after all he's also trying to get local support in the Baltic states (Like that speech by Russian officials a few days ago).

I know what Article 5 say, thank you. The fact is that 'armed attack' is, as far as I know, not clearly defined anywhere. However, an armed attack on a country's vessels inside Europe is clearly stated to be an armed attack.

And what make you think it won't work? What does Putin has to loose by being increasingly aggressive with the Baltics and trying to stir up trouble there? In the worst case, if the costs seems to high, he can just stop.

[Phmcw]

If Putin can destroy nato(as in making it meaningless) and Europe don't become more coehsive, he'll make the biggest diplomatic victory ever.

That would put any European contry under threath and would basically mean that Russia would be back to world power status.

That would also mean America fear an united Europe more than a Russia-dominated one.

[Sergarr]

It's the core problem of the "hard-line" defence - an inherent vulnerability to the salami tactics.

To defend against salami offensive, you need a salami defence plan - i.e. a gradual escalation of defence in response to the gradual escalation of offense.

[Sheb]

Not really, there would be plenty of other reasons for the US to let Russia have its way: weakness, unwillingness to commit significant troops...