Print

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

[Helgoland]

Are you talking about the public opinion here, or about the attitudes of the government?

Hard to believe that outside of Russia those are linked, right?

[citation needed]

Merkel closing down our nuclear power plants, Merkel not getting in on the action in Libya, nobody getting in on the action in Syria, etc etc.

[Sergarr]

Are you talking about the public opinion here, or about the attitudes of the government?

Hard to believe that outside of Russia those are linked, right?

[citation needed]

Merkel closing down our nuclear power plants, Merkel not getting in on the action in Libya, nobody getting in on the action in Syria, etc etc.

That's European countries at best. His claim was "outside of Russia", i.e. all countries except Russia.

[Culise]

No, his claim was "outside of Russia," i.e. countries outside of Russia.  Germany is a country outside of Russia.  Now, if he'd said "everywhere outside of Russia"...

EDIT: Added smilie.

[Knit tie]

Germany is pretty much the exception when it comes to governments acting according to the rules of morality. Look at the USA and Saudi Arabia to see what Sergarr means.

EDIT: Germany is seriously awesome when it comes to morality.

[Helgoland]

Not getting in on the action in Libya, not getting in on the action in Syria... I wouldn't exactly consider those moral.

[nenjin]

Can we just agree that most 1st world nations and super powers do not meet morality tests, and get on with it?

[miljan]

I did not see germany proposing sanctions on other countries/allies  when they did shit, so not so sure about their morality. Its more like close your eyes and act neutral like nothing is happening. If they just got morality now after russian did all the crap in ukraine, I hope they will keep it, when other closer countries do similar shit in future, but I doubt that. Everything change with interest and influence/lobbying

[XXSockXX]

Germany is pretty much the exception when it comes to governments acting according to the rules of morality. Look at the USA and Saudi Arabia to see what Sergarr means.

EDIT: Germany is seriously awesome when it comes to morality.

That's got nothing to do with morality, it's just following German public opinion with all it's pecularities. I wouldn't say Helgo's examples are even cases where questions of morality ultimately played much of a role. For example, I'm not sure if not getting involved in Syria was the morally "good" choice or made things worse, also not sure if closing down nuclear plants and buying nuclear energy from our neighbours instead is the morally superior choice either.

This is pretty funny BTW.

[Culise]

Germany is pretty much the exception when it comes to governments acting according to the rules of morality. Look at the USA and Saudi Arabia to see what Sergarr means.

EDIT: Germany is seriously awesome when it comes to morality.

But the question isn't about morality.  It's about public opinion.  Heavens know that the two are not nearly related. 

But, if you want non-German examples of public opinion influencing political decisions, let's see.  The recent reopening of diplomatic relations with Cuba.  Health care in Massachusetts, which you can bet Romney would never have accepted otherwise.  The Affordable Care Act, another recent case.  For an older example, Prohibition, as well as its later ban.  The entire Civil War, which was rooted in the fear of a growth of public opinion favoring abolition.  More locally, my aforementioned snark about electing a pro-wrestler as governor was 100% true, because public opinion was strongly against both the Republicans and the DFL at that point.

I mean, for crying out loud, the entire concept of political populism is practically by definition pandering to public opinion.  It is extremely strange to imply, as Sergarr did with his snarky little "[citation needed]", that there is not a link between public opinion and the attitudes of government, especially in governments that are accountable to the public in some major way.  Even in Russia, where there are elections, this is true.  Even in Saudi Arabia, where there are not, this is true. 

[Sergarr]

It is extremely strange to imply, as Sergarr did with his snarky little "[citation needed]", that there is not a link between public opinion and the attitudes of government, especially in governments that are accountable to the public in some major way.

I was objecting to the words "outside of Russia", because
1) If he meant that every country except Russia has that, then that's not true;
2) In Russia, there's a really big correlation between public opinion and what government does, i.e. anti-gay laws and whatelse.

Wasn't implying what you've said.

[Helgoland]

1) is ludicrous, and everyone knows, and you claimed the opposite of 2)...

In other news, Russian vodka production has sunk significantly.

[Sergarr]

you claimed the opposite of 2)...

where

[Knit tie]

1) is ludicrous, and everyone knows, and you claimed the opposite of 2)...

In other news, Russian vodka production has sunk significantly.

That's honestly amazing news! Did you know that alcohol abuse was the main factor responsible for bringing down the average life expectancy in Russia?

Anyway, regarding public opinion and the actions of the government, I don't think that this is a simple yes/no question. In every country's history, there have been decisions made in order to follow up on the public opinion, and there have also been decisions that went contrary to it, such as, for example, the dissolution of the USSR. And this becomes even more convoluted when you consider that a country's government can also manipulate the public opinion with propaganda and other methods. My point is that the USA, which is one Russia's most vocal opponents nowadays, would've opposed Russia and condemned its unification with Crimea regardless of what the actual circumstances of said unification would have been, simply due to the fact that the USA have always opposed Russia as its geopolitical enemy, more often than not putting actual morality aside.

EDIT: Indeed, I would go so far as to state that if Russia was a geopolitical ally, and not an enemy to the USA and NATO, it would've recieved at most a slap on the wrist, regardless of how outrageous its actions in Crimea would've been. Did the USA, during all that mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, recieve any sanctions or official condemnations from the EU members? Did the UK? During the Biafra crisis, did Nigeria get any negative geopolitical consequences from its usage of starvation tactics? Why Russia, why now? Is it because the lives of Europeans are inherently more valuable than those of Arabs and Africans?

[Helgoland]

you claimed the opposite of 2)...

where

Okay, I misremembered, but it was implied at the least - unless you meant to claim that Russia was the only country where public opinion mattered.
Knit, yes, I did know about the infamous influence of vodka upon Russian demographics, and I sadly have to inform you that according to that article illegal (and thus, for the most part, unhealthy/toxic) alcohol is on the rise.
On the rest: The USA stuff may very well be, but it would've remained purely diplomatic. Nobody would've started sanctions like we've seen.
And, honest question: Was the USSR sanctioned because of Afghanistan?

[Knit tie]

you claimed the opposite of 2)...

where

Okay, I misremembered, but it was implied at the least - unless you meant to claim that Russia was the only country where public opinion mattered.
Knit, yes, I did know about the infamous influence of vodka upon Russian demographics, and I sadly have to inform you that according to that article illegal (and thus, for the most part, unhealthy/toxic) alcohol is on the rise.
On the rest: The USA stuff may very well be, but it would've remained purely diplomatic. Nobody would've started sanctions like we've seen.
And, honest question: Was the USSR sanctioned because of Afghanistan?

Yes! It was put under a rather heavy embargo, which continued the list of the various sanctions it was subjected to during the Cold War.

And here's another thing. Let's assume a hypothetical model of sorts: Russia, ruled by Navalny, is a furiously pro-European state, a member of both EU and NATO and a faithful ally of Washington is all metters political and economical. And then this freedom-radiating behemoth does the same thing in Crimea, formally a part on now furiously anti-NATO Red Maidan Ukraine, that Putin's Russia did. Would it get the same treatment? Of would it's actions be excused in official rhetoric and propaganda both? Would attention be drawn on how much Crimeans want to be a part of Russia? How bad and scary the new Kyiv is? How Crimea is similar to Kosovo, and thus it's reunification with Russia follows up on an established precedent? I disagree with you that if Putin had a free and fair referendum in Crimea, the Washington wouldn't sanction it. No, it would sanction it on pretty much the same basis as before - the referendum was unconstitutional (and it technically would be, it's impossible for a part of Unkraine to secede without the approval of Kyiv's Rada), the results were falsified, it is an affront to European peace, all because the supposed illegality of the referendum is just an excuse, the real problem is that Russia is no longer docile and appears to openly confront the spread of NATO. And don't even get me started on the rebels.

Edited an obvious factual mistake, made due to momentary stupidity.

EDITEDIT: Illegal alcohol is, and has been, always present in Russia. It's not even that bad, when made by and experienced brewer.