Author Topic: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка  (Read 634 times)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« on: December 22, 2021, 05:10:30 PM »
Well, having fun as always with talking about gawd and Tommy A and 'Rona and how the FBI was behind Jan 6.

Meanwhile, back in Mordor...

Looks like Grandfather Frost is coming to Kiev and Pooter is going to take the rest of Ukraine this winter.  He only had to wait 7 years after taking Crimea.  Very Tokugawa.  Figure if he had another 21 years in him he'd be in Berlin, but not sure if Pooter is that powerful in the dark side. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russia-ukraine-invasion/2021/12/03/98a3760e-546b-11ec-8769-2f4ecdf7a2ad_story.html

So Ivan has something like 50 Battalion Tactical Groups Deployed around Ukraine, with something like another 50 on the way, according to "US Officials and Intelligence Documents".

Quote
As tensions mount between Washington and Moscow over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops, according to U.S. officials and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post.

I'll pause here for you to start talking about how the CIA are deep state traitors. 

"It reminds of the heady days of Spurtnik and Yuri Gegarin".

Quote
Biden said he is preparing measures to raise the cost of any new invasion for Putin, who has dismissed the U.S. warnings as rumors and said Russia is not threatening anyone.

Well, that'll do it. 

Pooter just wants some Lebenstraum, or Zhiznennoye Prostranstvo.  Honestly, some prostranstvo sounds delicious.  I'd eat a sandwitch with some prostranstvo in it if they had any. 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/12/21/germany-holds-the-key-to-deterring-russian-moves-against-ukraine/

Quote
A wish list of security guarantees presented by the Kremlin to the U.S. and NATO last week amounts to a veto on further expansion of the alliance, a removal of all U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe, including B-61 bombs in Germany, as well as a military withdrawal from the territories of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union.

Quote
This is no longer just about Ukraine. In effect, Russia is demanding a sphere of interest that begins at Germany’s eastern border, and the end of nuclear sharing in Europe — unacceptable proposals for the West. Even if this is merely brinkmanship intended to bring about diplomatic negotiations or a coup in Kyiv, it is stupendously risky.

Anyways, there is more public support for US involvement in Ukraine these days.  More than 7 years ago anyways.  Libs have seemingly come around because Pooter's hacker farms were doing their little propaganda psyops in 2016 and 2020.  Oh, and because L'Orange and Pooter were gud buds. 

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/half-americans-support-use-us-troops-defense-ukraine

Quote
New data from the 2021 Chicago Council Survey, conducted July 7-26, finds that Americans are more willing than ever to support Ukraine, including using US troops to defend it. For the first time since the question was included in 2014, half of Americans support the use of US troops if Russia were to invade the rest of Ukraine (50% favor, 48% oppose). This is a significant increase in support for US intervention since 2014, when only three in 10 Americans (30%) supported sending US troops to Ukraine.

Funny how being a hawk or dove isn't a partisan thing anymore. 

Anyways, I don't think Joe is sending anybody anywhere or doing anything.  I don't even think he's going to be able to set up some real economic costs.  I don't think the Germans are going to want to cut off all their gas this winter.  I don't think the French and British are in a position to do anything.  I don't think the US wants to lead on anything.  If I were Poland or the Baltics, my butt would be tight enough now to make diamonds.  So Pooter is going to take Ukraine this winter.  Happy New Year. 

Personally, I say we hit Russia with a massive air and naval campaign and basically destroy the Russian armed forces.  But that's just me. 



TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2021, 05:34:45 PM »
F Ukraine. Is it rotten what's about to happen to the people there? Yeah, it is. It was also lousy what happened to countries aligned with the Soviets that we F'd up, as well as arming Afghan freedom fighters.

It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.

So we'll all play the same tune as Crimea, wringing our hands and condemning the state of affairs in diplomatic missives, probably making some kind of token sanctions. Maybe expel a handful of the known spies, and that's about it.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2021, 06:33:57 PM »
It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.
Bear in mind that the US is the pretty much the biggest reason the UN is toothless, and (if memory serves, but I really should check) the biggest veto-wielder against overwhelming SC votes against its own position.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2021, 08:01:12 PM »
and (if memory serves, but I really should check) the biggest veto-wielder against overwhelming SC votes against its own position.

LOL.  No. 

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2021, 09:50:06 PM »
LOL.  No.
Thank you for that detailed and helpful response and analysis!  I'll see if I refine it a little further -- if such a thing can can ever be imagined! -- by finding a record of said "overwhelming SC votes against its own position".  Let's say 14-1 ones, for the sake of argument.

Of course, much of the famous toothlessness of the UN relates to measures adopted by the General Assembly, which of course pretty much necessarily get no-one anywhere.  Which is also very much how the US likes it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2021, 10:28:56 PM »
F Ukraine. Is it rotten what's about to happen to the people there? Yeah, it is. It was also lousy what happened to countries aligned with the Soviets that we F'd up, as well as arming Afghan freedom fighters.

It sucks that China is slowly obliterating Hong Kong, and that Tibet got boned, and that Hungary got screwed, and on and on and on. Unless we truly had UN teeth, which can't even get a sharply worded security council resolution against a veto country, there's not really a viable option.

So we'll all play the same tune as Crimea, wringing our hands and condemning the state of affairs in diplomatic missives, probably making some kind of token sanctions. Maybe expel a handful of the known spies, and that's about it.

Safe bet it won't be "just" Ukraine in the crosshairs of anything that happens this spring. Taiwan will be on the menu as well.

China shut down all of the ADS-B and AIS beacon receivers that were sharing information to the world at large. So we no longer have visibility of either commercial Air Traffic or commercial shipping traffic within China's territorial limits.

I wonder why China might decide they don't want people to be paying attention to what they're having their "domestic" aircraft and cargo ships are doing. Certainly wouldn't have anything to do with past experiments with using them for military purposes.

At least so long as China has a thumb on the scale, it is unlikely anything will happen until after they have a chance to attempt a propoganda blitz at the 2022 Winter GenocideOlympic Games. Just so everyone can get a good understanding of how wonderful things will be for the Taiwanese once under the boot of the Communist Party.

Of course, based on (mostly anecdotal) reporting that is coming out of China through unoffical leakages through their great firewall. I'm becoming less certain that the Communist Party will be able to hold things together that long. It might force them to move up the time table.

Hard to convince their own people that their economic problems are a consequence of economic sanctions due to Taiwan if it is plainly obvious to all of them that the economy had crapped out before the war started.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2021, 10:31:55 PM »
LOL.  No.
Thank you for that detailed and helpful response and analysis!  I'll see if I refine it a little further -- if such a thing can can ever be imagined! -- by finding a record of said "overwhelming SC votes against its own position".  Let's say 14-1 ones, for the sake of argument.

Of course, much of the famous toothlessness of the UN relates to measures adopted by the General Assembly, which of course pretty much necessarily get no-one anywhere.  Which is also very much how the US likes it.

It is further complicated by a tendency of the Security Council to generally refrain from putting things up for a vote if they know it'll get vetoed. Their actually voting on a resolution in such a case is often a signal in and of itself. (And generally political for obvious reasons)

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2021, 10:56:05 PM »
It is further complicated by a tendency of the Security Council to generally refrain from putting things up for a vote if they know it'll get vetoed. Their actually voting on a resolution in such a case is often a signal in and of itself. (And generally political for obvious reasons)
Right.  I suspect that's why Wikipedia doesn't have a Big Table(TM) of tabulated numbers of votes -- hey, I didn't say I was doing deep research on the topic! -- even when there has been been a formal use of the veto (as opposed to a Permanent Member simply warning off the SC from tabling a measure by threatened use).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2021, 11:34:25 PM »
https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick

To the rescue.

Plugging it into LibreOffice Calc and doing some sorting..

210 resolutions/drafts have seen use of a Security Council Veto.

Sometimes they are being vetoed by as many as 3 permanent members at the same time. (Of which I see 13 occasions that happened, with the 3 parties being the US, UK, and France)
Russia and China have jointly vetoed 13 resolutions/drafts.
The UK and US have jointly vetoed 9 resolutions/drafts.
France and the UK have jointly vetoed 2 resolutions/drafts.

France has vetoed 1 resolution/draft as the only party to use a veto.
China has vetoed 3 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The UK has vetoed 5 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The USSR vetoed 90 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a Veto.
Russia has vetoed 13 resolution/drafts as the only party to use a veto.
The United States vetoed 60 resolutions/drafts as the only party to use a Veto.
 
Edit: Do note, the link doesn't report what the vote outcomes were, it just reports use of the veto. Although it does seem to link to the question at hand, so those records could probably be found quickly enough, just more work than I care to do.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2021, 11:36:52 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2021, 12:28:57 AM »
More fun with that earlier data set. In the past 10 years, the US has vetoed 4 UN security council resolutions/drafts, out of 25 resolutions/drafts to be vetoed.
10 were vetoed by Russia, and the were jointly vetoed by Russia and China.

The topic of 3 of the 4 US vetoes? "Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question"(there are 12 other UN security council resolutions going back to 1974 which contain "Palestinian" in the description which also saw US veto power being used, with no other permanent member joining the US; making for a total of at least 15 US vetoes in the UNSC related to Israel) Number 4 was "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks"

As to the fourth one, here's what Human Rights Watch had to say about it:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/04/despite-us-veto-desperate-isis-suspects-and-families-remain-risk

Quote
There is good news and bad news from the Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council vote on a dangerously flawed draft resolution on so-called “foreign terrorist fighters,” the council’s catch-all phrase for members and affiliates of groups like the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS). The good news is that the United States vetoed the draft, rightly dismissing it as “worse than no resolution at all.”

The bad news is that all other 14 Security Council members voted “Yes”—not one was sufficiently embarrassed to abstain—though the resolution would have undermined the rights of desperate children and women locked inside squalid camps for ISIS families, the rights of terrorism suspects to appear before a judge, and the U.N.’s own Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Given that wanton disregard, the risk remains that some of the more troubling provisions in this draft may yet find their way into a future counterterrorism resolution.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2021, 12:38:02 AM by TheDeamon »

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2021, 02:15:21 AM »
Edit: Do note, the link doesn't report what the vote outcomes were, it just reports use of the veto. Although it does seem to link to the question at hand, so those records could probably be found quickly enough, just more work than I care to do.
Yeah, as I said it was the vote I was looking for -- the Other Big Table that wikipedia does have already gave me that data -- sorry, if I'd linked it I could have spared you some spreadsheet pain.  (Or denied you spreadsheet pleasure?)  They're linked in that those at least preclude the maximally overwhelming case (the 14-1 one), but three Powers could still in theory be vetoing a 12-3 vote, which is overwhelming-ish.  Or a singleton veto might be overriding a much narrower one.

The topic of 3 of the 4 US vetoes? "Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question"(there are 12 other UN security council resolutions going back to 1974 which contain "Palestinian" in the description which also saw US veto power being used, with no other permanent member joining the US; making for a total of at least 15 US vetoes in the UNSC related to Israel) Number 4 was "Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks"
Yup, that was pretty much my assumption.  Almost surprised it's that low!  The latest one, the "US and Israel thinks Israel's capital is outside where standing UN resolutions say Israel's borders are" was indeed a 14-1 vote.  And it actually was recorded as a full vote, so if that's not the usual procedure, perhaps a case of the UN being annoyeder than usual about it.

Quote
As to the fourth one, here's what Human Rights Watch had to say about it:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/04/despite-us-veto-desperate-isis-suspects-and-families-remain-risk

Quote
There is good news and bad news from the Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council vote on a dangerously flawed draft resolution on so-called “foreign terrorist fighters,” the council’s catch-all phrase for members and affiliates of groups like the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS). The good news is that the United States vetoed the draft, rightly dismissing it as “worse than no resolution at all.”

The bad news is that all other 14 Security Council members voted “Yes”—not one was sufficiently embarrassed to abstain—though the resolution would have undermined the rights of desperate children and women locked inside squalid camps for ISIS families, the rights of terrorism suspects to appear before a judge, and the U.N.’s own Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Given that wanton disregard, the risk remains that some of the more troubling provisions in this draft may yet find their way into a future counterterrorism resolution.
I'm not familiar with that one, and might have to google it more extensively when I'm a little more awake -- for example, it'd be handy to have the full statement from the US ambassador, and not just a sentence fragment with a confusing lack of context.  But my hot take is that HRW is upset at the draft resolution violating the rights of ISIL suspects, and the US was upset that it wasn't violating them more, and vetoed out out annoyance at the Europeans, and in the hopes of a do-over in the form of a more extensive resolution.  i.e., one that would have violated those rights yet more enthusiastically.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2021, 10:24:18 AM »
Oddly, in this case, it seems the US wasn't trying to be terrible. At least by the standard most people would try to apply.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-un-militants/u-s-isolated-as-it-vetoes-u-n-resolution-on-foreign-militants-idUKKBN25R2MU

Quote
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, said the draft text aiming to reinforce international action on counterterrorism “was worse than no resolution at all.”

“It fails to even include reference to the crucial first step – repatriation to countries of origin or nationality,” she said. “The United States will not participate in such a cynical and willfully oblivious farce.”

...

The United States wants foreign militants sent home and either prosecuted or rehabilitated there. European states, however, have been reluctant to try their nationals at home, citing difficulty in collecting evidence, concerns about a public backlash and the risk of fresh attacks on European soil.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2022, 09:02:27 PM »
China has shut down nearly all "heavy polluting industry" until March 16th of this year in order to ensure blue skies for the Olympic(ending on Feb 20th) and Paralympic Games(ending March 15th) although officially the plants are shut down for "maintenance, upgrades, and retooling" until then. Of course, China did do something comparable back in 2008, although I don't recall it being a 3+ month long shut-down for the Summer Olympics.

This also has the side effect of creating a lot of "noise" for the international intelligence community, as this opens the doors to "unusual activity" at just about every relevant factory site, and at the major sea ports as well as existing inventories and stockpiles draw down.

Could be "nothing to see here" in a legitimate sense, or it could very much be something to see. I guess we'll find out in 4 months.

But in the meantime, China's Communist Party has something they can hide their economic problems behind. People aren't out of work because the economy is falling apart. They're on furlough while they prepare "a new wave of innovation" in their manufacturing industry(upgraded plants) while they wow the world with the Olympic Games.  ::)

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2022, 07:31:51 AM »
Actually the 2008 restrictions were even longer -- they started in November 2007.  https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2016/02/12/the-2008-beijing-olympic-games-spillover-effects-on-air-quality-and-health/  At exactly what point, if any, they became complete shutdowns I dunno.  Likewise I'm unclear about the nature of this one -- what's your source?

Some of this "unusual activity" might also be relocation of production, or refitting (whether for air-quality reasons or wildly otherwise).  Plus of course switching to Covid-22 mass production, that'll clog up a few Gantt charts.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2022, 08:43:35 AM »
Oddly, in this case, it seems the US wasn't trying to be terrible. At least by the standard most people would try to apply.
Pace Tolstoy, there are so many different kinds of terrible available!  I meant to look into this somewhat more, but laziness, inertia and distractedness intervened, as is often the case.

I did find the ambassador's full statement, which is both a worthless exercise, and very much trying to be terrible.  It was all North Korea-style bluster and kissing up to then (then) Eternal President and (then) Eternal Foggy Bottomer (unless in the event of becoming future Dear President in turn).  I'm still left with the impression that the Former Regime's beef is "doesn't go far enough", and the HRW's is "goes too far!", and no useful detail from either.

There is certainly some justice in the criticism of the position of the Europeans.  To take the UK in particular, it's shown zero willingness to repatriate its own citizens abroad suspected of ISIL involvement:  indeed, its preferred approach has been to try to just deprive them of citizenship.  This is cynical enough for people with dual citizenship where their association is primarily with the UK, extremely questionable (and with a strong whiff of racism) where it happens on the basis of there being another citizenship they're "entitled to apply for", and brazenly illegal where it's simply rendering someone stateless on no pretext whatsoever.

Mind you, the US seems plenty guilty of the similar impulse not to want to put its own suspects through the normal civilian criminal justice system.  It just happens to have more access to "in-theatre" assassination, military installations (maintained over the protests of their "host" country or otherwise) to stash them in out of reach of the justice system, etc as alternative means.