Except that Stalin made the region with a majority Armenian population to an autonomous oblast of Azerbaijan in 1923.The Armenian-Azeri conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Russia’s “divide-and-rule tactics”. — Apollodorus
That attempt was a no-no.Another explanation of Russia’s indecisiveness is the peaceful 2018 uprising that toppled pro-Russian and allegedly corrupt President Sargsyan and installed former publicist Pashinyan at the helm. He tried to diversify Armenia’s political alliances and sought closer ties with the West.
Moscow’s current calculation seems to be that it can have its geopolitical cake and eat it. By holding off, Russia seems to be offering Azerbaijan some time and space to regain territories that are legally part of Azerbaijan but that have been under Armenian control since 1994.
And what about Armenia? From a Russian standpoint, the country will have few options other than to stick with Russia. Even if other states might sound supportive of it now, Armenia knows that Russia remains the only country that would deploy troops to defend it. So, even if Russia lets Azerbaijan recapture some territories, Armenia will have to remain a loyal Russian ally.
In March, the Ukrainian parliament passed wartime legislation that severely curtailed the ability of trade unions to represent their members, introduced ‘suspension of employment’ (meaning employees are not fired, but their work and wages are suspended) and gave employers the right to unilaterally suspend collective agreements. But beyond this temporary measure, a group of Ukrainian MPs and officials are now aiming to further ‘liberalise’ and ‘de-Sovietise’ the country’s labour laws. Under a draft law, people who work in small and medium-sized firms – those which have up to 250 employees – would, in effect, be removed from the country’s existing labour laws and covered by individual contracts negotiated with their employer. More than 70% of the Ukrainian workforce would be affected by this change.
Against a background of concerns that Ukrainian officials are using Russia’s invasion to push through a long-awaited radical deregulation of labour laws, one expert has warned that the introduction of civil law into labour relations risks opening a “Pandora’s box” for workers. ... Vitaliy Dudin, an expert on labour law and a representative of the Social Movement organisation, says the proposed new law is the “most radical approach to destroying the social partnership model”. For Dudin, the most destructive part of the new legislation is the introduction of Ukraine’s civil law into employment relations. According to him, Ukraine’s civil law is based on the idea that two parties are equal, whereas the relationship between an employer and employee is not – the employer is always in a more advantageous position. “This is a rollback to the 19th century. By introducing civil law into labour relations, we can open Pandora’s box,” he says
The demographic most opposed to NATO membership in Sweden is young men, aged 18-29. And little wonder. They are the segment of the population that would be called upon to join any future military excursion. Contrary to the assumption that Russian aggression has shocked Swedes into unanimous support for the alliance, opposition appears to be on the rise. ... Polling by Helsingin Sanomat describes the typical NATO supporter as educated, middle-aged or older, male, working in a management-level position, earning at least €85,000 a year and politically on the right, while the typical NATO-sceptic is under the age of 30, a worker or a student, earning less than €20,000 a year and politically on the left.
Some of the most ardent supporters of NATO membership can be found among Sweden and Finland’s business leaders. Last month, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö hosted a ‘secret NATO meeting’ in Helsinki. Among those in attendance were Swedish Minister of Finance Mikael Damberg, top-ranking military officials and powerful figures in the Swedish and Finnish business communities. Chief among them was the billionaire Swedish industrialist Jacob Wallenberg, whose family holdings add up to one third of the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Wallenberg has been NATO’s most enthusiastic cheerleader among Swedish executives.
...The decision to join NATO does not just rely on a hollowed-out discourse of solidarity; it is also presented as a vital act of self-interest – a defensive response to the ‘Russian threat’. In Sweden’s case, we are asked to believe that the country is currently facing greater security risks than during both World Wars, and that the only way to address them is to enter a beefed-up military alliance. Although Russia is supposedly struggling to make headway against a much weaker opponent in Ukraine – unable to hold the capital, hemorrhaging troops and supplies – we are told that it poses an imminent threat to Stockholm and Helsinki. Amid such confected panic, genuine threats to the Nordic way of life have gone ignored: the withering away of the welfare state, the privatization and marketization of education, rising inequality and the weakening of the universal healthcare system. While rushing to align with ‘the West’, the Swedish and Finnish governments have shown considerably less urgency in tackling these social crises.
the West is no less a terminal virus which similarly ought to be expunged. — Streetlight
If you really want to know who the original inhabitants of Crimea were, then you should try to find out instead on fixating on Tatars just because it serves your political agenda. — “Apollodorus
Tatars and other Turkic peoples originally came from the same area as the Mongols and are genetically closely related to them. — Apollodorus
The Greeks were the first to introduce civilization and to build cities in Crimea from the 5th century BC, and southern Crimea remained Greek until it was conquered by Turkey in 1475, i.e., it was GREEK for a thousand years! — Apollodorus
By taking Crimea from the Tatars and Turks in 1783, Russia reintegrated Crimea into Europe, put an end to the Tatar depredations, and redressed a historic injustice. And justice, after all, is what this is about. — Apollodorus
If we say that “Crimea belongs to the Tatars” and the Tatars are considered to be Turks, we can see how this can be an invitation for Turkey to try and bring Crimea under its control and we’re playing into the hands of Erdogan who aims to rebuild the Ottoman Empire. — Apollodorus
↪neomac
Rather than arguing about the racial origins of Crimean Tatars, let me tell you something about the actual people. I bet that most here have never seen a Crimean Tatar in person - they are not so numerous now, and they have historically lived compactly in and around Crimea - before Stalin's deportation, that is. — SophistiCat
Polling by Helsingin Sanomat describes the typical NATO supporter as educated, middle-aged or older, male, working in a management-level position, earning at least €85,000 a year and politically on the right, while the typical NATO-sceptic is under the age of 30, a worker or a student, earning less than €20,000 a year and politically on the left.
Tyypillinen Natoon liittymisen kannattaja on akateemisesti koulutettu keski-ikäinen tai ikääntyvä mies, joka on ammatiltaan johtaja tai ylempi toimihenkilö. Hän ansaitsee yli 85 000 euroa vuodessa ja kuuluu poliittisesti oikealle. Puolueista hän kannattaa kokoomusta.
Kriittisimmin Natoon suhtautuvat alle 30-vuotiaat ja naiset. Nato-kriittiset ovat peruskoulutettuja työntekijöitä tai opiskelijoita. He ansaitsevat alle 20 000 euroa vuodessa ja kuuluvat poliittisesti vasemmalle.
On kuitenkin huomattava, että myös kriittisemmin Natoon suhtautuvissa ryhmissä enemmistö ja osin hyvinkin selvä enemmistö kannattaa Nato-jäsenyyttä.
NATON kannatus on lisääntynyt kahden viime viikon aikana erityisesti työntekijöiden, alle 20 000 euroa vuodessa ansaitsevien, peruskoulutettujen, työväenluokkaan kuuluvien, opiskelijoiden sekä sosiaalidemokraatteja ja vihreitä kannattavien joukossa.
It should be noted, however, that even in the more critical NATO groups, the majority, and in some cases, a very clear majority are in favor of NATO membership.
Support for NATO has increased over the last two weeks especially among workers, those earning less than € 20,000 a year, those in basic education, the working class, students and those in favor of the Social Democrats and the Greens.
Hence Lily Lynch's agenda is quite easy to see. — ssu
And here is the prime example of media bias. — ssu
Far longer than it should, unfortunately. Russia cannot obtain it's objectives. But it can prolong the war if Putin wants to prolong it. Putin hasn't ever had to withdraw from a fight, so he unlikely will do it.How long do we think this war will carry on for, now that the Russians have Mariupol? — Xtrix
The question is why would there be a ceasefire. Ceasefires happen when either one side sees the situation totally unbearable or are close to defeat and the other sees a ceasefire a far better choice than the continuation of the war. There is no imminent outside reason for the conflict to end.Perhaps then peace negotiations can start again and we can get a ceasefire, at the very least. — Xtrix
On May 17, lawmakers in the State Duma discussed the possibility of cancelling both gubernatorial and regional and municipal elections scheduled for September 11, 2022. The stated reason is the need to support the president unanimously during Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.
- - -
Under the circumstances of the special military operation, do we need to hold elections on [September 11]? We should all be unified now, but what will happen in elections? We’ll have to fight against each other. All of us here in this chamber support the president and the special military operation, but we’ll need to talk about our differences in elections,” Just Russia party chairman Sergey Mironov said in a speech to the State Duma on May 17.
That actually the Finnish Parliament voted 188 to 8 in favor of NATO, which one of the most unanimous votes ever taken in the Parliament (a bigger majority than the vote in 1917 for Independence), isn't noted. — ssu
In Finland, however, there is little mainstream opposition to NATO. The issue has been tinged by nationalist sentiment, and opponents of membership are accused of not caring about their country’s security. Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of membership this week, with 188 for and only eight against. — The Article
OK! So she mentioned that. So I stand corrected, enough to be corrected earlier in the article that I didn't notice it. Yet the issue is that now in every age group and income group, there is a majority for NATO membership. Which was left out. (So at least I have better in Finnish literacy than you are, Aussie.)God I wish you were even semi-literate: — Streetlight
the issue is that now in every age group and income group, there is a majority for NATO membership. — ssu
Though Sweden has held referenda on every major decision in recent history – EU membership, the adoption of the euro – it will not consult its citizens on NATO.
In this media environment, it is perhaps unsurprising that support for NATO membership is high
the political class ‘will now face a contest between an older generation and younger ones looking at the world with fresh eyes.’
In reality, though, the opposite is true:
the typical NATO-sceptic is under the age of 30, a worker or a student, earning less than €20,000 a year and politically on the left.
Swedish industrialist Jacob Wallenberg, whose family holdings add up to one third of the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Wallenberg has been NATO’s most enthusiastic cheerleader among Swedish executives.
Sweden’s Expressen reported that the meeting suggested the business community holds far greater power over foreign policy decisions than previously thought.
Chief Executive Micael Johansson has said that Sweden’s NATO membership will open new possibilities for Saab in the areas of missile defense and surveillance.
The considerable influence of business leaders on the NATO question contrasts with that of the general public.
the blatant railroading of the issue by big business. — Isaac
But of course you don't know anything about my country. — ssu
And it seems that you have mixed my and Christoffer's country, which is quite telling. :snicker: — ssu
The question is why would there be a ceasefire. Ceasefires happen when either one side sees the situation totally unbearable or are close to defeat and the other sees a ceasefire a far better choice than the continuation of the war. There is no imminent outside reason for the conflict to end. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.