Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

Eggy Baby!

Lockstep wrote: »

Source?
Admittedly it's been a few years since I've studied European human rights law but IIRC, Russia's breaches of the ECtHR were usually related to detention and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Open for correction on this though.

From "The Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and
14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHR" by Bill Bowring, page 607-608:

....the most glaring tendency of 2008 had been the lengthy non-execution of judgments of Russian courts and the absence of a mechanism for payment of damages by the government for unlawful actions of judges. Some 72% of judgments against Russia at the ECtHR concern this problem, and there are now more than 5,000 of them awaiting decisions. In September 2008 the Supreme Court, on the proposal of President Medvedev, had submitted to the State Duma a draft constitutional law to remedy this problem. But the draft law had been “cut to the roots” by bureaucrats

It appears that in 2013, a large portion of judgments made against Russia seem to be in relation to:

A- Right to liberty and security
B- Inhuman and degrading treatment
C- Right to a fair trial
D- Right to an effective remedy

Source is here:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2013_ENG.pdf

So you are partially right :P

Although, needless to say, most of these can be attributed to a lack of transparency in the police/ineptitude in the police forces/judicial system.

Turkey normally jostles with Russia for the Golden Turd of first place in ECtHR judgments.

I'm making an observation that Russia's population is twice the size of Turkey's yet Turkey only has a handful fewer judgments delivered against it.

The size of a country is not in correlation with the number of breaches: you'd have a point if we were discussing crimes by citizens (where a larger population would mean more people to commit crimes) but the ECHR deals with breaches by states combined with a lack of redress for the victims.
For example, Germany has a larger population than Italy but has been found to breach the ECHR far less often. Likewise, Greece's population is less than 20% of Britain's but has breached the ECHR far more often.
State's breaching justice and failing to provide adequate remedies do not work on a per-capita basis.

More people means more possible incidences of breaches, that's why small countries like Andorra and San Marino have 0 breaches between them. It's more likely that large countries will have higher numbers of judgments delivered against them, particularly because large prison populations go hand in hand with large populations, which leads to prison overcrowding, for example, which will naturally inflate the numbers of judgments delivered against a country.

You mentioned crime in your reply- some heavily populated countries have low amounts of crimes, but the general rule of thumb is that the larger the country is, the more crimes are committed within its borders. I wish I could have some mathematical data to back up my observation as regards per capita judgments, but I don't. That's why I'm doing Law and not Astrophysics :P

Yes but we are not just discussing things like immigration and gay marriage. We are discussing Russia's corruption, clampdown on dissenting media and expansionist foreign policy. Likewise, it is a modern state's responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure they're all treated equally, regardless of the will of the masses. The Kremlin's failure to protect LGBT or immigrants from hate-crimes is very dodgy altogether. Democracy is meant to protect minorities from the majority, that's what differentiates it from mob rule.

Corruption is endemic in post-Soviet countries, this is true, and Putin's failure to effectively address the heinous state of corruption in Russia is his greatest failure without a doubt.

The situation of the private media in Russia is also bad, although it won an apparent victory recently I hear, as Politkovskaya's killers have ostensibly been locked up.

Expansionist foreign policy? Maybe interventionist, and this is a particularly hypocritical policy for Russia to pursue as Russia has been perpetually criticising America's interventions over the years (mainly using RT as a platform). Crimea is the exception rather than the rule for Russia's foreign policy over the last 14 years.

The failure to protect LGBT types and immigrants from hate crimes does not mean that the state condones these hate crimes. The prevalence of this evil hate culture is more to do with the fact that the police or cruddy in Russia. That's why Russians go around with dashcams in their cars, because the police are so shoddy and ineffective (even after reforms, although they have much improved since the 90s). Not sure about this failure being dodgy though, as Russia is actually a very multicultural country, noticeably so in its politics, so I doubt the government is pursuing this sort of fascist persecution of minorities-by-proxy.

Not sure I'd see a flat tax as progressive but fair enough.

My mistake, I actually thought Russia had a progressive income tax.

Lockstep

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

From "The Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and
14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHR" by Bill Bowring, page 607-608:

It appears that in 2013, a large portion of judgments made against Russia seem to be in relation to:

A- Right to liberty and security
B- Inhuman and degrading treatment
C- Right to a fair trial
D- Right to an effective remedy

Source is here:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2013_ENG.pdf

So you are partially right :P

Although, needless to say, most of these can be attributed to a lack of transparency in the police/ineptitude in the police forces/judicial system.

Turkey normally jostles with Russia for the Golden Turd of first place in ECtHR judgments.

I'm making an observation that Russia's population is twice the size of Turkey's yet Turkey only has a handful fewer judgments delivered against it.

Not disagreeing with you here,
That said, changing places with Turkey for being a repeat offender of the ECtHR is not something to be proud of.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

More people means more possible incidences of breaches, that's why small countries like Andorra and San Marino have 0 breaches between them. It's more likely that large countries will have higher numbers of judgments delivered against them, particularly because large prison populations go hand in hand with large populations, which leads to prison overcrowding, for example, which will naturally inflate the numbers of judgments delivered against a country.

You mentioned crime in your reply- some heavily populated countries have low amounts of crimes, but the general rule of thumb is that the larger the country is, the more crimes are committed within its borders. I wish I could have some mathematical data to back up my observation as regards per capita judgments, but I don't. That's why I'm doing Law and not Astrophysics :P

Andorra and Monaco also have developed justice systems which is a key factor in avoiding violations of the ECHR which can only take place when all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The issue isn't with that breaches took place but that the state failed to address them. This is why large countries like Germany and the UK rarely get ruled against by the ECtHR. Despite their size, their justice systems are able to address the problems so the ECtHR isn't needed.
This is why Russia has so many breaches of the ECHR: it's got a fairly shocking justice and penal system. I'm not completely blaming Putin for this but my original comment was highlighting how Russia is far from being progressive.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Corruption is endemic in post-Soviet countries, this is true, and Putin's failure to effectively address the heinous state of corruption in Russia is his greatest failure without a doubt.

Agreed

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The situation of the private media in Russia is also bad, although it won an apparent victory recently I hear, as Politkovskaya's killers have ostensibly been locked up.

Agreed

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Expansionist foreign policy? Maybe interventionist, and this is a particularly hypocritical policy for Russia to pursue as Russia has been perpetually criticising America's interventions over the years (mainly using RT as a platform). Crimea is the exception rather than the rule for Russia's foreign policy over the last 14 years.

It's becoming worryingly more aggressive in its foreign policy nowadays though. While Russia previously used energy as a weapon, Russia is becoming even more expansionist in its outlook which is why countries with large Russian populations in the Baltics and Caucasus are becoming even more worried by Russia's foreign policy.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

The failure to protect LGBT types and immigrants from hate crimes does not mean that the state condones these hate crimes. The prevalence of this evil hate culture is more to do with the fact that the police or cruddy in Russia. That's why Russians go around with dashcams in their cars, because the police are so shoddy and ineffective (even after reforms, although they have much improved since the 90s). Not sure about this failure being dodgy though, as Russia is actually a very multicultural country, noticeably so in its politics, so I doubt the government is pursuing this sort of fascist persecution of minorities-by-proxy.

It's not just a failure to protect LGBT and immigrants but a tolerance of the hate groups that engage in them and a failure to protect LGBT and immigrants people from attack. Take the protest in May 2013 when police arrested LGBT demonstrators but did nothing to stop them being attacked by anti-LGBT counterprotestors.
This isn't helped by the laws Russia passes against LGBT (like their extremely open ended ban on gay propaganda which basically means makes lobbying for LGBT rights illegal)

Lockstep

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Maybe that democracy's a farce...?

Indeed, it is, after all, the worst system of government (except for all the others)
However, Russia's authoritarian and centralised "sovereign democracy" is even worse than Western liberal democracy.

jimeryan22

Lockstep wrote: »

Indeed, it is, after all, the worst system of government (except for all the others)
However, Russia's authoritarian and centralised "sovereign democracy" is even worse than Western liberal democracy.

Eureka..! Finally you've agreed with something I've said.. And in turn I actually agree with your statement... Now we're cookin...

jimeryan22

cerastes wrote: »

democracy exists in russia? maybe it doesnt then, its a modern states responsibility to protect its citizens? like Ireland, another country with democracy. This democracy lark seems like a figment.

Ireland is a republic, not a democracy...

cerastes

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Ireland is a republic, not a democracy...

The definition of the terms which we describe our government might need to be redefined then unless this is sarcasm then yes I agree we are a republic.. in theory possibly

They more or less mean the same thing though? the difference between a democracy and a republic is slighter than the difference between other forms of government I think.

On a more serious note, I think there should be more instruction (education, in schools but for all ages) on what we have and how we can participate, how we can impress our opinions and implement change, we should be making decisions and the elected representatives carry them out on our behalf rather than we elect them to make decisions and they make those based on what suits them and their cohorts.

Ive heard democracy, or democratic being mentioned, but not much about our republic or what it entails. Its bandied about a bit.

jimeryan22

cerastes wrote: »

The definition of the terms which we describe our government might need to be redefined then unless this is sarcasm then yes I agree we are a republic.. in theory possibly

They more or less mean the same thing though? the difference between a democracy and a republic is slighter than the difference between other forms of government I think.

On a more serious note, I think there should be more instruction (education, in schools but for all ages) on what we have and how we can participate, how we can impress our opinions and implement change, we should be making decisions and the elected representatives carry them out on our behalf rather than we elect them to make decisions and they make those based on what suits them and their cohorts.

Ive heard democracy, or democratic being mentioned, but not much about our republic or what it entails. Its bandied about a bit.

They don't basically mean the same at all... Democracy's as I said earlier 51% can vote to have the other 49% for dinner... Not the case with a republic...
Supposedly.. So I won't totally disagree with you as all the so called forms of democracy are not exactly representing of those they are supposed to lately anywhere....

jimeryan22

On another note... What do we think of Putin going to meet ole Castro..? Would we say they were discussing cigars, or maybe Russia putting a base or missiles back into Cuba...?
Also, anybody hear about German reporting of Germany maybe having to choose to cosy up to Russia and give the US the finger..?

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-979695.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.ie/

vadzen

Next victim of USA and EU supported Ukrainian "democracy" is 21-years old father in Lugansk. He covered his baby from Ukrainian artillery strike.
cs7001.vk.me/c7007/v7007221/fd5d/o4bqmiFj4MQ.jpg
As more death like this as more people in Doneck and Lugansk self-defence army with clear opinion about USA and EU "democracy".
Could you see either military cloth or weapon?
cs7001.vk.me/c7007/v7007221/fd19/1GacP3Jv070.jpg
cs614824.vk.me/v614824613/f982/zjwp5RWYPZ8.jpg
18+

Lockstep

jimeryan22 wrote: »

They don't basically mean the same at all... Democracy's as I said earlier 51% can vote to have the other 49% for dinner... Not the case with a republic...
Supposedly.. So I won't totally disagree with you as all the so called forms of democracy are not exactly representing of those they are supposed to lately anywhere....

Not exactly: what you're describing is mob rule which is certainly one possibility within democracy. However, another type of democracy (and the type which is conventionally referred to as democracy) is that of liberal democracy: representative democracy with a constitution, free elections and above all, the rule of law which protects minorities from the majority.
Meanwhile, a republic is one which merely has no monarch. it is entirely possible to be both extremely authoritarian and a republic: Iraq under Hussein, Egypt under Mubarak etc.
Ireland is both a democracy and a republic.

aloyisious

There's two news items just coming up on RTE Radio. One is a reported claim by Ukrainian "Rebels" that they've shot down a Ukrainian Govt Forces aircraft. The second is that Malaysia has reported the loss of contact with, and crash, of a Civil Passenger Aircraft which was flying over the Ukraine/Russian border region. There are several hundred civilians holiday-passengers on the missing aircraft. The reported incidents are supposed to have happened in the same region around the same time.

EDIT.... Banjo String has started a separate thread on these breaking news items/reports..... Another Malaysian airline crash being reported.... on the After Hours Forum. It might be better to make contributions there, Ta.

Edit, just on. The aircraft was downed by an Surface To Air missile in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian Separatists have reported "downing two UKrainian Aircraft over the past day.

Red Nissan

aloyisious wrote: »

The reported incidents are supposed to have happened in the same region around the same time.

The Malaysia passenger aircraft is definitely down with 295 souls lost/

Wurzelbert

Red Nissan wrote: »

The Malaysia passenger aircraft is definitely down with 295 souls lost/

jesus, again…what a tragedy, especially if the plane was actually shot down, which seems likely somehow…wonder why they even flew over the region…memories of the uss vincennes come to mind…the sort of **** that happens in war zones with countless nervous trigger fingers…

karma_

Wurzelbert wrote: »

jesus, again…what a tragedy, especially if the plane was actually shot down, which seems likely somehow…wonder why they even flew over the region…memories of the uss vincennes come to mind…the sort of **** that happens in war zones with countless nervous trigger fingers…

No excuse for the shooting down of Flight 655 and there is no excuse for this. Seems clear cut that it was the separatists who carried this out.

I agree though, the only thing I can't understand is why civil airlines were still flying over this area given the threat.

comongethappy

RT are blaming the Ukrainian government.

But the did say "we have no proof"..... Still blaming all the same.

Staggering

Wurzelbert

karma_ wrote: »

[...]
I agree though, the only thing I can't understand is why civil airlines were still flying over this area given the threat.

totally...normally, commercial air traffic should give (civil) war zones full of sam sites manned by vodka-fueled morons a wide berth…

Nodin

Might be wise to reserve judgement on this, as both sides will point the finger at any given opportunity.

riffmongous

Wurzelbert wrote: »

totally...normally, commercial air traffic should give (civil) war zones full of sam sites manned by vodka-fueled morons a wide berth…

I guess most of them were working on the assumption that the separatists either would not have the capacity to or would not choose to target planes flying so high.

Wurzelbert

riffmongous wrote: »

I guess most of them were working on the assumption that the separatists either would not have the capacity to or would not choose to target planes flying so high.

yeah well, the north vietnamese had the capacity to use sams against and shoot down b52s in the early 70s…so why would some separatists in the former ussr in 2014 not have that capacity…

Sand

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yeah well, the north vietnamese had the capacity to use sams against and shoot down b52s in the early 70s…so why would some separatists in the former ussr in 2014 not have that capacity…

Why do people go out drinking and stagger home through streets where people have been attacked, mugged and even killed? They presume they will be safe and they wont be attacked.

The idea of any group in the Ukranian conflict shooting down a civillian airliner would have been inconceivable even yesterday. The weaponry necessary to pull it off requires full on military hardware - not black market knockoffs. Why would any state - bar Russia who has been incredibly reckless so far - even risk targeting a civillian airliner?

Sure, all sides have better weapons than they had back in the 1970s but they also have better radar and better targeting, and I presume would have been properly chastened by similar incidents in the 1980s when both the Americans and the Soviets shot down airliners.

It can seem risky to have flown in this area, but it only seems unacceptably risky with the benefit of hindsight.

Red Nissan

Sand wrote: »

The weaponry necessary to pull it off requires full on military hardware - not black market knockoffs.

The hardware is the SAME. What you call black market knockoffs are in fact genuine military weapons released into the wild from most governments.

Today they are controlled from an iPhone or and iPad via point and shoot. That software may be written locally to bypass encryption, once given a target and that today is touching a screen and the missiles does the rest.

Sand

The hardware is a tracked vehicle, not something you're going to smuggle in a briefcase or a van. That's what I meant by full on military hardware. There is no way to disguise what it is, and its certainly not something the Russian rebels would build by themselves, buy from a third party or somehow smuggle into the country without Russian assistance. It was something they were either given - or absolute worst case scenario, something the Russian army themselves used to assist them.

I really hope it was something the Russian gave them - that would be bad, but it would give the Russians some plausible deniability that they only intended for it to be used against the Ukrainian military. The blame can be put on a crazed or incompetent militant fringe and the Russians can de-escalate, pride intact.

If the Russians themselves shot down the plane to support their allies then it will be a far bigger problem. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe the Russians would hand over technology like this to a barely qualified third party when they have planes flying through the same airspace.

comongethappy

Sand wrote: »

The hardware is a tracked vehicle, not something you're going to smuggle in a briefcase or a van. That's what I meant by full on military hardware. There is no way to disguise what it is, and its certainly not something the Russian rebels would build by themselves, buy from a third party or somehow smuggle into the country without Russian assistance. It was something they were either given - or absolute worst case scenario, something the Russian army themselves used to assist them.

I really hope it was something the Russian gave them - that would be bad, but it would give the Russians some plausible deniability that they only intended for it to be used against the Ukrainian military. The blame can be put on a crazed or incompetent militant fringe and the Russians can de-escalate, pride intact.

If the Russians themselves shot down the plane to support their allies then it will be a far bigger problem. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe the Russians would hand over technology like this to a barely qualified third party when they have planes flying through the same airspace.

I'm sure it was a captured Ukrainian battery rather than one carried over the border, but who knows?

Certainly with the amount of Ukrainian forces who defected at the start of the conflict, coupled with Russian special forces in the area there, you'd think there would be those with the skills to operate these advanced systems.

Wurzelbert

Sand wrote: »

[...]
The idea of any group in the Ukranian conflict shooting down a civillian airliner would have been inconceivable even yesterday. The weaponry necessary to pull it off requires full on military hardware - not black market knockoffs. Why would any state - bar Russia who has been incredibly reckless so far - even risk targeting a civillian airliner?
[...]

i’m sure they thought it was a military plane when they pushed the button...and as for the technology, we’re not even talking high-tech by today’s standards...the technology has basically been around since the early/mid 40s...

oscarBravo

Wurzelbert wrote: »

i’m sure they thought it was a military plane when they pushed the button...

Oh. Well, that's alright then.

WakeUp

Sand wrote: »

The hardware is a tracked vehicle, not something you're going to smuggle in a briefcase or a van. That's what I meant by full on military hardware. There is no way to disguise what it is, and its certainly not something the Russian rebels would build by themselves, buy from a third party or somehow smuggle into the country without Russian assistance. It was something they were either given - or absolute worst case scenario, something the Russian army themselves used to assist them.

I really hope it was something the Russian gave them - that would be bad, but it would give the Russians some plausible deniability that they only intended for it to be used against the Ukrainian military. The blame can be put on a crazed or incompetent militant fringe and the Russians can de-escalate, pride intact.

If the Russians themselves shot down the plane to support their allies then it will be a far bigger problem. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe the Russians would hand over technology like this to a barely qualified third party when they have planes flying through the same airspace.

I find it hard to believe that the Russians would be stupid enough to take out a passenger jet for all sorts of reasons. .with all that is going on that is about the worst thing they could do ( kill lots of Europeans and other nationalities ) to say this has serious ramifications is really an understatement , the facts haven't been established yet for all we know it could have been the Ukranians who took that plane out of the sky. It's too soon to apply the blame to one or the other as we don't know the facts yet. but it's very serious.
http://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/eturbonews1?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eturbonews.com%2F48079%2Fukraine-air-traffic-controller-suggests-kiev-military-shot-down-#2825
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace

Wurzelbert

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh. Well, that's alright then.

it’s just what happens in war, not the first such incident either...i am surprised the airspace over the region hasn’t been off limits for months anyway...

WakeUp

Wurzelbert wrote: »

it’s just what happens in war, not the first such incident either...i am surprised the airspace over the region hasn’t been off limits for months anyway...

Apparently the plane may have been redirected to restricted airspace the sky above part of that region has been off limits. and if the plane was infact redirected that obviously poses the question why.

Wurzelbert

WakeUp wrote: »

Apparently the plane may have been redirected to restricted airspace the sky above part of that region has been off limits. and if the plane was infact redirected that obviously poses the question why.

that would be strange indeed...and why would air traffic control (or who else?) redirect an airliner into restricted airspace over a war zone...maybe just another major ****up by some air traffic controller...

oscarBravo

The airspace wasn't restricted, and the victim blaming is getting seriously annoying.