I don't think "stupid political bickering" fairly characterises the situation. Ukraine is slowly descending into civil war with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos.
Normally I'm all for technological progress. But maybe just this once I'd be OK with postponing our advancement as a spacefaring species if it means we can get a peaceful resolution in Ukraine.
By "peaceful" I don't think you mean "resolution favoring the western agenda"?
I am all in favor of peace.
We in the west can't necessarily control what Russia does. But we can (or should be able to) control what we do. I certainly don't think sending senators and state department officials to meet with coup leaders in the day before the coup and the constant stream of hostile talk helps anything.
Not supporting Russia annexing Ukraine. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
Poland is looking back and hoping the US stays out of this and the whole thing de-escalates. We don't want to die, you know. And that's what usually happens when a war breaks out.
That's why I call this "stupid political bickering". It's not about Ukraine, it's about superpowers projecting their influence.
Also, I might be biased, because I live not that far from the Ukrainian border and I would feel much safer if the US stayed away from this.
Edited to add:
I'm also less concerned about US not getting military launches and more about the future of the ISS. The Space Station is more than just a research post in a cold place; it's a monument, a symbol, of a bright future, of a peaceful progress of whole mankind. Losing ISS wouldn't be just a bad day for science, it would impact many people's hopes and dreams.
If I'm not entirely mistaken, the "coup leaders" in Ukrane were in fact the duly elected government of Ukrane, and it was exactly as much a "coup" as Congress kicking out the US President would be.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not being hyperbolic here, the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president, who I think even belonged to the same party as a number of the ringleaders.
Edit 2: yep, "The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25."[1] His own former political allies voted to give him the boot.
> the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president
In fact, the president _illegally_ fled the country (on a Russian navy ship) leaving the parliament no choice but to appoint an acting president until the elections (which will be on May 25).
The president illegally removed himself from the country, rendering the government inoperable - no bill could be signed into law by him "in absentia". He could return to the country but he chose not to. Calling for new elections and appointing an acting president until the time was the only sensible thing the parliament could do in such conditions.
> and why would the president "illegally" remove himself from the country?
That is the question you would have to ask him. AFAIK, not a single official from his government or staff or party has been arrested or hurt since the president fled. As I said, he could return to the country, but he chose not to.
It's not clear he can; he's in Russia, and Russia don't seem to have any more interest in him returning to Ukraine or to power than the Ukrainian government.
But I really don't want to argue about it anymore. I realize the people of Ukraine had legitimate grievances. I don't think Russia should own Ukraine. I don't think the CIA or anyone else instigated the coup. I just don't think Washington should have had the state department in the middle of it. And I think they should tone down the hostile talk.
"with large chunks of it being (or threatening to be) annexed by Russia in the chaos."
I would consider that an allusion to a desired outcome.
But agreed with the poster above who mentions political bickering. It won't get anyone anywhere. Besides, I've made my view known, I think it is just good sense on the part of the west to seek peace rather than hostility, I don't think not being unreasonably hostile in rhetoric and deed is capitulation and I don't have anything else to say.
coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government"
Would be cool if that actually happened. The President signed a deal with the opposition then left the country. His parliament then voted to impeach him. How is that a coup?
illegal? look at the number required vs those who voted to remove from office.
I'm not saying the guy wasn't corrupt. But, look at some of those who are running the show now. They aren't a whole lot better. Avakov, the cheerleader for immediate violent action against the eastern insurgants for instance.
They had 328 votes and needed 337. However it is a bit of a grey area as the constitution doesn't really cover the President abandoning his Country.
This all began in October I believe. Is 4 months sudden? All of the violence was provoked from the government (him). The opposition definitely took advantage of it and are not entirely innocent in all of this. Corruption has always been a problem in Ukraine will be for the foreseeable future. This guy took it to another level.
And I consider there are at least two parties at fault in this. Is there anything we can do to rectify the situation or do we need to spend 20% of our respective GDPs on arms for the next umpteen years and fight a dozen proxy wars around the globe?
It's bad for the ULA. The title is a bit misleading, they are banning exports of RD-180s that will be used for military missions, not just sales of RD-180s to the military itself. Therefore the ULA can still buy RD-180s, but they cannot then use those engines on missions with military payloads. If this restriction stays in place for long, it is fairly bad news for the ULA.
Seems pretty bad for ULA, which is Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but they claim they have enough rocket boosters to fulfill the next two years of their launch commitments. They have contractual obligations further out than that, but SpaceX is arguing the validity of at least one of those contracts.
For a country with financial difficulties, it sure is taking some odd steps. Write-off North Korea's debt, now cancel out million/billion dollar sales to the U.S. for rockets. I guess they don't want us to build any more fighter jets before NATO attacks. ;)
But who do you think NATO should attack next with a wink and a smile? Ah yes, whoever dares to challenge the petrodollar, right? If that's the case then taking away their rockets is a good step for humanity.
Are you mistaking my honest opinion for paid astroturfing? Or do you feel that your own world view is so righteous that anything else must be a fallacy?
Do you actually believe this conflict has something to do with petrodollars? Ukrainians want a better life, they see others with that life. I know we are all supposed to be afraid of Russia but please. A cornered squirrel is dangerous but it is still a squirrel.
This is a classic argument for promoting Western intervention. "Don't be a monster, people just want a better life!". And somehow this argument gets translated into Captain America coming over and scorching the earth until nothing's left.
My hopes for making you just a little more cynical about these things are low, but please try and open your eyes. What is the first thing that happens in every country that gets "freedomed" by the NATO. The oil fields get secured, the installed regime continues selling oil in US dollars at agreeable prices, and the society descends into chaos... but the oil fields are secure.
Do you disagree that Ukraine is a polarized country and that the Euromaidan does not speak for the whole country?
NATO has not scorched anything in Ukraine. Putin is being given enough rope to hang himself. The West is so dominant that Vlad should be afraid. The arc of history is long but it bends towards freedom.
#NSA #XKeyscore #Snowdengate #PRISM #DroneStrikes #TSA. Thank you for your freedom.
The truth is, the "West" is not that much better in a moral sense, it's just that it controlls the global narrative thanks to, in a big part, Hollywood.
Your "moral sense" equivalence does not help the average Ukrainian. Also never underestimate the Russian capacity for suffering. Aside from Snowden, no one escapes to Russia and I am sure the irony is not lost on him.
The Russian state is not in financial difficulties. The oil and natural gas industries are reliable ruble generators, having been effectively resocialized in Putin's era. Russia has paid off its foreign debt completely. The regime won't feel the effect of Western economic pressure any time soon.
The Russian economy is much worse off, however. Competitiveness and industrial development have been neglected by the regime that's happy to siphon off profits from unrefined natural exports. Quality of life is not improving, corruption is rife as ever, wages and pensions can go unpaid.
Lately the government seems to be trying to shift blame onto foreigners and deviants, and so increasing numbers of Caucasian immigrant workers and homosexuals are getting beat up or murdered.
Medvedev talked the talk on much-needed economic development, but turns out he was just a puppet. There doesn't seem to be much hope for change in the near future.
>Rye said, “If recent news reports are accurate, it affirms that SpaceX’s irresponsible actions have created unnecessary distractions, threatened U.S. military satellite operations, and undermined our future relationship with the International Space Station.”
I think you could argue that ULA, by outsourcing the engines, is what threatens the operation. How is it Space X's fault?
I believe they're referring to Musk legal action as the distraction.
> Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. has sued the U.S. Air Force, claiming it created an illegal monopoly for the military’s satellite launch business.
As basically a sidenote to that lawsuit, SpaceX more or less said "Oh and by the way, how is it that they are buying engines with these sanctions in place?". It was a rather tangential issue to the lawsuit itself.
All SpaceX did was publicize that issue, everything before and after that was entirely the governments doing (the sanctions in the first place were on the government, and the injunction on the ULA was placed by a judge, not SpaceX. The injunction was lifted, again by the government, and the governments currently poor diplomatic relations with Russia inspired Russia to essentially make the injunction stick)
In other words, the ULA is just whining that SpaceX tattled on them. Any real blame lies with either the people who made the rules, or with the people who broke the rules (or both).
However you feel about the Ukraine, Russia's credibility is just about at zero. Come on, Putin claimed there were no Russian troops involved in Crimea, an obvious lie that he has now admitted was false. Now the Russian ambassador is attacking Musk...which is just about the best endorsement he could have gotten right now.
When you lie, publicly, about big things, you no longer get believed. It's just that simple.
55 comments
[ 6.5 ms ] story [ 430 ms ] threadNormally I'm all for technological progress. But maybe just this once I'd be OK with postponing our advancement as a spacefaring species if it means we can get a peaceful resolution in Ukraine.
I am all in favor of peace.
We in the west can't necessarily control what Russia does. But we can (or should be able to) control what we do. I certainly don't think sending senators and state department officials to meet with coup leaders in the day before the coup and the constant stream of hostile talk helps anything.
Not supporting Russia annexing Ukraine. Just so no one gets the wrong idea.
For everybody else, Google Georgian conflict and compare it to what's going on in Ukraine.
Hint: US tried to back Georgian military in a proxy attack and got shut down.
If you don't think it's a bis suspicious for US to be so actively involved in this I have a bridge to sell you.
(yes, we're getting increasingly scared here)
Also, I might be biased, because I live not that far from the Ukrainian border and I would feel much safer if the US stayed away from this.
Edited to add:
I'm also less concerned about US not getting military launches and more about the future of the ISS. The Space Station is more than just a research post in a cold place; it's a monument, a symbol, of a bright future, of a peaceful progress of whole mankind. Losing ISS wouldn't be just a bad day for science, it would impact many people's hopes and dreams.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not being hyperbolic here, the "coup" in question literally consisted of the elected representatives of the Ukranian people kicking out the president, who I think even belonged to the same party as a number of the ringleaders.
Edit 2: yep, "The Ukrainian parliament, which decisively abandoned Yanukovich after loyalists defected, declared on Saturday the president constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and set an early election for May 25."[1] His own former political allies voted to give him the boot.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/02/ukraine-parliam...
In fact, the president _illegally_ fled the country (on a Russian navy ship) leaving the parliament no choice but to appoint an acting president until the elections (which will be on May 25).
And the number of people present voting.
I suppose during peaceful democratic transitions of power this is a bit unusual to say the least. But ya... coup.
That is the question you would have to ask him. AFAIK, not a single official from his government or staff or party has been arrested or hurt since the president fled. As I said, he could return to the country, but he chose not to.
They had at least one guy (Bashkalenko) handcuffed on stage during the protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqveUVU70g
But I really don't want to argue about it anymore. I realize the people of Ukraine had legitimate grievances. I don't think Russia should own Ukraine. I don't think the CIA or anyone else instigated the coup. I just don't think Washington should have had the state department in the middle of it. And I think they should tone down the hostile talk.
I would consider that an allusion to a desired outcome.
But agreed with the poster above who mentions political bickering. It won't get anyone anywhere. Besides, I've made my view known, I think it is just good sense on the part of the west to seek peace rather than hostility, I don't think not being unreasonably hostile in rhetoric and deed is capitulation and I don't have anything else to say.
Would be cool if that actually happened. The President signed a deal with the opposition then left the country. His parliament then voted to impeach him. How is that a coup?
violence? check.
illegal? look at the number required vs those who voted to remove from office.
I'm not saying the guy wasn't corrupt. But, look at some of those who are running the show now. They aren't a whole lot better. Avakov, the cheerleader for immediate violent action against the eastern insurgants for instance.
This all began in October I believe. Is 4 months sudden? All of the violence was provoked from the government (him). The opposition definitely took advantage of it and are not entirely innocent in all of this. Corruption has always been a problem in Ukraine will be for the foreseeable future. This guy took it to another level.
just to get that out there.
The area has been culturally Russian for a very long time. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
And I consider there are at least two parties at fault in this. Is there anything we can do to rectify the situation or do we need to spend 20% of our respective GDPs on arms for the next umpteen years and fight a dozen proxy wars around the globe?
I don't know... just asking.
But yeah, this is not sound fiscal planning on Russia's part.
"sound fiscal plans" have never been endemic to Russia.
anyway, it was easily predicted :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649064
I think some rocket components were produced in Ukraine, not sure if that applies to this. So maybe they don't want a limited supply diminished.
If true, this is a significant wrinkle in the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuzhnoye_Design_Bureau (search for Antares :)
But who do you think NATO should attack next with a wink and a smile? Ah yes, whoever dares to challenge the petrodollar, right? If that's the case then taking away their rockets is a good step for humanity.
My hopes for making you just a little more cynical about these things are low, but please try and open your eyes. What is the first thing that happens in every country that gets "freedomed" by the NATO. The oil fields get secured, the installed regime continues selling oil in US dollars at agreeable prices, and the society descends into chaos... but the oil fields are secure.
Do you disagree that Ukraine is a polarized country and that the Euromaidan does not speak for the whole country?
#NSA #XKeyscore #Snowdengate #PRISM #DroneStrikes #TSA. Thank you for your freedom.
The truth is, the "West" is not that much better in a moral sense, it's just that it controlls the global narrative thanks to, in a big part, Hollywood.
The Russian economy is much worse off, however. Competitiveness and industrial development have been neglected by the regime that's happy to siphon off profits from unrefined natural exports. Quality of life is not improving, corruption is rife as ever, wages and pensions can go unpaid.
Lately the government seems to be trying to shift blame onto foreigners and deviants, and so increasing numbers of Caucasian immigrant workers and homosexuals are getting beat up or murdered.
Medvedev talked the talk on much-needed economic development, but turns out he was just a puppet. There doesn't seem to be much hope for change in the near future.
I am not sure NATO is going to attack a country with ICBMs and active nuclear warheads over Ukraine which is not part of the alliance.
I think you could argue that ULA, by outsourcing the engines, is what threatens the operation. How is it Space X's fault?
> Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. has sued the U.S. Air Force, claiming it created an illegal monopoly for the military’s satellite launch business.
All SpaceX did was publicize that issue, everything before and after that was entirely the governments doing (the sanctions in the first place were on the government, and the injunction on the ULA was placed by a judge, not SpaceX. The injunction was lifted, again by the government, and the governments currently poor diplomatic relations with Russia inspired Russia to essentially make the injunction stick)
In other words, the ULA is just whining that SpaceX tattled on them. Any real blame lies with either the people who made the rules, or with the people who broke the rules (or both).
When you lie, publicly, about big things, you no longer get believed. It's just that simple.