giovedì 7 aprile 2016

Alicun notas super le referendum nederlandese pro le accordo associative UE-Ucraina

Le referendum resultava in un clar victoria del partito del "NO" (circa 61% contra le 39% del "SI"), e le percentual del votantes esseva 32,2%, superior al 30% qui esseva requirite pro conferer validitate al voto.

Considerationes rapide:
  1. Non sia deluse (si tu sperava in un "si") o troppo felice (si tu supportava le "no"): le referendum essera substantialmente ignorate, como il non es rar in nostre democratias.
  2. Le accordo de association es jam active.
  3. Il es le prime vice que le accordo ha essite subponite a un voto popolar.
  4. Nonobstante que le major parte del citatanos del UE ha audite re iste accordo solmente in tempores recente, illo ha essite discutite al minus desde le anno 2011.
  5. Jam ab le initio, iste discussiones ha habite un effecto destabilisator in Ucraina, un pais profundemente divise inter le parte occidental pro-UE e le parte oriental pro-Russia.
  6. Si! Nos parla del mesme accordo cuje rejection per Victor Janukovych esseva le causa (o le pretexto, si vos prefere) del revolution de Maidan del 2013, qui postea degenerava in le guerra civil.
  7. De un latere, uno pote sentir se deluse per le resultato del referendum, e vider lo como si le UE habeva alimentate le divisiones in Ucraina e nunc abandonar lo in le momento de difficultate; del altere latere, in 2013 le major parte de iste votantes non mesmo sapeva de iste accordo e del delicate situation in Ucraina — alora, lor opinion non esseva demandate.
  8. Ucraina es destinate a devenir parte del UE, isto es inevitabile. Tosto o tarde, integralmente o partialmente (al minus le regiones occidental) Ucraina entrara in le UE (a minus que le union se disintegra ante isto, obviemente).

Etichette: , , ,

Some notes on the Dutch EU-Ukraine association agreement referendum

The referendum's results were a clear victory of the "NO" party (about 61% versus 39% "YES"), and the voter turnout has been 32,2%, above the 30% required for the vote to be considered valid.

Quick considerations:
  1. Don't be disappointed (if you hoped for a "yes") or too happy (if you supported "no"): the referendum will ultimately be ignored, as it's not uncommon in our democracies.
  2. The association agreement is already in force.
  3. It's the first time that the agreement has been submitted to a popular vote.
  4. Although most of the EU citizens have heard of this agreement only recently, there have been talks about it since at least 2011.
  5. Since the beginning these talks have had a destabilizing effect on Ukraine, a country deeply divided into a western pro-EU part and an eastern pro-Russia part.
  6. Yes, we are talking about the same association agreement whose rejection by Viktor Janukovych was the cause (or pretext, if you like) for the 2013 Maidan revolution, which then degenerated into a civil war.
  7. On one hand, one can feel disappointed at the referendum results, and see them as if the EU has fueled the divisions in Ukraine and now has abandoned it; on the other hand, in 2013 most of these voters were totally unaware of the agreement and of the delicate situation of Ukraine — their opinion was not asked back then.
  8. Ukraine will eventually join the EU, it's just inevitable. Sooner or later, either the full Ukraine or its western regions will enter the EU (unless, of course, the EU disintegrates before that).

Etichette: , , ,

venerdì 5 febbraio 2016

Documentario super Ucraina e Donbass

(note for English readers: find the text too boring? Here's the direct link to the English version of the documentary)

"Le stagioni del Donbass" es un film documentario realisate per Sara Reginella pro monstrar al audientia occidental un parte de veritate que es quasi complementemente absente de nostre medios de information.
Le imagines es accompaniate per intervistas al scriptor Nikolai Lilin, al studioso Eliseo Bertolasi e al disegnator Vauro Senesi. Si vos non ha le tempore pro reguardar tote le documentario (que dura circa un hora) io recommenda que vos reguarda al minus le ultime parte, que initia al minuto 43:16:

Il ha anque un version anglese e un version in russo.

Infortunatemente, benque io trova que le documentario es multo ben facite, io debe constatar que il ha un breve (e non significative) parte ubi le journalismo lassa spatio al sensationalismo: il ha un testimoniantia de un femina que reporta del terribile torturas que le soldatos del battalion Azov inflige al feminas — ben, il es obvie que le episodios reportate es non verificabile, e quasi certemente inventate pro scopos propagandistic. Benque il es clar que Sara Reginella non es culpabile de haber falsificate iste testimoniantia, le manco de criticitate que illa demonstra in presentar iste testimoniantia es un parve macula super un labor que es alteremente laudabile.

Etichette: , , ,

mercoledì 9 dicembre 2015

UN report on the Ukrainian conflict: counting casualties

The United Nations Human Rights Council has released a report about the situation in Ukraine, based on data collected from August to November, 2015.
It contains a lot of interesting data — whether their report is biased, that's a different matter; but I do believe that they wouldn't lie on raw data —, some of which I'm sure the Western press is going to ignore. I want to focus just on one particular aspect, for the time being.

Who is striking civilian areas?

Of course, we all know that both sides are using low-precision weapons, and civilians are getting hit as a result. But it would also be unfair to put everyone on the same basket, without having a look at the numbers. On page 6, the report tells us:
27. On the Government-controlled territories, 87 civilian casualties (24 deaths and 63 injured) were recorded. The 24 fatalities included 22 adults and two children. Of 63 injured: 57 were adults and six were children.
28. In the territories controlled by the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, 91 civilian casualties (23 deaths and 68 injured) were recorded. Of 23 killed: 22 were adults and one was a child. Of 68 injured: 64 were adults and four were children.
So, we have approximately the same number of civilian casualties in the Government-controlled and in the rebel-held areas: 87 versus 91. But then, the way in which these people were hit is significantly different (page 7, bottom):
Don't be fooled by the clever usage of colours here (nice trick, by the way)! The graphs are substantially different: while the one on the left shows that shelling from rebel positions can be accounted responsible for 18 casualties (21% of 87), shelling from government positions accounts to 52 casualties (57% of 91)!
Most other deaths are caused by mines and unexploded devices, for which the side which we should generally hold responsible is the side in which these accidents occur (as they mined the area in the first place, or didn't do a good job in clearing it from unexploded bombs). Let's visualize the data in a table:
Government forces Rebels
Shelling 52 18
Mines and unexploded bombs 58 35
Road incidents
(drunken driving)
4 0
Total 114 53

(Note that I didn't include deaths from small arms and other unknown reasons, as without knowing more about these accidents it's impossible to put the blame on anyone.)

Anyway, the numbers speak for themselves. How does your favourite news source present this UN report?

Etichette: , ,