Protasevich Street? Bucharest mulls changing address of Belarusian embassy(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Protasevich Street? Bucharest mulls changing address of Belarusian embassy
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/protasevich-street-bucharest-mulls-changing-address-belarusian-embassy-2021-05-27/
207 comments
These name changes may have some superficial "feel-good reinforcement" domestic value on social media, but they're never an avenue for change.
At best, they are a distraction. At worst, they reinforce the more juvenile members of each nation's diplomatic core that encourage non-constructive tit-for-tat "optics" politics.
At best, they are a distraction. At worst, they reinforce the more juvenile members of each nation's diplomatic core that encourage non-constructive tit-for-tat "optics" politics.
Well, they force all data stores that refer to the embassy as well as every person visiting it, and all correspondence to it to mention something they'd rather bury. But you might be right.
Of all the potential ways that tit-for-tat "optics" politics could manifest, this seems one of the more harmless.
It happens all the time. For example, just shy of a year ago in DC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter_Plaza
It must suck living in the same street as an embassy.
Streets can have multiple names in some cities, and not always for political axe-grinding. I believe that the 1600 block of Crittenden St. NW is also Rev. Jerry Moore Plaza, after the pastor of the 19th St. Baptist Church when in relocated from downtown to the block bounded by the street/plaza on the north. And once in lower Manhattan I saw a "way" apparently named for a cousin of mine (with not an uncommon name)--but it had a companion original name.
I do imagine that the USPS will deliver to the 1600 block of either Crittenden St. or Rev. Jerry Moore Plaza, or to 800 block of either 16th St. NW or Black Lives Matter Plaza.
I do imagine that the USPS will deliver to the 1600 block of either Crittenden St. or Rev. Jerry Moore Plaza, or to 800 block of either 16th St. NW or Black Lives Matter Plaza.
In more recent history Washington D.C., Vilnius and Prague changed Russian embassy addresses to Boris Nemtsov Plaza.
I think this does accomplish a lot by simply reminding of the past. People will forget without a reminder
I suggest renaming the US Embassy street in Vienna as Evo Morales Street
I suspect most embassy staff are -- like the ones from Western nations -- generally pretty liberal, and probably secretly fairly supportive of this.
Um, probably not.
I just heard an interview with a journalist, Jolyon Naegele, a Western correspondent in Czechoslovakia in the 80s (who worked for Radio Free Europe). He talked about how Czechoslovak secret services bothered him (often in a very crude, stupid ways) and also how they, in some sense, were afraid of him, since they assumed that he is a foreign agent. The assumption came from the fact that all the Czechoslovak foreign correspondents in the West actually _were_ agents of secret services.
My point is, you cannot generalize the systemic features of Western liberal democracies to authoritarian countries.
So I would be surprised if this is not true for diplomats as well. Most of them, if not all, are probably operatives of Belarusian secret services, and they probably have mostly conservative-authoritarian values.
I just heard an interview with a journalist, Jolyon Naegele, a Western correspondent in Czechoslovakia in the 80s (who worked for Radio Free Europe). He talked about how Czechoslovak secret services bothered him (often in a very crude, stupid ways) and also how they, in some sense, were afraid of him, since they assumed that he is a foreign agent. The assumption came from the fact that all the Czechoslovak foreign correspondents in the West actually _were_ agents of secret services.
My point is, you cannot generalize the systemic features of Western liberal democracies to authoritarian countries.
So I would be surprised if this is not true for diplomats as well. Most of them, if not all, are probably operatives of Belarusian secret services, and they probably have mostly conservative-authoritarian values.
Even if they aren't, they've been vetted very carefully by the secret service. Embassies are among the last places where liberal-leaning individuals would be allowed by the regime to get.
I don’t think one gets delegated to an embassy for not being totally supportive of the delegating system.
Typically embassy staff are well vetted for being loyal to their governments. Also, some embassy staff are straight up legal spies, tasked with carrying out clandestine work for their governments. These are not people who you would recruit if you weren't absolutely sure of their allegiances and beliefs.
Misleading title. First sentence of the linked article:
> The street in the Romanian capital Bucharest where the Belarusian embassy is located could be renamed in honour of dissident journalist Roman Protasevich as a gesture of solidarity after his dramatic arrest, a district mayor has said.
> The street in the Romanian capital Bucharest where the Belarusian embassy is located could be renamed in honour of dissident journalist Roman Protasevich as a gesture of solidarity after his dramatic arrest, a district mayor has said.
For future reference, it's probably a good idea to also include what the title you are referring to.
HN is notorious for changing the title so many times and frequently that its hard to know whether the title changed since the post was made.
HN is notorious for changing the title so many times and frequently that its hard to know whether the title changed since the post was made.
I'm the OP. The title was that "Bucharest mayor changes Belarus embassy's street name to Protasevich Street". Mayor of the 1st district is sending the proposal this morning to the General Mayor at the city hall, the talks are official and they are undergoing. The street name hasn't been changed yet.
> HN is notorious for changing the title so many times and frequently
That's mostly because people regularly submit with misleading/false titles.
That's mostly because people regularly submit with misleading/false titles.
Mods are pretty happy to change titles if they feel it makes it clearer too, and have less than a 100% success rate at that.
e.g. this topic they changed "Deno 1.10" to "Deno 1.1" in the title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27127316
Which are not the same things.
Also I've seen attempts to clarify actors involved, but occasionally making it muddier. e.g. this one removes the fact that the response was from a Wireguard developer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759477
Or once or twice, just wrong.
I'm not saying this is malicious, but the criteria for getting titles changed is definitely more loose than "title is false/misleading".
e.g. this topic they changed "Deno 1.10" to "Deno 1.1" in the title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27127316
Which are not the same things.
Also I've seen attempts to clarify actors involved, but occasionally making it muddier. e.g. this one removes the fact that the response was from a Wireguard developer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759477
Or once or twice, just wrong.
I'm not saying this is malicious, but the criteria for getting titles changed is definitely more loose than "title is false/misleading".
Indeed, the title is absolutely wrong. This is not a done deal, it is just a proposal.
Similar past event: The British embassy in Iran once moved its entrance as the street it was originally on was renamed after Bobby Sands, IRA hunger striker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_Kingdom,...
RT's current approach seems to be to focus on Protasevich's alleged role as a propagandist for the neo nazi azov brigades in donbass and, of course, the whole Snowden/Morales affair.
Western news media outlets, by contrast, seem to be lionizing the journalist's role in the Belarus protests, but at some point I imagine they will have address the above two points. Silence is too awkward.
It is interesting to diff the propaganda from both sides here, especially since domestic propaganda value appears to have been a key component of why Lukashenko chose to do this.
Western news media outlets, by contrast, seem to be lionizing the journalist's role in the Belarus protests, but at some point I imagine they will have address the above two points. Silence is too awkward.
It is interesting to diff the propaganda from both sides here, especially since domestic propaganda value appears to have been a key component of why Lukashenko chose to do this.
> RT's current approach seems to be to focus on Protasevich's alleged role as a propagandist for the neo nazi azov brigades in donbass and, of course, the whole Snowden/Morales affair.
They're deflecting because Lukashenko's official narrative (the bomb story) is too absurd even for them to peddle. They can't really say that the plane wasn't hijacked so instead they're falling back to "well he had it coming". This is definitely a new low for the Russia-Western relations, they normally bother with at least some plausible deniability.
They're deflecting because Lukashenko's official narrative (the bomb story) is too absurd even for them to peddle. They can't really say that the plane wasn't hijacked so instead they're falling back to "well he had it coming". This is definitely a new low for the Russia-Western relations, they normally bother with at least some plausible deniability.
>This is definitely a new low for the Russia-Western relations
FYI Belarus is a country rather than a region in Russia.
FYI Belarus is a country rather than a region in Russia.
Sure, and chickens are birds.
It's a country with _very_ close relationships to Russia. Up to the point where Russian riot police was participating in suppressing protests in Belarus. If it was not for Russian support Lukashenko would probably have been overthrown in 2020.
It is a client state of Russia and while Lukashenko might not be a full puppet of Putin, he displays puppet like tendencies.
They all but admitted that the bomb story was concocted from the beginning.
I don't think that part will change any minds.
I don't think that part will change any minds.
Not on RT, they haven't. Pick wisely?
No, they absolutely have:
"The Ryanair flight from Greece to Lithuania was compelled to land in Minsk on Sunday while traveling through Belarusian airspace, on the basis of what appears to be a fraudulent claim that a bomb might be on board."
Is what they wrote this morning.
"The Ryanair flight from Greece to Lithuania was compelled to land in Minsk on Sunday while traveling through Belarusian airspace, on the basis of what appears to be a fraudulent claim that a bomb might be on board."
Is what they wrote this morning.
Both sides do propaganda, but where would you prefer to live if you were a dissident?
If you're considered an enemy of the state you're not safe on any side. Some countries terrorize their own people, others terrorize someone else's people. As I said in the past, after moving between democracy and dictatorship several times in my life I can say that it mainly boils down to how well your interests align with the interests of the one(s) in power. The main difference is that if your interests don't align you'll have a much harder life in a dictatorship than in a democracy.
But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.
But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.
> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.
They already did that. It's funny that this is considered ok.
They already did that. It's funny that this is considered ok.
This is precisely why all the international responses to the current incident focus on using the military interception rather than the principle of forcing a plane to land just to get your hands on one individual.
EU countries like Spain and Italy denied access to their airspace to a diplomatic flight in what was essentially equally immoral stunt as the one Belarus pulled. Only with the added "bonus" of showing that being a diplomat means nothing. Now the same countries have to walk the fine line of accusing the enemy while not incriminating the frenemy.
EU countries like Spain and Italy denied access to their airspace to a diplomatic flight in what was essentially equally immoral stunt as the one Belarus pulled. Only with the added "bonus" of showing that being a diplomat means nothing. Now the same countries have to walk the fine line of accusing the enemy while not incriminating the frenemy.
> But don't think for a second that the US won't force a diplomat's plane to land even outside their jurisdiction just because they believe an enemy of the state is on it. It's all about interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
[deleted]
Do you get assigned the role of dissident at birth? Or do we rather choose it based on living in places with particular regimes? A more valid question would be: where would you rather live if you were glorifying Azov brigades? The answer would apparently be: the West. And you know where Snowden chose to live and why. So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies, with a good reason.
> And you know where Snowden chose to live and why.
Nitpick: Snowden chose to live in South America actually (Bolivia or Equador) he was just in transit in Moscow but he was just never given the right to onboard the plane again after the US canceled his passport.
Nitpick: Snowden chose to live in South America actually (Bolivia or Equador) he was just in transit in Moscow but he was just never given the right to onboard the plane again after the US canceled his passport.
Do you think that Snowden prefers to live in Russia because of his values or because of his safety?
Because his values made him a dissident in the West, where he is in danger.
A dissident in the US and its buddies, specifically. Iceland is still "the west" and was where Snowden said he'd have liked to move, but they'd have needed to offer him asylum and for that he'd have been required to apply in person and he was just not in the right place at the right time for that to happen (since he had concerns at the time that it would have been easier for the US to lean on Iceland than Hong Kong).
Magnitsky says hello. Or rather he doesn't.
> So it appears that people more aligned with my (and generally accepted) values tend to prefer Russia and its allies
This is objectively false, since there are way more refugees chosing to go to Russia and its allies (Snowden and who else?) than the other way round (thousands every year).
This is objectively false, since there are way more refugees chosing to go to Russia and its allies (Snowden and who else?) than the other way round (thousands every year).
The quantity says nothing about the reasons.
I had a look at the RT's web site (in English) when the hijacking happened. I found them being quite objective.
I did not analyze everything but they mentioned the reactions of western countries, the fact that Protasevich was arrested etc.
When extensively travelling in the ME 12 years ago, I often watched Al-Jazeera (in English) and I di not find anything outrageous either.
So either I did not read closely, or there is some subliminal text that I did not notice, or I was not interested enough to be the right target (just for the record, I think that the Belorussian govt is completely fucked up and we (France) should do whatever we can to kick them in the ass, more than just closing the airspace (and yes, I do not know what)).
I did not analyze everything but they mentioned the reactions of western countries, the fact that Protasevich was arrested etc.
When extensively travelling in the ME 12 years ago, I often watched Al-Jazeera (in English) and I di not find anything outrageous either.
So either I did not read closely, or there is some subliminal text that I did not notice, or I was not interested enough to be the right target (just for the record, I think that the Belorussian govt is completely fucked up and we (France) should do whatever we can to kick them in the ass, more than just closing the airspace (and yes, I do not know what)).
German Tagesschau has published an interview with an aviation lawyer about the difference between the current incident and the Morales thingy. TLDR: difference between a scheduled flight (protected by international treaty) and diplomatic flights, which need separate approval of the countries they're flying over. [0]
[0] https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/luftfahrtrecht-zwan... (in german)
[0] https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/luftfahrtrecht-zwan... (in german)
"Article 5: The aircraft of states, other than scheduled international air services, have the right to make flights across state's territories and to make stops without obtaining prior permission. *However, the state may require the aircraft to make a landing.*"
He seems to be arguing that this clause was broken in spirit or something. I can't quite make out the finer details though, but it's not exactly a slam dunk violation - the treaty does say they may require the aircraft to make a landing and they did.
He seems to be arguing that this clause was broken in spirit or something. I can't quite make out the finer details though, but it's not exactly a slam dunk violation - the treaty does say they may require the aircraft to make a landing and they did.
Legally, there may be a difference. Morally, not so much, imo. The Morales thingy should have never happened. EU needs to grow a spine.
Good to know that it is legal to force Putin's plane to land in order to hold him responsible for various "treatments" of dissidents!
I'm positive that the West will make use of that loophole at the first opportunity.
I'm positive that the West will make use of that loophole at the first opportunity.
The merits or demerits of the individual should be irrelevant. Belarus seized a European civilian plane. I believe this is unprecedented. (Blowing them out of the sky aside.)
If this were an American plane, I would fully consider it an act of war and make a lot of noise to that extent. If it were an American citizen, it would be worth—even if solely to draw a line—a tactical incursion to attempt exfiltration. But it’s not. We don’t have Nordstream or Orban or all the other capitulations Brussels (and Berlin) have made that create a geopolitical vulnerability with an actor willing to exploit them. The situation is thus properly complicated.
The only mitigating factor to Minks’s credit is Protasevich having never secured EU citizenship.
If this were an American plane, I would fully consider it an act of war and make a lot of noise to that extent. If it were an American citizen, it would be worth—even if solely to draw a line—a tactical incursion to attempt exfiltration. But it’s not. We don’t have Nordstream or Orban or all the other capitulations Brussels (and Berlin) have made that create a geopolitical vulnerability with an actor willing to exploit them. The situation is thus properly complicated.
The only mitigating factor to Minks’s credit is Protasevich having never secured EU citizenship.
Belarus are arguing that grounding a head of state is worse. The West is saying that grounding a civilian plane and escorting with fighter jets is worse.
I think people who are fully one one side of this are fully convinced by one of those. I don't think it's swaying people on the fence, however.
The individual does matter. It doesn't look great to start naming streets after arrested neo-nazis. If that story has legs (unclear if it does) this will really not endear Belarussians to the West and will play directly into Putin's narrative, which is that we enthusiastically support neonazis who fight Russia.
I think people who are fully one one side of this are fully convinced by one of those. I don't think it's swaying people on the fence, however.
The individual does matter. It doesn't look great to start naming streets after arrested neo-nazis. If that story has legs (unclear if it does) this will really not endear Belarussians to the West and will play directly into Putin's narrative, which is that we enthusiastically support neonazis who fight Russia.
Hate the player, not the game. The EU counties are highly likely(see, I adopted the Euro-Atlantic speak here) to be involved in trying to overthrow Lukashenko. Like him or not, but he acts in his own right.
>Silence is too awkward.
Are you surprised? This is the usual behavior of the Western "free" and "independent" media. Double standards in action.
Are you surprised? This is the usual behavior of the Western "free" and "independent" media. Double standards in action.
Brilliant move, but don't think for a second that it would accomplish anything significant other than giving us a misleading sense of justice.
Economic sanctions are the only way to change things over there. Of course Belarusian government would arrange things so that only the population will suffer from them, then use propaganda to divert the blame to the external world for economic collapse, loss of jobs etc. but that is normal; the idea behind sanctions isn't just to grab money form the king's wallet but also to light people's discontent so that they're a lot more motivated to revolt.
I have to ask the candid question : is there any data to back the efficiency of financial sanctions ? Don't get me wrong, I find them preferable to military actions "in general" (although specific cases will differ, and military actions has not been extraordinary effective either...)
I'm probably negativly biased by not having seen many dictators fall in the recent years, and a bunch of autocratic government flourish, while the US and EU are enacting sanctions all the time.
That being said, maybe the effect can't be spectacular, and it's one of those "sit by the river..." things where you have to surrender to time and biology.
I'm probably negativly biased by not having seen many dictators fall in the recent years, and a bunch of autocratic government flourish, while the US and EU are enacting sanctions all the time.
That being said, maybe the effect can't be spectacular, and it's one of those "sit by the river..." things where you have to surrender to time and biology.
Are you implying you can arrange for sanctions that would not have the population suffering from them (only the "government would arrange things so"): how would you achieve that? Perhaps you only meant that the ruling party will be protected from the financial downturn?
I've found sanctions to have only reinforced the us-vs-the-world mentality in Serbia in the early 90s, and I don't think they achieved the goal of the Western countries at the time (which I have no idea what it was, but if it was to get people to dissent enough to overthrow the government, they didn't succeed). It was similar in the NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, whereas NATO resorted to bombing civilian targets (like TV station, power plants and bridges in cities) to increase discontent, which did get the government to agree to some sort of surrender (which was only partial compared to the original demands), but this was basically sanctions++ (you not only stop external trade, but destroy things country has already built). Even then, government was overthrown a full year later mostly in parliamentary elections with some election-fraud drama sprinkled in. And people were already much better off than in the low times of early 90s (even outstanding foreign currency debts by banks to people from before the 90s financial collapse were being paid off at the time), so economic downturn was not the driver for the change.
I think the core missing part in these "developing democracies" is the skill to compromise (as hundreds of registered political parties in Serbia would attest).
As such, I would posit quite the contrary, that helping the population increase wealth would drive them to want to protect that wealth more through democratic and civil means, thus eventually overthrowing the government (I am sure we'll see that in China soon enough, even if it gets masqueraded as not switching away from "communism", though it's so huge that it is a special case). It's not as dramatic as war or sanctions, and might take a decade or two, but I am not sure sanctions have done a better job anywhere either.
I've found sanctions to have only reinforced the us-vs-the-world mentality in Serbia in the early 90s, and I don't think they achieved the goal of the Western countries at the time (which I have no idea what it was, but if it was to get people to dissent enough to overthrow the government, they didn't succeed). It was similar in the NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, whereas NATO resorted to bombing civilian targets (like TV station, power plants and bridges in cities) to increase discontent, which did get the government to agree to some sort of surrender (which was only partial compared to the original demands), but this was basically sanctions++ (you not only stop external trade, but destroy things country has already built). Even then, government was overthrown a full year later mostly in parliamentary elections with some election-fraud drama sprinkled in. And people were already much better off than in the low times of early 90s (even outstanding foreign currency debts by banks to people from before the 90s financial collapse were being paid off at the time), so economic downturn was not the driver for the change.
I think the core missing part in these "developing democracies" is the skill to compromise (as hundreds of registered political parties in Serbia would attest).
As such, I would posit quite the contrary, that helping the population increase wealth would drive them to want to protect that wealth more through democratic and civil means, thus eventually overthrowing the government (I am sure we'll see that in China soon enough, even if it gets masqueraded as not switching away from "communism", though it's so huge that it is a special case). It's not as dramatic as war or sanctions, and might take a decade or two, but I am not sure sanctions have done a better job anywhere either.
> Are you implying you can arrange for sanctions that would not have the population suffering from them
Of course not. My point was that the elite will continue to enjoy most of their privileges while common people will struggle to buy a loaf of bread, which is more or less what happens with sanctions. International laws prohibit any other type of intervention, so the change has to come from the inside, and in my opinion the only way to facilitate it is to use sanctions to push the difference between ruling and poor class to the extreme so that it could ignite public revolt. It stinks, badly, but that's how politics works. I don't think the Serbia example applies here, back then there was a war, and I recall one of my school teachers, who was from Friuli (north east Italy) just meters from the then Yugoslavia, telling the then 10 years old me in the mid 70s about the mutual hatred between various ethnic groups in the area, like they were just waiting for a chance to go at war against each other. In Belarus, unless I missed something (corrections welcome) there is "just" people against their corrupt decades old oppressive government.
Of course not. My point was that the elite will continue to enjoy most of their privileges while common people will struggle to buy a loaf of bread, which is more or less what happens with sanctions. International laws prohibit any other type of intervention, so the change has to come from the inside, and in my opinion the only way to facilitate it is to use sanctions to push the difference between ruling and poor class to the extreme so that it could ignite public revolt. It stinks, badly, but that's how politics works. I don't think the Serbia example applies here, back then there was a war, and I recall one of my school teachers, who was from Friuli (north east Italy) just meters from the then Yugoslavia, telling the then 10 years old me in the mid 70s about the mutual hatred between various ethnic groups in the area, like they were just waiting for a chance to go at war against each other. In Belarus, unless I missed something (corrections welcome) there is "just" people against their corrupt decades old oppressive government.
The hatred you are describing does not exist: it was manufactured and pushed by minorities with an agenda. How and why in the world would those mutually hating ethnicities ever unite into a single country (first Kingdom of Croatians, Serbians and Slovenes after WW1, after WW2 again into Yugoslavia).
As for any other interventions, why not just give each person a donation of 100k euros to see if that works? Otherwise, people under sanctions would rather you not help them.
As has been indicated previously, what are the examples of where sanctions have worked?
As for any other interventions, why not just give each person a donation of 100k euros to see if that works? Otherwise, people under sanctions would rather you not help them.
As has been indicated previously, what are the examples of where sanctions have worked?
While these word/name changes make people on social media feel good, they achieve less than nothing in real-world benefits.
They are actually counter-productive, in my opinion by distracting attention away from meaningful action.
They are actually counter-productive, in my opinion by distracting attention away from meaningful action.
What could a district mayor do?
Hopefully something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city
This is a fallacy. People can make more than one decision in a year. Particularly large cities' councils, which are tasked with running amazingly complex administrative and economic systems.
So unless there are indications that other decisions were delayed or scrapped because they want to change the street name, this is irrelevant.
So unless there are indications that other decisions were delayed or scrapped because they want to change the street name, this is irrelevant.
It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing.
The grandparent comment didn't challenge it, but asked rhetorically what [else] a mayor could do.
This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me.
Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least.
As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. There is still some limit, though (obviously larger than 1, but nevertheless finite), and renaming a street always comes at a substantial cost - both for the city and private entities. Cost associated with the need for changing street name signs, changing documents etc. Maybe that cost is worth paying, but an ad absurdum line of argument isn't something that could convince me of it.
The grandparent comment didn't challenge it, but asked rhetorically what [else] a mayor could do.
This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me.
Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least.
As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. There is still some limit, though (obviously larger than 1, but nevertheless finite), and renaming a street always comes at a substantial cost - both for the city and private entities. Cost associated with the need for changing street name signs, changing documents etc. Maybe that cost is worth paying, but an ad absurdum line of argument isn't something that could convince me of it.
> It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing.
This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision.
The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both.
> This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me.
Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed.
> Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least.
Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable.
> As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't.
You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion.
You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.
This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision.
The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both.
> This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me.
Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed.
> Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least.
Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable.
> As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't.
You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion.
You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.
Resources are finite. One of the main resource limitations for leaders is time. This is a waste of the mayor's time.
You are assuming that had the mayor skipped this proposal (which sounds like very little work to me), she would have done something else for thew city instead.
Real world doesn't work like that. If you are familiar with Bucharest municipal politics, by all means criticise that they are not doing a good enough job, or that they handled some things wrong.
But without context it's nonsensical to attack someone the way you do.
Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that.
Real world doesn't work like that. If you are familiar with Bucharest municipal politics, by all means criticise that they are not doing a good enough job, or that they handled some things wrong.
But without context it's nonsensical to attack someone the way you do.
Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that.
> Perhaps the mayor is doing 10x better job than her predecessor and she proposed this name change in addition to that.
Technically, the argument is that they are doing less work than their hypothetical counterpart who is identical in all respects, but did not spend time on making the name change proposal.
Clearly this is almost nonfalsifiable, so a difficult argument to take seriously.
Technically, the argument is that they are doing less work than their hypothetical counterpart who is identical in all respects, but did not spend time on making the name change proposal.
Clearly this is almost nonfalsifiable, so a difficult argument to take seriously.
Renaming a street to make a political statement obviously doesn't prevent the municipality from doing something meaningful and productive for the inhabitants of the city.
We don't live in a turn based strategy and the mayor did not spend her action. She doesn't have to wait for the next turn to do something else.
We don't live in a turn based strategy and the mayor did not spend her action. She doesn't have to wait for the next turn to do something else.
There's nothing done yet, but the idea is absolutely brilliant. Punishing autocrats on their ego instead of their people sounds like a much better approach. (given that economic sanctions usually fail to overthrow the regimes they are intended to punish)
> There's nothing done yet, but the idea is absolutely brilliant.
It's pointless when it is not backed by real sanctions. It does nothing to punish brazen actions of autocrats while giving them fuel for propaganda.
> Punishing autocrats on their ego instead of their people sounds like a much better approach.
How about real sanctions on autocrats, their cronies, families and businesses? Sanction oligarchs, sanction businesses that are main source of income for autocrats etc. If you want to help ordinary people - simplify immigration.
> Given that economic sanctions usually fail to overthrow the regimes they are intended to punish
Maybe not, but they cripple country development and leave autocrats with less resources for a future actions.
It's pointless when it is not backed by real sanctions. It does nothing to punish brazen actions of autocrats while giving them fuel for propaganda.
> Punishing autocrats on their ego instead of their people sounds like a much better approach.
How about real sanctions on autocrats, their cronies, families and businesses? Sanction oligarchs, sanction businesses that are main source of income for autocrats etc. If you want to help ordinary people - simplify immigration.
> Given that economic sanctions usually fail to overthrow the regimes they are intended to punish
Maybe not, but they cripple country development and leave autocrats with less resources for a future actions.
> How about real sanctions on autocrats, their cronies, families and businesses? Sanction oligarchs, sanction businesses that are main source of income for autocrats etc.
Sure, but these have a limited reach and they are usually being done very early in the sanction process. But once the targets have no more estate in the Western world, there is not much you can do.
> Maybe not, but they cripple country development and leave autocrats with less resources for a future actions.
But that's a really limited success at the cost of hundreds of lives, which makes it morally very difficult to justify.
Sure, but these have a limited reach and they are usually being done very early in the sanction process. But once the targets have no more estate in the Western world, there is not much you can do.
> Maybe not, but they cripple country development and leave autocrats with less resources for a future actions.
But that's a really limited success at the cost of hundreds of lives, which makes it morally very difficult to justify.
As pointless and stupid as taking down the flag of a sovereign state and replacing it with something else. What you get is more enemies and hate.
It's not pointless. It's a sign of disapproval. Just like not allowing Russia sportsmen to compete in Japan olympics under Russian flag. There is nothing intrinsically untouchable about official flags. It's just a symbol.
Czech's done the same thing to Russian embassy. Renamed the square that embassy is on to Boris Nemtsov square. Petty? yeah. Good? yeah.
Lithuania has done the same in Vilnius. Square in front of RU embassy got renamed to Boris Nemtsov square after his murder in Moscow. Not sure if it had any direct effect, though happy that a memory of such aggressions gets persisted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov
Warsaw named one of its roundabouts after the Chechen leader Dzhokhar Dudayev - similarly in Lviv (Ukraine).
Nothing says “Let’s try to resolve the issues between our states” like naming a street after someone who’s considered a terrorist by your neighbor. Has no practical value, no historical significance for your city. Just to piss someone off. This is a kindergarten-level politics.
All Lithuanian liberty activists killed by soviets during occupation were labeled as "terrorists" by USSR. Should LT treat them as terrorists because USSR labeled them so?
By the way there is at least one statue of Lithuanian liberty fighting "terrorist" in Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfas_Ramanauskas
By the way there is at least one statue of Lithuanian liberty fighting "terrorist" in Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfas_Ramanauskas
You should check out russian diplomats like Mariya Zaharova or Sergey Lavrov, if you want to get some "kindergarten-level" diplomacy. They do really not care about public image. This act is polite compared to what they say and pull off.
That is a great idea. Let’s throw even more fuel into the fire of a new Cold War. By naming a street in a EU capital after the guy who’s proud of serving in the white supremacist militia.
As if Bucharest has no other problems to solve. I mean, I’ve been there, the place is literally falling apart.
As if Bucharest has no other problems to solve. I mean, I’ve been there, the place is literally falling apart.
Bucharest... Romania in general, has to play a difficult diplomatic game. The only source of the stability in the region comes from Bucharest. Look at its neighbours:
Moldova, who was part of the Eastern bloc, has strong tendencies towards EU and RO, Romania is even offering them citizenship, to literally everyone that applies for one. Moldova has a region called Transnistria which is the equivalent of Ukrainian Donbass. It's a ticking bomb.
Ukraine, is literally divided, in the sense that their politicians don't have a clear direction. Romania and the EU still do not know if they are on the course to join the EU. Last time, Ukraine took the Russian and Romanian curriculum out of the schools. Let's not forget that Ukraine has pretty significant Romanian and Russian minorities. What kind of signal does this send? You don't even know what they are on about. Is that the start of a fierce nationalism promoting isolationism?
Serbia, another Romanian neighbor, they have affinities with Russia due to their shared Slavic heritage, which is perfectly fine. But they also don't give any indication of anything. What are your plans? Do you see yourself as an EU member? Is there any anti-corruption fight going on?
The only close neighbor to Romania is Hungary because of their shared European values. But even Hungary has problems with JOBBIK and Fidesz. Bulgaria comes second.
I can say that Romania is already living the new Cold War, it's right at the core. Without EU and NATO, today Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia wouldn't have been a unitary body of democractic values called Romania.
You can't sanction Belarus through brute force. You can't take on Russia without repercussions. Looks at this game between the embassies:
Romania kicks out 1 Russian embassy official: https://www.dw.com/en/romania-kicks-out-russian-embassy-offi...
Russia kicks out 1 Romanian embassy official: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/05/11/russia-expels-roma...
Moldova, who was part of the Eastern bloc, has strong tendencies towards EU and RO, Romania is even offering them citizenship, to literally everyone that applies for one. Moldova has a region called Transnistria which is the equivalent of Ukrainian Donbass. It's a ticking bomb.
Ukraine, is literally divided, in the sense that their politicians don't have a clear direction. Romania and the EU still do not know if they are on the course to join the EU. Last time, Ukraine took the Russian and Romanian curriculum out of the schools. Let's not forget that Ukraine has pretty significant Romanian and Russian minorities. What kind of signal does this send? You don't even know what they are on about. Is that the start of a fierce nationalism promoting isolationism?
Serbia, another Romanian neighbor, they have affinities with Russia due to their shared Slavic heritage, which is perfectly fine. But they also don't give any indication of anything. What are your plans? Do you see yourself as an EU member? Is there any anti-corruption fight going on?
The only close neighbor to Romania is Hungary because of their shared European values. But even Hungary has problems with JOBBIK and Fidesz. Bulgaria comes second.
I can say that Romania is already living the new Cold War, it's right at the core. Without EU and NATO, today Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia wouldn't have been a unitary body of democractic values called Romania.
You can't sanction Belarus through brute force. You can't take on Russia without repercussions. Looks at this game between the embassies:
Romania kicks out 1 Russian embassy official: https://www.dw.com/en/romania-kicks-out-russian-embassy-offi...
Russia kicks out 1 Romanian embassy official: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/05/11/russia-expels-roma...
Frankly, we (Serbia) have been told very clearly that we won't become member anytime soon as EU has first to solve some internal issues. Add to that that our politicians don't have any real desire to actually join and the end result is that everyone is just paying a lip service about joining.
In a country where prospect of joining never had strong support in general population (except in a sense that we would join only for money) even euro-enthusiasts figured out that joining isn't going to happen in short/mid term.
On the other side, our links to Russia in west media are pictured as much stronger than they really are. Culturally we are more western oriented and Russia is able do capitalize mostly on resentment regarding wars in '90. That won't disappear anytime soon but that's something where Russia plays only secondary role.
In the end Romania has no reasons to be on alert regarding Serbia (there was never a war between two countries, quite rare here), and minority issues aren't significant.
In a country where prospect of joining never had strong support in general population (except in a sense that we would join only for money) even euro-enthusiasts figured out that joining isn't going to happen in short/mid term.
On the other side, our links to Russia in west media are pictured as much stronger than they really are. Culturally we are more western oriented and Russia is able do capitalize mostly on resentment regarding wars in '90. That won't disappear anytime soon but that's something where Russia plays only secondary role.
In the end Romania has no reasons to be on alert regarding Serbia (there was never a war between two countries, quite rare here), and minority issues aren't significant.
Offtopic, my grandfather was Serbian, he came from Vojvodina. Thanks for describing what happens in Serbia from a Serbian point of view. Our media describes Serbia as being one of the countries that is a candidate to the EU but with no clear direction from the politic class. Indeed, Romania doesn't have to be on alert, just that this incertitude about the future of our region contributes to many missed opportunities, it also affects how infrastructure develops. For example, almost 90% of the investments in highways are the ones that link Romania with Hungary (literally the West), ignoring other borders that could have been useful to develop economic ties.
> Bucharest... Romania in general, has to play a difficult diplomatic game. The only source of the stability in the region comes from Bucharest. Look at its neighbours:
> Moldova, who was part of the Eastern bloc, has strong tendencies towards EU and RO, Romania is even offering them citizenship, to literally everyone that applies for one. Moldova has a region called Transnistria which is the equivalent of Ukrainian Donbass. It's a ticking bomb.
Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division.
> I can say that Romania is already living the new Cold War, it's right at the core. Without EU and NATO, today Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia wouldn't have been a unitary body of democractic values called Romania.
Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine.
> Moldova, who was part of the Eastern bloc, has strong tendencies towards EU and RO, Romania is even offering them citizenship, to literally everyone that applies for one. Moldova has a region called Transnistria which is the equivalent of Ukrainian Donbass. It's a ticking bomb.
Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division.
> I can say that Romania is already living the new Cold War, it's right at the core. Without EU and NATO, today Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia wouldn't have been a unitary body of democractic values called Romania.
Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine.
> Transnistria is not an issue really. With modern Western weapons, both Moldova, and Romania can contain it with a single division.
This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe.
> Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine.
Thankfully.
This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe.
> Romania, with all its flaws, still has a functioning military, ministry of interior, mostly stuffed with pro-nationalist cadres. The chance of Russia pulling Crimea on it is low. They will not have the same ease to bribe half of the general staff as they did in Ukraine.
Thankfully.
> This would be an issue as big as Putin would want to make it. He would not have any qualm sending some troops there if it could further destabilise Europe.
And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO.
The current Western discourse about possible confrontation with Russia is too sentimental, and not guided by ground truths. Few things what pundits say make sense military wise about the current situation in Europe.
As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO.
The current Western discourse about possible confrontation with Russia is too sentimental, and not guided by ground truths. Few things what pundits say make sense military wise about the current situation in Europe.
As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
> And... bad for him! He should be let doing his destabilising as much as he wants, as long as he is wasting his armies, and it is 2:1 for NATO.
You say that. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I see several major NATO partners unwilling to intervene in such a situation. I am sorry for my Moldovan friends, but in most likelihood nobody will budge for Moldova. Particularly as we've seen how American support can be fickle these days, and such an operation would last longer than a term of an US president. So yeah, not much confidence here.
> As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
That's fine and dandy when you have a convenient 2000 km-wide moat and all this is quite abstract. If there is a thing we really don't want in Europe it's a war, regardless of the size and who ends up winning it. Also, another truth you can learn from History is that there is no easy war.
You say that. A couple of years ago I would have agreed. Now I see several major NATO partners unwilling to intervene in such a situation. I am sorry for my Moldovan friends, but in most likelihood nobody will budge for Moldova. Particularly as we've seen how American support can be fickle these days, and such an operation would last longer than a term of an US president. So yeah, not much confidence here.
> As I said before, the truth of few centuries of military history is unequivocal: it is a very good thing to trip your opponent into a big war for a small gain, while your main force can stay back, and preserve its power.
That's fine and dandy when you have a convenient 2000 km-wide moat and all this is quite abstract. If there is a thing we really don't want in Europe it's a war, regardless of the size and who ends up winning it. Also, another truth you can learn from History is that there is no easy war.
I’d love to see how Russia would have pulled Crimea if the population didn’t support it. It’s obvious that Russia isn’t going to do anything like that in Romania as the majority of the population isn’t pro-Russian there.
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was for Transnistria. The population of Transnistria supports it just as much as the population of Crimea. It's been that way for quite some time now. I agree that it would be different for Romania. Thankfully, as I wrote.
I'm curious, what course of action would you propose? Let lukashenko & putin flourish?
I’m convinced it’s up to the country’s population to take any action. If you don’t like what Russia does - don’t talk to them, don’t buy anything from them. If you’re convinced that certain territory is “illegally occupied” you can say “hey guys, come and study for free if you live there!”. This way you can educate people and try to convince them you’re right. Instead, we end up with Coursera not allowing Crimeans and Iranians to study, or GitHub access being blocked there. It’s such a petty move.
The population is taking action, yet they are brutally silenced. Have you seen protests in Belarus and what happened to Navalniy?
Do you have a source for him being in a white supremacist militia?
There are pictures of him wearing neo-nazi imagery
https://twitter.com/Volod_Ishchenko/status/13975130316183715...
Since I never heard of "SvaStone" before, a quick search confirms that the brand sold other tshirts with the least subtle slogans possible, like:
"White baby — the future of our race."
https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-nazi-clothing-ex...
https://twitter.com/Volod_Ishchenko/status/13975130316183715...
Since I never heard of "SvaStone" before, a quick search confirms that the brand sold other tshirts with the least subtle slogans possible, like:
"White baby — the future of our race."
https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facebook-nazi-clothing-ex...
It's interesting that we are exposing "neo-nazis", but when you are a communist no one bats an eye.
Well, even the US blocked the military aid to Azov on the nazism grounds. So everyone who was even standing near those people should be questioned.
I'm afraid that talking about communism here is just derailing the discussion, for multiple reasons:
1- Communists aren't in power in Belarus (nor Russia)
2- Protasevich is not a communist
3- None of the discussion that's happening is about seizing the means of production
4- Being a neo-nazi is not bad because the word starts with a "N", it's bad because the ideology behind it advocates for racial conflict and ethnic cleansing.
1- Communists aren't in power in Belarus (nor Russia)
2- Protasevich is not a communist
3- None of the discussion that's happening is about seizing the means of production
4- Being a neo-nazi is not bad because the word starts with a "N", it's bad because the ideology behind it advocates for racial conflict and ethnic cleansing.
The interview from 2015 features an anonymous Belorussian combatant [0]. Recently, the same picture with his face was shown to be on his phone.
[0] https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/colonelcassad/19281164/28822...
[0] https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/colonelcassad/19281164/28822...
Counter-view:
http://euromaidanpress.com/2021/05/26/protasevich-is-a-dissi...
Where truth dies so easily, make your own judgement.
http://euromaidanpress.com/2021/05/26/protasevich-is-a-dissi...
Where truth dies so easily, make your own judgement.
From the link:
> Conspiracy theorist Ivan Katchanovski, known in Ukraine for online ballistic “expertise” of trees on Instytutska square to “prove” Maidan protesters shot each other
Which invalidates it right away. I’m yet to hear a convincing story from the Ukrainian government about who shot people on Maidan.
> Conspiracy theorist Ivan Katchanovski, known in Ukraine for online ballistic “expertise” of trees on Instytutska square to “prove” Maidan protesters shot each other
Which invalidates it right away. I’m yet to hear a convincing story from the Ukrainian government about who shot people on Maidan.
That article links to a tweet in Ukrainian that seems to be disputed [0].
Do you have another source?
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/Volod_Ishchenko/status/1397273535...
Do you have another source?
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/Volod_Ishchenko/status/1397273535...
It's interesting to see this[0] on svaboda.org which certainly cannot be considered Putin/Lukashenka's propaganda by anyone.
I'm not saying "he was in a white supremacist militia" but if that's him in [0] (cf. [1] — claimed to be a picture of his phone) then maybe he was at some time a part of Azov batallion. It's still unclear in what function he was there though.
[0] https://www.svaboda.org/a/27255566.html
[1] https://telegra.ph/Voeval-li-Protasevich-v-Ukraine-05-27
I'm not saying "he was in a white supremacist militia" but if that's him in [0] (cf. [1] — claimed to be a picture of his phone) then maybe he was at some time a part of Azov batallion. It's still unclear in what function he was there though.
[0] https://www.svaboda.org/a/27255566.html
[1] https://telegra.ph/Voeval-li-Protasevich-v-Ukraine-05-27
[deleted]
Wikipedia writes: According to the BBC, Belarusian authorities have sought to portray Protasevich as an "extremist with right-wing sympathies" to "muddy the waters" on his detention. The Belarus presidential administration's state-run newspaper, Belarus Segodnya, has claimed that Protasevich was a mercenary who "fought in eastern Ukraine with the nationalist Azov Battalion".[3] Protasevich has previously said he spent a year in Ukraine covering the war in Donbas as a journalist and photographer.[3] Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky wrote that Protasevich “actually fought with the Azov Battalion and other units against the occupation of Ukraine, but as a journalist his weapon was not the machine gun, but the word,” and that he was wounded at the 2015 Shyrokyne standoff.[17]
If he actually joined them, he's certainly not boasting about it.
If he actually joined them, he's certainly not boasting about it.
Why would he? He’ll never get out of jail if you add those accusations.
I'm curious about what do you mean when you say "the place is literally falling apart"?
They bash the presidential palace for being the symbol of dictatorship and oppression. Ironically, just 100 meters away from it, there’re entire streets that look literary abandoned. Giant potholes, half-destroyed buildings etc. Bratislava and Bucharest were the most depressing cities out of all European capitals I visited. These cities seem to be very poorly managed.
Practice shows that being polite and diplomatic with an aspiring dictator will be treated as a weakness by him and he will continue escalating more and more.
Force approach to the assholes in charge is the only working solution.
“The dictator” has killed fewer people than any of the NATO states since the downfall of the USSR. It’s kind of like scaring people with North Korea, which hasn’t invaded anyone for decades.
> I mean, I’ve been there, the place is literally falling apart.
I don't understand the need to insult the city, regardless of your opinion of one politician's gestures or proposals.
I don't understand the need to insult the city, regardless of your opinion of one politician's gestures or proposals.
I’m stating the fact. It seems quite relevant in the light of officials trying to ride the hype train.
> I’m stating the fact.
How is that a fact? Perhaps you meant 'figuratively falling apart'. How much of the city have you visited? How much do you know about the place and what's going on there?
I think the idea that any (inhabited) city in the world is 'literally' falling apart is a stretch, but if it were to be applicable somewhere, it would have to be a place that was recently ravaged by wars or earthquakes or tsunamis or something like that.
I suspect what you meant was along the lines of 'I was there once and I didn't like it and I don't like that the mayor wants to rename the street, so fuck all the people who live there and their shitty city'. This is why I found it offensive.
> It seems quite relevant in the light of officials trying to ride the hype train.
It is precisely and completely irrelevant. If anything it's an example of whataboutism [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
How is that a fact? Perhaps you meant 'figuratively falling apart'. How much of the city have you visited? How much do you know about the place and what's going on there?
I think the idea that any (inhabited) city in the world is 'literally' falling apart is a stretch, but if it were to be applicable somewhere, it would have to be a place that was recently ravaged by wars or earthquakes or tsunamis or something like that.
I suspect what you meant was along the lines of 'I was there once and I didn't like it and I don't like that the mayor wants to rename the street, so fuck all the people who live there and their shitty city'. This is why I found it offensive.
> It seems quite relevant in the light of officials trying to ride the hype train.
It is precisely and completely irrelevant. If anything it's an example of whataboutism [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> Let’s throw even more fuel into the fire of a new Cold War.
Right. Because if an autocratic bully is offended by a name change, it clearly is the fault of the people changing the name. Appeasement is totally the solution. Let's just do whatever they want us to do, I'm sure it's going to be great.
In the real world though, naming streets is the prerogative of the city councils or mayors, not the dictator next door.
> As if Bucharest has no other problems to solve.
Sorry, this is just stupid. I am sure you realise that people can do more than one thing at one given moment, right? Reality is not turn based.
Right. Because if an autocratic bully is offended by a name change, it clearly is the fault of the people changing the name. Appeasement is totally the solution. Let's just do whatever they want us to do, I'm sure it's going to be great.
In the real world though, naming streets is the prerogative of the city councils or mayors, not the dictator next door.
> As if Bucharest has no other problems to solve.
Sorry, this is just stupid. I am sure you realise that people can do more than one thing at one given moment, right? Reality is not turn based.
Your average HN user is trained in the diplomacy of Sid Meyer's Civilization. Realpolitik is a joke. /s
One man’s journalist is another man’s US Dept. of State sponsored war-fighting neo-nazi
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/protasevich-served-in-azov/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/protasevich-served-in-azov/
The thing is that he never fought. By the time he arrived to the battalion there were no deployments to the frontline anymore. He was in training, took a few photos and left. Biletsky's words differ depending on when you ask him and soldiers that trained with him say that he never was in action.
While azov is definitely is not a great bunch, in 2014 it was one of the only groups, alongside with donbas battalion that was accepting volunteers and this was the main attraction. A lot of belarusians and ukranians got there, fought and left and they realized what azov is really about.
Tut.by's article: https://telegra.ph/Voeval-li-Protasevich-v-Ukraine-05-27
While azov is definitely is not a great bunch, in 2014 it was one of the only groups, alongside with donbas battalion that was accepting volunteers and this was the main attraction. A lot of belarusians and ukranians got there, fought and left and they realized what azov is really about.
Tut.by's article: https://telegra.ph/Voeval-li-Protasevich-v-Ukraine-05-27
And I’m sure his mom bought him that T-shirt!
And later in Belarus he worked against authoritarian fascist regime and against exactly what azovs ideology now represents. In a country where you are actively pursued by cops for critiquing people in power and cops have no responsibility and any kind of limitations on use of force, being a journalist that even somewhat challenges the system takes balls and dedication.
Most of my family got affected by the regime at some point before leaving the country, witnessed massacre in 2011, gov-t staged terrorist acts. And knowing how Belarus needs people like Protasevich, Putilo, Zavadski, Byabenin, Cherkasova i am willfully dismissing his misdoings in favour of his later achievements.
I know that people love to let their entire opinion be based on a single article, but let the bigger picture in.
Most of my family got affected by the regime at some point before leaving the country, witnessed massacre in 2011, gov-t staged terrorist acts. And knowing how Belarus needs people like Protasevich, Putilo, Zavadski, Byabenin, Cherkasova i am willfully dismissing his misdoings in favour of his later achievements.
I know that people love to let their entire opinion be based on a single article, but let the bigger picture in.
> being a journalist that even somewhat challenges the system
Would be nice to read his articles if there are any. He's a journalist after all. Right?
Would be nice to read his articles if there are any. He's a journalist after all. Right?
Right
Worked for euroradio
https://euroradio.fm/en/anarchists-describe-their-arrests-i-...
https://euroradio.fm/en/young-man-imprisoned-drug-related-cr...
https://euroradio.fm/en/girl-you-better-go-do-some-work-and-...
https://euroradio.fm/en/lithuania-prepares-potential-belnpp-...
Moved to poland fearing arrest. Joined Nexta. Biggest belarusian tg channel.
https://t.me/s/nexta_live
Enjoy, most of the stuff before september 28th.
edit: Anarchists in Belarus are actively persecuted by kgb over the last 20 years. They are seen as enemies of the state and are constantly watched. Police brutality, election fraud, are themes that are very taboo in state media, and journalists that write about these things are often arrested because of treir work.
Worked for euroradio
https://euroradio.fm/en/anarchists-describe-their-arrests-i-...
https://euroradio.fm/en/young-man-imprisoned-drug-related-cr...
https://euroradio.fm/en/girl-you-better-go-do-some-work-and-...
https://euroradio.fm/en/lithuania-prepares-potential-belnpp-...
Moved to poland fearing arrest. Joined Nexta. Biggest belarusian tg channel.
https://t.me/s/nexta_live
Enjoy, most of the stuff before september 28th.
edit: Anarchists in Belarus are actively persecuted by kgb over the last 20 years. They are seen as enemies of the state and are constantly watched. Police brutality, election fraud, are themes that are very taboo in state media, and journalists that write about these things are often arrested because of treir work.
I was interested in his earlier pieces: it’s been stated that Protasevich joined Azov as a journalist, not a neo-nazi combatant. Did he write anything about his experience in Azov?
It's interesting to see this [0] on svaboda.org which certainly cannot be considered Putin/Lukashenka's propaganda by anyone.
[0] https://www.svaboda.org/a/27255566.html
[0] https://www.svaboda.org/a/27255566.html
While this is Protasevich's photo. Age in the article does not line up he was 19 at the moment of article publication, Protasevich joined Pahonya division at a later date, not when the division was just formed.
The article does not say he's 22; it quotes "Kim" reporting his age as 22. While Protasevich was 20 at the publication time, he could have concealed his age, e.g. to prevent identification.
They could have used other soldiers photo to conceal identity. Again, Protasevich joined Pahonya at a later date, not at the very start.
I don't seem to get what you're saying. Do you suggest svaboda.org used a photo from the future when it published that article on September 18, 2015? If you're not saying that, I think we can agree he was there on that date or before.
Nope, i am saying just like they gave away fake age for the reporter, they could've used just some random photo from backlog of a nondescript soldier with azov patch to put into article.
I am not arguing that was not there. I am just arguing that the article is not really a proof of him being a combatant.
Let's leave "Kim" aside. Is the picture of a person with Protasevich's face carrying a weapon and magazines a sufficient proof of Protasevich being a combatant, in your opinion?
This proves that he took part in training. Posing with a weapon on a shooting range, does not define him as a combatant.
Combat medics, for example, that are by Geneva convention are non-combatants are still trained to use rifles and carry at least a pistol, in most militaries, for personal protection during active service.
Combat medics, for example, that are by Geneva convention are non-combatants are still trained to use rifles and carry at least a pistol, in most militaries, for personal protection during active service.
This argument is threading thin on the edge of "plausible deniability" but the problem is that no one (as of yet) is claiming he was there as a "medic". The claim being raised is that he's been there as a "journalist". Surely journalists don't have to take part in the military training of the combatants they are covering as a part of their job?
The issue with this is, in the court of public opinion, once it's proven that your "alibi" doesn't hold water, you aren't allowed to come with an alternative "alibi", but rather perceived as a liar; otherwise you would tell the truth from the beginning.
The issue with this is, in the court of public opinion, once it's proven that your "alibi" doesn't hold water, you aren't allowed to come with an alternative "alibi", but rather perceived as a liar; otherwise you would tell the truth from the beginning.
Medics were just an example. No need to call me a liar. Journalists do train.
West. Basic training. https://www.todaysmilitary.com/careers-benefits/careers/publ...
East. The "Тактика" и "Военная подготовка" part. This is an example of russian uni that trains military journalists specifically, still during my time in my military dept (not military uni, just a dept) in uni "Военная подготовка" went above and beyond shooting on a range and ruck marches. https://voronezh.postupi.online/vuz/vgu/programma/10008/
European countries mostly pick fresh recruits after basic, and do additional training, then they assigned a role.
West. Basic training. https://www.todaysmilitary.com/careers-benefits/careers/publ...
East. The "Тактика" и "Военная подготовка" part. This is an example of russian uni that trains military journalists specifically, still during my time in my military dept (not military uni, just a dept) in uni "Военная подготовка" went above and beyond shooting on a range and ruck marches. https://voronezh.postupi.online/vuz/vgu/programma/10008/
European countries mostly pick fresh recruits after basic, and do additional training, then they assigned a role.
What? Wait, but they said he's just a journalist.
[deleted]
interesting!
Interesting, guy participated in ultra-nationalist Ukrainian battalion Azov after all
I live in a city where city council politicians regularly proposes to change the name of “Israel square” to “Palestine square”. Fairly idiotic in my opinion.
Why is it idiotic?
Because that particular conflict dates back over a thousand years, both sides have legitimate grievances, and the politics and consequential conflict are incredibly complex despite what propagandists on either side would have you believe. Such a reductionist statement by some local council would be counterproductive.
Let's discuss naming the street with the Chinese embassy "Falun Gong street" and the one with the American embassy "Julian Assange street" instead focusing on keeping our streets clean of rubbish and our schools well run.
It is idiotic because local politicians should not do foreign policy, and if they try they likely will show themselves as incompetent fools.
It is idiotic because local politicians should not do foreign policy, and if they try they likely will show themselves as incompetent fools.
I think you are overestimating the time and effort ...
1. involved in proposing changing a street name
2. spent by the mayor directly on the activities you mention
1. involved in proposing changing a street name
2. spent by the mayor directly on the activities you mention
It is not so much what they spend their time on, it is more how they misdirect and manipulate public opinion. Like: sure I am an incompetent and corrupt mayor but let’s talk about the Israel / Palestine - isn’t it just horrible how the Israelis are bombing children?
I don’t know anything about this particular politician, but if someone incompetent or corrupt does something good like highlighting atrocities committed by Israel against Palestine that’s still a positive, even if it’s just an attempt to get good PR (if they’re so awful it might not even help them that much)
What wouldn’t be idiotic is for countries to sanction Israel for not trying to resolve the conflict. Like, for starting a war whenever the ruling party needs to get a bit more of those nationalistic votes.
Instead of solving actual problems, politicians have the maturity level of small children. Good to know.
As a born and raised Bucharester I find this idea completely juvenile and ridiculous.
I have absolutely no love for Lukashenko (or for his master Putin for that matter) and I fully agree that what was done is outrageous and should be condemned and sanctioned (as long as the EU finds a way to sanction the elite without harming the Belarusian people themselves).
However, I think this kind of gestures are hasty, puerile and unnecessarily provocative. Naming a street just to spite another country's leader is on par with the kind of idiotic gestures somebody like Rogozin is famous for [1]. What's next, naming a street after Navalny to spite Putin? And after that? Khashoggi boulevard to piss off MBS? This would never end. By this measure the entire city should be renamed to spite all the despots of the world.
The idea of a negative reason to name a street is also extremely dubious. Normally streets, squares, parks etc. are named after people or events we want to praise or commemorate. I understand that Protasevich is a dissident and people like him should be protected and encouraged, but why name a street after him? And in Bucharest of all places? Does he have any connection to the city or the country? Is he a hero of the Romanian people? Does Romania, Bucharest or the 1st district have anything to do with the fight for democracy in Belarus?
The whole thing is ill conceived.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Rogozin#Controversy
I have absolutely no love for Lukashenko (or for his master Putin for that matter) and I fully agree that what was done is outrageous and should be condemned and sanctioned (as long as the EU finds a way to sanction the elite without harming the Belarusian people themselves).
However, I think this kind of gestures are hasty, puerile and unnecessarily provocative. Naming a street just to spite another country's leader is on par with the kind of idiotic gestures somebody like Rogozin is famous for [1]. What's next, naming a street after Navalny to spite Putin? And after that? Khashoggi boulevard to piss off MBS? This would never end. By this measure the entire city should be renamed to spite all the despots of the world.
The idea of a negative reason to name a street is also extremely dubious. Normally streets, squares, parks etc. are named after people or events we want to praise or commemorate. I understand that Protasevich is a dissident and people like him should be protected and encouraged, but why name a street after him? And in Bucharest of all places? Does he have any connection to the city or the country? Is he a hero of the Romanian people? Does Romania, Bucharest or the 1st district have anything to do with the fight for democracy in Belarus?
The whole thing is ill conceived.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Rogozin#Controversy
> Should the street be renamed, the Belarusian embassy's correspondence and its staff's business cards would [change]
Doubt it. I have to imagine "Ambasada Belarusului, București 011411" is going to be pretty deliverable.
Doubt it. I have to imagine "Ambasada Belarusului, București 011411" is going to be pretty deliverable.
A plane flying between two EU cities hijacked and this, along with a couple similar useless actions, is the only response from EU.
As someone living in a country on it's way of total authoritarianism, I hate it when the West do almost nothing [1] for the sake of economic relations with the aggressor or with it's bigger brother.
[1] https://twitter.com/ISEUConcerned
As someone living in a country on it's way of total authoritarianism, I hate it when the West do almost nothing [1] for the sake of economic relations with the aggressor or with it's bigger brother.
[1] https://twitter.com/ISEUConcerned
> Bucharest mayor changes Belarus embassy's street name to Protasevich Street
This is not just another case of an editorialized title on HN.
It‘s much worse.
The EU has been accused precisely that it won't actually do anything against the arrest of Protasevich, besides posting angry tweets for a few days.
The title of the article suggest it has actually done „something“.
But in reality it‘s exactly what we all fear, just „some guy“ trolling around on Facebook, giving the impression that something was done!
This is not just another case of an editorialized title on HN.
It‘s much worse.
The EU has been accused precisely that it won't actually do anything against the arrest of Protasevich, besides posting angry tweets for a few days.
The title of the article suggest it has actually done „something“.
But in reality it‘s exactly what we all fear, just „some guy“ trolling around on Facebook, giving the impression that something was done!
This proposal (which I find hilarious) is from local politicians in Bucharest and not from the EU.
There are already _a lot_ of economic sanctions aimed at Belarus and each time new ones are imposed, it'll be successively harder to do more the next time. There's only so much that can be done -- The EU has already pretty much delivered Belarus into the hands of Russia and the EU isn't going to try direct intervention. Nobody wants a confrontation with Russia or a repeat of the Ukraine situation.
There are already _a lot_ of economic sanctions aimed at Belarus and each time new ones are imposed, it'll be successively harder to do more the next time. There's only so much that can be done -- The EU has already pretty much delivered Belarus into the hands of Russia and the EU isn't going to try direct intervention. Nobody wants a confrontation with Russia or a repeat of the Ukraine situation.
The EU is kind of stuck. Most of the options at its disposal would likely be made to drive resentment by Belarussians towards the EU and push them into Putin's arms.
This is in direct opposition to the EU's strategic goals - it wants Belarussians have a favorable view of the EU and an unfavorable view of Russia. They've actually been doing fairly well at that so far.
On the other hand, if they do nothing they look weak.
RT and domestic Belarussian propaganda outlets are all geared up to tell Belarussians that they won't be able to get their medicine because the EU doesn't like that we used the same unconventional methods they used to get Snowden to arrest a domestic neo nazi insurgent (that being the line they're going with now) oh and by the way "they named a street after their hero".
I don't think there are many good options here. Indeed, doing nothing, galling as it might be, might be the lesser evil.
This is in direct opposition to the EU's strategic goals - it wants Belarussians have a favorable view of the EU and an unfavorable view of Russia. They've actually been doing fairly well at that so far.
On the other hand, if they do nothing they look weak.
RT and domestic Belarussian propaganda outlets are all geared up to tell Belarussians that they won't be able to get their medicine because the EU doesn't like that we used the same unconventional methods they used to get Snowden to arrest a domestic neo nazi insurgent (that being the line they're going with now) oh and by the way "they named a street after their hero".
I don't think there are many good options here. Indeed, doing nothing, galling as it might be, might be the lesser evil.
Good point. The winning move could be directing the sanctions at Russia instead.
> it‘s exactly what we all fear, just „some guy“ trolling around on Facebook
Well that "guy" is the mayor of one of the capital's districts, and she used to be a member of the european parliament.
No idea if anything will come from this proposal, but it's not some guy trolling on Facebook.
Well that "guy" is the mayor of one of the capital's districts, and she used to be a member of the european parliament.
No idea if anything will come from this proposal, but it's not some guy trolling on Facebook.
It literally is some gal trolling on Facebook. Even if it were Merkel and Sarkozy tweeting, it is literally just tweeting. They could be actually implementing the actions they want, but instead they chose to just pretend to be doing something.
Anybody talking about Julian Assange?
Glasgow named the street where the south African embassy was as Nelson Mandela square during apartheid. It was a dig at both south Africa and thatcher
A bit childish IMO
Editorialized title on HN submission. Actual title on Reuters:
Protasevich Street? Bucharest mulls changing address of Belarusian embassy
Protasevich Street? Bucharest mulls changing address of Belarusian embassy
Let's call it Republic of Protasevia.
LOL. Lukashenka and Putin will be very upset and will care so much about that. Hijacking Protasevich was a demonstration of power, a showtime for Russian and Bialorusian intelligence competence and ability to operate abroad.
This was a Polish plane flying from one EU country to another EU country with EU citizens on-board that was clearly hijacked. Mig-29 was sent to make sure this will happen.
What EU did? Blocked Belorussian planes for one day (looking on Flight Radar, blockade is gone now)? Changing street name? What else, twits, likes and crayons?
This is exactly what Putin wants - he wants to show that EU, NATO are not able to protect their interest in Central Europe, more, that they don't even care about this. Russia do this using force - Crimea invasion and catching Protasevich or using economy and influence - German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was bribed by Russians to start building Nord Stream, then Nord Stream 2 followed.
This was a Polish plane flying from one EU country to another EU country with EU citizens on-board that was clearly hijacked. Mig-29 was sent to make sure this will happen.
What EU did? Blocked Belorussian planes for one day (looking on Flight Radar, blockade is gone now)? Changing street name? What else, twits, likes and crayons?
This is exactly what Putin wants - he wants to show that EU, NATO are not able to protect their interest in Central Europe, more, that they don't even care about this. Russia do this using force - Crimea invasion and catching Protasevich or using economy and influence - German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was bribed by Russians to start building Nord Stream, then Nord Stream 2 followed.
(looking on Flight Radar, blockade is gone now)
Just out of curiosity, I checked now (2021-05-27 10:38 UTC) and not one flight over Belarus is an EU airline:
* Aeroflot, MOSCOW to BELGRADE
* Unmarked plane T7-HHH under San Marino registration
* Belavia, Minsk to Belgrade
* Fedex, Hongkong to Liege
* Belavia, Istanbul to Minsk
* Adzerbaijan Airlines, Baku to Moscow (what is this doing over Belarus, the flight path seems very strange - AHY6735)
* Air China, Frankfurt to Beijing
What do you expect EU to do about airlines it doesn't control ?
Just out of curiosity, I checked now (2021-05-27 10:38 UTC) and not one flight over Belarus is an EU airline:
* Aeroflot, MOSCOW to BELGRADE
* Unmarked plane T7-HHH under San Marino registration
* Belavia, Minsk to Belgrade
* Fedex, Hongkong to Liege
* Belavia, Istanbul to Minsk
* Adzerbaijan Airlines, Baku to Moscow (what is this doing over Belarus, the flight path seems very strange - AHY6735)
* Air China, Frankfurt to Beijing
What do you expect EU to do about airlines it doesn't control ?
I don't know if the grandparent commenter is correct, but they quite clearly meant Belarussian flights over EU airspace, not the other way round (EU flights over Belarus, which is what you seem to be referring to).
Belavia themselves[1] say flights to Poland, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Finland, Czechia, Latvia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, France and Lithuania are cancelled.
That leaves Hungary, Cyprus and Estonia. There are news articles for all three saying bans are supported or in progress — different countries have different legal processes for doing this, and it can take a few more days.
[1] https://en.belavia.by/news/ or https://en.belavia.by/table/
That leaves Hungary, Cyprus and Estonia. There are news articles for all three saying bans are supported or in progress — different countries have different legal processes for doing this, and it can take a few more days.
[1] https://en.belavia.by/news/ or https://en.belavia.by/table/
I was very curious about the Azerbaijan Airlines routing (the countries around there don't get along so their flight paths tend to reflect that - see flights coming/going from Armenia too)
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/AHY6735 Looks like this one was just Baku to Minsk though, no controversy. Their Baku-Moscow route is AHY181
https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/AHY6735 Looks like this one was just Baku to Minsk though, no controversy. Their Baku-Moscow route is AHY181
hey! that's my hometown, nice to see that the mayor I voted for is considering to do something to address this crisis
The bigger problem here is that the West is no longer capable of committing to sacrifices in order to squeeze despots like Luka and geopolitical hooligans like Putin, because they are sitting on resources. God forbid local business interests are hurt.
Some of it is just straight up bribery. Selfishness is taking over basic patriotism. Not the toxic kind, I mean, basic, like knowing which team you are on, at least.
And the more minor part of it is, of course, the terminal condition of not wanting to "disturb the peace". Fine, then, they will do it FOR you, and they will control the situation.
Some of it is just straight up bribery. Selfishness is taking over basic patriotism. Not the toxic kind, I mean, basic, like knowing which team you are on, at least.
And the more minor part of it is, of course, the terminal condition of not wanting to "disturb the peace". Fine, then, they will do it FOR you, and they will control the situation.
Let me remind you who is real hooligan here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Even the entry you cite talks about Assange deliberately leaking false info about Snowden onboard. Either way, this is rather poor whataboutism. Landing a diplomatic plane is not threatening to shoot down a loaded civilian jet in order to arrest and most likely now murder a political opponent.
Wow, little bit easier. Shoot down the plane? Murder a political opponent? I won't really comment that nonsense.
As for Evo Moralez incident, the head of the State and its stuff has diplomatic immunity. Even if the plane is packed with snowdens and assanges you can NOT touch it.
As for Evo Moralez incident, the head of the State and its stuff has diplomatic immunity. Even if the plane is packed with snowdens and assanges you can NOT touch it.
So, the two wrongs make it right.
what happens if the embassy changes the street? like a pointer, they should change every street the embassy moves into.
That's such a boss move. Hope it goes through.
nice
I should mention that the American High Comission in Kolkata, India is located at Ho Chi Minh Sarani (street).
I find it contunously hilarious. Always gives me a chuckle.
I find it contunously hilarious. Always gives me a chuckle.
Are we renaming streets after Neo-Nazis now? What else?
What does this have with Hacker News?
I'm wondering about the same, and I don't understand why you're getting downvoted.
At the very beginning of HN guidelines we read:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
It sounds pretty much like a story that could make it to TV news, and the phenomenon itself is hardly new (a number of precedents has already been pointed out in other comments).
At the very beginning of HN guidelines we read:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
It sounds pretty much like a story that could make it to TV news, and the phenomenon itself is hardly new (a number of precedents has already been pointed out in other comments).
> I'm wondering about the same, and I don't understand why you're getting downvoted.
Because people complaining about this is tedious and a regular feature, and it only causes noise. If you don't like an article, move on. If you think it's off topic and shouldn't be there at all, flag.
For my part, I find it interesting not because of this specific incident, but because of the comments it has sparked showing how naming places is regularly being used as a low-key passive-aggressive protest by local governments.
To me that's an interesting hack around the otherwise limited powers of local government.
Because people complaining about this is tedious and a regular feature, and it only causes noise. If you don't like an article, move on. If you think it's off topic and shouldn't be there at all, flag.
For my part, I find it interesting not because of this specific incident, but because of the comments it has sparked showing how naming places is regularly being used as a low-key passive-aggressive protest by local governments.
To me that's an interesting hack around the otherwise limited powers of local government.
> If you don't like an article, move on.
You just explained why you think this should be on HN, something that wouldn't have happened without the question.
You just explained why you think this should be on HN, something that wouldn't have happened without the question.
I’m not surprised, but still ashamed. This isn’t the first time post-89 Romanian authorities rename something to honour a fascist. It even happened to the street I grew up on.
How much do they pay for shilling in Piter these days? Do you guys get residential proxies, or just hope Russian IPs aren't banned?
I’m Romanian and sadly unpaid for my posting.
Please don't post like this, even if you disagree with parent comment. It's a nasty personal attack regardless of who's doing it.
Naming streets after people who are still alive (not to mention under 30) is nonsensical in principle.
Make no mistake - I do hope that Protasevich gets released, and I have no sympathy for the regime whatsoever... but there's absolutely no telling what his further life trajectory would be like, and the street name would be there to stay. (It's obviously not guaranteed "forever"; but that's usually the intention, the principle. Street names are not meant for temporary tributes or announcements)
Make no mistake - I do hope that Protasevich gets released, and I have no sympathy for the regime whatsoever... but there's absolutely no telling what his further life trajectory would be like, and the street name would be there to stay. (It's obviously not guaranteed "forever"; but that's usually the intention, the principle. Street names are not meant for temporary tributes or announcements)
While this might not accomplish much in real terms, I do find it hilarious.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_street_names_changed_a...