Thread: Eurasia Topics

Originally Posted by OhOh

The concept of a "free and open Indo-Pacific region" promoted by the United States is destructive, as its goal is to divide the regional countries into "interest groups," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said ahead of his visit to Sri Lanka.
With the visit to Sri Lanka on Tuesday, the top Russian diplomat starts his Asia tour, which also includes India and Uzbekistan.

. . . then

Originally Posted by OhOh

Lavrov noted that he was planning to discuss Russia and Sri Lanka's cooperation on energy, technology and agriculture during his upcoming visit to the country.

Yea, the turd that was kicked to third rank is trying very hard to remain economically relevant

Originally Posted by panama hat

Yea, the turd that was kicked to third rank is trying very hard to remain economically relevant

It seems that you are well versed with turds...

For the particular few, the world is up for auction.

Subliminal empires.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

It seems that you are well versed with turds...

Well, I am engaging with you

Originally Posted by panama hat

Yea, the turd that was kicked to third rank is trying very hard to remain economically relevant

Try looking at the debt levels,growth, ..... of the "greatest country in the world" and your alleged turd country.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Try looking at the debt levels,growth, ..... of the "greatest country in the world" and your alleged turd country.

If that's your yardstick then have at it . . . and who are you quoting?

DYOR.

Originally Posted by OhOh

DYOR.

When you quote someone it's up to you to provide the source, logical to most

I bet the old chinkies wish they hadn't nicked so much from Boeing now.

For more than a decade in development, the ambitious COMAC C919 passenger jet would have suffered a new setback in December. According to Reuters, the Chinese manufacturer reportedly found that miscalculations underestimated the load that would be applied to engines and mounts, sending inaccurate data to CFM International, the supplier of LEAP-1C turbofans used by the aircraft.


According to the news agency, which has obtained information from four different sources familiar with the matter, the structure that supports the engines will need to be strengthened, which will further delay the certification program.



But it is not the only recent problem of the C919. COMAC would also have found cracks in the horizontal stabilizers in the first aircraft that were built and not yet repaired. In addition, a gearbox installed next to the engines would be vulnerable to cracking, which caused a engine shutdown on a test flight.

The cracks would be caused by vibration, a problem that also affected other turbofan manufacturers like Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce.
Certification

The new contingencies should further delay the C919 certification, although COMAC denies delays. Earlier expected in late 2020 or early 2021, approval of the jet by CAAC, the Chinese civil aviation agency, could come after 2022, Reuters sources said.


One of the program’s problems is the low number of hours the prototypes have flown so far. Although the first plane first flew nearly three years ago, less than a fifth of the 4,200 flight hours required for certification were achieved. In December, the C919 program was reinforced with the sixth test jet being finalized, a fiasco for the Chinese government’s plans to be self-sufficient in commercial aircraft.

With 815 purchase intentions, mostly from airlines and leasing companies in the country, the C919 is one of only two single-aisle jets of similar size and characteristics to the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 – the other is the MC-21-300, from Russia.

COMAC promises to offer the C919 with A320-equivalent performance, but for a much more affordable price. The aircraft uses a number of Western components, but the US has accused China of industrial espionage to accelerate the development of local parts and equipment such as its LEAP-1C engines.

https://www.airway1.com/chinese-jet-c919-has-new-setback-in-its-development/

Originally Posted by OhOh

Last 19 impoverished areas in Tibet rise out of poverty

Wow, took them that L O N G!

Originally Posted by OhOh

Iran’s government spokesman, Ali Rabiei announced Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had sent a series of letters to the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in an effort to promote peace and stability in the region.

Should send it to Iranian citizens first.
Return to sender...address unknown...no such number....

Originally Posted by OhOh

China also happens to be one of the largest markets for selling goods (including agricultural products), made in the United States.

Another good reason why to NOT buy it.


By the way, I NEVER buy products grown in China. I want to live another 50 years.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

By the way, I NEVER buy products grown in China.

Ditto . . . a view shared widely in Singapore and Malaysia

Trump's EU Poodles - Germany, Britain And France - Obey His Order To Kill The Nuclear Deal With Iran


"The European poodles who co-signed the nuclear deal with Iran - Britain, France and Germany (the EU3) - have been told by the Trump administration to kill the agreement. Today they started the process to do so. The other co-signers, Russia, China and Iran, continue to support the deal.



Despite claiming to support the nuclear deal the EU-3 always searched for ways to put more restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program.

In May 2018 the U.S. left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA as the agreement is known, and reintroduced sanctions against Iran.
While the Europeans had said that they would continue to support the deal they have succumbed to the threat of secondary sanctions the U.S. said it would impose against them if they trade with Iran. As all payments between Iran and its trade partners are impeded by the sanctions, trade between Europe and Iran has come essentially to a halt. The Europeans have attempted to set up an alternative trade facilitating instrument known as INSTEX. But the mechanism, which also imposes additional conditions on Iran, has failed to function.

The Europeans could have implemented several other measures to counter the U.S. sanction threat. They failed to do so.

In June 2018 Iran triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the deal (explained below) by sending an official letter to the coordinator of JCPOA Joint Commission. A Joint Commission meeting was held in which the EU3 again promised that they would hold up their side of the deal:

6.​The participants recognised that, in return for the implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments, the lifting of sanctions, including the economic dividends arising from it, constitutes an essential part of the JCPOA.
...

8.​The participants affirmed their commitment regarding the following objectives in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere:

• the maintenance and promotion of wider economic and sectoral relations with Iran;
• the preservation and maintenance of effective financial channels with Iran;
• the continuation of Iran’s export of oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals;
  

But those promises were empty. Trade between Europa and Iran failed to revive as the European countries failed to stand up against U.S. sanctions. By succumbing to Trump's secondary sanction threat the Europeans effectively reintroduced their own sanctions against Iran.

A year later and in consequence of the failure by the Europeans to provide effective sanction relief, as was promised under the JCPOA, Iran started to exceed certain limits the deal had set on its civil nuclear program. It justified the move by pointing to Article 26 of the JCPOA (pdf):

26. The EU will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has terminated implementing under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. There will be no new nuclear- related UN Security Council sanctions and no new EU nuclear-related sanctions or restrictive measures. The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II.
...
Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

In five steps taken since, each two month apart, Iran began to use more modern types of Uranium enrichment centrifuges, increased the number of active centrifuges, lifted the level of enrichment and exceeded other limits the deal had set. All these steps were done under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which continues to observe and report all details of Iran's program. All these steps can easily be reversed should the other signers fulfill their commitments under the deal.

Today Britain, France and Germany themselves triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the deal with a common letter:

The E3 have fully upheld our JCPoA commitments, including sanctions-lifting as foreseen under the terms of the agreement. In addition to the lifting of all sanctions, required by our commitments under the agreement, we have worked tirelessly to support legitimate trade with Iran, including through the INSTEX special purpose vehicle.
...
However, in the meantime Iran has continued to break key restrictions set out in the JCPoA. Iran’s actions are inconsistent with the provisions of the nuclear agreement and have increasingly severe and non-reversible proliferation implications. We do not accept the argument that Iran is entitled to reduce compliance with the JCPoA.

Contrary to its statements, Iran has never triggered the JCPoA Dispute Resolution Mechanism and has no legal grounds to cease implementing the provisions of the agreement.
...

We have therefore been left with no choice, given Iran’s actions, but to register today our concerns that Iran is not meeting its commitments under the JCPoA and to refer this matter to the Joint Commission under the Dispute Resolution Mechanism, as set out in paragraph 36 of the JCPoA.

The approach is based on lies, extremely legalistic and unfair. Yes, technically the Europeans have lifted their sanctions. But at the same time they are imposing the U.S. sanctions against Iran. They do not buy Iranian oil or other products. They do not sell anything to Iran as payments from Iran are blocked. The outcome for Iran is no different than under the sanctions that were imposed before the deal was made. To point to the creation of INSTEX is laughable as no deals have been made under that mechanism beacause it only facilitates impractical barter deals and is restricted to certain products.

That Iran has "never triggered the JCPoA Dispute Resolution Mechanism" is an outright lie. The Joint Commission met on July 6 2018 at a ministerial level because Iran had trigger the mechanism. The Joint Statement issued after that meeting says so:

1.​ Upon the request of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was held on 6 July in Vienna at ministerial level. The Joint Commission met to discuss the way forward to ensure the continued implementation of the nuclear deal in all its aspects ...

The Dispute Resolution Mechanism, laid out in article 36 and 37 of the JCPOA, foresees a short time discussion period about the grievances that triggered it. Should those discussions fail to find a solution the issue is escalated to the UN Security Council. If the UNSC fails to vote on a resolution in favor of Iran all UN sanctions that were imposed on Iran before the JCPOA deal was signed will be automatically reactivated.

The timeline for the process is tight. First the Joint Commission of JCPOA signer countries has fifteen days to find a solution. Then the foreign ministers of those countries have another fifteen days. Five days later any JCPOA signer can escalate the issue to the UNSC. If the UNSC does not vote against the reintroduction of sanctions within 30 days, which the U.S. would surely prevent by using its veto right, UN sanctions against Iran will automatically snap-back.

As the EU3 now triggered the process 65 days from now Iran is likely to be again under full UN sanctions.

The EU3 will of course mealymouthed explain that they want Iran to pull back its program so that it does not exceed any limit of deal. But why should Iran do that as long as the EU3 follow US sanctions against Iran and implement them against it? The EU3 have no reasonable answer to that questions.

Iran has no real incentive to stick to the JCPOA limits as long as sanctions are held up against it. When the UN sanctions snap back it is likely to leave the JCPOA even if China and Russia continue to trade with it.

The outcome here is 100% predictable. UN sanctions will snap back. Then the Trump administration will relaunch the 'nuclear Iran' propaganda campaign and will threaten Iran with war.

The EU countries who failed to hold up the deal will now globally be perceived as the poodles they are. The will, like the U.S., be seen as 'agreement incapable' countries who fail to stick to the deals they make. Their utterly servile behavior towards the U.S. is disastrous for their reputation."

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/0...iran.html#more

Don't you get tired of the old Soviet-style Agit-Prop?

Factbox: A breach of Iran nuclear deal could trigger sanctions snapback

"Iran has breached the limit of its enriched uranium stockpile set in a 2015 deal with major powers, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Monday, according to the ISNA news agency. Exceeding the limit could culminate in the return of all international sanctions on Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy agency said its inspectors were verifying whether Iran had accumulated more enriched uranium than allowed.

If any one of the European parties to the deal - Britain, France and Germany - believe Iran has violated the agreement, they can trigger a dispute resolution process that could, within as few as 65 days, end at the U.N. Security Council with a so-called snapback of U.N. sanctions on Iran.

The other remaining signatories, Russia and China, are allies of Iran and unlikely to make such a move.
“The more Iranians do things that potentially violate the accord, the less inclined we are to make efforts to help them,” said a senior European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It’s a vicious circle. If they go in this direction they will be all alone, face snapback and be ostracized by everyone.”

Most of the U.N. sanctions on Iran were removed in January 2016 when the deal - formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - was implemented. The accord was originally agreed by Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal last year, arguing it did not do enough to restrict Iran’s nuclear program and failed to address Iran’s missile program and its support for proxy forces in the Middle East.

After his decision, which inflamed U.S.-Iranian tensions, Washington restored U.S. sanctions designed to slash Iran’s oil exports, as well as imposed new economic penalties in an effort to force Iran into negotiations about a broader agreement.
Iran met with the European parties in Vienna on Friday but said they had offered too little in the way of trade assistance to persuade Tehran to back off from its plan to breach the limit, a riposte to Trump’s withdrawal.

Under the deal’s dispute process, Iran could argue the U.S. withdrawal and Washington’s sanctions campaign “constitutes significant non-performance” and “treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments.”

Iran also could argue a reduction in its commitment is not a violation because, under a separate provision, the agreement said: “Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions ... or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”

Here is how the dispute resolution process, which could take up to 65 days to play out unless extended by consensus, works:

JOINT COMMISSION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

STEP ONE - If any party to the nuclear deal believes another party is not upholding their commitments they can refer the issue to a Joint Commission, whose members are Iran, Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain and the European Union. (The United States was a member before it withdrew from the deal.)

The Joint Commission then would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless it agrees by consensus to extend the time period.

STEP TWO - If any party believes the matter has not been resolved after that first step, they can refer it to the foreign ministers of the parties to the deal. The ministers would have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless they agree by consensus to extend the time period.

In parallel with - or in lieu of - consideration by foreign ministers, the complaining party or the party accused of non-compliance also could ask for the issue be looked at by a three-member advisory board. The participants to the dispute would each appoint a member and the third member would be independent.

The advisory board must provide a non-binding opinion within 15 days.

STEP THREE - If the issue is not resolved during the initial 30-day process, the Joint Commission has five days to consider any advisory board opinion in a bid to settle the dispute.

STEP FOUR - If the complaining party is not satisfied after this and considers the matter to “constitute significant non-performance,” they could “treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”

They also could notify the 15-member U.N. Security Council that the issue constitutes “significant non-performance.” In the notification the party must describe the good-faith efforts made to exhaust the Joint Commission dispute resolution process.

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

STEP FIVE - Once the complaining party notifies the Security Council, the body must vote within 30 days on a resolution to continue Iran’s sanctions relief. A resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France to pass.

STEP SIX - If such a resolution has not been adopted within 30 days, the sanctions in all previous U.N. resolutions would be re-imposed - referred to as snapback - unless the council decided otherwise. If the previous sanctions are re-imposed they would not apply retroactively to contracts Iran signed.

Factbox: A breach of Iran nuclear deal could trigger sanctions snapback - Reuters

Although from July 2019 the steps that can be taken are presented. I suspect they have not changed.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't you get tired of the old Soviet-style Agit-Prop?

If you run out of your matter-of-fact arguments (as if you have had ever any) pulled out a sure bomb: Russiagate...

Russian government resigns after President Putin’s state-of-the-nation address proposes changes to the constitution



Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced that the entire government is resigning in a surprise statement released shortly after President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual state-of-the-nation address.

Accepting the resignation, Putin thanked the ministers for their hard work and asked them to function as a caretaker government until a new one can be formed.


Medvedev and Putin had met for a work meeting to discuss the state-of-the-nation address earlier on Wednesday, the Kremlin said. Medvedev explained that the cabinet is resigning in accordance with Article 117 of the Russian Constitution, which states that the government can offer its resignation to the president, who can either accept or reject it.


During his speech, Putin said he intended to create the position of deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, which would be offered to Medvedev.
Medvedev’s move to the new role will mean Russia will have a new prime minister when a new government is formed.

Putin also proposed multiple amendments to Russia’s constitution. His proposals would entail “substantial changes” to the constitution as well as to the “entire balance of power, the power of the executive, the power of the legislature, the power of the judiciary,” Medvedev explained.


“In this context, it is obvious that, as the government, we must provide the president with a capability to make all decisions,” which are required to implement the proposed plan, Medvedev said announcing the en-masse resignation.


Medvedev became prime minister in 2012, after serving four years as president. He currently heads the ruling United Russia party."


Under Putin’s plan, the State Duma – the lower house of parliament – will be granted the power to appoint the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet, as opposed to just approving their candidacies as is currently the case. Another idea voiced by Putin is to make the consultation body, the State Council, a permanent fixture, with its status and role written into the constitution. The president praised the council’s effectiveness, stressing that its working groups ensure the most important problems for the people are thoroughly looked into.

‘Russia in Global Affairs’ Editor-in-Chief Fyodor Lukyanov told RT that the change will be a step towards the “diversification of power” at a time when the country is being “increasingly governed in a ‘manual control’ mode and fully fixated on the president.”

It is an attempt to transform a super-centralized personified system of power into a more balanced and diversified one… with a strong president but not as strong as today.

Russian government resigns after President Putin’s state-of-the-nation address proposes changes to the constitution — RT Russia News

Putin proposes major amendments to Russia’s constitution incl. about his own post, says people should vote on changes




"The constitution should take priority over international law if the latter violates the rights of Russian citizens or violates Russia’s constitutional principles, President Vladimir Putin has proposed.

Amendments to the constitution could be put to a popular vote to ensure “the development of Russia as a welfare and rule-of-law state,” the Russian leader said in his annual state of the nation address.

Adopting a brand new constitution is not necessary because the current one will remain relevant for many years to come, Putin explained. But he did suggest some changes he’d like to see.

Domestic v international law in Russia

One of the key issues Putin outlined was that Russia should abide by international law only if it does not conflict with the constitution. Adopted back in 1993, it should serve as a primary source “in our legal environment,” he stated.

International agreements and treaties, as well as decisions by international bodies may apply in Russia “only to the extent that they do not entail restrictions on the rights and freedoms of people and citizens, and do not contradict our constitution.”

Stricter requirements for top officials

The president then suggested stricter profiling of the top political brass, starting with presidential candidates and going all the way down.
An amended constitution would include compulsory requirements for “persons holding positions crucial for ensuring the country’s security and sovereignty,” including the prime minister, cabinet members, governors, heads of federal agencies, MPs, and judges.

They should be barred from having foreign citizenship or residence permits for other nations, Putin proposed.
Anyone willing to run for president will be subject to “even more stringent requirements.” Aside from the absence of foreign citizenship “not only during elections, but also at any time earlier,” a candidate must have lived in Russia for at least 25 years as opposed to the current 10 years.

Limits on presidential terms remain in place

Putin, who got re-elected in 2018, also took aim at the duration of the presidential tenure.

“I know there’s a debate in our society regarding a constitutional provision that the same person shall not hold the position of the president of Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms,” he acknowledged. “I don’t think this is a fundamental issue, but I agree with that.”
Meanwhile, Russia’s Central Election Commission signaled a popular vote could be held as early as 2020. “If everything is solved quickly, this may happen this year,” the body’s secretary Maya Grishina said, according to Sputnik."

Putin proposes major amendments to Russia’s constitution incl. about his own post, says people should vote on changes — RT Russia News

Originally Posted by panama hat

Yea, the turd that was kicked to third rank is trying very hard to remain economically relevant

(and what's more of the 3rd rate economy, dropping the dollar, such a madness...)

Interview by Russian Foreign Minister S.V. Lavrov to the Times of India, published on January 15, 2020

How India and Russia protect their interests in trade and investment, including in the defense sector, from unilateral sanctions?
---
S.V. Lavrov:U.S. Administration's financial instruments of sanctions pressure, Russia continues its line to phase out the de-dollarization economy.

In June and October of last year, the relevant inter-governmental agreements on settlements and payments with China and Turkey concluded U.S. and Washington's blatant abuse of the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

Currently, Moscow and New Delhi are working vigorously to prepare a new inter-governmental agreement on mutual protection sides.

https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy...ent/id/3994333

Originally Posted by panama hat

Don't you get tired of the old Soviet-style Agit-Prop?

You're joking, he jerks off to it.

Your handy cut out and keep guide to Putin's "reforms"

- Limit the powers of any President that replaces him
- Pick his own PM to hold the fort until 2024
- Grant new powers to the PM and Parliament in 2024 (which is sham-elected lackies anyway)
- Make himself PM in 2024 and take over the new powers he's granted himself

Net result: Business as usual.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

If you run out of your matter-of-fact arguments (as if you have had ever any) pulled out a sure bomb: Russiagate...

That makes no sense, even if you reverse google it twice