Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 04:56:22 am
Recent news: Opposition reached agreement with the dictator, we give up huge amount of captured territory instead he promised to release arrested people in 3 day term and cancel the recent laws. People said "fuck you" to opposition's plan and went building new barricades
In various Western and Central regions government institutions are under attack. Some are captured, some are under siege
Main road to Poland is blocked by protesters, no trucks are allowed to pass.
Many photos taken during yesterday ceasefire (http://zyalt.livejournal.com/983675.html)
Video where "police" tortures an arrested man. Was posted in Internet by one of them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z0zD3pOG-Tk)
Spoiler: Ukrainians love to read a good book (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 05:06:17 am
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2014, 05:08:48 am
Post by: Sergarr on January 24, 2014, 05:13:47 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 05:31:25 am
Dates of first and second Ukrainian-Soviet wars, please.1917-1921
and
1943-1953*
*end date varies because that was a guerrilla war
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 05:48:22 am
Having said that, I think it would be wise to choose a less polarizing and misleading thread title. Currently this is neither a war nor are there technically speaking any Soviets involved (I know you see your government as that). I guess a title like this will only cause flamewars, pointless sidetracking and semantics debates about what constitutes a Ukrainian-Soviet war, and prevent any discussion about the intended topic.
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 05:51:39 am
Soviets involved (I know you see your government as that)I just spent ten minutes wondering why I couldn't find any source about a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine >.>
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 05:57:36 am
That's what I mean. Also Russians are not Soviets since we are not in the 1980's.Soviets involved (I know you see your government as that)I just spent ten minutes wondering why I couldn't find any source about a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine >.>
Video where "police" tortures an arrested man. Was posted in Internet by one of them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z0zD3pOG-Tk)Here's (http://www.spiegel.de/video/ausschreitungen-in-kiew-behoerden-gestehen-misshandlung-gefangener-ein-video-1322631.html) a version of that video from German news, for those who can't get past that youtube age verification thing.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 06:01:22 am
And yes, I have no doubts that it is a war, thousands passed the point of no return, it will be either death\prison\exile or victory. Same for Yanukovich. And I have no doubts that Russia is involved, at the very least with advisors
If we are lucky this war will have few causalities
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 06:08:36 am
You're right of course, but that doesn't change the fact that I've never Soviet being used as anything other than a synonym for Russian. I guess the word actually has meaning in the East ;)That's what I mean. Also Russians are not Soviets since we are not in the 1980's.Soviets involved (I know you see your government as that)I just spent ten minutes wondering why I couldn't find any source about a Russian military intervention in the Ukraine >.>
Post by: fivex on January 24, 2014, 06:13:19 am
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 06:16:53 am
Changed the name to neutral one, but I still view this as war against Soviets that de jure don't exist but de facto just changed their names. It's same ideologyWell, that was probably a good idea, so the thread can stay on topic.
And yes, I have no doubts that it is a war, thousands passed the point of no return, it will be either death\prison\exile or victory. Same for Yanukovich. And I have no doubts that Russia is involved, at the very least with advisors
If we are lucky this war will have few causalities
I too hope there will be as few casualties as possible. From what it looks like now, even if the situation doesn't escalate further, this will not be over soon. The ultimatum didn't achieve that much and further negotiations will take time. A lot depends now on how long both sides can keep it relatively calm.
You're right of course, but that doesn't change the fact that I've never Soviet being used as anything other than a synonym for Russian. I guess the word actually has meaning in the East ;)Sure, just wanted to preempt the inevitable debate about that word. ;)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 06:19:51 am
Anyway, with the protest spreading across various cities, I don't think it won't be long before this further escalates and the police starts to randomly fire into crowds to disperse them. This will cause the EU to break of all relations with Ukraine, giving Russia it's victory, and a new satellite state.
Wait, is this an actual civil war now?Not really. Far to few deaths to be considered one. Common definition is that a civil war must have at least 1000 deaths per year of conflict, and unlike at least 100 on each side.
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2014, 06:39:45 am
Also, likelihood of Russian military intervention if things get out of hand? Likelihood of European counter-intervention? Likelihood of a War of European Unification? =P
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 06:43:01 am
(and yes, I am aware of Russia's position in the UN)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 06:49:45 am
Anyway, with the protest spreading across various cities, I don't think it won't be long before this further escalates and the police starts to randomly fire into crowds to disperse them. This will cause the EU to break of all relations with Ukraine, giving Russia it's victory, and a new satellite state.This is the worst case scenario. And I think it is quite likely. But what Russia will get in that case - a very unstable puppet.
A European counter-intervention? That's seems less likely than the UN -- scrap that, a League of Nations counter-intervention xDYeah, I consider EU intervention nearly as likely as aid from Alpha Centauri
(and yes, I am aware of Russia's position in the UN)
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 06:51:23 am
kyivpost.com in English (http://www.kyivpost.com/)
Also, likelihood of Russian military intervention if things get out of hand? Likelihood of European counter-intervention? Likelihood of a War of European Unification? =PI'd say a Russian intervention - should things really get out of hand that much - is far more likely than any European or International one. In case of such a thing the EU will quickly react with immediate discussion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW9_GqShJPg) Still things would have to go very bad even for Russia to intervene, that would cause a big diplomatic crisis.
Not in the current (unpatched) version
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2014, 06:52:23 am
Anyway, protestors are occupying buildings, the opposition certainly isn't in control anymore, and it doesn't look like Yanukovich is going to give up. The west is gradually proceeding through their list of sternly worded letters, but isn't going to do anything else. (Not that there's much that they can do, but anyway.)
Anyway, with the protest spreading across various cities, I don't think it won't be long before this further escalates and the police starts to randomly fire into crowds to disperse them. This will cause the EU to break of all relations with Ukraine, giving Russia it's victory, and a new satellite state.Wait, is this an actual civil war now?Not really. Far to few deaths to be considered one. Common definition is that a civil war must have at least 1000 deaths per year of conflict, and unlike at least 100 on each side.
Not going to happen. The whole point of the protesters are that they are pro-EU while the government is more pro-Russia. The Ukraine becoming a Russian satellite scenario would only lead to exacerbation of the protests. If anything, EU would only apply sanctions towards the officials, such as denying Visas to them, while I know that Poland is giving refuge to some of the protesters.
The way it develops, it kind of reminds me of Syria, except with the lines more clear-cut, since the absolute worst we could hypothetically get on the protesters side are nationalists, which, while unsavory, are not terrorists.
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2014, 06:56:24 am
UR, what's the party affiliation of espresso tv? (Link below) I've been wondering ever since they had some Radio Svoboda stuff on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZcAsPKK74&pxtry=2
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 06:57:38 am
If anything, EU would only apply sanctions towards the officials, such as denying Visas to them, while I know that Poland is giving refuge to some of the protesters.Last thing I read was that the EU was considering freezing the Ukrainian government's bank accounts, which wouldn't hurt the population as much as outright economic sanctions. Basically what they are already doing with Belarussian officials in terms of visa and bank accounts.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 07:01:48 am
The satellite scenario takes place after the police opens fire on civilians on a large scale. At that point, an EU agreement will be completely of the table, depriving the protests of a point. (Well, there's still the protest against the governement, but nothing Euro-related anymore.) Honestly, at the point where the governements starts gunning down protestors at random, I doubt they still care about a diplomatic solution.Anyway, protestors are occupying buildings, the opposition certainly isn't in control anymore, and it doesn't look like Yanukovich is going to give up. The west is gradually proceeding through their list of sternly worded letters, but isn't going to do anything else. (Not that there's much that they can do, but anyway.)
Anyway, with the protest spreading across various cities, I don't think it won't be long before this further escalates and the police starts to randomly fire into crowds to disperse them. This will cause the EU to break of all relations with Ukraine, giving Russia it's victory, and a new satellite state.
Not going to happen. The whole point of the protesters are that they are pro-EU while the government is more pro-Russia. The Ukraine becoming a Russian satellite scenario would only lead to exacerbation of the protests. If anything, EU would only apply sanctions towards the officials, such as denying Visas to them, while I know that Poland is giving refuge to some of the protesters.
Post by: Helgoland on January 24, 2014, 07:04:42 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 07:06:27 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 07:13:43 am
UR, what's the party affiliation of espresso tv? (Link below) I've been wondering ever since they had some Radio Svoboda stuff on.Espresso TV is owned by Batkivshina member and this channel is operating without any license. Failed to get one before protests started.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrZcAsPKK74&pxtry=2
Quote
Sadly, agreements have to be made with the government, not with the people.That is solved by recognizing some new group as a new government, isn't it?
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 07:18:44 am
And I guess that would happen if the government starts randomly shooting into the masses. They seem to be at least somewhat concerned about their credibility, otherwise they would not have apologized for that video of the police abusing a protester.QuoteSadly, agreements have to be made with the government, not with the people.That is solved by recognizing some new group as a new government, isn't it?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 07:25:30 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Red - Regional government buildings captured
Pink - Ongoing attack\blockaded
Grey - failed attempt
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 07:32:23 am
Also, have you heard of any unrest near Sevastopol?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 07:34:01 am
What exactly happened in those red areas? I assume anarchy/riots in government buildings but "captured" suggests something more organized.That means protesters inside governmental building with officials\police kicked out.
Post by: Owlbread on January 24, 2014, 07:35:24 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 07:45:12 am
Are the regional governments independent of eachother or do they have a provisional government they now answer to?We have rather weird situation.
Regional governments have two parts - one is elected at local elections another is appointed by president. With every year the ones appointed by the president got more and more power, turning elected mayors into nothing
Elected part of the regional governments is under opposition control by default, that's buildings of appointed governors are captured. Mostly that means that people recognize only elected local governments
While there are some talks about united provisional opposition government, one is not created.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 07:56:28 am
Doubt it actually. Not only is the opposition to divided for such a thing to happen, but I very much doubt the EU's capability to convince all it's member states to make such a statement.And I guess that would happen if the government starts randomly shooting into the masses. They seem to be at least somewhat concerned about their credibility, otherwise they would not have apologized for that video of the police abusing a protester.QuoteSadly, agreements have to be made with the government, not with the people.That is solved by recognizing some new group as a new government, isn't it?
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 24, 2014, 08:12:46 am
Already an attempt has been made to create one, it's called "People's Council of Ukraine". (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/01/22/7010781/)Are the regional governments independent of eachother or do they have a provisional government they now answer to?We have rather weird situation.
Regional governments have two parts - one is elected at local elections another is appointed by president. With every year the ones appointed by the president got more and more power, turning elected mayors into nothing
Elected part of the regional governments is under opposition control by default, that's buildings of appointed governors are captured. Mostly that means that people recognize only elected local governments
While there are some talks about united provisional opposition government, one is not created.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 08:16:02 am
Unfortunately leaders of our parliamentary opposition are cowards, they know that such words will force them to go to the end, whatever will it be
Post by: Dutchling on January 24, 2014, 08:23:07 am
Spoiler: "Komrad Ruslan, those people look cold, let's help them" (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on January 24, 2014, 08:33:17 am
Doubt it actually. Not only is the opposition to divided for such a thing to happen, but I very much doubt the EU's capability to convince all it's member states to make such a statement.At least currently the (parliamentary) opposition seems somewhat united. And it becomes less and less about the EU for them, the more tyrannical the government behaves. Looks like the masses are driving the opposition to act, so they will have to try to act united or they will lose control soon.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 09:03:38 am
Post by: Comrade P. on January 24, 2014, 09:10:50 am
Post by: stabbymcstabstab on January 24, 2014, 09:19:38 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 10:58:14 am
Anyway, let's skip ahead for a moment. The oppositions goals are, IIRC, immediate elections and such. Seems quite similar to the demands they made after the 2004 revolution. Any arguments for what's going to be different this time?IMHO it's too late for half-measures like that. Even if Yanukovich will say "total amnesty, cancellation of the new laws and immediate elections" and opposition agree to that, the radical core of protests will say "No way!" He lied too many times to believe anything he may offer
Post by: Comrade P. on January 24, 2014, 11:31:14 am
IMHO it's too late for half-measures like that. Even if Yanukovich will say "total amnesty, cancellation of the new laws and immediate elections" and opposition agree to that, the radical core of protests will say "No way!" He lied too many times to believe anything he may offerSo, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"
Also, I often hear something like: "Those Euromaidan-ers are paid to do so, blah-blah-blah". Even that I dislike the ugly way things went out in streets myself, when I hear something like that, I remember that episode from "Обитаемый остров" (Habited island, by Acrady and Boris Strugatsky), when Gai and Mak are speaking:
Spoiler: Origial abstract. In russian. (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Erzats-translation by me. Still better than Google. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 11:51:17 am
Quote
So, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2014, 11:56:50 am
Post by: Valikdu on January 24, 2014, 12:13:01 pm
I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths...
Yanukovich is impotent, not retarded.
He would have realized that, if people were to get shot, there would inevitably be an escalation of violence. Which may eventually lead to him dying. So, he probably didn't give orders to shoot people.
And your people probably realize that, too. Of course, it's too convenient an excuse for an escalation to pass up, right?
Post by: Comrade P. on January 24, 2014, 12:16:02 pm
So... and who is going to rule the country meanwhile? Just promise that there will be no banners holding swasticas over Ukraine.QuoteSo, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"
Post by: Descan on January 24, 2014, 12:18:07 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2014, 12:26:40 pm
That or he just hoped it'd frighten the protestors into leaving Maidan.
Post by: scriver on January 24, 2014, 12:32:19 pm
Post by: PanH on January 24, 2014, 12:36:45 pm
That's debatable. Suppression can and is successful in plenty of places. It's not the first time a government shoot on their people despite this aggravating their case.I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths...
Yanukovich is impotent, not retarded.
He would have realized that, if people were to get shot, there would inevitably be an escalation of violence. Which may eventually lead to him dying. So, he probably didn't give orders to shoot people.
And your people probably realize that, too. Of course, it's too convenient an excuse for an escalation to pass up, right?
The fact is, government forces shot civilians (violent civilians, but still civilians), several times. Someone (maybe not Yanukovich), at some point, gave the order to shoot. If there is more shootings, it'll be obvious that the government is endorsing it, and it'll be Yanukovich's responsability.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 12:40:21 pm
Actually, in many situations using violence against protestors has worked. The recent Arabian spring was somewhat of an inversion, but in general, the regime that brings out the big guns survives. After all, in most of these regimes the government has a bigger supply of violence than the protestors.((Additionally, at no point UR suggested that Yanukovich gave the order to fire at protestors. In fact, he mentioned Yanukovich4s resignation as a separate point, heavily implying that the mere violence investigation won't be enough to get rid of him.))I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths...
Yanukovich is impotent, not retarded.
He would have realized that, if people were to get shot, there would inevitably be an escalation of violence. Which may eventually lead to him dying. So, he probably didn't give orders to shoot people.
And your people probably realize that, too. Of course, it's too convenient an excuse for an escalation to pass up, right?
Also the escalation of violence agreement can be brought back all the way to the earliest protests, when government troops dispersed a then minor group of pro-European protestors.
On a side note, were the deaths people shot with real or rubber bullets? Can't find any conclusive evidence on that.
Interim government. Internationally supervised elections. Stuff like that.So... and who is going to rule the country meanwhile? Just promise that there will be no banners holding swasticas over Ukraine.QuoteSo, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"Again.
Really, the importance of federal governments to rule a country is often overstated. Most countries can survive for a while without one.
Post by: Comrade P. on January 24, 2014, 12:44:39 pm
Well, that thing seldom does good and is usually replaced with something even worse.Interim government. Internationally supervised elections. Stuff like that.So... and who is going to rule the country meanwhile? Just promise that there will be no banners holding swasticas over Ukraine.QuoteSo, what is the point of radical core then? I just don't get it. To me, they sound like "down with Yanukovich, then... fuck that, down with Yanukovch"I think punishment of everyone responsible for deaths and immediate resignation of Yanukovich is the minimum to stop ongoing protests. Too many deaths for "OK, let's return to pre-protests situation and run elections"Again.
Really, the importance of federal governments to rule a country is often overstated. Most countries can survive for a while without one.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 12:46:40 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2014, 12:55:58 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 01:00:52 pm
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2014, 01:04:59 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on January 24, 2014, 01:25:29 pm
Scott Merrill (A Ukranian) attempts to summarize the entirety of what is happening recently. Offers some worthwhile information I haven't seen yet in this thread about exactly how things are going down.
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on January 24, 2014, 02:38:29 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 24, 2014, 03:30:03 pm
I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.
The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.
Post by: scrdest on January 24, 2014, 03:51:56 pm
I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.
The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.
Well, the Soviet Union does have a history of rigging the elections in their sphere of influence, and the current president of Russia is ex-KGB after all. This is not to say USA didn't do anything like that, but there's a lot more at stake for US government trying to pull that off.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 03:54:44 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 24, 2014, 03:57:19 pm
Well, it's easy to rig an election if the agencies supervising them like OSCE are backed by you.I agree with you on this. No one would trust the Ukrainian government to run clean elections.The Ukrainian Ranger will probably lash at me for being corrupted by totalitarian propaganda, but anyway, the important thing about elections in a non-"free" country involving EU and USA is that if the candidate backed by the USA and EU doesn't win, neither they nor the candidate in question will acknowledge the elections as free and fair. The actual cleanness, freeness and fairness of the elections doesn't matter - a single declaration of the European Commission and the US State Department is enough to turn the elections in the eyes of the whole progressive mankind to be falsified.
The United States of America and the European Union have never accepted the victory of a presidential candidate that is against their policies in countries they try to influence or take control of. In their eyes, candidates that they doesn't like always cheat, and candidates that they like and support are completely incorruptible. Neither USA nor EU are actually concerned for the fairness of elections worldwide, no matter what Euronews and the like might say.
Well, the Soviet Union does have a history of rigging the elections in their sphere of influence, and the current president of Russia is ex-KGB after all. This is not to say USA didn't do anything like that, but there's a lot more at stake for US government trying to pull that off.
Actually they did. Several times. The press will complain, perhaps. But elections will be recognized.Can you provide examples, please?
I wouldn't be surprised if such leaders got accused of violating human rights later on.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 24, 2014, 04:01:02 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 24, 2014, 04:08:27 pm
Ukraine 2007 among many others.Well, the elections of 2007 didn't influence the general internal and foreign policies of Ukraine much - they remained liberal and pro-Western.
I'm talking about presidential elections, which decide which political course the country will pursue in the long run.
Post by: Comrade P. on January 24, 2014, 04:16:20 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 24, 2014, 04:26:49 pm
Look who is saying hello to ukranians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zrqcB934Qk)
Do reactionary Russians just post on videos like that all the time, or are there just alot more than I realize?
"You're a Nazi and so was your father" says one "Keep your nose out of Russian and Ukrainian business" says another. I like how it's all about Putin and Russia to some, maybe proving that this was indeed a needed change in Ukraine to preserve their sovereignty.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 04:32:38 pm
Look who is saying hello to ukranians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zrqcB934Qk)There are popular joke in Ukraine - Revolution is won. T800 is with us
____________________________
Recent news: Ceasefire in Kiev has ended, Molotovs\rocks and rubber bullets flying around, no use of something more nasty reported
Post by: Max White on January 24, 2014, 04:37:19 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 24, 2014, 04:56:50 pm
Now it will be interesting how this pans out. If this ends with a revolution to take the entire country then you still have the government loyalists hanging around, and that is going to end in internal conflicts for a long time to come. If you cut the nation in two then instead you have boarder conflicts between the two new nations for a long time to come.Nah. Don't think so. There are will no government loyalists should the army of mercenaries fall
My opinion is rather harsh: As well as majority of population of Eastern Ukraine tolerate Yanukovich they will tolerate just anyone; NATO\Russian occupation forces, Martians, Ctulthu, Resurrected Hitler. So they will tolerate Ukrainian Nationalists or whoever else who will come in power. Surely they will complain aloud but that's all.
As for dividing... I don't believe that it can be done with any kind of worldwide international recognition. What can happen is Moldova\Georgia\Cyprus-like situation
Post by: Sheb on January 24, 2014, 05:57:48 pm
Post by: misko27 on January 24, 2014, 06:29:17 pm
In Ukraine, the government may fall, Putin may step in, or the protests may be crushed; but I don't think Syria is in the cards.
Post by: Sheb on January 25, 2014, 02:47:54 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 05:08:54 am
Don't they have ethnic russian nationalists?If you mean
Surely, some small groups of extremists may apear, but widespread guerrilla? No way
If you talk about Russian far rights, most of them are either in the Right Sector throwing molotovs or patrolling home cities against "titushkas" or announced their neutrality. You see, Russian far rights don't like Putin at all. Many of persecuted Russians (and Belarusians, one of the guys killed is a Belarusian citizen) have moved in Ukraine for their own safety. I believe some of them envy us, they would prefer to see events like that in Moscow
If you talk about racists neo-nazis, those guys don't really care about nationality\language, they care about white race supremacy and other stuff like that. I can be sure that they'll prefer mixed nationalist\liberal government to any other but theirs or pure nationalists.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 25, 2014, 05:19:05 am
Ow sorry. I meant Ukraine 2010. Presidential election between our dearest Viktor Yanukovich, and Julia Tymoshenko, and the election that ended the liberal/pro-western course.Ukraine 2007 among many others.Well, the elections of 2007 didn't influence the general internal and foreign policies of Ukraine much - they remained liberal and pro-Western.
I'm talking about presidential elections, which decide which political course the country will pursue in the long run.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 06:06:27 am
Among supporters our dear "Berkut" riot police. prooflink in Russian (http://evreiskiy.kiev.ua/obrashhenie-k-prezidentu-ukrainy-i-12689.html)
That supporters have very interesting "informational support for "Berkut"" Facebook page full of neo-nazi and antisemitic materials
Spoiler: eeeeeeeew (click to show/hide)
And The photo stream of that page. I think soon to be cleared (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Беркут-Украина/1395559580688966?id=1395559580688966&sk=photos_stream)
Post by: Sonlirain on January 25, 2014, 07:30:15 am
Antisemitic yes but if you compare people you don't like with nazis then you don't consider yourself a nazi.
Unless of course you think that antisemitism = nazism.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 07:35:58 am
That's not neo nazi material.Yep you are right. But many Jews see the things exactly as antisemitism = nazism. Easy to understand why
Antisemitic yes but if you compare people you don't like with nazis then you don't consider yourself a nazi.
Unless of course you think that antisemitism = nazism.
Post by: Sergarr on January 25, 2014, 08:10:55 am
Post by: Dutchling on January 25, 2014, 08:16:26 am
That Khazaria thing worries my greatly.Why? It's just a map, and also the first Google Image result for "Khazaria".
Post by: USEC_OFFICER on January 25, 2014, 09:15:46 am
That Khazaria thing worries my greatly.
I'm more worried about those Jews/Zionism = Nazis/Nazism pictures.
Post by: XXSockXX on January 25, 2014, 09:17:38 am
Pic of a newlywed couple in Kiev (reminds me of similar pics from the protests in Turkey):
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
EU intervention is coming:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: WarRoot on January 25, 2014, 09:24:53 am
That Khazaria thing worries my greatly.
I'm more worried about those Jews/Zionism = Nazis/Nazism pictures.
It's probably on the same line so you can worry about it equally.
Post by: XXSockXX on January 25, 2014, 09:30:57 am
There's nothing wrong with that map per se, it's just a rough map of historical territories. Weird though that they would use it, since Khazaria on that map includes eastern Ukraine. Maybe it's a ZOG kind of thing.That Khazaria thing worries my greatly.
I'm more worried about those Jews/Zionism = Nazis/Nazism pictures.
It's probably on the same line so you can worry about it equally.
Post by: Dutchling on January 25, 2014, 09:36:29 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 09:40:59 am
Spoiler: it's spreading (click to show/hide)
Post by: WarRoot on January 25, 2014, 09:51:12 am
Maybe it's a ZOG kind of thing.
That's what I was trying to say. Not that a historical map is evil or something. They are probably calling the protesters Jews or Jewish puppets.
Post by: Dutchling on January 25, 2014, 09:56:01 am
"supported by football teams"?Spoiler: it's spreading (click to show/hide)
Please explain :P
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 09:59:51 am
Quote
They are probably calling the protesters Jews or Jewish puppetsExactly that.
Not teams but fans, to be more precise - Ultras. Don't know why maker of the map decided to include that info"supported by football teams"?Spoiler: it's spreading (click to show/hide)
Please explain :P
Post by: BlindKitty on January 25, 2014, 10:02:43 am
Quote
"supported by football teams"?
Yes, it's fans, not teams - I'm not sure about situation on Ukraine regarding that, but in Poland those are pretty well-organized, well-equipped (as in, weaponry) groups of people who are greatly anti-government. But in this situation, it might be that the mapmaker decided that this organization skills could come in handy, so it is important to include those. Or maybe he is an Ultras himself, so it is important to him?
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2014, 10:09:27 am
Maybe it's a ZOG kind of thing.
That's what I was trying to say. Not that a historical map is evil or something. They are probably calling the protesters Jews or Jewish puppets.
Maybe they are all just fans of Crusader Kings?
Post by: XXSockXX on January 25, 2014, 10:16:16 am
Maybe they are all just fans of Crusader Kings?Let's hope so, that could solve a lot of trouble with a strategical marriage or two. ;D
But in this situation, it might be that the mapmaker decided that this organization skills could come in handy, so it is important to include those.It's probably that. In terms of revolutionary potential, you want to have some armed Ultras on your side. Remember that Turkish football club that stole that power shovel?
Post by: DJ on January 25, 2014, 10:18:19 am
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2014, 10:33:06 am
Yeah, in Eastern Europe the ultras are more like paramilitaries than sports clubs' fans.
Correction: in Eastern Europe, this distinction is pointless.
Post by: Owlbread on January 25, 2014, 10:36:15 am
Post by: XXSockXX on January 25, 2014, 10:40:41 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 25, 2014, 10:43:33 am
Anyway, there was talks of a general strike at some point. Did that end up happening?
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2014, 10:55:58 am
So western Ukraine sees widespread support for the cause, and in Eastern Ukraine it's just anti government paramilitary seeing an opportunity?
Anyway, there was talks of a general strike at some point. Did that end up happening?
It seems to be moving eastward slowly.
Although, the thing is, a lot of the people in east Ukraine are ethnically Russian, mostly people who were sent there during the Soviet Union era and their children, and so are fine with the pro-Russian policy and they have been mostly supportive of Yanukovych for several elections, whereas western Ukraine is predominantly ethnically Ukrainian with some Polish minority mixed in at the far western side, who support EU and oppose Russia, and central Ukraine with Kiev is mixed, but favoring pro-Western policy.
Post by: XXSockXX on January 25, 2014, 10:58:20 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 11:50:47 am
a) there are huge unemployment in country
b) There are no independent trade unions
c) Most people have no cash reserves
is borderline idiotic. Of cause it never worked
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 25, 2014, 01:02:52 pm
Doubt if that will be enough to stop the protests. I'm not confident in the capability of the opposition to control the protest.
Post by: GreatJustice on January 25, 2014, 01:13:00 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 01:22:25 pm
Quote
Opposition (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) could get the position of prime minister.
Yep. IMO That would be more than enough two weeks ago, but now.... That will be seen as a betrayal from Yatsenyuk and nothing more
As I read on one Ukrainian forum - What? 6 dead, dozens missing, hundreds injured = the price for a better seat for his ass. No way
More amusing news - Party of Regions is "outlawed" by two regional councils. I think someone is too hotheaded and overconfident...
Post by: Kicior on January 25, 2014, 03:49:27 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 25, 2014, 04:58:31 pm
Post by: scrdest on January 25, 2014, 05:00:58 pm
Post by: misko27 on January 25, 2014, 05:02:14 pm
Idea of general strike whenIt worked in Weimar Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapp_Putsch) (forced an early fascist coup to flee the country in frustration), and hell they were even worse economically. That was called out by the legitimate government though, and Germans are, well, rule-followers.
a) there are huge unemployment in country
b) There are no independent trade unions
c) Most people have no cash reserves
is borderline idiotic. Of cause it never worked
Post by: Detonate on January 25, 2014, 05:02:38 pm
German media report that Klitschko turned down the offer, also that munitions used against protestors were analyzed - apparently some anti-vehicle (!) projectiles were found, which is incinsistent with an intent to kill.
Also, armor-piercing shotgun rounds (https://www.armamentresearch.com/armour-piercing-shotgun-projectiles-fired-during-protests-in-ukraine/) fired into crowds of protesters in case someone needs a link. We're probably talking about the same thing, though.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 05:10:20 pm
Rather hot action right now. Riot police was asked to leave the building, they refused....
Or, of cause, here - http://espreso.tv/stream
Post by: misko27 on January 25, 2014, 05:47:06 pm
NY times front page picture today:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 25, 2014, 05:53:09 pm
NY times front page picture today:I imagine them swimming across the scene on the podium thingy, minding their own business.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on January 25, 2014, 05:56:06 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 25, 2014, 06:07:43 pm
I like how the cross has some neon thingie around it. It's a nice touch.NY times front page picture today:I imagine them swimming across the scene on the podium thingy, minding their own business.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, they vaguely remind me of the three Therns from John Carter
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 25, 2014, 06:44:35 pm
Rather hot action right now. Riot police was asked to leave the building, they refused....
Ukraine - the only country in the world where protesters can boss around the riot police.
If Berkut got suddenly replaced by Belarusian OMON, the Euromaidan would end a few hours later. Be glad that you are not in Belarus, Ukrainian Ranger.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 06:51:52 pm
Only if they use assault rifles. Belarussian OMON never met any actual resistance what makes you thing they are trained enough? Berkut looked like Rembos against teenagers, tooRather hot action right now. Riot police was asked to leave the building, they refused....
Ukraine - the only country in the world where protesters can boss around the riot police.
If Berkut got suddenly replaced by Belarusian OMON, the Euromaidan would end a few hours later.
If Bertkut would be replaced with German, French, British, Polish or whatever EU country riot police then I would be worried, because they have both training and practice. But then protestors would be arrested in a proper way not stripped and beaten
Post by: Max White on January 25, 2014, 06:57:51 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 25, 2014, 07:06:12 pm
Still, the Belarusian OMON wouldn't just stand around like Berkut. Plus, they've handled big opposition rallies in the 1990s.Only if they use assault rifles. Belarussian OMON never met any actual resistance what makes you thing they are trained enough? Berkut looked like Rembos against teenagers, tooRather hot action right now. Riot police was asked to leave the building, they refused....
Ukraine - the only country in the world where protesters can boss around the riot police.
If Berkut got suddenly replaced by Belarusian OMON, the Euromaidan would end a few hours later.
If Bertkut would be replaced with German, French, British, Polish or whatever EU country riot police then I would be worried, because they have both training and practice. But then protestors would be arrested in a proper way not stripped and beaten
Berkut spends most of the time standing in one spot looking at protesters while getting pelleted with stones, fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Occasioooonally they beat the opposition back for about 50 meters, only to stand still again after that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 25, 2014, 07:18:11 pm
Quote
Looking for numbers for both pro and anti government forces.Wikipedia is good enough for that purposes and updates regularly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan
Quote
Plus, they've handled big opposition rallies in the 1990s.There were Molotovs and organized squads? Doubt it
Quote
Occasioooonally they beat the opposition back for about 50 meters, only to stand still again after that.They beat opposition back, get counterattacked and retreat
I suspect we may see OMON in action rather soon. It looks like humanity got some kind of "revolutionary virus" it started with Arab Spring and finally got here from Turkey (across the Black Sea) Some neighbor is next. Why not Belarus?
Half-joking here
Post by: darkrider2 on January 26, 2014, 03:53:41 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 26, 2014, 05:52:25 am
Core of the radical protesters consist of
1) Afghanistan Veterans: "Union of Afghanistan veterans and Chernobyl disaster liquidators " Is one of the largest and most organized non-governmental organizations and they are pissed by the government
2) Football Ultras. While fans of some clubs are joining only now, some where there right from the beginning
3) Various paramilitary nationalist and anarchist organizations. Includes veterans of various early 1990s wars (Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transnistria and so on)
4) "Cossacks" Can be described as hardcore historical reconstructors who practice fencing, tricks with real sabers and stuff like that
5) Former police and army officers who were fired during the recent years
All that force organized in hundreds . There are system of rotation, there are reserves, there are intelligence and counterintelligence. There are guys who know a thing or two about military style fortifications.
There are no real weapons stashed. In the same way as there are no nuclear weapons in Israel
Post by: scrdest on January 26, 2014, 07:21:30 am
BTW, I want to explain why riot police has a very hard time.
Core of the radical protesters consist of
1) Afghanistan Veterans: "Union of Afghanistan veterans and Chernobyl disaster liquidators " Is one of the largest and most organized non-governmental organizations and they are pissed by the government
2) Football Ultras. While fans of some clubs are joining only now, some where there right from the beginning
3) Various paramilitary nationalist and anarchist organizations. Includes veterans of various early 1990s wars (Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transnistria and so on)
4) "Cossacks" Can be described as hardcore historical reconstructors who practice fencing, tricks with real sabers and stuff like that
5) Former police and army officers who were fired during the recent years
All that force organized in hundreds . There are system of rotation, there are reserves, there are intelligence and counterintelligence. There are guys who know a thing or two about military style fortifications.
There are no real weapons stashed. In the same way as there are no nuclear weapons in Israel
Oh yeah, protesters recently captured a police-held building in Kiev, they found live ammo on the roof.
Post by: GreatJustice on January 26, 2014, 02:50:24 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scrdest on January 26, 2014, 03:09:02 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Translation (from upper left):
Warrior, Ranger, Alchemist, Mage
Engineer, Elemental, Paladin, Priest
Bard, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2014, 03:58:00 pm
Spoiler: It has been posted before, I think (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on January 26, 2014, 04:37:29 pm
Post by: Dutchling on January 26, 2014, 04:38:23 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 26, 2014, 04:40:40 pm
Post by: Il Palazzo on January 26, 2014, 04:42:17 pm
What does that mean, anyway?I'd wager Proto Ukrainian.
Post by: scrdest on January 26, 2014, 04:53:54 pm
What does that mean, anyway?I'd wager Proto Ukrainian.
I'd wager it means 'my translation fucked up'. The original picture is captioned (transliterated) 'monakh', and 'monakhos' is Greek for 'Monk', and since Ukraine is Orthodox, and thus derived its terminology from Greek terms I'm 90% sure it is Monk. Well, that and Monk being one of the classic RPG classes.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 26, 2014, 05:03:08 pm
What does that mean, anyway?The words "Protoukr" and "Ukr" are frequently used by anti-Ukrainian Russian nationalists in order to ridicule Ukrainian history books that (allegedly) name the prehistoric people and Slavic tribes living on that territory Ukrainians. Russian nationalists also claim that Russians/Ruthenians of the 9th century Kievan Rus and the modern Russian people are one and the same people, even though actually modern Russians (and Ukrainians along with Belarusians) have as much in common with them as modern Germans have with the Germanic tribes from the times of the Roman Empire.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on January 26, 2014, 05:17:42 pm
At what point did crusader kings leaked onto the news? O_o
Post by: Sergarr on January 26, 2014, 05:20:30 pm
Post by: scrdest on January 26, 2014, 05:40:18 pm
Holy ruking sh!t. So you're telling me that not only the "arab spring" reached eastern europe, but that protesters are fighting riot police's shield walls with FREAKING FLAILS AND SWORDS AND BOWS AND PLATE ARMOUR?
At what point did crusader kings leaked onto the news? O_o
See, I told you police supporters were CK fans, no wonder the protesters are as well!
Post by: misko27 on January 26, 2014, 05:58:52 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 26, 2014, 06:08:03 pm
How the tides have changed.
Post by: Dutchling on January 26, 2014, 07:05:26 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on January 27, 2014, 12:51:47 am
The other side of Maidan (http://zyalt.livejournal.com/985632.html)Instructive!
We need more of this kind of journalism. In general I mean.
Post by: Yoink on January 27, 2014, 07:02:57 am
I find it hilarious. :P
Post by: PanH on January 27, 2014, 07:09:45 am
In symbolism news, The Pope released two doves for peace in Ukraine; the doves were promptly attacked by a crow and a seagull. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25905108)Two of the doves were attacked, but there was more than 2. Pretty funny though.
Post by: scrdest on January 27, 2014, 07:10:43 am
In symbolism news, The Pope released two doves for peace in Ukraine; the doves were promptly attacked by a crow and a seagull. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25905108)Does anyone else find this at least a bit amusing?
I can't help but imagine him making a stern face and thinking something along the lines of 'Dick move, birds'
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 01:50:17 pm
Post by: Dutchling on January 27, 2014, 01:56:13 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 27, 2014, 02:04:24 pm
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2014, 02:06:20 pm
Post by: scrdest on January 27, 2014, 02:41:13 pm
Can someone translate that? I don't think machine translation has gotten to the point of being able to scan a picture for words...
Red/Black: Banderovtsy (untranslateable in itself, except as 'Bandera's followers' after a certain Ukrainian Nationalist dude who is kinda liked in Ukraine for fighting for Ukrainian independence against (and IIRC for a period with) Nazis and Soviet Union, but he and the movement is pretty controversial (ethnic cleansing does that sometimes); the usage here is kinda like calling them Nazis except milder, or like insurgents with some pejorative connotations).
Blue/Yellow: The Nation of Ukraine (Yeeeah. Really subtle there.).
Saturated Orange: Administration Blockaded
Pale Orange: Policy of [something]. I don't really know the word.
Post by: Descan on January 27, 2014, 02:53:04 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 27, 2014, 02:54:34 pm
Can someone translate that? I don't think machine translation has gotten to the point of being able to scan a picture for words...Black and Red - Banderites
Blue and Yellow - the people
Orange - blockade of the administration buildings
Yellow - attempt of takeover
As you can see, this map was made by the opponents of Euromaidan.
In other news:
The parliament of the Crimean autonomy outlawed the nationalist party Svoboda on the territory of Crimea, urged the Ukrainian government to outlaw Svoboda in the rest of Ukraine and ordered regional police units to heighten up security measures at transport links between Crimea and the rest of Ukraine (link in Russian language) (http://ria.ru/world/20140127/991619095.html).
Post by: kaian-a-coel on January 27, 2014, 03:20:00 pm
http://www.legorafi.fr/2014/01/27/ukraine-le-mouvement-de-contestation-netait-en-fait-que-le-tournage-du-dernier-michael-bay/
Post by: Helgoland on January 27, 2014, 03:43:48 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on January 27, 2014, 04:07:01 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on January 27, 2014, 04:09:17 pm
So what happens if they are outlawed? It could get nasty...IIRC, several opposition-controlled regional assemblies in Western Ukraine have already outlawed the Party of Regions and the Communist Party of Ukraine. The Crimean government's move is possibly a response to that.
Post by: GreatJustice on January 27, 2014, 04:31:58 pm
Ukrainian Ranger, are you aware of the fact that your side of the protests is led by a Pit Lord who is fighting Jeebus over the fate of the Ukraine?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What a subtle message being conveyed here.
So what happens if they are outlawed? It could get nasty...
Crimea is probably the most Russian oriented part of the Ukraine, so its not like they're affecting much. If Svoboda actually achieved power, they'd likely try to join Russia instead.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 04:46:44 pm
Victory of the Government: Outlawed
Fast victory of the revolution : Moderates will have reason to vote for radicals, radicals will vote for heroes of revolution
Splitting country in two parts: Outlawed\Marginalized in the Eastern part, Lose elections in the Western part
Any kind of compromise with the government: Reputation of Sellouts
Civil War: Political parties have no sense
Post by: Max White on January 27, 2014, 05:20:49 pm
I think Svoboda as a a party is a borderline political corpse now. I see no scenario in which Svoboda will get any real power.Well that is what happens when your party preferences people of a specific ethnicity over others... You don't survive in modern politics by cutting off potential voters.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 05:24:08 pm
Quote
You don't survive in modern politics by cutting off potential voters.I have a strong belief that party shouldn't adapt to voters, party should represent interests of some group
Besides Svoboda is dying because of cowardice of leaders of the party.
Post by: Max White on January 27, 2014, 05:27:25 pm
It isn't about adapting to the voters, but knowing that no good comes from attacking things that can't be changed.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 05:35:01 pm
If you take a hard stance against a group of people you will never convince those people to support you.So you think - nationalists = against some group of people?
Well, you are wrong but I am not in the mood to start the discussion
Besides no party needs support of ALL people at most majority is needed. Or number enough to get in parliament if party has no ambition of full power
Post by: Owlbread on January 27, 2014, 06:03:31 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 06:16:06 pm
But surely I wouldn't call other nationalists provocateurs and government agents. I wouldn't shake hands with dictator on negotiations. I wouldn't agree to give up barricades for promises to release some of arrested. I wouldn't start a hysteria "Now, when we don't give up, there are will be thousands arrested"
Most likely I would get in relatively safe place and announce the current government usurpers and thus illegal. Form new transitional government with whatever allies, raise armed squads call for army supports and go to the end.
Quote
What are your thoughts regarding the Rusyns?Well that's a sub-ethnic group of Ukrainians. Minority of them call themself a separate nation. Of cause culture of such groups is to be preserved, autonomy or more is just not practical
Post by: Ghazkull on January 27, 2014, 06:48:00 pm
But im still mostly confused by the differing Parties on both sides. As far as i have gathered The Protesters consist of
Afghan War Veterans,
Students,
Ultras,
Right Wing People of all Couleurs
Liberals
The Orthodox Church
and apparently the Communists/Left Wing are also against the Government but not working together with the above guys.
So who exactly is representing the Government? Looks to me like its representing no one really since the Left, the Right and the Midst is all against them.
Could somebody explain to me against whom or what the Protesters are fighting exactly? I am a bit confused on that point.
Post by: andrea on January 27, 2014, 06:58:12 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 27, 2014, 07:12:49 pm
Quote
and apparently the Communists/Left Wing are also against the Government but not working together with the above guys.Ukraine has no left parties barring marginal ones. "Communists" It's the guys who get votes using "we'll give you USSR back" mantra, enter the parliament, do nothing what left party should do , get money selling votes, say "We failed to get USSR back because there were too few of us. Vote for us again" and get back in the parliament. Life is good when your electorate are morons. Note I don't say that one who supports communism ideology is a moron, I say that guys who vote for that party are morons, Communist party of Ukraine has nothing to do with left ideology
Quote
So who exactly is representing the Government? Looks to me like its representing no one really since the Left, the Right and the Midst is all against them.Government is supported by the ruling pro-Russian Party of Regions(if you ask me fascists but they prefer to call themselves anti-fascits ) + army of mercenaries + corrupted justice system
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 28, 2014, 05:01:05 am
Post by: Ghazkull on January 28, 2014, 09:18:53 am
And Mercenaries? Do you mean those Berkut guys?
Post by: XXSockXX on January 28, 2014, 10:16:09 am
The army remains neutral so far. The leadership may be loyal to the regime, but the army is conscription based, so they are likely only going to intervene if things really get out of hand and they are probably not going to turn against the ordinary population.
With the resignation of the prime minister and the controversial laws regarding demonstrations dropped, it looks like the government feels pressure to give in to the protesters. So maybe it will all work out peacefully, if nothing goes wrong now. There was some talk about declaring the state of emergency, which could make things much worse, after protesters occupied the ministry of justice. Currently it looks like the government would rather negotiate though.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 28, 2014, 10:28:00 am
Quote
And Mercenaries? Do you mean those Berkut guysI mean all police, Berkut is just their elite unit
To illustrate, yesterday group of protesters in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) got attacked by "Titushkas" People used knives to defend themselves , several of attackers get wounded, one died today. SUDDENLY those are police officers dressed in civilian and now guys who killed those thugs in self-defense will be jailed
Quote
With the resignation of the prime minister and the controversial laws regarding demonstrations dropped, it looks like the government feels pressure to give in to the protesters. So maybe it will all work out peacefully, if nothing goes wrong now. There was some talk about declaring the state of emergency, which could make things much worse, after protesters occupied the ministry of justice. Currently it looks like the government would rather negotiate though.I see no point in this. Some (not all) of the laws dropped? So what? They can vote for same or even worse at any moment. All who voted for that laws should be kicked from Ukrainian politics forever.
Resignation of PM? Cutting off small part of cancer tumor is pointless
That's my opinion, and that is the opinion of the guys on the barricades
Post by: Comrade P. on January 28, 2014, 10:32:12 am
Post by: XXSockXX on January 28, 2014, 10:40:10 am
I see no point in this. Some (not all) of the laws dropped? So what? They can vote for same or even worse at any moment. All who voted for that laws should be kicked from Ukrainian politics forever.Sure. These are just signs that the government is losing control and thinks it's better off negotiating instead of trying to end the protests by force. That seems like a good thing. Ideally that could mean getting rid of the government without bloodshed, if the protesters keep up the pressure and nobody on either side gets too nervous and does something stupid.
Resignation of PM? Cutting off small part of cancer tumor is pointless
That's my opinion, and that is the opinion of the guys on the barricades
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 28, 2014, 11:15:21 am
And what about Crimea? I heard accidentally that the want to become a state of their own, withIf they'll decide to go, I doubt that anything can stop them. There are large Russian support with those naval base and I doubt that many Ukrainians will be willing to wage war for that territory. And Autonomy makes separatism way more easyblackjack and hookersBlack Sea and tourists.
If you ask my personal opinion: I want them out as soon as possible, and will clap aloud if they decide to do that. Unlike, for example, Donbass, it's not historical Ukrainian territory. Stance over Crimea taken by majority of Ukrainian nationalists deeply saddens me. I am sure that promise to hold referendum over Crimean Independence\greater autonomy would win us elections in that region. Unfortunately imperialist notions is a dangerous decease that can infect just any right ideology. I had dozens heated discussions on that subject with other Svoboda members
Post by: Owlbread on January 28, 2014, 12:12:54 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on January 28, 2014, 12:21:17 pm
The concern must also be what would become of the Tatars, to whom the Crimea rightfully belongs, not Russian immigrants/settlers sent by Stalin.Though with the kind of nationalism you usually argue for, wouldn't Crimea also belong to the Russians who live there? I mean they are the majority there now and have been so for generations.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 28, 2014, 12:21:47 pm
They seem to have gone reasonably well. Concrete results are that a group of experts will look into the effects of the Accension Treaty for both EU and Russia; Not that usefull for Ukraine, but perhaps for other countries in the region.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 28, 2014, 12:24:10 pm
Quote
The concern must also be what would become of the Tatars, to whom the Crimea rightfully belongs, not Russian immigrants/settlers sent by Stalin.
Yep, that's true. Crimean Tatars are in shitty situation I see no way to solve their situation barring Stalin's methods
Spoiler: Regional administration in Odessa (click to show/hide)
Post by: Owlbread on January 28, 2014, 12:29:52 pm
Though with the kind of nationalism you usually argue for, wouldn't Crimea also belong to the Russians who live there? I mean they are the majority there now and have been so for generations.
If by generations you mean since WW2 i.e. within living memory... but they are the majority now as you say (whether that's right or wrong) and there's nothing we can really do about it. The civic nationalism that I argue would say that it's their Crimea too.
All we can do is try to protect the Crimeans and ensure that they don't lose their language or their culture, maybe the best thing is if Crimea remains a part of Ukraine subordinate to Ukrainian laws that would protect the Crimean minority. It would be easy for an independent Crimea to put forward a law stating that the only state language of the Republic is Russian. If a Ukrainian government could force the Crimean republic to have both Tatar and Russian as official state languages and support the Tatars in general maybe the Crimean Tatar nation could be rebuilt piece by piece to the point that they could sustain themselves in a bi-national state.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 28, 2014, 12:40:18 pm
Post by: Owlbread on January 28, 2014, 12:51:27 pm
One way exist, there are quite a lot of Crimean Tatars in Turkey. By inviting sufficient number back in Crimea, balance can be fixed but that's not easy to achieve in Ukraine as it is. And surely will not be done in Russian or Independent Crimea
If Crimean autonomy was abolished, thereby allowing the Ukrainian government to send enough Tatars back home to Crimea, that would cause terrible friction with the Russian population there. If the Tatars were invited to settle somewhere else in Ukraine as a temporary measure then find a way to trickle them into Crimea then that would also cause problems because any accommodation would be temporary and only god knows how long it would take or how much it would cost.
What kind of authority does the Ukrainian national government have in Crimea?
Post by: XXSockXX on January 28, 2014, 12:53:48 pm
If by generations you mean since WW2 i.e. within living memory...Well, since WW2 it's easily 3 generations born there.
Unfortunately there is no way to reverse Stalins resettlement measures by even remotely acceptable means.
I agree that the Crimean Tatars would probably be better off in Ukraine, simply because they'd be an even smaller minority in Russia. I doubt an independent Crimea would stay independent for long, they'd probably rather join Russia.
Post by: Owlbread on January 28, 2014, 12:57:00 pm
Post by: scrdest on January 28, 2014, 01:37:08 pm
Or become a client state like South Ossetia.
They already pretty much ARE a client state.
Post by: Andrew425 on January 28, 2014, 03:10:05 pm
I'm not quite sure what it's take on the situation is though.
Post by: Helgoland on January 28, 2014, 03:31:09 pm
Post by: GreatJustice on January 28, 2014, 04:25:55 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 28, 2014, 04:34:54 pm
Quote
Parts of eastern Ukraine are arguably Russian, too
Spoiler: Map (click to show/hide)
Post by: GreatJustice on January 28, 2014, 04:36:07 pm
Historically speaking, not ethnically.QuoteParts of eastern Ukraine are arguably Russian, tooSpoiler: Map (click to show/hide)
Post by: Owlbread on January 29, 2014, 08:30:12 am
Crimea is basically Russian now in terms of ethnicity, not so much Tartar. Anyhow, once you get into "historical ethnicity", especially with the Ukraine, then things get complicated, since a lot of modern Ukrainian land was claimed by Soviet-Ukrainians from other countries. Crimea was originally Tartar/Turkish but most of them are long gone and it is basically Russian now.
They aren't long gone. Unless you consider WW2 so long ago that it doesn't really matter, of course. Maybe consider that next time there's a Veteran's Day parade in the USA.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on January 29, 2014, 08:33:34 am
Post by: Owlbread on January 29, 2014, 08:36:37 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 29, 2014, 05:29:50 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on January 30, 2014, 12:34:08 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 30, 2014, 02:18:22 pm
Post by: Owlbread on January 30, 2014, 03:09:43 pm
Post by: Helgoland on January 30, 2014, 03:58:50 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on January 30, 2014, 04:46:15 pm
Seriously though, the media here interpret the general situation as Yanukovych increasingly losing control, with several powerful oligarchs withdrawing their support and siding with the protesters.
Post by: Helgoland on January 30, 2014, 04:57:17 pm
Not always, though. And the same applies to the government, sadly.
Post by: Comrade P. on January 30, 2014, 05:00:04 pm
Post by: LordSlowpoke on January 30, 2014, 05:01:26 pm
...wot?
Who the hell can even pay that much? Oligarchs?
Post by: Comrade P. on January 30, 2014, 05:03:08 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on January 30, 2014, 05:03:19 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on January 30, 2014, 05:03:30 pm
Post by: Max White on January 30, 2014, 05:27:35 pm
Post by: Bouchart on January 30, 2014, 05:49:13 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on January 31, 2014, 12:35:04 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on January 31, 2014, 06:21:55 pm
So a protest leader may or may not have been crucified recently. (http://world.time.com/2014/01/31/kiev-protester-crucified-as-ukraines-crisis-gets-worse/)Good lord :o
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on January 31, 2014, 06:34:48 pm
Post by: Max White on January 31, 2014, 08:38:04 pm
So a protest leader may or may not have been crucified recently. (http://world.time.com/2014/01/31/kiev-protester-crucified-as-ukraines-crisis-gets-worse/)What the fuck am I even reading...
Well if other nations are going to back the protesters, they now have the casus belli they needed.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on January 31, 2014, 11:00:16 pm
So a protest leader may or may not have been crucified recently. (http://world.time.com/2014/01/31/kiev-protester-crucified-as-ukraines-crisis-gets-worse/)What the fuck am I even reading...
Well if other nations are going to back the protesters, they now have the casus belli they needed.
Don't tell anyone the next generation of world leaders grew up learning war and politics from Paradox. They might try to murder us all, before it's too late.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 01, 2014, 07:22:18 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on February 01, 2014, 03:48:12 pm
Post by: Bouchart on February 01, 2014, 06:14:51 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 01, 2014, 06:16:35 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 01, 2014, 06:25:36 pm
So any news? Yanukovitch on his death-bed/open mutineering in the army/Russian invasion?Apparently everything's going on as usual, and Yanukovich is still President of Ukraine. There would be a shitstorm in the Russian mass media if he had left the post or the country, and the Russian mass media (along with the Western mass media) are currently silent about that.
Recently, Russian and Western representatives attending an international conference in Munich have been accusing each other of exercising political pressure on Ukraine and meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25996453)
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 01, 2014, 06:29:16 pm
Quote
He said: "The aspirations of citizens are once again being trampled beneath corrupt, oligarchic interests - interests that use money to stifle political opposition and dissent, to buy politicians and media outlets, and to weaken judicial independence."
replace oligarchic with corporate
my sides are currently crashing through several satellites on their way out of the solar system, damnit kerry
Post by: Owlbread on February 01, 2014, 06:32:37 pm
They'd encourage a war maybe (see Afghanistan/Iraq Wars and the fingerprints of corporate America are everywhere), but they wouldn't crucify you/shoot you dead in the street. The former Eastern Bloc is still a bit like the Wild West though where some pretty terrible guys can claw their ways to power without having to worry about all the old establishments we have in Europe and North America.
Post by: misko27 on February 01, 2014, 06:46:39 pm
What leaders are kicking around in London at the moment? I always thought guys like that left for Russia. If they're really bad (like Idi Amin bad) they go to Saudi Arabia or similar.Owlbread have you ever seen "The Last King of Scotland"?
Post by: Owlbread on February 01, 2014, 06:48:25 pm
Post by: misko27 on February 01, 2014, 06:58:17 pm
I have and I loved it. Great film.Me too.
Yanukovych remains on sick leave. I suppose it could be true (I imagine protesters gaining ground against my violent rule might make me queasy, but I think he has a fever); but it seems unlikely.
Kerry and friends are particularly interested in the case of Dmytro Bulatov, the one who was crucified. Dmytro remains wanted both for information about his kidnapping, and the crime of attending protests. The Police officers dispatched to the hospital to arrest him were convinced to do otherwise by activists there.
Post by: Helgoland on February 02, 2014, 04:23:28 pm
I only have a German link (zeit.de) - does anyone have more info?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 02, 2014, 06:43:14 pm
That's about the only progress the Munich conference has made apparently.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 02, 2014, 07:08:12 pm
So opposition leaders have apparently called for the formation of civilian self-defense forces.I like how our parliamentary opposition calls for civilian self-defense forces, weeks after Right Sector started to form ones
I only have a German link (zeit.de) - does anyone have more info?
Well, Liberals* and Revolution is like impotents and sex. They will continue to negotiate, negotiate and negotiate some more
*modern liberals, liberals of the past were different
Post by: MarcAFK on February 02, 2014, 11:13:28 pm
Post by: BlindKitty on February 03, 2014, 11:37:15 am
Post by: Mephansteras on February 03, 2014, 12:15:50 pm
Yanukovych remains on sick leave. I suppose it could be true (I imagine protesters gaining ground against my violent rule might make me queasy, but I think he has a fever); but it seems unlikely.
Eh, I could see it. It's winter, he's old, and the situation has got to be stressing him out. A cold/flu under those conditions is quite likely, and if it's a flu it could even be life-threatening.
Not saying he isn't faking it, mind you. Just that him getting sick while all this is going on isn't all that far fetched.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 04, 2014, 07:55:26 pm
In fact there are nothing to report, everything is calm. Too calm I must say. Nothing but some bla-bla-bla in parliament happens. I doubt that it will remain like that for long, situation is getting more and more and will explode again sooner or later
I suspect that the government will act during the Olympics hoping it will be a major distraction for the Western media
Post by: Owlbread on February 05, 2014, 09:22:39 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 05, 2014, 12:15:35 pm
Quote from: article
But on Sunday night, their leader Dmitro Yarosh agreed to give his first interview to a foreign media outlet. It was not so much an act of vanity as a political coming-out. He has clearly grown tired of being the movement’s anonymous enforcer.I'd say he is one of the leaders. The only one who is public right from the beginning of formation of Right Sector.
Creation of the Right Sector was an initiative of "Trizub", Yarosh is a long time public leader of this group so he never was anonymous. So there are no point for him to hide, unlike other leaders. If anyone wants to create an expression that Yarosh is a head of revolution aiming to be Furher... that's a nonsense :)
Quote
Increasingly marginalized, the group has grown much more assertive and, in some ways, has started going rogue.Huh? Marginalized? Comparing to what? Right Sector was created in November 2013 and since then it's popularity only going up
As for going rogue... "Right Sector" never subordinated to the official opposition. Yep, some coordination existed and exist but no more than that
"Right Sector" doesn't control all self-defense squads, majority are more linked with the opposition, Like, for example Afghanistan Veterans.
Quote
At the same time, Yarosh has demanded a seat at the negotiating table with the President. Once again, he was flatly denied. His ideology, it seems, is just too toxic to let him in the room.Not exactly. Yarosh demanded a Maidan representative(s) in negotiations. naming himself as one of possible candidates. Mainly to oversee the negotiations not participate in it. People are getting tired of that system where "lords" discuss fates of "serfs" behind the closed doors. Negotiations like that must be public.
Quote
Pravy Sektor’s ideology borders on fascism, and it enjoys support only from Ukraine’s most hard-line nationalists, a group too small to secure them a place in parliamentHeh. Déjà vu. Heard that sooooooo many times about Svoboda few years back. So
I wouldn't be so sure. People are picking more and more radical politicians with every elections
Right Sector is not a political party and doesn't plan to become one. That doesn't means that minor far-right parties that participate in Right Sector will not try to profit from the events
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 06, 2014, 05:49:36 pm
Just want to share this. The video is likely from early January when the situation was much more calm and solvable.
Post by: Sinistar on February 07, 2014, 03:09:11 am
So, any thought's on that? Anyone has any additional information?
Post by: Sheb on February 07, 2014, 03:16:42 am
Edit: Just listened to it, and nothing big apart from the business with Klitchko and Yatseniuk, but it's hardly surprising the Americans got a favorite horse in there.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 07, 2014, 06:55:01 am
It's embarrassing for the US less because the embassador said "Fuck the EU", more because the conversation got leaked in the first place. They are now at the other end of a spying controversy and it seems hypocritical how they now blame Russia when they just got caught doing the same thing all the time.
Of course it's Russia who benefits from this, because tensions between the EU and the US are exposed to the public and because the self-righteous tone of the conversation plays into their "US is meddling in Ukraine" narrative.
Post by: misko27 on February 07, 2014, 09:14:29 am
Post by: Sheb on February 07, 2014, 09:17:47 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 07, 2014, 09:18:43 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 07, 2014, 09:24:07 am
I should note the US accuses Russia of leaking that out.Which is a bit hypocritical. Of course Russia leaked it, but the US would do the same thing if it seemed opportune. It's all a charade.
Yeah, which seems weird: if you have a bug on the ambassador's or deputy state secretary, why would you blow it up for so little?They just publicly accused the US of meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs. This is what they use as "proof". To someone who isn't aware of how non-public negotiations sound, this may seem like exactly that.
And yeah, it makes US counterintelligence look bad.
Post by: misko27 on February 07, 2014, 09:32:16 am
Plus it underscores the point I have made in the past that,while the US has technological expertise, there is some deep incompetence at work. Bit that is off-topic.
Post by: Helgoland on February 07, 2014, 11:00:35 am
Well, until now they haven't! There's a certain code of conduct: You spy, but you don't embarass the guy you're spying on in public. It undermines trust in a way that spying doesn't.I should note the US accuses Russia of leaking that out.Which is a bit hypocritical. Of course Russia leaked it, but the US would do the same thing if it seemed opportune. It's all a charade.
Post by: aenri on February 07, 2014, 11:02:00 am
Once upon a time, on one small square in Kiev, these people have met:
- ambassadors of USA, France, Spain, Germany and Denmark
- secretary of the US Department of state Victoria Nuland
- US senators Chris Murphy and John McCain
- german Minister of Foreign Affairs Guido Westerwelle
- dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans
- High representative for EU foreign affairs Catherine Ashton
- former president of Georgia Michail Saakashvili
- polish member of European parliament Jacek Protasiewicz and former polish prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski
- czech senator Jaromir Stetina...
and together they accused Russia of interfering in internal affairs of Ukraine :)
Post by: Helgoland on February 07, 2014, 11:12:01 am
Post by: scrdest on February 07, 2014, 11:13:59 am
Euromaidan fairytale
Once upon a time, on one small square in Kiev, these people have met:
- ambassadors of USA, France, Spain, Germany and Denmark
- secretary of the US Department of state Victoria Nuland
- US senators Chris Murphy and John McCain
- german Minister of Foreign Affairs Guido Westerwelle
- dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans
- High representative for EU foreign affairs Catherine Ashton
- former president of Georgia Michail Saakashvili
- polish member of European parliament Jacek Protasiewicz and former polish prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski
- czech senator Jaromir Stetina...
and together they accused Russia of interfering in internal affairs of Ukraine :)
Let me know when, say, GSG9 kidnaps a government official.
Post by: Sinistar on February 07, 2014, 11:53:55 am
Not saying I'm siding with Russia or really hating on US, but I just found that silly.
As for the actual phone conversation thing, I was just interested what people more affected by this crisis think.
As far as I can tell it's just one big sad mess and I feel for all who are unjustly mistreated due to it.
Post by: misko27 on February 07, 2014, 12:48:08 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 07, 2014, 12:53:45 pm
The one thing I always take away from leaked diplomatic conversations is the frightening impression that these people making important decisions are not all that much more competent than, say, we are. Clearly Bay12 should be given more political competences and a mandate to mediate in international affairs. ;)
Post by: scrdest on February 07, 2014, 12:57:59 pm
Well, currently it's all a game of "your meddling interferes with our meddling".
The one thing I always take away from leaked diplomatic conversations is the frightening impression that these people making important decisions are not all that much more competent than, say, we are. Clearly Bay12 should be given more political competences and a mandate to mediate in international affairs. ;)
If it happened, rate of 'suspicious accidents' happening to political figures would rise by 100%. 65% of those would involve magma.
Post by: aenri on February 07, 2014, 12:58:57 pm
Old time hypocrisy in diplomacy. USA, EU and Russia all have their interests in new political elite of Ukraine. They accuse the other side of things they themselves do. Boy, do they like their diplomatic games.
...Also scrdest I don't think FSB is kidnapping any guys in Ukraine :). By that train of thought we could find out that not even Russia is interfering with Ukrajina.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 07, 2014, 01:02:59 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 07, 2014, 01:05:22 pm
It was just a joke. I thought the smiley conveyed that meaning.
Old time hypocrisy in diplomacy. USA, EU and Russia all have their interests in new political elite of Ukraine. They accuse the other side of things they themselves do. Boy, do they like their diplomatic games....Also scrdest I don't think FSB is kidnapping any guys in Ukraine :). By that train of thought we could find out that not even Russia is interfering with Ukrajina.
It's hard to tell Russians from East Ukrainians, but some of the opposition claimed some of the kidnappers were Russian. Of course, they have a vested interest in believing that, nonetheless the government doesn't have any accusations of quite that magnitude.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 07, 2014, 01:12:29 pm
Quote
It's hard to tell Russians from East Ukrainians,Not that hard. Very different accents. Russian from Eastern Ukraine is very different to Russian spoken in Russia. Accents can be faked by professionals but that is not easy
Post by: smirk on February 07, 2014, 01:12:54 pm
This just in: A passenger unsuccessfully tried to divert an Istanbul-bound plane to Sochi. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/sochi-hijiacking-attempt_n_4746397.html) According to German media he is Ukrainian.Got a link for the second claim? Huffpo and der Spiegel both say the flight originated in Ukraine, but I can't find anything saying the hijacker was or was not himself Ukrainian.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 07, 2014, 01:16:54 pm
Here. (in German though) (http://www.stern.de/panorama/zwangslandung-in-istanbul-kidnapper-wollte-flugzeug-nach-sotschi-entfuehren-2088581.html)This just in: A passenger unsuccessfully tried to divert an Istanbul-bound plane to Sochi. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/sochi-hijiacking-attempt_n_4746397.html) According to German media he is Ukrainian.Got a link for the second claim? Huffpo and der Spiegel both say the flight originated in Ukraine, but I can't find anything saying the hijacker was or was not himself Ukrainian.
Since nothing is officially confirmed, reports are still a bit unclear.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 12, 2014, 01:56:59 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Owlbread on February 12, 2014, 04:17:50 pm
Spoiler: Dudayev would be proud. (click to show/hide)
It's great that it's the secular nationalist flag too. I've got it on my bedroom wall.
Post by: Sheb on February 12, 2014, 04:32:01 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 12, 2014, 04:53:27 pm
Owlbread, is your bedromm covered in the flag of every aspiring independent nation on Earth?
I aim for that, Sheb. Do you know how hard it is to get a reasonably priced flag of Karakalpakstan though?
Post by: Helgoland on February 13, 2014, 03:48:33 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 13, 2014, 06:04:29 pm
Who else could recognize it? :) Quite a lot of former militants of Ichkeria found a safe haven in Ukraine. And there are not that kind of people to stay idle when stuff like that happens. There are there. I don't envy the riot police if they will meet armed veterans of the first Chechen War on the battlefield with real weapons.Spoiler: Dudayev would be proud. (click to show/hide)
It's great that it's the secular nationalist flag too. I've got it on my bedroom wall.
I heard rumors, that I believe to be true, that some police snipers got warned by intentional near misses from "protester's" snipers.
Are there any new developments in Ukraine? German media have pretty much stopped reporting.Oh, nothing new. Every politician pretends that nothing happens and discuss stuff like new constitution, elections and crap like that. As if we have no thousands of people on barricades in the center of our capital waiting for immediate changes.
Post by: Valikdu on February 14, 2014, 01:45:38 am
Those people aren't your friends, unless you are also a radical islamist like them.
Actually, you should be fearing for your life. If those things are for real, it means that the grown-up terrorists have arrived and the probability of a catastrophic escalation is higher than ever. And in that event, you're liable to become collateral damage.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 14, 2014, 03:45:45 am
Unless that flag (and also the FSA flag - that one was also displayed) isn't just someone's idea of scare tactics... I'm not sure why you're celebrating.Ukrainian nationalists and Chechen separatists are united by their furious hatred towards Russia. Hatred towards Russia brings a lot of different people and political forces closer together.
Those people aren't your friends, unless you are also a radical islamist like them.
Actually, you should be fearing for your life. If those things are for real, it means that the grown-up terrorists have arrived and the probability of a catastrophic escalation is higher than ever. And in that event, you're liable to become collateral damage.
Post by: Sheb on February 14, 2014, 03:55:54 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 14, 2014, 05:03:01 am
Those people aren't your friends, unless you are also a radical islamist like them.Radical Islamists don't use that flag. that (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Flag_of_Caucasian_Emirate.svg/250px-Flag_of_Caucasian_Emirate.svg.png) flag would upset me.
The one who knows me better, knows that I am very anti-islamic. Seeing that religion as nothing more then huge long-time problem for humanity (I ask to not start discussion on good\bad islam here. That topic is not for that)
Quote
Actually, you should be fearing for your life. If those things are for real, it means that the grown-up terrorists have arrived and the probability of a catastrophic escalation is higher than ever. And in that event, you're liable to become collateral damage.a) I am ready to be collateral damage if that will be good for my nation. I am not saying I am not afraid of death but I am ready.
b) Nope, grown-up terrorists haven't arrived. They are busy following Doka Umarov and planning new senseless attacks on Russian cities
c) This guys, being real soldiers despise targeting non-combatants. As well as majority of Chechens. If you think otherwise you are fool that believes stupid Russian propaganda. If majority of Chechens would think like that and be that bloodthirsty animals like Russian TV says Russia would see far far more than few attacks per year
d) Dangerous escalation is bad. War is bad, becoming Belarus and beyond is worse.
e) Chechens are very bad enemies but they are good friends. I like having them on my side. I prefer to have guys who can fight back to massacre of unarmed Ukrainians if Yanukovitch is mad enough to go further.
f) Finally that shows that young Ukrainian nationalists didn't die for nothing fighting Russians in mountains of Caucasus during the first Chechen war. Twenty years later we get that help back.
Quote
Ukrainian nationalists and Chechen separatists are united by their furious hatred towards Russia. Hatred towards Russia brings a lot of different people and political forces closer together.Furious hatred toward Russia? I think by that Logic allies of WW2 were united by furious hatred toward Germany?
We have an ongoing war against Russian Imperialism and remains of Soviet ideology. Sometimes it's cold. Sometimes not so. And as any war it has different sides. You may not believe it and I can't prove it. But I know for sure that at least a hundred of Russian far-rights arrived in Kiev to join our side. That may be one way ticket for them. It's not hard for Russian intelligence to identify them and that means that coming home will be unpleasant
And Chechens are nice people. Dangerous, with weird culture and morals, but nice. They value freedom and honor above everything else. I respect them as a nation and not because they are enemies of Russia
Please, don't be shy. Use "Ukrainian and Chechen separatists" here. We made the same "crime" as Chechens. Tried to live in our own home without Russia. difference is that we are partially successful. Now my nation is trying to turn that partial separation into a full one. Away from Moscow, away from Russian ideology, away from Russian political system, away from Russian economic dominance. That is not an easy task. I am not sure that we will be successful. But it is worth trying
Post by: Helgoland on February 14, 2014, 08:43:16 am
a) I am ready to be collateral damage if that will be good for my nation. I am not saying I am not afraid of death but I am ready.If you're not willing to die for something, what are you living for, eh? It's sad that this idea seems so alien to most people.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 09:32:56 am
It's not the general idea that is alien to me. Just dying for an abstract cause, like a state, a nation, an ideology or an idea seems like a huge waste. The good of the nation is too fuzzy a term, dying to defend my home, yeah maybe, dying to defend Germany at the Hindukush, no way.a) I am ready to be collateral damage if that will be good for my nation. I am not saying I am not afraid of death but I am ready.If you're not willing to die for something, what are you living for, eh? It's sad that this idea seems so alien to most people.
Post by: Owlbread on February 14, 2014, 10:09:36 am
Unless that flag (and also the FSA flag - that one was also displayed) isn't just someone's idea of scare tactics... I'm not sure why you're celebrating.
Those people aren't your friends, unless you are also a radical islamist like them.
Actually, you should be fearing for your life. If those things are for real, it means that the grown-up terrorists have arrived and the probability of a catastrophic escalation is higher than ever. And in that event, you're liable to become collateral damage.
They are mostly likely not radical Islamists. That is the Republican flag, something you rarely see these days given that most Chechen secular nationalists on the ground in the Caucasus pay lip service to the Emirate and those who don't are hunted and executed. If they were radical Islamists they would have flown the perfectly useable Islamist flag.
Instead of bleating about terrorism maybe you should try to understand the Chechen conflict a bit more and the different factions within the Chechen resistance movement. The Russian government understands it, that's why they made sure they killed every single powerful leader in the Republican/Nationalist camp and only left the Islamists in charge.
I remain convinced that the way to begin to solve the problems in the Northern Caucasus lie in Russia pragmatically appealing to the old nationalist camps and agreeing to support them in independent rule. The nationalists are key here, too many do not understand them.
Ukrainian nationalists and Chechen separatists are united by their furious hatred towards Russia. Hatred towards Russia brings a lot of different people and political forces closer together.
Chechen nationalists you mean. You seem unable to use that term for some reason.
You also say "hatred towards Russia", which is interesting when you consider the position of Dudayev's youngest son Degi who speaks of his love of the Russian language, his love of Russian literature, philosophy etc despite being a prominent activist for the Nationalist cause. Hatred does come into it, but to reduce it to that is oversimplifying the conflict. It's more a matter of "uniting against a common enemy".
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 14, 2014, 10:33:10 am
Quote
dying to defend Germany at the Hindukush, no way.If country sends its citizens to fight over some foreign land it doesn't worth dying for. Of cause if those aren't professional soldiers who chose to risk their lives for money.
Quote
Just dying for an abstract cause, like a state, a nation, an ideology or an idea seems like a huge waste.Imagine a situation,
a) You know that it is likely that Neo-Nazi will come back in power in Germany, bring Hitler's ways back start World War Three and grind dozens of millions in deathcamps
b) You know that you can avert it or reduce chances of that happening by giving your life away
Will you give your life away? If so, You are ready to die for an abstract thing.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 10:54:22 am
XXSockXXWell, but that is not as easy as it seems. It basically means you as an individual have to make up your mind every time there is a military conflict. Germans were not told, "we're invading Poland now", they were told "Poland attacked us" and people actually believed it. Same with Afghanistan, are we fighting over foreign land or are we defending our security at home against terrorists? That is all up to interpretation.Quotedying to defend Germany at the Hindukush, no way.If country sends its citizens to fight over some foreign land it doesn't worth dying for. Of cause if those aren't professional soldiers who chose to risk their lives for money.
Imagine a situation,In that scenario I would probably leave the country, because, as history shows, there is not much an individual could do in such a situation. I see my responsability rather in not letting such a scenario happen in the first place.
a) You know that it is likely that Neo-Nazi will come back in power in Germany, bring Hitler's ways back start World War Three and grind dozens of millions in deathcamps
b) You know that you can avert it or reduce chances of that happening by giving your life away
Will you give your life away? If so, You are ready to die for an abstract thing.
I thought a lot about stuff like that as a kid, because when I grew up WW3 still seemed like a possibility (at least to a kid). I thought I would be ready to defend my home area, but I wouldn't have liked to fight at the front, partially because it would have meant to fight my own relatives in the GDR. I guess that is ultimately where my scepticism regarding that kind of thing comes from.
Post by: scrdest on February 14, 2014, 10:59:22 am
In that scenario I would probably leave the country, because, as history shows, there is not much an individual could do in such a situation. I see my responsability rather in not letting such a scenario happen in the first place.
Doesn't history show that only because if it went otherwise history wouldn't have much to say about that?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 11:06:58 am
Post by: Kicior on February 14, 2014, 11:23:59 am
I thought a lot about stuff like that as a kid, because when I grew up WW3 still seemed like a possibility (at least to a kid). I thought I would be ready to defend my home area, but I wouldn't have liked to fight at the front, partially because it would have meant to fight my own relatives in the GDR. I guess that is ultimately where my scepticism regarding that kind of thing comes from.But... but... the hypotetical 3rd world war would determine whether Europe/world becomes communistic or not, right (at least for some time)? So not resisting the Warsaw Pact armies would actually be against your relatives in West Germany, I guess?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 14, 2014, 11:32:13 am
Spoiler: Valentine's day: Ukrainian edition (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 11:35:46 am
My relatives in Western Germany have always had emergency exit plans. I come from a line of paranoid and unpatriotic people I guess. (Parts of the family had to flee westward twice, after WW1 and WW2 respectively, that's probably why.)I thought a lot about stuff like that as a kid, because when I grew up WW3 still seemed like a possibility (at least to a kid). I thought I would be ready to defend my home area, but I wouldn't have liked to fight at the front, partially because it would have meant to fight my own relatives in the GDR. I guess that is ultimately where my scepticism regarding that kind of thing comes from.But... but... the hypotetical 3rd world war would determine whether Europe/world becomes communistic or not, right (at least for some time)? So not resisting the Warsaw Pact armies would actually be against your relatives in West Germany, I guess?
Post by: Kicior on February 14, 2014, 11:43:15 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 14, 2014, 12:04:54 pm
I don't mean to insult you or judge you or something. Let's end the OT.No worries, I'm not insulted or feeling judged at all. :) Just trying to explain German pacifism, which as it turns out is even becoming a problem for the military, since conscription was abolished. But yeah, let's end to OT, back to Ukraine.
That's actually both badass and cute.Spoiler: Valentine's day: Ukrainian edition (click to show/hide)
Post by: Descan on February 14, 2014, 03:49:39 pm
:P
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 14, 2014, 04:25:06 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 15, 2014, 04:53:56 am
Spoiler: Right Sector's Appeal to international community (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 15, 2014, 04:56:02 am
Edit: Ukraine could default within 2 months Link (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/13/fears-for-the-economic-legacy-in-ukraine/)
Post by: Sheb on February 15, 2014, 05:40:13 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 15, 2014, 06:11:05 am
intentional near misses from "protester's" snipers.the demands could be much higher.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 15, 2014, 06:30:23 am
While there are some real weapons stashed* and guys who know how to use that are present If that argument will be used then there are will be no way back, that will be Syria. No one wants that. If you think that nationalists are eager to start a civil war you are very wrong. Being ready for war and starting one is not the same.
*That is denied by both official opposition and Right Sector but that is mostly an open secret
Post by: Sheb on February 15, 2014, 06:35:46 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 15, 2014, 07:35:12 am
Still, except for Yanukovich's resignation, all of this was already offered, no?Yes... but
a) Resignation of Yanukocivh is not a minor thing.
b) Right Sector demands unconditional release of all hostages not amnesty in exchange for giving up all the territory in Kiev. And definitely not "house arrest before the trial" type of "release" that is happening now
c) There are no trust in fair elections. Many things to be changed to run them in a proper way. Current system will bring 2004-like elections. Nothing fun in that
d) That's the first step, no one is forgetting further demands like extensive reform of justice system, punishment for police officers caught in sadistic behavior, Europe-oriented foreign policy, real anti-corruption measures and more, more, more.
Post by: Sheb on February 15, 2014, 07:36:39 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 15, 2014, 07:41:55 am
Other than that there are no public offers
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 16, 2014, 07:54:57 am
Also Perhaps interesting. Wondering if 4$/hour is much in Ukraine. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/16/ukraine-government-protests/5435315/)
Post by: scrdest on February 16, 2014, 08:03:28 am
Anyway, it appears the Kiev Council building has been evacuated.
Also Perhaps interesting. Wondering if 4$/hour is much in Ukraine. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/16/ukraine-government-protests/5435315/)
A lot, especially for the poor. My classmate's parents, back when I lived in Ukraine for half a year, made approximately 100$ a month.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 03:34:52 am
This ****s don't want accept the fact that when they deny Ukrainians their right of peaceful assembly, Ukrainians follow they wishes and come with molotovs in hands.
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 04:06:44 am
Also, totally write that in my game's next turn. :p
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 04:21:57 am
Why?
Because the situation is so bad people are willing to go on the streets en masse. And continue to do so even after months have passed. Because the situation is so bad they are willing to change it with their own hands.
My country? Eh, there's a lot of talk have things are bad. How politicians are incompetent, corrupt, how they are fucking us over. How we need to change something.
But things either aren't bad enough or we are all just apathetic too much to actually go outside and CHANGE something.
Funny thing is, about a year ago this actually happened. After mass protests, prime minister resigned, we had early elections, the opposition party came in power and all is right and dandy now. Except of course, it isn't. It's all the same as before.
*sigh*
Post by: Valikdu on February 18, 2014, 04:38:49 am
This ****s don't want accept the fact that when they deny Ukrainians their right of peaceful assembly, Ukrainians follow they wishes and come with molotovs in hands.If a "peaceful assembly" consists of people with clubs and firebombs - who intend to break into a government building by force - it's not a peaceful assembly.
That's true for ANY country. ANY country would use force against that. Google 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Post by: scrdest on February 18, 2014, 05:07:05 am
This ****s don't want accept the fact that when they deny Ukrainians their right of peaceful assembly, Ukrainians follow they wishes and come with molotovs in hands.If a "peaceful assembly" consists of people with clubs and firebombs - who intend to break into a government building by force - it's not a peaceful assembly.
That's true for ANY country. ANY country would use force against that. Google 1992 Los Angeles riots.
I think you're forgetting how it all BEGAN. They used to be peaceful.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 05:15:40 am
Quote
Don't take this wrong, but I actually envy those living in Ukraine right now.I know that feeling. Felt exactly like that looking at events in Turkey. But I tell you that : If someone told me half year ago that we will have such events happening in Ukraine I'd say : "Dreamer: our people are too apathetic for that. You need years to build up something like that"
Quote
Funny thing is, about a year ago this actually happened. After mass protests, prime minister resigned, we had early elections, the opposition party came in power and all is right and dandy now. Except of course, it isn't. It's all the same as before.Ukraine had that shit back in 2004. We brought Yushchenko in power and decided that we done everything we could. It was wrong, we should have been on the streets again, weeks later after the first actions (or rather inactions) of Yushchenko
Problem here - Revolution is about changing how system works, not putting opposition on government's place.
It's like improving your OS. You can make your Windows 98 slightly better by installing better software\service packs (reforms) but sooner or later you need to do a "format c:" thing. Same goes for a badly damaged OS.
Ukraine haven't reinstalled it's OS right from the time it was installed by commies in 1920s. Not only it wasn't good when it was installed. not only it is badly outdated, not only it has a lot of poorly made hacks to make it work with software (ideas) created for other OSes - It is badly infected by viruses.
____________________________________________________
Quote
If a "peaceful assembly" consists of people with clubs and firebombs - who intend to break into a government building by force - it's not a peaceful assembly.Do you have proofs that they planned to break into the parliament? I think no. Learn what presumption of innocence means.
Clubs and firebombs are for self-defense. It is a basic human right. "Police" proved it ability and willingness to attack, badly injure and outright torture unarmed protesters. Ukrainians are not cattle to tolerate that
Quote
Google 1992 Los Angeles riots.I know that Russian medias call events happening in Ukraine riots. We call that uprising against tyranny. Something that is absolutely legal in USA, choose another country for your example
Americans are a very good nation to follow their way of building and maintaining democracy. Like that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) or that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Committee_of_Vigilance
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 18, 2014, 05:25:10 am
I think you're forgetting how it all BEGAN. They used to be peaceful.
He's just doing what he came to this topic to do in the first place, spout off nonsense.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 07:06:53 am
Spoiler: map (click to show/hide)
Post by: MarcAFK on February 18, 2014, 09:51:56 am
If people tried this in the US they would be gassed, shot with rubber bullets, water cannoned, smoked, capsicum sprayed, dazzled, deafened, herded with horses, and shoved with riot shields, then if anyone had clubs or petrol bombs they would be shot with actual bullets for carrying deadly weapons with intent for murder.
The only reason this doesn't happen in Ukraine is lack of manpower and actual fear the government has of demonstrations turning into widespread open revolt, also bad PR.
The US wouldn't care about the PR because the rioters are just "violent criminals and terrorists".
There is a good history of regime change being caused by riots like this which drag on for a long time while the government is either scared of or literally unable to openly oppose. In a few cases the government collapses without full anarchy, with not much worse than what's going on in Ukraine right now.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 18, 2014, 09:54:03 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 09:54:39 am
BTW the comparisons with riots in the US aren't really helpful, the US has not really been in a situation comparable to this.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 10:12:44 am
Quote
If people tried this in the US they would be gassed, shot with rubber bullets, water cannoned, smoked, capsicum sprayed, dazzled, deafened, herded with horses, and shoved with riot shields, then if anyone had clubs or petrol bombs they would be shot with actual bullets for carrying deadly weapons with intent for murder.That depends. If that group would have support of a large chunk of a nation including leaders of either Democrats or Republicans... I am very unsure. Americans have enough legal assault rifles in their hands to not piss them like that
And when a group that has almost no support start fighting police, yep it has right and duty to use force back. But even in that case police can't torture, use more force then necessary to arrest\neutralize troublemakers, and cooperate with (or tolerate) pro-government thugs
Edited out ,y pessimistic predictions
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 18, 2014, 10:13:25 am
Pretty sure they tried most of these. They haven't openly shot people yet, but most of the other things have happened.Actually they did, but it seemed to be a case of individual security officers loading bullets and their bosses looking the other way and covering up for them, rather than being actual official policy.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 18, 2014, 12:11:45 pm
Personal opinion.
If people tried this in the US they would be gassed, shot with rubber bullets, water cannoned, smoked, capsicum sprayed, dazzled, deafened, herded with horses, and shoved with riot shields, then if anyone had clubs or petrol bombs they would be shot with actual bullets for carrying deadly weapons with intent for murder.
The only reason this doesn't happen in Ukraine is lack of manpower and actual fear the government has of demonstrations turning into widespread open revolt, also bad PR.
The US wouldn't care about the PR because the rioters are just "violent criminals and terrorists".
There is a good history of regime change being caused by riots like this which drag on for a long time while the government is either scared of or literally unable to openly oppose. In a few cases the government collapses without full anarchy, with not much worse than what's going on in Ukraine right now.
Except that peaceful protests in the US aren't cracked down on in the same way, so they don't turn violent the way the Ukrainian ones have.
Sure, if a violent protest kicked off the National Guard would be called in to restore order. But a protest that starts peaceful turning violent due to government actions against them is a very different thing.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 12:37:40 pm
This doesn't look so great, but negotiations are still scheduled for tomorrow.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 12:47:49 pm
Quote
The governments ultimatum has passed without any action by security forces, but the opposition has asked women and children to leave Maidan square.I don't think that bringing APCs with high-caliber machineguns in the center of Kiyv and actively arming "police" with AK 74s is not an action
Quote
but negotiations are still scheduled for tomorrow.All negotiations used by the enemy only to regroup and prepare for another attack, so what the point?
What I dislike most is that after hearing a statement from "police" that two of them are dead two, I am actually hoping that this is true. I'd wish to to not be happy to hear about people dying. But I can't. Those young guys for me are same like another young guys from Munich or Berlin were for my grandfather back in 1941. Enemies that should be dead
And I have no doubts that I am not the only one who has that kind of attitude
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 12:57:17 pm
I would say if negotiations are still supposed to be happening, it's a sign that maybe they won't start shooting on a larger scale. Yanukovych wouldn't have anything to negotiate about after something like that.
Reports about the dead policemen are a bit unclear, at least one policeman was shot in the neck, the other one might have been an employee at Yanukovych's headquarters.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 01:03:31 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 01:10:23 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on February 18, 2014, 01:18:51 pm
Sounds like things are going to get very bloody, I was hoping for a more rational resolution, but frankly I didnt believe they would have waited this long before pushing back hard.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 01:28:15 pm
Hm, German media attributed the thing about women and children to Klitschko,Klitchko said it earlier, of cause women* and children have nothing to do here
*unless that ones who are physically fit and have Amazonian mindset. Thousands of Ukrainian women there will not go away. Some will stay as medics, some will fight
Anyway, The attack has started. Livestream is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LFrMcoEm4
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 02:12:10 pm
Apparently Prime Minister Asarow promised the EU to avoid using sharp ammunition...
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 02:15:29 pm
Anyway, water cannons won't do the tricks. the protesters seems to be behind flaming tire barricades or something. I hope nothing else is used tonight. Who are the policemen? Berkut types?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 02:22:46 pm
Sharp? Do you mean live?Yeah, right. Live ammunition.
Actually Asarow said the use of firearms would be avoided. They have used rubber bullets and flashbangs in the past, which have caused most of the injuries and some of the deaths so far, so I guess he's referring to live ammo.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 02:32:11 pm
Quote
Berkut types?Them, internal forces (who are proven to be not so much better than Berkut) more serious guys from various anti-terrorist special police units and at least two interesting uniformless persons without spotted behind police lines several hours back -
Spoiler: I doubt that they have musical instruments here (click to show/hide)
XXSockXX, Remember one thing about Ukrainian Government, its promises mean NOTHING
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 02:38:37 pm
What I dislike most is that after hearing a statement from "police" that two of them are dead two, I am actually hoping that this is true. I'd wish to to not be happy to hear about people dying. But I can't. Those young guys for me are same like another young guys from Munich or Berlin were for my grandfather back in 1941. Enemies that should be deadThat sounds really harsh. Are those police/military units seen on recent videos universally known to be that bad? It's sad when you are put in a situation where someone standing on the opposing side is not just a normal person like you, pushed in this situation against his/her will but still bound to do his/her duty, but instead is downright hostile to you. :(
And I have no doubts that I am not the only one who has that kind of attitude
Currently, there's kinda low-flying fireworks going on that livestream, but seems things are calm for the moment.
edit:
Well, Ukrainian Ranger's post kinda answered my question. Still sad though.
Post by: Dutchling on February 18, 2014, 02:40:03 pm
Livestream is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LFrMcoEm4Dude is giving a speech. What is he saying?
edit: oh they're singing. Cutest revolution ever.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 02:43:35 pm
I have a crawling 3G internet now, can't say, no youtube for meLivestream is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LFrMcoEm4Dude is giving a speech. What is he saying?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 02:49:24 pm
The attack seems to be going slow though. There are some tents or barricades on fire and people throw things, but they don't seem to move away or move a lot at all. Also no more water cannons so far.
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 02:51:48 pm
edit: I was about to say it looks like some firefighters are there, but I guess not. Someone just threw additional tire on the pyre.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 18, 2014, 02:56:16 pm
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 02:58:29 pm
What you are saying makes sense.
But the thing is still massive. But extreme situation breeds extreme tactics, I guess?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 03:08:00 pm
The police tried to break through with water cannons, but didn't seem to get very far while getting shot at with fireworks. The protesters seem pretty well organized and not panicky or something.
Definitely some eerie images, with the fire, people standing there relatively calm and the singing.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 18, 2014, 03:09:10 pm
BBC claims that Ukrainian pro-opposition Channel 5 has been pulled off air by cable television providers across Ukraine. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26244542)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 03:17:59 pm
Add to that years of huge corruption in police... Yes, they are hated by many
My friend told me about how he and another guy escorted one captured "prisoner" (not from police or internal forces, but one of that "titushkas", those paid thugs) to our base and had notable problems defending him from a dozen of 50 year+ women who were quite determined to rip that guy to pieces with their bare hands. Hate is building up
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 03:27:06 pm
Ukrainian Ranger - yeah, I thought so. This is the part I DON'T envy you. :(
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 03:36:39 pm
-1 enemy APC
It's like some damned surreal dream, Kiev is looking like Damascus
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 03:40:57 pm
I don't even know what to say.
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 18, 2014, 03:49:10 pm
Just make sure this isn't all wasted.
Post by: Dutchling on February 18, 2014, 03:50:53 pm
Post by: Baffler on February 18, 2014, 03:53:45 pm
And that cheer afterward...
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 03:59:31 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 04:02:07 pm
Spoiler: one of the guys who died today (click to show/hide)
Post by: Baffler on February 18, 2014, 04:03:47 pm
Also, what is the guy giving the speech talking about? It doesn't give me captions.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 18, 2014, 04:08:40 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on February 18, 2014, 04:16:14 pm
Not surprised that the police are siding with the government. Almost all police forces have an us-vs-the people mentality in general. Comes from having the majority of their interactions with the public be negative. It's an easy mental shift for them to go from looking at people as protesters to looking at them as criminals, and once that happens they're often perfectly fine cracking down with force.
Which is why it's the Military that usually shows which way the winds will blow if things turn into a full-on revolution, as they don't usually have that same mindset.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 18, 2014, 04:20:34 pm
Yeah, there's no way that would have killed anybody inside the APC, though it certainly immobilized it. Hard to drive with melted tires.Well, it certainly not that healthy. Doubt the APC is completely atmospherically sealed and has it's own independent AC system, so things will get pretty hot in there eventually.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 04:21:48 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 18, 2014, 04:22:12 pm
Wow, that's getting intense over there.Wikipedia says that the police of Rivne Oblast defected, so it's not a unanimous thing.
Not surprised that the police are siding with the government. Almost all police forces have an us-vs-the people mentality in general. Comes from having the majority of their interactions with the public be negative. It's an easy mental shift for them to go from looking at people as protesters to looking at them as criminals, and once that happens they're often perfectly fine cracking down with force.
Which is why it's the Military that usually shows which way the winds will blow if things turn into a full-on revolution, as they don't usually have that same mindset.
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 04:26:38 pm
Police says 6 of policemen were shot. ???
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 04:30:31 pm
6 dead police is indeed the official number. Also hundreds injured, though the numbers for the protesters probably aren't accurate.
What you can't see in the stream is that the police has cleared a part of Maidan (I guess the part behind the fire), but they haven't gotten to the center where the main stage is.
Also Poland is urging for sanctions now, so far EU politicians had only threatend more or less symbolic sanctions against individuals.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 04:33:16 pm
Quote
Wikipedia says that the police of Rivne Oblast defected, so it's not a unanimous thing.Nope, they just choose to retreat from a local governmental building few weeks ago without a fight. And those were not Berkut or internal forces but regular guys who are not trained to deal with mobs at all
Right now in Rivne local base of Berkut is under attack, it is rather hot there, not like in Kiyv but still
Quote
Police says 6 of policemen were shoot.It's not like Ukrainians are unarmed lambs...
But I wouldn't count out that this is a fairytale
Also, I wouldn't count out the possibility that they were shoot by other police. For example for trying to switch sides. Or for old grudges, why not if protesters can be blamed?
Finally there are so many factions in Ukraine, including intelligence services of various countries.....
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 05:10:46 pm
Post by: PanH on February 18, 2014, 05:13:19 pm
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 05:14:41 pm
Post by: PanH on February 18, 2014, 05:18:09 pm
Yeah, looks like things calmed down again. I saw someone get escorted away but couldn't make out who it was.It was a police guy afaik, at least, looking at his clothes. Some guys were beating on him while he was carried away. Might be some other guy though.
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 05:23:57 pm
I hope all the people you know on Maidan are safe Ranger.
Still watching the live feed. Lots of Svodoba flags there, but the police seems to be managing quite well without real ammo. Anyway, I can't see the APC video (it's apparently private). Is it a real APC, or one of those water-cannon thingy?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 18, 2014, 05:27:58 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 05:28:58 pm
I am still pessimistic, don't think that the guys will hold long enough... That will not stop anything on the global scale, they will get retaliation in the coming dats. So many will be dead, injured and captured.... it hurts to think about it
Back to the APC, I think it was a BTR-70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-70) but not 100% sure
Post by: Sinistar on February 18, 2014, 05:31:37 pm
You might have some luck watching BBC live coverage. They lack any actual livestream, but they do slowly update their "recorder earlier" material. Some seconds of that APC burning video was already there, but not the actual burning. It did seem like an APC...but then again I don't know how their water-cannon vehicle looks like.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 05:33:30 pm
Anyway, I can't see the APC video (it's apparently private).This one isn't private. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tWuWR3443A)
According to Reuters police is trying again. Before, there were rumors they had abandoned the effort.
There are journalists in a higher floor of a hotel at Maidan, where I guess also one of the cameras is located. The correspondent in German TV seemed pretty sure the protesters would continue to resist, which is also what it looks like for me in the stream.
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 18, 2014, 05:34:35 pm
Back to the APC, I think it was a BTR-70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-70) but not 100% sureSure looked like it. It might have had top hatch open, or maybe I was just seeing things.
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 05:38:08 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 18, 2014, 05:46:58 pm
Why would they open the top hatch when they knew it was going to be molotov'ed?
Too much beans?
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 05:49:45 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 05:55:05 pm
Why would they open the top hatch when they knew it was going to be molotov'ed?Well, I think guys who use an APC in a city full of guys armed with molotovs are idiots so wouldn't be that surprised if hatch was open, especially considering how uncomfortable and badly ventilated Soviet APCs are
I repeat they said that they need 40 minutes to clear the square. They never expected resistance of that scale. It's like Russian army that promised to liberate Grozny in 24 hours back in 1994
Post by: Sheb on February 18, 2014, 05:58:42 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 18, 2014, 06:00:25 pm
Got some unconfirmed report that Turchynov was injured on stage.Yes, apparently he was shot with some kind of bullet. (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/police-advance-on-euromaidan-following-a-government-ultimatum-live-updates-337067.html)
Also the guy they escorted away earlier was indeed riot police according to this.
One Kiev Post journalist also claims that live ammo is used. (https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM)
There is also a Reuters stream (http://www.livestation.com/en/reuters?fb_source=sharer), though from farther away.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 06:08:35 pm
Got some unconfirmed report that Turchynov was injured on stage.AFAIK Just a minor facial wound from a piece of shrapnel
Post by: codyorr on February 18, 2014, 06:11:31 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 06:13:42 pm
Another place to watch the burning APC video
One more video with the same APC - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoMUxGkBlf0
I'd say they are lucky that they managed to retreat fast
Post by: codyorr on February 18, 2014, 07:23:13 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 07:59:37 pm
It's been an hour. You OK?Me? I am in safety. Never hated being in wheelchair so much as now. Else I would be in a hotter place. I am not OK, I am nervous as hell. I am emotionally exhausted , can't think straight and can't sleep.
My estimates that we'll have 200+ killed tonight... Some of them may be my friends or relatives.
Post by: Helgoland on February 18, 2014, 08:19:19 pm
Also, what can non-Ukrainians do to support the opposition? I'll write to my MdB (parliament representative) in the morning, but I doubt he'll react.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 18, 2014, 08:45:49 pm
UR, where are you, anyway?I am living in a rural area in central Ukraine, not far from the epicenter but no one cares about that place
Also, what can non-Ukrainians do to support the opposition? I'll write to my MdB (parliament representative) in the morning, but I doubt he'll react.
I think there are few things that can be done especially now. Oh. I know. If you meet some Ukrainians tell them to go home to help the revolution...
IMO That is the stage when people need weapons, supplies and more fighters. Other forms of support are not effective
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 19, 2014, 01:23:34 am
is there anything to be said about the western and central regions where presidential appointees were kicked out?
it's been something twenty days now, the government must have reacted somehow
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 02:04:19 am
hey, urAll that buildings were given back to the government back as a part of negotiations....
is there anything to be said about the western and central regions where presidential appointees were kicked out?
it's been something twenty days now, the government must have reacted somehow
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 04:21:14 am
Update: two airmobile brigades
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2014, 07:30:02 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 07:40:03 am
Officially they just increase security of weapon stashes but it is ridiculous to use airmobile units for that
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 07:48:54 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 19, 2014, 07:51:45 am
Post by: Owlbread on February 19, 2014, 08:02:51 am
In Russia these airmobile units are called "VDV" and they are considered to be pretty elite.
Airborne is what we would call them. Paratroopers.
Post by: Sergarr on February 19, 2014, 08:06:27 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 08:11:59 am
I am still hoping that they will not follow criminal orders. They participated in peacekeeping missions, they had joint exercises with NATO forces
But I hoped that majority of police will not follow such orders, too. So I am not optimistic at all....
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 08:54:00 am
Ex-Chancellor Schröder was urged to mediate (he's best buddies with Putin), but he recommended UN mediation instead, because the EU wasn't impartial enough anymore due to their support for the opposition (Klitschko was meeting with Merkel again last week for example).
Something like that seems to be behind the indecisiveness of the EU as a whole, they want to support the protests while still being able to negotiate with the government.
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 08:57:52 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 09:06:02 am
It looks like they are going to issue sanctions tomorrow, but these will most likely be just some visa-restrictions and freezing of bank accounts for high-ranking officials. So if these guys don't have a lot of money sitting in EU banks, this is not going to do all that much.
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 09:13:57 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 09:21:43 am
I still hope that the government will avoid a full-out escalation though, because it's bad for business. They should have some basic sense of self-preservation.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 09:39:11 am
Quote
They should have some basic sense of self-preservation.Exactly
They have two choices
a) Lose everything and go to the jail (or get hanged)
b) Lose access to Europe and some money.
It's too late for any sanctions. Time for humanitarian aid. Syria is almost there.
Only this time Russia will support the dictator even more and that will be near EU's borders.
Time to get very deeply concerned
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 09:56:34 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2014, 09:59:28 am
(I liked the Schröder bit, by the way - he seems like the right guy for the job. He's probably to chummy with Putin, though :/ )
Post by: scrdest on February 19, 2014, 10:01:07 am
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 10:04:50 am
I'm seeing lots of bad comments about the protesters being far-right radicals, which is.. true. I think they'd get more support from Europe otherwise. Nationalism ain't popular in Western Europe.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 10:11:33 am
(I liked the Schröder bit, by the way - he seems like the right guy for the job. He's probably to chummy with Putin, though :/ )Yeah, Schröder has some credibility issues due to his Gazprom job. He's probably right about UN involvment. I think I said that when this thing started, that's the only way to involve Russia and find a solution acceptable to all sides.
I think that if the government SUCCEEDED with suppressing the protests, they would only make a much bigger problem for themselves because if terrorism is going to pop up, it's when there are no other options.I'm more worried that this could also go the civil war route. In Eastern Ukraine offices of the opposition have been attacked, there seems to be some potential to tear the country apart.
I'm seeing lots of bad comments about the protesters being far-right radicals, which is.. true. I think they'd get more support from Europe otherwise. Nationalism ain't popular in Western Europe.I'm seeing that too. Correspondents try to point out how diverse the protesters are, but an awful lot of people seem to think they're just a bunch of Neo-Nazis. Some idiots are also talking about US warmongering, but that's how internet comments go.
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 10:16:10 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 10:24:39 am
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 10:49:47 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 10:55:32 am
Quote
I still dream of International Brigades like in the Spanish Civil War - but it didn't work then, and it won't work now...I know for sure about Belorussians, Russians, Georgians and Chechens. Additionally I heard rumors about Polish and Hungarian nationalist groups but those are rumors
Numbers are small, but that is more a symbolic stuff
I think that if the government SUCCEEDED with suppressing the protests, they would only make a much bigger problem for themselves because if terrorism is going to pop up, it's when there are no other options.There are another question, what will they do with the Western Ukraine should they succeed in Kiev tonight. In Lviv every governmental building is captured. I mean every: all police stations, base of internal army including it's arsenal, local SBU(Secret Service) office.
Quote
The thing is, the guys on the barricades seems to be mostly Svodoba and Right Sectors.That guys wouldn't do nothing without the help of common Ukrainians. Army can't fight without logistical support and supplies. And I'd not say that even on barricades nationalists are majority, just a spearhead. Who else should be there? It would be strange if the most radical guys would be in any other place but on the barricades. Plus common sense, first line should consist of the best troops, we are not Berkut to do other way around
Quote
Also, in our recurrent "The IOC is a bunch of assholes": they refuse to let Ukrainian athletes wear black armbands in condoleance.Well, in that way there will be more media attention then if they allowed it, so maybe IOC are good guys and that is a crafty plan? :)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 12:20:48 pm
Lviv has declared itself autonomous from Kiev (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-ukraine-west-idUSBREA1I1BB20140219). There are uprisings in other western cities too.
Also protesters have seized a lot of weapons and ammo. (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/fears-of-conflict-escalation-grow-as-police-report-numbers-of-stolen-weapons-337160.html)
Post by: Sinistar on February 19, 2014, 12:41:22 pm
Now the government actually has a valid "anti-terror" excuse to launch any sort of operation.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 01:02:58 pm
The US wants to coordinate it's sanctions with the EU and the French and German Foreign Ministers are accompanying their Polish colleague to Kiev. So negotiations are still on the table.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 19, 2014, 01:04:17 pm
Now the government actually has a valid "anti-terror" excuse to launch any sort of operation.
........... It's not a valid reason if your crackdown is the one causing the people to fight back.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 01:07:46 pm
In more positive news, Reuters is also reporting that Russia has delayed payment of a 2 billion $ credit to Ukraine for "technical reasons".https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/436191906955931648
Of cause he doesn't want to pay. It is obvious that they have a deal : "you clear Maidan, I give money." Who knew that they fail yesterday?
Post by: Sinistar on February 19, 2014, 01:21:17 pm
"Valid" as in no longer "we must conduct anti-terror operations because stuff" but instead "we must conduct anti-terror operations because LOOK! THEY STOLE OUR WEAPONS! THEY SEIZED CONTROL OF THE CITIES! THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY DANGEROUS TERRORISTS BENT ON DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DESTROY THEM INSTEAD BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!"Now the government actually has a valid "anti-terror" excuse to launch any sort of operation.
........... It's not a valid reason if your crackdown is the one causing the people to fight back.
I'm not saying their cause is JUST, only that it's even easier for them to actually do that now.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 01:24:03 pm
I guess former commander refused to follow some order so was hastily replaced
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 19, 2014, 01:28:56 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 19, 2014, 01:32:11 pm
This could turn ugly real quick now. Apparently the army has issued a statement that they could join the secret service in the "anti-terror" operation.
Lviv has declared itself autonomous from Kiev (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-ukraine-west-idUSBREA1I1BB20140219). There are uprisings in other western cities too.
Also protesters have seized a lot of weapons and ammo. (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/fears-of-conflict-escalation-grow-as-police-report-numbers-of-stolen-weapons-337160.html)
At today's session of the Crimean parliament, Nikolai Kolesnichenko, an MP from the Party of Regions declared that the Crimean parliament should be ready to raise the question of seceding from Ukraine and becoming a part of Russia if the confrontation between the opposition and the government continues (link in Russian). (http://vesti.ua/krym/38244-krymskie-deputaty-uzhe-gotovy-otdat-krym-rossii)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 01:57:39 pm
The coverage of the fighting in Kiev by Western and Russian media is clearly divided. Russian news bulletins on channels like Rossiya 1 blame the opposition for starting the battle in Kiev. Interviews with Berkut troopers were shown: they demonstrated pistol, rifle and shotgun ammunition casings and bullet holes on their equipment and said that Berkut has nothing to fight back the opposition gunmen except guns with rubber bullets and rubber batons. Meanwhile, Western television channels like Euronews put the blame for starting the violence exclusively on the government troops: correspondents interviewed opposition members at the Maidan who said that they have no guns, they didn't provoke the police in any way and won't do it and that the violence was started by government provocateurs.I don't know, my main news sources seem relatively balanced. The government is mostly blamed for letting it come that far, but there are reports about violence committed by protesters too and reports about protesters shooting policemen. At least part of the public is worried - as we mentioned earlier - about the violence on the protesters side and especially about the political affliation of the protesters. Some of the coverage I've seen is simplistic/sensationalist/one-sided, but most coverage does an ok job about reporting facts and separating opinion pieces from the actual reporting.
A lot of the German coverage is pretty Klitschko-centric, I guess mostly because he's very popular from his boxing days, even among people who know barely anything about Ukraine. This has sparked some criticism though, because there is less coverage about the more radical protesters.
That's worrying stuff there. Might tear the country apart if this goes on for much longer.Lviv has declared itself autonomous from Kiev (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/19/us-ukraine-west-idUSBREA1I1BB20140219). There are uprisings in other western cities too.
At today's session of the Crimean parliament, Nikolai Kolesnichenko, an MP from the Party of Regions declared that the Crimean parliament should be ready to raise the question of seceding from Ukraine and becoming a part of Russia if the confrontation between the opposition and the government continues (link in Russian). (http://vesti.ua/krym/38244-krymskie-deputaty-uzhe-gotovy-otdat-krym-rossii)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 02:08:27 pm
Quote
At today's session of the Crimean parliament, Nikolai Kolesnichenko, an MP from the Party of Regions declared that the Crimean parliament should be ready to raise the question of seceding from Ukraine and becoming a part of Russia if the confrontation between the opposition and the government continues (link in Russian).To join Russia they need to become independent first, would be fun If Turkey would use treaty of Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca and annex Crimea first.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 19, 2014, 02:11:07 pm
...unless Russian troops get there first.QuoteAt today's session of the Crimean parliament, Nikolai Kolesnichenko, an MP from the Party of Regions declared that the Crimean parliament should be ready to raise the question of seceding from Ukraine and becoming a part of Russia if the confrontation between the opposition and the government continues (link in Russian).To join Russia they need to become independent first, would be fun If Turkey would use treaty of Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca and annex Crimea first.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 02:21:45 pm
Quote
...unless Russian troops get there first.Then we'll see how many countries recognize Crimea as Russian territory. And how many Crimean Tartars join Doka Umarov. Oh, and good luck importing freshwater, Abkhazia-like Crimea
Spoiler: slight derail. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on February 19, 2014, 02:26:53 pm
cuz i have a bad feeling about this
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 02:35:06 pm
Spoiler: terrorists (click to show/hide)
Quote
can I start worrying about the impending world war 3 or notWW3? With Obama in office? With permanently deeply worried EU? I think not. Even if Russia will nuke few Ukrainian cities tomorrow
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 19, 2014, 02:36:46 pm
can I start worrying about the impending world war 3 or not
cuz i have a bad feeling about this
Civil war is looming on the horizon, but unless Russia and the West send troops to Ukraine, there won't be World War III.
(I hope so)
Post by: Bouchart on February 19, 2014, 02:38:23 pm
Quotecan I start worrying about the impending world war 3 or notWW3? With Obama in office? With permanently deeply worried EU? I think not. Even if Russia will nuke few Ukrainian cities tomorrow
The same Obama that nearly started WW3 with Syria?
Post by: Vector on February 19, 2014, 02:49:10 pm
Thanks for the updates, Ukrainian Ranger.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 19, 2014, 02:59:38 pm
Post by: Kicior on February 19, 2014, 03:07:27 pm
How many countries recognize Abkhazia as Russian territory? Do Ruskies care? Desalination has it costs but I guess that it's cheaper than building a new naval base, isn't it?Quote...unless Russian troops get there first.Then we'll see how many countries recognize Crimea as Russian territory. And how many Crimean Tartars join Doka Umarov. Oh, and good luck importing freshwater, Abkhazia-like Crimea
I've heard that trade unions headquaters in Kiev have been set on fire during Berkut attack and ~40 people died and that weapons from captured arsenals are being transported to Maidan, is it true?
Post by: martinuzz on February 19, 2014, 03:14:29 pm
I am wondering.. Should I inform our glorious security forces about this dangerous neo-nazi terrorists or notSpoiler: terrorists (click to show/hide)
I would inform Child Protection Services instead. If this is a recent photo, of someone having their kids roll wheels to build barricades in a dangerous hot zone, those people should be arrested for putting their small children at such a risk.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 03:16:21 pm
I've heard that trade unions headquaters in Kiev have been set on fire during Berkut attack and ~40 people died and that weapons from captured arsenals are being transported to Maidan, is it true?The trade unions building was burning and opposition headquarters have been moved. I've read numbers of ~25 confirmed deaths. There were weapons seized, but if these are moved to Maidan is unclear. Might just be a rumor. Could also be difficult because of the police presence.
Yeah, WW3 is a vanishingly small prospect here. Although things could go very badly for Ukraine itself.My guess for a worst case scenario is a civil war. But that would probably be cut short because neither Russia nor the West have any interest in a politically and economically unstable Ukraine, and would both withdraw support in that case.
Post by: Sinistar on February 19, 2014, 03:17:22 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 03:21:53 pm
Quote
I've heard that trade unions headquaters in Kiev have been set on fire during Berkut attack and ~40 people diedYep Berkut did set it on fire, but how many died there if died at all is unknown.
Quote
that weapons from captured arsenals are being transported to Maidan, is it true?Widespread rumor not confirmed but very well possible
Quote
If this is a recent photo, of someone having their kids roll wheels to build barricades in a dangerous hot zone, those people should be arrested for putting their small children at such a risk.Kiyv is safe at day, as long as you are not too close to barricades. It's a large city, and only one district is dangerous
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 04:35:23 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 04:40:40 pm
Quote
Opposition leaders have negotiated a truce with Yanukovych.Opposition are either idiots or traitors. It is a great idea to give enemy more time to regroup and rest, again. We had enough truces
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 19, 2014, 04:43:52 pm
Protestors attacking police to drive them back from somewhere seems unlikely, so agreeing not to get attacked for a while seems nice.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 04:51:36 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 19, 2014, 04:52:54 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 04:56:49 pm
Anything else would have guaranteed further escalation, which is not in the interest of either side. Finding some solution through negotiations is still by far the best possible outcome.
Post by: Valikdu on February 19, 2014, 04:57:29 pm
Given the choice between saving his bank accounts from freezing and saving his country from nazis, he chose the bank accounts. Which time was this one? Third?
At this point, he's as guilty as the opp-leaders. So, the Internals & police will just keep standing there, as they were ordered to; getting shot at by the "unidentified snipers" (one of the fatalities was, reportedly, killed by a 5.56 round), until the nazis loot enogh guns to just kill all of them.
But Yanuk will still have his money, so it's all good for him. I wouldn't wish upon anyone to have such an impotent leader.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 19, 2014, 04:59:57 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on February 19, 2014, 05:04:54 pm
Can we leave Godwin out of this thread please?
Yeah, I haven't gotten the impression that all that many of the protestors are neo-nazis, so labeling all of them as such seems rather harsh.
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 05:08:50 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 05:16:26 pm
From that the truce does only seem to concern this night, possibly longer as there will be negotiations tomorrow. The protesters would do good to respect it, but police remains present at Maidan, so a single provocation could do much damage.
BBC has a link to the statement. (http://www.president.gov.ua/news/30111.html)
Actually that seems to only say it's a truce and negotiations will be held to end the bloodshed.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 05:22:07 pm
Quote
It's not really an advance is it. It's the enemy loosing troops by storming your barricades, and well, he can just decide when to stop doing so.In regions it's rather different.
Having a mutual treaty just allows the protestors to rest as well.Well that treaty is empty words. Yanukovitch proved many times that all that stuff like "treaties" "promises" "ceasefires" "truces" mean nothing for him. So any truce doesn't limit his actions in any way. But it does limit our options. Having any negotiations with him is a waste of time. I think it can't hurt that much... but would be better if they negotiated with military officers to switch on our side before every capable of doing so is removed from position
I don't believe in negotiations with Yanukovitch because I don't believe that he will accept the key demand - his resignation
Quote
Yup, from what I understand Maidan is at least partially surrounded and they are running out of burning material for the barricades/smoke screens.Outdated info, that was during the last night. During this days tons of new burning material was brought in today by common Ukrainians and buses from Western Ukraine arrived bringing new fighters and supplies(that may, or may not include assault rifles)
Spoiler: 2Valikdu (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 19, 2014, 05:39:34 pm
Let's hope that Valikdu's dreams of rivers of blood of Ukrainians (Nazies under his terminology) will not become reality this night. See you later and thank you for caring
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 05:44:41 pm
Also I hope we can keep the namecalling in this thread to a minimum. So no more Nazi talk and such. Google Translator seems to think you called him a "blue filet" in return, which I'm pretty sure is not an accurate translation. ;)
Post by: Sheb on February 19, 2014, 05:46:26 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 19, 2014, 05:57:35 pm
Слушай, Валя, иди к своему мужу и продолжай кормить его вкусным голубым филе, а про героев которые убирают мусор из своего города не тебе, юной деве в платьице глубоко синего цвета, рассуждатьMy translation:
Quote
Listen, Valya, go back to your husband and continue serving him with his tasty blue fillet (?), it's not up to you, a young maiden in a deep blue dress, to discourse about the heroes that are taking the trash out of their city.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 06:03:11 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 19, 2014, 06:08:34 pm
No, seriously, thank you.
Post by: Elfeater on February 19, 2014, 06:10:23 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 06:14:48 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 19, 2014, 06:21:10 pm
The EU is expected to announce something similar tomorrow.So we should expect some results from them... next year?
Post by: Baffler on February 19, 2014, 06:28:59 pm
And if I'm reading that right, those sanctions are only "you can't come to the U.S." with vague threats of maybe some more.
Post by: Vector on February 19, 2014, 07:09:19 pm
I figure "blue" means something else in this context, but let's leave it at that. No need to derail the thread.
I happen to know this one... "goluboi" is slang for "homosexual."
Post by: scrdest on February 19, 2014, 07:12:07 pm
I figure "blue" means something else in this context, but let's leave it at that. No need to derail the thread.
I happen to know this one... "goluboi" is slang for "homosexual."
That hardly makes the expression as a whole make sense.
Post by: Vector on February 19, 2014, 07:13:41 pm
._.
let's just leave it be today, okay
Post by: XXSockXX on February 19, 2014, 07:26:16 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2014, 10:04:11 pm
Post by: Baffler on February 19, 2014, 10:15:48 pm
Soooo... anyone want to bet on the likelihood of Russian troops in Kyev? I'm betting a crate of my local beer, free shipping to anywhere in the world, that it won't happen. Who'll bet against me?
I highly doubt that it'll happen, but why the hell not? If I win, I'll sure need a drink.
Post by: Funk on February 19, 2014, 10:18:33 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 19, 2014, 10:24:28 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 19, 2014, 10:34:58 pm
I highly doubt that it'll happen, but why the hell not? If I win, I'll sure need a drink.Your stake?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 01:50:55 am
I'll be less active here and will not post much, have many things to do. I will monitor the thread and answer the questions so feel free to ask my opinion about anything related to Ukrainian events
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 01:53:11 am
No bet. Putin isn't suicidal enough to test NATO's mutual protection clause.Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 03:05:58 am
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 20, 2014, 03:12:15 am
pls confirm i can't do research on this hardware
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 03:28:11 am
guuuuuuuys i heard the army opened fire indiscriminately
Apparently the opposition forces have broken through the police lines and reached the Parliament Building. According to Russian media, the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior Affairs reported that 23 Berkut troopers have been injured by opposition snipers.
Post by: Max White on February 20, 2014, 03:29:44 am
Also, before and after shots (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-20/kiev-ukraine-protests-before-after/5272570), courtesy of the ABC. This is currently their top story.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 04:09:48 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 04:24:36 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 04:56:11 am
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 04:58:52 am
And yeah, things look a bit nasty.
edit:
Eh never mind, it just few minutes long recorded footage on loop.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 05:02:59 am
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 05:32:23 am
On the other hand, my radio doesn't mention protesters using guns either.
P.S. Russia will only cooperate with a government that "defend the state's interest" and on which "is not used as a doormat" says Medvedev (from a Belgian-french newspaper.)
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 06:31:22 am
Just some videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-rWEbcsV9U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-rWEbcsV9U)
- glorius&peaceful protesters have captured the governor of Volyn` and are trying to force him to resign in front of his family. The man was appointed a week ago or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQj00ToB-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQj00ToB-c)
- Captured police officer left for dead. Maidan "heroes" refused to help or call an ambulance.
Also, during yesterday "assault" of Maidan everybody could clearly see that the protesters were fueling the fire wall between the center and Berkut positions. But now "Berkut set everything on fire", oh wow. I suspect that there was the same story with trade unions headquaters.
Can we leave Godwin out of this thread please?Sadly, Godwin`s law does not apply here. We are dealing with the actual Nazis. Everybody who speaks Russian, or looks like Hebrew, will be in deadly danger, should the protesters win here. Actually, even three weeks ago they already were wildly detecting "kostromskoy akcent!!"(c) (Accent of Russian city Kostroma) and beating random bypassers: http://polemika.com.ua/article-137456.html (http://polemika.com.ua/article-137456.html) (sorry, no time to translate everything, use GT to get the meaning).
Judgement? Law? Evidence? F*** off, we are building glorius Ukraine here!
Also, the police STILL does not have neither an order to use lethal force, nor the weapons to do so. For some strange reason all "cruelly-executed-by-government-snipers" protesters were killed with civilian or self-made firearms, usually from behind.
And again, a message to the concerned foreign friends.
Your media is lying. Your government is lying. This is just a big geopolitical game, started long ago. Current Ukrainian government does not have that much support, but it still remains legitimate and recognized - and armed fashistic mob on the streets bring only chaos. And let me be a prophet - there will be NO sanctions agains Yanukovich till the last possible point, because if he loses his foreign bank accounts or whatever the West is threatening, nothing will stop him from turning the country into Belarus. Dixi.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 06:49:21 am
And from what I gather, you've proven that the protesters can be violent (You don't say? The beat up someone? Totally unreported by our lying media). Then you assert out of the blue that all the shot protesters were killed by civilians without any source or stuff. I'm going to trust eyewitnesses from the international press more than you, thank you very much.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 06:58:23 am
While it's unclear who broke the truce, with both sides blaming each other, most of the casualties (up to 35 this morning) seem to be civilians. Reporters are seeing some armed protesters around Maidan, but also police snipers.
The opposition leaders probably have lost control over some of the more radical groups.
Negotiations with EU Foreign Ministers have been moved to another location, but are still happening.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 06:59:35 am
PS. webber, thank you for showing the face of the other side. Please, Write more. Continue your mission of bringing the truth to Europeans.
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 07:11:27 am
However, it is good you pass this information in a credible manner, webber.
First video you posted - yes, the situation is anything else than a calm protest. But why did the protesters capture this man? What did he do? Is he connected to the hated government, has he done things to rile people up? Or was he an innocent casualty, being on the wrong place at the wrong time?
Mob lynching like that is not pleasant to see, but we need more information.
Second video shows a man, wounded, possibly dead. Another man stands beside him, with a red cross on his chest. Is this man a paramedic? How do we know this paramedic DIDN'T try to help that man? How do we know no additional paramedics were called? Video looks like it's shot in the interior of some sort of shelter, tent maybe. How was the man brought there, when? Was he found already incapacitated or did he succumb to wound when in tent?
Again, we need more information to pass judgement.
As for other things - it is a mess, that's for sure. The fire in the square was massive. But it's as easy to say protesters used "Berkut" as an excuse to set the buildings on fire, as it is to say Berkut used "square fire" as a cover to set the buildings on fire themselves.
Same for gunshots. Lot's of reports flying around about people getting shot - protesters AND police. Some say police shot protesters, some say other protesters did and the same on the police side.
Media lying? Which media? Who should we trust and who we shouldn't?
I appreciate any sort of information anyone can provide. But jumping to conclusions and bashing without evidence does not help ANYONE.
Keep posting here, webber, it's ok to let your voice be heard. Just do it in more sensible manner.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 07:23:42 am
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 20, 2014, 07:25:39 am
reuters maybe but they can't cover everything
Post by: Sergarr on February 20, 2014, 07:26:38 am
What Sinistar said, sorry for being aggressive, but I got a semi-personnal dislike of Russian medias ever since my dad gave an interview to RT and they cut end edited it until it was saying the opposite of what he wanted to say.Can you tell the subject of that interview?
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 07:43:15 am
Here's a written version (http://rt.com/news/is-georgia-winning-the-media-battle/), they had a video but I can't seem to find it. Also, while I was on rt.com, they report that law enforcement now have the right to use guns in self-defense.
2nd Edit: Here's the video. More or less the same thing. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfTnXmdW66w)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 07:54:52 am
We were even talking about how the protesters fueled the fire which they used as a smoke screen.
It's also true that the police doesn't have an order to shoot, but they are armed and are allowed to because of the anti-terror operation. Reporters have seen retreating police firing kalashnikovs.
Of the estimated 25-35 dead, only 1 is confirmed to be a police officer. Journalists in the Hotel UKraine at Maidan have seen the bodies of several civilian dead. These were shot in the neck, according to the reporters police snipers randomly shot them. There is a provisional medical camp in that Hotel. There are also some pistol-armed protesters there.
Some riot policemen were captured (~60 according to the protesters). Some Titushki (thugs) were also captured and beaten.
The major of Kiev has resigned and left the Party of Regions, as have some other MPs.
The government is closing access to Kiev and might declare the state of emergency, which likely means that Internet, TV and phone lines might get cut off.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 08:02:23 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 08:11:20 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 08:24:09 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 20, 2014, 08:48:48 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 08:51:44 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 20, 2014, 08:56:24 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 20, 2014, 08:58:43 am
Huh, so it isn't. I could have swore I read an article saying it was, but I guess that was just referencing the Intensified Dialogue between Ukraine and NATO. Still no bet.No bet. Putin isn't suicidal enough to test NATO's mutual protection clause.Ukraine isn't a NATO member.
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 08:59:37 am
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 09:06:43 am
Plus, they actually stand the molotov quite well. You've got other video of BTR-70 rushing toward a barricade trying to ram it, being engulfed in flame and then retreating back to the police's line, where people could extinguish the fire, and all that with minimal damage.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 09:09:23 am
Yeah, UR, people shouldn't call you a Nazi, but you shouldn't let yourself be provoked into personal attacks either. We know this is personal for you, but insults don't help with staying on topic.You are right. Sorry for that, It's too hard to keep calm after a phone call that 3 guys I personally know are shot dead. I'll not visit the topic before the victory. If you do have questions to me - use PMs. Will answer if Internet will not be shut down by the government
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 09:17:35 am
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 09:52:12 am
Yeah, right, our media are all lying, only Glorious Russian Media is telling the total and objective truth.
And from what I gather, you've proven that the protesters can be violent (You don't say? The beat up someone? Totally unreported by our lying media). Then you assert out of the blue that all the shot protesters were killed by civilians without any source or stuff. I'm going to trust eyewitnesses from the international press more than you, thank you very much.
I also kinda laughed at Russian media when some of them showed peaceful beginning of Maidan as a fachist putsch.
Stopped laughing when this came true.
Russian sources are not all totally controlled by evil
Western media kept talking about "peaceful protest" even when Berkut officers were being burned alive during the first clash. I`m also yet to see Western reports about opposition deputies calling "everybody who has registered weapon" to join Maidan, or about their earlier calls to seek and burn police officers` families. I assume that not ALL of them are biased, but MOST are.
I cannot provide you any proofs about the recent victims, because I got this information "from third hands", but the early ones (Nigoyan for example) according to official reports were killed with buckshot from high angle and had powder traces on their clothes. So much government snipers.
Quote
I got a semi-personnal dislike of Russian medias ever since my dad gave an interview to RT and they cut end edited it until it was saying the opposite of what he wanted to say.Like LordSlowpoke already said, everybody does that.
...but also police snipers.
Quote
according to the reporters police snipers randomly shot them.Sorry, but not everybody dressed in black and wieldeng a rifle is a police sniper. Also, as I said earlier, police did not have permission to use lethal force.
There are reports that they were given this permission and weapons recently. Don`t know if true.
Also remember that protesters captured unknown amount of police equipment, and now probably weapons and uniform. I think I don`t have to explain further.
I keep getting reports about both sides attacked by snipers. Someone is trying to escalate this even more...
Quote
The opposition leaders probably have lost control over some of the more radical groups.Looooooong ago.
I have no problem with listening to people that oppose EuroMaidan protests. No, I wold gladly listen to what they have to say for in any conflict, it is good one gathers information from all sides involved to pass a valid judgement.
However, it is good you pass this information in a credible manner, webber.
First video you posted - yes, the situation is anything else than a calm protest. But why did the protesters capture this man? What did he do? Is he connected to the hated government, has he done things to rile people up? Or was he an innocent casualty, being on the wrong place at the wrong time?
Mob lynching like that is not pleasant to see, but we need more information.
Second video shows a man, wounded, possibly dead. Another man stands beside him, with a red cross on his chest. Is this man a paramedic? How do we know this paramedic DIDN'T try to help that man? How do we know no additional paramedics were called? Video looks like it's shot in the interior of some sort of shelter, tent maybe. How was the man brought there, when? Was he found already incapacitated or did he succumb to wound when in tent?
Again, we need more information to pass judgement.
As for other things - it is a mess, that's for sure. The fire in the square was massive. But it's as easy to say protesters used "Berkut" as an excuse to set the buildings on fire, as it is to say Berkut used "square fire" as a cover to set the buildings on fire themselves.
Same for gunshots. Lot's of reports flying around about people getting shot - protesters AND police. Some say police shot protesters, some say other protesters did and the same on the police side.
Media lying? Which media? Who should we trust and who we shouldn't?
I appreciate any sort of information anyone can provide. But jumping to conclusions and bashing without evidence does not help ANYONE.
Keep posting here, webber, it's ok to let your voice be heard. Just do it in more sensible manner.
Yes, I know that the videos are too short to judge properly, but that`s all I have for now.
That man is Alexander Bashkalenko, who was appointed as a governor of Volyn by government 2-3 weeks ago to replace the previous governor, who resigned when his administration building was captured by protesters. The building was recently recaptured, Bashkalenko refused to resign, the rest you can see in video.
He still refuses to resign and is still being held captive.
The Berkut officer was injured on Maidan, captured and carried to one of the tents, where he died. The guy with red cross is not an official paramedic, he is protesters` medic. I do not see any bandages on the wounded. There was an information that he was still alive when captured.
His commander tried to evacuate his soldier and came alone to the scene of Maidan.
They tried to introduce this like he`s arrived to surrender or to shift on their side.
That`s all I know.
And sorry, I cannot be much sensible when bunch of <censored> are burning my city.
Webber is not Russian, He is from Ukraine, I am 95% sure
His rhetorics are same as any other pro-government citizen of Ukraine. Yanukovitch is bad but "nazies" (any free Ukrainian) are worse and stuff like that. Most likely he is from the East, maybe has relatives among police\government officials and so on. Good thing that he is a coward and will sit quietly at home whatever will happen next. (or maybe try to flee abroad) Mental slave, nothing more. He will believe anything his masters will order him to believe but will never risk his own skin to fight "nazies". One of the problems we'll need to solve after our victory is what to do with all that guys like that. We need no slaves, even if it is way to easy to force them to obey. Of cause we have no slightest intention to massacre them. Still I fail to see how to teach them to be free.
Badum-tss. This rethoric is also quite recognizable: "poor slaves of South-East", etc. Do I even need to comment this?
Also, I`m from Kiev.
Yeah, UR, people shouldn't call you a Nazi, but you shouldn't let yourself be provoked into personal attacks either. We know this is personal for you, but insults don't help with staying on topic.Ahem.
I do not call the protesters Nazis to insult them.
I do this because they are nationalists.
They believe that their nation is superior to others.
They consider everybody who does not belong to their nation as sub-humans.
They have a "designated enemy", who is guilty in literally everything.
They have a simple solution for all their problems.
Post by: olemars on February 20, 2014, 10:01:55 am
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 10:04:47 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 10:13:49 am
You are right. Sorry for that, It's too hard to keep calm after a phone call that 3 guys I personally know are shot dead. I'll not visit the topic before the victory. If you do have questions to me - use PMs. Will answer if Internet will not be shut down by the governmentI'm very sorry to hear that.
I do not call the protesters Nazis to insult them.There are no doubts that the protesters are nationalists. At least part of the public here is very concerned about that. Still "Nazi" has a very limited and clearly defined meaning here in former Naziland, and is more or less always considered an insult. I understand that this is a very emotional situation for everybody who is personally involved, I just think it's best to try to keep the thread free of personal attacks, so it doesn't get locked.
I do this because they are nationalists.
The Ministry of the Interior has authorized the use of live ammo now, that is universally confirmed now.
Regarding snipers, yes protesters are armed too and have reportedly fired at the police. If you scroll down here (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-02/ukraine-liveblog-euromaidan-janukowitsch-steinmeier), you can see an image that seems to show a protester with a sniper rifle.
Reporters have also seen and photographed police snipers though, and these seem to have killed most of the people who died at Maidan. That is what journalists and doctors report from Hotel Ukraine, which has also come under sniper fire. I have no reason to doubt that.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 10:16:08 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 10:18:03 am
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 10:18:27 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 10:19:56 am
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 10:20:25 am
Anyway, if Yanukovitch doesn't stand down and offer snap elections now, we're going to have Syria.
Even then, Crimea might very well become part of Russia.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 10:23:16 am
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 10:24:49 am
Anyway, if Yanukovitch doesn't stand down and offer snap elections now, we're going to have Syria.Even then, Crimea might very well become part of Russia.
... again.
Russian television channel Rossiya 24 reported that state of emergency is expected to be declared in Kiev in the upcoming hours.
Some also say that the weaponry captured in Lvov from the looted army storehouses is delivered to Kiev, obviously for peaceful protest.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 10:33:31 am
Russia has send a mediator too, who will be present at the negotiations.
While Russia condemns the protesters and the Western sanctions, some statements are interpreted as increased pressure on Yanukvych to find a peaceful solution.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2014, 10:34:37 am
All of them are Nazis? Most of them? Some of them? There are Nazis among their ranks?Yeah, UR, people shouldn't call you a Nazi, but you shouldn't let yourself be provoked into personal attacks either. We know this is personal for you, but insults don't help with staying on topic.I do not call the protesters Nazis to insult them.
I do this because they are nationalists.
They believe that their nation is superior to others.
They consider everybody who does not belong to their nation as sub-humans.
They have a "designated enemy", who is guilty in literally everything.
They have a simple solution for all their problems.
All of those mean very different things.
Also, not all nationalists are Nazis, which is a very particular affiiliation.
No one here has expressed doubt that their are fascists in the opposition camp - UR has even said so, that there are a number of them on the front lines.
But there's no more evidence that the opposition is majority or controlled by fascists than their is that the government is majority or controlled by communists, not that I've seen anyway. And you've got to admit, the government is checking off the "communist" (russian/chinese-style) checkboxes just as well as your list checks off the Nazi checkboxes.
And if the people of a country are gonna be under one or the other, history seems to indicate you're better off under the Nazis.
But all of this is irrelevant - do you have any evidence the opposition is actually a fascist movement, instead of merely containing Neo-nazis? Because it doesn't seem like there is any lack of totalitarian thugs on the government side either.
Quote
Some also say that the weaponry captured in Lvov from the looted army storehouses is delivered to Kiev, obviously for peaceful protest.Nah, you got it wrong - it's for "political" purposes. You've got to admit having a lot of weapons you can pull out later makes a "peaceful" protest's message a lot stronger!
But honestly, it's not really peaceful anymore, and people have clearly become convinced that peaceful protests aren't, ultimately, going to succeed.
It's sort of the risk of ignoring, trivializing, and demeaning peaceful protests on the part of a standing administration - if it gets large enough and goes on long enough, and you make it utterly clear that peaceful protests will not work, then you're practically begging for the protest to stop being peaceful...
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 10:38:36 am
Reporters have also seen and photographed police snipers though, and these seem to have killed most of the people who died at Maidan. That is what journalists and doctors report from Hotel Ukraine, which has also come under sniper fire. I have no reason to doubt that.
Excuse me, but I have to repeat again - in current situation somebody who is dressed like a police officer is not 100% police officer. Especially if he is doing something like shooting random people, unarmed protesters or foreign journalists.
Also, can anybody name a reason to use snipers against a riot? I mean, if you are completely immoral, it is much more efficient to use machineguns.
BTW yes, MIA has authorized lethal force, but on usual rules - for defence and after warnings.
Russian television channel Rossiya 24 reported that state of emergency is expected to be declared in Kiev in the upcoming hours.Sorry, I doubt it. I hear news like this every 2-3 hours.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 10:42:53 am
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 10:44:49 am
Also, while anyone in a police uniform shooting a gun at the protester might not be police, anyone in civilian dress shooting a gun at the police might not be a protester. Agent provocateur exist on all sides.
Seeing things through the fog of war is night-on-impossible. Trying to assign blame an find out who's good and who's bad doesn't really make sense now. We need to figure how to end this. And the best way would be fresh elections under international supervision (Including Russia's) and a truth and reconciliation committee.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 20, 2014, 10:46:22 am
Link (http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html#)Snip
I also kinda laughed at Russian media when some of them showed peaceful beginning of Maidan as a fachist putsch.
Stopped laughing when this came true.
Russian sources are not all totally controlled by evilStaPutin and many of them supply information with no trace of bias.
Western media kept talking about "peaceful protest" even when Berkut officers were being burned alive during the first clash. I`m also yet to see Western reports about opposition deputies calling "everybody who has registered weapon" to join Maidan, or about their earlier calls to seek and burn police officers` families. I assume that not ALL of them are biased, but MOST are.
I cannot provide you any proofs about the recent victims, because I got this information "from third hands", but the early ones (Nigoyan for example) according to official reports were killed with buckshot from high angle and had powder traces on their clothes. So much government snipers.
Basically, I think we can easily say that most media has a bias, but that Russian media is significantly worse. Additionally, so far you're not providing links either, so the things you're providing as fact might just be baseless rumours. So far we haven't seen any attacks on police officers families yet, and well, the western news entities are not hiding that protestors are firing back, and using molotocs. People dieing from burning wounds is to be expected.
Quote
I don't think that if police snipers were given permission to open fire, they would announce that, but anyway....but also police snipers.Quoteaccording to the reporters police snipers randomly shot them.Sorry, but not everybody dressed in black and wieldeng a rifle is a police sniper. Also, as I said earlier, police did not have permission to use lethal force.
There are reports that they were given this permission and weapons recently. Don`t know if true.
Also remember that protesters captured unknown amount of police equipment, and now probably weapons and uniform. I think I don`t have to explain further.
I keep getting reports about both sides attacked by snipers. Someone is trying to escalate this even more...
Quote
As far as I know, the protestors wanted to get the government appointed governers out and return power to the elected ones. Not all that suprising that they force the new one to resign.Snip
Yes, I know that the videos are too short to judge properly, but that`s all I have for now.
That man is Alexander Bashkalenko, who was appointed as a governor of Volyn by government 2-3 weeks ago to replace the previous governor, who resigned when his administration building was captured by protesters. The building was recently recaptured, Bashkalenko refused to resign, the rest you can see in video.
He still refuses to resign and is still being held captive.
Quote
Ahem.Calling all nationalist Nazis is a shoolboard example of an Argument ad Hitlerum. Basically, not all nationalist are Nazis.
I do not call the protesters Nazis to insult them.
I do this because they are nationalists.
They believe that their nation is superior to others.
They consider everybody who does not belong to their nation as sub-humans.
They have a "designated enemy", who is guilty in literally everything.
They have a simple solution for all their problems.
Not all rioters are equal. If you manage to take out the leaders, or the people who are bolstering others, you can significantly weaken the protest.Reporters have also seen and photographed police snipers though, and these seem to have killed most of the people who died at Maidan. That is what journalists and doctors report from Hotel Ukraine, which has also come under sniper fire. I have no reason to doubt that.
Excuse me, but I have to repeat again - in current situation somebody who is dressed like a police officer is not 100% police officer. Especially if he is doing something like shooting random people, unarmed protesters or foreign journalists.
Also, can anybody name a reason to use snipers against a riot? I mean, if you are completely immoral, it is much more efficient to use machineguns.
BTW yes, MIA has authorized lethal force, but on usual rules - for defence and after warnings.
Additionally, snipers have plausible deniability, especially with the current confusion. Machine gun fire is a bit harder to cover up.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 10:50:27 am
The reason is simply that using snipers achieves the same thing - spreading panic and causing retreat - without causing a massacre like machine guns would.Reporters have also seen and photographed police snipers though, and these seem to have killed most of the people who died at Maidan. That is what journalists and doctors report from Hotel Ukraine, which has also come under sniper fire. I have no reason to doubt that.
Excuse me, but I have to repeat again - in current situation somebody who is dressed like a police officer is not 100% police officer. Especially if he is doing something like shooting random people, unarmed protesters or foreign journalists.
Also, can anybody name a reason to use snipers against a riot? I mean, if you are completely immoral, it is much more efficient to use machineguns.
It is confirmed that police fired at the protesters, they claim it was in self-defense. Reports seem to confirm that protesters who were advancing against the police were shot down by snipers from police ranks. Some policemen did use kalshnikovs too when they were retreating. You could argue that some of this was in self-defense, but it is an established fact now that both sides were or are shooting at each other.
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 10:55:24 am
I do remember reading yesterday that some time ago certain prominent member of Right Party (I think) requested all owners of licensed guns to join them in effort to defend the people on the square. I think I read that on BBC? But sadly, I do not have a link at hand right now to prove my claim.
There are videos already circulating around, that show people in uniforms and sniper rifles being in position to shoot. Haven't seen any actually take a shot and I can't confirm they are police snipers, but they are always amidst large group of full-riot-gear dressed figures that look like policemen...how old/new this videos are, I cannot say. But this does warrant snipers were probably at least present at the scene, taking shots or not.
Latest news I heard on Euronews (http://www.livestation.com/en/euronews/en), Alexander Bashkalenko was released.
*sigh*
All that being said, media war really is the worst. It's really hard to know, who to trust.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 11:06:37 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 11:09:48 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 11:11:14 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 11:15:23 am
Some of my German FB friends have changed their profile pictures:On the other hand a parliamentary debate today led to a twitter fight (!) between the Greens and the Left party, with the latter accusing the former of supporting anti-semitic right-wing extremists. So there is that too.I bet the Ukrainians will be very grateful for that :PSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 11:18:59 am
You are right, saying there's a media "war" out there is a bit silly.
Yeah, it's just Russia lying about opposition [and supporters like 'All nationalists are nazis' fellow who shows the ability of such people to disconnect themselves from reality] and people like us who actually give enough of a shit to pay attention to such things.
Also I sure wish people wouldn't call everyone Nazis, should I go over exactly who they were again for those people [Russia loyalists] who forgot? Fascism doesn't come in one flavor.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 11:26:51 am
...do you have any evidence that the opposition is actually a fascist movement?Beaten WW2 veterans in Lviv? Torch marches in the name of Bendera? Recent Bendera`s portrait in captured Kiev administration building?
Also, sorry, but you are all wrong about communism and such. Especially the "nazis are better" thing.
Not all rioters are equal. If you manage to take out the leaders, or the people who are bolstering others, you can significantly weaken the protest.
Additionally, snipers have plausible deniability, especially with the current confusion. Machine gun fire is a bit harder to cover up.
Sniper let you frighten people/target people with molotovs etc etc.
They aren`t attacking leaders or such. Just random attacks on both sides. Looks like somebody is heating this all up. Maybe we cannot tell for sure this is opposition`s provocation, but ask yourself - who benefits from this? Government?
Just viewed the footage about some Berkut officers using firearms. Kind of confused by the yellow stripes on the uniform - this totally isn`t usual outfit. Disguise? Pretended disguise?
Some of my German FB friends have changed their profile pictures:I remember an old picture about Fukushima accident. Bunch of dudes changing their avatars to "Japan, we are with you" and Japanese girl near the ruined house like "OH WOW THANKS THERE IS MUCH BETTER NOW".I bet the Ukrainians will be very grateful for that :PSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, let me play evil here. So, Ukrainian citizens who do not support the association are not taken into account?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 11:33:34 am
Also, sorry, but you are all wrong about communism and such. Especially the "nazis are better" thing.
We're all wrong and you're right. Let us in on your all encompassing knowledge and please, be compassionate.
Also, let me play evil here. So, Ukrainian citizens who do not support the association are not taken into account?
Ah, I remember that. GG actually said 'we should ostracize people who don't support the opposition' oh wait, no one said anything like that nor did anyone imply that. The third group is one of the most important as no matter what happens here the neutral party will still need to participate in the country after this is done.
Tell me, which do you prefer: Your policies being vetted and under the control of the Kremlin, or letting your elected representatives be able to actually represent the country instead of Russia's geopolitical interests, and being worse off because of it?
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 11:34:37 am
Anyway, the UPA also fought the Nazis you know? Bandera himself was arrested by the Nazis.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 11:38:39 am
Also, sorry, but you are all wrong about communism and such. Especially the "nazis are better" thing.Not all of us said that. I for one despise totalitarians pretty much equally.
I think if we have established one thing, it's that the whole "Nazis vs Soviets" narrative is leading us nowhere except to terminology debates, so let's just drop that, really.
Anyway, the compromise proposed by the Foreign Ministers includes a provisional government, constitutional reform and new elections for both parliament and president. Apparently opposition MPs are currently debating about that in parliament.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 11:47:36 am
Yeah, it's just Russia lying about opposition [and supporters like 'All nationalists are nazis' fellow who shows the ability of such people to disconnect themselves from reality] and people like us who actually give enough of a shit to pay attention to such things.
Also I sure wish people wouldn't call everyone Nazis, should I go over exactly who they were again for those people [Russia loyalists] who forgot? Fascism doesn't come in one flavor.
See my reply to GlyphGlyph.
Again, I am not using reductio ad hitlerum. You have to understand just one thing - in 1941 Third Reich came here not just to conquer, but to eradicate us. Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Poles, all the "Eastern Untermench". And in the Western Ukraine they got support from collaborators. And now grandchildren of said collaborators wave their portraits all over Ukraine, trying to finish what their ancestors started - building nationalistic Ukraine with no trace of "enemy nations". They are not just radical nationalists from generic country, they are ideological supporters of Nazism itself.
Quote
Tell me, which do you prefer: Your policies being vetted and under the control of the Kremlin, or letting your elected representatives be able to actually represent the country instead of Russia's geopolitical interests, and being worse off because of it?My elected representatives were actually representing the country, until bunch of dudes decided that they are higher than law and started to capture government buildings and proclaim themselves the ultimate rulers.
Anyway, the UPA also fought the Nazis you know? Bandera himself was arrested by the Nazis.During the whole Nazi occupation there were no reported losses of German troops in fights with UPA.
Bandera was arrested. Arrested. Not thrown to concentration camp, not shot, not tortured in Gestapo or burned in oven like a captured member of partisan movement. Just put into a cell. Oh wow, truly Germans cruelly executed their most dangerous foe.
According to the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and other sources, OUN-R leader Stepan Bandera held meetings with the heads of Germany's intelligence, regarding the formation of "Nachtigall" and "Roland" Battalions. - Wiki.
Post by: Kicior on February 20, 2014, 11:56:51 am
Also, the police STILL does not have neither an order to use lethal force, nor the weapons to do so. For some strange reason all "cruelly-executed-by-government-snipers" protesters were killed with civilian or self-made firearms, usually from behind.Looks like they have (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxkDiAcSF8#t=32) (atleast guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6IbEIBhb8o))
Anyway, the UPA also fought the Nazis you know? Bandera himself was arrested by the Nazis.But they released him later, unlike may others.
Anyway, OUN and Germans also cooperated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtigall_Battalion), you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Battalion)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 12:00:05 pm
My elected representatives were actually representing the country, until bunch of dudes decided that they are higher than law and started to capture government buildings and proclaim themselves the ultimate rulers.
Your bias is showing. You're wrong on all accounts and will now be ignored because I'm not keen on getting banned because of ignorant people spouting off about Naziism. If anything you talking is solidifying my case that you'll do anything you can to vilify and disconnect yourself from reality if it helps you feel better about the police murdering protesters.
Fascism comes in many colors and one of them may be showing right now.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 12:04:14 pm
webber, if you look on the UPA page of the same wikipedia, the same Ukrainian Academy of Science will have sources about the Germans they killed in 1941-1944.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 12:08:50 pm
My elected representatives were actually representing the country, until bunch of dudes decided that they are higher than law and started to capture government buildings and proclaim themselves the ultimate rulers.Looks more like a big part of the country does not feel represented by the government anymore. That could have been solved with some dialogue and compromises a few months ago, but the government somehow managed to turn half the country against them and thus caused the mess as it is now. So at this point elections would be necessary to have a somewhat representative government again.
And, yes, it is established that the Nazis and UPA used each other for their own ends, with various side-changes along the way. If people glorify UPA or the actual Nazis today, they are clearly missing something. We also know that some of the protesters are affiliated in that political direction, but the majority is not. Only de-escalation can prevent the radical minority from taking over the protests.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 12:19:38 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 12:25:08 pm
Looks like they have (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxkDiAcSF8#t=32) (atleast guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6IbEIBhb8o))
Yes, I already said that the guns were recently allowed. The post you are referring to was written prior to MIA statement.
This.Anyway, the UPA also fought the Nazis you know? Bandera himself was arrested by the Nazis.But they released him later, unlike may others.
Anyway, OUN and Germans also cooperated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtigall_Battalion), you know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Battalion)
So now saying that the parliament of your country does represent the actual political positions of the people is bias?My elected representatives were actually representing the country, until bunch of dudes decided that they are higher than law and started to capture government buildings and proclaim themselves the ultimate rulers.Your bias is showing.
Wow.
webber, if you look on the UPA page of the same wikipedia, the same Ukrainian Academy of Science will have sources about the Germans they killed in 1941-1944.I know that it will look like I`m neglecting unwanted sources, but this research cannot be fully trusted because of UPA rehabilitation campaign that took place during Yushchenko`s term. I`d change my point of view if I`ve seen actual German sources, but I couldn`t find any.
Looks more like a big part of the country does not feel represented by the government anymore.This is true, because Yanukovich is waiting for something and is rapidly loosing support in South-Eastern regions, where people want a strict response to protests. But distribution of the parliament reflects political opinions of the people on the moment of its election.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 12:29:05 pm
Would you say the same for people glorifying Finland's fighting during WW2? They fought with the Nazis too.At least you have to be careful who you're glorifying. Many groups allied with the Nazis against the Soviets. Some of them committed crimes against civilian populations too, this is more the case with UPA than with Finland. They all were used however and would have been discarded quickly in case of a Nazi victory, so at least they should be aware of that and not glorify the Nazis themselves.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 12:31:27 pm
Would you say the same for people glorifying Finland's fighting during WW2? They fought with the Nazis too.There is a difference between an ally and a collaborator. I don`t remember Germany invading Finland and exterminating innocent people.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 12:35:29 pm
More seriously, can we drop the nazi argument? It IS kinda fruitless. Let's just agree that there are fascists elements amongst the opposition.
As for strict response to the protests: what do they want? Tanks on Maidan? Strict response won't do the trick, it'll only start a civil war. Just step down, have election, and if Yanukovitch still represent the peoples of Ukraine, he'll be elected again (Like what happened in Thailand for example) with enough legitimacy to quiet the protesters down.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 12:36:29 pm
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9833/163146787.3fa/0_f284d_1b1e1af5_XL.jpg)
Guy with a shield wears civilian boots.
I knew that yellow stripes are not for good...
Edit: also the left one seems to wear running shoes.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 12:39:17 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 12:43:16 pm
He seems to be wearing the same kind of boot as every other guy. Still not clear who these guys are.I cannot say clearly what are other 2 are wearing, but
THEY ARE WEARING BERKUT UNIFORMS, BUT THEIR FOOTWEAR IS CIVILIAN, BERKUT USES MILITARY ANKLE BOOTS.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 12:44:19 pm
If you are going for some kind of conspiracy theory that it's protesters disguised in uniforms, that's pointless. It is already established that both sides are using guns.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 12:46:23 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/%D0%91%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%82%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0.jpg)
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 12:58:18 pm
From other pictures I have seen these guys are police. There have been plenty of pictures showing these guys with the stripes together with other policemen.
If you are going for some kind of conspiracy theory that it's protesters disguised in uniforms, that's pointless. It is already established that both sides are using guns.
Excuse me, but this is blindness.
Never ever a military man or policeman will put civilian shoes into fight. This just is not possible.
Quote
It is already established that both sides are using guns.Yes, but there is no solid proof that police used lethal force before being allowed to do so this noon.
No, Berkut got camouflage gear with " Бе́ркут" on the back. Not all-black stuff with no ID.On the earlier photos "yellow stripes" have "БЕРКУТ" on their backs.
Also, Berkut does use black uniforms, and here we can see both types together:
(http://joinfo.com/images/news/2014/01/52e2589e0717f_image1.jpeg)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 01:00:34 pm
Like these:
https://twitter.com/TukvaSociopat/status/436448809221386241
https://twitter.com/EastOfBrussels/status/436528818090938368
https://twitter.com/euromaidan/status/436548962942599168
The opposition claims they are from the government.
There's also this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6IbEIBhb8o). The german site that posted it explicitely stated that while they suspected them to be police, the authenticity of the video was not confirmed.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 01:03:30 pm
Барс» • «Вега» • «Гепард» • «Кобра» • «Лаванда» • «Омега» • «Скорпіон» • «Скат» • «Тінь» • «Тигр» • «Ягуар»
The list of special units of Ukraine Police. Each has it's own uniform
That's not counting special units of SBU, Internal forces and Army
"Berkut" is more like generic name for them all
/Back to the read-only mode
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 01:04:40 pm
That, or maybe they just put their pants over their boots.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 01:09:07 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 01:09:29 pm
To be short, Yanukovich sucks so hard one couldn't even imagine in any perverted erotic dream.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 01:14:04 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 01:15:32 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 20, 2014, 01:16:46 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 01:20:12 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 01:20:23 pm
I don't know what unit they belong to, but I've seen several similar pictures.
Like these:
https://twitter.com/TukvaSociopat/status/436448809221386241
https://twitter.com/EastOfBrussels/status/436528818090938368
https://twitter.com/euromaidan/status/436548962942599168
The opposition claims they are from the government.
There's also this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6IbEIBhb8o). The german site that posted it explicitely stated that while they suspected them to be police, the authenticity of the video was not confirmed.
Yes, I see yellow stripes everywhere. Even the first column can be fully composed of provocateurs. Not all of them are wearing civilian shoes, but the first photo still compromises everything.
Also there are reports that short AKSU they are using are no longer being used by MIA forces, but - all of sudden - AKSU were present on that military base that was captured by protesters.
So your theory is that a band of protesters stole a whole bunch of Berkut uniforms but couldn't steal combat boots, so decided to wear a bunch of matched civilian shoes instead. Then organized a whole lot more uniforms and riot gear to look like a whole Berkut unit. Then they shot and killed dozen of protesters while the rest of the police did nothing to stop them.
That, or maybe they just put their pants over their boots.
Quote
maybe they just put their pants over their boots.Look closer. The guy wears this: (http://sabo.ua/24-126-thickbox/tufli-mujskie-bosca.jpg) or something similar.
Quote
band of protestersOf unknown provocateurs.
Quote
stole a whole bunch of Berkut uniformsCaptured, not "stole".
Quote
but couldn't steal combat bootsSize. It never fits. Ask anybody who served, or read "Starship troopers", I remember the same problem with a tunic.
Quote
organized a whole lot more uniforms and riot gear to look like a whole Berkut unitYes.
Quote
Then they shot and killed dozen of protestersDozens.
Quote
while the rest of the police did nothing to stop themWith good intentions? Or rubber clubs? MIA allowed use of lethal weapons AFTER the morning shootout, not before. Also, just saw on TV - even Maidan protesters confirmed that they`ve seen a Berkut unit retreating from heavy fire.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 01:22:57 pm
Just watched a Russian live news about Kiev. You know what? Til' now I was putting most of the blame for what is going on onto protesters and Berkut guys. Now I know who is a real fuckup. Yanukovich is. Goddamit, your country is in a FUCKING CIVIL WAR. Do something about it, bitch! But no, he continues to murmur shit, as far as I remember. I don't know, suppres the protest in brutal way and sign yourself a death penalty agreement, or let the will of your people be and flee with all you've stolen from your country as fast as you can, just do something.I approve this post.
To be short, Yanukovich sucks so hard one couldn't even imagine in any perverted erotic dream.
Are you from Russia?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 01:31:14 pm
Didn't he suspend that recently?A credit payment was delayed till friday. Not suspended so far.
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 01:41:19 pm
So your theory is that a band of protesters stole a whole bunch of Berkut uniforms but couldn't steal combat boots, so decided to wear a bunch of matched civilian shoes instead. Then organized a whole lot more uniforms and riot gear to look like a whole Berkut unit. Then they shot and killed dozen of protesters while the rest of the police did nothing to stop them.
They didn't have the shoes because reptilians sent by the Illuminati stole them while they were blowing up WTC with fluoride in the water.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 01:47:29 pm
Can't to not share this. This guy died defending his country - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NAox5Xk8g
[/read-only mode on]
Post by: Andrew425 on February 20, 2014, 01:50:34 pm
Post by: Sergarr on February 20, 2014, 01:51:04 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 01:51:25 pm
So your theory is that a band of protesters stole a whole bunch of Berkut uniforms but couldn't steal combat boots, so decided to wear a bunch of matched civilian shoes instead. Then organized a whole lot more uniforms and riot gear to look like a whole Berkut unit. Then they shot and killed dozen of protesters while the rest of the police did nothing to stop them.
They didn't have the shoes because reptilians sent by the Illuminati stole them while they were blowing up WTC with fluoride in the water.
Escuse me, but this is not funny.
This shoes case suddenly turns all "police randomly shooting everybody" thing into "provocateurs attack both police and protesters". If the second variant gets officially confirmed, there will be still chance to end all peacefully.
Too bad UkrainianRanger left the thread and is probably on the way to Kiev to avenge his friends without even trying to figure out the actual murderers.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 20, 2014, 01:53:12 pm
So me and my dad were talking about this yesterday and we both were thinking that the protesters have until the end of the Olympics before Russia really starts to get involved.The Olympic Games end this Sunday, the 23rd of February.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 01:54:39 pm
Just watched a Russian live news about Kiev. You know what? Til' now I was putting most of the blame for what is going on onto protesters and Berkut guys. Now I know who is a real fuckup. Yanukovich is. Goddamit, your country is in a FUCKING CIVIL WAR. Do something about it, bitch! But no, he continues to murmur shit, as far as I remember. I don't know, suppres the protest in brutal way and sign yourself a death penalty agreement, or let the will of your people be and flee with all you've stolen from your country as fast as you can, just do something.I approve this post.
To be short, Yanukovich sucks so hard one couldn't even imagine in any perverted erotic dream.
Are you from Russia?
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 01:55:29 pm
And frankly, your theory is ridulous. You're saying that hundreds of guys managed to pass of as policemen, capturing hundreds of uniform and hundred of identical civilian shoes but not enough combat boots (Your "they do not fit" explanation may work for a few, but wouldn't do when you seize hundreds of them. Except if Berkut is made of genetically-engineered people with tiny feet or something.)
And I don't really see what the Olympics have to do with this.
Post by: tryrar on February 20, 2014, 01:58:39 pm
Too bad UkrainianRanger left the thread and is probably on the way to Kiev to avenge his friends without even trying to figure out the actual murderers.
Ummm, dude, this might not be the best statement to make. Personal attacks are highly frowned upon here
Post by: Beast Tamer on February 20, 2014, 02:00:21 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 02:02:12 pm
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 02:02:25 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 02:03:37 pm
I actually think Ukrainian Ranger does just the right thing. Since he is highly involved and quite radical person, he willingly refuses from arguing to let the others speak freely. That demands a strong will.Too bad UkrainianRanger left the thread and is probably on the way to Kiev to avenge his friends without even trying to figure out the actual murderers.
Ummm, dude, this might not be the best statement to make. Personal attacks are highly frowned upon here
Post by: Bouchart on February 20, 2014, 02:04:49 pm
Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not very aware events in Ukraine. What are the sides and what are their stances, grievances, reasons for acting out, etc.?
Basically, the Ukraine can end up as either a German puppet state or a Russian one.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 02:05:02 pm
You might want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan).
You could have pasted in a big red button. :p
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 02:07:09 pm
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 20, 2014, 02:07:18 pm
Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not very aware events in Ukraine. What are the sides and what are their stances, grievances, reasons for acting out, etc.?
Basically, the Ukraine can end up as either a German puppet state or a Russian one.
/me equips STICK
the eu is not a german puppet state yet so take your notions of not being a democratic union of pure love and put them alongside the reptilians and putin's marvelous gas gnomes
Post by: Bouchart on February 20, 2014, 02:09:48 pm
the eu is not a german puppet state yet
Greece is a slave state of Germany...Ukraine won't be far behind.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 02:12:09 pm
According to Polish Prime Minister Tusk, Yanukovych agreed to the Foreign Ministers to have elections later this year. The EU has agreed on sanctions, negotiations continue. Let's hope there will be some kind of agreement.
Escuse me, but this is not funny.No, it doesn't, and no UR is not on the way to Kiev, he's just not posting because he's too emotionally involved.
This shoes case suddenly turns all "police randomly shooting everybody" thing into "provocateurs attack both police and protesters". If the second variant gets officially confirmed, there will be still chance to end all peacefully.
Too bad UkrainianRanger left the thread and is probably on the way to Kiev to avenge his friends without even trying to figure out the actual murderers.
As said earlier, conspiracy theories are really pointless in this situation. Also please don't start resorting to personal attacks, that's also pointless.
By the way, gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.It's in all mass media here (Germany). It's also very clear that it is not at all peaceful anymore and hasn't been in a while.
I fully agree with LordSlowpoke, it's come that far ;).Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not very aware events in Ukraine. What are the sides and what are their stances, grievances, reasons for acting out, etc.?
Basically, the Ukraine can end up as either a German puppet state or a Russian one.
/me equips STICK
the eu is not a german puppet state yet so take your notions of not being a democratic union of pure love and put them alongside the reptilians and putin's marvelous gas gnomes
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 02:12:29 pm
Bouchart: Greece is free to quit the Euro or refuse the aid package the rest of the EU offered them. Greece is like a drug addict that messed up big time, and its family agreed to lend him money only on the condition that he goes cold turkey. Sure ain't nice to go cold turkey, but you can't call that slavery.
Maybe Germany and other creditor countries should have been more generous and included other form of help (like Eurobonds). I think so. But calling it slavery is totally unfair.
Post by: WarRoot on February 20, 2014, 02:14:00 pm
Svoboda calls Party of Regions and communist reps to step down or they will feel the righteous justice of Ukrainians.
Not sure if they got scared or it's just a coincidence but most of the reps have left the Party of Regions.
The council has declared the region independent of Yanukovich, as a bonus the police there has sworn loyalty to the people.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 02:15:42 pm
And frankly, your theory is ridulous. You're saying that hundreds of guys managed to pass of as policemen, capturing hundreds of uniform and hundred of identical civilian shoes but not enough combat boots (Your "they do not fit" explanation may work for a few, but wouldn't do when you seize hundreds of them. Except if Berkut is made of genetically-engineered people with tiny feet or something.)
And I don't really see what the Olympics have to do with this.
Quote
hundreds of guys50 for example, enough to show the illusion of "yellow stripes are together with usual police"
Quote
capturing hundreds of uniformHalf of the hundred.
They have been capturing Berkut equipment and since the first clashes on Grushevskogo street.
Also, there are reports of MIA/MD warehouse captured.
Also, MIA barracks in Lviv are captured.
Also, you can buy uniforms in store. Not exactly Berkut, but with some crafting...
Quote
hundred of identical civilian shoes
Quote
Your "they do not fit" explanation may work for a fewAhem. Even when discribing the first photo I said that one guy is wearing shoes, other - something like sneakers or running shoes or "krossovki" as we call them. Also clearly MOST yellow stripes have proper boots, for example the sniper guy.
Quote
Except if Berkut is made of genetically-engineered people with tiny feetLol, you`re almost right. I don`t know if this is exactly true for Berkut, but to assign for some military(airborne troops) and police(BARS) units you must be 180+ cm tall. So if it`s true, generic set of Berkut shoes will be roughly one (big) size, and when trying to put them on a bunch of generic people the guys with small feet will have a problem.
Quote
And I don't really see what the Olympics have to do with this.Common rummor that after Olympics Russia will be able to act more boldly about the crisis in Ukraine, because Russia won`t get "we boycott your Olympics!" in response.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 02:16:46 pm
Plus that group would need to make it into Maidan undetected. And we've not seen any declaration of the MIA saying "Yellow stripes aren't policemen", which you would expect in such circumstance.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 20, 2014, 02:19:24 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 02:21:19 pm
Too bad UkrainianRanger left the thread and is probably on the way to Kiev to avenge his friends without even trying to figure out the actual murderers.
Ummm, dude, this might not be the best statement to make. Personal attacks are highly frowned upon here
This was not meant to be personal attack. Sad that UR kind of ninja`d me with his from-readonly post and because of this I sounded sarcastic, but when writing this I truly believed that he left the thread.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 02:22:55 pm
Post by: Ghazkull on February 20, 2014, 02:23:01 pm
But in any case, webber your trying too hard here to see something thats not necessarily there. You're pointing at those boots constantly, but all i can see is four or 5 guys in uniforms which could or could not be Berkut, with shoes that match. THEY ALL WEAR THE SAME DAMN SHOES. Whether those are Civilian Boots or Combat boots i have no idea.
We know both sides are shooting that is a FACT.
Your argument to make this a Conspiracy is flimsy at best. All i've seen as proof from you so far (and just what you say doesn't count, i want links to videos and pictures and news articles) is a picture about somebody being chained to some kind of podest, a wounded (i think i saw him move his arm although the quality was bad) or dead man whom i can't discern on which side he stands with a medic showing the wounds and the above mentioned picture. If you want anybody to believe your theory here you need to give us soemthing more substantial.
I value your input and am interested in the other side of things but just throwing around wild conspiracy theories and playing the Third Reich-Card isn't really giving anything you say credibility. Yeah UR is putting in his own personal opinion too but he is delivering facts and proof to sustain them properly ( at least most of the time).
and what i just wrote was ninjaed...so if anything was turned invalid above its due to me being too lazy to reedit the entire post again.
In any case to answer Bouchart. I truly feel insulted by this notion. Greece is not at all enslaved. They fucked up their country entirely on their own. Germany is lending a hand. They could refuse it at any time. Plus most of Germany doesn't want anything to do with Greece i know that public opinion is leaning more towards "fuck'em let them fix their own shit." a notion which i personally agree with due to the fact that germany itself is drowning in debt. But that just as a side note and has nothing to do with the thread.
Back to the topic: last i heard the European Union was still composed of states of equal importance. Yes Germany has a greater weight than other states but thats due to the fact that Germany is providing a big chunk of the population and the money in the EU. Thus calling other member states puppet states of Germany is like calling Wisconsin a Puppet State of Texas because it has a greater weight in USA politics.
ah great and there i was ninjaed again...same as above applies.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 02:25:54 pm
As I understand it the yellow stripes cover up the normal unit tags. Correspondents have filmed these guys and seen them with the police force, but what exactly they are is not verified.
The correspondents have seen both police and rebels shooting at each other, which again underlines that there is no more need for cover-ups.
Post by: Sergarr on February 20, 2014, 02:28:06 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 20, 2014, 02:30:10 pm
Additionally, while Germany has a dominance in the parliament, it's far from absolute, and the real power in the European Union is centered in the Commission, in which each nation is equally represented, and which for the majority of it's decisions, relies on unanimous decision making.
Not really related, but I wonder, how will all these events affect a possibility of Scotland independence?Probably not at all. There's a world of difference between Ukraine and the UK, and there're no direct links.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 02:31:27 pm
Plus that group would need to make it into Maidan undetected. And we've not seen any declaration of the MIA saying "Yellow stripes aren't policemen", which you would expect in such circumstance.
Make it into Maidan undetected is not a big deal. It seems that you overestimate the police presence. And underestimate the number of connected streets.
I would like to see such declaration too, but MIA forces were never fast, and now they are under pressure, and also our government just cannot into information warfare.
Post by: Funk on February 20, 2014, 02:42:11 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 02:45:37 pm
Plus that group would need to make it into Maidan undetected. And we've not seen any declaration of the MIA saying "Yellow stripes aren't policemen", which you would expect in such circumstance.
Make it into Maidan undetected is not a big deal. It seems that you overestimate the police presence. And underestimate the number of connected streets.
I would like to see such declaration too, but MIA forces were never fast, and now they are under pressure, and also our government just cannot into information warfare.
Oh yeah, and after making their way to Maidan, they put on ridiculously conspicuous yellow armbands to help them fit in unnoticed by the police and prevent people from suspecting they are provocateurs.
Are you claiming it's some kind of reverse psychology?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 02:50:04 pm
Transcarpathian events:Similar things are reported from Poltava and Chernivtsi. At least in the western part of the country police seems to defect on a larger scale.
Svoboda calls Party of Regions and communist reps to step down or they will feel the righteous justice of Ukrainians.
Not sure if they got scared or it's just a coincidence but most of the reps have left the Party of Regions.
The council has declared the region independent of Yanukovich, as a bonus the police there has sworn loyalty to the people.
Just saw the footage of the governor of Volyn on TV. They called it lynch justice there, which I guess shows that the coverage isn't one-sided.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 02:50:53 pm
Also webber, even RT (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-kiev-firearms-weapons-police-934/) accept those guys with the yellow armbands are policemen. Or are you going to try to convince us that RT has been infiltrated by Western agents?
I did never mention Western agents. This is just another photo of the yellow stripe guys. I doubt that the journalist asked for their IDs.
webber http://rt.com/news/horrifying-videos-kiev-maidan-901/ (http://rt.com/news/horrifying-videos-kiev-maidan-901/) third one down , the yellow armbands have righting on there backs, and look there with drawing to police lines.
Seen this. Sorry, I lack the skill to understand you... they have what on their backs?
Also, I`ll answer some of last posts without quoting.
My point is that:
1) Morning assault took place BEFORE the police had permission to shoot or even given weapons.
2) BOTH sides were attacked by unknown provocateurs.
3) Yes, now BOTH sides are using weapons, but this is a consequence of said provocation.
4) If all of the stated is true, then BOTH sides can blame provocateurs, not each other.
5) And if they are out of "f***ing policemen/protesters killed my friends/colleagues" way of thinking, there will still be hope to end this all without more blood.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 02:52:03 pm
I also remember you, and I realize now why you stopped posting for a couple years.
To Kogan Loloklam and his supporters: you are postulating the doctrine that:
1) there are no innocent civilians;
2) the people of the country are always responsible for government actions;
3) collateral losses are justified by the great purpose.
Congratulations, you are officially supporting terrorism.
You should heed your own words, it's easy to remember.
Post by: Ghazkull on February 20, 2014, 02:56:31 pm
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 02:58:59 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 03:00:56 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 03:01:56 pm
Quote
Similar things are reported from Poltava and Chernivtsi. At least in the western part of the country police seems to defect on a larger scale.Poltava is Eastern Ukraine. Central-Eastern to be precise. My home city. Now I am living in rural area nearby. I'd not say defect, more like cooperate.
It is rather calm in Poltava, yesterday hot heads smashed the office of Party Of Regions, then there were some minor clashes with police, Then Right Sector arrived and calmed down overly enthusiastic undisciplined youth, while local opposition reached several agreements with local police and mayor.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 03:03:09 pm
Plus that group would need to make it into Maidan undetected. And we've not seen any declaration of the MIA saying "Yellow stripes aren't policemen", which you would expect in such circumstance.
Make it into Maidan undetected is not a big deal. It seems that you overestimate the police presence. And underestimate the number of connected streets.
I would like to see such declaration too, but MIA forces were never fast, and now they are under pressure, and also our government just cannot into information warfare.
Oh yeah, and after making their way to Maidan, they put on ridiculously conspicuous yellow armbands to help them fit in unnoticed by the police and prevent people from suspecting they are provocateurs.
Are you claiming it's some kind of reverse psychology?
The psychology is very clear. They use the armbands to prevent shooting between their groups. Though, not all of them do, to create illusion of "yellow stripes are friends with regular police". Their inctruction can be like "Everybody with a stripe or near one with a stripe is a friend".
They do not "fit into police" or something like that, because close contact would compromise them immidiately.
They do not fit into protester ranks, because they look like police.
They just appear somewhere, shoot people and leave. Bonus points if captured by cameras - will be confused with regular police anyway.
Post by: Ghazkull on February 20, 2014, 03:05:24 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 03:09:44 pm
Yeah, I got that from a german news report citing ukrainian reports. They talked about defections in the west (Transcarpathia and Chernivtsi) and in Poltava, central Ukraine. If you live there, you obviously know much better what is going on there. ;)QuoteSimilar things are reported from Poltava and Chernivtsi. At least in the western part of the country police seems to defect on a larger scale.Poltava is Eastern Ukraine. Central-Eastern to be precise. My home city. Now I am living in rural area nearby. I'd not say defect, more like cooperate.
It is rather calm in Poltava, yesterday hot heads smashed the office of Party Of Regions, then there were some minor clashes with police, Then Right Sector arrived and calmed down overly enthusiastic undisciplined youth, while local opposition reached several agreements with local police and mayor.
Post by: Funk on February 20, 2014, 03:17:58 pm
There is some text on there backs, but i can't make it out.webber http://rt.com/news/horrifying-videos-kiev-maidan-901/ (http://rt.com/news/horrifying-videos-kiev-maidan-901/) third one down , the yellow armbands have righting on there backs, and look there with drawing to police lines.
Seen this. Sorry, I lack the skill to understand you... they have what on their backs?
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 03:21:36 pm
By the way:Ah, forgot about this one: I don't generally check my country's media when it comes to news not related to my country. Just my preference.
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
So I can't say what they were saying yesterday, but today news about Ukraine on two bigger news sites clearly state the protests are not peaceful, that protesters fight the police with molotovs and stone and police is answering with rubber bullets and water cannons, and that both sides are accusing each other of using live ammunition/snipers.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 03:29:59 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 03:30:48 pm
I'm just wondering how much Yanukovych and co must pay per post. Must not be that much if you're posting this much.
I also remember you, and I realize now why you stopped posting for a couple years.To Kogan Loloklam and his supporters: you are postulating the doctrine that:
1) there are no innocent civilians;
2) the people of the country are always responsible for government actions;
3) collateral losses are justified by the great purpose.
Congratulations, you are officially supporting terrorism.
You should heed your own words, it's easy to remember.
Wait, but you said you are ignoring my posts. Heeding one`s words you say?
Also, what is wrong with that clash? I also do remember it. The guy seriously postulated that if US is at war with some country, said country citizens must rise against government, or it`s legal to kill them. I tried to convince him, but he was so fierce that I sighed and left.
again. As you seem to repeat yourself i will repeat myself to: PROOF? Where is the actual, substantial proof of your claims?I cannot just go and catch a yellow stripe guy to give you solid proofs.
I am postulating a THEORY, which, despite seeming too complicate, fits with the facts.
And now it`s my turn to ask some questions.
1) Why is the "police" shooting protesters that are not attacking anybodyat the moment? This is crime, this violates a TON of conventions and police officers KNOW that.
2) Why does the "police" shoot before even officially given permission and weapons?
3) Why the hell do some of said "policemen" wear civilian footwear? "Dear commander, I forgot my boots at home"?
4) Why do they use outdated guns? AKSU are not used anymore, they are unaccurate and too penetrative for a police weapon.
5) Why do some of them wear yellow stripes that are not a part of usual uniform?
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but first please try to give a probable explanation to this facts.
edit: messed with forum engine a little.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 20, 2014, 03:34:03 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 03:39:54 pm
There is some text on there backs, but i can't make it out.
Oh, I stated that earlier. "БЕРКУТ", Berkut.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 03:45:51 pm
(Yeah self-imposed read-only mode failed, not it's officially do-not-argue mode. That will not fail)
Post by: Ghazkull on February 20, 2014, 03:46:48 pm
Quote
And now it`s my turn to ask some questions.
1) Why is the "police" shooting protesters that are not attacking anybodyat the moment? This is crime, this violates a TON of conventions and police officers KNOW that.
2) Why does the "police" shoot before even officially given permission and weapons?
3) Why the hell do some of said "policemen" wear civilian footwear? "Dear commander, I forgot my boots at home"?
4) Why do they use outdated guns? AKSU are not used anymore, they are unaccurate and too penetrative for a police weapon.
5) Why do some of them wear yellow stripes that are not a part of usual uniform?
1) Why? because the government doesnt prosecute officers firing on civilians. Because a good batch of the police officers are glorified mercenaries. Because Police Officers are also just human and after months of demonstrations have lots of pent up rage and at some point it doesn't matter if the enemy is armed or not he is the enemy. take any of those.
2) Because they were inofficially given permission and weapons, how else would they have them in the first place otherwise? Because the system is corrupt. Because they can? take any of those.
3) You still have not given me sufficient proof for that. The picture isnt accurate enough to discern whether these boots are truly civilian or not.
4) I am no specialist on weapons and especially not on the equipment of the various police groups ( because apparently there are a lot of different ones in Ukraine) so i cannot surely answer that. If i had to guess i'd say its due to living in a government which is deemed corrupt, i wouldn't wonder if funds for weapons get relocated and the police gets only outdated stuff. although again i am no specialist here and have no info regarding that.
5) To discern certain groups within them? Maybe Secret Police? Who knows? there is no evidence in the direction that they are "provocateurs" same as there is no evidence that they are "opposition" or "secret police". Again i have no indepth knowledge of the Ukraines Police System and its various groups and special factions so i cannot say with certainty whom they are. But applying Occam's Razor the logical purpose would be that they are police officers with a special purpose.
Post by: Baffler on February 20, 2014, 03:49:37 pm
By the way:
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
If I want breaking news, I come here, mostly. As far as I know, the media is still mostly focused on the Olympics, but I rarely if ever look at them and haven't for some time. I live in the U.S, and almost everyone who I've talked to about it didn't even know anything was going on. I imagine that will soon change though.
Post by: Owlbread on February 20, 2014, 03:53:16 pm
Not really related, but I wonder, how will all these events affect a possibility of Scotland independence?
It most likely won't affect us. Crimea becoming independent might feature occasionally in the Scottish commentariat's articles (in the same way Kosovo does, inexplicably) but it's such a different situation there's really no comparison.
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 03:59:13 pm
And now it`s my turn to ask some questions.
1) Why is the "police" shooting protesters that are not attacking anybodyat the moment? This is crime, this violates a TON of conventions and police officers KNOW that.
2) Why does the "police" shoot before even officially given permission and weapons?
3) Why the hell do some of said "policemen" wear civilian footwear? "Dear commander, I forgot my boots at home"?
4) Why do they use outdated guns? AKSU are not used anymore, they are unaccurate and too penetrative for a police weapon.
5) Why do some of them wear yellow stripes that are not a part of usual uniform?
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but first please try to give a probable explanation to this facts.
1) Government supporters had already been torturing people before. Which also kinda sorta is a crime and against several conventions. And since the police is the ones who are supposed to uphold the law, I don't exactly see who could punish them for breaking the law, and it's not likely that Yanukovych cares to prevent opposition deaths.
2) See above. Also, if the claims that this is a unit responsible directly to Yanukovych, this isn't even the police, those are black ops. The whole point of whom is to do illegal stuff for their government.
3) Meaningless, since as people responded multiple times, it's not like anyone who has access to the rest of the uniform wouldn't be able to take the boots as well. If it were protesters' provocateurs, it would be even less likely if anything, because them getting outed because of such a detail would carry a lot more risk than for the police.
4) Wikipedia begs to differ, claiming that each urban police foot patrol is issued at least one of those and that they are commonly used by special forces and air assault troops. All of which fit pretty well with the possibilities on who they might be exactly.
5) Someone mentioned covering up normal unit markings before. Or unit identification, if they are the special unit.
Frankly, the idea that they are used to signal to protesters that they are friendly is rather stupid, since it presumes that each and every protester is in on the conspiracy, not a single policeman gets the same idea as you, and government utterly fails to announce they are not, in fact, actual police.
And if any of them did get shot by a protester, you could always rationalize it as the protester not being in on the conspiracy. So it is unverifiable.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 04:04:41 pm
1) Why is the "police" shooting protesters that are not attacking anybodyat the moment? This is crime, this violates a TON of conventions and police officers KNOW that.
We do not know if those guys shot people that were not attacking anybody at the moment. We also don't see them shooting the police.
Quote
2) Why does the "police" shoot before even officially given permission and weapons?The statement only came this afternoon, but it said that police "had been issued with weapons". Notice the past tense.
Quote
3) Why the hell do some of said "policemen" wear civilian footwear? "Dear commander, I forgot my boots at home"?It's probably not even civilian footwear. To me I just see black shoes. And you haven't explained why they'd have lots of uniform except for the combat shoes.
Quote
4) Why do they use outdated guns? AKSU are not used anymore, they are unaccurate and too penetrative for a police weapon.You've not proved they're outdated. Plus, Berkut are also doing stuff like SWAT, so you'd expect them to have that kind of weapons.
Quote
5) Why do some of them wear yellow stripes that are not a part of usual uniform?My bet is that it's to hide unit tag and make them harder to identify.
Quote
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but first please try to give a probable explanation to this facts.
You make extravagant statement, the burden of proof is on you, not on us.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 20, 2014, 04:08:21 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 04:11:19 pm
So, majority in the parliament voted that police must cease fire and internal forces\army should return to their bases immediately. Parliament has no right to order troops around like that but times like that you must break some rules to normalize the situation. After all that's not a decision of random people but actually elected representatives, including 34 members of the ruling partyApparently they also called it the end of the anti-terror operation and prohibited the use of live ammo.
Hope this will end the bloodshed.
Negotiations are still ongoing in the background and will probably still take a while. EU sanctions are only going into effect later, so as to not disturb the negotiations.
As to the barely-visible-footwear-conspiracy: Does that mean I pay almost 18 bucks a month for publicly funded TV, just so that they can send a correspondent to Kiev to lie to my face?
I'm just watching a special report on German TV. Their correspondent in Kiev said, they had heard rumors that the guys with the yellow stripes are a special force called Omega units, who are directly responsible to the president and have been seen near the presidential seat.
As I understand it the yellow stripes cover up the normal unit tags. Correspondents have filmed these guys and seen them with the police force, but what exactly they are is not verified.
The correspondents have seen both police and rebels shooting at each other, which again underlines that there is no more need for cover-ups.
Post by: olemars on February 20, 2014, 04:14:34 pm
By the way:
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
I can only speak of norwegian media, but they've been plastered with pictures and videos of Kiev burning for a couple of days now. There's no pretense that protesters nor police are particularly peaceful, with dozens of dead and wounded on both sides. There are quite a few norwegian reporters at the scene, including at that hotel that's mentioned every so often.
The 3 major online news sites have live feeds:
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.11480927 (http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.11480927)
http://direkte.vg.no/studio/demonstrasjonene-i-kiev (http://direkte.vg.no/studio/demonstrasjonene-i-kiev)
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Folg-utviklingen-i-Ukraina-direkte-7476312.html#.UwZu5oVuSj8 (http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Folg-utviklingen-i-Ukraina-direkte-7476312.html#.UwZu5oVuSj8)
Here's are some pretty severe images from the square and nearby:
http://www.vg.no/bildespesial/spesial.php?id=11410 (http://www.vg.no/bildespesial/spesial.php?id=11410)
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 04:17:24 pm
I'm just watching a special report on German TV. Their correspondent in Kiev said, they had heard rumors that the guys with the yellow stripes are a special force called Omega units, who are directly responsible to the president and have been seen near the presidential seat.
As I understand it the yellow stripes cover up the normal unit tags. Correspondents have filmed these guys and seen them with the police force, but what exactly they are is not verified.
The correspondents have seen both police and rebels shooting at each other, which again underlines that there is no more need for cover-ups.
You don't understand. There is no police! The yellow armband guy were seen with other protesters masquerading as police.
For the last month it's just been protesters fighting with protesters. Hell, I'm sure Yanukovitch is a protester as well. Why else would he act in such a stupid fashion?
As for your correspondent, it's evident you should stop listening to public TV and subscribe to Fashion Magazine. THEY have the expertise to see the Great Shoes Conspiracy.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 04:26:33 pm
The article also speak of a report of Russian spetnatz in Ukraine in the magazine Tyzhden from Lviv. I'd find this really surprising myself.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 04:27:23 pm
...
1,2,4,5 are plausible. As for 3:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
- no high ancle
- no lacing.
...2) plausible
3) Hey, I already gave a possible explanation about feet size earlier
5) Plausible, but on some photos the stripes are not actually covering the markings. Also, the huge "BERKUT" on backs kind of busts the disguise.
4) Sorry, I failed here. People say this is AKMS, not AKSU.
1) Aaaand here you seem to be completely wrong. See, the whole Bulatov abduction story is believed to be a blatant hoax. I cannot give other explanation why a man appears after a week of tortures with a tiny piece of ear missing, a pair of scrathes, a pair of bruises and crucification marks which look like needle punctures.
Also there were reports he bought something online while missing. Only after that he started saying about the stolen credit card.
6) I never claimed the protesters are into the conspiracy. Yellow stripes were shooting them.
We do not know if those guys shot people that were not attacking anybody at the moment. We also don't see them shooting the police.The TV showed protesters covering themselves with shields and being hit by bullets. They did not have firearms. I don`t think that was police - as I stated, it is clearly a crime.
Other paragraphs already answered.
You make extravagant statement, the burden of proof is on you, not on us.I`m not asking you for proofs, I`m asking for logical explanation of the whole "stripes" case.
Post by: Bouchart on February 20, 2014, 04:30:36 pm
The article also speak of a report of Russian spetnatz in Ukraine in the magazine Tyzhden from Lviv. I'd find this really surprising myself.
Why is this surprising?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 04:32:26 pm
As for your correspondent, it's evident you should stop listening to public TV and subscribe to Fashion Magazine. THEY have the expertise to see the Great Shoes Conspiracy.I probably will, but not before I have carefully examined my own shoes...
This article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/20/ukraine-is-on-the-verge-of-war-and-putin-is-to-blame.html) claims our yellow armband friends are titushki, with the armbands being used to identify them in the absence of unit marking.AFAIK titushki refers to hired thugs, who are not necessarily armed and not uniformed, but have been seen wearing white armbands. They are not part of the police force as I understand it, so the article seems to confuse these things.
The article also speak of a report of Russian spetnatz in Ukraine in the magazine Tyzhden from Lviv. I'd find this really surprising myself.
The captured Russian is likely only a rumour, I haven't heard that anywhere else at least.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 04:35:22 pm
I know about the titushki, it could be that they were issued gear by the government.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 04:53:37 pm
This article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/20/ukraine-is-on-the-verge-of-war-and-putin-is-to-blame.html) claims our yellow armband friends are titushki, with the armbands being used to identify them in the absence of unit marking.
The article also speak of a report of Russian spetnatz in Ukraine in the magazine Tyzhden from Lviv. I'd find this really surprising myself.
Yeah, note that I never stated that this unknown provocateurs are actually with protesters, I just said that protesters benefit from their actions and government does not.
Titushki is protesters` slang to name government provocateurs. But actually they use that name for anybody who opposes them in any way. Or just random bypassers.
According to Lviv magazines, Russian spetnaz is hiding in Ukraine since 2004.
No kidding, this legend is really THAT old. Since the very Orange "revolution".
Also some protesters say that Berkut are in fact Russian airborne troops and so on.
Post by: Sinistar on February 20, 2014, 05:02:57 pm
However, yellow stripes being used to mark NON-police member still doestn't sit quite right with me. Pictures like the 9th in this article is one of reasons why. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-26278095)
I don't see how supposed provocateurs would infiltrate normal police in such efficient way they could just casually sit right next to each other.
You COULD argue however that, given how much police is on the scene, one could try faking he's from "that unit from that town you don't know much about but know it exist" and maybe pass with this?? But the sheer amount of yellow-striped ones vs. "normal" police...I dunno, this just doesn't add up. Sorry, webber.
...unless, you know, those guys ARE part of some highly trained and competent organization that orchestrated whole police gear looting, issued fake IDs & cover stories for their agents and sent them out in the field with sole mission to plunge this nation into civil war which would be extremely profitable for said organization.
I mean, that's Tom Clancy's material, but theoretically possible, I guess??
edit: dammit, I try to post but so many answers while I'm writing...and then the forums crash. THEY COULDN'T HANDLE :P
Anyway - sorry webber, but that won't do. It makes no sense, there is NO heel there, nothing to hold it actually. By what that line is showing, that guy might as well be wearing sandals. I mean, just look at it from afar!
And one more thing - compare it to the shoe he is wearing on the other foot. Heel is clearly visible there.
But enough of shoes - guess if those guys really are titushki, then webber was right in they not being police...but again, they are probably not part of conspiracy either.
In other news - I stopped watching BBC videos in their "live coverage" article as it was just some old footage, very slowly being updated with newer information. Their tweeter feed was more active.
I check it again now and there are pretty strong worded articles there now - talking about "bloodshed", "protesters mercilessly gunned down" etc. as opposed to more neutral tone in the noon. There is also footage of protester using a rifle. All in all, seems like this news exploded even more with the "western" media, so here's another info for Comrade P.
Post by: Max White on February 20, 2014, 05:06:30 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 05:11:52 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Not gonna defend my opinion here
Post by: Dutchling on February 20, 2014, 05:15:22 pm
Shoe Illuminati are more fun though...
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 05:16:47 pm
Speaking about "yellow" policemen. My opinion is that is obliviousCarefully look at this guy in center, just above the one with the shield. Look carefully at the stripe. It moved down from the indented place and the symbol is visible. That symbols show what unit it is, ribbons are there to hide it.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Not gonna defend my opinion here
Since the guy on the far left also has his armband off from the symbol, and it appears that the guy who tries to shoot the innocent stars hanging from the tree has his fitted so loosely it's about to slip down from the symbol as well, it's truly a masterpiece of disguise.
That actually make sense.
Shoe Illuminati are more fun though...
Now to wait for Majestic 12 troopers being deployed under the guise of UN Peacekeepers... but hey, we'll get nanoaugmentation!
Post by: Max White on February 20, 2014, 05:18:35 pm
Speaking about "yellow" policemen. My opinion is that is obliviousCarefully look at this guy in center, just above the one with the shield. Look carefully at the stripe. It moved down from the indented place and the symbol is visible. That symbols show what unit it is, ribbons are there to hide chevronsSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Not gonna defend my opinion here
That actually also makes a lot of sense. Still doesn't explain the photos of police with yellow sashes going across their chest, or why they all went with the exact same color, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw the chance to use these bands to cover their insignias. I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle, reflective gear is important for any police force, so they would have had boxes of the same yellow armbands laying around, and some saw different uses for them.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 05:25:02 pm
...As for the shoes - I`ve linked a picture with the similar model of them. The right part of red figure you may think is a sole is actuallu a sole with a heel. Also the "tongue" is clearly visible. And the lack of lacing completely busts everything. Just look:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Quote
I don't see how supposed provocateurs would infiltrate normal police in such efficient way they could just casually sit right next to each other.Let me quote myself:
Quote
The psychology is very clear. They use the armbands to prevent shooting between their groups. Though, not all of them do, to create illusion of "yellow stripes are friends with regular police". Their inctruction can be like "Everybody with a stripe or near one with a stripe is a friend".
They do not "fit into police" or something like that, because close contact would compromise them immidiately.
They do not fit into protester ranks, because they look like police.
They just appear somewhere, shoot people and leave. Bonus points if captured by cameras - will be confused with regular police anyway.
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 05:29:10 pm
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 05:33:55 pm
Instruction given by whom, to who? To police? Then it's government giving it. If not - why the hell did NOBODY catch on, in government or the police?
To yellow-stripes guys, by whoever controls them. But as I said before, opposition does benefit from their actions and government does not.
To catch on what? On the time of morning shootout regular police still wasn`t allowed to use lethal force and didn`t have the weapons. Any actions against the shooters were impossible.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 05:35:59 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 20, 2014, 05:37:03 pm
To catch on what? On the time of morning shootout regular police still wasn`t allowed to use lethal force and didn`t have the weapons. Any actions against the shooters were impossible.
Officially. They weren't allowed to use lethal force or weapons officially.
Post by: tryrar on February 20, 2014, 05:39:06 pm
For a different topic, webber, I'm very interested on what you think would be the best outcome of this whole mess, and what the government should do going forward, just as a counterpoint to what we know UR's position is.
Post by: webber on February 20, 2014, 05:42:21 pm
They could just be wearing something reflective so that if they get a hard enough knock to the head they are still highly visible in their otherwise black outfits and hopefully somebody will get them some medical attention...
Police officers are not supposed to be left for dead with only hope for random medic. Also from one of the videos I posted earlier we can see what kind of medical attention police can get from protesters.
Also the armbands make the wearer an easier targer. It would be just silly to wear them for police officers who know that protesters have weapons, but it makes a lot of sense if they are worn by provocateurs to recognize allies at distance, since they aren`t going to fight anyone who is armed.
Post by: Owlbread on February 20, 2014, 05:51:38 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 20, 2014, 06:04:15 pm
Greece is a slave state of Germany...Damn it Merkel, last time you Germans convinced us to follow you our government was at least smart enough to stop at the old border and not go for Stalingrad, no matter what Hitler promised. Now we're going all out with this financial expedition and we get nothing from your slave state? Not a single mediterranean island, or at least few sunny beaches? It's dark and cold in here, and the company sucks!
Never trust the Germans...
By the way:Plenty, YLE (http://yle.fi/uutiset/ukrainan_parlamentti_kumosi_terrorismin_vastaisen_operaation/7100748) (Finnish state news agency) has had constant insanely politically correct and neutral coverage since the beginning, and others put up at least small snippets between all that olympic coverage. Olettekomuutenhuomanneet (http://olettekomuutenhuomanneet.wordpress.com/) (trans:haveyounoticed) has been following few Finnish reporters in Ukraine tweeting about the violence and protestors opinions and actions (including using molotovs cocktails, stoning polices, getting shot by polices and burning of vehicles and buildings) since 16th of january. Plenty of other media groups (like ESS (http://www.ess.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2014/02/20/siviilit-suojelevat-sairaalaa-ja-saartavat-poliisikoulua?ref=ece_frontpage-section-teaser-groupSection-teaserHalfWidth)) have frequent updates about how things have escalated and what's happening right now (as far as they can tell). Links are in Finnish.
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
Also the armbands make the wearer an easier targer. It would be just silly to wear them for police officers who know that protesters have weapons, but it makes a lot of sense if they are worn by provocateurs to recognize allies at distance, since they aren`t going to fight anyone who is armed.It's common military practice to have visible sign to separate any special detachments from your regular troops if they operate together with civilians in the area, I don't doubt that police wouldn't use it as well. Also, I don't buy your shoe explanation either. As far as I can tell they look like regular boots in other pics.
I'm just watching a special report on German TV. Their correspondent in Kiev said, they had heard rumors that the guys with the yellow stripes are a special force called Omega units, who are directly responsible to the president and have been seen near the presidential seat.This would suggest that they are cooperating with regular police, even if they have separate command structure.
As I understand it the yellow stripes cover up the normal unit tags. Correspondents have filmed these guys and seen them with the police force, but what exactly they are is not verified.
Link (http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html#)Thanks, saved me the trouble of digging it up. I'd like to see what news in our beloved eastern neighbour are like, but unfortunately I don't speak russia.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 06:09:33 pm
The armbands theory has about as much credibility as the theory that FSB are behind Beslan and the Moscow apartment bombings to bolster support for Putin and discredit the Caucasian rebels. Neither of those routes are very sensible to go down at this stage for all sorts of reasons, I would recommend keeping to hard facts or things will get very messy.Even less credibility, since no one outside this thread talks about it.
In more relevant news, parliament might also discuss changes to the constitution tomorrow. Negotiations continue into the night, now with Yanukovych, the FMs of Poland and Germany and later also opposition leaders.
Protests on Maidan remain calm, though protesters don't seem too happy about negotiations with Yanukovych.
There are rumors that the president of parliament has left the country with his family. Also rumors that big businessmen are leaving Kiev (https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/436621076815421440) for Donetsk, maybe also the general prosecutor.
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 06:15:22 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 20, 2014, 06:20:44 pm
Spoiler: But.... (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on February 20, 2014, 06:26:47 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 06:29:48 pm
I'm not sure I get the image.Flights appear to be sent back to Ukraine. (https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/436625881076076544) Perhaps because of visa sanctions? These shouldn't be enacted yet though.
Not really sure if I get it either.
Post by: Vector on February 20, 2014, 06:37:06 pm
Gentlemen, I now adress to those of you who live outside the former Soviet Union. I want to ask if you have Maidan reports in your mass media (radio, TV, newspapers) or you get it via internet only. Because in Russia journalists say that a lot of europeans and americans keep calling Euromaidan a peaceful protest because they simply do not know what is actually going on right now.
It's being covered as violent here (United States, California) in either National Public Radio or the local physical newspapers. I don't use those forms of media myself, but when I told my mother (offhand--I realize this isn't true) "You know that there's a civil war in Ukraine?" she agreed--she would have said "Oh, I thought it was just protests" or something like that if it weren't being portrayed as serious civil unrest in our media.
On the other hand, my Facebook feed doesn't have anything about it AT ALL--so I think the media penetration may not be too good, or just that there are not so many of my friends here who are so invested in Eastern Europe as Asia and the Middle East.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 20, 2014, 07:52:27 pm
The Ministry of Defense refuses to communicate with the Pentagon and has done so for the whole week, which is considered unusual (there have been talks on other levels, between Biden and Yanukovich).
Crimean regional parliament is going to debate seceding tomorrow, as has been mentioned before.
Post by: Max White on February 20, 2014, 08:47:36 pm
Post by: Elfeater on February 20, 2014, 08:55:00 pm
Anyways, what is the latest news?
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 20, 2014, 08:55:58 pm
Nothing about fighting yet.
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2014, 03:35:58 am
Post by: scrdest on February 21, 2014, 03:39:46 am
Apparently Yanukovitch reached a deal with the opposition this morning. Details are still fuzzy, but include constitutional reform, presidential elections and a coalition government. Nothing about an amnesty.
I would err on the side of caution, although it might be that the situation at Crimea and signals from Russia made him realize he needs to stabilize the situation.
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2014, 03:47:43 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 21, 2014, 03:53:15 am
Apparently the deal will be signed at noon (10 am GMT). I cann't find out wether Svodoba's leader was at the negociation table. If the deal doesn't offer an amnesty or the immediate resignation of Yanukovitch, it's not clear protesters on the ground will accept it.It will be interesting to see will the Right Sector radicals accept it or not.
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2014, 04:25:52 am
Post by: olemars on February 21, 2014, 04:32:36 am
Post by: Sheb on February 21, 2014, 04:34:39 am
Post by: Max White on February 21, 2014, 04:44:05 am
Post by: olemars on February 21, 2014, 04:56:08 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 04:57:48 am
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 21, 2014, 05:01:27 am
i mean, you are going to have elections afterwards, but with high rank politicians effectively bailing left and right & the nature of your system simply demanding a president, who should become one in the pre-election period
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 05:08:34 am
Quote
who do you propose replaces him
Parliament. Just vote to temporary take all his power away. Yes it's anti-constitutional , especially with simple and not 2\3 majority but it is not the time play this games. This is a revolution
Post by: olemars on February 21, 2014, 05:13:01 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 05:18:29 am
Still president is supreme commander of armed forces, the only thing that matters in situation like this
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 21, 2014, 05:29:04 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 05:59:20 am
Quote from: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
“Our position is the President Yankukovych needs to lead his country into a new future, and he needs to do so through the vehicle of a new government, change to the constitution and the political order.”Oh.... Great... I am wondering what national interests Yanukovitch promised to give up, that 200+ deaths are forgiven?
Post by: Helgoland on February 21, 2014, 06:04:25 am
...isn't that particular thing a standard though? obama is the supreme commander of the us armed forces for instance but normally stuff is being led by generalsHell no! The only body that can command the German military is our parliament; the chancellor can't do squat without its approval. In a presidential system, this is usually different, though.
Also, German media report that police units from Western Ukraine have arrived on Maidan to defend it! I guess the protesters would be foolish not to press on right now.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 06:23:28 am
a) Parliamentary opposition wants to rule one way or another
b) European politicians want to bring Ukraine in European sphere of influence out from Russian. I am not naive to think that they are worried about dead Ukrainians more than let's say, dead Syrians. They need to pretend to care more because of public opinion but that is all
c) Ukrainians want to get rid of the current political system and punish the ones responsible for deaths
A and B totally compatible with the deal
C is not
It is minor ad Hitlerum but it is like if Allies started negotiations of peace with condition like having elections in Germany or replacing Hitler with Goering
Post by: Helgoland on February 21, 2014, 07:34:37 am
I am not naive to think that they are worried about dead Ukrainians more than let's say, dead Syrians.Oh, they are. They don't give a shit about dead Syrians, but you guys are at least the same color as them. Plus they kinda have to maintain the pretense that all of Eastern Europe became a democratic wonderland after 1990, which is not too compatible with blood flowing in the streets.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 08:36:09 am
They don't want gas pipes being blown up
They don't want to lose a large market (countries with civil wars are bad customers)
They don't want millions of refugees on their territory
And so on.
It is good that European Politicans want no war in my country. But I am afraid that they are ready to tolerate unacceptable things to ensure peace
*Here I mean politicians, not Europeans as a whole
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 08:41:58 am
It is good that European Politicans want no war in my country. But I am afraid that they are ready to tolerate unacceptable things to ensure peaceWell, if we're being cynical, the most important short-term interest for the EU is not to get overrun by refugees in case of a civil war, which would probably happen with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania all bordering Ukraine. These countries seem to have been pushing for a more coherent approach by the EU and Poland has taken a leading position in the negotiations.
In terms of unacceptable things...it seems like there is some urgency to find a solution before it all breaks down. Some things might be the price to end the bloodshed. Other things might still get done later. There are voices in the EU too who want to see Yanukovych in court. Tymoshenko got jailed after her term as Prime Minister too, so why not Yanukovych? (if he doesn't flee of course)
It's not that clear, but it looks like the opposition might agree to the compromise. Maybe there have been changes, initially the elections were proposed for next winter, which is obviously way too late for the protesters. It hasn't been signed yet, but looks like it will.
The Russian mediator doesn't want to sign the agreement either. Also there is some sabre-rattling over Crimea now, which means that a break-up of the country should better be prevented sooner than later.
Also the Vice-Chief of the army has resigned to prevent escalation. And there are more rumors about regime people leaving the country, protesters even try to contol access to the airports now, to see who's running off with his money.
EDIT:
Seems like the Maidan council has accepted the terms.
Terms are:
- coalition government in 10 days, with participation of the opposition
- return to 2004 constitution in 48 hours, constitutional reform until September
- presidential elections until December
I've read earlier that parliament is also debating amnesty, no idea if that's part of the deal.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 09:12:13 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 21, 2014, 09:20:05 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 09:21:32 am
The Polish foreign minister has been filmed telling a protest leader: "If you don't support this [deal] you'll have martial law, you'll have the army. You will all be dead." (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-21/polish-minister-tells-protest-leader-you-will-all-be-dead/)I bet the tone behind the scenes was very rough. But apparently a solution had to be found as soon as possible to avoid further bloodshed or an outright civil war.
It's understandable that protesters are not happy with the compromise, it seems very little was achieved if you consider the price that was paid. (http://society.lb.ua/accidents/2014/02/21/256239_poyavilsya_predvaritelniy_spisok.html)
Still it would probably have been much much worse with the situation spiraling out of control.
So, it's over?It should be, but that remains to be seen...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 21, 2014, 09:29:19 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 09:34:09 am
Then it depends on how the government behaves, if they try to backpaddle or anything.
Elections are still far away, the country must make it that far first.
Basically everything that was achieved now would have been good in November, but now people want to see Yanukovych gone.
Apparently the Right Sector has announced that they will continue demonstrations. (https://vk.com/wall-62043361_74715) The people on Maidan seem to remain calm though.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on February 21, 2014, 10:02:29 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 21, 2014, 10:05:02 am
Post by: olemars on February 21, 2014, 10:17:06 am
I guess everyone is now watching what happens next on the square.
edit:
Spoiler: Text of the agreement (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sinistar on February 21, 2014, 10:22:16 am
Post by: Sinistar on February 21, 2014, 10:29:39 am
I've found some clickable version of this with other pictures but dunno where...I thought it was BBC but I can't find it. Still, quite interesting.
Some baroness (didn't catch her name) from UK I think that was involved in diplomacy talk was answering question earlier and was quite, hmmm, diplomatic when asked if Yanukovych will be removed from the post.
edit: also, there seems to be an open revolt of some parts of the police force. Saw a footage of large group of policemen in uniforms, not riot gear, march on the square, sporting pro-EU armbands.
I think that was actually already posted here, but can't find by whom. ???
Anyways, someone looking like being of a higher rank that other policemen that marched with the others said they will arm the protesters if needed, organize a professional counter-attack if have to.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 10:53:57 am
EU not gonna like that. I wonder how soon the right sector will be in the list of international terrorist organizations....
Post by: Sergarr on February 21, 2014, 11:03:19 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 11:05:58 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2014, 11:07:44 am
This fucking Yanukovych guy, though. If he would just step the fuck down, this seems like an agreement that everyone could actually get behind - but they're keeping him in power? Hah hah, no matter how good the agreement is, do they actually expect anyone to take it seriously when it leaves the guy everyone rightly blames for pretty much everything that has gone wrong in charge of the government?
The complete and utter stupidity on display here is mind-boggling... seriously, they've hammered out a great agreement here, people have died to see this happen... and they're pissing it away to appeal to one assholes ego? Seriously?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 11:19:21 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 21, 2014, 11:24:48 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 11:38:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU&feature=player_embeddedWell, whether they're seen as a terrorist organization will depend on their actions. It is very clear though that with messages like this the EU will be rather estranged. Paramilitary troops showing black suns and celtic crosses are pretty much the last thing most people here like to see.
EU not gonna like that. I wonder how soon the right sector will be in the list of international terrorist organizations....
Anyway, let's not forget that there's a not insignificant chance that Yanukovych will win the next presidential elections.Not so sure about this. The most important thing for now is the step away from a dictatorial presidential system to a more parliamentary one.
It is a compromise both sides are not going to be happy with, but in the end politics is always dirty business and compromise.
I hope they can keep the peace.
Apparently parliament is preparing the release of Julia Tymoshenko, and they are forcing the Minister of the Interior to step down.
Post by: MarcAFK on February 21, 2014, 11:48:30 am
While I'm sure there will be those people who would think its is a sign of weakness against the nationalists to give in and not reelect him, so basically Yanukovych is the lynchpin around which the possibility of civil war depends, and yet he persists in staying in power despite the damage being done around him, is this selfishness and lack of compassion for the suffering around him or as might be argued by his supporters 'strength against adversity'? I just question how he could continue on as if nothing has happened, and how long it is before the more radical elements against him choose to act on the evidence that things aren't going to change at all.
Just my opinion, BTW I was horrified but totally not surprised to see those videos of lightly armed rioters being shot down mercilessly while posing no threat to anyone.
Post by: Kicior on February 21, 2014, 12:04:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU&feature=player_embedded1:20
Totalitarian liberalism?
Post by: Sergarr on February 21, 2014, 12:14:19 pm
posing no threat to anyone.Molotovs are a definite threat.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 12:17:44 pm
Quote
Totalitarian liberalism?That means pseudo-liberalism. Totalitarism that uses liberalism rhetorics. Not that nationalists like true liberalism much.
Right Sector is a very very weird mix and I am far from having a fixed opinion on them, so don't ask
Post by: Owlbread on February 21, 2014, 12:22:13 pm
QuoteTotalitarian liberalism?That means pseudo-liberalism. Totalitarism that uses liberalism rhetorics. Not that nationalists like true liberalism much.
Right Sector is a very very weird mix and I am far from having a fixed opinion on them, so don't ask
The kind of "liberalism" certain Russian people/people in Russia's sphere of influence refer to when they try to justify Putin's own authoritarian regime. 'Well, look at Yeltsin. He was a liberal, look where that got us! We're much better off with a "managed democracy".'
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 12:32:13 pm
The kind of "liberalism" certain Russian people/people in Russia's sphere of influence refer to when they try to justify Putin's own authoritarian regime. 'Well, look at Yeltsin. He was a liberal, look where that got us! We're much better off with a "managed democracy".'Yeah, that mostly means our current "liberal" opposition who got what they wanted - changed the laws to get Tymoshenko free! As if people died for that
I am pissed how our opposition acts like "saviors of the nation" as if there were not in the political system for the last 20 years, as if they don't share moral responsibility that country is on brink of civil war and total collapse
Right Sector may be dangerous, but it has zero persons who had any considerable political power in the past
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 12:54:18 pm
a) Because it doesn't solve the main problem of Ukraine: badly corrupt justice system. That is what need to be fixed. When justice system is working, the worst a politician can be - incompetent. Criminal will go in jail even if he is president. If system is as corrupt as it is, non-criminal can't compete in politics. Frauded elections, new laws contradicting constitution, unlawful way to adopt new laws, imprisonment or murder of political opponent, everything is possible for one willing to use such methods
I can agree on any parliament or president as long as justice system fixed. Even if it will be a commie
b) Because I fully expect some form of cheating From Yanukovitch.
Maybe it will be armed Titushkas to cause mayhem and then say "Hey, you see what happened after we pulled Berkut out?" Maybe few building in Eastern Ukraine will be blown up and opposition blamed as terrorists, maybe something more crafty... That pig WILL cheat to stay in power
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 21, 2014, 12:58:18 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 21, 2014, 01:19:43 pm
Apparently though he is being advised by one Paul J. Manafort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Manafort), former adviser to the political campaigns of George W. Bush, Reagan, Bob Dole, H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford. I wonder what he thinks of all this.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 01:27:18 pm
Well, there were some justice reforms planned as part of the Association treaty. Don't believe those were executed though.One thing is clear, Ukraine is at the verge of economic collapse and bankruptcy. EU financial help will be coupled with reform requirements, maybe that will bring the association treaty back to the table. Russian financial help was free, but it remains to be seen how relations with Russia develop, though they have welcomed the compromise.
There's something about Yanukovych that reminds me of Gordon Brown. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQwVv8OdsGw)Trees hate Gordon Brown too?
Post by: Owlbread on February 21, 2014, 01:31:25 pm
Trees hate Gordon Brown too?
No, it's just that he was another terrible fuck up. Some called him the "clunking fist".
Post by: aenri on February 21, 2014, 01:32:05 pm
Well, there were some justice reforms planned as part of the Association treaty. Don't believe those were executed though.
I can say, that these reforms don't work at all. My country also reformed its justice system prior to EU integration. It was a disaster frankly. Our supreme court chairman (and chief justice) is the guy with friendly contacts with mafia. There is a recording of him talking amicably with head of albanian mafia. I shit you not, no one cares. The only ones that atleast try to write about it are the papers. He can shut them down magnificently, lately he got 33,000€ as court settlement for infringing his honor by mentioning that recording. He also almost won (the case is now before Supreme Court, which he presides) 150,000€ from General Prosecutor's office for publishing that recording. That was sadly not the only cases he won. When you lose your whole arm (for example in car accident) you get 15,000€ in damages (less if you lose your left arm).
He also routinely insults anyone who disagrees with him or tries to make him face that recording. Also the other judges of the Supreme Court are pretty much bullied into submission by disciplinary hearings. Atleast one judge has suicided and one died from illness and stress (because of the constant harrassment) and some have resigned from the court. He went from being Minister of Justice in 2009 to being Chief Justice.
So I have very little hope for this "deal and reforms". We are also in EU, but then Bulgaria and Romania are in too, so we are not the worst of the worst :).
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 01:35:45 pm
I can say, that these reforms don't work at all.Reforms take a long long time. Think decades rather than years.
Opposition leaders talking on Maidan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbQC7_TNQPw). Seems like it's a memorial service for the dead of the last days. I don't understand anything, but people seem angry.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 01:37:04 pm
__________
The main change in Ukraine happened anyway. People have changed
I am far from the front, has lost no close friends or relatives (People I knew died, but can't say that I was very attached to them) and yet I am a different person after everything that happened
Then we talk about guys who fought, who have seen deaths , who lost the loved ones.... That is a new nation that will not be silent ever again...
Amazingly, many are same as they were... I had a chat with a (former) former friend who asked me about the recent football match like nothing else happened yesterday... When we started to talk about the event of Maydain he said that those are paid and\or under amphetamines because "no sane person will attack an APC" and angry on them because price for medicaments went up!
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 01:44:29 pm
The main change in Ukraine happened anyway. People have changedThat is what takes the longest to change, people and mentalities. We even have people here who would argue that Eastern Germans have not all made the mental transition into a democratic system yet. And Eastern Germany had the easiest transition, in terms of reforms and money, of all former Eastern Block states. I'm not so sure about that specific argument, but generally I think that any real change takes much longer than people like to believe.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 01:52:54 pm
BTW, Revolutionary tribunal doesn't mean hanging on the nearest tree by an angry mob
Post by: gogis on February 21, 2014, 01:55:09 pm
Special note for Russians: I am biased
You somehow mixing up Russian goverment and people. Personally, I realised that something weird happening in Ukraine just yesterday, catching glimpse of news while eating my lunch. I dont see or catch anything related to Ukraine on my daily activities and all kind of small chit-chat. Please, fellow Ukrainians, stop thinking that we are in some kind of feud. It's not a feud when it's heated from one side.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 02:11:08 pm
Quote
You somehow mixing up Russian goverment and peopleI don't mix Putin and Russians. After all ethical Russians and at least one Russian Citizen died fighting for my freedom.
That bolded part has prehistory in Sheb's thread, where some Russian(or was it Belorussian? Don't remember) accused me for whitewashing protesters
Quote
Please, fellow Ukrainians, stop thinking that we are in some kind of feud.Absolutely, we have the same enemy: remains of the Soviet system. And while there are some disagreement between Russian and Ukrainian patriots it's not worse than Ukrainian-Polish or Ukrainian-Hungarian or Ukrainian-Romanian and manageable through dialogue
Recent news: Right Sector and other factions of Maydan said "fuck you" to leaving Yanukovitch in power
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 21, 2014, 02:14:21 pm
did you guys do something horrible in 1956 that they resent you for or what?
Post by: Sergarr on February 21, 2014, 02:16:36 pm
That Polish foreign minister did say that they all will die.
Also, what happened in 1956?
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 21, 2014, 02:18:37 pm
Also, what happened in 1956?
hungarians revolted against the warsaw pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956)
and then they got pacified by forces from friendly warsaw pact countries which couldn't allow such counterrevolutionary actions to stand
figured they might be still annoyed if they lumped in ukrainians with russians in regards to who was actually following the orders of pacifying said revolution
Post by: Sergarr on February 21, 2014, 02:23:47 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU&feature=player_embedded
EU not gonna like that. I wonder how soon the right sector will be in the list of international terrorist organizations....
So, how soon until they make the Internationale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale) their official hymn? *not serious*
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 02:26:30 pm
In addition to that, part of western Ukraine belonged to Hungary before WW1, or rather to the hungarian part of Austria-Hungary. Hungarian nationalists might want that back, though they mostly want territories with hungarian minorities back AFAIK.Also, what happened in 1956?
hungarians revolted against the warsaw pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956)
and then they got pacified by forces from friendly warsaw pact countries which couldn't allow such counterrevolutionary actions to stand
figured they might be still annoyed if they lumped in ukrainians with russians in regards to who was actually following the orders of pacifying said revolution
How do you take that as left-wing? Looks rather right-wing to me.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Inu_-0dcSU&feature=player_embedded
EU not gonna like that. I wonder how soon the right sector will be in the list of international terrorist organizations....
So, how soon until they make the Internationale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale) their official hymn? *not serious*
Post by: Vector on February 21, 2014, 02:32:00 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 02:33:28 pm
just how did ukrainians and hungarians manage to get in any sort of negative situationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpatho-Ukraine
Some Hungarian nationalists do want that territory :)
But generally Hungary is one of neighbors we are friendly with, as well as Romania (but Romanian nationalist have claims on Ukrainian territory, too)
Plus Ukrainan troops did participate in suppressing 1956 (In the same time some remains of UPA fought on Hungarian side)
And I am speaking not more about Ukrainians vs Hungarians but Ukrainian far rights vs Hungarian far-rights. Far rights of neighboring countries usually not very friendly and call each other nazi and chauvinists :)
Quote
Now Right Sector is probably the enemy of the government, opposition, and all the foreign ministers.We shall see. But I am rather sure that popular support is on the Right Sector side. I witnessed a huge rage in Ukrainian Internet over that "let Yanukovitch rule some more time" deal.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 02:35:00 pm
I think the wings are opposite in the US and other parts of the world.Well, some of the symbols and rhetoric in this video are what Neo-Nazis here are using and saying. I think fascism/nazism is universally accepted as right-wing.
Post by: scrdest on February 21, 2014, 02:38:36 pm
I think the wings are opposite in the US and other parts of the world.Well, some of the symbols and rhetoric in this video are what Neo-Nazis here are using and saying. I think fascism/nazism is universally accepted as right-wing.
A bit artificially, by the logic of being against the left, mostly. This is a very messy affair and let's not get into that tangent.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 02:43:03 pm
Oh yeah, I really don't want to start another Nazi tangent here. But it's not artificial, it's after the classical definition of left and right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum) after the French Revolution. It's just that in their extremes left and right look pretty much the same.I think the wings are opposite in the US and other parts of the world.Well, some of the symbols and rhetoric in this video are what Neo-Nazis here are using and saying. I think fascism/nazism is universally accepted as right-wing.
A bit artificially, by the logic of being against the left, mostly. This is a very messy affair and let's not get into that tangent.
Post by: scrdest on February 21, 2014, 03:12:12 pm
Oh yeah, I really don't want to start another Nazi tangent here. But it's not artificial, it's after the classical definition of left and right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum) after the French Revolution. It's just that in their extremes left and right look pretty much the same.I think the wings are opposite in the US and other parts of the world.Well, some of the symbols and rhetoric in this video are what Neo-Nazis here are using and saying. I think fascism/nazism is universally accepted as right-wing.
A bit artificially, by the logic of being against the left, mostly. This is a very messy affair and let's not get into that tangent.
I know the classical definition, and monarchists (and aristocracy in general) and Nazis weren't particularly fond of each other. Like I said, it's a messy, complicated thing that arose mostly because of a grossly outdated system of describing political beliefs, so let's end that tangent.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 03:21:57 pm
Anyway - protesters on Maidan threaten to storm the parliament if the president doesn't resign until Saturday 10 o'clock.
Post by: gogis on February 21, 2014, 03:23:51 pm
Oh yeah, I really don't want to start another Nazi tangent here. But it's not artificial, it's after the classical definition of left and right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum) after the French Revolution. It's just that in their extremes left and right look pretty much the same.I think the wings are opposite in the US and other parts of the world.Well, some of the symbols and rhetoric in this video are what Neo-Nazis here are using and saying. I think fascism/nazism is universally accepted as right-wing.
A bit artificially, by the logic of being against the left, mostly. This is a very messy affair and let's not get into that tangent.
Now I feel offended :) French revolution is best thing ever happened to western world. `Spectrum` and other shenanigans is not
Post by: smirk on February 21, 2014, 03:37:36 pm
protesters on Maidan threaten to storm the parliament if the president doesn't resign until Saturday 10 o'clock.Wonder who/how many protesters are taking this position. Is it just the far right, or more general?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 03:40:13 pm
From what correspondents are saying it's pretty general. There are radicals on Maidan too, but the ordinary people also want Yanukovych gone.protesters on Maidan threaten to storm the parliament if the president doesn't resign until Saturday 10 o'clock.Wonder who/how many protesters are taking this position. Is it just the far right, or more general?
Post by: aenri on February 21, 2014, 03:42:38 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia
Wait, that's rightful Czechoslovak clay! :P
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 04:02:14 pm
What? You want to share newly annexed territory with pesky Czechs?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Ruthenia
Wait, that's rightful Czechoslovak clay! :P
Speaking about annexations
Spoiler: The guy who did that is not true Polish (click to show/hide)
PS. Strange that I can joke in times like that... But I can
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 04:06:50 pm
True one would demand Poland from sea to sea!Even radicals can be modest. ;) He did label central Ukraine as a Polish colony though, so maybe he is not that modest after all.
I have to correct what I said earlier: The ultimatum until Saturday was made by speakers of the Right Sector, who also doesn't want to disarm.
People on Maidan applauded that though and, from what correspondents are saying, agree that Yanukovych should step down.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2014, 04:18:59 pm
Giving up all of their trump cards, their momentum, and their fallbacks in exchange for what is, quite honestly, a fairly limited promise, followed by keeping the guy who previously lied to them and tried to suppress them in power, does NOT seem like a wise decision for anyone.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 21, 2014, 04:23:21 pm
BTW, I heard something like "Berkut is fed up with all dat shit and leaves the parlament building". Sound like unproven bullshit, however.
Post by: scrdest on February 21, 2014, 05:02:40 pm
True one would demand Poland from sea to sea!Even radicals can be modest. ;) He did label central Ukraine as a Polish colony though, so maybe he is not that modest after all.
I have to correct what I said earlier: The ultimatum until Saturday was made by speakers of the Right Sector, who also doesn't want to disarm.
People on Maidan applauded that though and, from what correspondents are saying, agree that Yanukovych should step down.
No, UR was completely serious. It had been a thing in the past, with the exact slogan UR posted.
Post by: Kicior on February 21, 2014, 05:05:32 pm
Personally, if I was among the protestors, there would be NO WAY I would disarm until I'd seen actual stuff, actually done.I guess they wouldn't negotiate if they didn't have too. Maybe their "trump cards" aren't enough to make sure their demands will be met and they need a compromise. Or maybe I'm just wrong :P
Giving up all of their trump cards, their momentum, and their fallbacks in exchange for what is, quite honestly, a fairly limited promise, followed by keeping the guy who previously lied to them and tried to suppress them in power, does NOT seem like a wise decision for anyone.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 21, 2014, 05:17:10 pm
Quote
I guess they wouldn't negotiate if they didn't have too.The protestors themselves don't seem to be all too keen on compromising, and the demands of the protestors are not necessarily in the interests of those who made this compromise.
"The Opposition" here refer specifically to Vitali Klitschko and his Ukranian Democratic Alliance for Reform party.
He has certainly cast his lot with the protestors, but he is also is a politician and member of the government, as are the rest of the "opposition" that did the negotiation.
The things that are best for the politicians that brokered the agreement aren't necessarily the things that are best for the people on the street risking their lives.
And he is a far cry from representing the protestors as a whole - without their support, the agreement is meaningless.
On the ground:
“We’re afraid the politicians -- from both sides, yes, from the opposition, too -- will cheat us again,” Sergiy said.
Imagine in the US if Harry Reid presumed to speak for Occupy, or Bohner for the entire tea party. That's the situation you've get here - the establishment negotiating with itself. No guarantee people will actually be left happy with the result of that. No member of the protests that wasn't already a member of the establishment has, to my knowledge, even been invited to the negotiating table.
UkrainianRanger - What's your take on the situation? Also, the guy who got freed was arrested for embezzling and some Russian deal, right? Do you think his release was important and the charges a farce, or do you just see it as the politicians looking after their own and seizing the opportunity to push their own agenda?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 21, 2014, 05:36:54 pm
Quote
UkrainianRanger - What's your take on the situation?I really don't know what will happen tomorrow, too many scenarios. Variants vary from Syria to majority of military and police switching to Maydan's side and swift arrests of that ruling party members who didn't ran away in time
Quote
Also, the guy who got freed was arrested for embezzling andThe guy? Oh you mean Tymoshenko... I don't think she is important in current situation. She was very important few months back, but now.... electoral maps are redrawn, new leaders emerged, values of people changed
some Russian deal, right? Do you think his release was important and the charges a farce, or do you just see it as the politicians looking after their own and seizing the opportunity to push their own agenda?
The charges were farce. I can say that even with all my dislike towards Tymoshenko and her party
Post by: XXSockXX on February 21, 2014, 08:08:41 pm
Yanukovych himself has left Kiev for Kharkiv. There was a meeting of his party scheduled there, which he may want to attend. There are rumors however he's also taken his personal stuff from the presidential seat with him. There are also rumors he's gone to Moscow.
Vitaliy Zakharchenko, now former Minister of the Interior and main responsible for the police violence, is reported to have left Ukraine to Belarus.
Political commentators here think Tymoshenko still has a lot of influence within her own party, but probably not much beyond that. The streets have kind of moved on from the politicians, so the oppositions influence is somewhat limited. Klitchko for example was booed on Maidan for signing the compromise agreement.
Political commentators also point out that breaking promises, even to Putin, is Yanukovych's standard modus operandi, so they wonder what he'll come up with and understand the protesters distrust and desire to see him on a tribunal.
No, UR was completely serious. It had been a thing in the past, with the exact slogan UR posted.I know. There are Germans who paint maps without Poland too. We all have guys like that.
Post by: Helgoland on February 21, 2014, 09:09:31 pm
Anyway - protesters on Maidan threaten to storm the parliament if the president doesn't resign until Saturday 10 o'clock.And apparently there are no more police between parliament and protesters - it's actually guarded by Maidan activists. Or so I hear...
Post by: Sergarr on February 21, 2014, 10:37:00 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 04:08:35 am
Now we need to stop their plan B - separatism to rule at least somewhere
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2014, 05:43:24 am
now you have to deal with all the foreign influence, which is not at your side at all.
remember the polish foreign minister.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 05:47:30 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 05:49:02 am
Quote
remember the polish foreign minister.
Oh yes.... I will. One of the results of all shit happened in the last three month - we have much less pro-EU guys here after EU did nothing but express their deep concern while situation escalated and when they finally started to act after the many deaths... they offer to leave the murderer in place for some more time
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2014, 05:50:23 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 05:55:13 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 06:03:04 am
Does that mean that Ukraine isn't going to join NATO any time soon?NATO and EU are very different organizations. NATO means global security, EU economic integration. As for where Ukraine will go... let's wait how will everything end, as long as the last Yanukovitch card "I'll take away part of Ukraine away to rule at least here " is in the game we can't celebrate and make long term plans
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 06:21:43 am
As for where Ukraine will go... let's wait how will everything end, as long as the last Yanukovitch card "I'll take away part of Ukraine away to rule at least here " is in the game we can't celebrate and make long term plansIn my opinion, if the South-East declares independence from the government in Kiev, Yanukovich won't become its ruler. It will be a newer and more controllable figure (for Russia) like the regional governor of Kharkov Mikhail Dobkin.
EDIT: I'm watching Rossiya 24's live broadcast of Kharkov's meeting. One of the speakers announced that 'banderites' are planning to launch a full-scale attack to retake South-East Ukraine, and that everyone present should be ready for general mobilization. That doesn't sound good.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 07:24:42 am
edit: Oh, apparently the police and security forces have officially checked the wind direction and aligned itself with the opposition now.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 08:39:46 am
Quote from: RT
The Kharkov public gathering has announced a number of measures local authorities should take in response to the developments in Kiev. They should take full responsibility for all decision in respective regions, with no regard to authorities in Kiev until the constitutional order in Ukraine is restored, a resolution of the gathering says.
The military commanders should take measures to protect arms depots and prevent their take-over and looting by radical opposition activists.
Meanwhile citizens are encouraged to form local militias to protect public order. Local authorities are to fund and support those militias.
[...]
The resent decisions of the national parliament were taken in conditions “of terror, threats of violence and death,” the resolution says. The gathering says the legislative acts may have been passed involuntarily and are neither legitimate nor lawful.
“The territorial integrity of Ukraine is at risk,” the gathering stated in the resolution.
It added that instability in Ukraine is highly dangerous and may cause unpredictable consequences, considering that the country hosts five nuclear power plants with 15 reactors in total, which some extremists have threatened to attack.
The gathering in Kharkov was attended by about 3,000 representatives of local governments, according to the governor of the Kharkov region, Mikhail Dobkin, one of the key sponsors of the event.
Russia sent several officials in the capacity of observers to the gathering, including Aleksey Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliamentary commission on foreign affairs, Mikhail Markelov, Pushkov’s counterpart in the Council of Federation, the upper chamber of the parliament, and several governors from regions in western Russia.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 08:54:31 am
I mean really, it takes a whole lot of effort to blow one up, and there're much easier, and more enticing targets over there. (Gas pipelines, for one.) Yet another person merely playing on the memory of Chernobyl.
Anyway, so, if I follow it correctly, the government party has decided that the capital has fallen, and is aiming for a guerilla battle. This will not end up well.
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 09:10:01 am
Edit: Reports are that Yanukovich left for the UAE. He left so fast he didn't even take all his gold with him. (https://twitter.com/MichaelShchur)
Look like a rebel victory. Now let's hope the opposition manage to avoid a break-up and restore stability.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 09:24:37 am
http://t.co/pLNQ91w6rF
http://t.co/7Palu7Tl68
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 09:24:47 am
It will fail. Local population isn't going to fight for him and Putin will never
There are police\special forces units that have no way back, but there are too few of them for anything serious
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 22, 2014, 09:44:07 am
look at the garage. that looks like a lot of stuff that has a big amount of collector value and who exactly is going to expend effort towards guarding that now? because i can bet the opposition has better things to do
sure thing if it was bought with stolen money said money should be returned, but let's hope these vehicles remain in any shape that allows them to be sold when all of this is done with
or that they're even accounted for
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 09:47:44 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 09:47:57 am
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 09:51:03 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 09:54:46 am
/me is worried about what will happen to yanukovich's possessions now.
look at the garage. that looks like a lot of stuff that has a big amount of collector value and who exactly is going to expend effort towards guarding that now?
Right Sector and other Maydan Self-Defense units will. All that to be auctioned and money used for rebuilding Ukraine. Nationalists value national wealth. All governmental buildings, residences, banks and anything else that needs to be guarded against marauders is guarded. Our revolution is well disciplined, do not worry about that.
The only thing allowed to be crushed - Lenin's statues. A lot of them fell today. Those are of little artistic value and anger needs to be directed somewhere.
If commies value that statues they should guard them themselves... I wonder why they don't
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 09:56:35 am
Edit: Anyway, this went faster, and less bloody than expected. We went from a simple compromise to a complete rebel victory.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 09:59:28 am
In before Crimea becomes the new South Ossetia.If I recall correctly, a few days ago the speaker of the Crimean parliament told Russian television channel NTV that they have already prepared the declaration of independence and other such documents and will secede if "Banderites" get into power. "We have absolutely no intention to live with these people in control in a single state", he said.
He also said that they have a militia of about 10 thousand volunteers ready to defend Crimea from possible assault by Ukrainian nationalist forces.
Time will tell if they follow their threats or not.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 10:01:40 am
I though the big one that got destroyed early one was one of the last ones.Nah, we still have a lot of them. It's a paradox but it is true.
I hope that soon pictures of Lenin, Stalin, Sickle and Hammer, Red Star and so on will be treated in exactly the same way as Nazi symbols in Germany. Something that should have been done back in 1991
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:07:41 am
That's about it really.
Anyway, it all depends on whether or not Yanukovich will sign today's decisions. He has 24 hours to sign the 2004 constitution into law, and if he doesn't, things will get complicated.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 10:13:04 am
Russian government doing their best to defuse the situation. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-crisis-uncertainty-after-yanukovych-signs-deal-live-updates)
Quote
Reuters is snapping excerpts from a speech by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian minister for foreign affairs.
RUSSIA’S LAVROV SAYS UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION FAILED TO DELIVER ON DEAL SINGED WITH PRESIDENT YANUKOVICH ON FEB.21
LAVROV SAYS UKRAINIAN OPPOSITION LED BY “ARMED EXTREMISTS AND POGROMISTS” WHOSE ACTIONS POSE DIRECT THREAT TO UKRAINE’S SOVEREIGNTY, CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER
LAVROV CALLS ON GERMANY, POLAND, FRANCE TO USE INFLUENCE WITH UKRAINE’S OPPOSITION TO ENSURE IMMEDIATE FULFILMENT OF FEB.21 AGREEMENT
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:17:07 am
Quote from: Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski
No coup in Kiev. Gov. buildings got abandoned. Speaker of Rada elected legally. Pres. VYanukovych has 24h to sign 04 Const. into law
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 10:20:58 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 10:25:13 am
Everything else doesn't look so good, looks like the country might break apart. Police is "joining the people" in both parts of the country.
EDIT:
Parliament in Kiev has now impeached Yanukovych (https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/437244629243944960), sets presidential elections for May 25.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:38:01 am
Edit: Anyway, Lenin is falling all over the place. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26306737)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 10:44:03 am
There are already reports about pro-russian protests in Crimea, but the Tatar minority there is very pro-Maidan. Lot of potential for conflict.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:49:35 am
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 10:53:14 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:54:20 am
Edit: Anyway, Yulia Tymenshenko has left the hospital in Khariv, so ...
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 10:55:28 am
All important government posts (Ministrys of Defense and Interior, General Prosecutor, President of Parliament) are now held by opposition members.
EU seems to accept it, though they haven't really said much yet.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 22, 2014, 10:58:12 am
Edit: BBC tells me that Yanukovich apparently doesn't accept the decision to remove him from power.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 11:01:51 am
Tymoshenko is supposed to be on the way to Kiev and may even speak on Maidan. She already announced she's going to run for president in the May elections, no surprise there.
British and German FMs seem to have agreed to support the new government and push for financial help (https://twitter.com/WilliamJHague/status/437245242266632192).
Lots of reports about people being shocked by Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.
EDIT:
I also wanted to respond to this earlier point:
I very much agree that the EU should have acted weeks, if not months, earlier.Quoteremember the polish foreign minister.
Oh yes.... I will. One of the results of all shit happened in the last three month - we have much less pro-EU guys here after EU did nothing but express their deep concern while situation escalated and when they finally started to act after the many deaths... they offer to leave the murderer in place for some more time
However in seeking a compromise with Yanukovych they actually achieved something to move this forward and quite likely to prevent bloodshed. It seems plausible to me that Yanukovych was considering cracking down on the protests with more violent force on a larger scale, so at least the compromise helped to prevent that. The Polish FM might have been right, maybe that was what Yanukovych actually threatened to do in the negotiations.
It's also noteworthy that it was not US diplomacy, which was way more confrontational towards both Yanuk and Russia, that achieved anything here.
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2014, 12:01:14 pm
Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.How many cars?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 12:12:58 pm
Lots (https://twitter.com/Andriyak/status/437203405736804352/photo/1). Also nice house (https://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/437216717690118144/photo/1), nice boat (https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/437224069318991872), nice zoo. (https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/437230250074701824)Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.How many cars?
Collecting classical cars is in the best interest of the nation apparently.
Post by: MarcAFK on February 22, 2014, 12:28:10 pm
I'm sure he kept most of his funds hidden somewhere far safer than inside a country where many people want him dead.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 12:37:31 pm
There are reports now that the governor and the major of Kharkow, both important allies of Yanukovych, have left for Russia. Also rumors that Yanukovych tried to go to Russia too, but was stopped at the border. He is rumored to be hiding in the Donetsk region now. So I guess even if the country should break apart, it won't involve his leadership.
Post by: scrdest on February 22, 2014, 12:38:59 pm
Lots (https://twitter.com/Andriyak/status/437203405736804352/photo/1). Also nice house (https://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/437216717690118144/photo/1), nice boat (https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/437224069318991872), nice zoo. (https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/437230250074701824)Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.How many cars?
Collecting classical cars is in the best interest of the nation apparently.
I wouldn't say this is a nice house. An insult to all that is good in the world, maybe, but not nice.
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2014, 12:39:43 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 12:41:08 pm
Post by: LordSlowpoke on February 22, 2014, 12:42:00 pm
Lots (https://twitter.com/Andriyak/status/437203405736804352/photo/1). Also nice house (https://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/437216717690118144/photo/1), nice boat (https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/437224069318991872), nice zoo. (https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/437230250074701824)Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.How many cars?
Collecting classical cars is in the best interest of the nation apparently.
I wouldn't say this is a nice house. An insult to all that is good in the world, maybe, but not nice.
gee, i wonder if you throw the art of past eras into the gutter because bad things tended to happen back then. it's a halfway decent villa, and you can't just say there's no architectonic value to it because of how or why it was made
the garden does take away a fair bit, but let's be honest, they can't control the seasons - it's probably better off in spring
Post by: MarcAFK on February 22, 2014, 12:45:32 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on February 22, 2014, 12:48:06 pm
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 12:51:44 pm
The "boat" is actually a very tacky beach house or something
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 01:05:20 pm
Woah, Anyway, is that a gold plated toilet brush holder? Obscene.Toilet monstrosity:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scrdest on February 22, 2014, 01:11:00 pm
Lots (https://twitter.com/Andriyak/status/437203405736804352/photo/1). Also nice house (https://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/437216717690118144/photo/1), nice boat (https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/437224069318991872), nice zoo. (https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/437230250074701824)Yanuk's lifestyle as evident from his mansion. That's where all the tax money went apparently.How many cars?
Collecting classical cars is in the best interest of the nation apparently.
I wouldn't say this is a nice house. An insult to all that is good in the world, maybe, but not nice.
gee, i wonder if you throw the art of past eras into the gutter because bad things tended to happen back then. it's a halfway decent villa, and you can't just say there's no architectonic value to it because of how or why it was made
the garden does take away a fair bit, but let's be honest, they can't control the seasons - it's probably better off in spring
Huh, what? What do you mean because of when it was made? I hate it because it's tacky as hell.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 01:18:00 pm
Quote
Vladimir Lukin, Moscow’s envoy to Kiev, had this to say in a TV interview, according to Reuters:
I do not understand, frankly, how after recognising the legitimacy of President Yanukovich, the parliament, all the state structures, my European colleagues can then come to Kiev and go to the nationalist-revolutionary and terrorist Maidan and say there - down with the government they recognised.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 22, 2014, 01:18:20 pm
How to tell a novice architecture designer: See how many random styles they can throw in.
They also didn't extend the balcony out front to be flush with the face of the building, which would've given him almost twice as much deck space and looked less stupid since the bowing out of the balcony [notice how they extended that god awful and ugly concrete to be the bottom plate, so a redesign would requite them literally pouring a whole new area of concrete or taking it down to replace with real building materials] does not accentuate anything about the main room there. I also notice how the rounded part isn't even centered. The 'decoration light' tops to those columns near it show what I mean, there's like atleast a 15 degree margin or error there and I'm sure its apparent if you look at it straight. The angle of the picture hides it.
Ugh. I could criticize it all day. Lord help me if I see the inside, bet it's terrible.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 01:29:01 pm
Ugh. I could criticize it all day. Lord help me if I see the inside, bet it's terrible.
Spoiler: Here you are (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: They also found the boat garage (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 01:30:44 pm
More righteous indignation from Putin henchmen: (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-crisis-uncertainty-after-yanukovych-signs-deal-live-updates#block-5308e3f6e4b06aebce0d000b)Yeah, a lot depends now on how Russia will react. They are - at least technically - right about the agreement being broken and about the decision to oust Yanuk being unconstitutional.QuoteVladimir Lukin, Moscow’s envoy to Kiev, had this to say in a TV interview, according to Reuters:
I do not understand, frankly, how after recognising the legitimacy of President Yanukovich, the parliament, all the state structures, my European colleagues can then come to Kiev and go to the nationalist-revolutionary and terrorist Maidan and say there - down with the government they recognised.
Also more interesting than the other stuff, they also found lots of documents at the mansion. Budget lists, and black lists with the names of journalists, some of whom were beaten up badly in the past. All stuff that could be used as evidence should there be a trial.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 22, 2014, 01:35:26 pm
Spoiler: Here you are (click to show/hide)
Now it all makes sense, Rusty Venture must've commissioned this house and then it got seized by what's-his-name.
Seriously though this might be the ugliest dictator mansion I've ever seen. Showing off wealth =/= having 40 types of budget tile in one room.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 22, 2014, 01:39:43 pm
Apparently the Russian government can't do anything about Ukraine besides publishing strongly-worded proclamations.More righteous indignation from Putin henchmen: (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-crisis-uncertainty-after-yanukovych-signs-deal-live-updates#block-5308e3f6e4b06aebce0d000b)Yeah, a lot depends now on how Russia will react. They are - at least technically - right about the agreement being broken and about the decision to oust Yanuk being unconstitutional.QuoteVladimir Lukin, Moscow’s envoy to Kiev, had this to say in a TV interview, according to Reuters:
I do not understand, frankly, how after recognising the legitimacy of President Yanukovich, the parliament, all the state structures, my European colleagues can then come to Kiev and go to the nationalist-revolutionary and terrorist Maidan and say there - down with the government they recognised.
Also more interesting than the other stuff, they also found lots of documents at the mansion. Budget lists, and black lists with the names of journalists, some of whom were beaten up badly in the past. All stuff that could be used as evidence should there be a trial.
I guess they will start acting more resolute only when NATO bombers quartered on Ukrainian airfields will be attacking Moscow.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 01:45:40 pm
Quote
Apparently the Russian government can't do anything about Ukraine besides publishing strongly-worded proclamations.Russia decides to pretend it is EU?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 01:52:33 pm
I guess they will start acting more resolute only when NATO bombers quartered on Ukrainian airfields will be attacking Moscow.I take that as a joke.
Russian FM Lawrow did issue a strongly-worde proclamation though. It thought that was our thing.
Pic of the documents. (https://twitter.com/MaximEristavi/status/437242333784834050/photo/1)
Tymoshenko declared Ukraine would soon join the EU. Seems she's getting over-enthusiastic.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on February 22, 2014, 01:59:39 pm
I guess they will start acting more resolute only when NATO bombers quartered on Ukrainian airfields will be attacking Moscow.
I can't tell if you're making a literal statement there or if you're actually saying that you think that's what is going to happen.
In the latter case, I seriously think that no one wants that to happen, including any world leaders. Militaries of equivalent technological advancement fighting on the world stage would be horrifying. Everyone avoided it in the Cold War because of that (an actual ground and air war that wasn't between geopolitical proxies, that is, not the MAD thing), and considering that we're not even in a Cold War now I'd say it's even less likely to happen any time soon. Lots and lots of things would have to change.
Nah, most of what they're saying is for their own benefit I believe. "Look, fellow Russians! Look upon their hypocrisy! The EU is full of liars and schemers!" That seems to be the tone they're setting, even if what they actually say may be true (and I think it is? Haven't personally been following on what the EU has actually been doing about this). If they get the EU to feel guilty over it then that's bonus points.QuoteApparently the Russian government can't do anything about Ukraine besides publishing strongly-worded proclamations.Russia decides to pretend it is EU?
I think how it'll play out is that Russia gets these words in now, the EU feels guilty and looks a little more bad on the world stage, Yanuk gets put on trial for the crap he has pulled throughout office, the EU vindicates itself by pointing out what a douchebag the guy was and they didn't know how bad at the time, and then Russia goes "Look how bad that guy was, the Ukrainian government is so much worse than ours!"
It's like a double victory for self-propoganda for Russia. Not that I'm saying it's bad of them to do that, everyone does it, but I think that's going to be the reaction from Russia (other than possibly gobbling up the Crimea with Sevastopol).
Tymoshenko declared Ukraine would soon join the EU. Seems she's getting over-enthusiastic.
Even if much of the Ukraine is now anti-EU or neutral to the EU instead of Pro-EU, I take it that they are by and large way more anti-Russia. It's best for them if they side with the EU so they can maintain geopolitical security while being right next to Russia. I'm not sure if they want to do that before or after the whole thing with the Crimea is sorted out since I think the EU is somewhat pro-separationist in its attitude? Not sure.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 22, 2014, 02:01:53 pm
Sevastopol
I feel like if Sevastopol were to be Russian, it would've already been. Mostly because of the majority-Russian populace. Just an offhand observation, though. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave the middle finger to secession to stay in Ukraine. Crimea is just a baseless landgrab were Russia to claim it all, though. They'd have to do it under the pretense of giving them independence.
Shit, Russia has as much legitimacy on a claim to Crimea as Turkey.
Post by: Sergarr on February 22, 2014, 02:04:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 02:06:09 pm
Well, but joining the EU takes a long time and can be pretty complicated. She can promise to move the country into that direction, but it's ultimately not her decision if Ukraine actually gets to join. Of course the EU wants to be friendly with Ukraine, with possible membership as a perspective somwhere in the future. I just think Tymoshenko should not make any promises to her people, when she doesn't know if she can keep them. That will only make her look like a liar and possibly turn the population against the EU too.Tymoshenko declared Ukraine would soon join the EU. Seems she's getting over-enthusiastic.
Even if much of the Ukraine is now anti-EU or neutral to the EU instead of Pro-EU, I take it that they are by and large way more anti-Russia. It's best for them if they side with the EU so they can maintain geopolitical security while being right next to Russia. I'm not sure if they want to do that before or after the whole thing with the Crimea is sorted out since I think the EU is somewhat pro-separationist in its attitude? Not sure.
Also the general situation isn't really sorted out yet, with secession still a possibility.
Actually I realize I'm talking like Tymoshenko already had won an election or something. That also has to happen first. Lot of room for disappointment there.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 02:20:17 pm
It will be amusing to see her attempts to get back in power. She may succeed and I'd rather not see that. But as I said earlier If the justice system will be reformed, I'll accept just any president. I only want to be sure that when that any president starts to build a palace for him(her)self (s)he goes to the jail immediately
Quote
I don't think the Right Sector plans to side with EU at all. And they are the real power.Right Sector position is: - That to be decided by the nation on the referendum but we are against it. While Right Sector may have some guys who dream about a fuhrer, core of it believes in direct democracy opposing to the "rotten" EU style democracy
Besides we have many problem to solve before the question EU or not EU will become viable
On Crimea... Attempt to join Russia will create Tatar uprising. They may be a minority. But they REALLY don't want in Russia. And local elites know that. Not that Russians moves in Crimea are impossible but I am more worried about Kharkov and Donbass
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 22, 2014, 03:34:12 pm
Damn you, you stole my line!QuoteApparently the Russian government can't do anything about Ukraine besides publishing strongly-worded proclamations.Russia decides to pretend it is EU?
Also, protestors are doing some carpentering on their free time:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 03:37:04 pm
Tymoshenko... What a talented demagogue she is
Post by: Owlbread on February 22, 2014, 03:40:06 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 05:02:51 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 05:19:18 pm
Ukrainian Rabbi calls for Jews to leave Kiev and possibly the country. (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.575732)Russian Jews are so funny
Wait till real Jews will say the same, then worry
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 05:29:22 pm
BBC also reports minor clashes between Euromaidan supporters and people defending the local Lenin statue in Kharkiv, with police keeping both sides apart.
There was another report about Yanukovych trying to board a plane in Donetsk and getting stopped, not sure if that's the same thing that was reported earlier.
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 05:48:41 pm
Ukrainian Rabbi calls for Jews to leave Kiev and possibly the country. (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.575732)
Quote from: update in that article
Correction (Feb. 22, 4:20 P.M.): An earlier version of this report incorrectly described Rabbi Azman as the chief rabbi of Ukraine. Azman is not the country's chief rabbi, but one of two rabbis challenging the official chief rabbi, Yaakov Bleich, in Kiev, and like most Chabad rabbis, is aligned with the Kremlin.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 05:52:47 pm
Ah, I see now. Had missed that last line. Seems odd that rabbis would align with the Kremlin, but ok.Quote from: update in that articleCorrection (Feb. 22, 4:20 P.M.): An earlier version of this report incorrectly described Rabbi Azman as the chief rabbi of Ukraine. Azman is not the country's chief rabbi, but one of two rabbis challenging the official chief rabbi, Yaakov Bleich, in Kiev, and like most Chabad rabbis, is aligned with the Kremlin.
Here are some more pics (https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM) of some of the documents found in the presidential mansion. Looks like someone left behind a lot of evidence...
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 06:06:05 pm
Quote
Seems odd that rabbis would align with the Kremlin, but ok.This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad) kind of rabbis are quite unusual
When I discussed them with one Zionist he said some words that I would consider to be very anti-semitic if he wasn't a Jew himself
Post by: olemars on February 22, 2014, 06:12:18 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 22, 2014, 06:13:56 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 22, 2014, 06:44:21 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 22, 2014, 06:53:20 pm
German newspaper FAZ still has the uncorrected version on its site. Maybe I should write them a strongly-worded comment, EU-style. :P
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 23, 2014, 05:03:29 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 23, 2014, 05:04:52 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 23, 2014, 05:15:57 am
Anyway, does anyone have an idea what happened exactly that allowed the opposition to take over. This entire government collapse was rather unexpected.There are no definitive information but there are rumors that armed forces said "fuck off " to Yanukovitch's order to "restore order"
Remember the Polish foreign minister and his words about martial law and "you all will be dead" Most likely Yanukovitch said to EU foreign ministers that If he will not be allowed to stay in the position then he will use the army and they, being afraid of Syria and believing that the army will follow the order pushed hard for that deal
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 23, 2014, 05:17:57 am
Yanukovich is a wuss, that's what happened.For a 'bloodthirsty dictator', he was surprisingly lax, indecisive and too worried about his image in the Western media. If he had been actually ruthless, the Euromaidan would be over back in November.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 23, 2014, 05:25:51 am
So naive. You make the same mistake as him: assuming that Ukrainians are easy to scare.Yanukovich is a wuss, that's what happened.For a 'bloodthirsty dictator', he was surprisingly lax, indecisive and too worried about his image in the Western media. If he had been actually ruthless, the Euromaidan would be over back in November.
BTW, Guardian get ready for Belorussian edition of Euromaidan. I bet it will happen in the next ten years, probably much sooner.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 23, 2014, 05:48:52 am
BTW, Guardian get ready for Belorussian edition of Euromaidan. I bet it will happen in the next ten years, probably much sooner.Next year, to be more precise - we have presidential elections in 2015. Belarus will be a member state of the Eurasian Union then, so the Glorious Freedom Fighters against the Bloody Regime shouldn't expect to be met lightly. Lukashenko won't make the same mistakes as Yanukovich.
By the way, there were Ukrainian nationalist guys from Galicia and Volhynia among the Belarusian opposition ranks in the late 1990s. During opposition rallies in 1997 (IIRC) they bravely attacked the riot police, just like at Euromaidan in 2014. Unfortunately for them, the Minsk OMON didn't stand in one spot looking at them fiercely, so the brave Ukrainians got arrested and deported back to Ukraine.
edit: fixed grammar and stuff.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 23, 2014, 06:14:56 am
Explaining that when police is badly outnumbered and\or facing organized determined force they can't do much without live bullets* is a waste of time because you believe that they never got order to disperse protests.
* In fact sometimes they can't even with live bullets
I will tell you that: your brave Minsk OMON are wimps comparing to what Qaddafi had under his command.
PS. Am I the only one to see "My dictator is better dictator then yours, losers" attitude here?
Post by: Owlbread on February 23, 2014, 07:29:52 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 23, 2014, 07:41:40 am
I wonder if successful Belarusian protests would lead to a restoration of the Belarusian language as was on the cards pre-Lukashenko. If the old white and red flag is flying in Minsk I think maybe attitudes would change.If the Belarusian language will be enforced upon Russian-speaking people like in 1992-1994, then altitudes will change... against the people enforcing it.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 23, 2014, 07:41:59 am
Post by: moondowner on February 23, 2014, 08:14:30 am
Good-for-nothing, turncoat politicians are dividing seats, lots of empty words are said, same as in 2005, after the Orange revolution (and by pretty much the same people, too). People, almost as one, say "they're not who we fought for. we fought for ourselves, for the country", but look at the facts. Hundreds died, and now we have a new-old government. And what now, one more revolution? It's not like there's a political force that everybody trusts now.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 23, 2014, 08:24:35 am
As Yarosh said - It's only the beginning of Ukrainian reconquest. First, very important step is done, many more are ahead
Post by: Owlbread on February 23, 2014, 08:29:13 am
If the Belarusian language will be enforced upon Russian-speaking people like in 1992-1994, then altitudes will change... against the people enforcing it.
Well, you don't have to "force" it on people. There are ways of doing things, Guardian. The Russian speaking population should be encouraged to learn Belarusian but it's not like they'll be beaten in school if they speak Russian.
The primary goal should be ensuring that everyone in the country is fully literate and fluent in Belarusian, repairing the damage caused by Lukashenko's policies. That can be done through ensuring the language is a compulsory subject at school, taught through language immersion classes (not out of textbooks) where the primary language of the classroom is Belarusian. Not every class of course, not at this stage, just at the moment. Hopefully after a good few years of positive encouragement to speak both Russian and Belarusian the dominance of the Belarusian language can grow in the educational setting until Russian occupies the same space that Belarusian occupies now.
Bilingualism should be encouraged wherever possible. If it became the primary language of government and the President spoke Belarusian as his primary language when giving speeches, that would raise its profile. Belarusian should be the main language of news stations, given primetime slots, with Russian rotated with the current Belarusian slots. Parliamentary proceedings should be conducted primarily in Belarusian, though because virtually everyone understands Russian there should be no problem if a member would prefer to speak his piece in Russian.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 23, 2014, 08:45:21 am
Quote
Belarusian should be the main language of news stations, given primetime slots, with Russian rotated with the current Belarusian slots.Fascist! :D
That's how Ukrainian nationalists called when we offer similar norms.
That and:
"It is against free market! People are choosing Russian over Ukrainian you can't force them to watch TV\read press in Ukrainian"
You should have seen that hysteria when films dubbed in Russian (not original Russian films, those are OK) were banned in Ukrainian cinemas
Post by: Helgoland on February 23, 2014, 08:47:41 am
PS. Am I the only one to see "My dictator is better dictator then yours, losers" attitude here?A dictator has already failed if he no longer has the support of his people. Now Hitler, he didn't have to worry about stuff like 'mass protests' and 'democratic reform'.
/Godwin
Post by: Owlbread on February 23, 2014, 09:01:08 am
QuoteBelarusian should be the main language of news stations, given primetime slots, with Russian rotated with the current Belarusian slots.Fascist! :D
That's how Ukrainian nationalists called when we offer similar norms.
It's always amusing when people making proposals like that get accused of being a Fascist when the only reason why Russian is spoken so much in Ukraine and Belarus, and English is spoken so much in Scotland, Wales and Ireland is because the native languages were marginalised through the same methods the Russophiles/Anglophiles are getting upset about, and worse in some cases. I'm not proposing that English speaking students in Scotland should be beaten with a leather belt if they speak English, after all. In fact I believe speaking Gaelic was a hanging offense at one time, don't quote me on that though.
Quote
That and:
"It is against free market! People are choosing Russian over Ukrainian you can't force them to watch TV\read press in Ukrainian"
That's always an interesting argument, but it goes right to the core of the language issue. Is it worth preserving languages that are in decline because people aren't bothering to speak them/learn them? I actually think language lies at the core of any national identity, even if it's accent or dialect. Without linguistic differences there's almost never a sense of national separateness.
I think though provided you aren't going around caning kids who try to speak Russian in the playground or something this isn't really a terrible problem, it's hardly an attack on democracy. It's not like the Russian language is going to die out any time soon.
Quote
You should have seen that hysteria when films dubbed in Russian (not original Russian films, those are OK) were banned in Ukrainian cinemas
That's the thing. State TV should be primarily in Ukrainian but if people want to set up a Russian station, maybe the government could provide some cash to help set it up. That way nobody's being "forced" to watch anything in Ukrainian, they can watch the Russian station instead.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 23, 2014, 12:19:33 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 23, 2014, 02:22:56 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 23, 2014, 02:57:18 pm
Well, you don't have to "force" it on people. There are ways of doing things, Guardian. The Russian speaking population should be encouraged to learn Belarusian but it's not like they'll be beaten in school if they speak Russian.When Westerners, especially those who haven't been in Belarus speak about Belarusian language, they often assume that people who speak it get repressed by the government and that it's not present in schools, literature, press, television and the internet at all. They are actually wrong.
The primary goal should be ensuring that everyone in the country is fully literate and fluent in Belarusian, repairing the damage caused by Lukashenko's policies. That can be done through ensuring the language is a compulsory subject at school, taught through language immersion classes (not out of textbooks) where the primary language of the classroom is Belarusian. Not every class of course, not at this stage, just at the moment. Hopefully after a good few years of positive encouragement to speak both Russian and Belarusian the dominance of the Belarusian language can grow in the educational setting until Russian occupies the same space that Belarusian occupies now.
The Belarusian language is definitely not banned.
It is a compulsory subject in all Belarusian schools, even those where Russian is dominant, along with Belarusian literature. There are subjects in universities taught in Belarusian - for example, I study in a foreign language department in a local university, and we have linguistics, one of the core subjects, taught entirely in Belarusian. Originally students leaving school chose between exams in Russian and Belarusian, but from what I've heard, from this academic year on, both Russian and Belarusian language exams are compulsory, along with English and mathematics.
There are newspapers published entirely in Belarusian, both local and nationwide, and many newspapers, both state-owned and private carry both Russian and Belarusian articles.
There are Belarusian language programs on state television. Local news bulletins broadcast on the main state television channel, Belarus-1 and others are entirely in Belarusian. Main news programs broadcast on the same channels are dominantly Russian but segments dealing with local events and culture are mostly in Belarusian. Plus most recent documentaries on history of Belarus broadcast there are in Belarusian. The state-owned first channel of Belarusian radio mostly broadcasts in Belarusian.
Books in Belarusian are published by state-owned publishers. A lot of encyclopedias and other history books published in Belarusian, and they are not in any way inferior to books in Russian in any way - they haven't been made as throwaway in order to comply with the bilingualism laws. I'm not talking about fiction books by local writers.
Announcements on public transport are made in Belarusian. The absolute majority of road signs, as well as signs on state-owned institutions are in Belarusian.
Etc., etc., etc.
But, I need to say one very important thing: the shrinkage of use of the Belarusian language happened not because of repression, but because of lack of interest among the public.
During the times of USSR (after the death of Stalin, and to some extent during his times), Belarusian publishers published tons of Belarusian books that gathered dust in book stores because no one bought them, not because the bloody KGB would break in their house at night and kill them on the spot, but because no one was particularly interested in reading them. The majority of Belarusian literature, especially if it was written after the war, was really boring. There wasn't much good entertainment literature - the only authors I can name is Uladzimir Karatkievich with his historical books like "The Dark Castle Olshansky" or "King Stakh's Wild Hunt" and Leonid Daineka with his books "The Sword of Knyaz Vyachka" and "The Trail of the Sorcerer", also about Belarusian history. Books written by the rest of the good authors like Vasil Bykov (who wrote excellent but very bleak stories about the Second World War) weren't something that could be read in free time. The translations of foreign literature into Belarusian were completely overlooked by the public in favour of Russian versions of these books.
The same thing happened with newspapers and many television programmes - lack of interest. The Russian language publications were more interesting, so people read and watched them. All of that coupled with the dominant usage of Russian in official documentation resulted in the Belarusian language gradually falling out of use in cities.
The language policies set by Lukashenko are pretty much the same as those in Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic during the late Soviet Union. He isn't interested in intensively promoting the Belarusian language, not because of malicious intent, but because he apparently thinks that the current policies are fine and shouldn't be changed. Westerners, who know that he is apparently a dictator that longs for the time of the USSR and that Belarusian is falling out of general use immediately arrive at the rather incorrect conclusion that he enforces Russian by using political and cultural repression.
The Belarusian authorities before Lukashenko came to power in the beginning of the 1990s tried to make Belarusian the dominant language as quickly as possible - it was set as the sole language used by the government, in official documentation, educational establishments and the media and Russian was simply removed out of those spheres. Quite a lot of people who suddenly found that they should use only Belarusian didn't really like it.
Post by: Owlbread on February 23, 2014, 03:35:12 pm
When Westerners, especially those who haven't been in Belarus speak about Belarusian language, they often assume that people who speak it get repressed by the government and that it's not present in schools, literature, press, television and the internet at all. They are actually wrong.
I have not said that the language has been repressed by the government. The government is just allowing it to stagnate.
Quote
The Belarusian language is definitely not banned.
Indeed, I didn't claim it is. Like its close relative though in Ukraine it has experienced its fair share of persecution in the past due to its status in the 19th century as a peasant language. The damage has already been done since then, the problem is that the Belarusian establishment (who are Russophiles) don't really care about it and it is generally in their interest for it to be in decline.
Quote
It is a compulsory subject in all Belarusian schools, even those where Russian is dominant, along with Belarusian literature. There are subjects in universities taught in Belarusian - for example, I study in a foreign language department in a local university, and we have linguistics, one of the core subjects, taught entirely in Belarusian. Originally students leaving school chose between exams in Russian and Belarusian, but from what I've heard, from this academic year on, both Russian and Belarusian language exams are compulsory, along with English and mathematics.
Yes, and that is the wrong way to go about it. It's quite effective for killing languages outright in some cases. The policies of successive Irish governments over the 20th century are singularly responsible for the decline of Irish. Never teach kids and young adult students language that you want to preserve and spark interest in by forcing them to learn out of textbooks and complete exams in them. That is just silly.
Quote
There are newspapers published entirely in Belarusian, both local and nationwide, and many newspapers, both state-owned and private carry both Russian and Belarusian articles.
Given that much of the press is allegedly controlled by "the opposition" as you've said in the past that is to be expected.
Quote
There are Belarusian language programs on state television.
Just like there's Breton programs on French TV. Not nearly enough though, clearly.
Quote
Local news bulletins broadcast on the main state television channel, Belarus-1 and others are entirely in Belarusian.
When you say "local news", by local do you mean "rural"? Would local news bulletins in, say, Minsk broadcast entirely in Belarusian?
Quote
Main news programs broadcast on the same channels are dominantly Russian but segments dealing with local events and culture are mostly in Belarusian.
Local events and culture. There's that "local" again. Is "local" exclusive to more rural, outback areas where the majority of Belarusian speakers are?
Quote
Books in Belarusian are published by state-owned publishers.
I'd be surprised if they weren't. Clearly not enough are.
Quote
A lot of encyclopedias and other history books published in Belarusian, and they are not in any way inferior to books in Russian in any way - they haven't been made as throwaway in order to comply with the bilingualism laws. I'm not talking about fiction books by local writers.
Yeah, that's basic stuff. It would be a problem if it wasn't but that's nothing to really celebrate, not enough people are reading it.
Quote
Announcements on public transport are made in Belarusian. The absolute majority of road signs, as well as signs on state-owned institutions are in Belarusian.
Etc., etc., etc.
Across the board? In every city and town the announcements on public transport are in Belarusian?
Quote
But, I need to say one very important thing: the shrinkage of use of the Belarusian language happened not because of repression, but because of lack of interest among the public.
The lack of interest stems from successful Soviet policies of Russification in the country, imposed after the Second World War. The policy is known as the "rapprochement and unification of Soviet people" policy. It's not as though the Belarusian people, uniquely in the world, simply thought their language was vulgar and didn't need to bother with it anymore. That came right from the top as part of Soviet policy. Even though books were printed as you say not nearly enough was done to protect the language, rather, the opposite occurred.
The nationalist movement had been well and truly crushed in the early 1930s, unlike in Ukraine, though Ukrainians are obviously struggling to restore their language in spite of that. It's also interesting that at the same time Soviet-linked philosophers and academics reformed Belarusian grammar to make it as close to Russian as possible, thereby making Russification easier. The association of the language with Belarusian nationalists and Fascists didn't exactly help activists post-war either.
Quote
The same thing happened with newspapers and many television programmes - lack of interest. The Russian language publications were more interesting, so people read and watched them. All of that coupled with the dominant usage of Russian in official documentation resulted in the Belarusian language gradually falling out of use in cities.
Look at your last sentence. "The dominant usage of Russian in official documentation".
Quote
The language policies set by Lukashenko are pretty much the same as those in Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic during the late Soviet Union. He isn't interested in intensively promoting the Belarusian language, not because of malicious intent, but because he apparently thinks that the current policies are fine and shouldn't be changed.
But given the preference among Belarusian opposition activists to speak in Belarusian and the association with Belarusian nationalism it is well within his interests as a Russophile and proponent of greater integration with Russia to oppose the growth of the Belarusian language. Lukashenko is, as you say, merely carrying on the traditions of the Russophile political establishment in Belarus.
Quote
Westerners, who know that he is apparently a dictator that longs for the time of the USSR and that Belarusian is falling out of general use immediately arrive at the rather incorrect conclusion that he enforces Russian by using political and cultural repression.
Statements I have not made, but thank you for pigeon holing me as an idiot Westerner, as you often do. Besides the bit about Lukashenko being a dictator who longs for the time of the USSR though, that's pretty much indisputable.
Quote
The Belarusian authorities before Lukashenko came to power in the beginning of the 1990s tried to make Belarusian the dominant language as quickly as possible - it was set as the sole language used by the government, in official documentation, educational establishments and the media and Russian was simply removed out of those spheres. Quite a lot of people who suddenly found that they should use only Belarusian didn't really like it.
This is why I said "there are ways of doing things". The early 1990s policies were foolish and ill conceived, you should never force something through like this.
I don't know what you'd think of it Guardian, but whenever I speak to you about Belarus and I feel the 1984 stuff coming off you in waves (he loved big brother) I always listen to this song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvbnhVpYZUI)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 23, 2014, 08:11:03 pm
The Eu hasn't really made any promises that I know off. Sure, we'll aid in negotiating an IMF deal, but we're not providing any loans.That's correct. Commentators point out however that we'll have to push for the IMF deal (no idea what's going on with that) and that we might have to jump in if Russia decides to not give credits anymore. Bankruptcy seems pretty close, the EU promised to support the new government, and better should not leave them hanging.
Basically the EU needs a more coherent approach in it's Eastern Europe policies, which is of course a bit of a minefield because nobody wants to antagonize Russia.
Post by: MarcAFK on February 24, 2014, 12:50:23 am
I find it interesting that the current system requires learning 3 languages, which makes perfect sense considering how pervasive english is in Europe and the rest of the Globe, and also as I imagine Russian is the majority language amongst all former soviet republics, as such I don't think it is the wrong way to go about it, except I personally think that the damage is basically irreparable without some further repression of both english and russian. Essentially if your language is archaic and reduced to the minority it will inevitably be reduced in usage untill the point of obscurity and extinction as has been seen in many places affected by english, french, russian, etc, I would like to point out that all those languages have been over the centuries bastardised and changed by time and contact with other languages and cultures, they may have been imposed by conquest but became pervasive due to flexibility, ease of use, complexity and other factors which made them useful to the population.
I theorise that if your people want their own language to survive serious thought needs to be made into the possible need to bastardise the language further than the russians did to produce a moreflexable modern language that then has to be made the official language in a more forceful way. Yes people would hate it, the majority would in fact so the process would need to take decades whilst retaining the need to enforce Tri-lingualism upon the population, it would of course be insanity to not require English and Russian to be taught in the schools at least English as a minor part, and Russian more thoroughly due to other factors, and you would need to keep printing all official material in Russian for the majority that still use it. Or perhaps it isn't worth the effort and you could let your old language die, hell in 50 years we might all still be having this exact discussion albeit in Mandarin and about how archaic English should be left to die. (ironically it's likely that our hanzi script will still be recorded in our software using English UNIX based software code, probably compilers will be in chinese but will still need to convert the code to the same english based system for compatability ).
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2014, 01:45:32 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 24, 2014, 02:27:20 am
No, I didn't meant that back then. The opposition doesn't control the (non-opposition) press. Some private newspapers are sympathetic to the opposition, but they aren't controlled by them.QuoteThere are newspapers published entirely in Belarusian, both local and nationwide, and many newspapers, both state-owned and private carry both Russian and Belarusian articles.
Given that much of the press is allegedly controlled by "the opposition" as you've said in the past that is to be expected.
I'm talking about regional news programs. To put that into perspective, they are like the news programs broadcast by the regional departments of the BBC (Look North, Midlands Today, etc.)QuoteLocal news bulletins broadcast on the main state television channel, Belarus-1 and others are entirely in Belarusian.
When you say "local news", by local do you mean "rural"? Would local news bulletins in, say, Minsk broadcast entirely in Belarusian?QuoteMain news programs broadcast on the same channels are dominantly Russian but segments dealing with local events and culture are mostly in Belarusian.
Local events and culture. There's that "local" again. Is "local" exclusive to more rural, outback areas where the majority of Belarusian speakers are?
The same thing goes about Belarusian language segments in the evening news.
Yes, including the capital city Minsk.QuoteAnnouncements on public transport are made in Belarusian. The absolute majority of road signs, as well as signs on state-owned institutions are in Belarusian.Across the board? In every city and town the announcements on public transport are in Belarusian?
Etc., etc., etc.
The association of the language with Belarusian nationalists and Fascists didn't exactly help activists post-war either.The language itself wasn't discredited by the Soviet government for being used by nationalists during the war, even during the times of Stalin. Aren't you confusing it with the white-red-white flag?
I don't know what you'd think of it Guardian, but whenever I speak to you about Belarus and I feel the 1984 stuff coming off you in waves (he loved big brother) I always listen to this song.
the 1984 stuff coming off you in waves
1984 stuff
Aww, of course neither me nor anyone else can genuinely support any authoritarian rulers of their own countries or any of their policies! How can anyone support the totalitarian regimes that resist the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy and the Invisible Hand of the Market? As
Post by: WarRoot on February 24, 2014, 06:22:43 am
Post by: MarcAFK on February 24, 2014, 07:04:44 am
I don't think I said anything about the Belarusian language.Sorry I was half asleep when I wrote that, I meant Guardian G.I.
Edit:
Just watched this video : http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-parliament-speaker-appointed-interim-leader-as-sacked-president-goes-into-hiding/story-fndir2ev-1226834819311#ooid=9qMThzazo760lxa6WkQrnV1JVxzIWSJc (http://www.news.com.au/world/ukraine-parliament-speaker-appointed-interim-leader-as-sacked-president-goes-into-hiding/story-fndir2ev-1226834819311#ooid=9qMThzazo760lxa6WkQrnV1JVxzIWSJc)
Like the rest of the videos I've seen, With the closeness of the fighting and the amount of crap being thrown at the police I'm reminded how there would have been a massacre if live rounds had been used conclusively. Of course I would assume most protesters would have left the open fighting and a more conventional guerrilla uprising would have been the result, and I'm sure everyone is glad that didn't happen.
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2014, 08:14:12 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 24, 2014, 08:44:24 am
Today, stocks of Bogdan group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_group) got +40% on the Ukrainian stock market. Is that exactly that evil guys from BMW who want to buy out Ukrainian automotive industry and close it to get get rid of a competitor? Should I start to worry about impending poverty?
Post by: MarcAFK on February 24, 2014, 08:50:59 am
Not that it's unusual, or even wrong really.
Post by: Kicior on February 24, 2014, 09:07:35 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 24, 2014, 09:34:30 am
Post by: Ghazkull on February 24, 2014, 10:54:05 am
Don't take that wrong UR but Ukraine has a Automotive Industry? a National one? Oo and i doubt BMW would try to get rid of them. Ukrainian Cars would be more of a niche product and no real competition for BMW with all due respect.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 11:06:54 am
Don't take that wrong UR but Ukraine has a Automotive Industry? a National one? Oo and i doubt BMW would try to get rid of them. Ukrainian Cars would be more of a niche product and no real competition for BMW with all due respect.They assemble Hyundais too, so it's direct competition for BMW.
Yeah, the main question is whether languages have a right to exist; and I'd answer that with a firm no. Otherwise you should probably start polishing your Latin, Owlbread :DI'm more with Owlbread in that I think every language and dialect should be preserved as a living language if possible. I don't think however you should force people to use a certain language if they don't seem to want to.
The new Ukrainian government has reverted a law that made Russian an official language. That's not a great thing when roughly 30% of Ukrainians have Russian as their first language. Besides that it's also angering Russia, which is not a smart move.
Also more hybris from the old elites private homes: the General Prosecutor as Cesar. (https://twitter.com/ukr_catapult/status/437699119583227904/photo/1) :D
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2014, 11:17:27 am
I don't see the point of keeping a language on life support. It's not like Belarus and Russia can't remain separate countries if both populations will speak only Russian (even though "us versus them" mentality is much easier to keep if you don't speak the same language I guess).
It's actually more important than you'd think. There are almost no instances of nations remaining separate in any meaningful way whilst speaking the exact same language. I know many countries speak French and English and so on, but even in cases like Australia, USA and the UK linguistic differences are there in the accents which are often badges of national pride. In some instances, such as in Wales, language goes far deeper than just a badge of national pride. You could argue that it "is" the nation.
I think it somewhat ridiculous to try and preserve Belorussian when the belorussians dont care for it...let it die.
A lot of things will die out if we have that attitude. What's the point in preserving wild cats in Scotland? There's no practical use to them, they just kill pheasants and grouse and make life harder for estate owners. They're a nuisance, a pest. They don't occupy any important role in the ecosystem because there's other predators. The only people that genuinely like them are tourists and lowlanders and idealists like me. Who cares there's only 13 purebreds left in the wild at the most? Just let them die out.
Some people like to suggest that languages are inherently about practicality and are therefore not subject to the same sort of moral reasoning as we apply to animal conservation. To some, languages are like tools or something, I don't know. If there's nobody to speak to, why bother learning the language? Languages aren't just practical though, otherwise we wouldn't be so attached to them.
Quote
Don't take that wrong UR but Ukraine has a Automotive Industry? a National one? Oo and i doubt BMW would try to get rid of them. Ukrainian Cars would be more of a niche product and no real competition for BMW with all due respect.
You are missing his point. He's making a joke at Guardian G.I's expense who expressed concerns that something along those lines would occur in Belarus. Their tractor factories would be under threat, no less.
I'm more with Owlbread in that I think every language and dialect should be preserved as a living language if possible. I don't think however you should force people to use a certain language if they don't seem to want to.
The new Ukrainian government has reverted a law that made Russian an official language. That's not a great thing when roughly 30% of Ukrainians have Russian as their first language. Besides that it's also angering Russia, which is not a smart move.
Now you see how important language politics is to the Ukraine. In some respects this isn't as big a derail as it may seem. Perhaps some Russophone Ukrainians would make the same arguments we have been making about national identities and language:
"Why is it such a problem that Ukraine should speak the same language as Russia?"
"Because then it would probably erode their national identity and lead to union with Russia."
"Why is it such a problem that Ukraine is united with Russia?"
And so on and so forth.
Quote
Also more hybris from the old elites private homes: the General Prosecutor as Cesar. (https://twitter.com/ukr_catapult/status/437699119583227904/photo/1) :D
It's almost like raiding Gaddafi's compound. In some respects that's a good indicator of just how screwed up a political establishment was. It's a shame you can only see it after the fall, like when you cut down a tree to see the rings so you can work out its age.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 24, 2014, 11:25:10 am
Some people like to suggest that languages are inherently about practicality and are therefore not subject to the same sort of moral reasoning as we apply to animal conservation. To some, languages are like tools or something, I don't know. If there's nobody to speak to, why bother learning the language? Languages aren't just practical though, otherwise we wouldn't be so attached to them.People get attached to their tools all the time, often persisting in using inferior tools for impractical reasons.
But if y'all want to have a discussion on languages, might be worth it to start a thread about it instead of doing it here. I'd participate.
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2014, 11:28:39 am
As for languages... Well, to me their practical aspect is most important. Regional languages and stuff are fine, but having everyone on Earth speak english as well is absolutely necessary. And I don't really care if a language die or not.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 24, 2014, 11:29:16 am
Don't take that wrong UR but Ukraine has a Automotive Industry? a National one? Oo and i doubt BMW would try to get rid of them. Ukrainian Cars would be more of a niche product and no real competition for BMW with all due respect.Well, that BMW thing has a prehistory. In Sheb's political thread Guardian tried to prove that should Lukashenko go, western companies will buy out local industry to get rid of competitors. Unlike me he was deadly serious :)
As for Ukrainian automotive industry, it is not dead. We have
1) Bogdan that specializes on buses and trolleybuses that can compete in it's price segment, especially on local market (IIRC they won a tender for public transport in some Polish city. May be wrong).
Nothing bad should happen with them
2) KRAZ that builds various trucks that again can compete in it's price segment and I hope will get more military contracts. I expect nothing bad happened with them either even if they are more dependable of Russian market.
One of the best form of governmental support they can get: Military contracts.
Our army needs new trucks and special vehicles
3) Finally we have AutoZAZ... They make overpriced crap, but being owned by "right person" it got extreme support including ridiculous import tariffs (Violating rules of WTO) to the point that a car in Ukraine may cost several times more than the same car in Germany.
That one has high chances to die.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2014, 11:39:47 am
When Ukraine signs that agreement with the EU, then we'll see interesting things. ((I'm sure most of the Ukrainian industry will survive, but that was probably the thingy Guardian was talking about. After all, politicians don't affect the economy, it's their policies that do.))
But the worst shock probably won't be foreign investement, it'll be a reduction of governement subsidation, mainly the loss of cheap russian gas.
Post by: moondowner on February 24, 2014, 11:44:21 am
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 11:55:17 am
Right, this isn't really much of a derail, language politics are somewhat relevant here. The Ukrainian language is much more widely used than Belorussian, but Russian is also used by a fair amount of Ukrainians, which makes this decision a bit problematic.The new Ukrainian government has reverted a law that made Russian an official language. That's not a great thing when roughly 30% of Ukrainians have Russian as their first language. Besides that it's also angering Russia, which is not a smart move.
Now you see how important language politics is to the Ukraine. In some respects this isn't as big a derail as it may seem. Perhaps some Russophone Ukrainians would make the same arguments we have been making about national identities and language:
It's almost like raiding Gaddafi's compound. In some respects that's a good indicator of just how screwed up a political establishment was. It's a shame you can only see it after the fall, like when you cut down a tree to see the rings so you can work out its age.Contrary to what I said earlier, correspondents who visited Gaddafi's and Saddam's palaces too think now that Yanukovych actually topped them in terms of material excess.
Post by: Kicior on February 24, 2014, 12:30:36 pm
Like Germany and Austria and Liechtenstein and partially Switzerland. Like pretty much all the countries of South America, and nearly all the Balkan states. Hell, I'm pretty sure there will be more places-inhabitated-by-people-speaking-the-same-language-but-being-separate-countries-nonetheless than countries that have more than one official language. Allright, it's not 100% EXACTLY THE SAME WITH NO DIFFERENCES WHATSOEVER.I don't see the point of keeping a language on life support. It's not like Belarus and Russia can't remain separate countries if both populations will speak only Russian (even though "us versus them"
mentality is much easier to keep if you don't speak the same language I guess).
It's actually more important than you'd think. There are almost no instances of nations remaining separate in any meaningful way whilst speaking the exact same language. I know many countries speak French
and English and so on, but even in cases like Australia, USA and the UK linguistic differences are there in the accents which are often badges of national pride. In some instances, such as in Wales, language
goes far deeper than just a badge of national pride. You could argue that it "is" the nation.
National pride - OK, I get it but what's the point of increasing the number of nations? Why shouldn't people be proud of the same things?
They are so CUTE <3 (but it's a matter of taste)I think it somewhat ridiculous to try and preserve Belorussian when the belorussians dont care for it...let it die.
A lot of things will die out if we have that attitude. What's the point in preserving wild cats in Scotland? There's no practical use to them, they just kill pheasants and grouse and make life harder for
estate owners. They're a nuisance, a pest. They don't occupy any important role in the ecosystem because there's other predators. The only people that genuinely like them are tourists and lowlanders and
idealists like me. Who cares there's only 13 purebreds left in the wild at the most? Just let them die out.
Some people like to suggest that languages are inherently about practicality and are therefore not subject to the same sort of moral reasoning as we apply to animal conservation. To some, languages are likeThe thing is, you seem to be more attached to the Belorusian language than the Belorusians (btw. why is there double s in Russian but only one in Belorusian?) themselves.
tools or something, I don't know. If there's nobody to speak to, why bother learning the language? Languages aren't just practical though, otherwise we wouldn't be so attached to them.
Now you see how important language politics is to the Ukraine. In some respects this isn't as big a derail as it may seem. Perhaps some Russophone Ukrainians would make the same arguments we have been makingPreserving a language can make sense form political point of view (like revival of Hebrew to give Jews coming to Israel from all over the world somethinng in common) and I think it's the most important reason when it comes to preserving Ukrainian and Belarusian. But apart Russia being a potential problem (so the more people will be "us" instead of "them" the better... for us :P) I don't really see the point of dividing nations.
about national identities and language:
"Why is it such a problem that Ukraine should speak the same language as Russia?"
"Because then it would probably erode their national identity and lead to union with Russia."
"Why is it such a problem that Ukraine is united with Russia?"
And so on and so forth.
INB4 Guardian says "FILTHY WESTERNERS ARE TRYING TO CREATE FIFTH COLUMN BUT LUCKILY THEY ARE FAILING, RUSSIAN SPEAKING PEOPLE STRONK".
Oh, and a compulsory Godwin so no one else has to use it :P
Quote from: Heinrich Himmler
We need to divide Poland's many different ethnic groups up into as many parts and splinter groups as possible (...) we shall have to endeavor to recognize and nurture as many individual peoples as possible; that is, in addition to the Poles and Jews also the Ukrainians, the Byelorussians, the Gorals (Goralen), Lemcos (Lemken), and the Cashubes (Kaschuben). And if there are any other splinter peoples to be found anywhere, then these too.
I wish to say by this that we have the greatest interest in not uniting the population of the East, but, on the contrary, in dividing it into as many parts and splinters as possible.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 12:41:30 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2014, 12:46:39 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2014, 12:50:10 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 12:52:10 pm
Does Ukrainian law allow double-citizenship?No, it doesn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_citizenship)
However Russia has been known to hand out passports to ethnic Russians in other countries, so there probably are many Ukrainians with dual citizenship.
Post by: Sheb on February 24, 2014, 12:54:17 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 24, 2014, 01:13:13 pm
Spoiler: In response to Kicior (click to show/hide)
) I don't really see the point of dividing nations.In more relevant news:
Dmitri Medvedev has stated that Ukraine's current government is not legitimate. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/ukraine-viktor-yanukovych-arrest-warrant) Very curious given Russia's conduct in Chechnya when a democratically elected independent Chechen government were overthrown by Russian troops and replaced by puppets. That was the second attempt though, the previous one was an attempted coup shortly after the government was elected (buzz word for the Russian gov. about Ukraine now) financed by Russia and supported by some Russian special forces, but that failed miserably.
Why is this relevant, you ask? Why should Owlbread bring the Chechens into it yet again? Because Mr. Putin, the man who has his hand firmly up Medvedev's backside, was Prime Minister when the Ichkerian government was overthrown and was basically floating around in the background as leading member/later head of the KGB and various other things from the very beginning.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 01:41:14 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on February 24, 2014, 01:52:01 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2014, 01:58:11 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on February 24, 2014, 02:04:31 pm
Spoiler: A short summary of things said in video (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 24, 2014, 02:29:49 pm
Post by: olemars on February 24, 2014, 02:35:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 24, 2014, 02:39:28 pm
The question is where all the money of the old regime actually is, probably Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Cyprus or the Carribean.
Post by: Sinistar on February 24, 2014, 03:11:31 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Question for Ukrainian Ranger (or really anyone with more current information): so what happened with Klitschko? Or more specifically, what do you think the future holds for him? He was booed on the stage when he presented the deal the opposition leaders made with Yanukovych, right? Do you think he will still remain a relevant person in politics?
And what about Tymoshenko? Years ago when her trial was more relevant, I remember getting the feeling she's just another of corrupted politicians. Will she, as an "enemy" of Yanukovych, remain or become more relevant political figure in the future?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 24, 2014, 03:39:48 pm
I still consider him to be the favorite of presidential race. He is respected in Eastern Ukraine, he have never held any position so he has no negative history and people do believe that guy who made millions using his fists has no intention to steal billions and build a palace for himself.
Many dislike that his team has many old faces, myself included. I'd much prefer if he did what Saakashvili did in Georgia - Mostly young specialists
Tymoshenko... One of popular jokes in Ukrainian Internet - "If Tymoshenko will become the new president, let's not destroy barricades because we gonna need them soon". She represents old Ukrainian politics with all "good" things it had.
You see, the whole situation in Ukraine is a compromise between revolutionaries and parliament: Knowing that legitimacy is needed and a random group of people from the streets can't make new laws, armed guys on the streets allow parliament to do what it is needed. But there are very little trust* toward that guys, we totally expect that they will play political games of the past with all corruption remaining in place. Returning to pre-Yanukovitch status quo is not enough at all
*Sometimes people are too paranoid if you ask me
Post by: Sinistar on February 24, 2014, 05:01:24 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 11:49:32 am
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 11:55:05 am
Post by: Comrade P. on February 25, 2014, 12:27:53 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 01:47:55 pm
Anyway, I realy wish I could read Ukrainian right now. You see, a small band of journalists have taken over a guesthouse on Yanukovich's compound and started drying, scanning and uploading all the documents that were found at his house (including ~200 folders rescued from his lake by volunteer divers). There must be some interesting stuff to read in there.
Story of the journalists (http://gijn.org/2014/02/25/yanukovychleaks-org-how-ukraine-journalists-are-making-history/)
YanukovychLeaks (http://www.yanukovychleaks.org/)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 02:09:13 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 02:57:35 pm
BTW, if you don't already, I suggest you follow the "Euromaidan in English" page of Facebook. Great news.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 03:24:24 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2014, 03:40:59 pm
Tymoshenko accepted an offer to go to Germany for medical care. Hopefully it'll give her a nice way out.I gather the German Secret Service is more capable than most people (including me) think - it won't happen, of course, but it might not be the worst option...
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 03:54:00 pm
Helgoland, what do you mean, won't happen? Apparently Merkel offered Tymmoshenko the trip. My guess is that Merkel (like most of the West) is behind Klitshko, and want to remove Tymoshenko from Ukraine.
Post by: Digital Hellhound on February 25, 2014, 03:57:37 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 03:59:03 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 25, 2014, 04:16:49 pm
He's (mostly) kidding I guess. The treatment for Tymoshenko in Germany has been on the table for a long time, IIRC more than a year before the current events.Yeah, I am (duuh :P ) - they'd never do something like that to such a high-profile person. But it's reasonable that the Western states want to keep her away from Ukraine - and I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of someone tampering with her treatment to keep her here for a longer time, if that becomes necessary.
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 04:40:36 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 25, 2014, 04:43:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 04:52:19 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 25, 2014, 04:55:27 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 25, 2014, 05:02:27 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on February 25, 2014, 11:54:18 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 04:40:09 am
However, once she lost the PMship, Yanukovych decided he wanted her in jail and decided to charge her with "abuse of power" for signing a bad deal with the Russians for gas in 2009 (I think the deal was fairly good, but that's just my opinion).
So yeah, that case was bullshit, so she was politically oppressed. But she still is a corrupt oligarch.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 26, 2014, 01:59:11 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 02:11:26 pm
As for Crimea. Thousands of Tatars chanting "Crimea is Ukraine" is a good message for local Russians.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 26, 2014, 02:51:20 pm
Anyway, I heard something like "they are gathering volunteer forces in Crimea and giving them guns & live bullets". Sounds like bullshit. Another sounding-like-bullshit thing I heard: "it turned out marine corps ware *occasionally* deployed on board of the Russian Black Sea Fleet".
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 26, 2014, 03:05:45 pm
Good news: no more Berkut. Bad news: more pro-russian protests in Crimea (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26354705). Also a bit of Russian sabble-rattling.
Russian military had similar exercises before the war in South Ossetia in 2008.
However, in 2008 Russian officials explicitly warned that they would intervene to protect Russian citizens if Georgia attacks South Ossetia. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm) The Russian government today doesn't seem to be inclined to intervene in Ukraine in any way.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 03:10:39 pm
Quote
You say of annexing Crimea back to Russia like it's a bad thing.Yep, it's a bad thing. For Tatars. For Ukraine it is bad, too, naval base is a good thing to have and losing Crimea will mess with our territorial waters, hurting Ukrainian economics. And having a war near our borders isn't nice, either. Finally that kind of annexing will show the way to other Ukrainian regions. So even with my lack of attachment to that territory, I don't want let it go
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:19:13 pm
Anyway, were those exercises planned before? To me it sounds like Putin wants to be ready to invade, maybe he doesn't intend too, but he wants the option on the table.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 26, 2014, 03:22:02 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:22:50 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 26, 2014, 03:34:28 pm
Anyway, were those exercises planned before? To me it sounds like Putin wants to be ready to invade, maybe he doesn't intend too, but he wants the option on the table.According to Russian sources, it's a snap drill, similar to several such drills carried out last year. Russian officials deny that it is connected with the situation in Ukraine in any way. (http://rt.com/news/putin-drill-combat-army-864/)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 26, 2014, 03:36:04 pm
The Russian government today doesn't seem to be inclined to intervene in Ukraine in any way.I'm not generally an optimist, but I think that both the drill as well as the recent statements are probably just sabbre-rattling, intended to express disappointment with the recent developments. Intervening in Ukraine would cause too much of a diplomatic chaos and would be counterproductive to Putin's attempts to get Ukraine to join his Eurasian Union.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 03:37:29 pm
Source?http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
UR, how would you feel if Crimea left in ~8 years after a referendum?I can accept independent Crimea, should they wish it, but no various annexation schemes from Russia.
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:46:01 pm
Quote from: That treaty
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine
Yeah, I'm sure the UN Security Council will swiftly act to protect Ukraine in case of Russian aggression. ::)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 26, 2014, 03:50:27 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 03:58:32 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 26, 2014, 03:59:15 pm
If fighting starts in Crimea, Russia may step in claiming to protect the Black Sea Fleet or Russian citizens living there.
Post by: tryrar on February 26, 2014, 04:41:14 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 05:01:20 pm
Concerning possible pretexts for war, recently the leader of the Right Sector threatened to send his troops to Crimea to crush pro-Russian separatists (Russian link). (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/02/25/crimea/)Russian medias and their low level manipulation.....
If fighting starts in Crimea, Russia may step in claiming to protect the Black Sea Fleet or Russian citizens living there.
1) Since when Mosiychuk is a leader of the Right Sector?
2) Right Sector said that it has no such plans
3) Mosiychuk should think better what he says while visiting that TV channel. If he thinks that it is a good solution of problem that doesn't mean he can speak in a tone that can be interpreted as if it is planned or that trains are underway.
4) SNA in Right Sector is something I strongly dislike, because those guys are borderline neo-nazi. At least they are far from being the most influential group
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 26, 2014, 05:17:17 pm
Quote from: That treatyThe United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine
Yeah, I'm sure the UN Security Council will swiftly act to protect Ukraine in case of Russian aggression. ::)
Is the security council allowed to vote on bills directed towards themselves? I'm no UN expert and this question has never really occurred to me. Could the U.S. invade Botswana, destroy everything, and be able to hold up any security council actions directed at the US because.. we're on it? That would be goddamn stupid.
Post by: Morrigi on February 26, 2014, 05:21:03 pm
Yeah, pretty much. The U.S. has done it 30+ times in defense of our Glorious Ally,[/sarcasm] Israel.Quote from: That treatyThe United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine
Yeah, I'm sure the UN Security Council will swiftly act to protect Ukraine in case of Russian aggression. ::)
Is the security council allowed to vote on bills directed towards themselves? I'm no UN expert and this question has never really occurred to me. Could the U.S. invade Botswana, destroy everything, and be able to hold up any security council actions directed at the US because.. we're on it? That would be goddamn stupid.
They also have a laughable record of actually getting things done, ever.
Post by: Bauglir on February 26, 2014, 05:21:23 pm
That would be goddamn stupid.WELCOME TO THE UN, FRIEND.
Post by: Morrigi on February 26, 2014, 05:23:51 pm
And this is why everyone laughs at the U.N. "Security" Council. When lives may be lost in minutes, their resolution will be only years away... And entirely useless in the first place.That would be goddamn stupid.WELCOME TO THE UN, FRIEND.
Post by: Sheb on February 26, 2014, 05:30:42 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 26, 2014, 05:35:44 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on February 26, 2014, 06:04:48 pm
Well, about the national aspect, someone posted an ethnic map of Ukraine here or in Sheb's politics thread, and it said that about 78 percent of crimean population is Russian. A the most of others consider themselves Ukrainians, I presume. And I don't know exactly how much tatar are still living there, but I think that their numbers aren't big enough to make a considerable impact on some kind of referendum, which I think must be performed in Crimea in order to do something with their national/state politics thing.QuoteYou say of annexing Crimea back to Russia like it's a bad thing.Yep, it's a bad thing. For Tatars. For Ukraine it is bad, too, naval base is a good thing to have and losing Crimea will mess with our territorial waters, hurting Ukrainian economics. And having a war near our borders isn't nice, either. Finally that kind of annexing will show the way to other Ukrainian regions. So even with my lack of attachment to that territory, I don't want let it go
As far as I know, Sevastopol, for instance, is still Russian naval base. With Russian fleet docking there permanently. Well, yes, Crimea has most of developed sea bases on Ukraine now, as far as I know, but I can also see some other places where Ukraine has access to sea, so, you won't be lethally injured on that point.
On the whole, I guess I have opposite opinion to annexation of Ukrainian territories to Russia because I'm Russian and you're Ukrainian :D And that I think is pretty right.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 06:33:54 pm
Quote
and it said that about 78 percent of crimean population is RussianDon't know where you got that map from. 2001 Ukrainian census gives:
Russians 58.5%
Ukrainians 24.4%
Crimean Tatars 12.1%
With the rest being other nations
That's barely majority.
And I can't see how number of Russians could raise since then. In fact I am rather sure that it is below 50% now. Internal migration adds Ukrainians, higher birth rates benefit Tatars and some other nations, Emigration hurts Tatars less because they tend to stay in the place. Immigration is more Central-Asian\North Caucasian in nature. So I will not be surprised if real number of Russians is below 50% now
Quote
As far as I know, Sevastopol, for instance, is still Russian naval base.It's Ukrainian naval base loaned by Russia. Very different thing.
It is a bad situation and a result of Kravchuck's treason, all Soviet Union Black Sea fleet should have become Ukrainian (Or Ukraine should have got percentage of all Soviet fleets)
Quote
as far as I know, but also see some other places where Ukraine has access to sea, so, you won't be lethally injured on that point.You can't base naval vessels in just any port. One needs dedicated facilities. That's exactly why Russian navy was allowed to stay, because it had no other place to base the vessels. Even now with facilities in Novorosiysk it is not that easy to base the whole fleet there . Oh and no, we don't have billions to build a new naval base
Quote
On the whole, I guess I have opposite opinion to annexation of Ukrainian territories to Russia because I'm RussianI find it... very weird when a citizen of 21th century country wants annexations of territories of other countries.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on February 26, 2014, 06:36:06 pm
As far as I know, Sevastopol, for instance, is still Ukrainian naval base. With Ukrainian and Russian fleets docking there permanently, as per a lease of the naval bases agreed to by Ukraine and Russia in 1997 set to expire in 2017 but renewed by Yanukovich in 2010.
Fixed that for you.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 06:47:57 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on February 26, 2014, 07:00:39 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 26, 2014, 07:16:12 pm
Post by: misko27 on February 26, 2014, 07:30:05 pm
Post by: Morrigi on February 26, 2014, 09:06:49 pm
The US has already previously warned Russia against using troops. Step it up Obama.What exactly would he do? Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than we do.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 27, 2014, 01:59:24 am
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 03:06:57 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 27, 2014, 03:32:48 am
Russians as in ethnically russian Ukrainian, right?They claimed to be members of ethnic Russian self-defence forces.
They broke in around 4:20 in the morning, disarmed the guards, barricaded the entrances and raised a Russian flag on the roof:
(http://vesti.ua/storage/asset/image/2014/02/27/4/41/fee/3e663703144110ac21697e3812_4ef3056f.jpg)
They were heavily armed and wore military uniforms without any markings.
The representatives of the Crimean autonomy government are currently negotiating with them.
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 03:34:30 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 27, 2014, 03:41:32 am
Crap. I wonder where they got their weapons. Maybe some sympathizer in the Russian Black Sea Fleet? Anyway, worth watching.Some Russian radio station (https://twitter.com/govoritmsk/status/438925003305013248) claimed that the attackers are former Berkut members from Sevastopol.
People at Russian anti-Maidan oriented websites are cheering, but something tells me that this incident may be a provocation. Apparently, the attackers refused to negotiate with diplomats from the Russian General Consulate. (http://vesti.ua/krym/39828-zahvatchiki-adminzdanij-kryma-otkazalis-vstrechatsja-s-genkonsulom-rf-v-simferopole)
Post by: Ghazkull on February 27, 2014, 04:27:12 am
Even if there is a Russian Majority in that part of the Country, it seceding would be the same as if several german cities where the turkish immigrant population is higher than that of the german natives would suddenly go "nah we want to secede to Turkey".
Not to mention that if i got crimea right in my head, that its integration to Russia would look weird on the map, like that small enclave north of Poland. In any case whats with that up anyway?
But yeah my point being that it would be completely disconnected from Russia, except by sea.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on February 27, 2014, 05:18:40 am
OKay i see Comrade P.s point here that Crimea once belonged to Russia some hundred years ago, but lets be honest here you took it by force of arms and it actually belongs to the Tartars and the Ukrainians.
Russia does have a valid claim on the region, though, even if it comes from more recent times. Sevastopol was incredibly important to Russia, and remains so such that it leases military facilities from Ukraine in order to base the Black Sea Fleet there. However, it's also incredibly important to Ukraine, for similar reasons in addition to being a very, very important port.
Let's be careful not to make out Russia as the Big Bad Guys every time something goes down. We don't want to sound like hypocrites.
Not to mention that if i got crimea right in my head, that its integration to Russia would look weird on the map, like that small enclave north of Poland. In any case whats with that up anyway?
But yeah my point being that it would be completely disconnected from Russia, except by sea.
Not really. It wouldn't be connected via the mainland to Russia, but it'd be a stone's throw away otherwise. It's kinda like Nova Scotia/Prince Edward Island/etc. being a part of Canada. It's barely even connected to Ukraine to begin with.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 27, 2014, 05:31:24 am
like that small enclave north of Poland. In any case whats with that up anyway?Kaliningrad/Königsberg and surrounding areas became part of the Soviet Union as a result of the Potsdam Agreement in 1945.
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 05:34:43 am
So not surprising they want annexation by Russia: it's probably the only way they will escape retaliation.
So remember kids: when you take over a country, whether by force or by revolution, don't disband all the security services. You're just creating a big bunch of trained, armed, unemployed guys. Remember Iraq!
Post by: Funk on February 27, 2014, 06:06:13 am
Wouldn't the Russian language stay on the same level in Crimea, as part of it's semi autonomous status? or is that just wishfull thinking on my part.
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 06:23:05 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 27, 2014, 06:34:48 am
Yanukovich made another written statement to Russian media. He apparently was also granted asylum in Russia. (http://rt.com/news/yanukovich-president-ukraine-statement-002/)Post-WWII territory rearrangements were a huge clusterfuck to begin with - they just shovved Poland westwards, for example. It's best not to dispute arrangements that were agreed upon pre-45.like that small enclave north of Poland. In any case whats with that up anyway?Kaliningrad/Königsberg and surrounding areas became part of the Soviet Union as a result of the Potsdam Agreement in 1945.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 27, 2014, 06:46:13 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 27, 2014, 06:47:06 am
The BBC have a nice summary of the current situation in the Crimea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26366700). This could go so badly wrong... :/
Post by: Owlbread on February 27, 2014, 07:25:20 am
Russia does have a valid claim on the region, though, even if it comes from more recent times. Sevastopol was incredibly important to Russia, and remains so such that it leases military facilities from Ukraine in order to base the Black Sea Fleet there. However, it's also incredibly important to Ukraine, for similar reasons in addition to being a very, very important port.
Russia's claim is barely any more valid than their claim on the whole of Ukraine. Crimea hasn't been a part of Russia since the 1950s when it was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev.
This shouldn't be a matter of "claims" though. The age of imperialism is supposed to be over.
Quote
Let's be careful not to make out Russia as the Big Bad Guys every time something goes down. We don't want to sound like hypocrites.
Right now they certainly aren't the good guys. I can barely name a time in the last 20 years that they were. That isn't the fault of the Russian people though, and I can generally say the same of the UK.
Post by: Kicior on February 27, 2014, 08:30:58 am
OKay i see Comrade P.s point here that Crimea once belonged to Russia some hundred years ago, but lets be honest here you took it by force of arms and it actually belongs to the Tartars and the Ukrainians.
Okay I see you point here that Crimea belongs to Ukraine now but let's be honest here, you took it by force of arms and t actually belongs to Khazars.
Wait, it belonged to Khazars some hundreds years ago but let's be honest here, they took it by force of arms and it actually belongs to Bulgars.
I think that Tauri is the furthest we can go this way so it's their rightful clay, isn't it?
Even if there is a Russian Majority in that part of the Country, it seceding would be the same as if several german cities where the turkish immigrant population is higher than that of the german natives would suddenly go "nah we want to secede to Turkey".
So how big a region must be to let its inhabitants decide for themselves?
Not to mention that if i got crimea right in my head, that its integration to Russia would look weird on the map, like that small enclave north of Poland. In any case whats with that up anyway?Best argument ever :P It's not like they can't build a bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_Bridge).
But yeah my point being that it would be completely disconnected from Russia, except by sea.
Post-WWII territory rearrangements were a huge clusterfuck to begin with - they just shovved Poland westwards, for example. It's best not to dispute arrangements that were agreed upon pre-45.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Nie_jestesmy_tu_od_wczoraj.jpg)
No, I'm not serious :P
Post by: Owlbread on February 27, 2014, 08:42:47 am
Okay I see you point here that Crimea belongs to Ukraine now but let's be honest here, you took it by force of arms and t actually belongs to Khazars.
Wait, it belonged to Khazars some hundreds years ago but let's be honest here, they took it by force of arms and it actually belongs to Bulgars.
Considering the ethnically mixed descendents of all of those people, the Crimean Tatars, suffered ethnic cleansing at the time of WW2 (their entire population was deported by Stalin) I think they win as far as morality is concerned.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 27, 2014, 09:37:28 am
Well, right now in Crimea russian flags are raised. Not ukrainian. Or whatever. You see where this is going.
Oh, and they are not just waving flags. They are gathering forces. Nine companies gathered on volunteer base in Sevastopol, not speaking of russian fleet there.
Oh, and Putin declared "sudden field training of Western Group of Armies", we had it planned, he said, we have sudden field trainings planned.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 27, 2014, 09:41:52 am
Post by: Dutchling on February 27, 2014, 09:43:10 am
Considering the ethnically mixed descendents of all of those people, the Crimean Tatars, suffered ethnic cleansing at the time of WW2 (their entire population was deported by Stalin) I think they win as far as morality is concerned.Does the suffering of a minority remove other people's right of self determination?
Post by: Comrade P. on February 27, 2014, 09:56:40 am
So, is this crazy brinksmanship by Putin against a slightly unstable nation, or an internal thing?
No, just trolling. You know, most of Russian external and sometimes internal politics is trolling. I can't really give a better explanation to what they do. Yeah, yeah, state interests, man's rights, talk whatever you want, but they make it look as if it was trolling.
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 27, 2014, 10:01:39 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 27, 2014, 10:18:46 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 27, 2014, 10:35:31 am
That is one of misconceptions of democracy - That majority can do whatever they want and minorities should shut up and complyConsidering the ethnically mixed descendents of all of those people, the Crimean Tatars, suffered ethnic cleansing at the time of WW2 (their entire population was deported by Stalin) I think they win as far as morality is concerned.Does the suffering of a minority remove other people's right of self determination?
The basis of any stable democratic society is a political deal between majority and minorities - "Majority rules but don't use that power to make decision that are unacceptable for minorities"
So even if majority of Crimeans want to Russia that doesn't mean that they can do that.
Quote
The parliament of Crimea announced a referendum on a political status of Crimea.LOL. Russian Media are so Russian
Guardian.... Parliament of Crimea announced = That was voted.
Not: "The Council will vote on a proposal to hold the referendum later Thursday" as you can read in the article.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 27, 2014, 11:23:15 am
So you suggest that Russia is deliberatly trying to provoke a response out of an unstable Ukraine for entertainments sake? Shit, this might just end up in a war just as it entertains a high up Russian.
I don't think Russia is going to make an intervention. Totally unprobable. Seriously, what the heck we forgot there? We don't even have an excuse for that.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 27, 2014, 12:29:14 pm
The basis of any stable democratic society is a political deal between majority and minorities - "Majority rules but don't use that power to make decision that are unacceptable for minorities"Belgium has a nice formalized version of that running through the political framework. It works, but it occasionally leads to funny results.
Post by: Morrigi on February 27, 2014, 12:30:35 pm
So you suggest that Russia is deliberatly trying to provoke a response out of an unstable Ukraine for entertainments sake? Shit, this might just end up in a war just as it entertains a high up Russian.No, they just want Sevastopol because of their naval base there. They also want to protect the ethnic Russians in the area, but that seems to be a secondary objective.
It should be noted that Crimea is an autonomous republic with its own parliament and Constitution, on a comparable level to a state in the U.S.
Also, there's this: http://rt.com/news/ukraine-crimea-referendum-future-014/
Yes, I know it's from RT :P
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 12:42:46 pm
Anyway, feel like the shit is going to hit the fan. I hope this doesn't turn into war. And at least, winter is mostly over, so you've got until next winter to find some non-russian gas. We really should work on modifying those pipelines to be able to bring gas eastward.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 27, 2014, 12:45:27 pm
That is one of misconceptions of democracy - That majority can do whatever they want and minorities should shut up and complyConsidering the ethnically mixed descendents of all of those people, the Crimean Tatars, suffered ethnic cleansing at the time of WW2 (their entire population was deported by Stalin) I think they win as far as morality is concerned.Does the suffering of a minority remove other people's right of self determination?
The basis of any stable democratic society is a political deal between majority and minorities - "Majority rules but don't use that power to make decision that are unacceptable for minorities"
So even if majority of Crimeans want to Russia that doesn't mean that they can do that.
In the US that's called the Tyrrany of the Majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority) and is one of the things that the US system was specifically intended to counteract.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 27, 2014, 01:26:26 pm
So a bunch of gunmen lock themselves into parliament and then parliament passed this?
Anyway, feel like the shit is going to hit the fan. I hope this doesn't turn into war. And at least, winter is mostly over, so you've got until next winter to find some non-russian gas. We really should work on modifying those pipelines to be able to bring gas eastward.
Hey, I thought the alternative way of gas transport to Europe was functioning all the way. How it is called, the Northen Flow (Северный Поток, Severny Potok)? At least, in Russia I call it that way. Or is it just not big enough to take the full traffic of gas yet? Not quite sure about it.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 27, 2014, 01:31:36 pm
So a bunch of gunmen lock themselves into parliament and then parliament passed this?The funnies part that they got zero proofs that it was actually voted and most likely they didn't have a quorum
Post by: XXSockXX on February 27, 2014, 01:34:43 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on February 27, 2014, 01:40:32 pm
Post by: burningpet on February 27, 2014, 01:43:10 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 01:46:57 pm
kaijyu, what's you're country again? I'd say Korea, but I'm probably wrong.
Post by: Dutchling on February 27, 2014, 01:48:54 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on February 27, 2014, 01:50:16 pm
kaijyu, what's you're country again? I'd say Korea, but I'm probably wrong.United States. We're pretty cool with England/the UK now, but raising an English flag without good reason will still raise some eyebrows.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 27, 2014, 01:51:54 pm
Didn't read most of the thread so i couldn't spot it, but, did we talk how a lot of those anti-russia protesters are openly exhibiting neo-nazis symbols/slogans?Yes, we did. The press here has been watching that very carefully. The prevalent opinion is: a) there are some very worrying elements among the protesters but b) they are only a minority. Russian media seems to try to portray the events as a fascist revolution, but it is not. The people currently in charge and the majority of the population have nothing really in common with these people. They did provide a lot of assistance to the revolution, but so far their influence seems limited.
United States. We're pretty cool with England/the UK now, but raising an English flag without good reason will still raise some eyebrows.The situations are not really comparable.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 27, 2014, 01:53:33 pm
Didn't read most of the thread so i couldn't spot it, but, did we talk how a lot of those anti-russia protesters are openly exhibiting neo-nazis symbols/slogans?Yup, we passed that point already. It included a large semantic discussion on the use of the word Nazi (Conclusion: Don't) and finally ended with the conclusion that, IIRC, it's not at lot of people, but that they just appear to be in the spotlight all the time. Also, we had a little discussion on the origin of Svoboda and such.
Besides, the Anti Russian protests are already finished, it's pro-Russian protests now.
Comrade P. I did not mean to get gas to Europe, I meant to get gas to Ukraine to help them through the winter.The EU has the capacity to supply Ukraine with gas. Modifying the pipelines isn't that hard. Problem is that natural gas is very important to the Ukrainian economy, not only for heating. Also, it's massively subsidized by both the government, and Russia.
kaijyu, what's you're country again? I'd say Korea, but I'm probably wrong.
The EU can guarantee supply for a few months, but not much longer. We don't have the reserves (I mean, we're importing from Russia, and it won't be long before they catch on the fact that we're selling it back to Ukraine) and the cost will be to high for Ukraine to take without restructuring of significant parts of the economy.
Post by: kaijyuu on February 27, 2014, 01:54:45 pm
Didn't say it was. Just mentioning that it gave me pause to see people raising Russian flags in a country that gained independence from Russia.United States. We're pretty cool with England/the UK now, but raising an English flag without good reason will still raise some eyebrows.The situations are not really comparable.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 27, 2014, 02:06:16 pm
Didn't say it was. Just mentioning that it gave me pause to see people raising Russian flags in a country that gained independence from Russia.Well, they didn't gain independence from Russia. Crimea was made a part of Ukraine in the 50s, but that didn't mean a lot at the time since Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union back then, just like Russia. There are currently people seeking to reverse that decision and make Crimea a part of Russia, so no surprise with the flags here at all.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 27, 2014, 02:44:36 pm
Comrade P. I did not mean to get gas to Europe, I meant to get gas to Ukraine to help them through the winter.Whoops. Misunderstood ya.
Well, pretty right. In fact, it is unbearable to depend on someone who can just shut the vent if you go against his will and still pretends to be your friend.
Post by: scrdest on February 27, 2014, 03:35:11 pm
Didn't read most of the thread so i couldn't spot it, but, did we talk how a lot of those anti-russia protesters are openly exhibiting neo-nazis symbols/slogans?
Several times.
Post by: misko27 on February 27, 2014, 04:11:39 pm
Yanuckyvich might not want to come back though. A cache of files were found thrown into a lake near his estate. They are, damning. And publicly available (in Cyrillic) (http://yanukovychleaks.org/). NY times article here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/world/europe/a-prize-catch-for-ukrainians-at-a-boat-harbor-an-ousted-presidents-secrets.html?_r=0)
Post by: Chaoswizkid on February 27, 2014, 04:32:12 pm
This shouldn't be a matter of "claims" though. The age of imperialism is supposed to be over.
I'm not talking about Imperialism. I know you're somewhat on the other side of the issue since you're very supportive of the UK being broken up, but as an American I wouldn't just sit by as the US crumbled into independent provinces or suddenly large swaths of territory became independent and governed by Native Americans. I'm cool with the federation that we're rocking, but I wouldn't be in favor of anything less.
Ukraine was 'owned' by a lot of different countries in the past, but prior to WW1 Russia had it for around 100 years. After WW1 it broke into a conglomerate of different states and was then divided between Poland and Russia which became the USSR. The USSR got it back briefly after dividing Poland between themselves and Germany before Germany invaded Russia.
Then WW2 ended and Ukraine's actual status from there on is debatable since it was a member of the USSR. So that's either around 150 years of it being a part of Russia or around 200 years of it being a part of Russia, when before it had never been more than a bunch of different territories that were just ethnically Ukrainian people.
That's what I mean by a claim. There's historical precedence that says "This is the land where Ukrainians live" and historical precedence that says "This was a part of Russian territory for one to two centuries." Only for part of the last century is it actually a place that Ukraine owns.
Then you've got a situation where part of the country doesn't like the other part at all to the point where chances of a violent civil war are still on the table. Given that that part is the part that Russia really cared about in the first place, and the people there apparently very warmly regard Russia, if Russia felt that it was in its interests to annex Crimea from Ukraine I could understand. I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't think they were just making shit up. Just like I wouldn't think that Ukraine would be making shit up by trying to hold onto a territory that no longer wants to be a part of it (if in fact that is the case and this isn't just a vocal minority or a group 'encouraged' by the Russian government).
Also, I'm not sure that we've talked about how Crimea has tried to become independent or a part of Russia to get away from Ukraine ever since the USSR dissolved in the early 90's.
So yeah, we're out of the Age of Imperialism, but we're not out of the Age of Centralized Power. We haven't gotten to the point where humanity will stop trying to kill itself, and until we are, or until we're closer than we are right now, it is in a country's interest to have a lot of territory and not break up into smaller sovereign states.
Post by: Descan on February 27, 2014, 04:38:23 pm
I really have no idea how it did, perhaps I'm wrong and it was a whole lot of shit and massacres that ended up having a lot of the Germans living in Germany instead of Poland or Bohemia. Shoving Poland west-ward is just the tip, but everything else too...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 27, 2014, 04:39:34 pm
Problem there is the Russian economy can't really afford to simply stop selling the EU oil: 50% of their revenues are oil, and it is to a extent far greater then the west the lifeblood of their economy.They don't need to stop selling oil/gas. They can simply remove the cost cuts Ukraine gets. Should be enough to tip their economy over the edge.
Yanuckyvich might not want to come back though. A cache of files were found thrown into a lake near his estate. They are, damning. And publicly available (in Cyrillic) (http://yanukovychleaks.org/). NY times article here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/world/europe/a-prize-catch-for-ukrainians-at-a-boat-harbor-an-ousted-presidents-secrets.html?_r=0)
perhaps relevant: Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSL6N0LV1E920140226)
Post by: Sheb on February 27, 2014, 04:41:17 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 27, 2014, 05:56:41 pm
It always shocked me how... WELL the Restructuring of Eastern Europe ended up.
I really have no idea how it did, perhaps I'm wrong and it was a whole lot of shit and massacres that ended up having a lot of the Germans living in Germany instead of Poland or Bohemia. Shoving Poland west-ward is just the tip, but everything else too...
Poland being moved was a bit of a mess. What basically happened was Germans were forcibly relocated westwards, and ethnic Poles from the pre-war eastern Poland (and everywhere else, really) were heavily encouraged to move to the new territories, meanwhile USSR annexed the eastern parts.
The main reason they did it? They wanted to create something for Poles and Germans to be pissed off at each other about, the idea being if they hate on each other they cannot hate on USSR.
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 04:23:40 am
so, svoboda aren't neo-nazis?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 28, 2014, 04:27:34 am
Russian military ship off shore. Checkpoints on all the roads leading to the rest of the Ukaraine. The Crimean PM stating he is in total control... This is looking more and more like Crimean nationalists or elements of them who want to forge close ties (if not rejoin) with Russia inviting Russian forces in to lend a hand with some kind of crazy internal security scheme prior to seccession or something similar. Lets hope they have not bitten off more than they can chew.
Edit, again from the BBC:
"MPs from a party in the Russian parliament, A Just Russia, intend to submit a bill making it easier for new territories to join the Russian Federation, Russian state TV reports."
Is it all falling into place yet?
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 04:31:20 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 04:41:03 am
Russian military ship off shore is to be expected when the main Russian naval base in the region is in Crimea.Not when it is blockading Ukrainian part of the base making it impossible for Ukrainian vessels to leave the port
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 28, 2014, 04:45:29 am
Post by: sneakey pete on February 28, 2014, 05:38:13 am
Post by: Max White on February 28, 2014, 05:41:59 am
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 06:05:02 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 28, 2014, 07:23:49 am
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 07:26:54 am
Post by: MarcAFK on February 28, 2014, 07:35:09 am
Edit.
Attempts to take over airports aparrently peacefully thwarted by Ukrainian security forces, Russian helicopters land in Crimea, and unidentified armed men have infiltrated Crimea, the interior minister says that it's an invasion.
Source, whatever I can find on Google ATM, your results may vary.
Post by: Max White on February 28, 2014, 07:39:39 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 08:34:38 am
My favorite part is " Israel is terrified by Yarosh, Tyahnybok and Parubiy" :D
Post by: tryrar on February 28, 2014, 09:47:46 am
...Time to start jogging in preparation to being drafted i guess?(Not that the US has really used the draft in ages, but still)
Post by: Dutchling on February 28, 2014, 09:49:31 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 10:09:12 am
Has China said anything about Crimea yet?I think China will applaud should Russia annex Crimea
Decade or two later they will annex half of Russia because Chinese majority wants so
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 10:33:55 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Don't necessarily see what the goal is though, I guess support for Crimean secession. I still think they are narrowly going to avoid any real escalation.
EDIT: I see this has already been posted in the Eurothread.
The press conference with Yanuk must have been hilarious indeed. He still considers himself President. He denies having money in other countries (you know, the accounts Switzerland just froze), and claims all the state's money went to paying pensions, not to him.
He hasn't met Putin yet, which I guess shows how important Putin considers him to be.
All i saw was one guy making this comments along a bizzare uniforms discussion. hardly a serious discussion.No, there was more. Actually some discussion about Svoboda started in the Eurothread quite a while ago, but there was some in this thread too. Basically while Svoboda are nationalists (and maybe more nationalistic than Western Europe is normally comfortable with), they are not Neo-Nazis.
so, svoboda aren't neo-nazis?
The guys that look like Neo-Nazis are for the most part from the Right Sector, another nationalist organisation. It's my understanding that this organisation is strongly nationalistic with (by European standards) far-right opinions, but isn't really Neo-Nazi as a whole either. Some elements among them could probably be called that, but they don't account for the majority of the protesters.
There was also something about a rabbi calling the Jewish community in Kiev to leave the country, but that turned out to be Russian propaganda. German journalists talking with rabbis in Kiev found them very supportive of the revolution and not much more concerned than anybody would be with a revolution going on.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 10:50:08 am
Quote
He hasn't met Putin yet, which I guess shows how important Putin considers him to be.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 10:59:04 am
He even said he was surprised by Putin's reaction (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/viktor-yanukovych-russia-ukraine-coup). Nobody else is surprised I guess.QuoteHe hasn't met Putin yet, which I guess shows how important Putin considers him to be.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
'Russia says the unidentified men are pro-russian self-defense militias'Yeah. I think the only vaguely plausible argument for this is that at least some of them seem to lack magazines in their weapons, which indicates that they might just be there for show. But, yeah.
Post by: Descan on February 28, 2014, 10:59:33 am
Any other country, it takes weeks or months, sometimes years, just to oust the President. I think Tunisia was the exception.
In Ukraine, it's like "Okay, we have an agreement with the Pres- Oh welp he's gone okay, let's impeach him."
And then a week later, the Crimean crisis starts up.
Seriously, how much coffee do you guys drink? Or what the hell.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 11:43:30 am
Is there something about Ukraine that just... makes people hurry up along?It took months to oust Yanukovych. I don't know what went on behind the scenes between the agreement and the impeachment / Yanukovych going into hiding, that went down fast indeed. Most likely it was because he lost all support when it became clear that he had lost control of the situation.
Any other country, it takes weeks or months, sometimes years, just to oust the President. I think Tunisia was the exception.
In Ukraine, it's like "Okay, we have an agreement with the Pres- Oh welp he's gone okay, let's impeach him."
And then a week later, the Crimean crisis starts up.
The Crimea thing so far was very predictable however, we even talked about that here and in the Eurothread back in autumn.
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 11:45:31 am
Is there something about Ukraine that just... makes people hurry up along?They drink coffee and snort coke, maybe?
Any other country, it takes weeks or months, sometimes years, just to oust the President. I think Tunisia was the exception.
In Ukraine, it's like "Okay, we have an agreement with the Pres- Oh welp he's gone okay, let's impeach him."
And then a week later, the Crimean crisis starts up.
Seriously, how much coffee do you guys drink? Or what the hell.
They snort coffee, unroasted.
They also drink coke, but that's hardly an achievement in anything but sugar consumption.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 11:45:33 am
Also, since when do slef-defense militias suddenly get military trucks and tons of assault weapons? The best Maidan ever did was bulldozer and hunting rifles, at least until the very last.
So either they're Russians, or they are armed by Russia, or they are Ukrainian army defectors/got friends in the army that gave them stuff.
I think we would have heard of it if they were defectors, so it's one of the first two. Probably the second: I wouldn't be surprised if the FSB had spent the last couple months organizing those self-defense units. It may explain why Putin's so cool with it: he had it all planned, and now that Ukraine is in turmoil he can grab Crimea without doing a thing.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 11:54:40 am
1) War is over. Time to get back into normal life. Any aggressive actions against people or governmental institutions to be stopped. Should anyone fail to understand that Right Sector will act together with police forces to stop that
2) Full support of the newly formed parliament coalition and government. We can't allow ourself bickering in times like that
3) Crimean Crisis to be solved peacefully. Right Sector never sent armed militia in Crimea and doesn't plan to do so
Quote
So either they're Russians, or they are armed by Russia, or they are Ukrainian army defectors/got friends in the army that gave them stuff.Their helmets are definitively from Russian Army
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 12:10:18 pm
Meanwhile Putin has been talking with EU leaders on the phone and says he wants to avoid further escalation.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 12:11:57 pm
1) War is over. Time to get back into normal life. Any aggressive actions against people or governmental institutions to be stopped. Should anyone fail to understand that Right Sector will act together with police forces to stop thatBad.
Quote
2) Full support of the newly formed parliament coalition and government. We can't allow ourself bickering in times like thatGood.
Quote
3) Crimean Crisis to be solved peacefully. Right Sector never sent armed militia in Crimea and doesn't plan to do soGood.
Right Sector needs to learn that they can't be vigilantes, but people like them tend to love that sort of thing.
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 12:12:27 pm
If you think a party that started as a neo nazi party, that kept its key figures, that have strong ties with fascist groups and that its stances are pretty similar to the nazis, is not a neo-nazi party, then i am afraid your mind is too easily controlled by various garbage PR actions. Svoboda IS a neo-nazis party and have had major influence both in power and in numbers with the protesters.
So in a nutshell, neo-nazis have been a key factor in overthrowing an elected government and the west is cheering, blinded by hate toward commis and by its leaders greed and imperial aspirations.
Ukrainian Ranger - the popular opinion here is very much toward favouring the revolution, probably because that's the western popular opinion and the israelis, as do i, are VERY not fond of russia/putin. but when you start reading the reports that are coming from the israeli journalists that has been there and didn't just copy pasted international media coverage, then they are clearly stating that no, there is no reason to stay calm if you are a jew living in Ukraine.
also, there are a lot of israeli-arabs that goes to Ukraine to study and they have made repeating reports of strong rise in neo-nazism and racism in Ukraine.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 12:17:03 pm
Note pulling the "I'm jewish so I'm right about being scurred about these neonazis" doesn't pan out, I'm Jewish, I keep hearing this and then there's one picture of guys with tangentially neo-nazi imagery [remember, Hitler/Nazis are the one who stole imagery from others].
The fact that they're nationalists and there's been about two pictures of 'nazi' imagery lead me to believe there's not much power in the national socialist bits. If there were, it wouldn't have gone down as.. cleanly. You and I both know the bones these kinds of people have to pick, you really expect them to dally around and play PR games?
There's also things like this. (http://www.jta.org/2013/12/08/news-opinion/world/young-jews-take-part-in-ukrainian-protests-along-with-ultranationalists) <-- This is what nationalists do
And people who claim this was a "Jewish Coup" (http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-brag-about-role-in-ukraine-coup-say-revolution-is-especially-good-for-the-jews/) <-- This is what you call a neonazi
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 12:19:41 pm
All nationalists are nazis, yes.Let's not go down that road again.
Far-right/Neo-Nazi-like tendencies can and should be discussed. We just have to keep it somewhat reasonable.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 12:24:44 pm
I mean, UR, what's your position on gassing Jews? On forcing people to have their ethnicity on their passports? Are you racists?
I'm pretty sure we're going to find out that at least one Svodoba member ain't a neo-nazis, and I'm sure many more share UR's views.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 12:30:51 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 12:34:17 pm
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 12:36:51 pm
All nationalists are nazis, yes.
Note pulling the "I'm jewish so I'm right about being scurred about these neonazis" doesn't pan out, I'm Jewish, I keep hearing this and then there's one picture of guys with tangentially neo-nazi imagery [remember, Hitler/Nazis are the one who stole imagery from others].
The fact that they're nationalists and there's been about two pictures of 'nazi' imagery lead me to believe there's not much power in the national socialist bits. If there were, it wouldn't have gone down as.. cleanly. You and I both know the bones these kinds of people have to pick, you really expect them to dally around and play PR games?
There's also things like this. (http://www.jta.org/2013/12/08/news-opinion/world/young-jews-take-part-in-ukrainian-protests-along-with-ultranationalists) <-- This is what nationalists do
And people who claim this was a "Jewish Coup" (http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-brag-about-role-in-ukraine-coup-say-revolution-is-especially-good-for-the-jews/) <-- This is what you call a neonazi
Are you deliberately ignoring the origins of the Svoboda party? its initial symbol? its stances? its remarks regarding other "inferior" races? yeah. this is a good way to shut people up.
btw, newsflash, there were various jewish meniphestos by leading jewish community figures that were in support of the early nazis.
Nazis/neo-nazis don't play PR games? please. nazi germans were more than excellent at it.
Sheb:
the foundation of the party is rooted in neo-nazis and its leading figures have made their fare share of racist remarks.
whether he support the stance of forcing people to have their ethnicity on their passports is irrelevant, he is supporting a party that officially support this stance.
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 12:37:40 pm
And people who claim this was a "Jewish Coup" (http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-brag-about-role-in-ukraine-coup-say-revolution-is-especially-good-for-the-jews/) <-- This is what you call a neonaziHoly crap that is stupid. And yet the comments still manage to be worse.
Quote
Russians don’t have nukes because nukes are a hoax. But HAARP isn’t. And it’s as bad as nukes if not worse. WW3 will be giant city-collapsing earthquakes. Droughts and deluges etc. Pretty godly actually.
Quote from: reply to previous comment
According to the Bible, in the Kingdom of God on earth,
the other nations are kept in line via weather control.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 12:38:08 pm
All nationalists are nazis, yes.
Note pulling the "I'm jewish so I'm right about being scurred about these neonazis" doesn't pan out, I'm Jewish, I keep hearing this and then there's one picture of guys with tangentially neo-nazi imagery [remember, Hitler/Nazis are the one who stole imagery from others].
The fact that they're nationalists and there's been about two pictures of 'nazi' imagery lead me to believe there's not much power in the national socialist bits. If there were, it wouldn't have gone down as.. cleanly. You and I both know the bones these kinds of people have to pick, you really expect them to dally around and play PR games?
There's also things like this. (http://www.jta.org/2013/12/08/news-opinion/world/young-jews-take-part-in-ukrainian-protests-along-with-ultranationalists) <-- This is what nationalists do
And people who claim this was a "Jewish Coup" (http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-brag-about-role-in-ukraine-coup-say-revolution-is-especially-good-for-the-jews/) <-- This is what you call a neonazi
Are you deliberately ignoring the origins of the Svoboda party? its initial symbol? its stances? its remarks regarding other "inferior" races? yeah. this is a good way to shut people up.
btw, newsflash, there were various jewish meniphestos by leading jewish community figures that were in support of the early nazis.
Nazis/neo-nazis don't play PR games? please. nazi germans were more than excellent at it.
Sheb:
the foundation of the party is rooted in neo-nazis and its leading figures have made their fare share of racist remarks.
whether he support the stance of forcing people to have their ethnicity on their passports is irrelevant, he is supporting a party that officially support this stance.
You're making the claim, it should be easy to find links to support what you say. Get to it.
I find this very amusing since there's been plenty of Jewish support for the revolution and Jews on the streets with these 'nazis' and yet there's been 0, yes, count them 0 violent deaths of Jews in these instances. You and I both know random line-toting nazis don't play that. Don't act like you truly believe this is the case, as you should be well aware that people with ideologies like that will make B-lines for synagogues, like in Egypt. This hasn't happened in Ukraine.
But wait, you can come back and say 'but that's just propaganda!' Which is likely the next step here.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 12:42:34 pm
You still have to substantiate anything beyond "Hey, their old logo was scary and one of their peep sayed anti-semitic things a few years ago!".
Plus Svodoba is only part of the revolution. The revolution ain't anti-semitic (it's anti-Russian, and that' its own problem tough.)
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 12:47:50 pm
The fact that they're nationalists and there's been about two pictures of 'nazi' imagery lead me to believe there's not much power in the national socialist bits.Not to contradict the rest of what you said, but to be fair, there are more than 2 pictures with neo-nazi imagery. I've seen some protesters (presumably Right Sector members) wearing "Thor Steinar" clothing. Also that Right Sector video message that was posted in this thread did feature the Black Sun prominently, a symbol that is - among other things - a popular Swastika substitute.
Are you deliberately ignoring the origins of the Svoboda party? its initial symbol? its stances? its remarks regarding other "inferior" races? yeah. this is a good way to shut people up.As to the origins of the Svoboda party - I am inclined to believe that in a developing democracy, which Ukraine still is, parties may form at the fringes and grow out of that stuff later. Of course this has to be proven by their current words and actions.
Post by: Sinistar on February 28, 2014, 12:53:31 pm
And people who claim this was a "Jewish Coup" (http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-brag-about-role-in-ukraine-coup-say-revolution-is-especially-good-for-the-jews/) <-- This is what you call a neonaziWhoa, that site...just...whooooa.
Out of interest, I started reading some other articles and it's almost a fascinating mishmash of pseudo-science, bible-humping and plain silliness.
As for Svoboda and "neo-nazis" - I think saying neo-nazis were "key element" in making the current situation in Ukraine a reality is a bit much. There was quite some talk about more extreme nationalists being a part of demonstrations, but even if Svoboda was or is still a neo-nazi group in it's core (I'm saying "if" because I do not know much about them), in the end it wasn't the "Svoboda" that forced Yanukovych to flee, was it?
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 12:54:49 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 12:56:26 pm
Quote
also, there are a lot of israeli-arabs that goes to Ukraine to study and they have made repeating reports of strong rise in neo-nazism and racism in Ukraine.Yeah, I posted some screenshot's from Berkut's Facebook page earlier :) Unfortunately Racism, especially antisemitism is rather common in Ukraine. But that has nothing to do with Ukrainian nationalism. Most racist around there are nation-less people with Soviet mentality. I am Ukrainian Nationalist and I view Israel as one of the best role models of how one should build a national state. And works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky influenced my political views no much less than Bandera, Mikhnovsky or Dontsov
Quote
from the israeli journalists that has been thereCan you name me what Israeli journalists claim stuff like that? And how popular in Israel they are?
Knowing Israeli foreign politics I would be very surprised if Israeli government failed to act if they believed that Jews in Ukraine are in danger
BTW, Speaking about Foreign policy of Israel
Quote from: wiki
Leaders of Right Sector ensured the Israeli ambassador Reuven El Din that the group rejects anti-semitism, chauvinism, and xenophobia. A statement on the Israeli embassy read "The leader of the movement informed the Ambassador about his views on the future of Ukraine, and stressed that the move follows a tolerant policy on national issues" and that "The aim of the movement is to build a democratic Ukraine, transparent government, combat corruption, and equal opportunities for all nations and peoples, and to build a nation-state ruled by democracy." They also stated they would open a hotline with the embassy to cooperate in case of provocations in the futureAnd that is the guys who call Svoboda too liberal and too conformist
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 01:02:42 pm
Is Thor Steinar always a far-right stuff though? I know that on some places Lonsdale clothing is considered neo-nazis wear (Look at the central four letters...), but I know plenty of other types that wear it because its comfortable and stuff.Thor Steinar is much more associated with that stuff than Lonsdale. In Germany it's considered the Neo-Nazi brand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Steinar).
I'm more lenient with the Black Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_%28occult_symbol%29), there are people using it for non-political purposes, but it didn't really look like the guys in the video were fans of certain music genres or occultists to me. ;)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 01:08:57 pm
Not to contradict the rest of what you said, but to be fair, there are more than 2 pictures with neo-nazi imagery. I've seen some protesters (presumably Right Sector members) wearing "Thor Steinar" clothing. Also that Right Sector video message that was posted in this thread did feature the Black Sun prominently, a symbol that is - among other things - a popular Swastika substitute.
I haven't seen more than a tiny handful of cherry picked examples usually featured on Russian websites, so, can't blame me for being skeptical when I myself can't find images of nazi symbolism in the Ukrainian protests.
I mean, the neo-nazis are the ones claiming this was all caused by Jews and their damned cabal with the Svodoba/Right Sector (http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?s=ed778ff3972b036d78c243e34538b61a&t=171704) [NSFW] [which, honestly, makes me want to laugh so hard I almost cry].. I guess the Jews should blame this all on nazis? Full circle.
Note I'm being extremely tongue-in-cheek. Should be obvious. Noone here is a nazi [well the people in the topic I just linked may be], nor do they deserve to be termed as such until policies are instigated that show this. We dilute the meaning of Naziism when you throw it onto people you think might tangentially be, and then stretch the definition to encompass that.
BTW, Speaking about Foreign policy of Israelhttp://embassies.gov.il/kiev/NewsAndEvents/Pages/DinElYaroshMeeting27Feb2014.aspxQuote from: wikiLeaders of Right Sector ensured the Israeli ambassador Reuven El Din that the group rejects anti-semitism, chauvinism, and xenophobia. A statement on the Israeli embassy read "The leader of the movement informed the Ambassador about his views on the future of Ukraine, and stressed that the move follows a tolerant policy on national issues" and that "The aim of the movement is to build a democratic Ukraine, transparent government, combat corruption, and equal opportunities for all nations and peoples, and to build a nation-state ruled by democracy." They also stated they would open a hotline with the embassy to cooperate in case of provocations in the futureAnd that is the guys who call Svoboda too liberal and too conformist
Source for those who are wondering.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 01:17:43 pm
I haven't seen more than a tiny handful of cherry picked examples usually featured on Russian websites, so, can't blame me for being skeptical when I myself can't find images of nazi symbolism in the Ukrainian protests.I have seen some in German TV and news reports, as I said before, German media has been watching that carefully. As I also said, correspondents seem to think that it's not something we should worry too much about currently.
Noone here is a nazi [well the people in the topic I just linked may be], nor do they deserve to be termed as such until policies are instigated that show this. We dilute the meaning of Naziism when you throw it onto people you think might tangentially be, and then stretch the definition to encompass that.That is pretty much my opinion too.
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 01:22:49 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 01:26:05 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 01:26:05 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 28, 2014, 01:27:57 pm
Anyway, this was in the newspaper today. Have we talked about this yet?
Edit: There appears to be a significant difference between the things I found in my newspaper, and the news in the article. My (daily, free, and >50% advertisement) paper told me that Yanukovich and co managed to steal 70 billion from state treasuries. Appears not to be accurate.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 01:37:19 pm
I'd say that even majority of guys who call themselves national-socialists and praise Hitler aren't neo-Nazi. Especially teenager "neo-nazies"That is - or at least I hope so - what I meant with people in a developing democracy growing out of extremism later. In a polarizing system like Ukraine used to have, there is a tendency towards extremism, the "Nazis vs Soviets" line of thinking. My hope is that a lot of that is a symptom of rebellion and will move towards more moderate and reasonable positions, if Ukraine manages to become more democratic as a whole.
There appears to be a significant difference between the things I found in my newspaper, and the news in the article. My (daily, free, and >50% advertisement) paper told me that Yanukovich and co managed to steal 70 billion from state treasuries. Appears not to be accurate.I dunno, there seem to be two different things here:
Quote
In addition to the missing $37 billion, Yatseniuk said as much as $70 billion had been sent out of the country during Yanukovich's three-year rule, although he did not make clear how much of this capital flight was illegal.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 01:38:09 pm
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 02:02:15 pm
I find it astonishing how that is even possible.
I'm gonna adapt a Polish joke about the corruption here to illustrate.
"The [nationality - in this case, Ukrainian] Minister of Infrastructure went to France to visit his French counterpart. The French Minister greeted him in his chateau, invited him to an expensive lunch and showed his collection of art.
'How could you afford the house, the art and everything?' asked the Ukrainian minister in amazement.
'Come here. Look out of the window. See that highway there? It cost 30 million, the company which built it billed it for 35 million and sent the 5 million to me.'
The minister, deep in thought, said his farewells and courteously offered for the Frenchman to visit him if he'd ever drop by.
Three years later, the French minister decided to visit his colleague. As he stepped through the gate, he was surprised. The mansion he saw was even bigger, the lunch a veritable feast, and the art collection dwarfed his.
'How did you do that?!' he asked.
The Ukrainian gestured for him to come to the window.
'See that highway over there?' the Ukrainian minister asked.
'What highway?'
'Exactly.'
Post by: Comrade P. on February 28, 2014, 02:18:29 pm
I find it astonishing how that is even possible.
I'm gonna adapt a Polish joke about the corruption here to illustrate.Spoiler: Joke goes here (click to show/hide)
It is international.
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 02:19:23 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 02:23:43 pm
Sadly Ukrainian army is a joke
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 02:24:32 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 02:30:55 pm
Post by: codyorr on February 28, 2014, 03:22:07 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 03:25:29 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 03:41:21 pm
That's Russian operation. That is direct intervention. They try to do what they did in Georgia back in 2008. Move troops in a country, when army of that country opens fire on that troops, wait till army of that country attacks occupation forces and then scream "They are attacking our civilians!" and SUDDENLY have mobilized forces to invade
But if plan A to fail, I think it is possible that Russians will do plan B and just annihilate our soldiers with that "unknown militiamen" who are in fact Russian marine infantry.
Oh and there are no ban on Russian language, that's nonsense. One badly-written law, that was passed in unlawful way, got canceled. Besides cancellation of that law is vetoed by Turchinov already (senseless move if you ask me)
Finally that law has no effect in Crimea because in Crimea language is regulated by local constitution
Post by: Comrade P. on February 28, 2014, 03:53:04 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 28, 2014, 03:53:58 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 03:55:56 pm
And hey,what happened to "Train of Friendship" full of armed maidan activists that was heading to Crimea?Nothing happened. It never existed.
Post by: Comrade P. on February 28, 2014, 04:00:35 pm
InterestingAnd hey,what happened to "Train of Friendship" full of armed maidan activists that was heading to Crimea?Nothing happened. It never existed.
Mysteriously, evening news bulletins on Russian television didn't even mention Ukrainian government's claims of armed invasion by the "Russian army". The takeover of Simferopol's airport was mentioned rather shortly, it was attributed to ethnic Russian self-defence forces.Link? Also interested.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on February 28, 2014, 04:09:28 pm
Mysteriously, evening news bulletins on Russian television didn't even mention Ukrainian government's claims of armed invasion by the "Russian army". The takeover of Simferopol's airport was mentioned rather shortly, it was attributed to ethnic Russian self-defence forces.Link? Also interested.
Websites of major Russian television channels such as Channel One Russia (http://www.1tv.ru/newsvideoarchive/), Rossiya 1 (http://www.vesti.ru/videos?cid=58) and NTV (http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/segodnya/m23700/o227517) have videos of aired news segments - none of them mentions Turchinov's accusations of armed invasion.
Post by: Morrigi on February 28, 2014, 04:12:08 pm
Found this (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=287_1393605865) on liveleak. About a dozen attack and transport helicopters flying in Crimea. The video was posted today.Mysteriously, evening news bulletins on Russian television didn't even mention Ukrainian government's claims of armed invasion by the "Russian army". The takeover of Simferopol's airport was mentioned rather shortly, it was attributed to ethnic Russian self-defence forces.Link? Also interested.
Websites of major Russian television channels such as Channel One Russia (http://www.1tv.ru/newsvideoarchive/), Rossiya 1 (http://www.vesti.ru/videos?cid=58) and NTV (http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/segodnya/m23700/o227517) have videos of aired news segments - none of them mentions Turchinov's accusations of armed invasion.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 04:20:43 pm
https://twitter.com/BalmforthTom/status/439446655612768256
I think some Svoboda supporters are there... Or that is done by local Russians. It is up to you to decide what is more probable. I can only say that you can't find something like that in Lviv or Kiyv
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 04:24:54 pm
Quote
On Friday, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of Russia's most outspoken ultranationalist politicians, paid a surprise visit to the city and gave a speech in front of the city's administration building.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-taking-over-airports-live-updates
"All the roads, all the ports, all the communications are under the control of the provincial Crimean government," he declared to thunderous applause of hundreds of people. "I don't want you to worry whether anything bad will happen tomorrow -- let's welcome the Russian flag that is flying over government buildings."
He said the people in Sevastopol could count on Russia's support and said that the land had long been part of Russia – a reference to the fact that Crimea was ceded to Ukraine's Soviet republic in 1954.
"I promise that Russia will render you all kinds of assistance – moral, economic and political," he said.
He then took an opportunity to take a swipe at Ukrainian nationalists who had introduced a bill to downgrade the official status of the Russian language.
"If they want somewhere only to speak Ukrainian then here we will speak only Russian," he said.
Anyone want to deny that Russia is actively supporting this operation? And likely set it up in the first place? Because it sure looks like it. And no, I'm tired of "It's Russian" it's not. The same way west Germany isn't the US's territory. It's Crimean. Murdering the locals to make it Russified when you did occupy the place does not allow you any 'claim'.
Speaking about neo-nazi:
https://twitter.com/BalmforthTom/status/439446655612768256
I think some Svoboda supporters are there... Or that is done by local Russians. It is up to you to decide what is more probable. I can only say that you can't find something like that in Lviv or Kiyv
Very odd that this appears in a place under Russian KGB supervision, all of a sudden. Not really, it's pretty apparent the game being played here. Play to people's fear, and let glorious Russia take Nazi Ukraine down.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 04:31:55 pm
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 04:35:15 pm
You're making the claim, it should be easy to find links to support what you say. Get to it.
I find this very amusing since there's been plenty of Jewish support for the revolution and Jews on the streets with these 'nazis' and yet there's been 0, yes, count them 0 violent deaths of Jews in these instances. You and I both know random line-toting nazis don't play that. Don't act like you truly believe this is the case, as you should be well aware that people with ideologies like that will make B-lines for synagogues, like in Egypt. This hasn't happened in Ukraine.
But wait, you can come back and say 'but that's just propaganda!' Which is likely the next step here.
Which claim? that the Svoboda has neo-nazi roots?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 04:36:26 pm
Svoboda IS a neo-nazis party and have had major influence both in power and in numbers with the protesters.
So in a nutshell, neo-nazis have been a key factor in overthrowing an elected government and the west is cheering, blinded by hate toward commis and by its leaders greed and imperial aspirations.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 04:40:07 pm
I think we should offer help to the Ukrainian. Maybe not army, but riot police and beat those soldiers back. They won't dare to shoot at Westerners.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 04:42:20 pm
It's really scary how Russian troops can just walk in without any resistance. And of course, if you do anything, they'll claim you attacked first, like in Georgia in 2008. Makes you understand why every European country that border them is so keen on NATO.
I think we should offer help to the Ukrainian. Maybe not army, but riot police and beat those soldiers back. They won't dare to shoot at Westerners.
https://twitter.com/Lucian_Kim/status/439479544807165952
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhlYUT8IgAAvAPs.jpg)
Russian APCs rolling in.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 04:48:24 pm
Quote
Crimean Tatars' leader Mustafa Cemilev is holding a meeting with Turkey's FM Davutoğlu in Kiev right now.Turkey is one of countries I hope we can get help from.... They have their own interests in Black Sea and may dislike Russian Crimea a lot.
I'd wish to hope on Ukrainian army but the fact is that Ukrainian army is ruined by years of corruption, underfunding and destructive Russian influence. So it has no resources to do anything that can stop Russians
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 04:50:41 pm
The sad thing is that no-one but NATO can stop the Russians. And the tough of a NATO-Russian war makes me shudder.
Hilariously, I've still got FB posts from leftist friends blaming the US from intervening in Ukraine.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 04:52:10 pm
EDIT: It's good that Ukraine is lost to us. I don't really care about politics, but if that's what people want, then it's the better option.
As for the invasion, it's probably just Putin powertripping and trying to pull off the same shit he did in Georgia.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 04:55:46 pm
Basically, Yanukovitch refused to sign a deal with the EU under Russian pressure, that made a lot of people angry, they became angrier when Yanukovitch resorted to violence, then there was riots, awesome catapults, then a deal, then Yanukovitch ran away for no real reasons. Then Crimea started to protest and ask for annexation by Russia, and Russia moved a lots of troops in just after declaring a totally unrelated snap exercise.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 28, 2014, 04:58:00 pm
then there was riots, awesome catapults,And a wizard. You forgot to mention the wizard. (http://static3.cuantarazon.com/crs/2014/02/CR_892692_el_mago_negro_de_kiev.jpg)
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 04:59:02 pm
"History
Social-National Party of Ukraine
The Wolfsangel, Svoboda's first party logo (1991–2003) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/I%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F_N%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%96%D1%97.jpg)
The Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU) was registered as a party on October 16, 1995;[1][23] although the original movement was founded on October 13, 1991, in Lviv. The name of the party was an intentional reference to the Nazi Party in Germany.[24][25] Membership was restricted to ethnic Ukrainians, and for a period the party did not accept atheists or former members of the Communist Party. The party also recruited skinheads and football hooligans.[26]
The SNPU's official program defined itself as an "irreconcilable enemy of Communist ideology" and all other parties to be either collaborators and enemies of the Ukrainian revolution, or romanticists. According to Svoboda's website, during the 1994 Ukrainian parliamentary elections the party presented its platform as distinct from those of the communists and social democrats.[27]
In the 1998 parliamentary elections the party joined a bloc of parties (together with the All-Ukrainian Political Movement "State Independence of Ukraine")[28] called "Less Words" (Ukrainian: Менше слів), which collected 0.16% of the national vote.[23][29][30] Party member Oleh Tyahnybok[31] was voted into the Ukrainian Parliament in this election.[31] He became a member of the People's Movement of Ukraine faction.[31]
The party established the paramilitary organization Patriots of Ukraine in 1999 as an "Association of Support" for the Military of Ukraine. The paramilitary organization, which continues to use the Wolfsangel symbol, was disbanded in 2004 during the SNPU's reformation and reformed in 2005.[2] Svoboda officially ended association with the group in 2007,[32] but they remain informally linked,[33][34][35] with representatives of Svoboda attending social campaigns such as protests against price increases and leafleting against drugs and alcohol.[36] In 2014, Svoboda was noted for clashing with the far-right group Right Sector, a coalition which includes Patriot of Ukraine.[37]
In 2001, the party joined some actions of the "Ukraine without Kuchma" protest campaign and was active in forming the association of Ukraine's rightist parties and in supporting Viktor Yushchenko's candidacy for prime minister, although it did not participate in the 2002 parliamentary elections.[23] However, as a member of Victor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc, Tyahnybok was reelected to the Ukrainian parliament.[31] The SNPU won two seats in the Lviv oblast council of deputies and representation in the city and district councils in the Lviv and Volyn oblasts.[27][third-party source needed]
In 2004 the party had less than 1,000 members.[14]
All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda"
The Social-National Party of Ukraine changed its name to the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" in February 2004 with the arrival of Oleh Tyahnybok as party leader.[2] Tyahnybok made significant efforts to moderate the party's extremist image by replacing the "I + N" ("Idea Natsii" ukr. "idea of a nation") Wolfsangel logo (a symbol also popular among neo-Nazi groups)[2][26] with a three-fingered hand reminiscent of the 'Tryzub' pro-independence gesture of the late 1980s,[26] and by pushing neo-Nazi and other radical groups out the party.[38]
In 2004, Tyahnybok was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a "Muscovite-Jewish mafia,"[39] and celebrated the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists for having fought "Moscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state."[26] The speech was delivered at the grave-site of a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army where Tyahnybok praised its struggle against "Moskaly", a derogatory term for either Russians[40] or pan-Russian nationalists;[41][42] Germans; and "Zhydy", an archaic but controversial term for Jews in Ukraine due to it being a slur when used in the Russian language.[43][44]
Claiming that svoboda has not played a major role in the revolution is, lets say, misleading.
http://www.channel4.com/news/kiev-svoboda-far-right-protests-right-sector-riot-police
wikipedia lists Oleh tyahnybok as the 3rd leading figure in the revolution.
While you can clearly see A LOT more than 2-3 neo nazis symbols, what you CANT refute is that you can easily see a whole lot of svoboda flags being waved at the protests.
This is starting to feel exactly like the time when some of us maintained that a lot of the syrian rebels were actually off-country terrorists. even there people tried to refute it with "RUSSIAN PROPOGANDA!"
Post by: Sinistar on February 28, 2014, 05:01:03 pm
Quote
21:32: Ukraine's UN Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev tells the UN Security Council that Russian military helicopters and transport planes are "entering" his country and Russian armed forces have seized Crimea's main airport, AP reports.Note the "his country" part. This might be taken out of context? Or is it just me I find this kind of rhetoric really bad in such times of crisis?
Also, Obama was to give speech at 4.45 pm (2145 GMT), but there is still no video. Unless the speech was incredibly short as I tuned in about 5 minutes later.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 28, 2014, 05:04:31 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:05:00 pm
burningpet: as we said, parties evolve. You'll notice they dropped the national-socialist name and symbol. And yeah, they played a role. Like a lots of other people, from anarchists and communists to nazis, including jews, ukrainians, (ethnic) russians, I even saw Ichkerians flags.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:07:03 pm
Yeah, technically we call it an invasion.
Basically, Yanukovitch refused to sign a deal with the EU under Russian pressure, that made a lot of people angry, they became angrier when Yanukovitch resorted to violence, then there was riots, awesome catapults, then a deal, then Yanukovitch ran away for no real reasons. Then Crimea started to protest and ask for annexation by Russia, and Russia moved a lots of troops in just after declaring a totally unrelated snap exercise.
Thanks a lot, comrade. It's good to see at least one fatcat running away from the opposition. Have you seen the photos of the runaway ukraininan prosecutor-general's estate, by the way? The info is extremely unreliable, but the photos are true. (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7016005/)
As for the Crimea, I understand that Putin is a power-hoarder and all, but why would Crimea trying to get independence from Ukraine bother him?
EDIT: Or is he just trying to "conquer" some new territories?
Post by: Sinistar on February 28, 2014, 05:09:16 pm
Also, Obama is on.
He is deeply concerned.
edit: aaaaaaand that was it. Huh. Ok.
As for channel4 link - I find it interesting they concluded that yellow armbands sporting masked-men from few pages ago were in fact part of supposedly paramilitary wing related to Svoboda.
Unless they are thinking some OTHER yellow armbands people.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 05:10:47 pm
Quote
He is deeply concerned.How surprising....
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:11:31 pm
Knit tie: Putin WANTS Crimea to become parts of Russia or, more likely, a protectorate like South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transdniestra. He's not there to keep the protesters in check, he his arming them.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:14:35 pm
Yeah, Obama will keep talking, and he thing invading countries is bad m'kay. Useless.Typical self-obsessed tyrant behaviour. I hope it turns out as alright and bloodless as possible for the people there.
Knit tie: Putin WANTS Crimea to become parts of Russia or, more likely, a protectorate like South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transdniestra. He's not there to keep the protesters in check, he his arming them.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 05:15:36 pm
QuoteCrimean Tatars' leader Mustafa Cemilev is holding a meeting with Turkey's FM Davutoğlu in Kiev right now.Turkey is one of countries I hope we can get help from.... They have their own interests in Black Sea and may dislike Russian Crimea a lot.
I'd wish to hope on Ukrainian army but the fact is that Ukrainian army is ruined by years of corruption, underfunding and destructive Russian influence. So it has no resources to do anything that can stop Russians
Unfortunately Turkey doesn't seem to have the willpower, even though they easily have the military to enforce some rule of goddamn law. Look at Syria. :-\
You're just tripping all over yourself to prove that grass is blue today.
As for channel4 link - I find it interesting they concluded that yellow armbands sporting masked-men from few pages ago were in fact part of supposedly paramilitary wing related to Svoboda.
Unless they are thinking some OTHER yellow armbands people.
The article is as confused as BP and explains why he feels the way he does. You may as well be reading stormwatch with the amount of 'information' included in that link.
Can we get back to their boots, people?
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 28, 2014, 05:17:09 pm
He just seems to generally want us to think more poorly of the revolution and the kicking out of this ogilarch dude I guess?
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:17:37 pm
EDIT: Mict, Georgia was only 6 years ago.
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 05:18:26 pm
Yeah, Obama will keep talking, and he thing invading countries is bad m'kay. Useless.
If you try to invade a sovereign country
You're gonna have a bad tiiiiime.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on February 28, 2014, 05:18:46 pm
Does anyone understand what point burningpet is even trying to make? Because I've read all his posts and I... can't figure one out.I think the point is that the Revolutions are not always automatically good.
He just seems to generally want us to think more poorly of the revolution and the kicking out of this ogilarch dude I guess?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 05:19:05 pm
EDIT: Or is he just trying to "conquer" some new territories?
I think the term here is re-conquer. ;D
I'm listening to the UN Ukrainian ambassador, apparently the Russian FM posted stuff on Facebook saying that the consulates have been given instructions to give Russian passports to former Berkut members. Ukraine asked for a meeting under article 7 of the Budapest Treaty, but unsurprisingly Russia refused.
EDIT: Mict, Georgia was only 6 years ago.
And yeah, but that wasn't as brazen, or so I thought. I never really followed what happened there, but they're basically a puppet anyways right?
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 05:23:45 pm
Not sure if you've seen this already...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sinistar on February 28, 2014, 05:24:41 pm
The info is extremely unreliable, but the photos are true. (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7016005/)Picture 14. That sword at the bottom.
Was Yanukovych...a diligent LARPer? :o
(or is that some actuall sword and I've just made an ass out of myself)
...
I'm going to bed now. I hope situation will end without further escalations. I really do.
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 05:25:10 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:25:22 pm
EDIT: Or is he just trying to "conquer" some new territories?
I think the term here is re-conquer. ;D
I bet that's exactly how his thought process went. There are still lunatics down here who think that the US owes us Alaska, you know?
I'm listening to the UN Ukrainian ambassador, apparently the Russian FM posted stuff on Facebook saying that the consulates have been given instructions to give Russian passports to former Berkut members. Ukraine asked for a meeting under article 7 of the Budapest Treaty, but unsurprisingly Russia refused.
EDIT: Mict, Georgia was only 6 years ago.
I don't really think that giving "Berkut" members what amounts to asulym so that the more radical revolutionaries cannot lynch them is that bad of an act, to be honest. Most of them were just doing their job.
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 05:26:41 pm
On a less serious note:The info is extremely unreliable, but the photos are true. (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7016005/)Picture 14. That sword at the bottom.
Was Yanukovych...a diligent LARPer? :o
(or is that some actuall sword and I've just made an ass out of myself)
...
I'm going to bed now. I hope situation will end without further escalations. I really do.
...and I thought Yanukovych's place was kitschy. I feel like cauterizing my eyeballs now.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:26:53 pm
Then, Sakashvili decided to act and tried to do a preventive strike to block the Russians (There is only a single tunnel leading from Russia to South Ossetia). It failed and gave Russia the CB to invade the rest of the country.
Edit: Giving passport away to manufacture citizens they can then protect is a favourite Russian tactics.
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 05:33:20 pm
Not one of these guys has a magazine in. So they basically haul unwieldy metal and wood clubs around.It's usual when near civilians that are considered "friendly" to seem less threatning, clips are pretty fast to put on when needed.
Edit: Giving passport away to manufacture citizens they can then protect is a favourite Russian tactics.This. And they keep using it for as long as Russians back home don't find out. Which, looking at their current propaganda campaign and censored news doesn't seem likely...
Edit: Thread could be renamed to "Russian invasion in Ukraine"
Post by: scrdest on February 28, 2014, 05:34:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:35:08 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhi2Qa1IgAA7cZn.jpg:large)
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 05:36:50 pm
Eh, if a guy is holding a gun without magazine, I think most people would assume 'OH GOD HE HAS A GUN' rather than 'Oh, his gun has no magazine'.Only if they are not on solders side to begin with. If they are hostile, well, it's double win.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:37:22 pm
On a less serious note:Seeing how hard and unconvincingly Pshonka was pretending to be a servant of justice while in reality being a fat, ungainly, unpleasant parasite who rarely left his home and fantasized about being Caesar, I'd say he was exactly what N.Y. Times readers think a LARPer is.The info is extremely unreliable, but the photos are true. (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7016005/)Picture 14. That sword at the bottom.
Was Yanukovych...a diligent LARPer? :o
(or is that some actuall sword and I've just made an ass out of myself)
On a more serious note, I am seriously hoping that nobody dies in Crimea.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:42:34 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
On other news, Obama left the White House to run to the DNC and is now circlejerking about how good a job he is doing for the US economy and how cool Democrats are.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 05:43:58 pm
Popular Ukrainian joke - Sinful designers don't go to hell, they go to Pshonka's placeOn a less serious note:The info is extremely unreliable, but the photos are true. (http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/23/7016005/)Picture 14. That sword at the bottom.
Was Yanukovych...a diligent LARPer? :o
(or is that some actuall sword and I've just made an ass out of myself)
...
I'm going to bed now. I hope situation will end without further escalations. I really do.
...and I thought Yanukovych's place was kitschy. I feel like cauterizing my eyeballs now.
Back to the serious stuff.... Keep getting unpleasant rumors like Russian jets over Crimea and stuff like that... Most likely usual Internet panic but I have very-very bad feelings.
Also, I'd not rule out appearance of "self defense units" in other regions bordering Russia
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 05:45:40 pm
Quote
Amid reports that Russian military forces have entered Ukraine, CNN reports that U.S. officials are calling the incursion an "uncontested arrival," not necessarily "an invasion," and that this distinction is "key."
Really, what in the actual fuck? Everyone would be burning themselves in the streets to proclaim the US's evilness had America been doing this. Is this bizarro world? Shit, may as well get used to the fact that noone -- not one -- government will stand up to this anymore. Atleast people faked outrage over Georgia.
Great, what an awesome precedent, guys. We're screwed if we just let this happen all the time.
Let's go uncontested arrival Canada, ey?
Post by: MonkeyHead on February 28, 2014, 05:49:15 pm
Quote
Ukraine's defence ministry says it has information of unknown "radical forces" planning operations against its military units in Crimea early on Saturday morning, Reuters reports. "In the case of such unknown actions, the Ukrainian armed forces will act in accordance with the laws of Ukraine and the regulations of the Ukrainian armed forces," the ministry said in a statement on its Website.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:49:54 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:50:08 pm
Edit: Giving passport away to manufacture citizens they can then protect is a favourite Russian tactics.
And I stand corrected. Although the russian media has plenty of articles about that, actually. The problem with our news is not that everything is under Putin's control, it's that most sources are literally incapable of assuming a moderate position: everyone is either "Lynch the rebel scum!" or "Lynch the foul tyrants!", and the truthfulness obviously suffers.
Well, it is weird. You expect fighting when you have an invasion. Even the Ukrainian ambassador called it aggression, not invasion.I say let's wait a bit and see how the governments react to political pressure. The White House might as well start calling it an invasion after a week or so.
ANd if it does and starts a war against Russia, we are pretty much all screwed.
Post by: Vector on February 28, 2014, 05:50:28 pm
Not to say that Ukrainians are cowards, just that an invasion...
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 05:52:29 pm
Really, what in the actual fuck? Everyone would be burning themselves in the streets to proclaim the US's evilness had America been doing this. Is this bizarro world? Shit, may as well get used to the fact that noone -- not one -- government will stand up to this anymore. Atleast people faked outrage over Georgia.I wonder what Putin paid for Crimea... Snowden?
Great, what an awesome precedent, guys. We're screwed if we just let this happen all the time.
Let's go uncontested arrival Canada, ey?
On a more serious note, I am seriously going to pray to God today so that nobody dies in Crimea.If I were religious sort I would be praying (against my better knowledge) that majority of them would be Russian solders. I know that makes me probably seem like horrible person but I find that I don't actually care. I hope they get second Afganistan or Winter War.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 05:54:11 pm
But seriously, he should be in the crisis room, not circlejerking at the DNC. Fuck that guy.
Post by: codyorr on February 28, 2014, 05:54:55 pm
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 05:56:21 pm
Whats so confusing?
My claims are simple and clear. a revolution to overthrow an elected government was done partially and greatly by the hands of neo-nazis and the west is cheering for it.
that channel 4 link was used solely for this part (although, its idiotic i had to even support this known fact):
"In December US senator John McCain travelled to Ukraine to offer his support to the opposition, appearing on stage with leaders of the three opposition parties leading the protests - including the far-right Svoboda party.
Svoboda is currently Ukraine's fourth biggest party and holds 36 seats in parliament. It is also part of the Alliance of European National Movements, along with the BNP and Hungary's Jobbik.
Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok is one of the faces of the protests, appearing regularly along with opposition leader and former boxer Vitali Klitschko (see picture right) voicing opposition to Putin's influence over the region."
Do you claim those facts are false? i guess you don't.
And please stop trying to belittle me, this is both insulting to me, to this board and to your intelligence.
sinistar - those yellow arm bands they are talking about are NOT related to the picture webber shown.
Jeb:
parties evolve is a very bad argument because as far as we know, that evolution is merely an outward evolution. paint a donkey with stripes and he will still remain a doneky, not a zebra. this is PR at its finest. the key figures remained the same. do you actually believe that an openly admitted neo-nazi (anyone who is a memeber of a neo-nazi party is neo-nazi and openly admit it, agreed?) suddenly turns out just nationalist? that he saw the light? i find it hard to believe. the more likely scenario is that svoboda knew they had to moderate their IMAGE if they wanted to survive politically.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:57:44 pm
On a more serious note, I am seriously going to pray to God today so that nobody dies in Crimea.If I were religious sort I would be praying (against my better knowledge) that majority of them would be Russian solders. I know that makes me probably seem like horrible person but I find that I don't actually care. I hope they get second Afganistan or Winter War.
Please, have mercy on our troops. Most of them were drafted and do not give a flying fuck about Putin's ambitions. Every war we had recently was pretty much Vietnam for us - our sons go and die meaningless deaths in a country they honestly have nothing against for a cause everybody knows is bullshit.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 05:58:18 pm
Do you claim those facts are false? i guess you don't.
Naw, just completely irrelevant.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 05:59:31 pm
Yes, Buningpet, random infodumps do not tend to support people's political claims.Do you claim those facts are false? i guess you don't.
Naw, just completely irrelevant.
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 28, 2014, 06:01:18 pm
You aren't actually saying anything remotely useful. No one cares. You are literally not bothering to make any points to any noticeable end, and so are serving as nothing more than an annoyance. You missed your opportunity by refusing to actually make a clear position or an effective argument, the consensus has been to move on to new incidents that are actually happening now. So unless you have something of actual interest to add to the conversation, something that hasn't already been discussed to death, please... just stop bothering.
Alternatively, try to keep up with the current topic of conversation. In case you didn't notice, Russia is invading. Unless you have some comment to make about that, it's not really worth saying the same pointless stuff over and over again. We finished the conversation you're happening before you even arrived - you can reread the thread if you really want to retread old ground.
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 06:02:12 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 06:05:45 pm
Unfortunately the smart POLITICAL thing to do is wait before fighting back. Just try not to get too fucked in the process. Damn this is shit.Now that you mention it, that's very true. If Ukraine were to attack Russians now it would be over in a month. Whole country would be annexed or new goverment placed. The smart thing to do is to wait till they are identified as Russian and international outrage damages Russias chances to annex Crimea and negotiations between Ukraine and Russia start over position of Crimea and Russians in rest of Ukraine. While Russian solders hold Crimea hostage...
Please, have mercy on our troops. Most of them were drafted and do not give a flying fuck about Putin's ambitions. Every war we had recently was pretty much Vietnam for us - our sons go and die meaningless death in a country they honestly have nothing against for a cause everybody knows is bullshit.True enough. My sniper skills (http://i.imgur.com/7LYd6Ce.jpg) will wait for another day...
Actually, some Russians cross the border over here to get away from Russian army if they have Finnish citizenship. Then they find out we make them serve in the army too. Much butthurt, very drama.
Edit: Stupid picture and stupid computer...
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 06:06:58 pm
Syria was the first nail, this is the final nail in the coffin. I'd be talking about the EU too but they proved their floppiness in the last few years.
Post by: burningpet on February 28, 2014, 06:07:04 pm
Do you claim those facts are false? i guess you don't.
Naw, just completely irrelevant.
An openly admitted neo-nazi is a leading public figure for a revolution and was been accepted as such by an american government official. whats irrelevant about that? this is as relevant to my claim as the word relevance can be.
GlyphGryph - there was never a serious discussion. there were just deflections, like there are now. no one cares that neo-nazis played and still play a major role in Ukraine politics? well, thats THE problem.
Post by: Mephansteras on February 28, 2014, 06:11:02 pm
Unfortunately the smart POLITICAL thing to do is wait before fighting back. Just try not to get too fucked in the process. Damn this is shit.
Especially since Russia does have a military base in the Crimea. This gives them a reason to have troops there to "protect their interests". Given how many US military bases are scattered around the world, I imagine the US government is leery of seeming too hostile on this point. They'll wait until Russia does something obviously bad before doing more, I'm sure.
Quote from: Owlbread
This is going to probably be the point in the century where the USA is shown to be the impotent floppy blancmange that it is and that Putin can do whatever he likes while they just sit and bluster. Putin can invade and annex other countries, overthrow governments, turn the tides in civil wars in his favour and there's nothing the USA can do about it.
Maybe. Depends on how much Obama wants to get into things, or at least appear to be willing to get into things. The US didn't get involved in Georgia because all of its troops were tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is no longer the case, but the US public is also rather weary of sending troops off to go fight in other countries.
I wouldn't be surprised if the US mostly went for political or economic sanctions until things went so far that other major NATO allies wanted to get actively involved.
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2014, 06:12:21 pm
Also, funnily enough, Georgia also had his troops tied in Iraq in 2008. A third of their army or something.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 06:16:39 pm
Please, have mercy on our troops. Most of them were drafted and do not give a flying fuck about Putin's ambitions. Every war we had recently was pretty much Vietnam for us - our sons go and die meaningless death in a country they honestly have nothing against for a cause everybody knows is bullshit.True enough. My sniper skills will wait for another day...
Actually, some Russians cross the border over here to get away from Russian army if they have Finnish citizenship. Then they find out we make them serve in the army too. Much butthurt, very drama.
Those cartoons are absolutely adorable.
Anyway, I have to leave you now. Hope that not a single shot will be fired and everyone just mills about for a while and goes back home. Alive.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 06:24:08 pm
This is going to probably be the point in the century where the USA is shown to be the impotent floppy blancmange that it is and that Putin can do whatever he likes while they just sit and bluster. Putin can invade and annex other countries, overthrow governments, turn the tides in civil wars in his favour and there's nothing the USA can do about it.Crimea 2014 is looking more and more similar to Sudetenland 1938
I think the attack(Most likely ultimatum for surrender will be issued first) on Ukrainian military bases is possible in the next few hours... And I honestly don't know what will our military choose to do, surrender immediately or fight . Ukrainian Navy is doomed in any actual combat (Ironically our flagship is returning from the mission near Somalia). But that's not needed for current Russian plans so they may just blockade the navy
Land forces here are just not ready for and it is mostly conscripts against some highly trained Russian troops. So surrender may be a better option. But that kind of humiliation is an invitation for Russia to just go and do the same in other regions
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 28, 2014, 06:28:21 pm
GlyphGryph - there was never a serious discussion. there were just deflections, like there are now. no one cares that neo-nazis played and still play a major role in Ukraine politics? well, thats THE problem.You've certainly yet to provide a reason we should.
And yes, there really was. Your side had a terrible showing, mostly due to the continuing failure to demonstrate what ideas we should change, to what, and why, and instead gave us a bunch of dishonest motivations and equivocating.
For example, of the sort you are doing now.
When you are ready to make a coherent, complete argument, feel free to send me a PM, and I'll help you shape it up to a point where it might be worth posting in the thread, because if you have an actual useful information and a position you think we should adopt with evidence to support it, I want to hear it. But so far you've only managed to do is the equivalent a whole bunch of hand-wringing on how we shouldn't vote for the Democrats come next because the California rep is REALLY TERRIBLE.
And if you can't see the immediate an obvious problems with putting forward that sort of incomplete argument, THAT is the problem.
I am willing to help. I value your contributions. But they need to be of a significantly higher quality than what you've put out so far, or I'm going to have to ignore you and stop wasting my time and the time of others by responding.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on February 28, 2014, 06:36:04 pm
Quote
CNN BREAKING: U.S. may not attend G-8 summit in Russia in June if Russia is in UkraineTHANK YOU USA. That is very helpful.
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 06:38:21 pm
Those cartoons are absolutely adorable.As long as you don't actually think author knows what he/she/it is talking about...
Hope that not a single shot will be fired and everyone just mills about for a while and goes back home.Okay, sure. That still leaves me hoping for granades and mines and...
Alive....fuck. Fine. Stupid russians and their stupid pasifism...
So surrender may be a better option. But that kind of humiliation is an invitation for Russia to just go and do the same in other regionsThat sounds like Elf-talk to me. Now beard up and load that catapult with cats dipped in napalm and aim it at incoming tanks. Try to hit any open hatches on them, if possible.
Or hope nobody gives our beloved eastern neighbour excuse to attack rest of Ukraine. If they do, serve some cocktails.
Quote
CNN BREAKING: U.S. may not attend G-8 summit in Russia in June if Russia is in UkraineTHANKS, OBAMA!
Post by: Max White on February 28, 2014, 06:45:36 pm
THANK YOU USA. That is very helpful.Well what would you prefer, the USA sends a counter invasion and Ukraine spends the next decade having schools and hospitals blown up in drone strikes? USA using diplomatic force rather than military might is best for everybody.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 06:48:02 pm
It's happening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTCkuHc__ZQ)
You know, the scary thing is that a lot of the comments on that video are what amounts to "Go Russia! Kill 'em all!", and you can see the number of likes under each one.
What goes in russian media honestly looks like WW1, to me, right now - a bunch of rabid imperialists crying for blood while the people who are supposed to actually spill said blood are desperately trying to tell them that no, gunning down people is not a very good thing to do.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on February 28, 2014, 06:53:34 pm
QuoteCNN BREAKING: U.S. may not attend G-8 summit in Russia in June if Russia is in Ukraine(http://files.myfrogbag.com/bsvylf/1356062037925.gif)
Fix'd
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mr. Strange on February 28, 2014, 06:56:54 pm
You know, the scary thing is that a lot of the comments on that video are what amounts to "Go Russia! Kill 'em all!", and you can see the number of likes under each one.You think someone at Russian army/goverment would be tech savvy enough to fake it? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on February 28, 2014, 06:57:54 pm
Let's not even speak about nukes. Because let's be serious, if US and Russia start antagonizing again the newsfeed will be "COLD WAR ALL OVER AGAIN" and "WWIII SOON?"THANK YOU USA. That is very helpful.Well what would you prefer, the USA sends a counter invasion and Ukraine spends the next decade having schools and hospitals blown up in drone strikes? USA using diplomatic force rather than military might is best for everybody.
One of the companies is named Palantir (if I understood correctly). Now that isn't ominous in the slightest.You know, the scary thing is that a lot of the comments on that video are what amounts to "Go Russia! Kill 'em all!", and you can see the number of likes under each one.You think someone at Russian army/goverment would be tech savvy enough to fake it? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml)
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 07:01:14 pm
You know, the scary thing is that a lot of the comments on that video are what amounts to "Go Russia! Kill 'em all!", and you can see the number of likes under each one.You think someone at Russian army/goverment would be tech savvy enough to fake it? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml)
They don't actually need to. Ever since the USSR fell, there have been a lot of people overcome with jingoism, mostly as a reaction to hurt national pride. There is still a lot of propaganda going on, but not all militantism in Russia is instigated by the government, trust me.
Post by: codyorr on February 28, 2014, 07:03:00 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on February 28, 2014, 07:07:12 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 07:41:15 pm
Post by: Iceblaster on February 28, 2014, 07:59:55 pm
I honestly don't care what the US or NATO do, as long as the situation is resolved peacefully.
Is all the input I will probably be able to copy paste :P
/me goes to research the topic in the meantime...
Post by: Lagslayer on February 28, 2014, 08:08:41 pm
Post by: nenjin on February 28, 2014, 08:11:44 pm
But today.....yeesh. Now it's starting to look like the build up to an invasion. Military personnel with no insignia blockading an airport? Communications going down between Crimea and the rest of the country, where armed men have already seized a municipal building and established their own interim government? Ethnic Russians in Ukraine saying they fear retaliation by other Ukrainians, or being unfairly legislated against by the new government?
I mean, it seems like the kind of setup that Russia would be all over exploiting. And I don't necessarily fault pro-Russian Ukrainians for being scared, or having a legitimate claim to wanting a Pro-Russian government. But it's leading to the situation where no one is wrong, everyone is wrong and Russia has a legitimate (if transparent) excuse to try to absorb the ethnically-Russian portion of Ukraine in the name of protecting them.
It's basically the last thing anyone needed in the latest cycle of populist uprisings. About the only thing I could imagine being more volatile is the same situation occurring over in China, either between China/Singapore or China/Japan over that island. When 1st world powers have a territorial interest in the outcomes of revolution is when shit starts getting seriously nasty. Syria might be bad, Venezuela might be bad, Egypt might be bad, but this has the potential to trump them all in terms of regional destabilization. I thought Obizie's statement today:
Quote
the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.
Is about 1 step removed from committing to military action against Russia if they violate Ukranian sovereignty. And again, who is right? The US and Europe is right if they're backing the Ukrainian goverment in the West, Russia is right if it's backing the other Ukranians in the East. What other options are there besides secession, that avoid military conflict?
Post by: alway on February 28, 2014, 08:17:13 pm
Yeah, I've started doing my reading too. Yesterday I was willing to say Russia was being prudent (if tactless) in staging military exercises across the border. A decent pre-text for bulking up the border against refugees or positioning for a quick response. I wasn't really ready to say it was the lead up to crossing the border without reason.Don't forget this bit:
But today.....yeesh. Now it's starting to look like the build up for an invasion. Military personnel with no insignia blockading an airport? Communications going down between Crimea and the rest of the country, where armed men have already seized a municipal building and established their own interim government? Ethnic Russians in Ukraine saying they fear retaliation by other Ukrainians, or being unfairly legislated against by the new government?
I mean, it seems like the kind of setup that Russia would be all over exploiting. And I don't necessarily fault pro-Russian Ukrainians for being scared. But it's leading to the situation where no one is wrong, everyone is wrong and Russia has a legitimate (if transparent) excuse to try to absorb the ethnically-Russian portion of Ukraine.
It's basically the last thing anyone needed in the latest cycle of populist uprisings. About the only thing I could imagine being more volatile is the same situation occurring over in China, either between China/Singapore or China/Japan over that island. When 1st world powers have a territorial interest in the outcomes of revolution is when shit starts getting seriously nasty. Syria might be bad, Venezuela might be bad, Egypt might be bad, but this has the potential to trump them all in terms of regional destabilization.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/ukraine-politics/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quote
Meanwhile, Russian lawmakers introduced two bills Friday to simplify annexing new territories into the Russian Federation and simplify access to Russian citizenship for Ukrainians, the state news agency Itar Tass said.
Post by: nenjin on February 28, 2014, 08:21:12 pm
Although, would the US really act any different if Mexico suddenly looked like it was going to split in half and we could be the recipient of part of it? That'd be funny. I bet you'd see more "immigration reform" in 24 hours than you have in the last decade if that were the case.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 28, 2014, 08:25:40 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 08:25:52 pm
You know, the scary thing is that a lot of the comments on that video are what amounts to "Go Russia! Kill 'em all!", and you can see the number of likes under each one.
What goes in russian media honestly looks like WW1, to me, right now - a bunch of rabid imperialists crying for blood while the people who are supposed to actually spill said blood are desperately trying to tell them that no, gunning down people is not a very good thing to do.
If you think this is bad you don't want to read comments on videos about hardship in the Caucasus. It's not just Russians though, a lot of the 4chan/Reddit crowd are right into that stuff. I read comments from Americans on one video about Ingushetians suffering saying "Putin should deport the lot of them to Siberia", i.e. the equivalent of saying that Germany should go back to gassing Jews etc.
But we don't want half of Mexico no offense to Mexicans but its kind of shitty.
You already took all the best bits.
Post by: alway on February 28, 2014, 08:27:00 pm
But we don't want half of Mexico no offense to Mexicans but its kind of shitty.Woo, nationalism.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 08:27:54 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 08:30:21 pm
Quote from: Gambinotubee
SERBIA SUPPORT !!! FUCK SASA WHITE AND OTHER UKRAINIAN PROISLAMIC CHECHEN BITCHES !!!
Post by: Aqizzar on February 28, 2014, 08:31:53 pm
QuoteUKRAINIAN PROISLAMIC CHECHEN BITCHES !!!
I'm not sure that guy knows what part of the world he's talking about, or even what part of the world he himself is in.
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 08:34:50 pm
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 08:40:20 pm
Both of you are wrong. Unfortunately for both your arguments, the north section of Mexico is bad only because it is in the state of Mexico and is a prime spot for smuggling into the US, not because it's geographically inherently bad. If the US had taken it over, it would likely be nicer (in the way that Texas is nicer then Mexico), and the smaller Mexico would be bad in what would then be it's north, for the exact same reasons as before, namely drugs and being a poor Latin American country. If Texas was Mexico, Texas would be controlled by cartels in the same way.But we don't want half of Mexico no offense to Mexicans but its kind of shitty.
You already took all the best bits.
Here's an example of the delightful comments on that Russian invasion video:Chetnik it looks like. Makes me sad it does.Quote from: GambinotubeeSERBIA SUPPORT !!! FUCK SASA WHITE AND OTHER UKRAINIAN PROISLAMIC CHECHEN BITCHES !!!
Post by: nenjin on February 28, 2014, 08:46:39 pm
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 08:50:45 pm
Both of you are wrong. Unfortunately for both your arguments, the north section of Mexico is bad only because it is in the state of Mexico and is a prime spot for smuggling into the US, not because it's geographically inherently bad. If the US had taken it over, it would likely be nicer (in the way that Texas is nicer then Mexico), and the smaller Mexico would be bad in what would then be it's north, for the exact same reasons as before, namely drugs and being a poor Latin American country. If Texas was Mexico, Texas would be controlled by cartels in the same way.
Spoiler: I'm just saying... (click to show/hide)
But yeah isn't what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now exactly what the USA did in Hawaii and Texas?
Post by: Max White on February 28, 2014, 08:53:11 pm
Here's an example of the delightful comments on that Russian invasion video:I'm pretty sure that video is making the rounds on 4chan and that is what bought on the obscene amount of... well obscenity. Don't worry, those comments are not an accurate reflection of any facet of humanity, just grumpy trolls. The helicopters, on the other hand, are somewhat worrisome.Quote from: GambinotubeeSERBIA SUPPORT !!! FUCK SASA WHITE AND OTHER UKRAINIAN PROISLAMIC CHECHEN BITCHES !!!
Post by: gnome42 on February 28, 2014, 09:06:24 pm
I wanted to make some cutting and vivid remark about perceptions of being a Mexican immediately south of the border among Americans, but it'll just give this all a nasty tone, so I won't. Suffice to say, yeah, it's a bit of backhanded racism. (Full disclosure, I'm 50% Mexican.)
Hmm. I don't know that you can get more white-bread than me and I read that as a compliment to Mexico.
I've been to Texas multiple times.
Rampant Drug Fueled Gangs are possibly an improvement over most of TX.
When you throw in the 99% of the population that is just trying to get by in Northern Mexico?
We'll take it as part of the US. The entire country of Mexico if you want.
It can only improve things.
Are many folks in TX the same way? Yep.
Is there a vocal minority in TX that are a bunch of self centered pricks that think that they are better than anyone else? Yep.
Let's water them down with even more people that just want to go to their jobs, feed their kids, and not die in a gutter.
Post by: nenjin on February 28, 2014, 09:11:33 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 09:14:47 pm
It's such a shame that the worst conflicts are often born of the best intentions - all the ukrainians wanted when they were protesting was a better government.
EDIT: Mexico's awesome guys, so is Texas. They are both markedly better than Ukraine and Syria, at least, and you should be thankful for that. Besides, bashing countries is just wrong. Just because the guy in charge is an asshole doesn't mean that there aren't good people in there.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 09:17:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 09:20:16 pm
My best guess right now, if cool heads prevail, Crimea goes to Russia. Forget Obama / NATO / UN, they can't really do anything anyway.
-snip-While I do not agree with you, I wouldn't dismiss your concerns as pointless. I'll write something more later, when it's more clear what's going on right now.
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 09:27:44 pm
No, a war is exactly what is needed if Russia doesn't back down. You can't just ignore this kind of thing.
Unfortunately, wars, in general, never punish the guilty, instead just slaughtering the innocent. Putin won't care if a shitload of civillians in Crimea die from bombings, malnutrition and disease and a shitload more soldiers (who were either drafted, as in the case of Russia, or just doing their jobs, as in the case of the US) are gutted by shrapnel and left to die on the battlefields. And think about the long term costs - the division it will cause between pro- and anti-Russian Ukrainians, the destruction it will spread around the region, the poverty in which the survivors will be living for years afterwards. War may seem to be the right thing to do, but it won't do anything other than kill several millions of completely innocent people.
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 09:30:43 pm
If Crimea joins Russia the Tatars might as well just head back into the steppe, there'd be no place for them there. They already stay in ghettos because Russians are occupying their houses. Old people actually tried to come back with their families in the '90s (that's why there's still Tatars in Crimea) but Russians were actually living in the houses that hadn't been demolished and told them "No, you don't live here anymore. We've changed the name of the village too. Sort yourselves out."
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 09:33:00 pm
Spoiler: This certainly isn't Ukraine related, so it gets spoilered (click to show/hide)
Yeah, sorry to say but Obama would have to risk a lot to move on Ukraine now. The only people I could imagine legitimately responding if Russia acts is the EU (unless Ukraine directly asks Nato "Hey guys can I get a friendly intervention here"), and they are more likely to invade Switzerland then intervene in the Ukraine. And at the same time, he knows he has to project force to dissuade Russia.
Post by: nenjin on February 28, 2014, 09:34:23 pm
If Crimea does actually join Russia that's another group added onto my list of peoples whose independence I must fight for/bring up in unrelated conversations etc. The Tatars, I mean. I already support Tatar independence, that's why I've been so uneasy over the last few days, it's just I know that the most sensible way for that to happen is for Crimea to stay Ukrainian while all the Crimean Tatar diaspora is encouraged to move back home from Turkey and Uzbekistan etc.
If Crimea joins Russia the Tatars might as well just head back into the steppe, there'd be no place for them there. They already stay in ghettos because Russians are occupying their houses. Old people actually tried to come back with their families in the '90s (that's why there's still Tatars in Crimea) but Russians were actually living in the houses that hadn't been demolished and told them "No, you don't live here anymore. We've changed the name of the village too. Sort yourselves out."
Yeah, just to add another cultural group who complicates the question of whether it's fair or right to let Crimea secede. Maybe it's all the sectarian violence in Middle Eastern countries that has me thinking this way, but the mix of completing identities and ethnic backgrounds basically means no one is satisfied with any arrangement, so the largest group wins.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 09:36:46 pm
And how many innocent people do you think will ultimately die if Putin is just allowed to do whatever he wants? The Ukrainians have been fighting for freedom, and they deserve it, as do all people. They most definitely do not deserve to be under the thumb of a thug like Putin, no matter which language they speak.No, a war is exactly what is needed if Russia doesn't back down. You can't just ignore this kind of thing.
Unfortunately, wars, in general, never punish the guilty, instead just slaughtering the innocent. Putin won't care if a shitload of civillians in Crimea die from bombings, malnutrition and disease and a shitload more soldiers (who were either drafted, as in the case of Russia, or just doing their jobs, as in the case of the US) are gutted by shrapnel and left to die on the battlefields. And think about the long term costs - the division it will cause between pro- and anti-Russian Ukrainians, the destruction it will spread around the region, the poverty in which the survivors will be living for years afterwards. War may seem to be the right thing to do, but it won't do anything other than kill several millions of completely innocent people.
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 09:41:17 pm
And think about the long term costs - the division it will cause between pro- and anti-Russian Ukrainians, the destruction it will spread around the region, the poverty in which the survivors will be living for years afterwards.Putin: "That is precisely the idea General, that is precisely the idea."
*cookies for reference catchers*
So, Ukraine, news, please, someone. My Google-fu has failed me. Or has nothing happened? It seems to be happening so fast too.
Post by: Owlbread on February 28, 2014, 09:42:34 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 09:46:00 pm
Nobody deserves Putin, that's for certain. I just believe that, since he hasn't been very genocidal throughout his career, his rule will kill several magnitudes less people that a war between Russia and the west. As I said, I sincerely hope that he decides to withdraw from Crimea under political pressure and the ukrainians get to keep their freedom.And how many innocent people do you think will ultimately die if Putin is just allowed to do whatever he wants? The Ukrainians have been fighting for freedom, and they deserve it, as do all people. They most definitely do not deserve to be under the thumb of a thug like Putin, no matter which language they speak.No, a war is exactly what is needed if Russia doesn't back down. You can't just ignore this kind of thing.
Unfortunately, wars, in general, never punish the guilty, instead just slaughtering the innocent. Putin won't care if a shitload of civillians in Crimea die from bombings, malnutrition and disease and a shitload more soldiers (who were either drafted, as in the case of Russia, or just doing their jobs, as in the case of the US) are gutted by shrapnel and left to die on the battlefields. And think about the long term costs - the division it will cause between pro- and anti-Russian Ukrainians, the destruction it will spread around the region, the poverty in which the survivors will be living for years afterwards. War may seem to be the right thing to do, but it won't do anything other than kill several millions of completely innocent people.
Just to make it clear, I do not support Dobbyface here. It's just that he has been shown to kill significantly less people than war, so if we have to choose between two evils, he is the leser one.And think about the long term costs - the division it will cause between pro- and anti-Russian Ukrainians, the destruction it will spread around the region, the poverty in which the survivors will be living for years afterwards.Putin: "That is precisely the idea General, that is precisely the idea."
I don't know if anyone thinks this, but maybe they do; you may be wondering why uniquely I am so uneasy about an independence movement. Is it Russophobia? No, if Crimea wanted independence and only independence for its people regardless of their ethnicity I'd be right behind it. The problem is that this is not an issue of separatism or independence. The movement in Crimea right now is irredentist. I just feel that I should make that as clear as possible.I don't recall anyone saying that what Russia or the pro-russian movement in Ukraine does is justified. It certainly is not.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 09:47:20 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 09:47:34 pm
Yeah, sorry to say but Obama would have to risk a lot to move on Ukraine now. The only people I could imagine legitimately responding if Russia acts is the EU (unless Ukraine directly asks Nato "Hey guys can I get a friendly intervention here"), and they are more likely to invade Switzerland then intervene in the Ukraine. And at the same time, he knows he has to project force to dissuade Russia.Assuming that we both live on the same planet, what would you expect the EU to do here? ;) I think, if Russia goes full confrontation here the most anybody can really do is diplomatic isolation and some minor_at_best economic sanctions. I wouldn't hold that against NATO or the EU or US, because nobody wants WW3.
And how many innocent people do you think will ultimately die if Putin is just allowed to do whatever he wants? The Ukrainians have been fighting for freedom, and they deserve it, as do all people. They most definitely do not deserve to be under the thumb of a thug like Putin, no matter which language they speak.If you have been following the events, it's not as simple as that. There is likely a majority in Crimea who wants to be part of Russia. This will screw the minorities there probably and the way this is going it also does not respect Ukraine's or Crimea's sovereignty at all. But still, it's not that simple.
Post by: kaijyuu on February 28, 2014, 09:49:56 pm
Oh, good god. "Pretty please don't oppress us?" Freedom is a struggle, dude. If you and yours aren't willing to take it you will never have it.Are you a supervillain?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2014, 09:51:32 pm
There's certainly a majority that speak Russian. Whether or not they actually want to be a part of Russia is a question we haven't quite gotten any data on yet. But either way, there will be greater oppression if Crimea is annexed than if it is not, so I support the latter.And how many innocent people do you think will ultimately die if Putin is just allowed to do whatever he wants? The Ukrainians have been fighting for freedom, and they deserve it, as do all people. They most definitely do not deserve to be under the thumb of a thug like Putin, no matter which language they speak.If you have been following the events, it's not as simple as that. There is likely a majority in Crimea who wants to be part of Russia. This will screw the minorities there probably and the way this is going it also does not respect Ukraine's or Crimea's sovereignty at all. But still, it's not that simple.
I understand that apathy is as easy a path to oppression as rabid populism.Oh, good god. "Pretty please don't oppress us?" Freedom is a struggle, dude. If you and yours aren't willing to take it you will never have it.Are you a supervillain?
Post by: codyorr on February 28, 2014, 09:55:14 pm
Post by: Knit tie on February 28, 2014, 09:56:04 pm
Oh, good god. "Pretty please don't oppress us?" Freedom is a struggle, dude. If you and yours aren't willing to take it you will never have it.If the crimeans themselves decide to oppose the occupants with armed resistance, I swear to God, I'll go there and help them. But the west dragging Crimea into a war if it doesn't want to fight is much worse, in my opinion, then the west letting Putin just have it.
People are dying DAMNIT! Stop fucking being stupid 12 year olds on the INTERNET! This is an important thread!Well, just talking about the problem won't make it go away.
Post by: Descan on February 28, 2014, 09:59:17 pm
People are dying DAMNIT! Stop fucking being stupid 12 year olds on the INTERNET! This is an important thread!I... don't think anyone has been shot at yet. So... No one is dying yet?
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 10:00:33 pm
Then, it would be hard. Now, it would be easy. The whole exercise is a complicated game of Chicken, where Russia can be dissuaded if it really believes the EU would go batshit and counter-invade, regardless of whether they would actually do so. The problem is Putin knows the EU wouldn't intervene under any circumstance, while we can't say the same for him. Putting a few NATO troops into the Ukraine (as an example) would tie NATO to Ukraine's fate: If Russia invaded,, NATO troops would be in danger, and NATO would have to respond immediately; hence why Putin wouldn't do it. It's mind-games all the way down.Yeah, sorry to say but Obama would have to risk a lot to move on Ukraine now. The only people I could imagine legitimately responding if Russia acts is the EU (unless Ukraine directly asks Nato "Hey guys can I get a friendly intervention here"), and they are more likely to invade Switzerland then intervene in the Ukraine. And at the same time, he knows he has to project force to dissuade Russia.Assuming that we both live on the same planet, what would you expect the EU to do here? ;) I think, if Russia goes full confrontation here the most anybody can really do is diplomatic isolation and some minor_at_best economic sanctions. I wouldn't hold that against NATO or the EU or US, because nobody wants WW3.
People are dying DAMNIT! Stop fucking being stupid 12 year olds on the INTERNET! This is an important thread!I don't understand this.
I would get behind that supervillainy. Mostly because "Supervillain yeah let's be evil", but also because freedom. (Logic)Oh, good god. "Pretty please don't oppress us?" Freedom is a struggle, dude. If you and yours aren't willing to take it you will never have it.Are you a supervillain?
Post by: kaijyuu on February 28, 2014, 10:05:18 pm
Just amused with your rhetoric, is all.I understand that apathy is as easy a path to oppression as rabid populism.Oh, good god. "Pretty please don't oppress us?" Freedom is a struggle, dude. If you and yours aren't willing to take it you will never have it.Are you a supervillain?
Post by: XXSockXX on February 28, 2014, 10:06:52 pm
There's certainly a majority that speak Russian. Whether or not they actually want to be a part of Russia is a question we haven't quite gotten any data on yet. But either way, there will be greater oppression if Crimea is annexed than if it is not, so I support the latter.Well, of course they should have waited for the referendum that was planned for May. With the Russian propaganda goin on there are likely a lot of people in Crimea who think Ukraine has been taken over by fascists, so it is plausible to assume they might have voted for joining Russia anyway.
Then, it would be hard. Now, it would be easy. The whole exercise is a complicated game of Chicken, where Russia can be dissuaded if it really believes the EU would go batshit and counter-invade, regardless of whether they would actually do so. The problem is Putin knows the EU wouldn't intervene under any circumstance, while we can't say the same for him. Putting a few NATO troops into the Ukraine (as an example) would tie NATO to Ukraine's fate: If Russia invaded,, NATO troops would be in danger, and NATO would have to respond immediately; hence why Putin wouldn't do it. It's mind-games all the way down.The EU doesn't even have an army. Stationing NATO or any other troops in Ukraine would up the stakes in this game through the roof. That's really not how things work...
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 10:13:12 pm
I know that. That's why 'twas only an example. I'm certainly not recommending it as a course of action. That's why my original post only referenced the EU is passing.There's certainly a majority that speak Russian. Whether or not they actually want to be a part of Russia is a question we haven't quite gotten any data on yet. But either way, there will be greater oppression if Crimea is annexed than if it is not, so I support the latter.Well, of course they should have waited for the referendum that was planned for May. With the Russian propaganda goin on there are likely a lot of people in Crimea who think Ukraine has been taken over by fascists, so it is plausible to assume they might have voted for joining Russia anyway.Then, it would be hard. Now, it would be easy. The whole exercise is a complicated game of Chicken, where Russia can be dissuaded if it really believes the EU would go batshit and counter-invade, regardless of whether they would actually do so. The problem is Putin knows the EU wouldn't intervene under any circumstance, while we can't say the same for him. Putting a few NATO troops into the Ukraine (as an example) would tie NATO to Ukraine's fate: If Russia invaded,, NATO troops would be in danger, and NATO would have to respond immediately; hence why Putin wouldn't do it. It's mind-games all the way down.The EU doesn't even have an army. Stationing NATO or any other troops in Ukraine would up the stakes in this game through the roof. That's really not how things work...
Yes it would up the stakes, but that's the point; up the stakes to make Putin back out. The other point is that it's not worth it to raise them over this, hence Obama's attempt to subtly raise them. The unspoken undercurrent was that unless Putin is dissuaded (and even then, if pro-Russian milities remain in charge), the Crimea is already lost and that this is simply conjecture.
Post by: Sergarr on February 28, 2014, 10:25:26 pm
Post by: misko27 on February 28, 2014, 10:31:38 pm
I think stationing NATO troops in a country without its approval would be an invasion and therefore against international law, right?That's why I mentioned Ukraine having to ask, again in that first thing I said, the thing he did not quote when he responded.
Oh lord I know when I'm not being heard. It's enough to say that nothing can stop Putin now, barring something weird.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on February 28, 2014, 10:57:05 pm
This is going to probably be the point in the century where the USA is shown to be the impotent floppy blancmange that it is and that Putin can do whatever he likes while they just sit and bluster. Putin can invade and annex other countries, overthrow governments, turn the tides in civil wars in his favour and there's nothing the USA can do about it.Crimea 2014 is looking more and more similar to Sudetenland 1938
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
I think the only way we can retain the status quo is if US+EU+whoever else basically says "Putin, listen, don't annex Crimea because you'll piss everyone off and I don't think you want to fight WW3 over a tiny peninsula any more than we do. If Crimea goes independent and then has really good relations with you, even a pro-Russia government, as long as you aren't obviously pulling the strings, I think everything can settle. Crimea gets what they want mostly, Ukraine doesn't come out a complete loser because they got rid of your cronies in their government, you get a new ally which will regard you favorably and we don't look like we sat around with our thumbs up our asses. We can't really step into a region that wants to secede and look like the good guys, so we won't, but if you actually take Crimea... you're going to piss off a lot of people, and democracy can do pretty crazy things if that happens."
That's for the status-quo. Things will definitely change if it turns out this is just a vocal minority prompting Putin to steal away Crimea from Ukraine, in which case Putin did not act in the interest of Crimeans which will cause major problems. Worse is if the secessionist movement is found to have strong ties for Putin. If NATO steps in before then, we look like we're just being completely antagonistic to Russia. Which we kind of are, but everyone on any side really wishes it wasn't like that so everyone's hesitant.
FAKEEDIT2:
Oh lord I know when I'm not being heard. It's enough to say that nothing can stop Putin now, barring something weird.
Assuming of course that Western leaders and Putin haven't been talking to each other the entire time (that is, before or starting during Maidan) about keeping the status quo around.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 01, 2014, 01:35:15 am
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 04:33:19 am
Well, of course they should have waited for the referendum that was planned for May. With the Russian propaganda goin on there are likely a lot of people in Crimea who think Ukraine has been taken over by fascists, so it is plausible to assume they might have voted for joining Russia anyway.
The funny thing about propaganda, is that good ones convince you that your "side" is right, and the other side is simply employing a propaganda full of lies. the best ones does so subtly.
Lets amuse ourselves in a theoretical debate:
What if the israeli government was overthrown with the great help of an ultra right wing party rooted in racism and the first thing they do after they violently overthrow the government is to demote the arabic language, what would native arab speakers think about all this? what should a neighbouring arab country, say, jordan, do about it?
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 01, 2014, 04:35:31 am
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 04:52:48 am
B) I though Israel was already ruled by an ultra-right wing party grounded in racism?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 05:12:06 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 01, 2014, 05:25:59 am
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 05:31:08 am
B) Partially, but, even so, what's that have to do with anything? for argument sake, "Yesh Atid"'s yair lapid as prime minister, along with the left wing were in the coalition during the coup.
UR - i can worry about both and i should worry about both. have no mistake, i am hardly a fan of putin. and as i just said, i don't even worry about Ukraine specifically, i worry about what just happened in Ukraine and how, in me eyes, it cant be overlooked given the political shifting in greece, the netherlands, france, spain, italy, and probably across a whole lot more countries in europe.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 05:47:07 am
2) Saying that an elected government was overthrown is an half-truth. It was done by an elected parliament.
3) So let's say a left-wing government known for its mass graft and corruption signs a wildly impopular deal. A large segment on the Israeli population (including unsavory racists types and the whole spectrum of the current government) occupy some square. The government try unsuccessfully to clear it by force, and from there violence escalate on both side until the government deploy police armed with M16 and snipers and leave 80 body on the streets of Tel-Aviv, mostly protesters.
At that point, a bunch of MKs defect and bring down the government, bringing instead the current government, complete with its racists nutjobs.
Would you call it "overthrow of a democratic government"? Do you think the West would do anything to oppose it?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 05:49:42 am
Post by: webber on March 01, 2014, 06:07:22 am
Not recommended for children or sensitive people.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 06:15:04 am
UR - The west doesn't operate like that. they just nurture aspirations for the "local self-defense squads" to violently enforce their democracy, or more precisely, economical interests.
Post by: scrdest on March 01, 2014, 06:37:52 am
Frau Merkel, I suggest you to move German troops in Kaliningrad, name them "local self-defense squads" and hold a referendum to annex it. Apparently that is OK for 21th century politics
Would be easier for Poles. And hell, the map of Poland during the Sochi Olympics (accidentally) included Kaliningrad, so I guess Russians are fine with it. ANNEX AWAY!
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 01, 2014, 06:55:41 am
"We are America. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your cultural distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."You forgot the "your culture will adapt to service us" part, and I think it's totally appropriate.
On topic, This whole russia invasion thing suck. I really want EU to do something and make Putin back the hell down because you can't go and conquer stuff like this in this day and age. You just don't.
I don't want WWIII either though, so it's all about a game of chicken and I hate those.
It starts looking like a Paradox game. "Rebels arise in Ukraine" "Russia gain 'opressed minority' casus belli against Ukraine" "US issues a warning to russia"
Post by: Dutchling on March 01, 2014, 07:03:09 am
Post by: MarcAFK on March 01, 2014, 07:03:54 am
Decent analysis of the recent shootout. Has some hardly provable suggestions at the end, though.What shoot out?
Not recommended for children or sensitive people.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Between the various debates going on here I must have missed the news.
Post by: Dutchling on March 01, 2014, 07:06:04 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 07:07:20 am
- According to the Crimean government, unknown people, allegedly from mainland Ukraine, tried to take control of administration buildings in Simferopol (Russian link). (http://ria.ru/world/20140301/997666923.html) They were beaten back by self-defence forces. Russian Foreign Ministry claims that the building of Crimean Ministry of Interior Affairs was also attacked (also Russian link). (http://ria.ru/world/20140301/997662563.html)
- After that incident, Crimean PM Aksenov declared that he would take command of Crimean security forces, citing the need to ramp up security because of the presence of unidentified armed groups in Crimea and asked Russia for help in maintaining peace in Crimea. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26397323)
- The referendum on Crimea's political status was moved from the 25th of May to the 30th of March.
- Crimean security forces are now cooperating with the Black Sea Fleet in guarding important buildings and facilities (Russian link). (http://ria.ru/world/20140301/997670771.html)
- And finally, according to the speaker of Russian Federation Council Valentina Matvienko, they are considering approving the dispatch of Russian military forces to Crimea in order to protect the Black Sea Fleet and Russian citizens living in Crimea (Russian link). (http://ria.ru/world/20140301/997676155.html)
Post by: Sinistar on March 01, 2014, 07:14:15 am
So that's it?
I'll give it the benefit of doubt and say that yes, it is possible a pro-Ukraine group unrelated to current "unknown/probably Russian" armed men tried to re-take control of key structures in Crimea.
But this just stinks of a set-up.
Future years may prove me wrong, but this is a classic "let's instigate armed conflict and then move in under the pretense of restoring law and order" take-over scenario.
Shit.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:32:13 am
Also, I called it, Crimea is the new South Ossetia.
As for Crimean security forces, what are they? I guess the police would be Crimean, but the Ukrainian army units there, would they be Crimean or Ukrainian? Does the Crimean PM has any power over them?
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 07:41:30 am
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:42:24 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 07:43:35 am
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 07:44:14 am
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:45:11 am
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 07:48:42 am
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:53:36 am
Now, what I'm really wondering is that, now that Putin by and large won in Crimea, are we going to see Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine? They too have large Russian, disgruntled, population, refused to acknowledge the new government in Kiev etc etc.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 07:54:36 am
As for Crimean security forces, what are they? I guess the police would be Crimean, but the Ukrainian army units there, would they be Crimean or Ukrainian? Does the Crimean PM has any power over them?
Quote from: Sergey Aksenov, PM of Crimea
Я как председатель Совета министров АРК, реализуя полномочия, возложенные на меня ВС АРК, принимаю решение о временном переподчинении соединений, частей, силовых структур МВД, МВО, ВС, МЧС, флота, налоговой, пограничников непосредственно мне. Всем командирам выполнять только мои приказы и распоряжения. Несогласных прошу оставить службу
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:55:43 am
Edit Protesters fly Russian flag on Kharkiv's regional parliament. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhpJmdICcAArejm.jpg)
Post by: Urist McManiac on March 01, 2014, 07:59:02 am
Let's take a quick look at this post:
You know, loathe as I do to wish divisions between people, I would much prefer Russia quietly annexing Crimea and the west spending the next year making lame excuses about why they didn't do anything to an open confrontation. There are many negative consequences in allowing Putin to do as he pleases, but there are even more negative consequences in the western powers deploying their troops in or around the crimean territory of openly threatening Russia. A war is truly the last thing Ukraine needs in these times of tumult. Of course, the best possible situation would be Putin withdrawing his troops due to political pressure and the pro-russian ukrainians sorting thing out with their new government, but, alas, it's extremely unlikely to happen. And let's be realistic here: having one tinpot dictator ruling over Crimea instead of another would not change the lives of people much.
It's such a shame that the worst conflicts are often born of the best intentions - all the ukrainians wanted when they were protesting was a better government.
This is a very good and cool-headed post. An anexation/seccession/whatever of the Crimean penisula is certainly not in the interest of many people, which is reasonable. But at the moment, risking a war over the Crimea is something far more worse than Russia just shitting on international laws. Besides, you people do know that the population in the Crimea is majority ethnic Russian with a significant portion of the country being Tatars and Ukrainians? An european/NATO intervention would be as horrible to the Russians as an Russian invasion would be for the rest of the people there. I'm not saying that it's completly okay for Russia to invade Ukrainia (because it definitly is NOT), but I guess you have to ask the other side the same question: Is is really acceptable for EU/NATO to intervene (militarly) on the Crimea? Certainly not as long as the Ukrainian goverment doesn't ask for such help (and even then it would be a stupid decision).
To elaborate on this I have to take a look at the last sentence on the post quoted above. While the rest of the post is really good, this last sentence is utter shit (please don't take offense Knit tie, it's not personal). This whole story started as a protest against an elected head of state, sure, but it did not represent the whole Ukrainian people. In fact, a lot of the pro-Russian people in eastern Ukrainia supported Janukowitsch. Now that he was overthrown by the Maidan protesters (which were mostly from western Ukrainia and are perceived as nationalists and faschists by the eastern Ukrainian, even if this may not be true) the pro-Russian Ukrainians feel threathend by the new goverment. This is understandble, as the losing side in such a conflict is always in deep shit (and the laws banning Russian as official language on the Crimea have made this clear).
If this new goverment, which is not even perceived as legal by all of its subjects, would now call in foreign forces, it would only speed up the seperation of Ukrainia at the cost of many lives. Do note that the same is true for the Crimea right now: they call in help from Russia and thereby provoke the western Ukrainians and Tartars. In the end, the seperation of Ukrainia is certain, in my humble opinion. Involvement from either Russia or the West will only help to deepen the animosity between the various people in Ukrainia and lead to unneccessary bloodshed. If the ethnic Russian and the rest of the Ukrainians can't live together in peace, by all means seperate them in peace. There is no point in forcefully keeping a state together that falls apart on it's one.
And just as a disclaimer on the end of my post: I do not support Russia and/or it's invasion of a foreign country. But saying that Russia is "EVIL!!!!111" and that all the Ukrainians want to be liberated from Russian influence is utter bullshit. As I mentiond earlier, this situation is more than just complex and thinking in black-and-white is certainly not going to help solve this situation peacfully.
PS:
Frau Merkel, I suggest you to move German troops in Kaliningrad, name them "local self-defense squads" and hold a referendum to annex it. Apparently that is OK for 21th century politics
While I understand your frustration over this whole thing (as it is your country that is invaded) such a thing is a completly wrong thing to do. Besides the fact that (sadly) Kaliningrad/Königsberg has no tie Germany anymore (a fact which you are certainly aware of), provokation is not going to help here. As I said earlier, a seperated Ukrainia is almost a given (again, sadly). What I would do is to make sure that this seperation is a peacful as possible, both to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and to avoid a new animosity between east and west. Because that would lead to a dark future indeed.
PPS:
Does anyone see the irony of this situation happening exactly in 2014? I guess the Austrian Prime Minister and/or the Habsburg should take cover and stay clear of Belgrade for some time :)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 08:00:01 am
And I will be very surprised if Russians will limit themselves with Crimea. I think the plan is ""restoration of constitutional order in Ukraine" and bringing Yanukovitch back using Russian Tanks. Or, at least, occupying "Russian" half of Ukraine
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 01, 2014, 08:00:44 am
- And finally, according to the speaker of Russian Federation Council Valentina Matvienko, they are considering approving the dispatch of Russian military forces to Crimea in order to protect the Black Sea Fleet and Russian citizens living in Crimea (Russian link). (http://ria.ru/world/20140301/997676155.html)
Fuck.Crimea 2014 is looking more and more similar to Sudetenland 1938I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Although, I still think Putin and Western leaders have already had discussions in private and everyone's just going through the motions.
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 08:01:02 am
Really? Was Czechoslovakia in an binding defensive alliance with the UK and the rest of Europe?It was with France and UK via France.
Anyway, I'm calling it now, anschluss of entire Ukraine.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 08:02:24 am
So once again the West has no balls. Hardly surprising. I wonder how long until Putin annexes Poland.Why would Putin need Poland? Or concerning annexing the rest of Ukraine, does he really want to deal with UPA insurgents in Galicia and Volhynia?
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 08:05:45 am
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 08:06:08 am
Post by: Sonlirain on March 01, 2014, 08:09:10 am
Well if he did manage to add poland to the list of russian satelite states (not likely since poland has somewhat strong ties to EU and NATO) then russia would have more or less the same sphere of influence as ye olde soviet union without being defacto the red scare of old.So once again the West has no balls. Hardly surprising. I wonder how long until Putin annexes Poland.Why would Putin need Poland? Or concerning annexing the rest of Ukraine, does he really want to deal with UPA insurgents in Galicia and Volhynia?
Post by: DJ on March 01, 2014, 08:10:17 am
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 08:19:45 am
Edit: Apparently Russia is suspending the gas discount. I guess this would invalidate the 2010 treaty regarding Sevastopol.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 08:38:42 am
Spoiler: Pro-Russian demonstration in Kharkov (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 08:51:25 am
It would be a much scarier red scare, because now it has an economy that's somewhat efficient.You greatly overestimate the state of Russian economy.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 01:53:48 pm
Besides the fact that (sadly) Kaliningrad/Königsberg has no tie Germany anymore (a fact which you are certainly aware of), provokation is not going to help here.
But, sir, they just have to occupy the lands, kill the local Russian population, move Germans in, and then claim the Russians weren't the ones who owned it first. That's how it works. I love how you say 'it's more complex than u think!!!" and then go entirely on the pro-Russian side of the arguement, and hand wave the murder of the Crimean people which allows Russia to even have the completely asinine claim that 'most of the people are Russians [because we murdered the rest of them and forced them to use Russian language therefore killing their local identities]!!'.
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 02:02:00 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 02:05:18 pm
Post by: GreatJustice on March 01, 2014, 02:05:41 pm
Besides the fact that (sadly) Kaliningrad/Königsberg has no tie Germany anymore (a fact which you are certainly aware of), provokation is not going to help here.
But, sir, they just have to occupy the lands, kill the local Russian population, move Germans in, and then claim the Russians weren't the ones who owned it first. That's how it works. I love how you say 'it's more complex than u think!!!" and then go entirely on the pro-Russian side of the arguement, and hand wave the murder of the Crimean people which allows Russia to even have the completely asinine claim that 'most of the people are Russians [because we murdered the rest of them and forced them to use Russian language therefore killing their local identities]!!'.
Of course, the US murdered Native American people too, but I'm not seeing many arguments that the US should cede most of the Midwest to the rightful owners in the form of the Sioux and so on.
Anyhow, while you could argue the Russians have less of a legitimate claim than the Tartars, the Ukrainians have less of a claim (using the historical argument) than either, having only gained Crimea in the 50s as a ceremonial gesture from Khrushchev.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 01, 2014, 02:05:56 pm
Well I just picked Poland because it's the traditional world war starter.
Weren't the Balkans the traditional world war starter?
Post by: Dutchling on March 01, 2014, 02:09:09 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 01, 2014, 02:14:09 pm
But, sir, they just have to occupy the lands, kill the local Russian population, move Germans in, and then claim the Russians weren't the ones who owned it first. That's how it works. I love how you say 'it's more complex than u think!!!" and then go entirely on the pro-Russian side of the arguement, and hand wave the murder of the Crimean people which allows Russia to even have the completely asinine claim that 'most of the people are Russians [because we murdered the rest of them and forced them to use Russian language therefore killing their local identities]!!'.You know, the Königsberg analogy does work for me. You can't just reverse these kinds of things easily. I see nobody arguing for giving Germany it's former eastern parts back, but with Crimea it's totally different?
Post by: darkrider2 on March 01, 2014, 02:18:49 pm
Don't you mean the Belkans? :P (if you don't get it that's fine Ace Combat 5 joke)Well I just picked Poland because it's the traditional world war starter.Weren't the Balkans the traditional world war starter?
The way it looks right now, it seems Russia is trying to provoke a situation where they can justify the use of force. I hope Ukrainian and Crimean locals can keep it calm.
Agreed, at this point escalation would only work in Russia's favor.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 01, 2014, 02:19:16 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 02:28:03 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 01, 2014, 02:30:06 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 02:31:51 pm
Quote
There were clashes between Russian citizens\collaborators and Maidan activists in Kharkov with about 100 people injured.Fixed that for Guardian
Just remember guys, everything from Russian media source is a misinformation. Especially now
Anyway, It's not about Crimea, Russia is getting ready to full scale invasion, that is obvious
Post by: XXSockXX on March 01, 2014, 02:42:04 pm
Anyway, It's not about Crimea, Russia is getting ready to full scale invasion, that is obviousI'm not that sure. Putin knows that nobody will actively try to or realistically be able to stop him. On the other hand, if he does that, we're back in Cold War times.
My guess is that right now, he waits for or is trying to create a situation that can be interpreted as a threat to Russians in Crimea, possibly a clash between Maidan activists and Russian troops, to seize Crimea. That alone shows how unreliable he is as a political partner, he had told Obama and Merkel he'd avoid escalation and now he's full on trying to provoke it.
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 02:42:30 pm
So far, Congress has fallen in line with Obama and denounced Russia while threatening a response.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 02:51:24 pm
And that "not open fire on invaders, because they may use that as casus beli" strategy will not end in a good way for Ukrainian army
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2014, 02:54:04 pm
The logic on this feels awfully circular. Ukrainian president wants closer ties with Russia, is rejected by the populace. Pro-Russian populace claims they feel threatened, Russia claims it has the right to intercede on their behalf.
As long as the issue can't be solved from within the Ukraine, by all Ukrainians, I see Russia eventually getting what it wants, one way or another. Once honest to god sectarian violence breaks out (if what we're seeing isn't basically already that) there's little to stop Russian from stepping in.
Post by: Sinistar on March 01, 2014, 02:57:19 pm
Does anyone see the irony of this situation happening exactly in 2014? I guess the Austrian Prime Minister and/or the Habsburg should take cover and stay clear of Belgrade for some time :)Oh crap. This would be hilariously awesome coincidence if situation wasn't so serious. :(
Also, I don't think Urist McManiac was really siding with pro-Russian side, but hey, I lack the witt of some other forum members so I can't really answer with a clever argument. :-[
Tymoshencko's braids fake, CIA conspiracy suspected. (http://newsukraine.com.ua/news/54246-pervaya-pricheska-strany-istoriya-kosy-yulii-timoshenko-39foto)Am I a horrible person if I say that she is a rather attractive lady?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 01, 2014, 02:58:23 pm
XXSockXX, Russian self-propelled howitzers redeployed to Crimea say that Russians will start advance. That's not even tanks, howitzers are not for seizing cities, they are for engaging blockaded Ukrainian basesWhat is really shitty about this situation is that even if the Ukrainian army would intervene now, they wouldn't have much of a chance.
And that "not open fire on invaders, because they may use that as casus beli" strategy will not end in a good way for Ukrainian army
Realistically, even the harshest response of the West will not include military intervention, so you're basically up alone against Russia.
Not resisting is giving in to blackmail. It is unfortunately the only way that doesn't involve massive bloodshed. It's a lose-lose situation.
Post by: martinuzz on March 01, 2014, 03:03:16 pm
but yeah, somewhat of a serious situation developing there.
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2014, 03:03:51 pm
Why do ethnically Russian Ukrainians crave such strong ties with Russia? Do they hope to benefit economically? Do they attach greater importance to their Russian identity than their own national identity? (Which, to be fair, isn't as old as some countries.) Do they truly fear that non-ethnically-Russian Ukrainians hate them and would exclude them from government or worse?
For an American it's hard to understand, because our national identity isn't really challenged. Our population isn't fluid except for Mexicans (who do sometimes struggle with which to put first: their home or the land of their birth and their ancestors.) But there's really no analog that works for us to understand the situation, or at least the core motivations of those in the Crimea region. Clearly, Russian support is strong there. But what are the underpinnings of that support?
I mean, is Ukraine basically half split between those that historically are terrified of Russia, and half those who became Ukrainian because of political settlements rather than by choice?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 01, 2014, 03:08:07 pm
But what are the underpinnings of that support?Someone else may have better answers, but mostly I think it is that many people in Ukraine feel more like Russians and speak Russian exclusively. The country is essentially divided into Ukrainian Ukrainians and Russian Ukrainians.
Also the portrayal of the revolution as a facist coup in Russian and pro-Russian media has fueled a lot of fear in the Russian-speaking parts of the country. While it is not fascist, it is a Western Ukrainian revolution for the most part, so that didn't help with the divide.
Post by: da_nang on March 01, 2014, 03:10:40 pm
XXSockXX, Russian self-propelled howitzers redeployed to Crimea say that Russians will start advance. That's not even tanks, howitzers are not for seizing cities, they are for engaging blockaded Ukrainian basesEh, if they pull another Mainila, getting casus belli isn't that difficult.
And that "not open fire on invaders, because they may use that as casus beli" strategy will not end in a good way for Ukrainian army
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 03:13:56 pm
There are 17%, I repeat 17% of Ethnic Russians in Ukraine. That's not half at all.
Yes, Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine are different in mentality. As... Hmmm.... Texas and Alaska. That doesn't mean that first dreams to join Mexico and the second dreams to join Canada
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2014, 03:19:11 pm
But with Russian forces pulling up to the Eastern border, from the outside looking in, it would certainly seem like a desire to repatriate Eastern Ukraine to Russia.
I guess I ask, what about their sense of being Ukrainian? Does some part of them not shudder at the thought of another country crossing their borders in force?
Again, as an American, this isn't something we worry about. The idea of Canadian or Mexican military forces crossing our borders is unthinkable. It's why we always joked about Russian invading Alaska when Sarah Palin was governor, because that absurdity seemed more likely than any other alternatives.
I'm just trying to understand the mind of the Crimeans, because it's easy to paint them in ways that don't respect their honest feelings and motivations in this matter. On the other hand, it feels like they're inviting serious conflict by Pro-Russian support to the point they may officially become Russian. When the matter was a head of state rejecting a deal with the EU in favor of one with Russia, it was a little easier to understand. But now that there are tanks and artillery on the borders......the problem is both less abstract but also less rational to me.
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 03:23:21 pm
Again, before anyone start jumping around, that DOESN'T mean i am pro-russian or think forcefully annexing a piece of another country land is a justified action.
btw, any economist here can shed light on actually which deal was better for the ukranian people? aside from the west versus russia issues, strictly financially, which one was more benefiting?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 03:23:55 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 03:24:54 pm
Burningpet: Russian deal on the short term, European integration on the long term. Russia offers cash, Europe offer coaching to become a better country.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 03:30:12 pm
First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the RSFSR just half a century ago is more relevant that it was ruled by a Tatar khanate four hundred years ago, or that it was Greek in the times of antiquity. But stuff that, what is definitely relevant is that the majority of the population speaks Russian. A government that deprives the Crimeans of their language cannot be fit to govern them. The nationalist (and it has always been nationalist; if you think Yanukovich was in any way pro-Russian...well, hah. When he was elected, everybody expected him to solve the whole status of the Russian language question: he did not solve jack, and kept most of Poxface's ultra-right policies) government of Ukraine has always tried to "ukrainize" Crimea by blatant smear tactics against Russia and forced introduction of the Ukrainian goddamn mova into every aspect of life ; seriously, some of the shit that blared from my TV in the later years has to be heard to be believed. Well, by now everybody has had enough of this. Surprise.
You may ask why I say with such confidence that Russian is the language of Crimea. That's simple - I lived there, and plan to live there again. Find me a person in Sudak or Yalta or Simferopol or wherever who has Ukrainian as a first language and is not a tourist from the Ivano-Frankovschina or Lvov or the hamlet of Petlurovka on the border of Poland, and you can have a cookie.
And that brings me to the next part of my rant. The average reader of these words can find neither Lvov nor Sudak on a map, because he is Canadian, or American, or British, or Cuban for all I care. And yet he comes to this thread to express his indignation about events he learned about from some news feed, and so sincere he is in his fury that I find myself outmatched by his righteousness. Maybe if our affairs concern the western parts of the world so much, we Slavs should start a reality show? Earn a quick buck to support our failing, import-dependent economies.
"Why, Avis", say you, "you talk so much about how Crimeans speak Russian and how the Ukrainian government is a bunch of Nazis, but does that excuse the grubbing motions of evil imperialist Russia and its Czar Pootang?"
"Sure as hell it does", answer I. I would prefer it if my friends and relatives did not have to suffer a government that tells them I am their enemy, and that they must speak a language that they don't give a crap about, or be second-class citizens. I would prefer to live in the same state as them, and they would prefer to live in the same state as me. It is not a question of land or ancient history. It is a question of people being forcibly separated by a foreign and hostile entity - real, living, currently-existing people. That might be slightly hard to understand if your country did not fall to bits a couple decades ago, I know. I personally can't wait for the moment I and my granddad can visit each other without crossing a border, and so do millions of Russians.
Of course, I would welcome an independent Crimea or an independent East Ukraine - I might even get a dual citizenship. The thing that I find the most revolting is the propaganda war that the Ukrainian government (utterly incompetent - the Soviet Union's finest agricultural region, importing grain. At least we kept the competent thieves after the nineties) is or was leading against Russia and its own Russian-speaking population. The game of nezalezhnost' is a game any number of parties can play.
This is my entirely selfish point of view. Forgive me if I seem rude - I have the horriblest headache right now.
/me has let loose a vile croak!
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 03:32:13 pm
There is a petition (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-petition-president-obama-offer-military-help-new-ukrainian-government-and-provide-un-nato/FyxGf6xd) on WhiteHouse.gov for Obama to offer peackeepers to Ukraine. I guessed you signed it MSH?
Burningpet: Russian deal on the short term, European integration on the long term. Russia offers cash, Europe offer coaching to become a better country.
Do you have specifics? the financial state of europe is hardly an assurance for a long term success, nor the "success" of some of its coached countries is reassuring.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 03:34:44 pm
First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the RSFSR just half a century ago is more relevant that it was ruled by a Tatar khanate four hundred years ago
This would be fair logic if you applied it to the government currently holding the land. But naw, skip right to the soviet union's ownership because they're the best ones.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 03:35:36 pm
I do.First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the RSFSR just half a century ago is more relevant that it was ruled by a Tatar khanate four hundred years ago
This would be fair logic if you applied it to the people currently holding the land.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 03:37:20 pm
As any external threat the current situation is doing wonders for uniting the nation. Yep, we have numerous fifth column who will welcome and aid the invasion but should we prevail we will be more united than ever. All internal conflicts look so minor when you have a war near your doorstep
As for Crimeans... While many Russians here do want back to Russia. The ones I know are in very fell mood know. Why? Because they understand that whatever the end result will be, the next tourism season is doomed to fail. And that is the main source of profit for the majority of population. Not mentioning that Crimea gets majority of it's water and electricity from Ukraine and if they to become independent\Russian and hostile to Ukraine.... The prices for those may go up
That is one of reasons I think that Russia is not interested in Crimea alone: It is too dependable on "mainland" Ukraine. Building a bridge and bringing water\electricity from Russia is billions worth projects that need time to complete. No, they need a land route from Russia to Crimea
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 03:37:39 pm
I do.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Europe-Ukraine.svg/713px-Europe-Ukraine.svg.png)
First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the Ukraine just half a week ago is more relevant that it was ruled by the Soviet Union half a century ago.
Post by: Dutchling on March 01, 2014, 03:40:44 pm
That map.
Why the fuck does Russia have a naval base in the Ukraine?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 01, 2014, 03:42:36 pm
Crimea was part of the UkraineOR DID THEY?!?
Avis, you know better I suppose, but I presume that Crimeans haven't felt themselves realy Ukrainian. Bt this is up to Crimeans, in fact.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 03:44:18 pm
The rest of my post was intended to be read, too, you know. The point was that the government of Ukraine is illegitimate because of its actions, not because of the historical basis behind it - also negligible.I do.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Europe-Ukraine.svg/713px-Europe-Ukraine.svg.png)
First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the Ukraine just half a week ago is more relevant that it was ruled by the Soviet Union half a century ago.
As for the next tourism season, if Crimea becomes part of Russia, it will be the touristiest tourism season ever - all the people,e who have a phobia of your border control guys will show up. Do you feed them on gravel or something? They're the crankiest.
When did I say something like that..? Your talent for misinterpreting me astounds me. Just PM me in Russian if I say aught odd, and I'll explain myself.Crimea was part of the UkraineOR DID THEY?!?
Avis, you know better I suppose, but I presume that Crimeans haven't felt themselves realy Ukrainian. Bt this is up to Crimeans, in fact.
Post by: burningpet on March 01, 2014, 03:46:33 pm
First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the Ukraine just half a week ago is more relevant that it was ruled by the Soviet Union half a century ago.
And today they chose to join forces with russia. cant get any recent.
If a segment in Ukraine can just set its own president disregarding the majority, why shouldn't any other minority do so?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 01, 2014, 03:47:17 pm
When did I say something like that..? Your talent for misinterpreting me astounds me. Just PM me in Russian if I say aught odd, and I'll explain myself.Crimea was part of the UkraineOR DID THEY?!?
Avis, you know better I suppose, but I presume that Crimeans haven't felt themselves realy Ukrainian. Bt this is up to Crimeans, in fact.
Nevermind. Truly my misinterpreting talents have no borders in their constant expand.
Post by: Urist McManiac on March 01, 2014, 03:48:46 pm
I guess I feel the need to ask this finally.
Why do ethnically Russian Ukrainians crave such strong ties with Russia? Do they hope to benefit economically? Do they attach greater importance to their Russian identity than their own national identity?
Well, I can't speak for the Crimeans (nor any other person than myself, for that matter) but people in Europe/the "Old World" tend to identfy themself more with their cultural/ethnical heritage than with the state they live in. I am part of a minority that is vastly different from the rest of the state in which we live and I don't know anyone who would identify himself with the state. Sure, there are people who place more emphasize on this than others, but none denies the fact that "we are not them". I can understand that this concept may be a bit harder to understand for an American, as the only thing American people have in common is their nationality, as they are descendet from people all over the Old World/Africa, and therefore tend to identify more with with the state in which they live. But as I said, I don't know who things are in Eastern Europe.
Also, I don't think Urist McManiac was really siding with pro-Russian side, but hey, I lack the witt of some other forum members so I can't really answer with a clever argument. :-[
I certainly am not. I was just surprised how people in this thread behaved as if they actually wanted the situation the escalate. I definitly don't support any hostile action towards a foreign state, no matter for what cause or who initated such an action.
But, sir, they just have to occupy the lands, kill the local Russian population, move Germans in, and then claim the Russians weren't the ones who owned it first. That's how it works. I love how you say 'it's more complex than u think!!!" and then go entirely on the pro-Russian side of the arguement, and hand wave the murder of the Crimean people which allows Russia to even have the completely asinine claim that 'most of the people are Russians [because we murdered the rest of them and forced them to use Russian language therefore killing their local identities]!!'.
First of all, get your history right. Russians only live in Königsberg/Kaliningrad since the end of the second World War. Before that, the region was populated by Germans and before them by baltic tribes.
And I certainly didn't go completly on the pro-Russian side, but tried to add something to the discussion which wasn't really mentioned before (as that is what I would call "discussing"). I completely agree that Ukrainians have all right to be pissed, heck, their country is getting invaded. I certainly would be more than just a bit disgruntled if this would happen to me. BUT this doesn't mean that the (West-)Ukrainian side in this conflict is automatically right.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 03:49:32 pm
Do you have specifics? the financial state of europe is hardly an assurance for a long term success, nor the "success" of some of its coached countries is reassuring.
Russia's deal included membership of their own custom union, which is not compatible with membership of the EU.
As for success, every European country is freer and less corrupt than Russia. All but Romania/Bulgaria are also richer, and we don't have oil.
Also, I don't think anyone here (except UR maybe) is against the Crimean getting a referendum for independence. But as things stand, we don't know if they want independence, we don't know jack shit, because Putin and his Red Army 2.0 decided to cut the discussion short and invade everything.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 03:51:37 pm
I do so love it when people say things I agree with. If West Ukraine can, why not East? Because evil and dictatorship, probably, or something like that.First of all, I find recent history slightly more relevant than ancient history - that is, the fact that Crimea was part of the Ukraine just half a week ago is more relevant that it was ruled by the Soviet Union half a century ago.
And today they chose to join forces with russia. cant get any recent.
If a segment in Ukraine can just elect its own president disregarding the majority, why shouldn't any other minority do so?
Alright, I'm becoming incoherent. I'll go sleep now.
Somehow, I think I'll have to read through twenty pages of text tomorrow. Oh whatever.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 03:52:03 pm
First of all, get your history right. Russians only live in Königsberg/Kaliningrad since the end of the second World War. Before that, the region was populated by Germans and before them by baltic tribes.Exactly.
That's why Germany should occupy it, murder [or otherwise illegally deport] the locals, institute German as the preferred language, abandon it, come back in 20 years after the seeds planted are grown and claim it's actually really German.
Also, I don't think anyone here (except UR maybe) is against the Crimean getting a referendum for independence. But as things stand, we don't know if they want independence, we don't know jack shit, because Putin and his Red Army 2.0 decided to cut the discussion short and invade everything.
But glorious Putin is just saving the true Crimeans [russians] from those damn Nazis, Sheb! Just look around you!
I do so love it when people say things I agree with. If West Ukraine can, why not East? Because evil and dictatorship, probably, or something like that.
Remember, they're only allowed the right to self determination if it's in line with Putin's interests. If he says annex or secede it will be done now. I like how Russians are so loose with sovereignty and then so staunchly nationalist. How'd you feel if Finland took back their lands in a similar fashion? By sending in their special forces to lock down airports/main roadways, removing the local government and then having the army come in and 'secure' the area? You'd be pretty pleased to see them recover their homelands, I'm sure.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 03:54:16 pm
Quote
Why the fuck does Russia have a naval base in the Ukraine?Because "mighty" Soviet Union was so "advanced" that it had only one naval base suitable for large vessels in the Black sea. Of cause all large vessels of Soviet Black Sea Fleet should have become Ukrainian because of that... But tell that to that traitor and\or incompetent president we got after gaining our independence
Quote
As for the next tourism season, if Crimea becomes part of Russia, it will be the touristiest tourism season ever - all the people,e who have a phobia of your border control guys will show up.Assuming I am average Russian... What to choose Sochi that got huge Olympic investments or postwar Crimea with bad (possibly postwar) infrastructure and mad (possibly waging low intensity guerrilla) Crimean Tatars? Very hard choice
And not forget that 3\4th of tourists in Crimea are Ukrainians. You really think that Russians gonna replace all that lost tourists? Hint: Ukrainians will prefer Turkey in that case, cheaper and way safer
Post by: Comrade P. on March 01, 2014, 03:55:12 pm
Various video feed reports of people shouting "Russia! Russia!" and waving russian flags all over Crimea. First, they set a date of referendum on 25th of may. Now, they say it is too long and set it to 30th of March.Do you have specifics? the financial state of europe is hardly an assurance for a long term success, nor the "success" of some of its coached countries is reassuring.
Russia's deal included membership of their own custom union, which is not compatible with membership of the EU.
As for success, every European country is freer and less corrupt than Russia. All but Romania/Bulgaria are also richer, and we don't have oil.
Also, I don't think anyone here (except UR maybe) is against the Crimean getting a referendum for independence. But as things stand, we don't know if they want independence, we don't know jack shit, because Putin and his Red Army 2.0 decided to cut the discussion short and invade everything.
They just want to secede from a country falling down to abyss.
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 03:56:34 pm
Of course, if Crimea wants to secede, more power to them. The can go join Russia, be Russians, whatever. My problem is Russia is doing the most basic violations of international law, using military might to take advantage of a weak state for literally no real legal reason. There are ethnic Russians there? Brighton Beach, NY is majority ethnic Russian. It used to belong to Russia? So does most territory around Russia, it's still illegal. Has there been a referendum? Yes, there was supposed to be one at the end of March. Russia can't wait for some strange reason. And of course, as it has been pointed out, that petition is by no means limited to the Crimea, but in fact calls the whole territory of Ukraine.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 04:03:50 pm
First of all, get your history right. Russians only live in Königsberg/Kaliningrad since the end of the second World War. Before that, the region was populated by Germans and before them by baltic tribes.Exactly.
That's why Germany should occupy it, murder the locals, institute German as the preferred language, abandon it, come back in 20 years after the seeds planted are grown and claim it's actually really German.
I don't get it. Are you claiming Crimea was ever inhabited by an Ukrainian-speaking majority?
Or is it about the Tatars? They have no reason to love the Ukrainian government either. Besides, they are an actual minority compared to the Russian-speaking segment of the population.
And it was resettlement, not murder. Do soften your damn terminology. And what do you propose, having the Russian Army conquer Crimea, and then hand it back to whatever Tatars we can find? Sure, can do.
QuoteWhy the fuck does Russia have a naval base in the Ukraine?Because "mighty" Soviet Union was so "advanced" that it had only one naval base suitable for large vessels in the Black sea. Of cause all large vessels of Soviet Black Sea Fleet should have become Ukrainian because of that... But tell that to that traitor and\or incompetent president we got after gaining our independenceQuoteAs for the next tourism season, if Crimea becomes part of Russia, it will be the touristiest tourism season ever - all the people,e who have a phobia of your border control guys will show up.Assuming I am average Russian... What to choose Sochi that got huge Olympic investments or postwar Crimea with bad (possibly postwar) infrastructure and mad (possibly waging low intensity guerrilla) Crimean Tatars? Very hard choice
And not forget that 3\4th of tourists in Crimea are Ukrainians. You really think that Russians gonna replace all that lost tourists? Hint: Ukrainians will prefer Turkey in that case, cheaper and way safer
I will choose Crimea - my friends live there. As will a shit-ton of other Russians.
I would not ridicule the Soviets if I were you - your mightily democratic government has so far failed to produce a single naval base of that caliber, and continues to share this one with our fleet.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 04:06:41 pm
Or is it about the Tatars? They have no reason to love the Ukrainian government either. Besides, they are an actual minority compared to the Russian-speaking segment of the population.
The only reason Russian is the majority is because of resettlement and murder of those who refused to accept Russian as the new language and be happily under the Soviet Union. I find this all very amusing, how about you give up Karelia to Finland if you think people should have their rightful lands? Or is Russia the only one allowed such rights?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 04:08:05 pm
Quote
Also, I don't think anyone here (except UR maybe) is against the Crimean getting a referendum for independence.You know what I would prefer right now in my current pre-war mood?
Packing most of Russians in Crimea, deporting them to Russia (Russia is big enough to host them), give their homes back to Tatars then aid willing Crimean Tartars to return from Turkey\Central Asia to move in Crimea and grant independence(or very wide autonomy as the first step) to mixed Ukrainian\Tatar\other minorities Crimea getting friendly nation and understanding that Ukrainians living here will slowly assimilate into that Crimean nation
If Russians of Crimea want to act as Germans of Sudetenland. They deserve the same fate.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 04:09:30 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 04:13:33 pm
Quote
And it was resettlement, not murder. Do soften your damn terminology.Crimean Tatars where genocided more than once. Resettlement
"Resettlement" included transportation in cattle wagons and unloading in civilization-less steppes. Many died because of that, you know?
Post by: Owlbread on March 01, 2014, 04:14:33 pm
But yeah, Avis, you obviously don't know just how many people died as a result of the deportations. It was murder. The deportations as a whole, including that which befell all the other ethnic groups (e.g. Volga Germans, all the countless Caucasian peoples etc), could actually be considered genocide. I certainly consider it to be an act of genocide.
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 04:15:12 pm
It's interesting that Avis would talk of his fear of the nationalists in West Ukraine when the entire Crimean situation bubbles down to very, very powerful feelings of Russian nationalism.[citation needed]
But yeah, Avis, you obviously don't know just how many people died as a result of the deportations. It was murder.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 01, 2014, 04:16:29 pm
Or is it about the Tatars? They have no reason to love the Ukrainian government either. Besides, they are an actual minority compared to the Russian-speaking segment of the population.
The only reason Russian is the majority is because of resettlement and murder of those who refused to accept Russian as the new language and be happily under the Soviet Union. I find this all very amusing, how about you give up Karelia to Finland if you think people should have their rightful lands? Or is Russia the only one allowed such rights?
Well it certainly isn't Ukrainian, seeing as how Crimea's only connection to Ukraine, again, is a largely ceremonial transfer by Khrushchev from the RSFSR to the USSR in the 50s. Maybe it's Tartar, but I don't see you clamoring for a return of Georgia to the Cherokee, Australia to the Aborigines or even Lviv to the Polish (or Austrians).
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 04:16:54 pm
Also Avis, why would Ukraine need to build a second naval base?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 04:19:47 pm
http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/jopohl.htmlIt's interesting that Avis would talk of his fear of the nationalists in West Ukraine when the entire Crimean situation bubbles down to very, very powerful feelings of Russian nationalism.[citation needed]
But yeah, Avis, you obviously don't know just how many people died as a result of the deportations. It was murder.
Quote
The Stalin regime deported the Karachays, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Crimean Tatars, and Meskhetian Turks in preparation for this anti-Turkish campaign.[28] All of these Muslim nationalities had historical and cultural ties to Turkey. They also all occupied strategic areas of the Soviet Union in relation to Turkey. The Meskhetian Turks inhabited the Georgian-Turkish border, the Karachays, Chechens, Ingush, and Balkars lived near the main highways through the Caucasus, and the Crimean Tatars made their homes near the naval bases and facilities of the Black Sea Fleet. The Stalin regime feared that these nationalities would not be completely loyal to the USSR in the event of a conflict with Turkey. In the minds of Stalin and Beria these ethnic groups represented a potential pro-Turkish fifth column living close to vulnerable Soviet military assets. Thus one of the main reason for the deportation of these groups was to prevent any espionage, sabotage, diversion, or other assistance to Ankara by their members in the event of a Soviet-Turkish conflict. The importance of the Crimean peninsula in such a conflict had already been demonstrated in the Crimean War in the last century. The Soviet leadership believed that military control of the Black Sea depended upon a solidly loyal population in the Crimea. Hence the Stalin regime deemed it necessary to deport the Crimean Tatars with theirlinguistic, cultural and historical ties to Turkey far away from the region to Uzbekistan and the Urals.
On 18 May 1944, the NKVD began the actual deportation of the Crimean Tatars. Two of the deputy Chiefs of the NKVD, Bogdan Kobulov and Ivan Serov personally oversaw the roundup and entrainement of the condemned nation. The entire operation involved 23,000 officers and soldiers of the NKVD internal troops and 9,000 NKVD-NKGB operatives, 100 "Willey Jeeps," 250 trucks, and 67 train echelons. [29] The NKVD informed each individual household that they were to be deported for betraying the Motherland and made them quickly gather up their personal possessions. The Crimean Tatar families had only 15 to 20 minutes to attempt to gather up the 500 kg allowed by GKO resolution N5859ss. Most did not take anything near 500 kg of belongings with them into exile. The NKVD did not allow some Crimean Tatar families to bring anything with them during the deportation. Many others managed to collect only a few possessions during this time. The NKVD then drove the Crimean Tatars to the nearest train station and loaded them into box cars. It took three days to load the vast majority of the Crimean Tatar population onto trains and send them east enroute to Uzbekistan. By 8:00 Am 18 May 1944, the NKVD had loaded 90,000 Crimean Tatars onto 25 train echelons.[30] A total of 48,400 of these exiles on 17 echelons had already departed for Uzbekistan.[31] The next day, the NKVD completed transporting 165,515 Crimean Tatars to train stations and sent 136,412 enroute to Uzbekistan.[32] On 20 May 1944, the NKVD completed the exile of the Crimean Tatars. According to their initial count, the NKVD exiled a total of 180,014 Crimean Tatars to special settlements between 18 and 20 May 1944.[33] On 4 July 1944, they revised this figure to 183,155.[34] In addition to these exiles, the NKVD also separated 11,000 young Crimean Tatar men from their families and sent them to perform forced labor.[35] The Red Army conscripted 6,000 of these Crimean Tatars into construction battalions.[36] The remaining 5,000 became part of an 8,000 man special contingent of the labor army requested by the Moscow Coal Trust.[37] In a mere three days, the Soviet government forcibly removed 194,155 Crimean Tatars from the Crimea. The NKVD successfully expelled virtually the entire Crimean Tatar population from its ancestral homeland. To this day it remains one of the most rapid and thorough cases of ethnic cleansing in world history.
Well it certainly isn't Ukrainian, seeing as how Crimea's only connection to Ukraine, again, is a largely ceremonial transfer by Khrushchev from the RSFSR to the USSR in the 50s. Maybe it's Tartar, but I don't see you clamoring for a return of Georgia to the Cherokee, Australia to the Aborigines or even Lviv to the Polish (or Austrians).
Good to see you're back at full force, GJ.
Post by: Owlbread on March 01, 2014, 04:20:35 pm
[citation needed]
45% of the Crimean Tatar population died of starvation and neglect as a result of the deportations. (http://www.unpo.org/members/7871)
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 04:23:44 pm
Or is it about the Tatars? They have no reason to love the Ukrainian government either. Besides, they are an actual minority compared to the Russian-speaking segment of the population.
The only reason Russian is the majority is because of resettlement and murder of those who refused to accept Russian as the new language and be happily under the Soviet Union. I find this all very amusing, how about you give up Karelia to Finland if you think people should have their rightful lands? Or is Russia the only one allowed such rights?
Russia is not the Soviet Union. should I demand compensation for my executed great-grandfather, or my other great-grandfather who came back from a German POW camp only to be slammed into a Soviet labor camp? It's nice for the Tatars to have a nice big chunk of the Union to point fingers at and demand recompense from. Who's gonna compensate us?
Besides, the official excuse for for the resettlement was widespread collaborationism - wouldn't know about that.
"Russian nationalism", ha. Not wanting to have your language outlawed (so the new government spoke - promised sentences for it) is nationalism now. I'll go cry for freedom et all.
Okay, totally asleep now. Brb and all.
E: autocorrect
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 04:25:20 pm
"Russian nationalism", ha. Not wanting to have your language outlawed (so the new government spoke - promised sentences for it) is nationalism now. I'll go cry for freedom et all.
Sorry, imperialism.
Once again, why do you not give back Karelia? Or would that be unfair to glorious Russia..
Post by: Lagslayer on March 01, 2014, 04:26:25 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 04:26:57 pm
Quote
Not wanting to have your language outlawedThat is not true. Do you Russians believe just everything your television said?
All that was done is an attempt to cancel a law passed in 2011 during Yanuk rule, was Russian outlawed before that?
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 04:27:36 pm
Shh, only stupid mass-media reading western countries are imperialist."Russian nationalism", ha. Not wanting to have your language outlawed (so the new government spoke - promised sentences for it) is nationalism now. I'll go cry for freedom et all.
Sorry, imperialism.
And you people thought the cold war ended.Ahh, the Cynic on time. It did end; this would be a new one.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 04:29:18 pm
Now if I may play a devil's advocate, I'd like to say that if the majority of people living in Crimea are ethically russian and want to secede, I honestly have no claim against that. The Russians might be living there only because they were put there by the Soviets, but they are still people currently inhabiting a geographical region who are entitled to choose if they want to be a part of Ukraine or not. After all, following your logic, the ukrainians have as much claim to the Crimea as the russians do, and indeed all non-Tatar nationalities.
I still, however, do have all the claims against Putin. Regardless of what the Crimeans want to do, it's obvious that Dobbyface here just wants more territory and is just using the political turmoil in Ukraine as a paper-thin excuse for his land-grabbing politics.
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 04:30:44 pm
I really hope we will get attacked by aliens.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 01, 2014, 04:31:05 pm
QuoteNot wanting to have your language outlawedThat is not true. Do you Russians believe just everything your television said?
All that was done is an attempt to cancel a law passed, IIRC in 2011 during Yanuk rule, was Russian outlawed before that?
Whatever. It was stripped of even secondary language status - no schools in Russian, it appears.
Asleep. That's it. Nighty-night.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, please, no need for radicalism. Soviet Union indeed has been murdering and resettling people like no tomorrow. Denying it is ignorant, emphasizing it carries no weight - it might've if the US at some point in its history returned native indians their lands, or any other country has set a similar precedent, but so far it's obvious that nobody is going to return Crimea to Tatars.
Now if I may play a devil's advocate, I'd like to say that if the majority of people living in Crimea are ethically russian and want to secede, I honestly have no claim against that. The Russians might be living there only because they were put there by the Soviets, but they are still people currently inhabiting a geographical region who are entitled to choose if they want to be a part of Ukraine or not. After all, following your logic, the ukrainians have as much claim to the Crimea as the russians do, and indeed all non-Tatar nationalities.
I still, however, do have all the claims against Putin. Regardless of what the Crimeans want to do, it's obvious that Dobbyface here just wants more territory and is just using the political turmoil in Ukraine as a paper-thin excuse for his land-grabbing politics.
The largest country in the world desires more land because..?
Okay, I suppose we just collect it.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 04:34:58 pm
The largest country in the world desires more land because..?
Okay, I suppose we just collect it.
Uhm, what? So you're invading it for no reason, then.
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 04:38:09 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 04:39:37 pm
Quote
It was stripped of even secondary language status - no schools in Russian, it appears.What? No schools in Russian in Crimea? LOL. Russian stripped of secondary language status? LOL. It's secondary status is guaranteed in Ukrainian constitution
Guys, I am ignoring post of TV brainwashed starting from now (what they use Internet for?)
Back to news :
Quote
The Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations says 15,000 Russian troops are in Crimea.I think it will be much more before morning
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 04:39:45 pm
The best casus belli is no casus belli.The largest country in the world desires more land because..?
Okay, I suppose we just collect it.
Uhm, what? So you're invading it for no reason, then.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 04:43:19 pm
Thus, I believe that if the current inhabitants of Crimea want to be part of Russia, so be it. Just because Putin gets to satisfy his unquenchable power-boner in the process doesn't meen that the Crimeans don't want to secede.
Avis, Putin is a stereotypical despot. He wants to invade because it strokes his ego.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 04:44:38 pm
Also, the language law repeal was vetoed. Nothing happened.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 01, 2014, 04:45:55 pm
Thus, I believe that if the current inhabitants of Crimea want to be part of Russia, so be it. Just because Putin gets to satisfy his unquenchable power-boner in the process doesn't meen that the Crimeans don't want to secede.
Russia already has occupied the area. When did Crimea ask for them to? Did they hold a vote to secede? Remember, the local representatives were removed by the 'armed militias' [KGB] before the occupation, so any votes held now in Crimea are on the Kremlins terms. We've passed the point of self determination, Russia already invaded the place.
If this were any other country Russians would be burning themselves in the streets to decry such blatant imperialism.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 04:48:10 pm
Thus, I believe that if the current inhabitants of Crimea want to be part of Russia, so be it. Just because Putin gets to satisfy his unquenchable power-boner in the process doesn't meen that the Crimeans don't want to secede.
Russia already has occupied the area. When did Crimea ask for them to? Did they hold a vote to secede?
They didn't, I agree. Putin, as I said, it a power-hungry tyrant. He would've invaded even if the Crimeans were agains it (which they probably are).
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 04:48:18 pm
The way I see it, many, many territories throughout the history have changed hands so many times that it's almost impossible to discern who is their rightful owner. Therefore, I propose, as I usually prefer, a system of values that leads to as few people dying as possible: the people currently living on a certain territory own it. It is unfair, yes, but it, in my opinion, is less unfair and most importantly less militant than irredentism.
We'll have endless arguments about which ethnicity living there owns it instead.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 04:51:01 pm
The way I see it, many, many territories throughout the history have changed hands so many times that it's almost impossible to discern who is their rightful owner. Therefore, I propose, as I usually prefer, a system of values that leads to as few people dying as possible: the people currently living on a certain territory own it. It is unfair, yes, but it, in my opinion, is less unfair and most importantly less militant than irredentism.
We'll have endless arguments about which ethnicity living there owns it instead.
That's still better than wars.
Anyway, just to make this clear: Putin invaded unlawfully. He is a criminal. I do not suport him in any way, shape or form.
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 04:57:38 pm
The way I see it, many, many territories throughout the history have changed hands so many times that it's almost impossible to discern who is their rightful owner. Therefore, I propose, as I usually prefer, a system of values that leads to as few people dying as possible: the people currently living on a certain territory own it. It is unfair, yes, but it, in my opinion, is less unfair and most importantly less militant than irredentism.
We'll have endless arguments about which ethnicity living there owns it instead.
That's still better than wars.
Anyway, just to make this clear: Putin invaded unlawfully. He is a criminal. I do not suport him in any way, shape or form.
Is there any type of legit invading? ;)
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 05:00:39 pm
If America invades a country, than yeah. Unlike the horrible Russian Empire, they are 100% genuinely concerned about the well-being of people living there and don't have absolutely any shady political or business interests and never had any. Ever.The way I see it, many, many territories throughout the history have changed hands so many times that it's almost impossible to discern who is their rightful owner. Therefore, I propose, as I usually prefer, a system of values that leads to as few people dying as possible: the people currently living on a certain territory own it. It is unfair, yes, but it, in my opinion, is less unfair and most importantly less militant than irredentism.
We'll have endless arguments about which ethnicity living there owns it instead.
That's still better than wars.
Anyway, just to make this clear: Putin invaded unlawfully. He is a criminal. I do not suport him in any way, shape or form.
Is there any type of legit invading? ;)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 05:01:52 pm
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 05:03:03 pm
If America invades a country, than yeah. Unlike the horrible Russian Empire, they are 100% genuinely concerned about the well-being of people living there and don't have absolutely any shady political or business interests and never had any. Ever.
You see, that tells us that both USA and Russia are same shit. Dont know witch is worse.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 05:04:08 pm
American wars are questionable, but remind me... when the last time USA tried to get a new state?19th century, but I need to note: Americans don't annex a territory they've taken over, they set up a universally accepted puppet government there instead.
EDIT: fixed historical date, my bad
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 05:04:29 pm
America invading place is bad. Russia invading place is bad too.
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 05:05:44 pm
American wars are questionable, but remind me... when the last time USA tried to get a new state?Last invasion? 1898, Annexation of Hawaii. They more recently (40s) tried to buy off Greenland, but Denmark wouldn't sell. (Guardian is a little off. 18th century there barely even was an America).
Of course insipid east-west arguing is pointless. What the hell is going on right now?
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 05:06:05 pm
America invading place is bad. Russia invading place is bad too.+1
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 05:09:42 pm
American wars are questionable, but remind me... when the last time USA tried to get a new state?
When they tried to install a puppet government in Iraq that would essentially let them exploit the resources of that country without providing any of the benefits that being a part of the US entails. It's pretty much like a colony.
+2 Place can secede by itself if it wants to, or stay in Ukraine if it doesn't.America invading place is bad. Russia invading place is bad too.+1
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 01, 2014, 05:12:01 pm
I think it's the right time to announce Hearts of Iron, number whatever. Or a cold war equivalent. Or Victoria 3 for that matters.
Do you think that "contest casus belli validity" would be a viable mechanic?
(not a serious post)
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 05:17:54 pm
+3 invasions are bad as a matter of fact, not because of subjective factors.+2 Place can secede by itself if it wants to, or stay in Ukraine if it doesn't.America invading place is bad. Russia invading place is bad too.+1
Also, the name for that game would be Victorious Hearts of Europe. (joking)
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 05:22:05 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 05:23:44 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 05:24:41 pm
Knit, you obviously didn't notice the really obvious Paradox pun :PWhat paradox are you talking about?
Post by: Sonlirain on March 01, 2014, 05:35:22 pm
Seriously things there are everything but funny and Russia is just fucking with everyone.
Oh and lol at Ukraine agreeing to give away their nukes in exchange for a deal with russia concerning the "unchangeability" of their borders.
Looks like russia upheld their part of teh deal for a whole 10 years!
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 05:42:46 pm
According to the russian and other eastern-european sources, the government of Ukraine has done two things: readying their army and asking NATO to consider helping them ensure the "territorial sovereignity" of their country. No open hostility or condemnation has so far taken place between ukraine and russia.
In the meantine, crimeans are taking selfies with russian soldiers.
Post by: Sergarr on March 01, 2014, 05:42:53 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 05:43:39 pm
Quote
Looks like russia upheld their part of teh deal for a whole 10 years!Twenty :) That changes everything, right?
And , remembering my Paradox tricks....
I know what Ukraine should do with Crimea NOW - Give it to Turkey.... THEN Russians will learn how real problems with language and forced assimilation look like.
Interesting how much Turkey is ready to pay for Crimea? It could fix some Ukrainian economic problems...
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 01, 2014, 05:45:12 pm
I think it's the right time to announce Hearts of Iron, number whatever. Or a cold war equivalent.
East vs. West is due to release this year (or at least open beta in March, so probably release this year). It comes after HoI chronologically.
American wars are questionable, but remind me... when the last time USA tried to get a new state?When they tried to install a puppet government in Iraq that would essentially let them exploit the resources of that country without providing any of the benefits that being a part of the US entails. It's pretty much like a colony.
No, historically the US has used subterfuge to encourage a civil war or coup to place Western-friendly dictators in power (instead of a democracy because the democracy would install non-Western-friendly leaders and the areas are too culturally/religiously/etc. diverse so greater central power is necessary to maintain control). The invasion of Iraq was to remove the guy we put in there, put in an actual democracy, and mostly to remove a potential threat to Israel.
There's nothing we really care about in the Middle East anymore. Resources? What, oil? We currently make more than we use, and we were pretty sure we could pull that off in the early 2000s anyway. Sure, we could pad on our geopolitical control of oil to further undermine OPEC, but that's a hassle that the American public are really not fond of.
So no, it wasn't about reaping the benefits of the resources like a colony, it was to remove a power that was hostile to Israel under the guise of stopping a mass-murderer who potentially had access to WMDs.
Also, we're really hesitant to pull the subterfuge-install trick any more, because now a lot of people know we did it in the mid-late 1900's and we caused waaaaaayyyy more problems than we supposedly fixed.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:06:33 pm
Sorry. I am not very good with american history/politics.I think it's the right time to announce Hearts of Iron, number whatever. Or a cold war equivalent.
East vs. West is due to release this year (or at least open beta in March, so probably release this year). It comes after HoI chronologically.American wars are questionable, but remind me... when the last time USA tried to get a new state?When they tried to install a puppet government in Iraq that would essentially let them exploit the resources of that country without providing any of the benefits that being a part of the US entails. It's pretty much like a colony.
No, historically the US has used subterfuge to encourage a civil war or coup to place Western-friendly dictators in power (instead of a democracy because the democracy would install non-Western-friendly leaders and the areas are too culturally/religiously/etc. diverse so greater central power is necessary to maintain control). The invasion of Iraq was to remove the guy we put in there, put in an actual democracy, and mostly to remove a potential threat to Israel.
There's nothing we really care about in the Middle East anymore. Resources? What, oil? We currently make more than we use, and we were pretty sure we could pull that off in the early 2000s anyway. Sure, we could pad on our geopolitical control of oil to further undermine OPEC, but that's a hassle that the American public are really not fond of.
So no, it wasn't about reaping the benefits of the resources like a colony, it was to remove a power that was hostile to Israel under the guise of stopping a mass-murderer who potentially had access to WMDs.
Also, we're really hesitant to pull the subterfuge-install trick any more, because now a lot of people know we did it in the mid-late 1900's and we caused waaaaaayyyy more problems than we supposedly fixed.
In other news, the absolute majority of russians, it appears, thinks that Putin has completely lost his shit. The support for war comes mainly from governmental sock-puppets and rabid nationalists, the general public is as supportive of this intervention as the americans wer supportive of Vietnam war.
Poor soldiers, may God have mercy on their souls.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 06:07:57 pm
In other news, the absolute majority of russians, it appears, thinks that Putin has completely lost his shit. The support for war comes mainly from governmental sock-puppets and rabid nationalists, the general public is as supportive of this intervention as the americans wer supportive of Vietnam war.Can you provide the source, please?
Poor soldiers, may God have mercy on their souls.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:15:40 pm
Can you provide the source, please?Pretty much every news source has articles about it, but they are in russian. The most reliable ones are Dozhd' (http://tvrain.ru/) and Echo of Moscow (http://www.echo.msk.ru/).
Post by: nenjin on March 01, 2014, 06:17:08 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 06:18:30 pm
Dozhd and Ekho Moskvy are staunchly liberal and pro-Western sources and don't provide unbiased information (just like the Russian state media, btw - they're both extremely biased, only their ideologies are different).Can you provide the source, please?Pretty much every news source has articles about it, but they are in russian. The most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 06:19:03 pm
Quote
The most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).In before Guardian mentions that this is "liberal pro-western media"
Edit: damn, ninjad
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 06:21:26 pm
They are liberal pro-western media, no matter how good or bad it might be.QuoteThe most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).In before Guardian mentions that this is "liberal pro-western media"
Edit: damn, ninjad
People at nationalist and anti-Western websites are obviously in favour of the intervention - and they aren't fewer in numbers than liberal folks at Dozhd or Ekho Moskvy.
EDIT: According to Russian private website Lenta.ru, the chairman of Russian State Duma Sergei Naryshkin warned Ukrainian interim President Turchinov that Russian troops will move into Ukraine if the Ukrainian government uses force against Russian citizens in the South-East and the Crimea. (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/01/warned/)
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:28:17 pm
Unfortunately, those are the best sources we have. And seeing how they are extremely against Putin, they are likely to report all the bad parts of what's happening in Crimea much more thruthfully than the state media. My statement that most russians don't support the intervention is basend on how many people online protest agains it and how even otherwise pro-Putin sources (like Rambler, Rossiyskaya Gazeta et al.) condemn the invasion.They are liberal pro-western media, no matter how good or bad it might be.QuoteThe most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).In before Guardian mentions that this is "liberal pro-western media"
Edit: damn, ninjad
EDIT: Oh, oh, try Vedomosti. These guys are pretty okay.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 01, 2014, 06:36:31 pm
Some people have been condemning RIA Novosti before, but so far so good they've been mostly neutral. They heavily cover the actions of the Crimean government, but they don't call the Ukrainian government fascists and don't discredit them as the state media usually does.Unfortunately, those are the best sources we have. And seeing how they are extremely against Putin, they are likely to report all the bad parts of what's happening in Crimea much more thruthfully than the state media. My statement that most russians don't support the intervention is basend on how many people online protest agains it and how even otherwise pro-Putin sources (like Rambler, Rossiyskaya Gazeta et al.) condemn the invasion.They are liberal pro-western media, no matter how good or bad it might be.QuoteThe most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).In before Guardian mentions that this is "liberal pro-western media"
Edit: damn, ninjad
EDIT: Oh, oh, try Vedomosti. These guys are pretty okay.
Lenta.ru is more sympathetic to the Ukrainian government but also tries to be neutral.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:39:33 pm
Well, talk about eggs teaching the hen :). You obviously know more than I do, thanks for the insight.Some people have been condemning RIA Novosti before, but so far so good they've been mostly neutral. They heavily cover the actions of the Crimean government, but they don't call the Ukrainian government fascists and don't discredit them as the state media usually does.Unfortunately, those are the best sources we have. And seeing how they are extremely against Putin, they are likely to report all the bad parts of what's happening in Crimea much more thruthfully than the state media. My statement that most russians don't support the intervention is basend on how many people online protest agains it and how even otherwise pro-Putin sources (like Rambler, Rossiyskaya Gazeta et al.) condemn the invasion.They are liberal pro-western media, no matter how good or bad it might be.QuoteThe most reliable ones are Dozhd' (Дождь) and Echo of Moscow (Эхо Москвы).In before Guardian mentions that this is "liberal pro-western media"
Edit: damn, ninjad
EDIT: Oh, oh, try Vedomosti. These guys are pretty okay.
Lenta.ru is more sympathetic to the Ukrainian government but also tries to be neutral.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 01, 2014, 06:41:55 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:47:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2014, 06:49:05 pm
You know Guardian, you've never actually told us what is wrong with being, as you put it, "pro-Western". And I'd like a reason besides Yeltsin, anybody that far into fatal alcoholism would have screwed up running a country.... didn't the thread just go over how one of the major western powers likes to go about screwing people? Pro-western would kinda' mean supporting folks that do that, which... y'know, has its problems. Major powers in general, western or otherwise, have a storied history of buggering everything. Media metaphorically fellating them is naturally something that should be viewed with suspicion.
Post by: miljan on March 01, 2014, 06:52:21 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 06:59:26 pm
Watch pro western news, and pro eastern news. The truth is somewhere between that.+1 The most sensible thing to do, really.
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 07:08:48 pm
Apparently, some crimeans really do want to join Russia (http://launch.newsinc.com/embed.html?type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=27727&trackingGroup=90262&playlistId=994&videoId=25672591&embedOriginUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sltrib.com%2Fsltrib%2Fpolitics%2F57562425-90%2Fanderson-andrade-atmosphere-carbon.html.csp)I don't think that was ever in doubt.
US demands Russia withdraw, Russia asserts their right to intervene not only in the Crimea but all of eastern Ukraine to protect Russian citizens in phone call between Obama and Putin (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/01/crimean-putin-russia-ukraine/5922731/). Where did the EU go again? America wasn't even involved.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 01, 2014, 07:23:37 pm
Where did the EU go again? America wasn't even involved.
EU: "United States! United States! Quick, Russia is bullying Ukraine because the people there wanted to join us!"
US: "... But you guys HATE it when I get into stuff."
EU: "Yeah... but... we don't like talking to Russia! He's scary!"
US: "... sigh..."
Relevant:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit: I find it a tad strange that Western leaders/media aren't even responding to the claims that this is a peacekeeping mission. Like that doesn't even come up at all. Government representatives in Russia are all saying that they are there to stop Russian citizens from being harmed, but there's not so much as a "We don't buy your bullshit" in response, it's just "Stop invading/doing whatever you're doing."
Post by: Bouchart on March 01, 2014, 07:25:23 pm
Post by: alway on March 01, 2014, 07:37:34 pm
The EU is so utterly feckless it makes me want to cheer for Putin. Putin's the only one showing any leadership or even competence.And what are they going to do? Send a nasty letter? Commit troops to invade Moscow? Fire ze missiles?
Seriously, what is it you want them to do?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 07:39:43 pm
I don't know what price Ukraine will have to pay, but I am sure Russian federation is doomed. That country will cease to exists in the next ten years. Probably sooner. Moves like that will lead Russia to total ruin.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2014, 07:45:35 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 01, 2014, 07:45:56 pm
Post by: alway on March 01, 2014, 07:46:51 pm
Edit: I find it a tad strange that Western leaders/media aren't even responding to the claims that this is a peacekeeping mission. Like that doesn't even come up at all. Government representatives in Russia are all saying that they are there to stop Russian citizens from being harmed, but there's not so much as a "We don't buy your bullshit" in response, it's just "Stop invading/doing whatever you're doing."Because at this point it's entirely obvious what they're doing. Anyone with even a quarter of a brain can see that peacekeeping doesn't require an armed invasion complete with battalions of soldiers, helicopters, armored vehicles, and artillery. Or legislature signing off on military force. Or legislature creating bills to simplify the annexation process. Not to mention the obviously planted Russian soldiers pretending to be armed militias who have already been taking over strategic positions. It's farcical to the point of not even requiring or deserving a response.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 07:55:46 pm
Russia is not USSR, it's weaker: Army, allies, internal stability, economy. Everything is inferior.
Plus China. Modern China is modern country with ambitions to become the world leader
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 01, 2014, 07:57:16 pm
Russia will survive. "Federation" I'm not so sure, since I'm not aware if there are any places that particularly don't want to be a part of Russia at the moment (not saying there is or isn't, I'm just not educated on the subject), but Russia itself should be fine. I do wonder if, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and most of the most-connected men in Russia being older now, if after Putin the power vacuum trend will cease. I also wonder if with Putin being in the top 5 wealthiest people in the world and personally owning a considerable amount of Russian industry/resources/etc. if he's just planning on setting up an economic monarchy, so whoever he wants will inherit Russia when he's gone.
Anyone know if there's been a reaction in Siberia to the goings-on? I read that there was a huge amount of Ukrainians that went to settle there way back when.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 08:14:55 pm
If you want to live in France - you go to France.
If you want to live in Germany - you go to Germany.
If you want to live in Russia - Russia goes to you
If you don't want to live in Russia - Russia still goes to you
Post by: XXSockXX on March 01, 2014, 08:19:56 pm
Where did the EU go again? America wasn't even involved.EU leaders have been on the phone with Putin practically constantly since the protests started. He just does not give a fuck. America has been less diplomatic, but that hasn't helped either.
The only reason Russian is the majority is because of resettlement and murder of those who refused to accept Russian as the new language and be happily under the Soviet Union. I find this all very amusing, how about you give up Karelia to Finland if you think people should have their rightful lands? Or is Russia the only one allowed such rights?Ugh. You're kind of arguing besides the point. Yes, what Russia is doing right now is flat out wrong. But you can't really argue against facts that have been created after WW2, namely the resettlement. If you argue against that, why not argue for Germany to be restored in it's 1939 or better it's 1914 borders, why not argue for Poland to be moved back east?
The fact that there is a sizeable Russian minority in Crimea now has to be taken into account, which is why the whole situation is so complicated.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 01, 2014, 08:28:54 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 08:36:17 pm
I'll give you Putin being gone within ten years, but Russia has suffered way worse than that and survived throughout history. Putin's most absurd excesses would have been equivalent to a slightly rowdy party for the Tzars.Well, to be fair, the emperors we had after Ekatherine II were all very nice and modest people, if staunchly absolutist and incompetent due to their rigid traditionalism.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 01, 2014, 09:28:19 pm
Spoiler: Sad but true (click to show/hide)
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 10:06:59 pm
Post by: stabbymcstabstab on March 01, 2014, 10:11:29 pm
Post by: Descan on March 01, 2014, 10:13:43 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on March 01, 2014, 10:14:17 pm
UR, I realise that you very much do not like Russia, but so far Putin hasn't really done any ethnic cleansing. I don't think that he'll start now.
It is important not to get ahead of ourselves, but Russia is basically on the verge of saying, "This land is as good as Russian so we're just going to run it now". Which would be the second or third or fourth time for Putin-era Russia to have done so. And some would argue that Putin-era Russia's treatment of Chechnya and Ossetia and Dagestan and so forth amounts to ethnic cleansing for want of death camps.
I'm not saying Russia is about to go Anschluss on Sevastopol, but I'll bet that's what everyone in NATO is basically expecting to happen.
Post by: misko27 on March 01, 2014, 10:16:48 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 10:24:11 pm
Honestly, why can't Putin just fucking die already and take the autocratic USSR remnants with him?
Post by: Aqizzar on March 01, 2014, 10:27:08 pm
To be fair, what happened in Chechnya was more like the government completely abandoning it de facto and letting various extremist and criminal groups run it for about three eyears, but I may be wrong.
Well, that's how it started, with the Independent Republic, but that only lasted until about 2003. The next four years were the Russian airforce bombing every structure left standing in the state until there was nothing moving in the rubble, then sending in the Gazprom engineers and the ex-ex-ex-president's son to run Grozny like a private palace.
Dagestan and Ossetia and such were less overt about the peace-through-carpet-bombing, but you get the idea.
Post by: Knit tie on March 01, 2014, 10:30:55 pm
To be fair, what happened in Chechnya was more like the government completely abandoning it de facto and letting various extremist and criminal groups run it for about three eyears, but I may be wrong.
Well, that's how it started, with the Independent Republic, but that only lasted until about 2003. The next four years were the Russian airforce bombing every structure left standing in the state until there was nothing moving in the rubble, then sending in the Gazprom engineers and the ex-ex-ex-president's son to run Grozny like a private palace.
Dagestan and Ossetia and such were less overt about the peace-through-carpet-bombing, but you get the idea.
What part of Russia isn't run by one of Putin's cronies like his private palace? You should also check out Kadyrov's instagram, it's pure propaganda but totally hilarious. (http://instagram.com/kadyrov_95)
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2014, 01:35:01 am
Post by: mcclay on March 02, 2014, 03:27:41 am
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2014, 03:31:24 am
Post by: Kicior on March 02, 2014, 04:13:11 am
Russia can't take on the world, and I don't seem them having many powerful allies at this point...Does Ukraine have any allies at this point?
The EU is so utterly feckless it makes me want to cheer for Putin. Putin's the only one showing any leadership or even competence.The thing about the EU is, that reaction to every attempt to centralize power is HURR DURR CENTRALIZED EU WILL BE GERMAN/FRENCH PUPPET AND WE WILL LOOSE OUR INDEPENDENCE!
When the EU can't do jack shit everyone is like OMG EU U SUCK Y AREN'T YOU INTERVENING!
Not that I am a big fan of the EU but I think that people should make up their minds.
Post by: Sinistar on March 02, 2014, 04:17:28 am
As it has already been said in this thread, it is up to each person to decide which "side" they trust. But I think this particular video maintains a decent, neutral position.
Well, apparently they did ask NATO for help recently...we'll see how that turns out.Russia can't take on the world, and I don't seem them having many powerful allies at this point...Does Ukraine have any allies at this point?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 05:03:58 am
That's depressing 'news' about the far right. (I just learned it)
Wonder how that'll shape up as the armed forces assemble in the east(ish).
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 02, 2014, 05:05:34 am
Well, apparently they did ask NATO for help recently...we'll see how that turns out.Am I the only one getting a feeling of deja vu out of this?
To put it in another way: Saakashvili did the same and it did not help him one damn bit.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 05:10:54 am
I'd not be that sure. No one of us knows what happened behind curtains and what initial plans of Russian aggression were. Maybe only firm position of NATO stopped total conquest of Georgia back in 2008Well, apparently they did ask NATO for help recently...we'll see how that turns out.Am I the only one getting a feeling of deja vu out of this?
To put it in another way: Saakashvili did the same and it did not help him one damn bit.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 05:19:25 am
Quote from: Nikolai Gogol, "Taras Bulba"
- Ну шо, сынку, помогли тебе твои ляхи?
( - Where are your polish helpers now, son?)
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 05:59:32 am
I'd not be that sure. No one of us knows what happened behind curtains and what initial plans of Russian aggression were. Maybe only firm position of NATO stopped total conquest of Georgia back in 2008Well, apparently they did ask NATO for help recently...we'll see how that turns out.Am I the only one getting a feeling of deja vu out of this?
To put it in another way: Saakashvili did the same and it did not help him one damn bit.
What total conquest of Georgia? Name me one reason which Russia might have for including Georgia into its territory, please. Other than "oh god Russian aggression and imperialism agragargh". Nobody in Georgia wanted to be part of Russia.
The Ossetians sure did not mind the fact that all the rockets stopped falling on their heads, though.
What happened after I logged off yesterday? I leave on a totally undramatic note, come back to find people comparing our totally benevolent Czar to a certain German dictator. What? I mean, I don't like him either, but this is kinda too much.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 06:04:56 am
Quote
What total conquest of Georgia? Name me one reason which Russia might have for including Georgia into its territory, please.Installing Russian puppet. Like you try to do in Ukraine, demanding from us to return your puppet mass-murderer Yanuk back in his palace.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 06:17:32 am
Our puppet? Now I am offended. He kept most of your Nazi-loving pox face Yuschenko's policies, did not change shit, and actually supported the nationalist parties so he'd look good in comparison to them on the next elections. And we did not install him. The heart of democracy is that if your candidate does not get elected, you are not allowed to whine about it. Deal with it.QuoteWhat total conquest of Georgia? Name me one reason which Russia might have for including Georgia into its territory, please.Installing Russian puppet. Like you try to do in Ukraine, demanding from us to return your puppet mass-murderer Yanuk back in his palace.
Also, nobody cares any more if he gets back or not. In my opinion, West Ukraine can elect the reincarnation of Bandera in blue trousers and an SS cap for all I care for president as long as my relatives and friends do not have to accept him. I'm like, the first to support Ukrainian identity and sovereignty - as long as it does not include anything I care about.
And since when is he a mass-murderer? An incompetent blabber, yes, but mass-murderer? He did not have the guts.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 06:20:55 am
Quote
Also, nobody cares any more if he gets back or not.Is Russian Ambassador in UN nobody?
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 06:28:13 am
Actually, yup. He is required to make offended noises at the UN, but the focus of the situation has shifted already.QuoteAlso, nobody cares any more if he gets back or not.Is Russian Ambassador in UN nobody?
My point is that if anybody in Russia or Crimea preferred the Proffesor to Poxface, it's just because one prefers a small crock of shit to a large bucket of shit. The nature of the vessel's contents does not change.
Also, somebody's nitpicking.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 06:32:02 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 02, 2014, 06:33:55 am
Actually everyone one was expecting Russia to go on to Tbilisi and topple Saakashvili. After all, they got to Gori, why stop there? I should go and ask my dad exactly why he stopped
... your father is VLADIMIR PUTIN?!?!
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 06:35:10 am
(like that time a company of Russian army disappeared after stealing Georgian uniforms, and Sarkozy got on the phone with Putin).I must know more. :o
Seriously, I haven't heard about this before. What was the deal?
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 06:36:02 am
Fool, the Czar is celibate! He loves only his dog Kony!Actually everyone one was expecting Russia to go on to Tbilisi and topple Saakashvili. After all, they got to Gori, why stop there? I should go and ask my dad exactly why he stopped
... your father is VLADIMIR PUTIN?!?!
Post by: DJ on March 02, 2014, 06:44:29 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 06:46:08 am
Quote from: Ukraine's acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
"This is actually a declaration of war to my country. We urge Putin to pull back his troops from this country and honour bilateral agreements. If he wants to be the president who started the war between two neighbouring and friendly countries, he has reached his target within a few inches."
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 02, 2014, 06:51:47 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 06:53:49 am
Quote from: Ukraine's acting Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
"This is actually a declaration of war to my country. We urge Putin to pull back his troops from this country and honour bilateral agreements. If he wants to be the president who started the war between two neighbouring and friendly countries, he has reached his target within a few inches."
Well fuck.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 07:00:50 am
Of course, all of this scream "false flag". At that point the French ambassador (who was really supportive) phoned Sarkozy, who phoned Putin telling him he knew, and the troops reappeared.
Now, I'm aware that I don't have sources, so feel free not to believe me, but something similar would be possible in Crimea (after all the Russians did take over Ukrainian Army bases, right?) and that's the kind of stuff that firm diplomacy can avert.
Also, this must be the first time in history that a country waited for a couple of days for the enemy to really get into place before mobilizing and saying "Hey, this is war you know!".
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 07:02:15 am
Post by: scrdest on March 02, 2014, 07:10:31 am
This might turn out to be a massive shot in the foot for Putin; his popularity had been declining slowly but steadily for years, and while recent protests against Putin were political, now there's the added factor of 'We don't want to die in a nuclear fire/war you dumbass'
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 07:11:57 am
Anti-war protests are happening, including in Moscow.Yup, most russians don't want to fight. Crazy, I know.
This might turn out to be a massive shot in the foot for Putin; his popularity had been declining slowly but steadily for years, and while recent protests against Putin were political, now there's the added factor of 'We don't want to die in a nuclear fire/war you dumbass'
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 07:14:20 am
-snip-Well, could have happened, though the Georgians did enough before the war was declared that false flag operations would not be required. But whatever, I'm not an expert on military tactics.
I sincerely hope that the Ukrainians won't start the war, but if they do, then may God grant them victory and help them defend their homeland.Very prudent and flowery of you. I also think they can defend their homeland all they like - as long as it does not include my father's homeland.
And I sincerely hope nobody starts the war. It won't go well for nobody, considering the state of relations between Russia and the rest of the world, as well as the state of the Ukrainian military.
Anti-war protests are happening, including in Moscow.Pro-war ones are also happening. Putin generally rides out on being polarizing. I don't think this is actually going to change anything for his reputation. But that's just my observations.
This might turn out to be a massive shot in the foot for Putin; his popularity had been declining slowly but steadily for years, and while recent protests against Putin were political, now there's the added factor of 'We don't want to die in a nuclear fire/war you dumbass'
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 07:18:14 am
Anyway, I find it funny that you talk of "Ukrainian starting the war", when the invasion already took place. I find Ukrainian restraint admirable.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 02, 2014, 07:20:37 am
Anti-war protests are happening, including in Moscow.
This might turn out to be a massive shot in the foot for Putin; his popularity had been declining slowly but steadily for years, and while recent protests against Putin were political, now there's the added factor of 'We don't want to die in a nuclear fire/war you dumbass'
According to lenta.ru, which have never been sympathetic to Putin, the average size of all those demonstrations are from 200 (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/02/detained/) to 500 people (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/02/detained1/), just like at average opposition demonstrations. In my opinion the reason why only 200 people showed up, and not 200 000, is simple -
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 07:23:32 am
Anyway, I really like your avatar. Are potatoes the Belarus equivalent to popcorn?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 07:28:44 am
Those guys on the blockaded bases in Crimea are doomed if attacked... But still there are no confirmed surrenders or defections. If you don't count some Berkut guys. But those aren't soldiers and never was on our side
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 07:30:39 am
Yeah, probably. Plus it's not like Putin officially wants to go to war.
Anyway, I really like your avatar. Are potatoes the Belarus equivalent to popcorn?
According to Russians with no sense of humor, they're the Belarus equivalent of bread. But I did not notice an overabundance of potatoes when I was there.
So, apparently "Prime Minister" Of Crimea announced that he will use force against Ukrainian units that don't follow his "lawful" orders
Those guys on the blockaded bases in Crimea are doomed if attacked... But still there are no confirmed surrenders or defections. If you don't count some Berkut guys. But those aren't soldiers and never was on our side
My TV reports mass defections of Ukrainian army units in Crimea. But it's probably an imperialist liar.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 02, 2014, 07:36:14 am
RT even claims that Ukrainian Navy frigate "Hetman Sahaidachny" defected to Russia. (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-navy-flaghsip-protest-389/) I'm a bit sceptical about all those reports, though.So, apparently "Prime Minister" Of Crimea announced that he will use force against Ukrainian units that don't follow his "lawful" orders
Those guys on the blockaded bases in Crimea are doomed if attacked... But still there are no confirmed surrenders or defections. If you don't count some Berkut guys. But those aren't soldiers and never was on our side
My TV reports mass defections of Ukrainian army units in Crimea. But it's probably an imperialist liar.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 07:38:10 am
Still I'll never blame that guys (https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/440098801550770176) if they'll choose to surrender to Russian Marines.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 07:43:37 am
War propaganda is starting. Neither Russian nor Ukrainian media can't allow themselves to not use that.
Still I'll never blame that guys (https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/440098801550770176) if they'll choose to surrender to Russian Marines.
True on both counts. However, most of the Russian army is also conscripts - fucking barbaric, that.
I have some reasons to believe the defection rumors. Why not, after all? It's not like anybody in Crimea is willing to fight for the party in government.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 07:57:01 am
Yup, most russians don't want to fight. Crazy, I know.
I don't think anyone in the West actually thinks poorly of the Russian people. Maybe the ones that bought into Communism (not like they had much choice though) and certainly the leadership and the people who blindly follow said leaders, but I'm pretty sure the general attitude is neutral or better, not really poor.
I personally have mad respect for the Russian people.
Are the Black Sea Fleet marines still considered an elite unit? I know back in WW2 they were called the Black Death or something and were responsible for generally fucking shit up.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 07:58:48 am
Also, something no one told me: are the Ukrainian military units in Crimea made of Crimean soldiers or not?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 08:04:03 am
Say they don't, and don't receive NATO aid, (most likely, given the right wing trouble, distance from the Atlantic/proximity to Russia, lack of prior membership). They could be stuck in a land war and risk a far greater 'intervention'.
Which of those looks more appealing, one wonders.
Also, scrdst, who said anything about nukes?
Yeah sheb, was in an earlier link. Soldiers have more recently been allowed to serve closer to home. So a bunch of the Crimean soldiers are Crimean.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 08:05:13 am
Quote from: Avis-Mergulus
It's not like anybody in Crimea is willing to fight for the party in government.I think there are guys in Crimea who are willing to fight for their country against invaders. And much more than Russians expect.
The whole idea - "fighting for the party in government" is something I fail to understand...
Do you think that Russians in WW2 fought for Stalin and Communists?
Quote
something no one told me: are the Ukrainian military units in Crimea made of Crimean soldiers or not?Infantry and such are mostly local because it's cheaper to supply them in that way. More elite units and Navy are more mixed
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 08:10:23 am
Avis: we don't know exactly who was deployed in Crimea though. My guess is that they're not conscripts, but better units, although it's just that: a guess.I believe the ones that are and the ones from the East are defecting, and the ones from the West are not. That would make both my imperialist TV and UR's Nazi scum TV right. So I think.
Also, something no one told me: are the Ukrainian military units in Crimea made of Crimean soldiers or not?
Quote from: Avis-MergulusIt's not like anybody in Crimea is willing to fight for the party in government.I think there are guys in Crimea who are willing to fight for their country against invaders. And much more than Russians expect.
The whole idea - "fighting for the party in government" is something I fail to understand...
Do you think that Russians in WW2 fought for Stalin and Communists?
Many did, but that is beside the point. Your government did enough to piss the Crimeans off in the course of the twenty years it ruled over independent Ukraine. Most Crimeans still remember the times when a bunch of Western nationalists did not try to forcibly reeducate them, and have no wish to fight for what you so loftily refer to as "their country". It's hard to blame them, though a Svoboda member can certainly try.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 08:22:05 am
Also, I guess a lot depends on the commander, we shouldn't underestimate the "follow orders" mentality. After all I don't think Berkut fought out of love for Yanukovitch.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 08:26:16 am
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 08:31:50 am
Pretty sure "many" doesn't mean "majority" at all.Quote from: Avis-MergulusIt's not like anybody in Crimea is willing to fight for the party in government.I think there are guys in Crimea who are willing to fight for their country against invaders. And much more than Russians expect.
The whole idea - "fighting for the party in government" is something I fail to understand...
Do you think that Russians in WW2 fought for Stalin and Communists?
Many did, but that is beside the point.
Your government did enough to piss the Crimeans off in the course of the twenty years it ruled over independent Ukraine.Wait, then why are they upset now that the government that pissed them off is gone? Shouldn't they be happier now that it's gone?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 08:33:04 am
Avis-Mergulus, You are so delusional... Crimea has population of 2+ millions, and you think that each and every one will great Russians as liberators?Say this to those guys in Odessa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_37T6HFWSPE)
Main mottoes are to be noticed:
Russia! Russia! Russia!
Fascist shall not pass!
Odessa - City-Hero!
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 08:38:52 am
For a city of almost 1 million people, pretty sure it's totally plausible that is just a vocal minority.Avis-Mergulus, You are so delusional... Crimea has population of 2+ millions, and you think that each and every one will great Russians as liberators?Say this to those guys in Odessa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_37T6HFWSPE)
Not saying that attitude isn't the one that the majority in Odessa has, but I don't think you should state it as all of Odessa treating Russia thankfully.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 08:41:39 am
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 08:45:44 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 08:48:11 am
I always find it amusing how the people most willing to violate a country's sovereignty are hyper nationalists.You say that like it's a bad thing. If you think nationalists = nazis, you're wrong. It's like a gradation from moderate to extreme. Like some medcines - a small dose is vital, larger makes you feel like shit, greater one kills.
Ukrainians took a greater dose.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 08:49:49 am
But you Russian believe that each and everyone thinks like that.....
You know.... there are no single region in Ukraine that gave less then 1% to Svoboda in the last parliamentary elections. (not bad for "Neo-nazi Western- Ukraine only party.")
In Crimea Svoboda got 1.04%. (BTW, Russian Bloc, the only openly "let's join Russia" party got 1.2% in Crimea and 0.31% in Ukraine :D)
In Donets'k region Svoboda got 1.2%
In Odessa region Svoboda got 3.3%
In Kharkov region Svoboda got 3.8%
That's only Svoboda, not counting other pro-Ukrainan and\or Pro-Western liberalism parties..
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 08:54:54 am
Also, the UK recalled their ambassador to Russia. And why did Russia recall its ambassador to the US? Because of Obama's "costs" remark?
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 08:57:32 am
Now, if eastern ukrain is really pro russian, nothing will happen. Ukraine will not fight, as they can not fight for a territory that doesn't want to be a part of ukraine. From that perspective it is actually better that russian invaded, to stop possibility of civil war. The simple reason that russia is doing this tells me that there is big pro russian feel from the people in that region.
Russian can swallow that part of ukraine, but it will not be able to digest it if it doesn't have support from normal people.
It's always better to divide a country in two than to force it to live together. And it's happening all time in last 20 and more years.
But, if easter ukraine is not really pro russian, then shit will happen. But than, I am not sure what would be the goal of russian invasion.
So i think that this will be finished without armed conflict, more or less, and that the ukraine will be divided.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 08:58:13 am
Comrade P. I never said that there are no "Russia come save us" type in Ukraine
But you Russian believe that each and everyone thinks like that.....Spoiler: Election results (click to show/hide)
)I do presume that Ukrainians are the people with various opinions, including both ultra-nationalist and pro-russian position. That is a normal situation.
And here comes my personal attitude. The problem is I do not like the people wearing symbols and sharing thoughts of SS divisions and I do like people who express their will through initiative of secession. That sentence was not supposed to say I'm right because you're Nazi, for I have no right to declare that.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 02, 2014, 09:01:12 am
I expected more a civil war than russian acting this directly.Well, they can fight if they want to. They probably won't win, but they can't find.
Now, if eastern ukrain is really pro russian, nothing will happen. Ukraine will not fight, as they can not fight for a territory that doesn't want to be a part of ukraine. From that perspective it is actually better that russian invaded, to stop possibility of civil war. The simple reason that russia is doing this tells me that there is big pro russian feel from the people in that region.
Russian can swallow that part of ukraine, but it will not be able to digest it if it doesn't have support from normal people.
Also, the only thing that the Russian intervention in Crimea tells you about the local situation in Crimea, is that it's in the interest of the Rusian Federation (or at least it's leaders), to intervene in Crimea.
Besides, Russia doesn't intend to annex Crimea, they'll just install a new government in a separate satellite state.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 09:03:56 am
Quote from: Ukrainian Ranger link=topic=135758.msg5051271#msg5051271 d :)ate=1393766776
Avis-Mergulus, You are so delusional... Crimea has population of 2+ millions, and you think that each and every one will great Russians as liberators? What you'll get is new Chechnya. If you invade in "mainland" Ukraine, get ready for widespread guerrilla in Donbass and all other regions. That will be a huge surprise for Russian soldiers - "how so many Banderas infiltrated Eastern Ukraine?"
I am content to wait and see, personally. Let time show which of us is "delusional".
Chaoswizkid: I never said that many=majority. I merely pointed out that the idea is not absurd. When you take a government order to "defend your country", you defend their idea of what constitutes it.
And by "the government that pissed them off" I mean the government based in Kiev. Nobody is upset about Yanuk being gone because nobody liked him. Anywhere.
Also, I am no nationalist, unlike some former members of a certain far-right party. Your three percent are unlikely to help you.
Or are the accusations of nationalism only because it's barbaric mongol Russia going to war, and not some more democratic country? If so, tractum your cranium out of your recrum, please.
As for the "us Russians thinking", I have lived there for a significant portion of my life. Unlike, I believe, some western Ukrainians. I have my reasons.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 09:06:31 am
Not saying that the original point of Maidan - eurointergration - is ruined, and everyone accepted that.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 09:07:16 am
Also, I am no nationalist, unlike some former members of a certain far-right party. Your three percent are unlikely to help you.
Or are the accusations of nationalism only because it's barbaric mongol Russia going to war, and not some more democratic country? If so, tractum your cranium out of your recrum, please.
I just love how you can look past invading a country just because you're the ones doing it. Good thing your KGB didn't allow the Crimeans representatives a chance to self determine before you occupied it, or you might actually have to find out that not everyone thinks Glorious Russia is the savior.
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 09:11:57 am
I expected more a civil war than russian acting this directly.Well, they can fight if they want to. They probably won't win, but they can't find.
Now, if eastern ukrain is really pro russian, nothing will happen. Ukraine will not fight, as they can not fight for a territory that doesn't want to be a part of ukraine. From that perspective it is actually better that russian invaded, to stop possibility of civil war. The simple reason that russia is doing this tells me that there is big pro russian feel from the people in that region.
Russian can swallow that part of ukraine, but it will not be able to digest it if it doesn't have support from normal people.
Also, the only thing that the Russian intervention in Crimea tells you about the local situation in Crimea, is that it's in the interest of the Rusian Federation (or at least it's leaders), to intervene in Crimea.
Besides, Russia doesn't intend to annex Crimea, they'll just install a new government in a separate satellite state.
The thing is they dont have a reason to fight. You can not fight for something to save that doesnt want to be saved in the first place.
Invasion tells us a lot, not just that russia has interest there.
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2014, 09:19:37 am
So, who do you think will be the next leader in Russia?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 09:21:00 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 09:25:00 am
I look past it because it's about time, and twenty years is enough. Do you think the actual nationalists in Kiev would have waited for Crimea to declare independence, or left it alone when it did? It is clear that remaining with Ukraine is the worst thing for Crimea. That is avoided. It is entirely possible that if Crimea declares that it wants Russia to bugger off, the UN will pressure Russia into retreating.Also, I am no nationalist, unlike some former members of a certain far-right party. Your three percent are unlikely to help you.
Or are the accusations of nationalism only because it's barbaric mongol Russia going to war, and not some more democratic country? If so, tractum your cranium out of your recrum, please.
I just love how you can look past invading a country just because you're the ones doing it. Good thing your KGB didn't allow the Crimeans representatives a chance to self determine before you occupied it, or you might actually have to find out that not everyone thinks Glorious Russia is the savior.
And we have no KGB anymore, bro. Even if we had, no pressuring would be necessary.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 09:25:00 am
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 09:26:32 am
eastern ukrainIs Crimea even considered a part of Eastern Ukraine?
Also, how is Eastern Ukraine doing? All the talk is over Crimea, but during Maidan the East was much more passive than the West.
The simple reason that russia is doing this tells me that there is big pro russian feel from the people in that region.We have yet to see how big the Pro-Russia sentiment actually is. It sounds like it's only been a tiny fraction of the population given the political history tidbit from UR.
Russian can swallow that part of ukraine, but it will not be able to digest it if it doesn't have support from normal people.Pretty sure Russia hasn't cared about that in a really long while.
And by "the government that pissed them off" I mean the government based in Kiev. Nobody is upset about Yanuk being gone because nobody liked him. Anywhere.But the government in Kiev is basically new even if it has some old faces spitting new-ish rhetoric. Everything before them was under Yanukovich. How can a new government piss off Crimeans for 20 years?
I just love how you can look past invading a country just because you're the ones doing it. Good thing your KGB didn't allow the Crimeans representatives a chance to self determine before you occupied it, or you might actually have to find out that not everyone thinks Glorious Russia is the savior.But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)
I wonder if Crimeans will try and oust the Crimean representative if he doesn't speak rightly for the region.
Also, new plan. US should support the tiny Pro-51st-State political movement in Australia, let them take power of part of the country and then park our troops there because they asked for us.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 09:31:04 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)
Quote
Aksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 09:32:56 am
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 09:34:26 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Sound exactly like what happened in kiev.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 09:37:21 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Sound exactly like what happened in kiev.
Except the protests were conducted over a far longer period of time, always stated that they wanted rid of Yanukovich and wouldn't have stormed or seized anything if Yanukovich stepped down. Instead, he left and a provisional government was put into place in the interim before elections.
This happened in a very short time span, didn't give anyone a chance to step down, and there is no provisional government, just a Pro-Russian guy.
Yep. Exactly the same.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 09:37:56 am
I look past it because it's about time, and twenty years is enough. Do you think the actual nationalists in Kiev would have waited for Crimea to declare independence, or left it alone when it did? It is clear that remaining with Ukraine is the worst thing for Crimea. That is avoided. It is entirely possible that if Crimea declares that it wants Russia to bugger off, the UN will pressure Russia into retreating.
And we have no KGB anymore, bro. Even if we had, no pressuring would be necessary.
I love this.
Quote
Do you think the actual nationalists in Kiev would have waited for Crimea to declare independence, or left it alone when it did? It is clear that remaining with Ukraine is the worst thing for Crimea. That is avoided.
I see, so Russia [more specifically the Kremlin] is the final arbiter of what regions deserve to be in which nation states. I just love imperialism.
Hint: You're the ones stopping Crimea from declaring independence at this point, if you hadn't occupied the building and replaced them with KGB plants they might already be able to have some sort of viable debate on independence.
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2014, 09:39:18 am
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 09:41:06 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 09:42:11 am
You know, Russia could have used that thing called diplomacy. But nooooo.Like - Gather UN security council, provide proofs that Russians in Crimea are in danger and ask for UN mission to enter it and initiate referendum under their supervision.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 09:44:44 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 09:46:01 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Sound exactly like what happened in kiev.
Yes, only here the gunmen actually occupied the Parliament building instead of loitering around for several weeks, ruining large portions of the city.
Is it not suspicious that no government troopers rushed to stop them, oy? Maybe even the armed forces do not want to fight now?
Yes, it could have used diplomacy. Except for the fact that everybody ignores Russia until it starts growling at people. It's traditional.
And mict, at least it's more competent an arbiter than the government in Kiev. Which was put into place after an armed revolt. You seem so intent on believing that nobody likes Russia in Crimea enough. Where are you from, I wonder?
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 09:50:37 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Sound exactly like what happened in kiev.
Except the protests were conducted over a far longer period of time, always stated that they wanted rid of Yanukovich and wouldn't have stormed or seized anything if Yanukovich stepped down. Instead, he left and a provisional government was put into place in the interim before elections.
This happened in a very short time span, didn't give anyone a chance to step down, and there is no provisional government, just a Pro-Russian guy.
Yep. Exactly the same.
Are you seriously suggesting that because they were making threats before actions, they have legitimacy?
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 09:54:03 am
So I guess the thing to do is just park NATO forces in Kiev because it's always better to do shit first without asking about it at the UN Security Council because it'll get insta-veto'd anyway? Like Russia was doing for any sort of UN response in Ukraine?Heh, well if USA and nato can do it, as they did in the past why not russia?
You better not give a examples of nato because they already broke it long time ago.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 09:54:46 am
Chaoswhiz: are you aware that prior to 2010, Ukraine's president wasn't Yanukovitch?
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2014, 09:56:42 am
welpcan I start worrying about the impending world war 3 or not
cuz i have a bad feeling about this
Civil war is looming on the horizon, but unless Russia and the West send troops to Ukraine, there won't be World War III.
(I hope so)
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 09:58:26 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:01:11 am
Well, the government in Kiev was put in place by the parliament elected in 2012. No gunmen in parliament during the vote too. As for government troopers not intervening, well the whole situation was a mess. Also, you keep forgetting the fact that ~40% of the Crimean population doesn't identify as Russian. As UR pointed out, the "let's join Russia party" had less than 2% of the vote.
Chaoswhiz: are you aware that prior to 2010, Ukraine's president wasn't Yanukovitch?
Yes, but a large portion does not identify as Ukrainian, either, and not everybody who identifies as Ukrainian supports the Maidan guys - "vocal minority" claims are a double-edged blade, so I believe.
I am also afraid.welpcan I start worrying about the impending world war 3 or not
cuz i have a bad feeling about this
Civil war is looming on the horizon, but unless Russia and the West send troops to Ukraine, there won't be World War III.
(I hope so)
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 10:03:50 am
((WHAT THE FUCK?)) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140302)Oh. Shit. I've been meaning to pay more attention to the news...
The bright side is, if Reuters is to be believed, it doesn't sound like it'll be a huge thing. Russia's keeping itself as Europe's red-headed stepchild, and obviously it sucks for the Ukraine, but at least it's not likely to turn into a world-burning confrontation.
It's complicated because Russia has nukes.Actually, it's simpler than it seems. After all, Putin would have to be a complete idiot to use nukes on the Ukraine without provocation. Already, it's coming off badly; imagine what a couple nuclear warheads would do to Russia's international relations. Best case scenario, it's ostracized and gets embargoes from several major nations; worst case scenario, World War Three.
Now, if the Ukraine had nukes, there could be a problem...but it hasn't been so long since the Cold War that people have forgotten about mutually assured destruction, and anyways the Ukraine sent its nukes to be dismantled in Russia way back in the Nineties; it's been almost two decades since Ukraine has had a nuclear weapon in its borders.
as far as we know of,he does control some very remote places with minorities in them.As far as we know of, he is actually a Vulcan spy.
Citations or it didn't happen.
Well shit. Looks like theres gonna be a landwar in Asia/Eastern Europe.Joke's been made. Probably in every city where people have seen The Princess Bride.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/46688130.jpg)
The he referred to Putin, not my dad.I hope this teaches you to be careful with your pronouns.
Quote
Also, this must be the first time in history that a country waited for a couple of days for the enemy to really get into place before mobilizing and saying "Hey, this is war you know!".We're out of practice as far as real war goes.
Isn't the modern world great?
(Note: My use of "real war" is in contrast to "guerrilla war" and the like, which are more like serieses of opposing small missions than the big-battle wars everyone thinks of when they hear "war," and is not in any way intended to glorify or promote such conflicts.)
(Note: Isn't it a bit odd to say "guerrilla war" when "guerrilla" means "little war"?)
According to Russians with no sense of humor, they're the Belarus equivalent of bread....I don't get it. Is that one of those insulting jokes neighboring nations tend to have about each other, if so what are they implying, and if not...then huh?
I think he's saying it's ironic, not that nationalists are evil.I always find it amusing how the people most willing to violate a country's sovereignty are hyper nationalists.You say that like it's a bad thing. If you think nationalists = nazis, you're wrong.
Chaoswizkid: I never said that many=majority. I merely pointed out that the idea is not absurd. When you take a government order to "defend your country", you defend their idea of what constitutes it....or else you're just defending your homeland, your home, your family. My father always said that the invader is at a disadvantage from that--men will fight as hard as they can and retreat less readily if they are fighting to protect their hometown than just on orders.
And the Nazis were kind of invading Russia at the time.
Also, new plan. US should support the tiny Pro-51st-State political movement in Australia, let them take power of part of the country and then park our troops there because they asked for us.Don't be silly. Australia is already divided into states, we'd let them keep those divisions.
But yeah. Sounds like a decent enough analogy.
My first thought was "I wonder if that's a world record."But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
I feel ashamed.
Bah, UN. Who uses that for anything any more?You know, Russia could have used that thing called diplomacy. But nooooo.Like - Gather UN security council, provide proofs that Russians in Crimea are in danger and ask for UN mission to enter it and initiate referendum under their supervision.
Note: I'm being sarcastic.
I am also afraid.I have enough faith in Putin that he won't shoot himself in the foot badly enough to trigger World War Three. Short of nuking the Ukraine, I'm not sure what would start something major.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 10:06:12 am
But Mict... they did? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/)QuoteAksyonov was voted in by the Crimean parliament on Thursday after pro-Russia gunmen seized the building and as tensions soared over Crimea's resistance to the new authorities in Kiev, who took office this week.
Occupying the place and ousting the representatives. Replaced with puppet in minutes.
Sound exactly like what happened in kiev.
Except the protests were conducted over a far longer period of time, always stated that they wanted rid of Yanukovich and wouldn't have stormed or seized anything if Yanukovich stepped down. Instead, he left and a provisional government was put into place in the interim before elections.
This happened in a very short time span, didn't give anyone a chance to step down, and there is no provisional government, just a Pro-Russian guy.
Yep. Exactly the same.
Are you seriously suggesting that because they were making threats before actions, they have legitimacy?
I am suggesting that the goal was not a hostile takeover of the government to install whoever they wanted. The goal was to be very hostile to one guy and the individuals closest to him, and once he was gone to hold elections.
I am also suggesting that the events in Crimea was a hostile takeover of the local government before anyone could intervene and force someone into power.
Are you suggesting that a peaceful protest gathering in the streets demanding the impeachment/resignation of a civil leader doesn't have more legitimacy than a small group of unknown militants forcing a local government to install an ideologically-aligned individual with representative powers?
It's not explicitly stated that they were forced, but we have Situation A and Situation B and it's not very hard to imagine the arrow between the two.
Chaoswhiz: are you aware that prior to 2010, Ukraine's president wasn't Yanukovitch?
Hold up. Okay, no, and so my foot gets placed in my mouth, but I had assumed so because:
Yanukovich was Pro-Russian-influence
And
Soviet-era industry reliant on Russian market still existed
And
Soviet-era communist artifacts remained in Ukraine until his ousting.
I can only assume further, then, that whoever Yanukovich's predecessor was wasn't really that different?
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 10:12:59 am
Avis-Mergulus: Right, we don't really know what the Crimeans wants, and how much wants what. But I guess it doesn't matter, since Putin invaded already. Putin supporting Crimean government after an independence referendum? Ok. Putin invading because: not ok.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 02, 2014, 10:13:31 am
They didn't have it easy of course. The Party of Regions (Yanukovich) issued multiple votes of no confidence, and her government happened to coincidence with the 2008 economical crisis. Combined with the fact that the economical reforms were troubling the Soviet era economy, and the Ukrainian gas crisis in 2009, they eventually succeeded.
*Orange revolution
((Note: might not be accurate. This is what I kind-off remember.))
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 10:16:34 am
Anyway, at least the mobilization and stuff should prevent Russia from getting into the rest of Ukraine. It's one thing to infiltrate Crimea when no one is looking, another to step into mainland Crimea when the army is ready and the message is clear that Russian troops getting in will be shot.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:20:41 am
And the Yuschenko government was as pro-liberal as my ass is green. They were pro-show and pro-whine about terrible Russia, which could not care less.
Edit: also pro big business, just like the P.I.G. now.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 10:23:43 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:27:23 am
Well, Yanukovitch was pro-Russian. At least more than the rest of the political spectrum in Ukraine.So he was an ambiguous chunk of maybe-dirt maybe-manure floating in a crock of crap. That's mighty great.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 10:31:33 am
So he was an pro-Russian chunk of maybe-dirt maybe-manure floating in a crock of crap. That's mighty great.
FTFY
Sometime you get unsavory supporters. Doesn't mean they're not your supporters. Same applies for the Neo-Nazies on Maidan.
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 10:34:58 am
I am also suggesting that the events in Crimea was a hostile takeover of the local government before anyone could intervene and force someone into power.
Are you suggesting that a peaceful protest gathering in the streets demanding the impeachment/resignation of a civil leader has less legitimacy than a small group of unknown militants forcing a local government to install an ideologically-aligned individual with representative powers?
It's not explicitly stated that they were forced, but we have Situation A and Situation B and it's not very hard to imagine the arrow between the two.
so you are basically saying they acted fast because they HAD to act fast?
Except they weren't peaceful protests, and actually, not so small groups of openly admitted neo-nazis militants forced the government to step down.
I really can't see a fundamental difference. in both cases democracy was not the political tool in deciding who ruled a certain piece of land and a certain group of people.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:35:59 am
No, I mean that he was pro-Russian only in comparison to his predecessor, who all but accused us suppressing the Ukrainian national identity during WW2 (by which he meant the UPA - a bunch of actual Nazis). Yanukovich was as pro-Russian as, say, the president of Mexico is pro-Russian.So he was an pro-Russian chunk of maybe-dirt maybe-manure floating in a crock of crap. That's mighty great.
FTFY
Sometime you get unsavory supporters. Doesn't mean they're not your supporters. Same applies for the Neo-Nazies on Maidan.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 10:38:29 am
Quote
who all but accused us suppressing the Ukrainian national identity during WW2Well, that IS what you did before, during and after WW2
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 10:41:17 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:46:43 am
I bet that for you anyone who is not aiming to sign annexation deal as fast as possible is not Pro-RussianQuotewho all but accused us suppressing the Ukrainian national identity during WW2Well, that IS what you did before, during and after WW2
Aye, could be. But Crimea is not part of "Ukrainian national identity", whatever that is.
And I repeat: Russia is not the Soviet Union.
And while we're at that, the USSR did not suppress Ukraine specifically, despite what a few revisionists might say. It suppressed any and all nationalism within its borders, because nationalism makes empires fall apart. You might note that Russia did not even have its own communist party - the KPRF was founded right before the nineties. A guy tried to institute it before, and was shot for it - look up "Ленинградское дело."
And I mention no annexation deals. Just that Yanukovich was absolutely neutral towards Russia - and "neutral"!="pro".
E: fuck autocorrect
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 10:52:31 am
Quote
It suppressed any and all nationalism within its bordersHey! That serial killed not only your relatives but relatives of other people, too! You shouldn't be mad at him he had nothing against you
Exactly the same logic.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 10:54:57 am
Why are you mad at me because of what they did to the ancestors of both of us?QuoteIt suppressed any and all nationalism within its bordersHey! That serial killed not only your relatives but relatives of other people, too! You shouldn't be mad at him he had nothing against you
Exactly the same logic.
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 10:55:39 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 02, 2014, 11:01:08 am
Aye, could be. But Crimea is not part of "Ukrainian national identity", whatever that is.
And I repeat: Russia is not the Soviet Union.
And while we're at that, the USSR did not suppress Ukraine specifically, despite what a few revisionists might say. It suppressed any and all nationalism within its borders, because nationalism makes empires fall apart. You might note that Russia did not even have its own communist party - the KPRF was founded right before the nineties. A guy tried to institute it before, and was shot for it - look up "Ленинградское дело."
And I mention no annexation deals. Just that Yanukovich was absolutely neutral towards Russia - and "neutral"!="pro".
E: fuck autocorrect
Russia was the Soviet Union in the same way that England is the United Kingdom. For all intents and purposes they are one and the same. The USSR spoke Russian, promoted
Even if we accept that Soviet identity is different to Russian identity (which it is to a certain extent), the USSR was promoting Soviet nationalism along the same lines as certain groups affiliated with Putin promote "Eurasianism". The USSR didn't get rid of all nationalism within its borders, just the examples of it that it found threatening. Soviet nationalism was fully endorsed. Right now the Ukrainian conflict is driven by irreconcilable tensions between two Nationalist movements.
Post by: misko27 on March 02, 2014, 11:03:32 am
Xaxaxaxaxa (http://imgur.com/NPzK81w)"When nobody was looking, Putin stole forty cakes. He took 40 cakes. That's as many as four tens. And that's terrible."
Anyway, if we could keep the personal things out, that'd be nice and civil. On a note of things soon not to be nice and civil, my mom reminded me that Ukraine and Russia share the same mission to the UN. I wonder what's going on there...
Post by: Pnx on March 02, 2014, 11:04:08 am
Xaxaxaxaxa (http://imgur.com/NPzK81w)Took me a second to get what was going on, it is indeed amusing.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 11:16:12 am
Besides, Russia doesn't intend to annex Crimea, they'll just install a new government in a separate satellite state.That's what it currently seems to look like. The Crimean government now wants to hold their referendum on March 30, instead of May.
Would be one of the slightly better possible outcomes of this, but still it's probably going to be an Abchasia-like satellite state thing.
Xaxaxaxaxa (http://imgur.com/NPzK81w)Oh, CNN...
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 11:17:08 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 11:17:28 am
Aye, could be. But Crimea is not part of "Ukrainian national identity", whatever that is.
And I repeat: Russia is not the Soviet Union.
And while we're at that, the USSR did not suppress Ukraine specifically, despite what a few revisionists might say. It suppressed any and all nationalism within its borders, because nationalism makes empires fall apart. You might note that Russia did not even have its own communist party - the KPRF was founded right before the nineties. A guy tried to institute it before, and was shot for it - look up "Ленинградское дело."
And I mention no annexation deals. Just that Yanukovich was absolutely neutral towards Russia - and "neutral"!="pro".
E: fuck autocorrect
Russia was the Soviet Union in the same way that England is the United Kingdom. For all intents and purposes they are one and the same. The USSR spoke Russian, promotedRussianSoviet language and culture as a way of uniting the ethnic groups and existed as the successor state to the Empire. In virtually every language around the world, people would say Russia colloquially and USSR in official settings.
Even if we accept that Soviet identity is different to Russian identity (which it is to a certain extent), the USSR was promoting Soviet nationalism along the same lines as certain groups affiliated with Putin promote "Eurasianism". The USSR didn't get rid of all nationalism within its borders, just the examples of it that it found threatening. Soviet nationalism was fully endorsed. Right now the Ukrainian conflict is driven by irreconcilable tensions between two Nationalist movements.
There can be no Soviet nationalism because the Soviet Union was not a nation. Fanaticism, maybe, but not nationalism. The Union was united by communist ideology first, and Russian culture (whatever that was after our Civil War) second.
burningpet stop that shit. The Rada voted Yanukovitch down 328 - 0. No gunmen was in parliament during the vote. Expect if Rada members are neo-nazis, what you say doesn't make any sense.
Why are the far-right radicals refusing to disarm, then, even after a direct order from the new government?
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 11:18:27 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 11:27:56 am
Quote
Why are the far-right radicals refusing to disarm, then, even after a direct order from the new government?Good news for you. - Right Sector is forming guerrilla squads right now, with close cooperation with Ukrainian Army. At least that is what the leader of Right Sector said and our government never denied that
Before you ask - No, Right Sector still doesn't plan operations in Crimea.
Post by: scrdest on March 02, 2014, 11:29:36 am
And USSR nationalism was a thing ever since Stalin.
Post by: Owlbread on March 02, 2014, 11:32:52 am
There can be no Soviet nationalism because the Soviet Union was not a nation. Fanaticism, maybe, but not nationalism.
This is untrue. At its conception the Soviet Union was not really a nation, it was a Union of nations. After Stalin came to power however he changed this as a man seeking to create a powerful state he knew that this would be untenable. He created a new nation as part of his ideology - "Socialism in one country". The USSR, according to Stalin, was one country. One nation. It suited him that way, and it suited his successors. The result was that a Soviet identity was cultivated (a Russian identity for all intents and purposes) and with it came a kind of strange Soviet nationalism that obliterated the national identities that were there before. See Belarus, Eastern Ukraine etc.
Quote
The Union was united by communist ideology first, and Russian culture (whatever that was after our Civil War) second.
This is incorrect again. Communist ideology simply doesn't come into it as an independent thing, by the end of the century Communism and Soviet nationalism/culture were indistinguishable after having been merged with a strange blend of Eurasian-Russian nationalism. You can see the results of that unholy marriage in the current Russian Communist Party who are basically just red Nationalists.
The USSR didn't exactly make things any clearer by professing to oppose "nationalism", but that's because it suited the establishment in the USSR to show their union as being in the right, morally speaking. It helps keep up their Communist credentials even though anyone worth their salt could see that those credentials were essentially in tatters by the time Stalin was bringing back the Orthodox Church and ending the international revolution. It's very similar in the UK where British Unionist groups profess to oppose nationalism but never stop banging on about what a great country Britain is and how they don't want to see it broken up, purely for emotional reasons.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 02, 2014, 11:39:58 am
Well, Yanukovitch was pro-Russian. At least more than the rest of the political spectrum in Ukraine.
Yanukovitch was absolutely not pro-Russian, he was an opportunist backed by certain oligarchs, specifically those running the industrial concerns in the Donbass. These oligarchs were basically in favour of integration with the EU, since they wanted another place to make money off of. Thus, these oligarchs preferred Yanukovitch to any Western crook (like Tymoshenko) because they basically had him under their thumbs, and they preferred him to any real pro-Russian leader because they didn't want to be forced into the Eurasian Customs Union, which would deprive them of the money they could make from the far wealthier West.
So Yanukovitch basically bankrolled a propaganda campaign in favour of European integration which only began succeeding recently. He (and his backers) figured that this would work well for all involved; the Western Ukrainians that dislike Yanukovitch tended to be in favour of EU integration anyway, the oligarchs would get their European market access, and the Eastern Ukrainians, well, while they would be basically screwed over, it's not like they'd have anyone else to turn to. Obviously Yanukovitch was very much in favour of European integration originally. But then something went wrong.
Specifically, the Europeans weren't so keen on Yanukovitch, since he wasn't a reliable pro-Western leader. So instead of sending a deal he expected, they sent a basically unacceptable deal that required Ukrainian industry comply with EU regulations, including any regulations passed in the future. Free trade with Europe in of itself would be damaging to Ukrainian industry in the near term, but the Donbass oligarchs figured that they would still be able to benefit overall. However, with the regulations included, Ukrainian industry would be utterly incapable of competing with the highly developed Western industries in place and would be utterly destroyed, to the benefit of absolutely no one. Obviously Yanukovitch couldn't accept this deal, but unfortunately for him he had propagandized so hard in favour of integration that turning against it led to outrage. At this point, he was doomed; he could accept the deal after all, but it would wreck the Ukrainian economy enough to turn even the integrationists at Lviv against the EU (and, by extension, him), and his oligarch friends would be ruined too. He could join the Customs Union, but the Donbass oligarchs would lose access to their European markets entirely, which was basically unacceptable. So he was forced to wait things out, sandwiched between Putin (who would have been okay with Yanukovitch as a puppet, but not as a puppet of largely anti-Russian oligarchs) and the EU (who were waiting for a more reliably liberal leader to take over to control), without the support needed to stay in power. That's basically why there weren't very many anti-Maidan protests in the East, as Yanukovitch wasn't even remotely pro-Russian.
Of course, now that Yanukovitch is gone, the pro-Russian Ukrainians have some options available, and obviously they don't favour EU integration in the slightest. So even discounting Putin's intervention in the short run, in the long run separatist sentiment is sure to run strong as the effects of integration make themselves known.
Post by: Owlbread on March 02, 2014, 11:41:16 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 12:25:15 pm
Spoiler: "Huge" pro-Russian support in Crimea (click to show/hide)
First confirmed defection - commander of Ukrainian Navy switched sides, no info on how officers under his command reacted on that...
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 02, 2014, 12:28:17 pm
SnipExcept that there was no way that Ukraine, or anyone else really would ever get access to the European Internal market without needing to follow it's regulations, both past and present. Sure, sometimes some nations get exceptions, but those are often only temporary, and the EEG is very reserved with those.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 01:07:20 pm
Spoiler: "Huge" pro-Russian support in Crimea (click to show/hide)
First confirmed defection - commander of Ukrainian Navy switched sides, no info on how officers under his command reacted on that...
When the commander of your entire Navy defects, it's a... rather telling event, I think.
I do not know why are you so happy about the so-called "right sector" forming guerilla squads after refusing to disarm after being ordered to by the government they put in place - it does not do your claims of democracy any good.
Owlbread, people in the USSR were shot for Russian nationalism - even top government officials. Of course, I am not arguing that an all-obliterating ideology was enforced. But it was enforced on the Russians, too. Our traditionally-flavored nationalists all immigrated when they could. "Red nationalism", as you term it, was very, very strange.
Also UR, the correct possessive form is "Russian". Learn you some European.
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 02, 2014, 01:10:47 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 01:13:00 pm
Quote
When the commander of your entire Navy defects, it's a... rather telling event, I think.No one followed his orders. We got new commander. That one will face tribunal or live in Russia. No problem.
Quote
I do not know why are you so happy about the so-called "right sector" forming guerilla squads after refusing to disarm after being ordered to by the government they put in place - it does not do your claims of democracy any good.They are not ordered by the government to disarm. Government is opening army stockpiles for them.
If you haven't noticed we are getting ready for defending against a full scale invasion. And having guerrillas is essential because we have no good army to stop Russian war machine in conventional warfare
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 01:21:15 pm
burningpet stop that shit. The Rada voted Yanukovitch down 328 - 0. No gunmen was in parliament during the vote. Expect if Rada members are neo-nazis, what you say doesn't make any sense.
The fact Yanukovych was clearly heading behind bars for his "atrocious mass murder spree" along with anyone cooperating with him had nothing to do with that vote. right.
And yeah, some Rada members ARE self proclaimed, openly admitted neo-nazis that chose to have their IMAGE rebranded later on. this is not a debate whether this is true or not, because those are facts you know to be true, this is (was) a debate whether you choose to believe a neo-nazi turned himself a mere nationalist or just turned his image to appear a mere nationalist. we both know whats the more likely scenario of the two, so for almost every given reason, i have the right to keep calling them what they are, and what they used to call themselves - neo-nazis.
And, please, the Ukraine government was a farce during yanukovych reign, is a farce now and will continue to be a farce and nobody would have given a damn about it, if it weren't neo-nazis that help running the farce, so it has every potential, and probably will, of becoming a tragedy.
UR - So, wait, the new government are now almost-officially arming the neo-nazis?
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 01:25:32 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 01:32:02 pm
Quote
UR - So, wait, the new government are now almost-officially arming the neo-nazis?Looks like. So, after we kick Russian asses we'll go and occupy Israel. Get ready.
And I'll tell you a military secret, our necromancers are working on resurrecting SS and Wehrmacht soldiers that died in Ukraine during WW2
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 01:38:29 pm
Ok, I'm not talking to burningpet anymore.
For which reasons? calling them neo-nazis? calling the Ukraine government a farce? raising doubts about the legitimacy of a vote that was held while clearly, direct threats and actions were held against people who held certain opinions? which one is it?
Post by: Owlbread on March 02, 2014, 01:44:51 pm
Owlbread, people in the USSR were shot for Russian nationalism - even top government officials. Of course, I am not arguing that an all-obliterating ideology was enforced. But it was enforced on the Russians, too. Our traditionally-flavored nationalists all immigrated when they could. "Red nationalism", as you term it, was very, very strange.
Yes, this is because Russian nationalism was a threat to the integrity of the USSR and a threat to Soviet identity as a whole. I do not disagree. I believe that there should be a Russia, that Russia does exist and that a positive kind of Russian nationalism has been stifled by Imperialistic constructs like Eurasianism and Socialism In One Country.
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 01:49:42 pm
a positive kind of (...) nationalismThat's a thing now?
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2014, 01:52:00 pm
Owlbread talks a lot about founding a kind of civic nationalism that focuses on the self-improvement of a nation rather than the plain assertion of its superiority.a positive kind of (...) nationalismThat's a thing now?
Post by: Owlbread on March 02, 2014, 01:54:28 pm
Owlbread talks a lot about founding a kind of civic nationalism that focuses on the self-improvement of a nation rather than the plain assertion of its superiority.
This. It's also the kind that, on paper at least, allows anyone to become an American no matter where they come from, what they believe or who they love. This is important to keep in mind in addition to the essential principle outlined neatly by MSH. You could argue that a true Eurasian Federation would provide a better vehicle for that than a more stripped down, "Russian" Russia, but I think the whole construct carries far too much Imperial baggage and we're far better taking things back to square one. Smaller countries tend to work better in this regard anyway.
I feel that the world still has a lot of very old, long-standing national issues it needs to just work through. The old Imperial borders are still around, some weaker or firmer than others. Once the small nations that remain under the control of others become independent again and the world returns to a more natural state I think we can all concentrate on our own problems without baggage or national conflict.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 02:18:39 pm
First of all, if you think the so called "right sector" - a bunch of thugs and bullies with a God complex - is going to stand up to actual soldiers, then you think many things. But I really hope we don't get to test this hypothesis, because at this point Ukraine can stop clinging to places it has no right to and let Crimea go - to Russia or wherever, I do not care - or it can continue to cling to its precious nationalism, which is founded on Russophobia and a somber remembrance of perceived wrongs - and we will have ourselves a war which will harm everybody, period. I will wait to see how things develop, because I feel that all that could be said is said.
P.S for UR: When the Maidan government got what they wanted, they issued a proclamation on the notes of: "We're all happy-happy now, so let's put the guns down". Guess who didn't listen.
P.S for Owlbread: While I do not believe in "positive nationalism", I respect your right to. I would just like to point out that I am by no means motivated by nationalism - just a heartfelt dislike of the government in Kiev and an unwillingness to let it continue its assimilation program against people who also dislike it. If you listen to UR, I'm probably a guy sitting in front a TV in Vladivostok somewhere, ranting about "Russian right". I am not. My grandfather has worked all his life in Crimea, and my father did too in his youth. I come to visit my grandfather every summer, and I have lived for two years in Sevastopol and for half a year in Sudak. I have ears and eyes. I was there just last August. I have reasons to say nobody there likes the government of mainland Ukraine, and that was in "pro-Russian" Yanukovich's time. Imagine now!
This is what I have to say.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 02:24:54 pm
P.S for Owlbread: While I do not believe in "positive nationalism", I respect your right to. I would just like to point out that I am by no means motivated by nationalism - just a heartfelt dislike of the government in Kiev and an unwillingness to let it continue its assimilation program against people who also dislike it.
Of course, positive nationalism wouldn't give you flimsy reasoning to invade sovereign countries.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 02:36:52 pm
Quote
is going to stand up to actual soldiers, then you think many things.Partisans are partisans. Many will die...
You may not believe that Russian will get Afghanistan for years in Ukraine... But that exactly what will happen.
If my country will be occupied, I will try to take out Russian soldier or two given a chance. Hopefully they'll not expect any danger from a guy in a wheelchair. You may think it is a bravado or joke. I don't care
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 02:44:09 pm
It'd be much more telling if entire crews/ships defected. It's no surprise there are Russophiles in the ranks, even this high.
Google for Hetman Sahaydachny, the flagship of Ukrainian Fleet. It raised russian naval flag (Andrew's flag, Andreevsky flag). Will add some links when find those in English.
Edit: Even Wikipedia knows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_frigate_Hetman_Sahaydachniy_%28U130%29)
Edit #2: One more link (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-navy-flaghsip-protest-389/)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 02:46:43 pm
Quote
Google for Getman Sagaydachny, the flagship of Ukrainian Fleet. It raised russian naval flagOne of epic fails of Russian propaganda. Getman Sagaydachny is not even in Sevastopol like they claimed. And that fake is two days old.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 02:50:25 pm
Edit: and today your chief commander of fleet swore to serve to Crimean people and ordered all your navy to do the same or sign out, by the way. Freshest.
Edit #2: I did not stated it was in Sevastopol when it raised St. Andrew's flag. Neither did our brainwashing media. It was somewhere else, I am not sure where for certain, but far from Ukraine.
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 02:57:37 pm
And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 02:58:28 pm
Quote
Who cares where it is. It is an ideological matter.It never happened, so what ideological matter here? If you claim it's happened - Go on, provide real proof.
Quote
today your chief commander of fleet swore to serve to Crimean people and ordered all your navy to do that or sign out, by the way. Freshest.Do you even read the thread? I posted about that traitor earlier. I hope he will face tribunal. Point is that no one followed his order to disarm.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2014, 03:00:34 pm
And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 03:00:58 pm
Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
BP's just all sore.
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 03:05:43 pm
And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
The justification begins.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 02, 2014, 03:06:28 pm
P.S for Owlbread: While I do not believe in "positive nationalism", I respect your right to. I would just like to point out that I am by no means motivated by nationalism - just a heartfelt dislike of the government in Kiev and an unwillingness to let it continue its assimilation program against people who also dislike it.
Of course, positive nationalism wouldn't give you flimsy reasoning to invade sovereign countries.
Please, could you stop repeating the same thing over and over like it's going to change anything and actually read my posts whole, not just the bits which give you a flimsy reason to accuse me of nationalism? I'm starting to think we're not having a calm and cool progressive discussion here. My reasoning is as flimsy or un-flimsy as any; I just have a wish, is all.
I hope it does not come to war, and I want no part of West Ukraine. I also do not wish to have a fight with anybody on this forum. This sudden intrusion of real life into my entirely happy foreign relations disturbs me. That is all.
Brb, sleep.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2014, 03:09:44 pm
The refusing to actually have a conversation and condemning the rest of you begins.And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
The justification begins.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 03:11:57 pm
The refusing to actually have a conversation and condemning the rest of you begins.
Glorious democracy-lover Putin is saving those ignorant Ukrainians from themselves, MSH, don't disagree.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 03:16:29 pm
Quote
I hope it does not come to war, and I want no part of West Ukraine.Wow! Thank you that you are so generous and want to occupy only Eastern Ukraine.
And yours "I don't want a war" sounds like robber's "Be calm, I don't want to hurt you. Just get out of your house and let me take what I want"
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 03:18:07 pm
The refusing to actually have a conversation and condemning the rest of you begins.And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
The justification begins.
Yeah, lets condemn the guy that tries to condemn the guy that fantasizes about killing russians. you did just justify it, btw, even though you said you didn't.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2014, 03:21:25 pm
Furthermore, I did not condemn you. You are the one condemning the rest of us and refusing to actually talk about this, which is kind of contrary to the point of a forum.
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 03:24:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjD8MnuYxI
And not sure what place
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDn9Qy-LTWA
Uk nacist, the so called reason russia is invading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkiSPMpTp_I
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 03:25:52 pm
Very disturbing videos of pro russian protest in Kharkiv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjD8MnuYxI
Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 03:30:27 pm
Nahhh, this is just angry mob on the street, i can find same videos about uk protest for getting down the government before all this, same shitVery disturbing videos of pro russian protest in Kharkiv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjD8MnuYxI
Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 03:31:16 pm
Post by: Sinistar on March 02, 2014, 03:34:05 pm
Aw come on, maybe it was just a typo? Maybe he meant Eastern Ukraine?QuoteI hope it does not come to war, and I want no part of West Ukraine.Wow! Thank you that you are so generous and want to occupy only Eastern Ukraine.
And yours "I don't want a war" sounds like robber's "Be calm, I don't want to hurt you. Just get out of your house and let me take what I want"
I know don't have much voice here as it is not my country that is facing the crisis, but I think the amount of hostility in this thread is really rising to dangerous limits. Come on people, why not cool it a bit, we don't want this thread locked, do we? :(
Uk nacist, the so called reason russia is invading:There's actually a longer version of this on BBC's site, I posted it few pages back. Check it out, it's interesting, even if short and even if it could do with a few better worded questioning from the journalist's side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkiSPMpTp_I
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 03:36:25 pm
Btw, would you? feel the same way? i don't think so. i know i didn't feel the same way when i was forced to fight, and one of the most important sentences issac rabin said that i took to heart and preached to my soldiers was "We do not celebrate the death of our enemies, nor should we wish to hate them".
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 03:45:15 pm
QuoteWho cares where it is. It is an ideological matter.It never happened, so what ideological matter here? If you claim it's happened - Go on, provide real proof.Quotetoday your chief commander of fleet swore to serve to Crimean people and ordered all your navy to do that or sign out, by the way. Freshest.Do you even read the thread? I posted about that traitor earlier. I hope he will face tribunal. Point is that no one followed his order to disarm.
I gave ya two sources. If you want to close your ears and be like "I do not know what you are talking of, it never happened, brainwashed soviet imperialist" just put it like that in direct speech.
I kinda know it is awful when a major military officer betrays his country in a critical moment. Well, you definetly have your right to hate him. But why are you going nuts with me mentioning this once more?
Post by: misko27 on March 02, 2014, 03:52:03 pm
Anyway, I happened to be walking by the Ukrainian/Russian mission (because they share the mission, have since the soviet era), and protestors have shown up demanding Putin keep his hands off. I'd estimate about 400, but I'm not sure, it could be a lot more; the police were making onlookers either join in the fenced off area or keep walking. The thing stretched down sidewalks though. They were chanting, raising flags, carrying signs, etc.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 03:55:53 pm
Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.
[sarcasm]Wow, a man from russian government revealed himself and all our plans[/sarcasm]
You sound like a man concerned that there is a totally white side and totally black. And you put Russia to the black one. Ethnical and political leansings are serious accusations.
Post by: Darvi on March 02, 2014, 03:58:21 pm
I would appreciate if the ad hominem could be dialed down a tad. Too much directed at individuals and not at arguments.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 03:59:44 pm
And while we're at that, the USSR did not suppress Ukraine specifically, despite what a few revisionists might say. It suppressed any and all nationalism within its borders, because nationalism makes empires fall apart.Which makes the Ukranians feel better, how?
Xaxaxaxaxa (http://imgur.com/NPzK81w)I'd comment, but I suspect I'm missing the punchline.
There can be no Soviet nationalism because the Soviet Union was not a nation. Fanaticism, maybe, but not nationalism. The Union was united by communist ideology first, and Russian culture (whatever that was after our Civil War) second.1. How are you defining "nation," then?
2. Does it matter? You're basically saying that if the USSR was a nation, they would be nationalist.
Quote
Why are the far-right radicals refusing to disarm, then, even after a direct order from the new government?I think we need to review the definitions of "far" and "radical"...
First confirmed defection - commander of Ukrainian Navy switched sides, no info on how officers under his command reacted on that..."Rear Admiral Denys Berezovsky was only made head of the navy on Saturday, as the government in Kiev reacted to the threat of Russian invasion." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26410431)
They may have reacted...poorly.
In theory, yes. In practice...well, let's see hwo the navy reacts and how the whole invasioney thing ends up.QuoteWhen the commander of your entire Navy defects, it's a... rather telling event, I think.No one followed his orders. We got new commander. That one will face tribunal or live in Russia. No problem.
Quote
If you haven't noticed we are getting ready for defending against a full scale invasion. And having guerrillas is essential because we have no good army to stop Russian war machine in conventional warfareIt's not ideal circumstances by any means. Not much cover in the countryside[citation needed], not much time to train, and the enemy troops are experienced with your best defenses. General Winter applies as much to the Russians as the Ukranians...
That would be nice.Owlbread talks a lot about founding a kind of civic nationalism that focuses on the self-improvement of a nation rather than the plain assertion of its superiority.a positive kind of (...) nationalismThat's a thing now?
Edit: and today your chief commander of fleet swore to serve to Crimean people and ordered all your navy to do the same or sign out, by the way. Freshest.And what power does he have to enforce this?
We made it almost a hundred pages. That's better than most corners of the Internet would have gotten.The refusing to actually have a conversation and condemning the rest of you begins.The justification begins.And people stopped talking to me, not the guy who fantasize about killing russians. next thing you guys do is justify it by calling him a brave freedom fighter.Russia did just kind of invade his country with the probable intent of permanently taking a chunk out of it, and probably undoing the successes of the recent protests/revolution in the rest. I'm not saying fantasizing about killing people in warfare is right, but I understand where he's coming from.
I know don't have much voice here as it is not my country that is facing the crisis, but I think the amount of hostility in this thread is really rising to dangerous limits.Hostility? In a thread about politics, in a situation where one of the concerned nations is invading the other?
Shocker!
But yeah. If this gets shut down, where will I snark about people's reactions to the invasion while being secretly concerned and wondering if this will become the next big disaster?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 04:03:10 pm
[sarcasm]Wow, a man from russian government revealed himself and all our plans[/sarcasm]
You sound like a man concerned that there is a totally white side and totally black. And you put Russia to the black one. Ethnical and political leansings are serious accusations.
It sure doesn't look like this will end very well for any non-Putinite Crimeans of any stripe, but I will gladly hope that I'm proven wrong. It's a tad worrying to see this happen, and you'd be the first to agree if this were the USA/China/South Africa/France/Luxembourg attempting something similar on a bordering nation amidst a national revolution. :-\
Post by: Darvi on March 02, 2014, 04:04:36 pm
Also, I'd probably be doing stuff.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 02, 2014, 04:09:36 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 02, 2014, 04:10:33 pm
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2014, 04:13:54 pm
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 04:14:38 pm
So, would anyone be able to offer first hand confirmation or contradiction of the BBC report that people in Russia are reacting in a very negative manner to the current shenanigans?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qMfZ9RE7A
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2014, 04:16:41 pm
So I hear the head of Ukraines navy has defected over to Russia. Any word on that?... go back a few pages. UR said the head is all that defected, iirc, that crew and whatnot didn't go with him. Russian media says... whatever russian media says. Haven't really been clicking on news links *shrugs*
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 02, 2014, 04:17:44 pm
So I hear the head of Ukraines navy has defected over to Russia. Any word on that?We've only been discussing it for the last 3 pages. It's still unclear to what extent the defection is. If it's just the admiral, or if it's most of the navy.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 04:18:57 pm
Quote from: GWG
And what power does he have to enforce this?Well, his is physically in Crimea, but you are right, he has no power to enforce this. He gave his order not to raise weapons, and suggested all the officers and sailors to swear an oath to Crimean people, but he cannot enforce that. It is up to sailors and officers.
Mictlantecuhtli, relieved to see you are not concerned about it. Naturally, the time will show whether you are right or wrong.
So, would anyone be able to offer first hand confirmation or contradiction of the BBC report that people in Russia are reacting in a very negative manner to the current shenanigans?I live in Moscow, and we had about 300-400 people who protested against of what is going on. And no less than 20000 for what is going on.
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 04:26:57 pm
I live in Moscow, and we had about 300-400 people who protested against of what is going on. And no less than 20000 for what is going on.
I can find videos about 300 people protesting against russia invasion, but I can not find any videos about 20 000 people (or any) supporting it
Post by: Comrade P. on March 02, 2014, 04:32:12 pm
Edit: I'm off for today, have an important lecture tomorrow at morning. Err, today in 7,5 hours. Have to sleep at least 6 of those.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 02, 2014, 04:34:15 pm
This thread will get locked if this whole animosity continues to build up. I see that quite a lot of people around here, especially Ukrainian Ranger (obviously and justifiably) and Mictlantecuhtli (rather weirdly, did Russians kill your ancestors or something?) are mad at what Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain in his speech to the House of Lords in 1853 called "the barbarous nation" and "the enemy of all progress". But, if we don't want Toady One to intervene and lock the thread, we really should tone down the vitriol.
EDIT:
I live in Moscow, and we had about 300-400 people who protested against of what is going on. And no less than 20000 for what is going on.
I can find videos about 300 people protesting against russia invasion, but I can not find any videos about 20 000 people (or any) supporting it
Totalitarian RT to the rescue. (http://rt.com/news/rally-russia-bikers-ukraine-455/)
Post by: Bouchart on March 02, 2014, 04:35:22 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 04:37:57 pm
Guys, I want to say something.
This thread will get locked if this whole animosity continues to build up. I see that quite a lot of people around here, especially Ukrainian Ranger (obviously and justifiably) and Mictlantecuhtli (rather weirdly, did Russians kill your ancestors or something?) are mad at what Lord Lyndhurst, the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain in his speech to the House of Lords in 1853 called "the barbarous nation" and "the enemy of all progress". But, if we don't want Toady One to intervene and lock the thread, we really should tone down the vitriol.
I'll just have to remember your stances on illegally occupying and removing governments next time something like this happens. Not trying to spread 'vitriol'; I'm saying this is highly illegal and will likely lead to terrible repercussions for non-Putin-adorers of Crimea. There's a bit of a precedent for that, mate.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 02, 2014, 04:40:37 pm
Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.
[sarcasm]Wow, a man from russian government revealed himself and all our plans[/sarcasm]
You sound like a man concerned that there is a totally white side and totally black. And you put Russia to the black one. Ethnical and political leansings are serious accusations.
Didn't you get the memo? Putin is literally Hitler and Russia is modern Nazi Germany. If NATO forces don't immediately intervene, Putin will absorb all of Ukraine, call up Lukashenko, invade Poland, and start WW3. China, Iran, and North Korea will also make appearances as supporting characters in the Axis of Evil.
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2014, 04:41:31 pm
I'll just have to remember your stances on illegally occupying and removing governments next time something like this happens. Not trying to spread 'vitriol'; I'm saying this is highly illegal and will likely lead to terrible repercussions for non-Putin-adorers of Crimea. There's a bit of a precedent for that, mate.You say that but then Israel has been occupying more and more land and hardly gets a slap on the wrist... Yea there is a precedent, and not a very good one.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 02, 2014, 04:42:08 pm
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2014, 04:48:04 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 02, 2014, 04:49:19 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 05:00:28 pm
Oh, great, why I am not surprised that Germany supports Russia once again? It may be not a direct support but that is definitely undermining American efforts to isolate Russia
Post by: Sergarr on March 02, 2014, 05:00:36 pm
Post by: nenjin on March 02, 2014, 05:16:39 pm
Post by: burningpet on March 02, 2014, 05:30:16 pm
Sergarr, we also call ourselves nazis all the time so don't feel special. the religious called Rabin a nazi when he made peace, the right wing calls the left nazis when they say the settlers should be evacuated back to israel, the left calls the army nazis and so on.
UR - according to stephen cohen, leaked conversations of europeans and americans suggested that merkel wanted vitali klitschko on the new government. maybe she was a bit disappointed seeing the biggest advocator for the European deal not in the new government.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178511/stephen-cohen-western-recklessness-could-spark-new-cold-war-divide-ukraine - fair warning, its in audio, its pretty long and the bits toward the end are bit bizzare.
Knit tie: i agree. what?
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 05:32:40 pm
In other news, veterans of the Afghanistan war in Ukranine have organised an unarmed peacekeeping force that is supposed to literally interject itself between the russians and the ukrainians should the fighting start.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 05:33:54 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 05:34:48 pm
Unarmed peacekeeping?
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 02, 2014, 05:36:00 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 05:37:00 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 05:39:36 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 05:43:16 pm
Polskiej Armii something something Ukrainie (http://www.kresy.pl/wydarzenia,wojskowosc?zobacz%2Fprzegrupowanie-w-polskiej-armii-w-zwiazku-z-kryzysem-na-ukrainie-)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
edit: okay this article may or may not say they're moving away from the border.
It's not like anyone here speaks Polish anyway.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 02, 2014, 05:52:42 pm
Spoiler: Meanwhile in the Russian internet (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2014, 05:56:12 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 05:57:33 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 02, 2014, 05:59:18 pm
What;s Hungary doing in that .gif?That's Belarus.
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 06:01:52 pm
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 06:10:14 pm
According to this very forum, Luxembourg taking over the world is a fairly realistic situation, mostly because everybody'd be too busy going wtf to react.That's an amusing thought.
So I hear the head of Ukraines navy has defected over to Russia. Any word on that?This has been mentioned two or three times already.
As far as can be told, the majority of the Ukranian navy doesn't agree.
Wait, they were protesting for something the government was already doing? People are crazy.So, would anyone be able to offer first hand confirmation or contradiction of the BBC report that people in Russia are reacting in a very negative manner to the current shenanigans?I live in Moscow, and we had about 300-400 people who protested against of what is going on. And no less than 20000 for what is going on.
I'll just have to remember your stances on illegally occupying and removing governments next time something like this happens. Not trying to spread 'vitriol'; I'm saying this is highly illegal and will likely lead to terrible repercussions for non-Putin-adorers of Crimea. There's a bit of a precedent for that, mate.He's not arguing against arguing against Putin's actions, he's arguing against how you're arguing against Putin's actions.
Literally, no, but there are some disturbing parallels to the start of World War Two that some people I was talking with pointed out. More on that later.Didn't you get the memo? Putin is literally Hitler and Russia is modern Nazi Germany. If NATO forces don't immediately intervene, Putin will absorb all of Ukraine, call up Lukashenko, invade Poland, and start WW3. China, Iran, and North Korea will also make appearances as supporting characters in the Axis of Evil.Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.[sarcasm]Wow, a man from russian government revealed himself and all our plans[/sarcasm]
You sound like a man concerned that there is a totally white side and totally black. And you put Russia to the black one. Ethnical and political leansings are serious accusations.
If this thread is a microcosm of people's ability to solve problems, Ukraine is in serious trouble.Remember, Bay12 is one of the nicer parts of the Internet, and typically one of the more rational groups of people I'm familiar with.
Ukraine is screwed.
Literally, putting thier bodies on the line if/when the bullets start flying.Good luck with that. Sadly, a sense of righteous indignation is not always paired with a sense of what to do to solve problems.
...If I understood the Russian part of the Internet more, would these make sense? Is there some kind of political satire slipped into Russian translations of Futurama or something?Spoiler: Meanwhile in the Russian internet (click to show/hide)
What;sFTFY.Hungaryjust about everything doing in that .gif?
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 06:13:21 pm
At the beginning of World War Two, a dictator (Hitler--please don't Godwin's Law me) of a nation rather disliked due to a war which ended (to the nation's detriment) a couple decades prior (The Great War) ignored a treaty and invaded a nearby area (the Sudetenland).
Now, a dictator (Putin) of a nation rather disliked due to a war which ended (to the nation's detriment) a couple decades prior (the Cold War) ignored a treaty and invaded a nearby area (Ukraine).
This isn't enough to say "OMG WWII al over agin!", but it is cause for concern...
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 06:15:10 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2014, 06:20:16 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 06:20:35 pm
The worse thing is that Putin's action will actively harm the Russian populace of those countries, as they'll end up being seen as fifth columns. Also government will be afraid of giving them any kind of devolution, for fear that the devolved government end up calling in Russian troops.
Again, to all the Russians here: we're not against Crimean independence per se. We just don't think invasion are justified when there wasn't even a referendum yet.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 06:23:15 pm
Still, "Hitler also did it" is a pretty poor argument against something.Not my point. My point is more "The parallels to World War Two are concerning and I hope they're meaningless so could you please prove my fears wrong?"
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 06:37:27 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 06:39:30 pm
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2014/Mar-02/249002-germany-warns-against-russia-exclusion-from-g8.ashxOf course it is. Because the US's diplomatic course of isolating Russia while making it perfectly clear that they will not intervene (even McCain, while critizising Obama, has said so) leads nowhere. If we stop talking to Russia now, we lose any influence we might have. We cannot realistically do much more than talk, so why not try it.
Oh, great, why I am not surprised that Germany supports Russia once again? It may be not a direct support but that is definitely undermining American efforts to isolate Russia
Putin has accepted Merkel's proposal of a contact group possibly under OSCE managment. Since he doesn't accept the current Ukrainian government, that's some progress.
Remember it was EU diplomacy too that gave the protests some breathing space before Yanukovych could have started a massacre. US confrontational diplomacy didn't achieve anything.
UR - according to stephen cohen, leaked conversations of europeans and americans suggested that merkel wanted vitali klitschko on the new government.Merkel has been pretty open about her support for Klitschko, I have mentioned that multiple times.
The reason Klitschko isn't in the government is this: a) he wants to run for president and b) most people in the current government risk burning themselves politically due to unpopular decisions and are likely not going to be part of the next (elected) government.
My point is more "The parallels to World War Two are concerning and I hope they're meaningless so could you please prove my fears wrong?"Your fears are wrong because the West is not going to intervene militarily. Worst case scenario is Crimea becoming a part or a satellite of Russia and a civil war in Ukraine, possibly resulting in a break-up. Still I have my doubts how far Putin really wants to risk escalation, he needs Ukraine for his Eurasian Union project.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 06:43:00 pm
Post by: Max White on March 02, 2014, 06:45:29 pm
If we keep the Sudetenland analogy, the problem is not a war now, but an emboldened Putin doing the some thing again, probably in the Baltic state.Its simple, we kill the Putin!
Actually in all seriousness is there any prediction on what would happen if Putin was assassinated? I'm guessing Russia would be pissed the fuck off and shit would escalate even quicker.
Post by: Dutchling on March 02, 2014, 06:46:27 pm
The West not intervening might well be the worst case scenario, if you ignore nonsensical scenarios like Putin nuking the Ukraine.My point is more "The parallels to World War Two are concerning and I hope they're meaningless so could you please prove my fears wrong?"Your fears are wrong because the West is not going to intervene militarily.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 06:47:44 pm
If we keep the Sudetenland analogy, the problem is not a war now, but an emboldened Putin doing the some thing again, probably in the Baltic state.Forget the Sudetenland analogy, that was a different world back then.
The Baltic states are in the NATO. He's not gonna do that because he cannot win against NATO, due to the nuclear stand-off that would cause.
Ukraine is not in the NATO which unfortunately means that they are on their own in this as far as military help is concerned.
The West not intervening might well be the worst case scenario, if you ignore nonsensical scenarios like Putin nuking the Ukraine.The West intervening is a nonsensical scenario too.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2014, 06:48:58 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 06:49:29 pm
Its simple, we kill the Putin!Doubt it, after a short internal struggle Russia will stabilize. Much larger Soviet Union had zero problems after Stalin's death
Actually in all seriousness is there any prediction on what would happen if Putin was assassinated? I'm guessing Russia would be pissed the fuck off and shit would escalate even quicker.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2014, 06:50:21 pm
Your fears are wrong because the West is not going to intervene militarily. Worst case scenario is Crimea becoming a part or a satellite of Russia and a civil war in Ukraine, possibly resulting in a break-up. Still I have my doubts how far Putin really wants to risk escalation, he needs Ukraine for his Eurasian Union project.Escalation is why he is doing this. Eat or puppet Crimea, reinstall Yanukovych as a puppet over the rest of Ukraine, bring both into the EAU next year, hail Overlord Putin.
Post by: miljan on March 02, 2014, 06:51:59 pm
He might make the bet that NATO won't fight back in say, Lithuania.
No, he will go directly for USA :D
In all seriously, the max thing russia can do now is to try take the other easter cities that have pro russian population in it. But more than that will not happen.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 06:53:48 pm
He might make the bet that NATO won't fight back in say, Lithuania.NATO is legally required to defend it's members. That's why we all went to adventure in Afghanistan, remember? Non-members and non-attack scenarios are something else, that's why not all of us went to adventure in Iraq.
If he stages something that can be interpreted as an attack on a NATO member, all hell breaks loose, so he is not going to. We can say against Putin what we want, but he is not an idiot or a fanatic.
Escalation is why he is doing this. Eat or puppet Crimea, reinstall Yanukovych as a puppet over the rest of Ukraine, bring both into the EAU next year, hail Overlord Putin.Yanuk is out I'd say. Escalation, yes, but to what degree I wonder? He doesn't want a country that is torn apart by civil war or hates him for the most part, he wants a friendly regime in Ukraine for his EAU. He doesn't get that with war.
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 06:56:15 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:06:11 pm
Also,
This guy's got good stuff to say.He might make the bet that NATO won't fight back in say, Lithuania.NATO is legally required to defend it's members. That's why we all went to adventure in Afghanistan, remember? Non-members and non-attack scenarios are something else, that's why not all of us went to adventure in Iraq.
If he stages something that can be interpreted as an attack on a NATO member, all hell breaks loose, so he is not going to. We can say against Putin what we want, but he is not an idiot or a fanatic.Escalation is why he is doing this. Eat or puppet Crimea, reinstall Yanukovych as a puppet over the rest of Ukraine, bring both into the EAU next year, hail Overlord Putin.Yanuk is out I'd say. Escalation, yes, but to what degree I wonder? He doesn't want a country that is torn apart by civil war or hates him for the most part, he wants a friendly regime in Ukraine for his EAU. He doesn't get that with war.
So, howabout russia agrees to some talks after this brinksmanship, pulls out of crimea on conditions, and in a roundabout way winds up trying to stabilize Ukraine to get a more favorable government & view out of it?
The civil war thing wouldn't help unless they go to take over the joint.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 07:09:39 pm
Spoiler: Russian special forces are funny (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:12:51 pm
Also, huh, he's younger than I.
Post by: Pnx on March 02, 2014, 07:14:54 pm
Also, huh, he's younger than I.I noticed that... he's about 9 months younger than I am in fact... Which is a pretty weird thought, though dealing with adults younger than me is something I suppose I should be getting used to by now.
I'm getting old.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:16:56 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 07:18:02 pm
Someone's getting sacked.But he is a star now. 3500+ comments is not something an average guy gets
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 07:21:51 pm
I live in Moscow, and we had about 300-400 people who protested against of what is going on. And no less than 20000 for what is going on.I've seen that in German TV. Unfortunately the anti-war protests were dissolved by the police and people got arrested. The pro-war demonstrations are something to worry about. The interpretation of the events in Ukraine by the Russian media is not really helpful at all to de-escalation efforts.
So, howabout russia agrees to some talks after this brinksmanship, pulls out of crimea on conditions, and in a roundabout way winds up trying to stabilize Ukraine to get a more favorable government & view out of it?First they would need to accept the current government or someone else to talk for Ukraine. I don't know what will come out of talks, but it's pretty much the only thing we can try right now. Political commentators here think Putin is afraid that the West has too much influence in Ukraine and did put the new government in place. To avoid that impression we need a stable government in Ukraine that can bridge the East-West divide. That's difficult to pull off and pressure from Russia doesn't help at all with that. Maybe that can be made clear to Putin. Another thing I've read about the latest Merkel-Putin phone call was that there might going to be a "fact finding mission", whatever that is, possibly an attempt to convince Putin to accept the revolution.
The civil war thing wouldn't help unless they go to take over the joint.
So, that guy demonstrated a label with his name and rank. But that's not the most funny part. He is found in a social network (http://vk.com/id191664514) with further info about his unit :DStupid kid. At least, if he loses his backpack, someone can send it to him. ;) Because that's how war works, right?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:24:25 pm
First they would need to accept the current government or someone else to talk for Ukraine. I don't know what will come out of talks, but it's pretty much the only thing we can try right now. Political commentators here think Putin is afraid that the West has too much influence in Ukraine and did put the new government in place. To avoid that impression we need a stable government in Ukraine that can bridge the East-West divide. That's difficult to pull off and pressure from Russia doesn't help at all with that. Maybe that can be made clear to Putin. Another thing I've read about the latest Merkel-Putin phone call was that there might going to be a "fact finding mission", whatever that is, possibly an attempt to convince Putin to accept the revolution.
Well, sounds like it's heading towards a clusterfuck.
--Even if they've got a peaceful resolution in mind, they won't have the time to pursue it thanks to partisans/guerrillas/terrorists, (depending on who you ask).
Post by: teloft on March 02, 2014, 07:33:58 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 07:38:34 pm
--Even if they've got a peaceful resolution in mind, they won't have the time to pursue it thanks to partisans/guerrillas/terrorists, (depending on who you ask).It's even worse, with Ukrainian military bases surrounded, one shot could change everything.
Not the same base, but that's roughly the situation, inside and outside:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:42:34 pm
Otherwise, they've shown pretty good restraint on both sides so far.
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 07:56:56 pm
Someone's getting sacked.But he is a star now. 3500+ comments is not something an average guy gets
If the comments are anything to go by, ukrainians are as bloodthirsty and rabid as russians. Understandable, of course, their country is invaded, but still very sad. But then again russian-language internet is infamous for being extremely rabid and radicalist, so this is probably not the case with the general populace.
For a long while our peoples were brothers. Now they have all the chances of redefining themselves as Cain and Abel.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 07:59:38 pm
Will there be an independent Crimea as there was an independent Finland?Explain independent finland?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 02, 2014, 08:00:11 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 08:02:22 pm
So me and my dad were talking about this yesterday and we both were thinking that the protesters have until the end of the Olympics before Russia really starts to get involved.I just dug this up from earlier in the thread because, sadly, that turned out to be pretty good prediction.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 08:25:46 pm
Remember it was EU diplomacy too that gave the protests some breathing space before Yanukovych could have started a massacre. US confrontational diplomacy didn't achieve anything.
Damnit, why do we even try?
Continued:Where did the EU go again? America wasn't even involved.
EU: "United States! United States! Quick, Russia is bullying Ukraine because the people there wanted to join us!"
US: "... But you guys HATE it when I get into stuff."
EU: "Yeah... but... we don't like talking to Russia! He's scary!"
US: "... sigh..."
Relevant:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
US: "Okay, Russia, listen. We have no actual interest in anything going on other than we don't want you to rock the boat, we can't deploy troops there since everything in the UN is veto'd by you guys. So we're really just going to have to say that the price of you guys annexing Crimea would be bad. 'sall we got."
EU: "YAY! US IS DOING SOMETHING!"
Russia: "... that's a pretty bad idea though."
US: "Of course it's a bad idea! It's also a bad idea for you guys messing in Crimea! Come on!"
Russia: "Okay, well, we're going to retract our ambassador."
US: "... isn't that an overreaction?"
*small time later*
Everyone: "Good job US, your antagonistic "diplomacy" didn't do any good!"
US: "ATGSRJGHZSJDUNMSHDHGNSMDKHNTHG"
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 08:35:58 pm
-snip-Well, it's more complicated than that. :)
If you don't talk to Russia, what else is there to do? G8 is one of the only ways to have official channels to talk with them, so boycotting that or excluding Russia doesn't help. Just yelling vague threats at them isn't how diplomacy and negatiation works, especially if you can't back it up with force, which nobody really can.
Also EU diplomacy has messed up too. The spark that started this was that EU trade agreement Yanukovych refused to sign. Maybe that whole thing wasn't such a great idea in the first place, geostrategically speaking, because it would have forced Ukraine to decide between Russia and the EU. The way it looks to me, the country needs close ties with both, or it gets torn apart. The EU underestimated that and then took a terribly long time to react to the protests.
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 02, 2014, 08:38:50 pm
Will there be an independent Crimea as there was an independent Finland?Doubt it, situation's too different.
But the parallels are there, internal division between pro-Russian part of population and anti-Russian right-wing goverment and what not. But I don't see it coming out like in Finland, most independent Crimea could ever be is puppet state for Russia.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 08:52:57 pm
The West didn't intervene when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, either. Not right away.My point is more "The parallels to World War Two are concerning and I hope they're meaningless so could you please prove my fears wrong?"Your fears are wrong because the West is not going to intervene militarily. Worst case scenario is Crimea becoming a part or a satellite of Russia and a civil war in Ukraine, possibly resulting in a break-up. Still I have my doubts how far Putin really wants to risk escalation, he needs Ukraine for his Eurasian Union project.
Oh wait, I'm getting Poland and the Sudetenland mixed up, aren't I?
World War I?]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria]World War I? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria)If we keep the Sudetenland analogy, the problem is not a war now, but an emboldened Putin doing the some thing again, probably in the Baltic state.Its simple, we kill the Putin!
Actually in all seriousness is there any prediction on what would happen if Putin was assassinated? I'm guessing Russia would be pissed the fuck off and shit would escalate even quicker.
Seriously, though...best-case scenario is the new leader being more levelheaded and ending the aggression. Worst-case scenario, the new guy makes Kim Jong Il look sane and starts a global ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) war. Thankfully, that's not terribly likely.
I have to say I find it highly amusing how all the russian troops in Ukraine are all wearing masks and just going around silently. Reminds me of some random hapless mooks waiting for an all-american sledgehammer-chinned action hero to show up and gun them down.PR never was Mother "Zerg Rush" "Vodka-Drinking Bear" "Filthy Poor Commie" Russia's strong suit.
Will there be an independent Crimea as there was an independent Finland?Wait, Finland isn't independent?
If the comments are anything to go by, ukrainians are as bloodthirsty and rabid as russians.If there's one lesson a deep look into history can teach us, it's that the "good guys" and the "victims" are at heart not so different than the "bad guys" and the "aggressors".
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 09:07:14 pm
All men are brothers. And there is plenty of good and bad people on each side and in every organisation - all the ukrainians and russians I know personally, including one retired colonel, think that Putin is just going crazy and that war is the absolute worst case scenario. People on "VKontakte", meanwhile, are successfully upholding their reputation of mildly scitzophrenic, violently radical and extremely gullible idiots by crying for blood and murder and calling each other names.If the comments are anything to go by, ukrainians are as bloodthirsty and rabid as russians.If there's one lesson a deep look into history can teach us, it's that the "good guys" and the "victims" are at heart not so different than the "bad guys" and the "aggressors".
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 09:14:29 pm
Well, the main difference is that we have a completely different network of alliances today. Hitler probably wouldn't have invaded Poland if he had known he'd have to fight pretty much everybody as a consequence. Maybe he would have because he was a lunatic. Anyway the situations do not compare at all. NATO and Russia both have nukes, so they won't fight. Ukraine isn't in NATO, so that's bad for them. Whatever the outcome of this will be, it might be bad for Ukraine, but it won't be WW3.The West didn't intervene when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, either. Not right away.My point is more "The parallels to World War Two are concerning and I hope they're meaningless so could you please prove my fears wrong?"Your fears are wrong because the West is not going to intervene militarily. Worst case scenario is Crimea becoming a part or a satellite of Russia and a civil war in Ukraine, possibly resulting in a break-up. Still I have my doubts how far Putin really wants to risk escalation, he needs Ukraine for his Eurasian Union project.
Oh wait, I'm getting Poland and the Sudetenland mixed up, aren't I?
People on "VKontakte", meanwhile, are successfully upholding their reputation of mildly scitzophrenic, violently radical and extremely gullible idiots by crying for blood and murder and calling each other names.Which makes them pretty average internet users. Internet comments are the worst place to get an opinion on anything.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 10:04:22 pm
Well, the main difference is that we have a completely different network of alliances today. Hitler probably wouldn't have invaded Poland if he had known he'd have to fight pretty much everybody as a consequence. Maybe he would have because he was a lunatic.Dude. The guy invaded Russia when they had a non-aggression pact. While still at war with most of Europe.
Still, Putin isn't Hitler.
Quote
Anyway the situations do not compare at all. NATO and Russia both have nukes, so they won't fight. Ukraine isn't in NATO, so that's bad for them. Whatever the outcome of this will be, it might be bad for Ukraine, but it won't be WW3.Well, that makes me feel better.
Quote
Which makes them pretty average internet users. Internet comments are the worst place to get an opinion on anything.I'm sure I can think of somewhere worse! Like the drunk tank of a jail. Or the rest of a jail. Or any party's headquarters.
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 10:15:28 pm
Two of my favourite ones:People on "VKontakte", meanwhile, are successfully upholding their reputation of mildly scitzophrenic, violently radical and extremely gullible idiots by crying for blood and murder and calling each other names.Which makes them pretty average internet users. Internet comments are the worst place to get an opinion on anything.
"You eat salo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salo_(food))? I'll fuck you in the eye!"
and
"Even dying on the lands of Ukraine or getting crippled there is a rare luck for such a putrid little bitch as you, putinsucker! Fuck you and your family! Hope you die and all your friends die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!1!!!!!!1!!!11!!!cos(0)!!!"(sic)
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 10:17:43 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 10:23:07 pm
Still, Putin isn't Hitler.Oh yeah, I should have emphasized that more also, before these comparisons start again.
I'm sure I can think of somewhere worse! Like the drunk tank of a jail. Or the rest of a jail. Or any party's headquarters.I'm not that sure. I have definitely seen more signs of intelligence on the wall of a pub toilet than in youtube comments.
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 10:30:31 pm
Which makes them pretty average internet users. Internet comments are the worst place to get an opinion on anything.Makes me wonder about our discussion here, by the way. We are on the internet too, you know.
Post by: GreatWyrmGold on March 02, 2014, 10:31:20 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 10:36:07 pm
On a more serious note, assuming the worst happens and armed combat starts, do you believe NATO will send any help to Ukraine at all? What if Ukraine capitulates?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 10:44:29 pm
This:Which makes them pretty average internet users. Internet comments are the worst place to get an opinion on anything.Makes me wonder about our discussion here, by the way. We are on the internet too, you know.
Bay12 is one of those communities where the population is too low for Sturgeon's Law to come into effect.
Also, I was referring to comments on social media sites and stuff like that. I'd say our discussion is pretty good for the average internet discussion. We made it over 100 pages relatively peacefully. Mostly because the people who are emotionally involved in this have shown a great deal of restraint, especially Ukrainian Ranger.
On a more serious note, assuming the worst happens and armed combat starts, do you believe NATO will send any help to Ukraine at all? What if Ukraine capitulates?NATO will not send troops, even with a full scale invasion of Ukraine. There would be no legal ground for that, because NATO only defends NATO members or acts on UN mandates.* Any troops, even peacekeepers, could only be sent by the UN. That would probably not happen either, because Russia is in the UN Security Council.
It would be a step back to Cold War times though, with Russia being pretty much isolated.
*Actually, technically they could intervene on humanitarian grounds without any legalizing mandates, like against Serbia. That is extremely unlikely though, because they certainly wouldn't risk a fight with another nuclear power.
Post by: Knit tie on March 02, 2014, 10:54:23 pm
Also, I was referring to comments on social media sites and stuff like that. I'd say our discussion is pretty good for the average internet discussion. We made it over 100 pages relatively peacefully. Mostly because the people who are emotionally involved in this have shown a great deal of restraint, especially Ukrainian Ranger.Yes, big thanks to him for that! Poor guy, it must be really hard on him.
Quote
Then what could stop Putin from just using the ukrainian military mobilisation as a casus belli and conquering Ukraine like it's middle ages all over again? Or would that be too extreme even for him?On a more serious note, assuming the worst happens and armed combat starts, do you believe NATO will send any help to Ukraine at all? What if Ukraine capitulates?NATO will not send troops, even with a full scale invasion of Ukraine. There would be no legal ground for that, because NATO only defends NATO members or acts on UN mandates. Any troops, even peacekeepers, could only be sent by the UN. That would probably not happen either, because Russia is in the UN Security Council.
It would be a step back to Cold War times though, with Russia being pretty much isolated.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 02, 2014, 10:59:08 pm
I thought that law was about 4/5 of anything being crude?
More correctly, 90% of anything is crap. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law)
Then what could stop Putin from just using the ukrainian military mobilisation as a casus belli and conquering Ukraine like it's middle ages all over again? Or would that be too extreme even for him?
Because he's already making everyone in the West really uneasy over just having troops in Crimea. If Putin goes for all of Ukraine, there won't be anything stopping him from doing that, but after he's done I bet everyone else in the area not a part of NATO will try to get in or in another similar Treaty Organization and the general attitude towards removing Russia from G8 and positions in the UN will change somewhat. Ukraine will be the last place he takes, or Russia will implode from internal pressures over a leader who threatens another Cold War since that would be what it means to grab anything else (or worse).
It sucks for Ukraine right now, though.
Post by: Vattic on March 02, 2014, 11:05:05 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 11:08:08 pm
Then what could stop Putin from just using the ukrainian military mobilisation as a casus belli and conquering Ukraine like it's middle ages all over again? Or would that be too extreme even for him?I don't really think anybody could or would stop him if he tried that (except of course the Ukrainians themselves, but they wouldn't have much of a chance). I just doubt he would try that because it's an extremely bad idea.
He would gain Ukraine, but it would be destabilized, impoverished economically and would probably have a resistance movement going on. With the Russian army presence he strengthens his enemies in Ukraine already, as the threat of war always strenghtens nationalists and the more extreme people on the political spectrum.
Also he would isolate Russia internationally, it would be like the Cold War all over again. I don't know what he's up to, but I think he is smarter than that. He will try something to keep Ukraine in close ties with Russia, because he thinks he is losing Ukraine to the West. It would be more useful to him if he somehow manages that peacefully.
So, I hope at least, maybe this is all sabre-rattling, to show that Russia still wants a say in Ukraine. That's not so great either, but at least it's not a war.
BTW the G7 have cancelled the G8 meeting in Sochi now. So while there are still talks going on, that's a first taste of isolation.
Post by: Bouchart on March 02, 2014, 11:33:00 pm
If Putin goes for all of Ukraine, there won't be anything stopping him from doing that
But the Ukraine is not weak. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii0YmKEu2dg)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 02, 2014, 11:46:14 pm
BTW the G7 have cancelled the G8 meeting in Sochi now. So while there are still talks going on, that's a first taste of isolation.
Do you have a source for that? Google is failing me.
here's one (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/eu-may-not-match-us-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine/article17187521/)
-e
Thank ye
Post by: XXSockXX on March 02, 2014, 11:54:38 pm
Do you have a source for that? Google is failing me.It was in German news, but not on many English-speaking news site (http://news.yahoo.com/g7-condemns-russia-ukraine-move-halts-g8-preparations-005159410.html)s yet:
Quote
"We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation's clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine," the G7 said in a statement.
"We have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G8 Summit in Sochi in June," the group said.
So they are suspending preparations, not cancelling it as I wrote above.
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2014, 12:35:58 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 01:11:59 am
You know it just dawned on me, during the height of the protests UR would often mention that the media was down playing the events to make it all look a lot more minor than it actually was. I imagine for some more insulated from these events such as those on the eastern provenances, suddenly hearing that "Oh, by the way, the president has been over thrown and we are pretty much making up the rules as we go." might not go down so well.That's part of the problem. Actually it's much worse, because the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who get their news from Russian media think that their government has been overthrown by fascists supported by the West and that Russians or Russian-speaking people might be threatened.
That's why correspondents report that people in Crimea, except for the Ukrainians and Tartars there of course, are happy to see the Russian army there.
Bridging that divide in perception and bringing the country together would have been a monumental challenge for any new government, without any external pressure. Now with Russian troops there...
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 01:50:50 am
As for Lithuania, what if the scenario goes pretty much like Crimea? According to the DoS, it wasn't an invasion, it was a "uncontested entry". Are those covered by the NATO treaty? If the Lithuanian army shoot first, in a situation pretty much like this one, did Russia start it, or Lithuania? Again, if we find ourselves in a situation like this one, will we shoot first?
You'll find plenty of people of both side of the Atlantic (granted, mostly in Europe) arguing that this doesn't fit into the NATO treaty, and that we shouldn't fight for a small country of which we know little.
In the run-up to WWII, Czechoslovakia had a formal alliance with France and indirectly the UK. Didn't stop Hitler from calling France's bluff and get off with it.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 02:01:36 am
From wikipedia:
Quote
The key section of the treaty was Article V. This committed each member state to consider an armed attack against one state to be an armed attack against all states. This article has only been invoked once in NATO history: by the United States after the September 11 attacks.
They want us there? We're there, all of us, as we are obligated.
To not honor it is unthinkable. No really.
That's why it's a deterrent.
I'm glad Poland & friends are members now.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 02:14:50 am
And it's all fine and dandy for the NATO council to accept article 5 when it just means fighting a "War on Terror" against Al-Qaeda (I know NATO then took the lead in Afghanistan, but only in April 2003, well after the war started. Before that it was individual member states.) But I'm sure they'll think twice after shooting at Russia.
Moreover, we don't even need for NATO to do nothing. We just need for it to be a good enough possibility to tempt Russia into trying something. If Crimea was our Sudetenland, Lithuania could be our Poland.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 03:03:34 am
Spoiler: wall of rambling text (click to show/hide)
NATO aint nothin to fuck with. (@sheb)
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 03:31:25 am
Anyway, I don't think we can really make progress, as there is no way to test our respective hypothesis. You say the NATO council would declare it an attack I say it would depends. Actually I believe that the balance of probabilities is that NATO would react, with intense lobbying from the whole Eastern European contingent and Western Europe dragging its feet.
But I believe it boils down to probabilities. Let's say the Latvians elect a far-right government that do some stupid stuff against it's Russian minority, like suddenly deporting unemployed non-citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_%28Latvia%29) (It's a special status). Russia does a "cold invasion". How many Western Europeans would be willing to die to defend a government like that? How many will find excuses and try to wiggle out of their treaty obligations? How many will rationalize that NATO ain't that important to their security anyway?
Treaties are broken all the time. I wish I had your faith in my compatriots and other NATO member states, but I don't.
And as I said, we don't even need for NATO to do nothing in case of a Latvian invasion. We just need for NATO to look weak and irresolute enough to tempt Putin and start a war. And frankly, NATO is doing pretty well on the weak and irresolute front lately.
Post by: Il Palazzo on March 03, 2014, 03:48:24 am
Actually, I may be wrong about the French-Czechoslovak alliance. I heard it somewhere, but cannot seem to fact-check it now.Don't you mean Poland?
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 03:52:13 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 03, 2014, 04:01:57 am
If Putin really wanted to steamroll Ukraine with tanks, provided that he is as bloodthirsty and as willing to violate international law as some portray him, he would have sent them immediately after signing the intervention bill and ordered to open fire first. Right now, there hasn't been any reports of bloodthirsty Russian aircraft bombing Ukrainian bases, bloodthirsty Russian tanks crushing peaceful Ukrainians, bloodthirsty Russian Chekists from the bloody KGB torturing and hanging brave partisans from the Right Sector and so on and so forth. The most intense battle of this 'war' is Russian and Ukrainian troops engaging in a stare-down contest at Perevalny and other bases in Crimea. One may say that Putin is afraid of NATO and getting his ass handed to him by brave Ukrainian troops, but I think that he didn't intend to actually invade in the first place.
The pro-Russian Crimean government is currently heading towards seceding from Ukraine: among other things, they've created their own state security forces and now creating the Crimean military. Pro-Russian elements in the South East are also striving towards seceding. Without Russian support, they would be crushed by Ukrainian security forces and the Right Sector. The threat of Russia using its military forces to 'protect Russian citizens' provides them some cover to operate in the open without any repercussions from the Ukrainian government.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 04:06:06 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 04:07:12 am
Firstly, Russia getting it's troops in-place for a 'cold invasion' would raise some flags, and holy shit would it become a hornet's nest at that point.
Say they don't though, and they get enough men situated on the border/ready to invade and go in quietly.
They won't stay quiet long- latvian troops would confront them because 'what the hell are you doing here?'- they're a NATO member and everyone else /will/ be backing them up. Nono, they /will/, because even if western europe tries to drag it's feet, (in-spite of NATO's status as sacrosanct being of the highest priority regarding their national security-- it's germany's & france's protection just as much as latvia's), the USA has it's face/reputation so absolutely bound up with enforcing the NATO they'll bring more than a hot iron with them to force compliance.
So not only would the invasion be bloody, (not cold), but it won't even get to that point without everyone noticing and readying their best fighting words & machines.
If Russia got it's jimmies rustled about latvia being a massive prick, they'd exert pressure on us & we'd likely exert an assload of pressure on latvia. Because we have the leverage of the NATO and holy crap all that regional economic power, latvia would listen or else.
The NATO does not get broken.
How is it looking weak? Presenting a unified front on foreign relations? Is that a stipulation of the treaty?
-czech treaty
ah, it appears no.
I guessed from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II#Czechoslovakia) that there was, and mixed it with what I recollected, but looking at the Munich agreement that section refers to reveals there was no alliance.
-e
replaced lithuania with latvia
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2014, 04:10:30 am
Got unconfirmed info why commander of our navy switched sides - Russians kidnapped his family. Unconfirmed but knowing biography of "prime minister" of Crimea I think it is very likelyWell that is a formula for loyalty. As soon as his family is either rescued or killed he is going to once again turn coat, assuming this is true. It does sound a little like the plot of a James Bond movie... Personally I would have just bribed the man, so much easier, so much more reliable.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 04:26:46 am
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 04:30:27 am
Russian Stock market index got -9.5% today and falling. I wonder why?Olympics are over. Meaning fewer tourists and therefore less commerce.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 04:39:38 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 03, 2014, 04:49:58 am
Apparently EU is basically split in two parts: countries from ex-URSS, and contries not from ex-URSS. The later being more lenient than the former, understandably. And then there's Germany, belonging to both groups, and seen as the prominent negociator.
So everybody's relying on Merkel, apparently.
Side note, Merkel grew in Eastern Germany, and Putin was in the german KGB and speak german fluently, so there's that.
Another thing: the same media said that Merkel has a dog phobia, and that Putin, knowing that very well, had his dog come and sit at Merkel's feet during a meeting. Can't remember when the meeting was though. If that's true Putin is one step closer to being a Bond villain than I thought.
All of this is from french TV.
Post by: olemars on March 03, 2014, 04:54:30 am
Russian Stock market index got -9.5% today and falling. I wonder why?Olympics are over. Meaning fewer tourists and therefore less commerce.
The plunge is mainly Gazprom and other big export companies. There's a lot of mention that Russia has leverage through it's natural gas exports to Ukraine and the rest of Europe, but it's often forgotten that the Russian economy depends a lot on actually selling the stuff.
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 04:56:46 am
Please don't go ruining my jokes with your research D:Russian Stock market index got -9.5% today and falling. I wonder why?Olympics are over. Meaning fewer tourists and therefore less commerce.
The plunge is mainly Gazprom and other big export companies. There's a lot of mention that Russia has leverage through it's natural gas exports to Ukraine and the rest of Europe, but it's often forgotten that the Russian economy depends a lot on actually selling the stuff.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 05:02:05 am
Another thing: the same media said that Merkel has a dog phobia, and that Putin, knowing that very well, had his dog come and sit at Merkel's feet during a meeting. Can't remember when the meeting was though. If that's true Putin is one step closer to being a Bond villain than I thought.Yeah that happened. It was in 2007 though.
Quote from: wikipedia
popular anecdote is of when the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel met Vladimir Putin, Putin brought Koni to their meetings. On 21 January 2007, the two leaders met at Bocharov Ruchei, the President's summer residence in Sochi and at the beginning of their meeting Koni wandered into the room, leading Putin to ask Merkel, who was afraid of dogs, "The dog does not bother you, does she? She's a friendly dog and I'm sure she will behave herself." Merkel responded in Russian, a language in which she is fluent, "She doesn't eat journalists, after all."[24] Koni then proceeded to sniff the German Chancellor, and sat at her feet. Merkel was reported to have shown "apparent discomfort".[25]
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2014, 05:11:02 am
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 03, 2014, 05:15:02 am
Very disturbing videos of pro russian protest in Kharkiv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjD8MnuYxI
Well, yeah, like some of us have been saying, this is to Russify Crimea, not free it. They will be killing, deporting, and suppressing anyone that will not adhere to the Putin plan for democracytm.
I wonder why are you so intent on believing the worst things our opponents say about us without any kind of justification. Have you had any experience with "Russian imperialism" before, in your life? "My ancestors were shot by commies" does not count: so were mine.
This is what I am talking about - nobody ever considers the possibility that Russia is right, instead trying to drown us in a torrent of pretty words about sovereignty and democracy - words nobody speaks when it comes to us.
I also have no idea where you have gathered the experience that Crimea requires this kind of "Russification". And you had no problem with its Ukrainization in the previous twenty years - maybe because you have never heard of it.
I care about the rights of the people of Crimea - not People with a capital "P", but people I personally know. I know what they think - they have told me. You gentlemen can go back to citing sources, and UR can go back to spewing unrealistic propaganda at people who have no real interest in this conflict, because the lives and rights of their relatives and friends are not on the line - he seems to be managing fine, given that it's his principal pastime here on B12.
I am off, because this discussion is making me angry and bad. I'll go back to waiting for news and being a happy, friendly FG&RP person. Those esteemed Western gentlemen can resume consumption of popcorn and indignant discussions of Nazi, ethnic-cleansing Russia (people live here, you know), and my Slavic brethren (do you find this funny?) may resume trying to tear each other's throats out, as always. Whoever wants to know my opinion can read my first post in this thread.
Putin, siccing dogs on the German chancellor. Are you people insane? There's a war nearly on, and you are discussing whether Putin's a Bond villain. Goes to show the amount of thought you put into this.
Good day.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 05:27:19 am
Are you people insane?Probably.
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 05:30:35 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 05:31:35 am
As for humor and stuff:
Let's not forget that for majority of posters that war is as important as war in Syria important for us.
Maintaining good sense of humor is essential in stressful situations. Ukrainian Internet is full of jokes. I am fully supporting jokes in the thread
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 05:38:48 am
Post by: DJ on March 03, 2014, 05:39:39 am
Anyway. speaking as a Bosnian, I think that partitioning countries along the ethnic lines can only result in disaster.
Post by: smurfingtonthethird on March 03, 2014, 05:41:26 am
Worst case scenario: A chain of allies type-thing leads to a third world war. Not fucking good, especially if someone whips out the nuclear weapons. Bad.
I agree with you Avis, but Putin could have handled this far, far better. Literally invading a country's sovereign territory with a PMC and sparking the ol' european tinderbox right after a civil war is not going to help anyone, pro-russian or anti-russian.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 05:42:23 am
Russia IS wrong. There is no ground for sending troops into Ukraine now. Crimeans may not like the Kiev government, but it's not like they're at immediate risk of genocide or something. As we said, nearly all of us support the right for Crimeans to determinate their future. (despite the fact that international law doesn't, but hey lawful doesn't mean right). This means that their future should be determined by Crimeans, with a referendum, not by Russian troops.
DJ: wouldn't one of Bosnia's problem be that the partition wasn't complete, leaving you with that clusterfuck of Bosnian-Croat federation and Republica Sprska? (By the way, are Serbs allergic to vowels or something?)
GrizzlyAdamz: We had joke about the protesters too, with the stuff like "Age of Maidan". But right now, Putin's probably the best joke target around.
Post by: DJ on March 03, 2014, 05:47:53 am
And Serbs use names like that because they're *evil*.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 05:50:34 am
Also, sometime I feel like the widespread ethnic cleansing we had all over Eastern Europe after WW2 actually made it all much simpler.
Post by: smurfingtonthethird on March 03, 2014, 05:53:26 am
Post by: DJ on March 03, 2014, 05:53:49 am
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2014, 05:54:21 am
Worst case scenario: A chain of allies type-thing leads to a third world war. Not fucking good, especially if someone whips out the nuclear weapons. Bad.No seriously, who the hell is Russia's allies? China isn't going to turn its back on its most significant trade deals for Russia's sake, Iran is surrounded by so many US military bases they wouldn't last a week and who the hell cares about North Korea when they don't have the food to maintain an actual army anyway. You know what, they can have Canada, just to try and keep teams even, it won't matter. Canada take your shirt off, you are playing for the Ruskies now... Point is this isn't like WWII, because one side doesn't have the resources for a full land war...
They do have a lot of nuclear weapon though, and that is a worry.
Post by: smurfingtonthethird on March 03, 2014, 05:57:45 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 05:59:45 am
GrizzlyAdamz: We had joke about the protesters too, with the stuff like "Age of Maidan". But right now, Putin's probably the best joke target around.Pretty much, but the reputation's still no fun to be under.
Eh, what neighbors? They're the biggest kid around that isn't NATO.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 06:00:51 am
Post by: smurfingtonthethird on March 03, 2014, 06:02:00 am
Fuck tittes. I'm gonna need cleanup crews working 24/7 to clean up this mess.
Hopefully, this will all die down, and no war will start.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 03, 2014, 06:03:06 am
Post by: Max White on March 03, 2014, 06:07:08 am
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 06:09:47 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:09:59 am
They only need to join if the members don't initiate the fighting. That's why there wasn't a nato thing for Iraq.
So if Poland goes in to help Ukraine, they can go it alone. Though if they get counter-invaded it might get a bit hairier.
Which is what Russia might do in that scenario to keep Poland out, (threaten to counter-invade if they have to fight polish units, use the other NATO members to restrain the poles).
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 06:17:43 am
Want to explain my vision of the whole situation
1) Remember how I named the thread right from the start? Soviet-Ukrainian war. That is what I believe it is.
2) Russians are not enemies of Ukrainians, they are essential ally of Ukrainians (more on that later)
3) Putin is an enemy of Ukraine
4) As well as millions of other Soviets. No matter what country they live in
5) You may ask. What Soviets? USSR collapsed 23 years ago. USSR is still in minds, nationality of a person is not determined by passport he holds. Nationality is mindset, ideology, values. Communism is gone, but let's be honest, among Soviet people we had very few who actually believed in theories of Marx.
6) I believe that Russians are persecuted ethnicity in Russia. The country is ruled by Soviets who use the wrong name for self-identification. They may share same language, they may be genetically related. But they are ultimately different. Yesterday few hundreds of Russians were brave enough to protests against war. End result: Beaten and arrested for 15 days.
7) Only Russians can remove Putin and other Soviets from power. No other way. After that Ukraine will have a nation nearby as friendly as Poland. Helping them is what any Ukrainian must do. Because If they'll fail we'll have an enemy at our borders. I always viewed Russian Federation as hostile country. But I was sure that hostility will be limited by 21th century style politics: economic pressure, information war, creating instability in various ways. I never expected direct invasion. I was wrong
Hope that this will clarify my position a bit. I know many will consider it weird :)
Post by: Owlbread on March 03, 2014, 06:39:18 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 06:49:18 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 06:50:16 am
Post by: burningpet on March 03, 2014, 06:56:58 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/pressure-rising-as-obama-works-to-rein-in-russia.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0
Well, its coming from the nytimes, so it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out this was exactly the opposite of what she said.
Anyway, toward the end of this article:
“What we see here are distinctly 19th- and 20th-century decisions made by President Putin to address problems,” one of the officials said. “What he needs to understand is that in terms of his economy, he lives in the 21st-century world, an interdependent world.”
Which is why both putin and europe will not want a 3rd world war as they are too interdependent. but the US... well, they can mostly profit by distancing russia from europe.
Post by: Frumple on March 03, 2014, 07:41:31 am
With WMDs -- with a lot of things, really -- there's, y'know, proof. The thing's existence or non-existence can be shown, eventually, which vindicates or condemns the invasion to whatever degree. But this? Russia's excuse? Sufficient ethnic conflict to warrant preemptive invasion will be practically impossible to prove or disprove in retrospect (because it's subjective as all hell, especially before actual wide-scale violence breaks out) and, even better (for a given definition of better), if it didn't exist before, it probably will by the end of all this.
For all that it's flimsy to the degree it's a farce, Russia's created a situation where, come the future, they can claim the violence and enmity they're close to certainly in the process of kicking off as justification for doing so. It... it's almost... elegant? In an absurd sort of way...
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 07:48:36 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 08:15:41 am
Also, Russian rouble hits new low against the dollar and euro (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26414285)
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 08:17:13 am
Half of shit that happens people dont even now in the world, and will never know, because it is not in the interest of some big countries.
I would take all the politics and the ones that finances them from the shadow and put them in jails for life for all the killing, countries destroyed, lives ruing, to root in prison.
Fucking hate how can powerful countries get away with crap they do, is it russia, america, china or some other, same crap. We are still in middle ages where big can do what ever the fuck they want, and nothing changed
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 08:24:02 am
Every country has double standard, because they're all juggling their standard with national interest. Just look at "I don't think we should intervene in other country's internal affairs" Russia.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 03, 2014, 08:29:06 am
Thoughts? I mean if the Mayden activists can do it in the west...
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 08:30:48 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 08:31:56 am
Quote
Thoughts? I mean if the Mayden activists can do it in the west...Maydan activists used Polish flag in Lviv?
Besides 100 for the city as large as Donetsk is laughable
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 08:37:12 am
In Libya and Afghanistan, we had some UN backing. In Yugoslavia and Libya, the violence was on-going and the west did what it could to stop it. Iraq was shit, and indeed I think the US should have be sanctioned.
Every country has double standard, because they're all juggling their standard with national interest. Just look at "I don't think we should intervene in other country's internal affairs" Russia.
Heh, the funny thing, in lot of this counties west is the one that flamed and supported the problems in the first place (especially in Libya and Yugoslavia). And they are not there to stop the violence, don't think that for one moment, because it's the same thing russia is doing now. Its just a excuse for their interest.
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 08:40:14 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 08:40:48 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 08:59:09 am
I fucking hate double standards. Russia is doing shit? Hit it with sanctions, kick it from g8. The problem is where are the same reaction when america did same shit, when nato did it,france, britain, israel did shit. Where was the same response for Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq and so many other in the past.
Note however, that for every one of these wars the US at least got EXPLICIT PERMISSION from the UN to act.
Mind you, when it turned out they lied their asses off about Iraq, they certainly SHOULD have been threatened with sanctions or even just summarily sanctioned and kicked from the G8.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 09:18:21 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 03, 2014, 09:28:35 am
Post by: PanH on March 03, 2014, 09:31:37 am
Not for the Iraq War, otherwise, yes.I fucking hate double standards. Russia is doing shit? Hit it with sanctions, kick it from g8. The problem is where are the same reaction when america did same shit, when nato did it,france, britain, israel did shit. Where was the same response for Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq and so many other in the past.
Note however, that for every one of these wars the US at least got EXPLICIT PERMISSION from the UN to act.
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 09:32:11 am
Yeah, right, the west started the wars in Libya and Yugoslavia. ::)
Dude, western supported opposition in libya, with weapons and all other crap. It is not in their interest to stop the violence, never was, and don't be naive to think otherwise.
About yugoslavia, it also supported the war, because western supported the breaking of country without any negotiations, without a referendum or anything. It supported a forced breaking, because if it did not, shit would not happen.
But keep believing that west is doing it to stop the war or for good, lol.
There are no good or bad guys out there, west is as shit or worst shit now than soviet union was.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 09:38:36 am
As for Yugoslavia, are you really saying that Milosevic got less responsibility than the west here? We only started supporting states AFTER they broke from Yugoslavia and were in a murderous war. And again, we can afterward that things would probably have been worse without western intervention. Wait ten more years, and they'll all be integrated in the EU, in peace. (Well, Serbia might take a tad longer, what with Kosovo and all.)
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 09:54:29 am
Yeah, we supported the rebels. But we did not create them. We just made sure they won as fast as possible and the result was pretty good compared to what it would have been otherwise.
As for Yugoslavia, are you really saying that Milosevic got less responsibility than the west here? We only started supporting states AFTER they broke from Yugoslavia and were in a murderous war. And again, we can afterward that things would probably have been worse without western intervention. Wait ten more years, and they'll all be integrated in the EU, in peace. (Well, Serbia might take a tad longer, what with Kosovo and all.)
WTF dude.
Libya is destroyed, you did not make anything faster or better. You supported rebels and armed them not because it was faster (and it was not faster), but because it is of your interest. Dont be so blind. The country is on brink of civil war now that you fucked them up so hard. I can not believe that you can try to defend something like this.
I am not even talking about that idiot milosevic. I am talking about that west supported the breaking of the country. No, you did not come later to stop it, you were the ones to support it in the first place, than later try to fix things where you see it fit, but where you dont, you dont give a fuck. And generally destroyed another country and people in it.
Post by: DJ on March 03, 2014, 10:03:49 am
Post by: Kicior on March 03, 2014, 10:08:46 am
because it is of your interest.Politics in a nutshell, nihil novi sub sole.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 10:11:27 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 10:17:54 am
And none of that, any of it (exception of Iraq) is as bad as what Russia is doing right now.
Ukraine had stabilized.
This is not them picking sides on a civil war that's going to turn out shit no matter what - if it was, sure, I'd agree with you that it might be similar to the situations you've described.
It is them invading a territory to annex territory in a country that is teetering but regaining stability, because they can, and no more.
Because seriously, do you like how Syria has turned out? Because that's what happens when the West decides not to get involved.
Post by: Sinistar on March 03, 2014, 10:24:14 am
Not saying that the oppression before was better. It's pretty much like Iraq these days - different people, but country is still f-ed up.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 10:26:26 am
We did a fine job dismantling Yugoslavia on our own, no need for an outside conspiracy. If there's anything to blame the West for, it's inaction. Like how the Srebrenica massacre was a direct result of the Dutch not doing what they promised to do.Well, it's a bit easy to blame the Dutch for the massacre. I mean, there were only 400 on them, armed with little more than handguns and almost out of ammunition, not even having the fuel to run their APC's. It's no wonder that they couldn't stop a 1500 men armed column supported by mortars and artillery.
Sure they could've tried, but it would only have gotten them killed, as well as all the civilians hiding in the compound.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 10:26:47 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 10:27:45 am
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 10:30:15 am
Right, because it would have been so much better without air support and a second Syria.No, it would be better if fucking west did not agree to accept a separation of a country the moment it was declared to stop all the possible shit that can happen.
Because Syria is pretty much the same exact situation, but sans Western intervention.
And none of that, any of it (exception of Iraq) is as bad as what Russia is doing right now.
Ukraine had stabilized.
This is not them picking sides on a civil war that's going to turn out shit no matter what - if it was, sure, I'd agree with you that it might be similar to the situations you've described.
It is them invading a territory to annex territory in a country that is teetering but regaining stability, because they can, and no more.
Because seriously, do you like how Syria has turned out? Because that's what happens when the West decides not to get involved.
Actually what rus is doing is not worse at the moment that anything west did in past. They did not killed anyone yet. And actually if a civil war would happen in ukraine same as syria, they stopped it maybe.
So no, it's not that bad yet.
Also you think syria rebels are not getting any support from west? They are. Weapons, money and other things, thats how it works.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 10:46:17 am
As for separation... Do you really think no intervention and officially keeping Yugoslavia together would have been preferable?
Post by: DJ on March 03, 2014, 10:49:15 am
Well maybe they shouldn't have told the people there that they'll protect them so it's safe to disarm.We did a fine job dismantling Yugoslavia on our own, no need for an outside conspiracy. If there's anything to blame the West for, it's inaction. Like how the Srebrenica massacre was a direct result of the Dutch not doing what they promised to do.Well, it's a bit easy to blame the Dutch for the massacre. I mean, there were only 400 on them, armed with little more than handguns and almost out of ammunition, not even having the fuel to run their APC's. It's no wonder that they couldn't stop a 1500 men armed column supported by mortars and artillery.
Sure they could've tried, but it would only have gotten them killed, as well as all the civilians hiding in the compound.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 10:51:20 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 10:55:36 am
Yeah, it become a strategic rather than tactical mistake (Why didn't they have the equipment to defend the camp?).They also didn't have any food or water. The camp was on a complete blockade.
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 11:08:26 am
Supplies for rebels come mostly from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other arabs states. Wouldn't change much. Also I don't see what recognizing breakaway countries has to do with Libya.
As for separation... Do you really think no intervention and officially keeping Yugoslavia together would have been preferable?
Its not about keeping Yugoslavia together, its about how you separate it if there is a will for it from the people. You do not go and support forced separation.
The thing is, there would not be a rushed separation and civil war in Yugoslavia if west did not support and acknowledge the independence of country the moment it was declared (in fact, it would not even be declared in the first place if it didnt have any support from outside). You never support a forced separation because in multi ethnic environments it will always bring problems.
Wouldn't have mattered really. They didn't have the weaponry and the supplies to defend themselves anyway.Nothing could stop srebrenica to happen. There was to much hate, and need for revenge, it would just happen somewhere else.Yeah, it become a strategic rather than tactical mistake (Why didn't they have the equipment to defend the camp?).They also didn't have any food or water. The camp was on a complete blockade.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 11:09:54 am
Also you think syria rebels are not getting any support from west? They are. Weapons, money and other things, thats how it works.
Syrian factions are getting all of that from Russia too. So that's pretty much a wash on our "Russia vs. the West" debate this has become.
I'll agree that even in situations where the West may have been justified intervening, they fucked it up royally and probably would have been better off NOT intervening despite those justifications.
Russia, despite not having any justification for invading, is certainly a heck of a lot better at pulling such things off.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 03, 2014, 11:13:56 am
Well, it was nice knowing you all...
*heads to the nearest nuclear bunker*
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 11:13:56 am
So are you trying to argue that Russia SHOULD be invading Ukraine, or what?
No, I am just saying its not as bad as you say it, because its not.
West killed so many, and rus too, but in ukrain, not yet.
I have problems people have biased opinion about west, think its different shit compared to rus, its not. Its same shit, dont know what is worse.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 11:15:19 am
Ninja Edit: And the answer is "maybe a few more hours", apparently.
But seriously, it's like arguing the US wasn't nearly as bad as Russia handling Chechna in the leadup to the Iraq Invasion because, before we started opening fire, we hadn't killed anyone "yet".
Anyway, yes, the West has done a royal job of screwing shit up, and has overwhelmingly decided NOT to do whatever things would unequivocally make the situation better.
But what Russia is doing here, especially given how such things have progressed in the past, is right up there in terms of 'terrible-ness', and much as I supported them shielding Snowden because they were acting against a state doing something bad, I am supporting the West doing something to halt Russia here for the same reason.
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 11:23:42 am
Post by: Johuotar on March 03, 2014, 11:27:12 am
Russia demands the surrender of Ukraine's Crimea forces or they will begin an assault. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26424738)
Damn. PTW
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 11:28:20 am
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 03, 2014, 11:32:06 am
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 11:33:48 am
I am left with a lot of "WTF??" regarding Russia. Russia wants to take possession of the Crimea, or at least have it as an independant puppet state. I get that even if I dont agree with it - it sort of makes sense in a crude kind of way considering history/demographics and all that. Why the fuck they feel the need to be all big bully boy in the playground and start a war over it - which appears to be exactly what Russia wants to do - is totally lost on me. A free, fair and open vote which looked like it was going to "sort of" happen would in all certainty give them control directly or indirectly over the Crimea anyway, without all the associated shit that will fall on thier heads that a war will cause. Via conflict, Russia will gain the Crimea but lose so much in other ways. Sorry, threatening to attack Ukranian bases (which have been perfectly peacable) goes way above and beyond some kind of "protection" mission into blatant disregard for sovereignty and human life.
I think this is the year Putin decided to flex Russian muscle in front of the world. Consider: the Syria Crisis which came to a stalemate because of Russian resistance to doing anything about it. Consider the fact they were front and center in the world's attention after Sochi. And now, there's a chance to prove national superiority through force of arms and diplomacy. I'd be more than happy to buy the "Protecting Russian military installations and Russia citizens in the Ukraine" if Russia was not clearly on the offensive. They act as though the interim Ukrainian government publicly declared open-season on all Ukrainians of Russia descent or any Russians living in Crimea.
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 11:34:10 am
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 11:35:17 am
MonkeyHead, we;re talking about Poutine here. He's crazy.
Putin would be so much more likeable if he were actually Poutine.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 11:36:54 am
MonkeyHead, we;re talking about Poutine here. He's crazy.
Never use the excuse "he's crazy" to explain something. It's not an explanation, it's a statement of ignorance.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 11:37:46 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 11:37:55 am
MonkeyHead, we;re talking about Poutine here. He's crazy.
Never use the excuse "he's crazy" to explain something. It's not an explanation, it's a statement of ignorance.
Oh, I agree 100%. I was just kind of making a Canadian 'food' joke :v
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 11:48:11 am
I am left with a lot of "WTF??" regarding Russia. Russia wants to take possession of the Crimea, or at least have it as an independant puppet state. I get that even if I dont agree with it - it sort of makes sense in a crude kind of way considering history/demographics and all that. Why the fuck they feel the need to be all big bully boy in the playground and start a war over it - which appears to be exactly what Russia wants to do - is totally lost on me. A free, fair and open vote which looked like it was going to "sort of" happen would in all certainty give them control directly or indirectly over the Crimea anyway, without all the associated shit that will fall on thier heads that a war will cause. Via conflict, Russia will gain the Crimea but lose so much in other ways. Sorry, threatening to attack Ukranian bases (which have been perfectly peacable) goes way above and beyond some kind of "protection" mission into blatant disregard for sovereignty and human life.Because they don't want Crimea to break off. If they get Crimea, they will loose the rest of Ukraine. (Most pro-Russians are to be found in Crimea, after all). They took over Crimea, and intend to push on to get rid of the new government in Kiev.
Post by: timferius on March 03, 2014, 11:49:58 am
I know Russia has strong-armed around in Georgia in the past, which sorta made news then faded. What are the odds this will go the same?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 11:52:06 am
So, quite likely.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 11:54:39 am
Post by: smirk on March 03, 2014, 11:56:29 am
I could be completely off the mark, of course; too far away to be really sure of anything.
Oh, Putin. If you were an American politician, we'd elect the shit out of you =/
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 11:57:10 am
No you wouldn't.
Oh, Putin. If you were an American politician, we'd elect the shit out of you =/
Post by: smirk on March 03, 2014, 11:59:00 am
I dunno. I've been to Arizona 0_oNo you wouldn't.
Oh, Putin. If you were an American politician, we'd elect the shit out of you =/
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 12:03:42 pm
A destabilized and plummeting Ukraine will make it much easier for Putin to put a puppet government back in control later, rather than the possibility of Ukraine stabilizing right now and slipping away for good.That's my guess too, he doesn't give Kiev the breathing space to consolidate, which as I said before would have been a badly needed huge task.
Putin's ultimate political goal seems to be to re-unite the former Soviet Union territories under Russian leadership (not necessarily by force, though he sees that as an option). That doesn't make him a Soviet, but an imperialist. These plans have been threatened by former Soviet countries seeking closer relationships with the West. Especially Ukraine is very important to him, because it is a) culturally (what he regards as) Russian core territory, due to the line of tradition from the Kievan Rus and b) it is the biggest non-Russian former Soviet state. If you see it through this imperialist perspective, Russia has been losing to the West since 1990. I've heard many commentators say that the revolution in Kiev has weakened Putin a lot, so now he feels compelled to act, both due to internal pressure (he himself has been building the image of a threat to Russians) and external pressure. He doesn't want to lose face. It's not that he has no pretext at all for his position (the revolution was unconstitutional after all and Ukraine is somewhat divided), it's just that probably most of what he wants could have been achieved diplomatically, if he hadn't felt the need to play the strong man so much.
BTW, while I still think that the debate about NATO is unneccesary, there is also a Russian drill in the Baltic (http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140303/188053100/Russia-Conducts-Live-Fire-Exercises-in-Baltic.html) going on.
Anyway, yes, the West has done a royal job of screwing shit up, and has overwhelmingly decided NOT to do whatever things would unequivocally make the situation better.What would realistically have made the situation better? I'm not so sure that the West has acted that clever either, but I don't really see what else could have been done. Currently we can only try to negotiate.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 03, 2014, 12:10:17 pm
Which again raises the question of what the fuck is Russia doing with so many troops in the region?
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 12:11:05 pm
As for Putin, I kinda understand his urge to build an Eurasian Union. Integration with the West is impossible, both due to Russia's self-esteem (After all, joining the EU means putting you on the same level as Luxemburg, and even being in the West by and large mean subordinating yourself to the US.) and the fact the Russians were traumatized by the shock therapy of the 1990's and are dubious of the west. And in today's globalized world, you can't make it on your own.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 03, 2014, 12:14:45 pm
Not that I approve, especially since the consequences of this conflict could be rather devastating, but none of this seems crazy at all. Risky, yes, but not crazy.
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 12:21:02 pm
The BBC is reporting that the Russian Defense Ministry are dismissing the Ukranian cliams of an inpending offensive as "utter nonsense".
Which again raises the question of what the fuck is Russia doing with so many troops in the region?
The Russian Government mastered disinformation BS a long time ago. They don't care if the world sees them say one thing and do another. They're simply trying to buy time until they're ready to act by flat out disagreeing with anything that gets said.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 12:22:29 pm
As for Putin, I kinda understand his urge to build an Eurasian Union. Integration with the West is impossible, both due to Russia's self-esteem (After all, joining the EU means putting you on the same level as Luxemburg, and even being in the West by and large mean subordinating yourself to the US.) and the fact the Russians were traumatized by the shock therapy of the 1990's and are dubious of the west. And in today's globalized world, you can't make it on your own.I understand that too, but I think the world is so globalized that a potential EAU and the EU would need each other to cooperate economically and strategically. That's of course more unrealistic than ever with aggressive posturing like that.
Not that I approve, especially since the consequences of this conflict could be rather devastating, but none of this seems crazy at all. Risky, yes, but not crazy.Yeah, I don't think Putin is crazy at all. He seems like a very intelligent and calculating guy. The whole strategy to hand out passports to create citizens who need protection has been tested before and is now applied on a larger scale. Incredibly risky it is, but it might work.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 12:29:11 pm
Quote
Yeah, I don't think Putin is crazy at all. He seems like a very intelligent and calculating guy.Maniacs can be smart
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 12:31:29 pm
Actually, persons with maniacal tendencies are very likely to end up in control of major corporations, governments and other important stuff.QuoteYeah, I don't think Putin is crazy at all. He seems like a very intelligent and calculating guy.Maniacs can be smart
Post by: scrdest on March 03, 2014, 12:33:46 pm
Actually, persons with maniacal tendencies are very likely to end up in control of major corporations, governments and other important stuff.QuoteYeah, I don't think Putin is crazy at all. He seems like a very intelligent and calculating guy.Maniacs can be smart
I think you're thinking of APD (AKA sociopathy). Mania attacks are very different.
Post by: SalmonGod on March 03, 2014, 12:35:42 pm
Actually, persons with maniacal tendencies are very likely to end up in control of major corporations, governments and other important stuff.QuoteYeah, I don't think Putin is crazy at all. He seems like a very intelligent and calculating guy.Maniacs can be smart
Intelligence and Wisdom may be often related, but are very different things.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 12:37:22 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 03, 2014, 12:38:19 pm
The BBC is reporting that the Russian Defense Ministry are dismissing the Ukranian cliams of an inpending offensive as "utter nonsense".Trying to prevent Ukrainian security forces from crushing pro-Russian separatists.
Which again raises the question of what the fuck is Russia doing with so many troops in the region?
Probable course of events favourable for Russia, provided NATO won't decide to recreate the campaign of Lock On: Modern Air Combat in real life:
1. Pro-Russian protesters take control of regional administrations in Crimea and the South East Ukraine
2. They announce a referendum on seceding from Ukraine.
3. The government in Kiev can't do anything about it, because if they use force, Russia will bomb the shit out of them.
4. The referendum will (obviously) result in separatists winning. Crimea and the South East Ukraine secede.
5. USA and EU rage and threaten sanctions, like in 2008, Putin ignores them.
6. Crimea becomes an semi-independent (and of course unrecognised) state under Russian protection, a-la Abkhazia or South Ossetia. South East Ukraine either becomes a separate state (also backed by Russia) or becomes Russian territory.
7. ??
8. ☭Наш Советский Союз покоряет весь мир, как огромный медведь на Востоке...☭ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjW3kMNaW2o)
Post by: Mephansteras on March 03, 2014, 12:42:13 pm
Putin is taking a big risk here, but the potential rewards for success are huge. If he wins he secures Crimea (and access to the Black Sea) for Russia, shows the world the Russia is strong, and simultaneously shows that the US and Western Europe are weak and can't be depended on. It would be a major step towards Russia regaining Superpower status in the world.
EDIT: Ninja'd a bit, but my point stands.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 12:45:50 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 12:47:41 pm
I've seen this posted a lot on my FB feed.Though the part about refugee camps could also be related to the Russian claim that there were huge waves of refugees. The Ukrainian border guard denies these claims, and they have only been reported by Russian media.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Probable course of events favourable for Russia, provided NATO won't decide to recreate the campaign of Lock On: Modern Air Combat in real life:That seems to be the plan indeed.
1. Pro-Russian protesters take control of regional administrations in Crimea and the South East Ukraine
2. They announce a referendum on seceding from Ukraine.
3. The government in Kiev can't do anything about it, because if they use force, Russia will bomb the shit out of them.
4. The referendum will (obviously) result in separatists winning. Crimea and the South East Ukraine secede.
5. USA and EU rage and threaten sanctions, like in 2008, Putin ignores them.
6. Crimea becomes an semi-independent (and of course unrecognised) state under Russian protection, a-la Abkhazia or South Ossetia. South East Ukraine either becomes a separate state (also backed by Russia) or becomes Russian territory.
Putin is taking a big risk here, but the potential rewards for success are huge. If he wins he secures Crimea (and access to the Black Sea) for Russia, shows the world the Russia is strong, and simultaneously shows that the US and Western Europe are weak and can't be depended on. It would be a major step towards Russia regaining Superpower status in the world.Not so sure about the rewards. It might result in a Cold War 2 climate. The world is more globalized than ever, so economic isolation is not fully possible anymore, especially for Europe, but diplomatically this is pretty risky for Russia.
Post by: olemars on March 03, 2014, 12:49:38 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 12:50:48 pm
Post by: Descan on March 03, 2014, 12:51:26 pm
You'd like that, wouldn't you? ;3Worst case scenario: A chain of allies type-thing leads to a third world war. Not fucking good, especially if someone whips out the nuclear weapons. Bad.Canada take your shirt off, you are playing for the Ruskies now...
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 12:51:43 pm
The tragic irony now is that if this escalates into a shooting war, it's the inhabitants in Crimea that get to be the bulletcatchers.That was never, unfortunately, in doubt, my friend.
Post by: Bouchart on March 03, 2014, 12:52:24 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 12:52:57 pm
It's not a good rescue of repressed minorities if you don't get at least some of them killed by the end.The tragic irony now is that if this escalates into a shooting war, it's the inhabitants in Crimea that get to be the bulletcatchers.That was never, unfortunately, in doubt, my friend.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 12:56:42 pm
It would be interesting to see Russians against a real army, not the one that even more ruined than theirs
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2014, 01:03:26 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 01:09:22 pm
Here? Not much, which is just frustrating. In Afghanistan? In Iraq? In Libya? Especially in Syria?Anyway, yes, the West has done a royal job of screwing shit up, and has overwhelmingly decided NOT to do whatever things would unequivocally make the situation better.What would realistically have made the situation better? I'm not so sure that the West has acted that clever either, but I don't really see what else could have been done. Currently we can only try to negotiate.
A lot.
An example of a nice, easy, clearly good thing would have been throwing their borders wide open to Syrian refugees and helping the great mass of people fleeing the country not die in refugee camps or at least leave miserable lives on the edge of society.
Of course, the countries in the West aren't really keen on doing the right thing, so... that didn't happen.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 01:10:24 pm
Here's another opinion. My sole issue is that the writer does not acknowledge the possibility of russian crimeans wanting to join Russia only because they were mistakenly lead to believe, by propaganda, that the current ukrainian government is hostile to them, i.e. that the division between Ukraine's ethnicities is fabricated.
Post by: da_nang on March 03, 2014, 01:13:53 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 01:14:38 pm
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 01:15:04 pm
http://jackmatlock.com/2014/03/ukraine-the-price-of-internal-division/
Here's another opinion. My sole issue is that the writer does not acknowledge the possibility of russian crimeans wanting to join Russia only because they were mistakenly lead to believe, by propaganda, that the current ukrainian government is hostile to them, i.e. that the division between Ukraine's ethnicities is fabricated.
From what I've read, they're not. There is an honest to goodness 5th column of ultra-nationalists in Ukraine, in the West. The party under which they're gathered control several cabinet positions in government.
So while I think their fears are reasonable, their impact may have been overstated and/or fueled by Russia.
It's just really bizarre because they're on the same side of Ukraine as those who want greater integration with the rest of the EU, who aren't exactly hot on Democratic Socialism after its last incarnation.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 01:18:28 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 03, 2014, 02:03:37 pm
Well, here in France we write his name "Poutine".MonkeyHead, we;re talking about Poutine here. He's crazy.
Putin would be so much more likeable if he were actually Poutine.
Yet nobody finds it funny because we know fuck-all about canadian food. ::)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 02:04:08 pm
Whatever happens, let's blame Germany again, okay?Jokes aside, I think there might really be a lot depending on Germany, or rather on whether Angie can achieve anything with Putin. German-Russian relations aren't great, but at least they still talk, while Putin and Obama are probably beyond that point. Germany has the most to lose with sanctions too, we get a third of our oil and gas respectively from Russia. I hope they can pull something off diplomatically.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 03, 2014, 02:07:31 pm
Post by: Bouchart on March 03, 2014, 02:13:43 pm
Merkel has no backbone.
Putin's response to Merkel would be something like this. (http://vimeo.com/10752016)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 02:18:40 pm
Merkel has no backbone.Got any better ideas than talking? Going around sulking and issuing threats we can't back up doesn't sound promising either.
Putin's response to Merkel would be something like this. (http://vimeo.com/10752016)At least he's not as touchy as Bush II. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQY1Aw9zcs) :P
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 03, 2014, 02:22:44 pm
Merkel has no backbone.Got any better ideas than talking? Going around sulking and issuing threats we can't back up doesn't sound promising either.Putin's response to Merkel would be something like this. (http://vimeo.com/10752016)At least he's not as touchy as Bush II. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQY1Aw9zcs) :P
Quote
Ukraine has asked Nato to look at all possible ways to help it protect its territorial integrity, foreign minister Sergei Deshchiritsya said today.Considering Ukraine has requested NATO help (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/ukraine-seeks-nato-assistance-as-un-meets-1.1709723) and Germany is one of the strongest NATO players in the European realm, I might think they have some leverage here to do something besides idle threats and finger wagging. Or, in Merkel's case, boot-licking.
The minister said he had held talks with officials from the United States and the European Union and then asked Nato for help after what Ukraine’s prime minister described as Russian aggression.
A request had been made to Nato to “look at using all possibilities for protecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and nuclear facilities on Ukrainian territory,” he said.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 02:29:42 pm
Putin's response to Merkel would be something like this. (http://vimeo.com/10752016)
Western Europe has tons of leverage in this situation. Dont mistake restraint for weakness. Unlike Putin most democratically elected leaders would rather swallow their pride then waste tons of blood and treasure.
Post by: Bouchart on March 03, 2014, 02:36:31 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 02:41:40 pm
Would this man needlessly spill blood? (http://adevarul.ro/assets/adevarul.ro/MRImage/2013/06/08/51b325c9c7b855ff566f692f/646x404.jpg)Part of me wants to parody vegans by saying "MEAT IS MURDER".
Because... eating meat is bloodshed... and Putin probably eats meat...
/me shows himself out.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 02:47:36 pm
Considering Ukraine has requested NATO help (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/ukraine-seeks-nato-assistance-as-un-meets-1.1709723) and Germany is one of the strongest NATO players in the European realm, I might think they have some leverage here to do something besides idle threats and finger wagging. Or, in Merkel's case, boot-licking.Right, we could send NATO troops in and start WW3, which should be rather short due to the nukes. You go ahead and do that.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 02:50:42 pm
Right, we could send NATO troops in and start WW3, which should be rather short due to the nukes. You go ahead and do that.
Nukes dont automatically start flying on their own, you know.
Post by: burningpet on March 03, 2014, 02:50:57 pm
btw, i'd take merkel over any other international/domestic leader.
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 02:52:25 pm
Cue Peace Walker.Right, we could send NATO troops in and start WW3, which should be rather short due to the nukes. You go ahead and do that.
Nukes dont automatically start flying on their own, you know.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 03, 2014, 03:00:46 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 03:02:06 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 03:04:03 pm
Well then, what could possibly go wrong? Maybe I could even post here when exactly they start flying, because I live relatively close to an US base. ;)Right, we could send NATO troops in and start WW3, which should be rather short due to the nukes. You go ahead and do that.
Nukes dont automatically start flying on their own, you know.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 03:12:01 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 03:15:36 pm
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 03, 2014, 03:19:58 pm
Post by: Sinistar on March 03, 2014, 03:22:57 pm
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 03, 2014, 03:24:16 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 03, 2014, 03:25:50 pm
... Wait... that's RA3. Damnit.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 03:29:24 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 03:32:25 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 03, 2014, 03:33:15 pm
Post by: olemars on March 03, 2014, 03:48:16 pm
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 03, 2014, 03:51:21 pm
This adventure has apparently already cost Putin's stock market roughly a Sotchi 2014, and that's not counting the 10 billion in sold off gold and currency reserves and 1.5% base interest rate hike to stabilize the ruble.
That's probably the most telling thing that Putin's not going to do anything with Crimea, because otherwise they wouldn't have bothered stabilizing it.
Unless that's just what he wants everyone to think..!
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 03:52:19 pm
Sotchi*eye twitch*
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 03:54:39 pm
That's probably the most telling thing that Putin's not going to do anything with Crimea, because otherwise they wouldn't have bothered stabilizing it.
Huh?
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 03, 2014, 03:59:53 pm
That's probably the most telling thing that Putin's not going to do anything with Crimea, because otherwise they wouldn't have bothered stabilizing it.
Huh?
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the economic instability was caused from just his soldiers being present in Crimea, yes? If he annexes Crimea, or if he further attacks Ukraine, or etc., that would cause more instability unless Russia basically just went "fuck it" and didn't care about the international market. I'm thinking that because they bothered to stabilize it, they actually care about it being unstable, meaning they won't just say "fuck it", meaning they very likely won't do anything with Crimea/Ukraine/etc.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 04:09:25 pm
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the economic instability was caused from just his soldiers being present in Crimea, yes? If he annexes Crimea, or if he further attacks Ukraine, or etc., that would cause more instability unless Russia basically just went "fuck it" and didn't care about the international market. I'm thinking that because they bothered to stabilize it, they actually care about it being unstable, meaning they won't just say "fuck it", meaning they very likely won't do anything with Crimea/Ukraine/etc.That doesn't mean much unfortunately. Of course further escalation would make everything worse economically, but stabilizing the currency would have to be done either way probably.
If that makes you twitch already, we spell it Sotschi.Sotchi*eye twitch*
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 04:11:48 pm
Don't think he didn't know that because of this action the economy would take a hit. When you do something like this, you plan in advance, and calculate what you can do or not. And something obvious as economic instability here and there is the most basic thing you know will happen. He probably also calculated if sanctions will happen.
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 04:20:45 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 04:23:28 pm
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_03/Kherson-Nikolaev-and-Odessa-declare-their-desire-to-join-Crimea-official-5026/I hope you are taking everything official and semiofficial russian media says with a fair sprinkling of salt. Not everything's wrong, but many things are exagerrated or glossed over.
Post by: Little on March 03, 2014, 04:25:31 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 04:27:15 pm
Utter insanity.Aqizzar, did you forget to take your pills again?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 04:29:03 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 04:34:56 pm
Before we overdo it with the silly invasion scenarios - German and Russian FM are currently meeting in Geneva. (https://twitter.com/AuswaertigesAmt/status/440574400006352896)Hm, so I guess we should expect invading German troops two weeks after Russian invasion? ;)
Oh and Yanukovich asked for Russian military assistance to restore law and order in Ukraine. That is announced by Russian ambassador in UN. That is for naive guys who think that Russian aggression will be limited to Crimea
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 04:39:17 pm
Even if that wouldn't turn out to be true, the fact that it's reported in Russian media indicates that there probably indeed are aspirations beyond Crimea.http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_03/Kherson-Nikolaev-and-Odessa-declare-their-desire-to-join-Crimea-official-5026/I hope you are taking everything official and semiofficial russian media says with a fair sprinkling of salt. Not everything's wrong, but many things are exagerrated or glossed over.
Oh and Yanukovich asked for Russian military assistance to restore law and order in Ukraine. That is announced by Russian ambassador in UN. That is for naive guys who think that Russian aggression will be limited to CrimeaI agree that's what it looks like. They are creating a massive amount of pretext for a takeover.
Hm, so I guess we should expect invading German troops two weeks after Russian invasion? ;)Just like good old times. ;)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 05:05:24 pm
1) It destroys the whole nuclear non-proliferation thing. Remember that Ukraine gave up it's nukes in exchange for a treaty that said Russia would NOT do what they are rather explicitly doing. The thing they would not be doing if Ukraine had not given up it's nukes (probably). All those non-nuclear states are suddenly going to see the idea of obtaining their own nukes as a LOT more attractive, and if they've still got any they are gonna hold them as tightly as possible. The idea of giving up your nukes in exchange for assurances is now completely, 100% dead.
2) It establishes that we are perfectly okay with Russia carving off chunks off one of their neighbours. I'm not sure how the historical memory is for some of those here who are saying it's not so bad (or worse than the actions of other countries in recent years), but this is literally how World War II got started, with what amounted to an official policy of appeasement, in Manchuria and the Rhineland. If Russia encounters no existence here, such activity will be considered acceptable - the Overton Window will shift. This is... bad. Exceptionally bad. Escalation is the major worry here - with as tepid a response as we have seen, why would any rational expansionist leader NOT push further? If Russia stops with Crimea, maybe this worry will be allayed.. but with the minimal amount of opposition they are getting here, why would they stop? The US may have gotten cocky, but thanks to their complete incompetence handling Iraq and Afghanistan, both conflicts destroyed our desire for intervention overseas as a nation for at least a little while - Libya was only palatable because we didn't send in any troops, and it was still unpopular. Russia seems to be suffering no such weariness, and in fact this action seems only to be feeding into the new Russian mythos. Especially if they manage a completely bloodless annexation, popular support for such activity seems like it will remain quite strong.
The main hope right now is that they secure Crimea, get the port, and that's it. If they make no greater moves, if they are satisfied with that, we're probably okay. I'm just not all that sure that will be the case right now. And if they do decide to invade the Ukraine as a whole, they get into a quagmire situation like the US did in Iraq - but that would be TERRIBLE for Ukraine, unbelievably so.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 05:07:41 pm
He's not that crazy. I hope. Oh, hell, I don't, this is Putin.
Anyway, I just talked to my dad and he thinks that this entire situation is Putin enacting vengeance on the English government after it broke the terms of the secret pact it made wih Putin and let the ukrainian uprising it sponsored remove Yanukovich.
EDIT: World War 3, I believe, is unlikely as both NATO and Russia have a lot of nukes. There certainly may be war in Ukraine if Dobbyface goes full retard, but the world won't all go to war. Hopefully.
There is another issue that will go against Putin if he starts a world war, even if it won't involve nukes - russian military is corrupt, inefficient, underequipped and not at all ready to combat the professional armies of NATO members. The spending, factoring in misappropriation, is not that great. And let's not get into the issue of morale: most of the soldiers are conscripts with no real stake in the war.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 03, 2014, 05:11:41 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 05:14:11 pm
Anyway, I just talked to my dad and he thinks that this entire situation is Putin enacting vengeance on the English government after it broke the terms of the secret pact it made wih Putin and let the ukrainian uprising it sponsored remove Yanukovich.
Has there actually been any evidence that the UK sponsored any sort of uprising? Not sure what you are talking about here.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 05:19:00 pm
Anyway, I just talked to my dad and he thinks that this entire situation is Putin enacting vengeance on the English government after it broke the terms of the secret pact it made wih Putin and let the ukrainian uprising it sponsored remove Yanukovich.
Has there actually been any evidence that the UK sponsored any sort of uprising? Not sure what you are talking about here.
My dad likes to think that the absolute majority of events that happen in Europe nowadays are orchestrated by Putin and the English in their eternal power struggle.
Well, not secret. I mean, there was an official agreement the day before Yanukovich fled.That's intersting. Could you please elaborate?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 05:19:32 pm
It's the Russian media saying that the West (not the UK specifically) sponsored the revolution in Kiev. There have even been reports about troops from western countries showing up on Maidan. This is of course an enormous exaggeration, the West did support the opposition in Kiev diplomatically, but that's pretty much it.Anyway, I just talked to my dad and he thinks that this entire situation is Putin enacting vengeance on the English government after it broke the terms of the secret pact it made wih Putin and let the ukrainian uprising it sponsored remove Yanukovich.
Has there actually been any evidence that the UK sponsored any sort of uprising? Not sure what you are talking about here.
The agreement refers to the deal the EU brokered with the protesters and Yanukovych. That deal was indeed broken, which is why Russia can argue that the current government is illegitimate. Why exactly it was broken is a bit unclear, one the one hand Yanukovych just disappeared after signing it, on the other hand the protesters wouldn't accept possibly keeping him till the end of the year and his own party did turn against him.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 05:22:27 pm
2) It establishes that we are perfectly okay with Russia carving off chunks off one of their neighbours.
No, it establishes that there is middle ground between nothing and WWIII.
At the end of the day you are going to have a Ukraine that just lost it's strongest dissidents and gotten propped up by western aid on the one hand while Russia will be economically weakened and gained a tiny patch of land. It's not like Putin is just tossing his weight around with consequences. He's actually tossing his weight around in a hamfisted fashion, wasting the influence his petrowealth has given Russia on small potatoes.
Post by: gigaraptor487 on March 03, 2014, 05:24:39 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 05:25:58 pm
Regardless, I do not believe that Russia will start a new world war because even with nukes, it cannot take on the entire NATO. It certainly can fight Ukraine alone, but this will probably be another "Winter War".
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 05:27:49 pm
There is another issue that will go against Putin if he starts a world war, even if it won't involve nukes - russian military is corrupt, inefficient, underequipped and not at all ready to combat the professional armies of NATO members. The spending, factoring in misappropriation, is not that great. And let's not get into the issue of morale: most of the soldiers are conscripts with no real stake in the war.
Eh, NATO members haven't been much more active than russia as far as military ops go. Russia had georgia, NATO had afghanistan & libya.
Spending won't be much better either- no one's really keen on building up their military, (or at least they weren't..).
The real problems are the nukes foremost, and if we discount those then
This pretending the rest of the world doesn't get rustled.
Though on second thought, I'm probably sticking my foot in my mouth there.
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 05:32:14 pm
For those who don't understand the larger-scale reasons for why this whole thing may be bad:Dude, looks like you dont understand, or you are very naive or new to this.
1) It destroys the whole nuclear non-proliferation thing. Remember that Ukraine gave up it's nukes in exchange for a treaty that said Russia would NOT do what they are rather explicitly doing. The thing they would not be doing if Ukraine had not given up it's nukes (probably). All those non-nuclear states are suddenly going to see the idea of obtaining their own nukes as a LOT more attractive, and if they've still got any they are gonna hold them as tightly as possible. The idea of giving up your nukes in exchange for assurances is now completely, 100% dead.
2) It establishes that we are perfectly okay with Russia carving off chunks off one of their neighbours. I'm not sure how the historical memory is for some of those here who are saying it's not so bad (or worse than the actions of other countries in recent years), but this is literally how World War II got started, with what amounted to an official policy of appeasement, in Manchuria and the Rhineland. If Russia encounters no existence here, such activity will be considered acceptable - the Overton Window will shift. This is... bad. Exceptionally bad. Escalation is the major worry here - with as tepid a response as we have seen, why would any rational expansionist leader NOT push further? If Russia stops with Crimea, maybe this worry will be allayed.. but with the minimal amount of opposition they are getting here, why would they stop? The US may have gotten cocky, but thanks to their complete incompetence handling Iraq and Afghanistan, both conflicts destroyed our desire for intervention overseas as a nation for at least a little while - Libya was only palatable because we didn't send in any troops, and it was still unpopular. Russia seems to be suffering no such weariness, and in fact this action seems only to be feeding into the new Russian mythos. Especially if they manage a completely bloodless annexation, popular support for such activity seems like it will remain quite strong.
1) Its not a problem. All those non nuclear stats dont have money to get it anyway. And the ones that have are already in nato, or are trying to get it (against nato or similar). Its not a big thing in any way.
2) First, world war did not start because of it. Second the reason there is no defence is the fact that people in that region are pro russian and wont to separate from the ukrain for whatever reason. Russia will not carve a chunk from a country. They are there to "protect" them. The country will have a referendum if it wants to get separated or not. So its not as bad as you make it again.
Russia is not going for territory that doesn't want to be separated, but the ones that want. That is a key difference and why it doesnt look that bad, and why there is no huge resistance for now.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 05:35:12 pm
Spoiler: Russian text (click to show/hide)
Here an Israeli citizen* jokingly asks Putin to go ahead and defend more than million of Israeli Russian Speaking citizens. It's a good piece of humor but I am too lazy to try and translate that.
* Or one who pretends that he is one
Post by: PanH on March 03, 2014, 05:40:39 pm
Second the reason there is no defence is the fact that people in that region are pro russian and wont to separate from the ukrain for whatever reason. Russia will not carve a chunk from a country. They are there to "protect" them. The country will have a referendum if it wants to get separated or not. So its not as bad as you make it again.Then, why did they invaded Crimea before it could hold the referendum ? There was nothing that threatened ethnic russians from Crimea at that point.
Russia is not going for territory that doesn't want to be separated, but the ones that want. That is a key difference and why it doesnt look that bad, and why there is no huge resistance for now.
If you want to respect people's right to govern themselves, you might want for them to express their opinion before pre-emptively annexing them.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 03, 2014, 05:41:44 pm
2) First, world war did not start because of it. Second the reason there is no defence is the fact that people in that region are pro russian and wont to separate from the ukrain for whatever reason. Russia will not carve a chunk from a country. They are there to "protect" them. The country will have a referendum if it wants to get separated or not. So its not as bad as you make it again.I'm not sure how much legitimacy a vote while under foreign occupation will manage, honestly.
Also, Yanukovich seems to think the Russians are acting on his orders and will soon return the entirety of the Ukraine to his control. But I'm hoping he, unlike Putin, is just crazy.
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 05:47:37 pm
If people want it, then it's legit. Is russian military there or not doesn't say much, especially as you need to remember that they called russian to come there in first place.2) First, world war did not start because of it. Second the reason there is no defence is the fact that people in that region are pro russian and wont to separate from the ukrain for whatever reason. Russia will not carve a chunk from a country. They are there to "protect" them. The country will have a referendum if it wants to get separated or not. So its not as bad as you make it again.I'm not sure how much legitimacy a vote while under foreign occupation will manage, honestly.
But when one does it, it will be a chain reaction where other will follow.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 05:58:01 pm
Like how those libyan rebels wanted US/NATO help? They were pleading for it. Remember that? When the cities were being boxed-in and shelled?
Unlike in Crimea?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 06:00:41 pm
Er, when did Crimea call for Russian aid?The Crimean government did call for Russian aid. They just didn't really have a reason to do it, because there wasn't any threat. Even if there had been a threat, Russian diplomacy alone could have protected them.
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 06:01:09 pm
Not against the Right Sector, I fear.Er, when did Crimea call for Russian aid?The Crimean government did call for Russian aid. They just didn't really have a reason to do it, because there wasn't any threat. Even if there had been a threat, Russian diplomacy alone could have protected them.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:02:25 pm
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 06:04:04 pm
Er, when did Crimea call for Russian aid?
Like how those libyan rebels wanted US/NATO help? They were pleading for it. Remember that? When the cities were being boxed-in and shelled?
Unlike in Crimea?
They called help for russia. Thats why this happend in the first place, as they are scared of changes in the west and from so called nacis or dont know the names
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 03, 2014, 06:04:26 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:06:07 pm
snip
They called help for russia. Thats why this happend in the first place, as they are scared of changes in the west and from so called nacis or dont know the names
I'd like a source for when help was requested and who requested it.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 06:09:44 pm
Not against the Right Sector, I fear.The Right Sector didn't look so powerful to me after the new government was in place, certainly not in Crimea. With this kind of pressure Russia is making the Right Sector stronger than it would have been under a new government after a time of consolidation and return to a somewhat normal situation.
I'd like a source for when help was requested and who requested it.This has come up plenty in the thread several pages ago, here's one. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26397323)
Post by: boki on March 03, 2014, 06:14:39 pm
No, they didn't.
Not correct
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/ukraine-crimea-leader-asks-putin-help-20143184757803489.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/crimeas-leader-claims-control-asks-russias-vladimir-putin-for-help/
http://news.yahoo.com/crimean-leader-claims-control-asks-putin-help-070848315.html
Post by: Lt_Alfred on March 03, 2014, 06:20:52 pm
Post by: palsch on March 03, 2014, 06:21:37 pm
Quote
Feb. 26: Leaders of Ukraine's protest movement propose legislator Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister. In Moscow, Putin orders major military exercises just across the border.So you basically have two days of unidentified gunmen in control of Crimean government building before that invitation goes out. Given the gunmen were aligned with if not actually Russian that does throw the legitimacy of those appeals into question.
Feb. 27: Masked gunmen seize regional parliament and government buildings in Crimea. Ukraine's government pledges to prevent a national breakup with strong backing from the West. Yanukovych is granted refuge in Russia.
Feb. 28: Ukraine says Russian troops have taken up positions around strategic locations on the Crimean peninsula. Ukraine's parliament adopts a resolution demanding that Russia halt steps it says are aimed against Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Turchynov says he has put armed forces on full readiness because of the threat of "potential aggression."
March 1: Russian troops take over Crimea without firing a shot. The Kyiv government and its Western supporters are powerless to react. U.S. President Barack Obama calls Putin to demand the troops' withdrawal.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:23:46 pm
Here's a bit from wikipedia about the self-proclaimed Crimean leader:
Quote
Aksyonov claims that he was voted into office during the 2014 Crimean crisis while the Council of Ministers of Crimea was under siege by Russian paramilitary agents.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Aksyonov
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 06:28:07 pm
So you basically have two days of unidentified gunmen in control of Crimean government building before that invitation goes out. Given the gunmen were aligned with if not actually Russian that does throw the legitimacy of those appeals into question.The legitimacy of a lot of things is questionable here. Unfortunately that also goes for the government in Kiev.
There were calls for Russian assistance in Crimea earlier, we talked about it in the thread many pages ago. For example this article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26321329)mentions pro-russian politicians calling for Russian help, it was nothing official though.
Of course the calls for help, legitimate or not, don't really justify what's going on now.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 06:38:56 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:44:22 pm
What constitutes a 'technically legitimate excuse'?
Was there official anti-rus-crimean rhetoric?
Were they being rounded up?
Were they being shot?
Post by: Bouchart on March 03, 2014, 06:45:13 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:47:46 pm
Post by: miljan on March 03, 2014, 06:48:43 pm
The 'official' one is illegitimate. Plain as day.So russ need to send few masked ones to kill few of them, so it looks more legit and than to invade? Hey, they are not USA :D.
What constitutes a 'technically legitimate excuse'?
Was there official anti-rus-crimean rhetoric?
Were they being rounded up?
Were they being shot?
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 06:49:07 pm
EDIT: ninja'd
So russ need to send few masked ones to kill few of them, so it looks more legit and than to invade? Hey, they are not USA :D.If there's one thing I am willing to thank Putin for, it's that he never actually outright commits mass murders. Repression? Yes. All the other underhanded tricks in a dictator's arsenal? Yes. But he never sends people to concentration camps or just has them shot like Stalin did, aside from occasionally having some guy die of radioactive isotope poisoning.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 06:50:16 pm
The 'official' one is illegitimate. Plain as day.Nothing really bad happened, except that there were some clashes between pro-Maidan Tartars and pro-Russian protesters in Crimea. Basically a lot of people in Crimea don't accept the government in Kiev. Said government also almost repealed a law which makes Russian a 2nd official language, which was a rather bad signal.
What constitutes a 'technically legitimate excuse'?
Was there official anti-rus-crimean rhetoric?
Were they being rounded up?
Were they being shot?
Technically Yanukovych is still President, so the government in Kiev is illegitimate on constitutional grounds. The West has basically accepted that government, Russia has not.
Post by: miljan on March 03, 2014, 06:50:51 pm
There's been no fighting because the Ukraine/crimean troops were specifically ordered not to fight in fear of a making an excuse for a much larger 'intervention' by the hundred-thousand-plus russian troops exercising right on the border.
Or there is actually support that they be there.Don't forget military desertion,and unrest and pro russian protest also in that region.
The fact is there is support for them, it's blind to think otherwise.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 06:53:25 pm
From what correspondents are saying, there is indeed support from the Russian population in Crimea. The Ukrainian and Tartarian minorities are not very happy of course.There's been no fighting because the Ukraine/crimean troops were specifically ordered not to fight in fear of a making an excuse for a much larger 'intervention' by the hundred-thousand-plus russian troops exercising right on the border.
Or there is actually support that they be there.Don't forget military desertion,and unrest and pro russian protest also in that region.
Post by: miljan on March 03, 2014, 06:55:38 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 06:59:44 pm
In what incident are you implying the USA did that? Was it recent?
Miljan, they were ordered to resist responding to russian 'provocations'. That means no shooting, that means stay in your base.
That does not mean they're happy jubilant russia-lovers.
What military desertion, aside from the unsuccessful naval chief?
Funny story: boki here is outraged when the west intervenes in countries that are slaughtering their own civilians with tanks and aircraft, and you cite 'unrest and pro-russian protests' as grounds for an invasion?
Also, socks, so that's what the 'language' thing was eh? Yeah that seems stupid. Trying to appease the right-wingers?
Post by: Bouchart on March 03, 2014, 07:00:54 pm
There's been no fighting because the Ukraine/crimean troops were specifically ordered not to fight in fear of making an excuse for a much larger 'intervention' by the hundred-thousand-plus russian troops exercising right on the border.
We're talking about a very fluid situation with "fog of war" and all that entails, along with emotions running high. If there were not popular support, there probably would have been skirmishes by now, regardless of any standing orders.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 07:04:37 pm
Quote
Ukrainians are mobilising everyoneNope, only military specialists are called up. Plus volunteers are coming in recruitment offices but majority get turned down with their data noted and "we'll call you later if you'll be needed"
Post by: olemars on March 03, 2014, 07:05:14 pm
Also listened a bit to the Moldovan representative to the UNSC, and apparently Putin is ramping up meddling around their territory as well.
e: Also no support for Putin to be found from the Chinese.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 07:10:28 pm
Also listened a bit to the Moldovan representative to the UNSC, and apparently Putin is ramping up meddling around their territory as well.I guess something like this is looming over all former Soviet states, with the exception of NATO members like the Baltic states. Ukraine is just the biggest piece of the cake.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 07:10:51 pm
Quote
so that's what the 'language' thing was eh? Yeah that seems stupid. Trying to appease the right-wingers?It is utter nonsense bloated by Russian propaganda, it was returning from 2011 language law to 1989 language law. It was totally fine for 20+ years but now it is
And Languages in Crimea is regulated by local laws, one of the advantages their current autonomy provides. So that law had no effect on them
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 07:13:10 pm
snip
We're talking about a very fluid situation with "fog of war" and all that entails, along with emotions running high. If there were not popular support, there probably would have been skirmishes by now, regardless of any standing orders.
Popular support isn't the reason why there wasn't any fighting. The Ukrainian troops that are surrounded in their bases are prepared to defend themselves, but are ordered not to start anything.
The lack of accidents is a weak argument for 'they're welcoming them as liberators'.
Post by: miljan on March 03, 2014, 07:14:11 pm
@miljanNahh, no proofs of that (you will never find any proofs of it, or very little from CIA part in the past, coold war and crap like that).
In what incident are you implying the USA did that? Was it recent?
Miljan, they were ordered to resist responding to russian 'provocations'. That means no shooting, that means stay in your base.
That does not mean they're happy jubilant russia-lovers.
What military desertion, aside from the unsuccessful naval chief?
Funny story: boki here is outraged when the west intervenes in countries that are slaughtering their own civilians with tanks and aircraft, and you cite 'unrest and pro-russian protests' as grounds for an invasion?
And I am not talking about Uk soldiers, but people that live there. And also some soldiers, as there are more posts about it
The Ukrainian Air Force 240th tactical aviation brigade based near Sevastopol has switched allegiance to the authorities of Crimea
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1571805
Also dude, read very carefully what i write. 'unrest and pro-russian protests' is not ground for any invasion, but it is what it is, and it does not make this just a normal occupation because of it. You may like it or hate it, but the fact is they are pro russian regions and that makes it more easier for russia to move there
Post by: XXSockXX on March 03, 2014, 07:16:02 pm
At least the timing was really stupid. That's why it was overturned by the Acting President. It didn't do anything, but it was a bad signal in a tense situation.Quoteso that's what the 'language' thing was eh? Yeah that seems stupid. Trying to appease the right-wingers?It is utter nonsense bloated by Russian propaganda, it was returning from 2011 language law to 1989 language law. It was totally fine for 20+ years but now it is "banning" Russian language.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 07:17:53 pm
Quote from: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1571805
a spokesman for the local authorities told Interfax.So, Russian media is a source
Should I explain what it means?
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 07:19:18 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 07:24:45 pm
Something tells me something will happen in two hours.Three hours. If war to start today it will begin in three hours. There are a lot of info on unofficial Russian ultimatum to our bases. Surrender or be assaulted after 5:00 local time. Russians denied that they issued that and that makes me worry even more because if Russian say something that usually means an opposite thing
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 07:34:30 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 07:37:54 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 07:38:47 pm
Quote
"You guy are all so cynical. There is an important principle at stake here. I'm sure the entire EU is prepared to fight all the way down to the last American soldier to defend it."
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 07:39:58 pm
Also dude, read very carefully what i write. 'unrest and pro-russian protests' is not ground for any invasion, but it is what it is, and it does not make this just a normal occupation because of it. You may like it or hate it, but the fact is they are pro russian regions and that makes it more easier for russia to move thereFair enough, wasn't so much disputing the russian crimeans supporting the occupation, so much as presenting the 'cold invasion' as evidence of massive popular support.
And also pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning the west's recent military activities and praising this one.
Yeah, seems to be what everyone cites, but I wouldn't dismiss it outright.Quote from: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1571805a spokesman for the local authorities told Interfax.So, Russian media is a source
Should I explain what it means?
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 07:43:54 pm
Interesting quote @ people doubting the EU will take actions:The EU is always willing to act if it means siccing America at people. /jokeQuote"You guy are all so cynical. There is an important principle at stake here. I'm sure the entire EU is prepared to fight all the way down to the last American soldier to defend it."
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 07:47:35 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 03, 2014, 07:49:21 pm
Win-win situation really.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 07:50:34 pm
EU is apparently american now. What next? Australia will use Chinese soldiers to fight off the Indians?Pft, they've been doing that all along.
Honestly I thought that was kind of the whole point of NATO. The US get's to be all warmongery without the Europeans bitching about it, and in return the Americans defend the Europeans.Yep, something like that. Plus the US get to benefit from EU's pansy-ish diplomacy. Good-cop bad-cop style.
Win-win situation really.
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 07:51:22 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 07:53:08 pm
It's win-win until the nukes come. Then it's lose-lose-nope, still lose-lose again, damn-it's losing all the way down.There are one little win. : Survivors will have a chance to build better civilization than this shitty one
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 07:54:46 pm
It's win-win until the nukes come. Then it's lose-lose-nope, still lose-lose again, damn-it's losing all the way down.The nukes are unlikely to be used until it's a full-out extermination war precisely for that reason.
The civilisation we have is pretty okay, actually. If you think Putin is bad, you should've seen Stalin.It's win-win until the nukes come. Then it's lose-lose-nope, still lose-lose again, damn-it's losing all the way down.There are one little win. : Survivors will have a chance to build better civilization than this shitty one
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2014, 07:56:58 pm
Post by: teloft on March 03, 2014, 08:00:15 pm
Finland was part of Sweden, then Russia, then Independence. Able to play a balancing game to keep both interests active. While this was still before the revolution, my history knowledge is mostly focused on the Nordic countries.Will there be an independent Crimea as there was an independent Finland?Explain independent finland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Declaration_of_Independence
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 03, 2014, 08:07:31 pm
Quote
I meant that NATO can't get involved because the NATO getting involved automatically means nukesWe have no precedent of direct war between two nuclear powers but we have a precedent of WW2 and chemical weapons. Hitler never used his stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Not that I think that NATO-Russian war is possible in the near future.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 08:16:11 pm
I meant that NATO can't get involved because the NATO getting involved automatically means nukes and that can't be allowed to happen. So NATO cannot do anything in this situation. Unless they are suicidal.
Nukes dont automatically start flying on their own, you know.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 03, 2014, 08:24:16 pm
This.The civilisation we have is pretty okay, actually. If you think Putin is bad, you should've seen Stalin.It's win-win until the nukes come. Then it's lose-lose-nope, still lose-lose again, damn-it's losing all the way down.There are one little win. : Survivors will have a chance to build better civilization than this shitty one
Or even before then. We're kinda in a golden age, at least the wealthiest countries are.
The nukes don't fly on their own but they'd be on a hair-trigger. Not nearly as much as in the cold-war though-- the reason why nukes were virtually guaranteed back then was because russia had this enormous goddamn army. There was literally no way the NATO could keep them from crushing in all the way to the Atlantic within two weeks.
So, nukes.
Russia actually signed the 'we'll never use nukes first' treaty & invited the USA to do the same; they didn't exactly fall for the trick.
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 08:27:05 pm
If you are optimistic, my friend, then we all should be, too.QuoteI meant that NATO can't get involved because the NATO getting involved automatically means nukesWe have no precedent of direct war between two nuclear powers but we have a precedent of WW2 and chemical weapons. Hitler never used his stockpiles of chemical weapons.
Not that I think that NATO-Russian war is possible in the near future.
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2014, 08:28:30 pm
What worries me is the idea that Putin might eventually destabilize and anger enough people with his antics that he winds up creating a revolution in his own country... It's not terribly likely right now, but it could happen, and then we might have a huge problem, there's few things in this world as dangerous as a dictator that's being pushed out of office.
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 08:31:50 pm
The nukes don't fly on their own but they'd be on a hair-trigger.
We wouldn't exactly be talking defcon 5 (probably defcon 3) but neither side would be facing an existential threat that could get the nukes flying.
Post by: ibot66 on March 03, 2014, 08:46:03 pm
Or four or whatever.
Post by: alway on March 03, 2014, 08:55:37 pm
There have actually been fewer wars in the past decade worldwide than there has been in any time period since... basically all of recorded history. Things are pretty shit sometimes, especially in some places. But overall things are actually pretty damn good, and hopefully getting better... at least if Putin doesn't spark WW3.I actually am beginning to think it's exactly the opposite. Putin is seeing these rebellions in a lot of states, both allied and not. He's also seeing similar dissatisfaction rising in his own country. I suspect this is as much to weave a unifying tale of an external evil threatening Russia in order to keep himself in power as much as it is anything else. As such, I fully expect to see Russia take Crimea in one fell swoop in order to claim victory, then the rest of Ukraine left to govern itself, being threatened by Russia and branded a rising Nazi power in the Russia media, to be eventually disposed if/when internal politics require another big victory to solidify support. It could extend his reign by at least 3 years.
What worries me is the idea that Putin might eventually destabilize and anger enough people with his antics that he winds up creating a revolution in his own country... It's not terribly likely right now, but it could happen, and then we might have a huge problem, there's few things in this world as dangerous as a dictator that's being pushed out of office.
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2014, 09:14:51 pm
It probably doesn't help that opponents of the Russian government or it's policies seem to have a strong tendency to be assassinated or imprisoned.
Post by: KingBacon on March 03, 2014, 09:26:46 pm
Also, isn't it also weird that Russia is intervening militarily so close to the Olympics again?
Post by: Pnx on March 03, 2014, 09:34:27 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 09:34:48 pm
Is it me or does this whole series of events seem like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel?You know, the funny thing about conspiracy theorists is that they assume that all malevolent rulers are hypercompetent, while they clearly aren't. Here's one example of a blunder on a dictator's behalf - by invading Ukraine right after the olympics, Putin has made everyone forget about them and thus utterly destroyed any positive PR he might've gotten from the event.
Also, isn't it also weird that Russia is intervening militarily so close to the Olympics again?
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 09:36:44 pm
Is it me or does this whole series of events seem like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel?
Not really, the domestic politics of Ukraine aren't one dimensional and the personalities of the world leaders aren't national stereotypes.
Post by: smirk on March 03, 2014, 10:04:09 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 03, 2014, 10:07:46 pm
To give ol' Moustachio credit, he got better during the course of the Great Patriotic War, learning to trust his command staff more. As opposed to Hitler, who went in the opposite direction - from supervising to micromanaging. We all know how it ended.Stalin frequently overruled his general's commands so he could play commander. Badly.Is it me or does this whole series of events seem like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel?You know, the funny thing about conspiracy theorists is that they assume that all malevolent rulers are hypercompetent, while they clearly aren't. Here's one example of a blunder on a dictator's behalf - by invading Ukraine right after the olympics, Putin has made everyone forget about them and thus utterly destroyed any positive PR he might've gotten from the event.
Also, isn't it also weird that Russia is intervening militarily so close to the Olympics again?
Post by: mainiac on March 03, 2014, 10:36:14 pm
To give ol' Moustachio credit, he got better during the course of the Great Patriotic War, learning to trust his command staff more. As opposed to Hitler, who went in the opposite direction - from supervising to micromanaging. We all know how it ended.
Or maybe Hitler was just an idiot all along but he was a lucky idiot at the start? He made a number of reckless moves. Look at North Africa. Logistically it was an utter impossibility to win and holding a strip of desert in Libya had no economic value. So why send 10% of your trucks there when they are needed in Russia?
Post by: ibot66 on March 03, 2014, 10:49:22 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 03, 2014, 10:54:22 pm
On the bright side, it highlights Rommel's prowess as a commander even more.To give ol' Moustachio credit, he got better during the course of the Great Patriotic War, learning to trust his command staff more. As opposed to Hitler, who went in the opposite direction - from supervising to micromanaging. We all know how it ended.
Or maybe Hitler was just an idiot all along but he was a lucky idiot at the start? He made a number of reckless moves. Look at North Africa. Logistically it was an utter impossibility to win and holding a strip of desert in Libya had no economic value. So why send 10% of your trucks there when they are needed in Russia?
Post by: nenjin on March 03, 2014, 11:19:39 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2014, 12:02:06 am
If they had taken the Suez Canal that would have been strategically useful. Also, if panzer general is to be believed, invading Russia via the caucuses.
So if Rommel had just magically found an engine that ran on desert sand?
Rommel was being supplied by Sirte and no other port could handle more then a fraction of his supply unless he overran the british naval bases in central egypt. That's a distance of around 1500km through desert. Rommel simply could not supply enough of an attack to dislodge the British in Egypt. The British on the other hand could supply by water and build rails. Tactics win medals, logistics win wars.
There was hope of taking egypt before the Italian fleet was decimated and they lost any hope of forward supply. But by the time Rommel got there it was just wasting trucks and gas in the desert.
Post by: smirk on March 04, 2014, 12:18:37 am
Of course, in the words of a much better person than myself, we're still just waiting for the hammer to fall (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9PCXVZto18).
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 03:16:44 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 03:50:31 am
While it means that troops amassed on our borders will move away it doesn't mean that Crimean crisis is over
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 03:53:29 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 04, 2014, 03:57:47 am
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 04:00:55 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 04, 2014, 04:03:37 am
Indeed UR
Yeah sheb. And just threatening that is an opening salvo.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 04:16:48 am
I'm not sure if they mistranslated the question, or if they really hope to just confuse the population into submission.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 04:25:34 am
You don't understand their twisted strategy
If they get "no" - that means that Crimeans don't want to be a part of Ukraine
If they get "yes" that means that Crimeans want to become a sovereign state
Win-win
What do you expect from the "government" that has a criminal nicknamed "Goblin" as a Prime Minister? Russians should find better puppets
And better diplomats
Quote from: UN ambassador Churkin
When it comes to Ukraine, US authorities are fooled by lies from American media
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 04:42:40 am
Just listened to the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuriy_A._Sergeyev) (who has had the job since 2007) at the post-UNSC-meeting press conference, and he made a convincing case for why the language law issue had nothing to do with the russian language at all, that it was right to repeal it and replace it with the originally intended law (which was to align ukrainian language protections with EU frameworks), but the timing was stupid.
Also listened a bit to the Moldovan representative to the UNSC, and apparently Putin is ramping up meddling around their territory as well.
e: Also no support for Putin to be found from the Chinese.
Webcast of press conference by Ukrainian UN ambassador now available here (http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/security-council/watch/yuriy-sergeyev-ukraine-on-ukraine-security-council-media-stakeout-3-march-2014/3287795900001). The language law question starts at 25:30.
Russian ambassador's press conference statements (http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/security-council/watch/vitaly-churkin-russian-federation-on-ukraine-security-council-media-stakeout-3-march-2014/3287686187001).
Here's also what the Moldovan ambassador said (http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/security-council/watch/vladimir-lupan-moldova-on-ukraine-security-council-media-stakeout-3-march-2014/3287925739001), which is interesting in context.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2014, 04:47:13 am
Russian President's economic advisor Sergei Glazyev stated that if the United States applies economic sanctions to Russia, it will retaliate by ceasing payments for credits taken by Russian citizens and businesses in American banks, immediately selling all US Treasury securities held by Russia (it currently holds about 138 billion dollars worth of them) and ceasing to use dollars in all Russian monetary exchanges and transactions (Russian link) (http://ria.ru/economy/20140304/998048715.html)
Oh, so economic war. By the way, wouldn't Russia lose tremendous amount of cash if it dumped all its Treasuries bills at once?
Well, it's the threat that counts. Unless China or some other country accounts for that massive dump, then we will see massive problems all over the world. Hell, this would simply be a second economic collapse.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 05:36:04 am
Since as I said before Russia won't assimilate into the West, Putin understandably feel more and more isolated. After all, he may have taken Crimea, but over the last months he lost the rest of Ukraine.
(Fun fact: the West now stretch all the way to 25° East.)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 06:04:12 am
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 06:24:36 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 06:32:18 am
Dear Putin, *****, *******, *****, ******, ********
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2014, 06:47:08 am
Since Ukraine couldn't afford to pay for Russian gas, Gazprom has cancelled the December bailout agreement, and is reverting to the earlier price of $400 per thousand cubic metres negotiated in the 2009 agreements. This is quite a bit higher than 280$ dollar per thousand cubic meter they paid from December till now.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 06:50:23 am
Post by: Darvi on March 04, 2014, 06:51:53 am
SCNR
Post by: Duuvian on March 04, 2014, 06:52:36 am
Despite this I think the West should, if it appears necessary, at least agree to guarantee Ukraine with the exception of any part voting itself out of Ukraine by ballot. That guarantee would help make an occupation past Crimea less likely. If Putin is REALLY determined to keep trying to control more of Ukraine past Crimea he might encourage or take advantage of an uprising in the East of Ukraine against Kiev in the hope the new government makes similar mistakes in using violence. (However his latest statements this morning show no sign of any wish for this to happen.) By allowing a region like Crimea to leave by ballot Ukraine doesn't have to fight Russia, Putin doesn't have to spill any blood, civil strife in Ukraine is minimized and if the voting is fair the population that lives in an area chooses what happens to that area. For it to be fair there shouldn't be armed people influencing the vote and all sides of the vote should be able to run campaigns in the press. Ukraine would have to change it's Constitution as it has a chapter that any territorial changes must be approved by a nationwide referendum.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 06:54:12 am
I guess that means all loans and deals with Russia are canceled, too.
He is crazy
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2014, 07:00:16 am
Which means Russia broke the 2010 Kharkiv agreement that extend the lease for the Sevastopol base. So if Russia doesn't secure Crimean independence, they may lose their base in 2017.Nope, they didn't. Or well, not now. Ukraine paid 400$ per per thousand cubic metres in 2013, so the discount appears to have disappeared much earlier. They have this nice loophole that Ukraine not paying(because it can't afford it) means that Ukraine technically fails to comply with agreement, which means they get to increase their prices.
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 07:12:58 am
Not sure if these feeds work outside Norway but here's an earlier clip of a confrontation between unarmed ukrainian air force personnel trying to get into the base and the blockading soldiers firing warning shots at them (http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/78288/her-skyter-russiske-soldater-varselskudd-mot-ubevaepnede-ukrainske-soldater).
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 04, 2014, 08:25:56 am
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 08:49:55 am
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 09:16:14 am
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 09:40:07 am
Post by: timferius on March 04, 2014, 09:48:39 am
Post by: Steelmagic on March 04, 2014, 09:49:55 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 04, 2014, 10:08:04 am
Interesting article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/02/putin-is-losing-in-ukraine-and-thats-our-biggest-problem-right-now/), making the point that Putin ain't so much a chessmaster trying to take over the Free World(tm) as scrambling to save what can be saved of Russian influence in the region. After all, 25 years ago, Moscow controlled the whole Black Sea coast save for Turkey. Now, with Georgia definitely West and Ukraine heading that way too, all that's left is a small stretch of Russian coast and Abkhazia. The same dynamic is at play all over Europe, with the west (in the guise of the EU and NATO) surging eastward over the last 25 years.This
Since as I said before Russia won't assimilate into the West, Putin understandably feel more and more isolated. After all, he may have taken Crimea, but over the last months he lost the rest of Ukraine.
(Fun fact: the West now stretch all the way to 25° East.)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 04, 2014, 10:15:09 am
Because of course the frigate has a Facebook page...I want to sig this...
Post by: Ghazkull on March 04, 2014, 10:20:14 am
But honestly if i were in UR's shoes i'd start loading a rifle or dust off the Russian flags, because relying on the incompetent bunch of nitwits that call themselves the government of germany is the last thing i would do...ever.
Post by: timferius on March 04, 2014, 10:33:51 am
Because of course the frigate has a Facebook page...I want to sig this...
Woo-hoo! I'm sig worthy!
All the major world leaders seem to be throwing down over this. Russia is saying they have the right to use force in Ukrain if they want, the members of the G8 (or at least our prime-minister) are threatening to throw russia out, everyone wants to saction everything. I'm pretty sure Russia has already pretty much destroyed their diplomatic position with the rest of the world. Do they have a secret massive army ammassing underground? Have we entered Bond-Movie territory yet?
Post by: Dutchling on March 04, 2014, 10:35:39 am
Maybe a year or so of banned shampoo imports.
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2014, 10:59:33 am
Well, it's the threat that counts. Unless China or some other country accounts for that massive dump, then we will see massive problems all over the world. Hell, this would simply be a second economic collapse.
No it wouldn't trigger a second economic collapse. If the Russians did this and it wasn't a big publicity stunt, the average man on the street wouldn't even notice. Did you notice back in any of the massive shifts in treasury note buying habits that international investors have done over the past five years? Some of those were larger then this Russian "threat".
Read this, it's about china but the same topic: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/chinas-water-pistol/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2014, 11:05:56 am
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2014, 11:08:16 am
Then again, publicity stunts seem to have significant effect on the average guy who doesn't actually understand economics.
Well, what behaviors would you change due to this publicity stunt? Anything that would cause economic fallout? Is an average joe gonna run off into the mountains and become a survivalist or something I'm not aware of?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 11:39:19 am
Don't worry UR, he only wants to protect Ukraine. ;)
Quote
“If we see this lawlessness starting in eastern regions, if the people ask us for help – in addition to a plea from a legitimate president, which we already have – then we reserve the right to use all the means we possess to protect those citizens. And we consider it quite legitimate,” he said.
Quote
“We are not going to a war against the Ukrainian people,” he said. “I want you to understand it unambiguously. If we do take a decision, it would only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. Let anybody in the military dare, and they’d be shooting their own people, who would stand up in front of us. Shoot at women and children. I’d like to see anyone try and order such a thing in Ukraine.”
Quote
“When I ask them ‘Do you believe you do everything legitimately,’ they say ‘Yes.’ And I have to remind them about the US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they acted either without any UN Security Council mandate or through perverting a mandate, as was the case in Libya,” Putin said.
“Our partners, especially in the United States, always clearly and formulate for themselves their geopolitical and national interests, pursue them relentlessly and then drag the rest of the world in, using the principle ‘You are either with us or against us’. And harass those refuse to be dragged in,” he added.
Quote
“I strictly object to this form [of transition of power] in Ukraine, and anywhere in the post-Soviet space. This does not help nurturing a culture of law. If someone is allowed to act this way, then everyone is allowed to. And this means chaos. That’s the worst thing that can happen to a country with an unstable economy and an unestablished political system,” Putin explained.
Quote
“Frankly, they should adopt a new constitution through a referendum so that all citizens of Ukraine feel engagement in that process, have an input on the formation of the new principles of how their nation should function,” Putin suggested. “That’s certainly not for us, but for the Ukrainians and the Ukrainian authorities to decide this way or another. I believe after legitimate government is formed, after a new president elected, after a new parliament is elected, they should return to this.”
Interesting side note about Yanuk, it seems he has indeed outlived his usefulness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfB8fmhC8XI) after signing that letter.
Found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZolXrjGIBJs) on a German newssite, an RT anchor speaking against the invasion of Crimea. The fact that she didn't lose her job is interpreted as a sign that this was not exactly unplanned.
Also some more fun moments from RT's Crimea coverage. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/insane-moments-from-rts-coverage-of-the-russian-invasion-of)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 11:42:02 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 11:52:39 am
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 11:54:40 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh1PTZxCMAELhpa.png)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 11:59:44 am
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 12:06:15 pm
http://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/
This rabbi seems a little bit confused..
Post by: Owlbread on March 04, 2014, 12:23:48 pm
Quote from: Wikipedia
On April 5, 2009, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk) announced his candidacy for President of Ukraine in the next presidential election. During the election campaign fellow candidate Serhiy Ratushniak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Ratushniak) repeatedly insulted Yatsenyuk because of his alleged Jewish roots, among others Ratushniak called Yatsenyuk an "impudent little Jew" who was "successfully serving the thieves who are in power in Ukraine and is using criminal money to plough ahead towards Ukraine's presidency"
Quote from: Wikipedia
Following his nomination Ratushniak told a local paper that the Jews were to blame for all his country's troubles. Ratushnyak has also called Yatsenyuk "a nasty Jew mason" and an "impudent little Jew" who was "successfully serving the thieves who are in power in Ukraine and is using criminal money to plough ahead towards Ukraine's presidency". The mayor told the Associated Press in a telephone interview: "Is everybody obliged to love Jews and Israel? If I don't like Jews and Israel, does that make me an anti-Semite?".
Yatsenyuk is the Prime Minister of Ukraine, one of the country's national leaders and among the main figureheads of the "Nationalist coup", thus he's presumably among those you're leveling your attacks at. Ratushniak on the other hand is an independent politician who has been a member of many parties, including Yanukovych's Party of Regions.
Post by: Descan on March 04, 2014, 12:24:39 pm
/me rolls his eyes aggressively.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 12:44:26 pm
Look, nobody can deny that there are anti-semitic elements among the protesters, in the Right Sector and the Svoboda party. However they are not at all a majority. And anti-semitism exists on the other side too. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy has been called a "jewish rat" for speaking on Maidan. He is strongly trying to counter the image of the revolution being an extremist one. (http://www.bernard-henri-levy.com/la-version-americaine-du-bloc-notes-de-bernard-henri-levy-maidan-et-l%E2%80%99extreme-droite-stop-a-la-desinformation-de-m-poutine-the-daily-beast-le-26-fevrier-2014-43130.html)http://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/
This rabbi seems a little bit confused..
At this point in time, the best way to counter extremists would be a peaceful transition in Ukraine towards a more democratic system.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 12:52:37 pm
This rabbi is the vice-president of World Jewish Congress not some random guy who knows nothing about politicshttp://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/
This rabbi seems a little bit confused..
Post by: Bouchart on March 04, 2014, 01:04:06 pm
Post by: Bauglir on March 04, 2014, 01:09:30 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 04, 2014, 01:11:04 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 04, 2014, 01:28:32 pm
Maybe Jews killed his family.Let's not go there.
Post by: olemars on March 04, 2014, 02:26:46 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 02:28:56 pm
Latest is that Russia is test-launching ICBM's in a completely non-threatening manner.It was planned!
Post by: timferius on March 04, 2014, 02:29:28 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 04, 2014, 02:32:17 pm
Latest is that Russia is test-launching ICBM's in a completely non-threatening manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wga5A6R9BJg
This one is better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 04, 2014, 02:38:15 pm
Post by: Bouchart on March 04, 2014, 02:57:11 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 04, 2014, 03:24:26 pm
http://forward.com/articles/193766/ukraine-chief-rabbi-accuses-russia-of-anti-semitic/
This rabbi seems a little bit confused..
No, that's just you. :)
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 03:25:42 pm
When people accuse "the Nationalists" in Ukraine of being anti-Semitic:Quote from: WikipediaOn April 5, 2009, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk) announced his candidacy for President of Ukraine in the next presidential election. During the election campaign fellow candidate Serhiy Ratushniak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Ratushniak) repeatedly insulted Yatsenyuk because of his alleged Jewish roots, among others Ratushniak called Yatsenyuk an "impudent little Jew" who was "successfully serving the thieves who are in power in Ukraine and is using criminal money to plough ahead towards Ukraine's presidency"Quote from: WikipediaFollowing his nomination Ratushniak told a local paper that the Jews were to blame for all his country's troubles. Ratushnyak has also called Yatsenyuk "a nasty Jew mason" and an "impudent little Jew" who was "successfully serving the thieves who are in power in Ukraine and is using criminal money to plough ahead towards Ukraine's presidency". The mayor told the Associated Press in a telephone interview: "Is everybody obliged to love Jews and Israel? If I don't like Jews and Israel, does that make me an anti-Semite?".
Yatsenyuk is the Prime Minister of Ukraine, one of the country's national leaders and among the main figureheads of the "Nationalist coup", thus he's presumably among those you're leveling your attacks at. Ratushniak on the other hand is an independent politician who has been a member of many parties, including Yanukovych's Party of Regions.
Not sure what you are saying here. no one said ALL of the ukrainians are neo-nazis, far from it, i also believe the initial protests were justified, as people in a democracy have the right to voice their opinion, but, i dont see how that contradicts anything i said so far? the ukraine government has, at least ex neo-nazi elements in it, the most effective revolution group has neo-nazi elements in it. those are not conspiracy theories, those are hard facts, self admitted facts.
I mean, run me through the scenario of a party that establishes itself around neo-nazi ideology, rhetoric and imagery then later changes itself to be more moderate. what is the process? self enlightment of all of the leading figures? sudden realization that, well, maybe the jews aint so bad after all? what can cause someone that believed in his cause so much, that he publicly announced to the world "I Am a Neo-Nazi" (because joining an openly admitted neo-nazi, makes you a neo-nazi right? you support their stances by joining the party), to suddenly turn and say, we are mere nationalists?
Regarding that rabbi and his confusion:
When a rabbi announce that "russian soldiers dressed up as ukrainians neo-nazis to cause provocations and putin=hitler", well, that's a very convinient conspiracy theory and lets just say that we could use some better sources to determine our facts.
Also, when he is being questioned with the facts that the new government now has far-right allegedly ex neo-nazis in it, he just responds with basically - "Yes, but they told me everything would be ok".
All of this is a bit, well, questionable, when the next paragraph details how he started a fund to enable better security measures. because, you know, an obvious reaction of feeling safe is to ensure safety measures. and you don't ask for security measures to protect your community from the russian army.
Beside, soviet jews never liked the religion oppressing soviet union. that's why we have around 1M ex-russian jews here, whom, from my experience, are not really looking at mother russia with a rose tainted glasses to say the least.
Let me just stress again that a lot of jews actually supported hitler during his early years. hitler himself started with a policy of basically transferring jews to israel until he realized that maybe a jewish state is not the best thing for antisemitics, so a jewish support for the new Ukrainian government is not an indication of anything. and the fact there are honest to good people in that government are also not an indication of anything.
the violent streets decided the fate of Ukraine, not a skewed vote, lets not forget that.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 03:55:51 pm
-snip-It's understandable that Jews are more concerned with the current situation than other people. There is anti-semitism in Ukraine, like in many other places of the world. Yes, some of what the rabbi is saying sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, but the other side employs these as well in portraying the revolution as fascist. It's important to stress that the protesters for the most part (this includes many Ukrainian Jews too) have nothing in common with the far-righters that were taking part in the protests.
As for far-righters in the current government, that is only a provisional government, a temporal compromise, that should soon be replaced by elections. If there is less of an nationalist vs pro-Russian atmosphere in Ukraine, these parties will get a lot less attention. A lot of what makes them attractive now is that they appear as the least compromising fighters for the cause of the revolution. If the revolution is over, voters will look more for competence than radicalism. Before the revolution, far-righters did not fare much better than in some other European countries, the more stable the situation, the less influence they will have.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 04, 2014, 04:00:34 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 04, 2014, 04:25:36 pm
I've noticed two broad narratives in the US about Putin, what he wants, why he invades, and what can solve the crisis (well sorta). They are broad yet coherent, and have both negative and positive things to say about Putin (though it leans negative, shockingly). Here is a bit of my armchair analysis (the only way to analyze news).
I've euphemistically divided these into "Putin the Wolf", and "Putin the Bear". Remember, these aren't value judgments (although they do lend themselves to them), this is just me describing what they see.
Spoiler: Putin the Wolf (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Putin the Bear (click to show/hide)
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 04:31:54 pm
I want to stress out another important personal belief of mine: I do not think we will see concentration camps in Ukraine. nor any government officially support systematically persucations of jews in Ukraine, not now, not in the next 10 years.
I believe there are good people in Ukraine, and the times have changed such as that israel's influence is too strong for other, small-to-medium powers to employ such actions, if anything and ironically, now days it is only russia that could maybe actually get away with something similar.
BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.
If the west continue to look the other way, Ukraine and such countries would become greece. perhaps Ukraine have already became greece and you could try and justify it however you like, deflect it, try to blame other sides, bring all sort of bizzare rabbis that are saying otherwise but acting so, hell, even personally attack me for stating so, but the hard facts remain, those movements were powerful enough to dictate actions to a government AND to its opposition.
Also, i am not really thinking putin has set out to stop those forces, he is merely using them for his personal propaganda, but i also think everyone here should adopt a more critical and emotional free perspective on the west.
Post by: PanH on March 04, 2014, 04:33:22 pm
BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.Ironically, I'm pretty sure far right movements are stronger in France and the like than in Ukraine.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 04, 2014, 04:33:52 pm
Some choice quotes:
Quote from: The Guardian
Outside the Belbek airbase, an aggressive self-defence group said they were there to defend the base against “Kiev fascists”, but also railed against Europe, “full of repulsive gays and Muslims”.
“What you foreigners don’t get is that those people in Maidan, they are fascists,” said Alexander, a Simferopol resident drinking at a bar in the city on Monday night. “I mean, I am all for the superiority of the white race, and all that stuff, but I don’t like fascists.”
I still haven't seen any evidence that the revolution was a win for the fascists/supremicists/racists/antisemetics in general, at all. Certain groups of them supported the revolution, other groups opposed, but it seems like the revolution leadership are NOT particularly fascist, any more than the previous government was, and that fascism and fighting it is a problem Ukraine will need to deal with no matter WHAT happens and no matter who wins.
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 04:40:57 pm
BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.Ironically, I'm pretty sure far right movements are stronger in France and the like than in Ukraine.
I gave france as an example of where its starting to go out of hand. and its not ironic, its sad, well, for france and the world anyway.
immigration to israel numbers are starting to resemble the russian immigration wave. they are no where as near, but they gradually climbing. also, that immigration cause france to bleed out money. a lot of money.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 04:45:19 pm
BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.Well, I think we are aware of that, but it's not something that directly ties into the events in Ukraine. There are some worrying develpoments in some European countries, though overall I don't think you should compare these parties to Neo-Nazis. Depends on which country we're talking about, but it's not as bad as you think, at least not everywhere. Anyway, that's too complex an issue to be debated here.
but i also think everyone here should adopt a more critical and emotional free perspective on the west.I, and I'm sure many others here, do have a critical perspective of the West. I have differentiated views on many things, but it is - with the limitations of an internet forum - very difficult to voice differentiated views on anything, when people tend to pop in to say "The West/Putin is evil/Hitler". So, I don't think that's good, but it is how it is with internet debates.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 04, 2014, 04:46:25 pm
I'm pretty sure that their 75% tax policy on the rich also might have something to do with that. After all, far right isn't that strong, even in France.BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.Ironically, I'm pretty sure far right movements are stronger in France and the like than in Ukraine.
I gave france as an example of where its starting to go out of hand. and its not ironic, its sad, well, for france and the world anyway.
immigration to israel numbers are starting to resemble the russian immigration wave. they are no where as near, but they gradually climbing. also, that immigration cause france to bleed out money. a lot of money.
Post by: Darvi on March 04, 2014, 04:46:38 pm
when people tend to pop in to say "The West/Putin is evil/Hitler".Hitler is evil!
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2014, 04:46:57 pm
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 04:56:35 pm
I'm pretty sure that their 75% tax policy on the rich also might have something to do with that. After all, far right isn't that strong, even in France.BUT, and that but is very important, there is a pretty steep rise in anti-immigrants, anti-semitics, very close to being neo-nazis, powers all through out europe. looking at places like greece, france, hungary, and with italy and spain slowly joining them, ignoring it is taking the role of an ostrich and sticking your head in the ground.Ironically, I'm pretty sure far right movements are stronger in France and the like than in Ukraine.
I gave france as an example of where its starting to go out of hand. and its not ironic, its sad, well, for france and the world anyway.
immigration to israel numbers are starting to resemble the russian immigration wave. they are no where as near, but they gradually climbing. also, that immigration cause france to bleed out money. a lot of money.
Except that a lot of them keep their business running in france and keep paying french taxes. also, keep in mind that houses and the cost of living in israel is very high. i would take an uneducated guess and say its higher than in france.
(Edit - that uneducated guess turned out wrong. on average, the cost of living is higher in france in many respects)
Beside, people state anti-semitism rise as the number one factor of considering immigration to israel in polls. you might not believe them, but those are the polls.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 05:02:45 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 04, 2014, 05:05:30 pm
Quote
people state anti-semitism rise as the number one factor of considering immigration to israel in polls.Are you sure that the only source of anti-semitism in France are right-wing parties and not Arabs that immigrate to France don't add to that?
BTW, extremist right-wingers appear exactly because more moderate guys were unable to stop immigration waves coming to France.
Also, EU is outrageously bad in dealing with neo-nazi teenagers
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 05:06:45 pm
Beside, people state anti-semitism rise as the number one factor of considering immigration to israel in polls. you might not believe them, but those are the polls.I've heard that too. However, if you want a differentiated view, especially in France but in other Western European countries as well, anti-semitism is a problem that is only to a lesser degree caused by far-right parties, but mostly by parts of the muslim immigrant population.
Dieudonne, the comedian Sheb mentioned, is African, so he isn't part of any traditionally nationalist group.
Still, this doesn't relate to Ukraine really, so maybe we should keep it more on topic.
Post by: mainiac on March 04, 2014, 05:45:34 pm
Beside, people state anti-semitism rise as the number one factor of considering immigration to israel in polls. you might not believe them, but those are the polls.
Considering nearly half of immigrants to Israel come from Russia (with v. tolerant USA in second), that would seem to say a lot about Russia.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 06:13:36 pm
But yeah, actually I think Israel, with its stupid dual obsession on defining itself as "the Jewish state" and occupying Palestine is the leading cause of antisemitism worldwide. A lot of people simply don't differentiate between Israelis and Jews (including pro-Israel lobbies who are only to happy to brand any criticism of Israel an act of anti-semitism).
Not only that, but by over-using the anti-semitism accusation, those pro-Israeli lobby group actually destigmatize it: if you can be branded antisemitic for holding perfectly valid political view, the antisemitic label loses some of its potency.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 04, 2014, 06:21:08 pm
A lot of people simply don't differentiate between Israelis and JewsThat goes both ways though, a lot of people don't understand that there is a difference between critizising the Israeli government and blaming Jews for everything. It's not like there's no left-wing anti-semitism.
Post by: Sheb on March 04, 2014, 06:21:58 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 04, 2014, 06:23:31 pm
Not only that, but by over-using the anti-semitism accusation, those pro-Israeli lobby group actually destigmatize it: if you can be branded antisemitic for holding perfectly valid political view, the antisemitic label loses some of its potency.If everybody's a racist, nobody is?
yeah i dun think appropriating syndrome quotes works here
Post by: burningpet on March 04, 2014, 06:51:03 pm
Beside, people state anti-semitism rise as the number one factor of considering immigration to israel in polls. you might not believe them, but those are the polls.
Considering nearly half of immigrants to Israel come from Russia (with v. tolerant USA in second), that would seem to say a lot about Russia.
Not from russia, from ex-soviet union countries, taking into account a single country, Russia is still probably the largest but the numbers are declining, also, its not a whole lot bigger than France that seen 60%+ rise. USA is a big source, but, about only 500 people more than from Ukraine.
Some numbers playing not to be taken seriously! (there are other factors in those equation)
If Ukraine jewish immigration will rise to match france's due to the recent events, taking into account what the average french immigrants pay on houses alone (~3k bought houses * 500k usd in the last year alone), this immigration will cost Ukraine more lost money than their annual export volume to the U.S and about the same amount the EU were willing to give Ukraine in financial aid. not even taking into account taxes, consumption spending, rent etc. This is money that leaves a country and doesn't come back. (obviously the country itself only sees part of that spent money, so its not a full direct loss, but its money that is going out of a domestic market circulation).
How many financially secured ukranians/russians will immigrate to russia?
Now that i think of it, a proper conspiracy theory would be that israel stirred those violent protests through the US (well, officially embraced them) so immigration to israel will rise.
Sheb, I can accept that view and its probably correct in many cases, but i also think it downplays real fascism which IS on a rise. its not only jews that warn about it, its also arabs, turks, pakistanians etc etc. just looking at the trend in voting almost all throughout europe there's a strong rise for those parties.
Post by: Descan on March 04, 2014, 06:54:16 pm
Edit: Isn't immigration to Israel... already on the rise? Just mostly from Africa and such?
Post by: nenjin on March 04, 2014, 07:33:55 pm
If you call everyone racist, then you have to call the ACTUAL white-supremacists (or whatever your prefered flavour of hate is) like... Super-Racists. Tru-Racists. MegaRacists?
UltraRacists.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 04:38:52 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2014, 05:26:49 am
Also, the parallel between the current nuke situation and the WWII gas situation (no, not that gas =/ ) is worth discussing more, I think: Even a direct conventional NATO/
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 05, 2014, 05:29:00 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 05:49:44 am
IMO, It's time to start shooting those "self-defense squads" time for that pacifist style of defense is over
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 06:12:26 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2014, 06:58:02 am
No, that would be a mistake. You can't win this one militarily, so actually the longer this staring match go on, the more Putin's look like a stupid ass on the international scene (after all, he is supposed to be protecting people, but there is no violence? Why is he there then?)Obviously the Black Sea would be red with the Blood of Innocent Civilians if it weren't for The Great Preemptive Humanitarian Security Mission of the Father of The Fatherland, The Bulwark Against Fascism, The Glorious Leader of The Free Peoples,
How about a dual strategy - non-army snipers/partisans start a thousand-needles campaign, while the official military holds tight and looks on?
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 07:01:12 am
The Ukrainian's best chance is that Putin, having failed in his plan to provoke a war will go back under Western pressure and with insurance that he can continue to use Sevastopol.
Spoiler: Cartoon from the Belgian press. (click to show/hide)
Post by: olemars on March 05, 2014, 07:16:01 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 07:19:03 am
If we talk about impossible scenarios: Crimean Tatar self-defense units in NATO(let's say Turkish) uniforms would be geopolitical trolling of epic proportions
Post by: MarcAFK on March 05, 2014, 08:15:05 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 08:18:28 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 08:43:56 am
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 09:09:48 am
Also, I'm deeply impressed by the courage and discipline of the Ukrainian Army. Despite Russian pressure up to and including warning shot (as seen on a picture before), no one tried to respond in kind, and there has been precious little desertion.
Post by: miljan on March 05, 2014, 09:33:20 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8
Interesting thing is they already talk about eastern ukraine region will make problems, donetsk saying that it is under occupation from ukraine and that russia should take over.
And some nasty thing with snipers hired to kill people by someone from the new government. Very nasty things.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 09:44:14 am
UR, the background music is amazing. Do you know what band is it?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydamaky_(band)
Post by: Kicior on March 05, 2014, 10:00:14 am
Spoiler: It's over (click to show/hide)
Putin claims protesters in Kiev where trained in Poland and Lithuania (http://www.wbj.pl/article-64928-putin-accuses-poland-of-training-ukrainian-revolutionaries.html?typ=wbj).(http://c3201142.cdn03.imgwykop.pl/comment_tzTEVUhFwKx1BvtuRT1vj6Cz6WLtcTR9.jpg)
World according to Putin:
-well prepared people, trained for a long time in Poland and Lithuania, professional like the Russian special forces
-spontaneous reaction of Crimeans in self defence, you can buy those uniforms in a shop.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 10:07:26 am
Leaked talk on 25. february EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8
Really nasty indeed. I wonder if it is true.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 10:46:26 am
Leaked talk on 25. february EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister.Hm, Estonian foreign minister retold rather popular conspiracy theory about "opposition snipers" he heard from one of Ukrainian activists, so what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 10:55:25 am
And then you've got nice scenes of solidarity like this:
"Crimean Tatars bring food to surrounded Ukrainian soldiers while «not-Russian» mystery men refuse loaves of bread and stand awkwardly."
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=618663294849115
Post by: olemars on March 05, 2014, 10:56:21 am
Leaked talk on 25. february EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8
Really nasty indeed. I wonder if it is true.
The "Olga" mentioned in the call has a somewhat different story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.html)
Quote
Olga Bogomolets said she had not told Mr Paet that policemen and protestors had been killed in the same manner.
"Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."
But she said she had asked for a full forensic criminal investigation into the deaths that occurred in the Maidan. "No one who just sees the wounds when treating the victims can make a determination about the type of weapons. I hope international experts and Ukrainian investigators will make a determination of what type of weapons, who was involved in the killings and how it was done. I have no data to prove anything.
"I was a doctor helping to save people on the square. There were 15 people killed on the first day by snipers. They were shot directly to the heart, brain and arteries. There were more than 40 the next day, 12 of them died in my arms.
"Our nation has to ask the question who were the killers, who asked them to come to Ukraine. We need good answers on the basis of expertise."
Mr Paet's assertion that an opposition figure was behind the Maidan massacre was not one she could share.
"I think you can only say something like this on the basis of fact," she said. "Its not correct and its not good to do this. It should be based on fact."
She said the new government in Kiev had assured her a criminal investigation had begun but that she had not direct contact with it so far.
"They told me they have begun a criminal process and if they say that I believe them. The police have not given me any information on it."
But yes, it should be investigated. The rest of the conversation about the new government having little trust among the protesters, being same as the old boss etc., and that there would be east/west strife was widely reported at the time.
edit: It's also odd how phone conversations keep getting put on youtube in relation to Ukraine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-purported-recording-of-us-diplomat-blunt-talk-on-ukraine/2014/02/06/518240a4-8f4b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html).
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 11:02:48 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 05, 2014, 11:04:05 am
Post by: Bouchart on March 05, 2014, 11:05:19 am
So, it seems like the Ukrainians are basically responding as "right" as they could be - they are remaining in staunch opposition, military is standing together, but they are not letting themselves be provoked and are not initiating any sort of conflict.
The best response the Ukraine can make is a crash nuclear program.
Post by: Darvi on March 05, 2014, 11:06:23 am
Look, the EU is doing something. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/617b9516-a443-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html)I don't believe you.
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 11:28:19 am
Look, the EU is doing something. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/617b9516-a443-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html)Does the EU know?
Also, can you copy+paste that shit? It has a paywall...
Post by: Bouchart on March 05, 2014, 11:31:49 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 11:32:25 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 11:47:33 am
But that on the world stage, he fears China far more than he does the West. He's taken a stand against the West because he feels comfortable the wilingness of the West to push back is minimal. But He's running out of options, because it's becoming increasingly clear that he can't take any more active engagement with China as it would put Russia as the weaker partner and his credibility won't survive it - and with the fact that much of eastern Russia is now "ethnically Chinese", he's desperately afraid they might do the same to him that he's doing to Crimea and there's basically nothing he could do to stop them if he wanted to.
Don't know how much that holds, but it DOES seem like Russia is starting conflicts it believes it "can't really lose" even if the actual gains are minimal, and it seems like a decent explanation of why - using it as a unifying excuse to maintain power back home, and as a "safe" display of power when dealing with the rest of Asia.
Post by: nenjin on March 05, 2014, 12:21:30 pm
I've been seeing a lot lately about how this whole thing is sort of a short-sighted and rather desperate point of opportunism for Putin, personally. He's provoking confrontations, setting himself up against the West as an enemy not because he wants conflict or more territory or even cares about the West, but because he's increasingly unpopular at home and fears unrest or replacement, and is trying to direct the Russian gaze outward at foreign enemies. This is why his government has been pushing against homosexuality (represents the West), pro-Nazi western-supporting groups (same), etc.
But that on the world stage, he fears China far more than he does the West. He's taken a stand against the West because he feels comfortable the wilingness of the West to push back is minimal. But He's running out of options, because it's becoming increasingly clear that he can't take any more active engagement with China as it would put Russia as the weaker partner and his credibility won't survive it - and with the fact that much of eastern Russia is now "ethnically Chinese", he's desperately afraid they might do the same to him that he's doing to Crimea and there's basically nothing he could do to stop them if he wanted to.
Don't know how much that holds, but it DOES seem like Russia is starting conflicts it believes it "can't really lose" even if the actual gains are minimal, and it seems like a decent explanation of why - using it as a unifying excuse to maintain power back home, and as a "safe" display of power when dealing with the rest of Asia.
Putin Saves The World From Gay Nazis. Coming to a theater not in the decadent Imperial West, 2015.
Post by: olemars on March 05, 2014, 12:33:28 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 05, 2014, 12:38:38 pm
Wut? Anyway, this tends to happen quite often. I look for something on google news. Find an interesting article, post a link, and suddenly a registration wall springs up behind me.Look, the EU is doing something. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/617b9516-a443-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html)Does the EU know?
Also, can you copy+paste that shit? It has a paywall...
I'll look for another source.
NY-times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0)
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-eu-ukraine-support-idUSBREA240V020140305)
Anyway, the deal only goes through if Ukraine gets an IMF partnership, which will come with some grave economic changes.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2014, 12:44:11 pm
Post by: Descan on March 05, 2014, 12:44:50 pm
... So not America, Liberia, and Burma?
Metric, wooo~
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2014, 12:47:01 pm
Imperial West?>Implying Canada consistently uses the metric system
... So not America, Liberia, and Burma?
Metric, wooo~
>2014
Oh ho ho ho.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 12:50:29 pm
Another fun piece of Russian media: the lady with multiple personalities. (https://twitter.com/maidan_go/status/440985337167241217/photo/1)
Considering that Putin wants to fight Nazis in Ukraine, it's funny what Duma member / Olympic torch bearer Irina Rodnina thinks of Obama:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 05, 2014, 12:57:06 pm
That is a terrible idea. The IMF only gives one kind of bargain, and it's the Faustian kind.The EU got criticized by the IMF for attaching to much conditions to their (internal) loans. So, just an IMF agreement might be the best you can get.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 01:49:24 pm
Also, amazing scenes of Ukraine uniting against a common enemy in a heartwarming display of solidarity. It's such a shame that the enemy is us.
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2014, 01:53:13 pm
And it's fun~
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 05, 2014, 02:04:57 pm
Don't be ashamed - it's the natural role of Russia - to be the enemy of the whole world.Does that mean that video games with russian villains will be "in" again?
And it's fun~
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 02:10:00 pm
Quote
It's such a shame that the enemy is us.Wrong. Putin and his ideology is our enemy. Even if a lot Russians do support him.
Post by: nenjin on March 05, 2014, 02:13:57 pm
Don't be ashamed - it's the natural role of Russia - to be the enemy of the whole world.Does that mean that video games with russian villains will be "in" again?
And it's fun~
When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 02:17:19 pm
When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 02:33:51 pm
Boy, you'd be fucking amazed how many perfectly normal and well-educated russians are still convinced that the West is out to get them. And that everything bad that happens is caused by the machinations of evil americans. Or jews. Or chinese. Or even english (my dad loves this one). The "us vs. them" mentality is alive and well, stronger even that in the USSR, mostly due to the wounded national pride after the Union fell. Of course, many other people, particularly the liberal opposition, think the opposite: all russians except us are horrible evil nazi commie faschist rapist thieving incompetent fat ugly murderous barbarians and we, the chosen ones, should all escape to the promised land of the Blessed Democracy in Europe or America. Russians, unfortunately, are ill-capable of moderation, that's our problem.When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
Post by: Descan on March 05, 2014, 02:38:50 pm
Like, seriously. Hypothetically racist, do you as a Russian agree with everything every other Russian or white guy does? No? What about the Russian government? Then why would all the Jews or Americans agree with everything other Jews or Americans do, or their governments?
And also: Why would being Jewish bend you towards sociopathy or world-domination any more than other religions or ethnicities could or would? :I Or whatever it is they think Jews are behind. (It's everything, right?)
And even if it's only the nations leaders: Let's say that the English government really is behind a lot of stuff... So would pretty much every other nations government, if they have the capability. Yours, mine, the Israelis, India, China, Japan, etc. Tea and monarchy do not make you more inclined to subterfuge and perfidiousness than beer and republicanism. No matter what the Scottish might tell you. It's something we have to keep an eye on and advocate for transparency to combat, not just go "IT'S THE ENGLISKI FAULT."
Even ideologies are not monolithic, and THAT'S something you can choose! Just look at how splintered all the communist parties in most countries are, or the diverse base of the American political parties...
It's just insanity and dissonance!
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 02:40:18 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2014, 02:42:38 pm
Boy, you'd be fucking amazed how many perfectly normal and well-educated russians are still convinced that the West is out to get them. And that everything bad that happens is caused by the machinations of evil americans. Or jews. Or chinese. Or even english (my dad loves this one). The "us vs. them" mentality is alive and well, stronger even that in the USSR, mostly due to the wounded national pride after the Union fell. Of course, many other people, particularly the liberal opposition, think the opposite: all russians except us are horrible evil nazi commie faschist rapist thieving incompetent fat ugly murderous barbarians and we, the chosen ones, should all escape to the promised land of the Blessed Democracy in Europe or America. Russians, unfortunately, are ill-capable of moderation, that's our problem.When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
The current generation of senior government officials, including Putin, came to maturity during the height of the Cold War. The same is true in the US. Just like the US military continued to be obsessed about the cold war event while we were engaged in Iraq and Afganistan, the Russians spent their formative years thinking about the American enemy and carried that with them throughout their careers. In another 10 years, a new generation should start being put in senior and bring a new attitude with them in both the US and Russia.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 05, 2014, 02:45:31 pm
Boy, you'd be fucking amazed how many perfectly normal and well-educated russians are still convinced that the West is out to get them. And that everything bad that happens is caused by the machinations of evil americans. Or jews. Or chinese. Or even english (my dad loves this one). The "us vs. them" mentality is alive and well, stronger even that in the USSR, mostly due to the wounded national pride after the Union fell.When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
There's an important question standing here - is the West genuinely hostile to Russia?
Thinking that the Western powers only want peace and that Russia is paranoid is a little bit naive.
Post by: Pnx on March 05, 2014, 02:50:29 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 02:51:15 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 02:53:11 pm
Lots and lots of rhetoric coming out of the Crimean Pro-Russia groups about how they need Russia to save them from the homosexuals, the blacks, and the jews. At least a large part of the vitriol from the various protestors and response to UN envoys and reporters (at least according to the Times and Guardian) seems to be focused on the fact that the "leader of the Kieavites" is a Jew, that Obama is a "black-ass", and also that Russia will protect them from moral degeneracy.
In other news, NATO has apparently decided to suspend all cooperation with Russia and offer support to Ukraine.
http://www.tvn24.pl/szef-nato-zapowiada-pelna-rewizje-stosunkow-z-rosja-wspolna-misja-zawieszona,404827,s.html
(Polish)
Turkey has also said they plan on getting involved, unilaterally if needed and militarily if needed, if there is any threat to the safety of the Crimean Tartars.
So, uh... things heating up on all sides.
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2014, 02:53:29 pm
Boy, you'd be fucking amazed how many perfectly normal and well-educated russians are still convinced that the West is out to get them. And that everything bad that happens is caused by the machinations of evil americans. Or jews. Or chinese. Or even english (my dad loves this one). The "us vs. them" mentality is alive and well, stronger even that in the USSR, mostly due to the wounded national pride after the Union fell. Of course, many other people, particularly the liberal opposition, think the opposite: all russians except us are horrible evil nazi commie faschist rapist thieving incompetent fat ugly murderous barbarians and we, the chosen ones, should all escape to the promised land of the Blessed Democracy in Europe or America. Russians, unfortunately, are ill-capable of moderation, that's our problem.When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
The current generation of senior government officials, including Putin, came to maturity during the height of the Cold War. The same is true in the US. Just like the US military continued to be obsessed about the cold war event while we were engaged in Iraq and Afganistan, the Russians spent their formative years thinking about the American enemy and carried that with them throughout their careers. In another 10 years, a new generation should start being put in senior and bring a new attitude with them in both the US and Russia.
IF that generation is the one that learns history from the Call of Duty games, then I don't wanna even think about what that "new attitude" would mean.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 02:53:40 pm
snipUnfortunately, "us is good, them is evilbad enemy" ideology is so ingrained in the mind of an average guy who grew up in the USSR and didn't travel a lot after it fell that I'm afraid no amount of evidence to the contrary will shake it. Hell, this entire "good and evil" worldview must be self-propagating or contagious or something, as many people I know who never encountered soviet propaganda still thing this way, with the only variation being who's good and who's bad.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 02:54:00 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 02:56:16 pm
I don't think the West is hostile with Russia for the sake of being hostile, but they are competitor in a series of theaters. So basically, either Russia fold down and integrate within the West, or it will be swallowed by ChinaFixed
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2014, 02:57:03 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 02:58:00 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 02:58:46 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:00:14 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2014, 03:01:08 pm
smallAre we talking about Luxembourg?
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 03:01:12 pm
Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
Anyway, UR is right, all will be different once the soviet-born politicians go away.
Post by: Sergarr on March 05, 2014, 03:04:38 pm
Again, Call of Duty is made by very not-soviet-born people. Also it's oriented for young audience. You can see where this is going.Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
Anyway, UR is right, all will be different once the soviet-born politicians go away.
Post by: Darvi on March 05, 2014, 03:05:06 pm
Wasn't me for once.smallAre we talking about Luxembourg?
IT'S BRAINWASHING OUR KIDS!!!Again, Call of Duty is made by very not-soviet-born people. Also it's oriented for young audience. You can see where this is going.Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
Anyway, UR is right, all will be different once the soviet-born politicians go away.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 03:05:27 pm
'twas a joke, no worries.Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:07:00 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 03:10:35 pm
There's an important question standing here - is the West genuinely hostile to Russia?That's a complex question. I don't think the West (if we keep thinking about it as a monolithic block) is genuinely hostile to Russia. It's not that difficult to conjure up Cold War memories in the West either, maybe more in the US than in Europe (we were kind of euphoric about the fall of the Iron Curtain for a while). It's that kind of mentality and lack of mutual understanding that caused this current situation.
Thinking that the Western powers only want peace and that Russia is paranoid is a little bit naive.
I don't think the West realized that Russia thought it had lost the Cold War. I think ideally, the "West" would have wanted to sort of merge the blocks, with Russia adopting western-style democracy and western-style capitalism and integrating itself into the political and military structures. However the time such a transition would take and potential conflicts of interest were totally underestimated. It did work in the smaller Eastern European countries, to various degrees. It is very difficult to manage such a transition without a period of losses though, so at least in Russia, it never came to that transition really. Now Russia has a semi-authoritarian government and - in a way - a more state controlled but more unhinged capitalism than the West has. So there are a lot of conflicts of interest now, that weren't really foreseen a few decades ago. I really do think the West wants peace with Russia, but the West doesn't really understand Russia, so there is a general lack of trust.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 03:12:17 pm
Cis as opposed to "trans"? As in transsexual?'twas a joke, no worries.Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
Anyway, you give me CoD, I give you Red Alert. That video of russian helicopters even had the opening theme from one of the games added as a soundtrack.
Although to be fair, I think that people who believe video games in the matters of history would also believe their government in the matters of propaganda, so they would be hostile towards other countries anyway.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 05, 2014, 03:13:30 pm
Check your privilege, you cis scum!Some people around here are from the CIS. Cease your supranational organization-shaming, Scheißekaiser!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2014, 03:20:42 pm
Tumblr. Just - Tumblr.Cis as opposed to "trans"? As in transsexual?'twas a joke, no worries.Check your privilege, you cis scum!Sorry, did I say something?
My grandfather asked me today what I thought about the situation in Ukraine. To provide some context: He's 93, and in WWII he fought basically everywhere that isn't France, Poland, or Norway. North Africa, Italy, Russia - you name it. He was (pressured to join a) rather... nasty unit, too. False flag operations in Soviet uniforms, operations with Russian defectors, hunting for partisans in the woods, the works. He swears to this day he never shot anyone; I really don't know if that's true.
I'm 19, a student, I have thick glasses and no muscles to speak of.
Then he asked if they could - in principle - draft me.
I think he's scared.
FAKEEDIT: Scheißekaiser is hilarious.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:27:48 pm
Cis as opposed to "trans"? As in transsexual?
Yeah, by talking about men and woman, you totally forgot to name all the other genderqueer identities, which mean you take for granted your cis stuff. It's a joke of tumblr, never mind. Also, Guardian, you had me laughing out loud there. Thanks god I wasn't in a library or something. :p
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 03:29:39 pm
My grandfather asked me today what I thought about the situation in Ukraine. To provide some context: He's 93, and in WWII he fought basically everywhere that isn't France, Poland, or Norway. North Africa, Italy, Russia - you name it. He was (pressured to join a) rather... nasty unit, too. False flag operations in Soviet uniforms, operations with Russian defectors, hunting for partisans in the woods, the works. He swears to this day he never shot anyone; I really don't know if that's true.
I'm 19, a student, I have thick glasses and no muscles to speak of.
Then he asked if they could - in principle - draft me.
I think he's scared.
Poor guy. Being a part of a punitive squad (that's what it sounds like) is bad enough, but hunting partisans was kind of like a snark hunt except the snark was an exceptionally skilled tracker and ambusher who knew the area like his five fingers and hated you with a murderous passion that would cause a Warhammer 40K space marine to remove his helmet and clap respectfully.
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 03:32:51 pm
Boy, you'd be fucking amazed how many perfectly normal and well-educated russians are still convinced that the West is out to get them. And that everything bad that happens is caused by the machinations of evil americans. Or jews. Or chinese. Or even english (my dad loves this one). The "us vs. them" mentality is alive and well, stronger even that in the USSR, mostly due to the wounded national pride after the Union fell.When were they ever "out?" Russia has been the primary antagonist of the last two Battlefield games and plenty of CoD games.Right.
I think the current conflict just shows how we never managed to get over the block thinking of the Cold War. While Europeans might have been more optimistic about that in the last decades than Americans, many Russians still seem to think along that line too.
There's an important question standing here - is the West genuinely hostile to Russia?
Thinking that the Western powers only want peace and that Russia is paranoid is a little bit naive.
Well, genuinely, reading this thread alone make me think that. And actually, leaked Nulandgate scandal somehow caused huge uproar against West, atleast in my circle. And thats is funny, because my circle is generally anti-Putin. Now I am going to hold my opinions to myself, because I found many links and sayings here kinda utterly offensive, bordering insult, including everything about "war" with Georgia. Thats was incredibly one sided anti Russian propaganda full of bullshit in all it's grace so I am better not going to comment it. I call ratio of sayings/links to be utterly one sided/hostile in that thread is like 1:5 towards West. So.
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 03:34:35 pm
Well, genuinely, reading this thread alone make me think that. And actually, leaked Nulandgate scandal somehow caused huge uproar against West, atleast in my circle. And thats is funny, because my circle is generally anti-Putin. Now I am going to hold my opinions to myself, because I found many links and sayings here kinda utterly offensive, bordering insult, including everything about "war" with Georgia. Thats was incredibly one sided anti Russian propaganda full of bullshit in all it's grace so I am better not going to comment it. I call ratio of sayings/links to be utterly one sided/hostile in that thread is like 1:5 towards West. So.Could you clarify, because I can't find it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix)
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:35:52 pm
gogis: to be fair, this thread IS full of Westerners. Even if we're nice and open-minded, we still carry the general point of view. For example, the Nulandgate, well, I don't really see the problem, the video just shows that the US had meeting and that they like Klitchko. What's the issue?
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 05, 2014, 03:38:15 pm
He's probably talking about the (in)famous Nuland's "Fuck the EU!" phone call.Well, genuinely, reading this thread alone make me think that. And actually, leaked Nulandgate scandal somehow caused huge uproar against West, atleast in my circle. And thats is funny, because my circle is generally anti-Putin. Now I am going to hold my opinions to myself, because I found many links and sayings here kinda utterly offensive, bordering insult, including everything about "war" with Georgia. Thats was incredibly one sided anti Russian propaganda full of bullshit in all it's grace so I am better not going to comment it. I call ratio of sayings/links to be utterly one sided/hostile in that thread is like 1:5 towards West. So.Could you clarify, because I can't find it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix)
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 03:39:57 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 03:42:32 pm
Then he asked if they could - in principle - draft me.In case of defense, every German male under 60 can be drafted. That's why I don't like this "let's send NATO troops in" talk that much.
Scheißekaiser is hilarious.It is.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:43:35 pm
Also, can someone tells me what's so bad about the Nuland phone call? gogis?
Also, what's that Scheissekaiser thing?
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 03:48:37 pm
He's probably talking about the (in)famous Nuland's "Fuck the EU!" phone call.Well, genuinely, reading this thread alone make me think that. And actually, leaked Nulandgate scandal somehow caused huge uproar against West, atleast in my circle. And thats is funny, because my circle is generally anti-Putin. Now I am going to hold my opinions to myself, because I found many links and sayings here kinda utterly offensive, bordering insult, including everything about "war" with Georgia. Thats was incredibly one sided anti Russian propaganda full of bullshit in all it's grace so I am better not going to comment it. I call ratio of sayings/links to be utterly one sided/hostile in that thread is like 1:5 towards West. So.Could you clarify, because I can't find it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix)
That is exactly the problem. West is jumping on Fuck EU, but not on the rest of conversation, which is interesting. I defenetily don't care "fuck EU" or "fuck Russia" if it happens. I swear all the time, who cares. Thats a Russia - Ukraine - Klitcko - USA. This just not compute. And this Kim... whatever guy from g8? Bought as well? Thats is ridiculous. Generally I completely don't care. I don't even vote. But how the hell these guys involve on something that dirty? Why on earth you try to be involved in coups so CLOSE to me? I am docile dwarf fortress player, damnit. And don't ask me, why I dont want NATO on my border.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 03:49:32 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 03:51:38 pm
Apparently the UN envoy to Crimea got carjacked by unidentified armed men telling him to get out of Crimea. (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-05/un-envoy-tells-itv-news-of-confrontation-in-crimea/)He's ok and on his way home already. So much for UN mediation.
Also, what's that Scheissekaiser thing?It means Shit Emperor. It's from an old rhyme about the 3 German emperors: Der greise (old/geriatric) Kaiser (Wilhelm I), der weise (wise) Kaiser (Friedrich III) und der Scheißekaiser (Wilhelm II).
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.Me neither.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 05, 2014, 03:52:32 pm
Apparently the UN envoy to Crimea got carjacked by unidentified armed men telling him to get out of Crimea. (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-05/un-envoy-tells-itv-news-of-confrontation-in-crimea/)It's a variation of "Shitlord", formerly an insult reportedly used by some crazy feminists on Tumblr. It was shamelessly appropriated by people mocking SJWs. You can find "Shitlord" and other variations of it (like poopduke or fecal dictator) used as an in-joke on communities dedicated to mocking SJWs, like the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction (http://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction) and others.
Also, can someone tells me what's so bad about the Nuland phone call? gogis?
Also, what's that Scheissekaiser thing?
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 03:53:51 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 03:55:31 pm
Speaking of partisans, my friend's grandmother was one. She was 16 when germans entered her village, herded all the people into a barn, looted everything they could carry away and torched the barn with the people still inside. She survived because her sister literally shoved her out of the window and told her to run when nazis(and those were actual nazis, not the decent people german people just proclaimed one like your grandfather) barged into their house. Maria, that's her name, wandered the woods for a while before stumbling upon a similar group of refugees who were going to join the local partisans under the command of a man called Professor. She decided to join, too, and since that decision has made it her life's mission to exterminate as many germans as possible as an act of revenge for her family. Things she did included lynching german collaborators, blowing up Germany-bound trains carrying wounded troops, among other things, sneaking into villages occupied by enemy soldiers while they were sleeping and knifing them 20-30 times each and just in general gunning down everything she saw that had a swastika on it.
After the war ended, she led a perfectly well-adjusted life until passing away quietly in her sleep by her daughter's side and never mentioned feeling sorry for anything she did, except for running away and leaving her family before they all died.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 03:55:54 pm
It's a variation of "Shitlord", formerly an insult reportedly used by some crazy feminists on Tumblr. It was shamelessly appropriated by people mocking SJWs. You can find "Shitlord" and other variations of it (like poopduke or fecal dictator) used as an in-joke on communities dedicated to mocking SJWs, like the subreddit /r/tumblrinaction (http://www.reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction) and others.And there I was admiring your intricate knowledge of 19th century German history. ;)
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 03:58:14 pm
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
You need to try and find full transcript of leaked Nuland Pyatt conversation. I can't help you here. The fact of connection between Klitchko and US officials is clear for me, must be not clear for you, but hey, thats a nature of interpretation. Again, if I find that this is troubling, because I am absolutely apolitical person. And now I am worried of shenanigans. I mean really I start believing in West against Russia agenda which I always find amusing before.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 04:01:31 pm
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
You need to try and find full transcript of leaked Nuland Pyatt conversation. I can't help you here. The fact of connection between Klitchko and US officials is clear for me, must be not clear for you, but hey, thats a nature of interpretation. Again, if I find that this is troubling, because I am absolutely apolitical person. And now I am worried of shenanigans. I mean really I start believing in West against Russia agenda which I always find amusing before.
Relax, brother, I'm russian as well and I can tell you that the westerners really have nothing against Russia as people, their governments are just freaking out because of what Putin is doing.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 04:04:55 pm
You are aware that US and EU diplomats were trying to mediate in the Ukraine crisis? The disagreement was about who should be supported as a potential new Prime Minister, as part of a compromise between Yanukovych and the opposition. The EU wanted Klitchko, the US wanted Yatsenyuk.I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
You need to try and find full transcript of leaked Nuland Pyatt conversation. I can't help you here. The fact of connection between Klitchko and US officials is clear for me, must be not clear for you, but hey, thats a nature of interpretation. Again, if I find that this is troubling, because I am absolutely apolitical person. And now I am worried of shenanigans. I mean really I start believing in West against Russia agenda which I always find amusing before.
If you're refering to something else, here is a transcript. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957)
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 04:06:18 pm
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
You need to try and find full transcript of leaked Nuland Pyatt conversation. I can't help you here. The fact of connection between Klitchko and US officials is clear for me, must be not clear for you, but hey, thats a nature of interpretation. Again, if I find that this is troubling, because I am absolutely apolitical person. And now I am worried of shenanigans. I mean really I start believing in West against Russia agenda which I always find amusing before.
Relax, brother, I'm russian as well and I can tell you that the westerners really have nothing against Russia as people, their governments are just freaking out because of what Putin is doing.
I am surrounded by westerners on daily basis, I never blame people, but their goverments actually caught my attention so I started to watch :) It's always goverment and that dreaded military boldheads
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 04:11:57 pm
You are aware that US and EU diplomats were trying to mediate in the Ukraine crisis? The disagreement was about who should be supported as a potential new Prime Minister, as part of a compromise between Yanukovych and the opposition. The EU wanted Klitchko, the US wanted Yatsenyuk.I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
You need to try and find full transcript of leaked Nuland Pyatt conversation. I can't help you here. The fact of connection between Klitchko and US officials is clear for me, must be not clear for you, but hey, thats a nature of interpretation. Again, if I find that this is troubling, because I am absolutely apolitical person. And now I am worried of shenanigans. I mean really I start believing in West against Russia agenda which I always find amusing before.
If you're refering to something else, here is a transcript. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957)
Yup, thats is transcript I was talking about. I am the one who find it's troubling USA is even involved here? I mean, look at the globe
Post by: Askot Bokbondeler on March 05, 2014, 04:12:52 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 05, 2014, 04:15:30 pm
Unfortunately, General Buck Turgidson's remarks in Dr. Strangelove are based on a lot of real American generals' war plans during the entire Cold War. The existence of them and folks like Zbigniew Brzezinski keep the distrust between Russia and the West strong. If you were a Russian leader, you definitely wouldn't trust a country that seriously plans to launch a 'pre-emptive' nuclear attack against you just because they think that you pose a threat to them.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 04:20:08 pm
Yup, thats is transcript I was talking about. I am the one who find it's troubling USA is even involved here? I mean, look at the globeThe foreign diplomats were involved to stop the two sides from starting to kill each other. That's...pretty normal. I'm tempted to make a cynical comment, but you really seem not to know.
A lot of Western politicians' posturings and views on Russia's policies remind me of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP6KbIsNK4)Still these days it's mostly Russia who has not realized the Cold War is over. I mean, Russia brought the army.
Unfortunately, General Buck Turgidson's remarks in Dr. Strangelove are based on a lot of real American generals' war plans during the entire Cold War. The existence of them and folks like Zbigniew Brzezinski keep the distrust between Russia and the West strong. If you were a Russian leader, you definitely wouldn't trust a country that seriously plans to launch a 'pre-emptive' nuclear attack against you just because they think that you pose a threat to them.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 04:22:21 pm
Quote
I am the one who find it's troubling USA is even involved here?I think yes. Because even I, Ukrainian nationalist (nationalists aren't very happy about foreign influence, you know?) understand that in this global world any country influences every country. USA, every EU country, Russia, China and many others have it's own interests in Ukraine and the whole foreign relations is defending those interests
But there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to influence some country
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 04:24:19 pm
Here's a memorial site to all who died in the uprising.
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2014, 04:29:31 pm
Helgoland, is you old man doing okay? I always feel sorry for the poor bastards who had to be a part of one of the most horrible regimes in history just because the were born in the wrong place.He's perfectly all right, no need to worry ;) His wife was very demented, but she died around Christmas - which is a pity; but ever since then he's really been blooming again.
Could we get a poll on the make-up of the thread participants? Russians/Ukrainians/Eastern Europeans/Germans/Other Europeans/Americans/misc.? I'd really like to know the proportions.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 04:36:35 pm
Quote
“The very real threat of a Russia-Ukraine war has completely polarized the general public, pitting two deeply entrenched blocs against one another: those who have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about and those who couldn’t care less,” said Pew spokesman Andrew Collins
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 04:43:16 pm
The foreign diplomats were involved to stop the two sides from starting to kill each other. That's...pretty normal. I'm tempted to make a cynical comment, but you really seem not to know.
You can't be serious here or you just blatantly ignorant. Russians and Ukrainians is not ever ever like muslim/jews angry-angry. Actually saying "starting to kill each other" is just shows how unaware you are. Out of my 30+ coworkers I have 4 ukrainians (not just bloodline, effectively, right now, Ukrainian citizens). I am going to lunch with some of them just tomorrow. There is not going to be bloodshed. Separate country? Anti russian goverment? Nothing new. Fine. Tension for ages. Racial jokes, all the time. But what you just said? Thats such an ignorance...
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 04:45:03 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 04:48:53 pm
QuoteI am the one who find it's troubling USA is even involved here?I think yes. Because even I, Ukrainian nationalist (nationalists aren't very happy about foreign influence, you know?) understand that in this global world any country influences every country. USA, every EU country, Russia, China and many others have it's own interests in Ukraine and the whole foreign relations is defending those interests
But there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to influence some country
It's funny, because, I am, Earth citizen, hugely apolitical globalist thinks that there should be none ever interests beside interests for prosperity of our home planet Earth. Thank you. We going to discuss galaxy interests after our technology applies.
Stop dividing.
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 04:49:27 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 04:50:11 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 04:52:51 pm
You were talking about the Nuland phone call, about foreign diplomats in Ukraine, when Yanukovych was still in power, threatened to use violence against the protesters and ultimately did, which killed up to 100 people. That was what the diplomats tried to prevent, that was what foreign involvement was about at that time.The foreign diplomats were involved to stop the two sides from starting to kill each other. That's...pretty normal. I'm tempted to make a cynical comment, but you really seem not to know.
You can't be serious here or you just blatantly ignorant. Russians and Ukrainians is not ever ever like muslim/jews angry-angry. Actually saying "starting to kill each other" is just shows how unaware you are. Out of my 30+ coworkers I have 4 ukrainians (not just bloodline, effectively, right now, Ukrainian citizens). I am going to lunch with some of them just tomorrow. There is not going to be bloodshed. Separate country? Anti russian goverment? Nothing new. Fine. Tension for ages. Racial jokes, all the time. But what you just said? Thats such an ignorance...
It was not about Russians and Ukrainians at all, that is a different issue now. Not sure if you don't understand me or are deliberately mishearing or mixing up things.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 04:53:48 pm
I know it's a fast-moving thread, and it's tempting to just bang something out, but we'll be a lot better off if we're actually talking with each other instead of past each other.
Russia and Europe and US were involved for the same exact reason.
I can accept that you think none of them should have been involved, since they were all foreign countries and Ukraine should handle it's own problems (if that's what you believe?), but that isn't what happened.
Or do you think Russia should have been involved, but not Europe or the USA? And if so, why?
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:03:11 pm
You were talking about the Nuland phone call, about foreign diplomats in Ukraine, when Yanukovych was still in power, threatened to use violence against the protesters and ultimately did, which killed up to 100 people. That was what the diplomats tried to prevent, that was what foreign involvement was about at that time.The foreign diplomats were involved to stop the two sides from starting to kill each other. That's...pretty normal. I'm tempted to make a cynical comment, but you really seem not to know.
You can't be serious here or you just blatantly ignorant. Russians and Ukrainians is not ever ever like muslim/jews angry-angry. Actually saying "starting to kill each other" is just shows how unaware you are. Out of my 30+ coworkers I have 4 ukrainians (not just bloodline, effectively, right now, Ukrainian citizens). I am going to lunch with some of them just tomorrow. There is not going to be bloodshed. Separate country? Anti russian goverment? Nothing new. Fine. Tension for ages. Racial jokes, all the time. But what you just said? Thats such an ignorance...
It was not about Russians and Ukrainians at all, that is a different issue now. Not sure if you don't understand me or are deliberately mishearing or mixing up things.
I hear what you saying, I am surprised you didnt got the hints (part of this is my lingual inefficiency for which I am sorry), but you can call this either
- honest interference of diplomats to stop bloodshed
- direct agenda to cause bloodshed via diplomatic channels, causing anticonstitunional coup using ~already named~ puppets to inflict instability in region, to establish NATO there and bomb this fucking communists to the ground already.
You see how 2nd sounds crazy? Well, it's not anymore. Amount of people believing it is staggering. And it's scary.
And stop calling facts things you read from one sided source. I read both sides and I dont believe both. I think both Russia and West is so full of bullshit right now, so I am going to stick to my gutfeeling, really.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:04:20 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:17:25 pm
Gogis... I'm just, sort of getting the feeling that either your English is not so good, or you are getting very emotional. Either way, you are communicating really poorly - it is very hard to understand what you are saying, and you don't seem to be understanding what others are saying. Please, slow down, chill a little bit, and put some more time into thinking about how to say what you want to say and interpreting responses.
I know it's a fast-moving thread, and it's tempting to just bang something out, but we'll be a lot better off if we're actually talking with each other instead of past each other.
Russia and Europe and US were involved for the same exact reason.
I can accept that you think none of them should have been involved, since they were all foreign countries and Ukraine should handle it's own problems (if that's what you believe?), but that isn't what happened.
Or do you think Russia should have been involved, but not Europe or the USA? And if so, why?
Sorry, my english is obviously suboptimal. I actually tend to understand, but probably form my sentences and thoughts incorrectly. Most likely.
Okay, here I am going to tell what most russians thinks about situtation regarding Russia/Ukraine
- Crimea is defenitely russian region, historicaly or not. It was once conquered or most likely actually liberated by Catherine. I am not going to comment on that, it's likely just a majority thinking thing.
- Nobody or almost nobody care for the rest of Ukraine. Obviously Ukranians in Russia have their thoughts but I dont ask (it's very touchy topic)
- Very right wing people very fond on all that Kiev-Kievan Rus thing. I dont really care, but for me it's make sense.
Thats about it. Thats why *my* circle thinks that foreign peacekeeping is *not their business* here. It's thought mostly as the inner thing, it's have nothing to do with former USSR or authoritharin Putin tendencies. Just not their businies, thats all. Thats why across the globe Nulandgate was such a bullshit and surprise.
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 05:19:18 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 05:21:09 pm
(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)
Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:22:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 05:23:11 pm
I hear what you saying, I am surprised you didnt got the hints (part of this is my lingual inefficiency for which I am sorry), but you can call this eitherIt's ok if your English isn't perfect, we just have to be careful to avoid misunderstandings.
- honest interference of diplomats to stop bloodshed
- direct agenda to cause bloodshed via diplomatic channels, causing anticonstitunional coup using ~already named~ puppets to inflict instability in region, to establish NATO there and bomb this fucking communists to the ground already.
You see how 2nd sounds crazy? Well, it's not anymore. Amount of people believing it is staggering. And it's scary.
And stop calling facts things you read from one sided source. I read both sides and I dont believe both. I think both Russia and West is so full of bullshit right now, so I am going to stick to my gutfeeling, really.
I do believe in 1, and I don't get my news from one-sided sources. 2 is the point of view Russian media present, I have no reason to believe it.
I can't tell you what you should think, if you want to stick to your gutfeeling, then do that. However, since you describe yourself as apolitical, you might not be that familiar with how politics and diplomacy work. So maybe do consider that before you start believing in conspiracy theories.
Thats why *my* circle thinks that foreign peacekeeping is *not their business* here. It's thought mostly as the inner thing, it's have nothing to do with former USSR or authoritharin Putin tendencies. Just not their businies, thats all. Thats why across the globe Nulandgate was such a bullshit and surprise.That's just an example of how diplomacy and foreign relations normally work. If you are otherwise not that interested in politics, maybe that is news to you, but it really is not unusual at all.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 05:24:48 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:26:10 pm
What do you read in the Nuland video to support point 2?
Pro-Russia goverment resources i.e. like this ones with leaked Klitchko letters. All that shit. I dont trust that shit at all, I dont trust Putin govmnt a single bit, but after Georgia and all kind of utter nonsense I saw I dont trust western media at all as well. Right now for me all that sources is a bullshit so I try to intersect and do wild guesses.
Real problem is that *this* thread is full of of latter case. I looked up most links and in half of them is pure insanity. And then posters say it's "interesting". And I feel sad panda aftewards. Cruel world, yea.
Post by: Helgoland on March 05, 2014, 05:27:41 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 05:30:44 pm
http://www.unian.net/politics/893369-djemilev-turtsiya-obeschaet-vmeshatsya-v-konflikt-v-kryimu-esli-budet-ugroza-tataram.html
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/03/turkey-concern-crimea-ukraine-crisis-tartars.html#
Also, it looks like I misinterpreted a translated article on the moving out of Crimea thing.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 05:31:00 pm
I hear what you saying, I am surprised you didnt got the hints (part of this is my lingual inefficiency for which I am sorry), but you can call this either
- honest interference of diplomats to stop bloodshed
- direct agenda to cause bloodshed via diplomatic channels, causing anticonstitunional coup using ~already named~ puppets to inflict instability in region, to establish NATO there and bomb this fucking communists to the ground already.
You see how 2nd sounds crazy? Well, it's not anymore. Amount of people believing it is staggering. And it's scary.
And stop calling facts things you read from one sided source. I read both sides and I dont believe both. I think both Russia and West is so full of bullshit right now, so I am going to stick to my gutfeeling, really.
Dude,
A. The number of people who believe something has no bearing on it's truthfulness. There's a correlation, but there was once a time when the majority opinion was that the world was flat. Which was wrong.
B. We cite our sources, no matter how 'one-sided' they seem, so that others can read for themselves and /also/ to fact-check ourselves.
We don't trust (all of) the western media either, and not all of us find all the sources listed as interesting.
-------------
@the onion
Ukrainian-Russian Tensions Dividing U.S. Citizens Along Ignorant, Apathetic Lines (http://www.theonion.com/articles/ukrainianrussian-tensions-dividing-us-citizens-alo,35428/)Quote“The very real threat of a Russia-Ukraine war has completely polarized the general public, pitting two deeply entrenched blocs against one another: those who have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about and those who couldn’t care less,” said Pew spokesman Andrew Collins
My favorite is
Quote
“This is not a distinctly regional or socioeconomic split, either. We’re seeing local workplaces, friends, even families ripped in two by their desire to either ignore the whole thing completely or spout an inane, half-witted opinion on it like they’re some geopolitical expert.”(@gogis, this is satire, in case it's confusing)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 05, 2014, 05:31:08 pm
- Crimea is defenitely russian region, historicaly or not. It was once conquered or most likely actually liberated by Catherine. I am not going to comment on that, it's likely just a majority thinking thing.
... Right...
Does anyone have a link on that Turkey mobilization bit? It turned up a couple of pages back...
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-340679-turkey-says-crimea-part-of-ukraine.html
Turkey sounds serious, too.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:32:53 pm
Maybe you didn't understand me: what section of the Nuland video transcript support interpretation 2?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 05:33:08 pm
Actually, I've heard mixed reports about the "no longer just in Crimea" thing, so don't trust me on that.Pro-Russian protesters have taken control of government buildings in Donetsk and there are clashes in other places.
Russian troops and (what is described as) pro-Russian militias (probably really Russian troops too for the most part) are still only in Crimea AFAIK.
Does anyone have a link on that Turkey mobilization bit? It turned up a couple of pages back...Here's another one. (http://www.byegm.gov.tr/english/agenda/mobilization-for-crimea-after-160-years/54901) "Mobilization" isn't used in the military meaning here though, it's supposed to express the urgency of the issue for Turkey. So it's not as serious as it sounds.
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:36:56 pm
But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?
(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)
Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.
No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:38:36 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 05, 2014, 05:39:32 pm
Here's another one. (http://www.byegm.gov.tr/english/agenda/mobilization-for-crimea-after-160-years/54901) "Mobilization" isn't used in the military meaning here though, it's supposed to express the urgency of the issue for Turkey. So it's not as serious as it sounds.
Actually, the Turkish government made sure to use the word 'mobilization' specifically because of that fact. They're basically one misstep from firing on any Russian aircraft in their airspace. (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-341111-turkey-scrambles-fighter-jets-to-intercept-russian-aircraft.html)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 05:42:20 pm
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?So, just to be clear - you are perfectly okay with foreign intervention, so long as it suits your country's interests?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
Err... right. o_o
Not sure how strong an argument that's going to be insofar as arguing against Western involvement when said involvement does, in fact, serve their interests?
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:43:02 pm
Maybe you didn't understand me: what section of the Nuland video transcript support interpretation 2?
None. But coupled with Klitchko letters *and* alot of other bullshit it's raises shenanigans of zeitgeist calibre.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 05:43:48 pm
I heard of that incident.Here's another one. (http://www.byegm.gov.tr/english/agenda/mobilization-for-crimea-after-160-years/54901) "Mobilization" isn't used in the military meaning here though, it's supposed to express the urgency of the issue for Turkey. So it's not as serious as it sounds.
Actually, the Turkish government made sure to use the word 'mobilization' specifically because of that fact. They're basically one misstep from firing on any Russian aircraft in their airspace. (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-341111-turkey-scrambles-fighter-jets-to-intercept-russian-aircraft.html)
Still Turkey hasn't mobilized it's troops as the word would imply. As the article says:
Quote
Arriving in Kiev yesterday, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu met with Mustafa Abdülcemil Kırımoğlu, the former Chairman of the Crimean Tatar National Assembly, and noted that Turkey was ready to provide every support, and was in a way mobilized, to protect the rights of the Crimean cognates.
The word “mobilization” diligently selected by Davutoğlu precisely represented the urgency of the issue for Turkey, although not from a military perspective. Turkey has been wary of not raising her voice and has even been partly careful about not ‘annoying’ Russia with regard to the social uprising in Ukraine yet she clearly positioned herself alongside the Western alliance on the issue of Crimea.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:45:28 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 05, 2014, 05:45:53 pm
Post by: olemars on March 05, 2014, 05:48:14 pm
But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?
(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)
Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.
No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.
Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly? That construct is purely russian. The impression we get in the rest of Europe is that Putin, and to a certain extent the rest of russia, feels that all of Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence. To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.
Post by: PanH on March 05, 2014, 05:49:26 pm
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?There's a thing called "self determination right". You might not be happy that people that live there want to stay with Ukraine (or be independant, or join Russia, for that matter), but it should be up to them to decide. And Russia still has a deal for navy bases, so it's not the point.
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:50:26 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 05:51:14 pm
So, just to be clear - you are perfectly okay with foreign intervention, so long as it suits your country's interests?
I need another quote just to be clear.
You really never knew we had naval base in Crimea before all that started? Otherwise I can't understand how can't you understand, all that, and I will bold everything
"Crimea is not going full Ukraine"
"we not going to give up ports and navy bases"
Post by: PanH on March 05, 2014, 05:54:43 pm
-Sure hope so. It would be nice to respect one country's sovereignty.
-Russian troops are fine, but not NATO ? Double standard much. EU is right on the other side of Ukraine, you know. If you're expecting no troops from them, that's what they want from Russia too.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 05:55:16 pm
Had there been threats of revoking the lease?
Because in the meantime, Russia's violating Ukraine sovereignty.
Worse yet, (as mentioned earlier in this thread), Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine a couple decades ago that they wouldn't do exactly this, (invade), in exchange for Ukraine unilaterally disarming their huge nuclear stockpile.
If Ukraine still had it's nukes, Russia wouldn't be in Crimea right now.
So basically everyone's going to want their nukes back, especially the now-hostile Ukraine.
Funny story: it sounds like the same end-result of the NATO-bombing-russia fantasy, except it's true.
--And the EU/NATO aren't happy about this. We've been pushing for nuclear-nonproliferation for EVER--
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 05:55:57 pm
gogis, why no NATO? Shouldn't countries be free to choose their alliances?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 05, 2014, 05:57:05 pm
Worse yet, (as mentioned earlier in this thread), Russia signed an agreement with Ukraine a couple decades ago that they wouldn't do exactly this, (invade), in exchange for Ukraine unilaterally disarming their huge nuclear stockpile.
If Ukraine still had it's nukes, Russia wouldn't be in Crimea right now.
So basically everyone's going to want their nukes back, especially the now-hostile Ukraine.
Pretty much this. Putin has single handedly ruined non-proliferation forever.
Hey, Kim Jung, give up your nukes so the world is safer and your people are no longer at risk from the nuclear powers.
What if you just attack us 10-20 years after we sign an agreement to give them up in exchange for non-aggression? [Cites the Ukraine]
Well, guess you'll just have to trust us.
Post by: PanH on March 05, 2014, 05:59:42 pm
PanH, he did say he didn't support invasion. Stop strawmanning him!
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 06:03:16 pm
As I mentioned before, part of our source-citing is to fact-check ourselves & pre-emptively save face.
GOGI
Here, read this:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5051646;topicseen#msg5051646
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 06:06:44 pm
And I am really amazed by this kind of thinking that many Russians have - "Russia is where Russians live" or even worse "Russia is the land that was once conquered by Russian Empire" type of psychology. With staff like borders and international laws having no importance at all
BTW, Crimea wasn't gifted to Ukraine it was exchanged for Belgorod region... Russians totally forgot about that
Post by: Sheb on March 05, 2014, 06:07:16 pm
But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?
No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid?
Gogi agree with Putin than Sevastopol is a major strategic importance, but he disagree on the troops there.
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2014, 06:10:08 pm
IF that generation is the one that learns history from the Call of Duty games, then I don't wanna even think about what that "new attitude" would mean.
We're not talking about your average Joe, we're talking about senior state department officials, generals and intelligence analysts. And besides, we're talking about people who turned 20 in the 90s and early naughties, before CoD4 even came out. Anyone who's going to soak up COD bias at the age of 35 probably wont be anywhere near the halls of power, ever.
Now Dota on the other hand...
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:10:56 pm
PanH, he did say he didn't support invasion. Stop strawmanning him!
gogis, why no NATO? Shouldn't countries be free to choose their alliances?
I dont mind NATO. I actually think we need worldwide NATO (I mean, fully worldwide, and please dont go for meaning, I know what this letters mean), but I am also total globalist and I am okay with gays. And trust me, 90% russians is not ok with gays, so I am not voicing majority
- Putin is imperialist I think, and he is honestly have majority in Russia. No, it's rigged elections, dont be fooled.
- Again, majority is VERY MUCH against west. And you guys, not helping here. It's becomes worse and worse. And thats very bad for all.
- So this goes to NATO which goes to possibility of major conflict which will never going to happen if there is no NATO closeby. Simple as that.
Putin is not planning to go full west. Our army is like 70% conscripts ratio, nobody in their mind going to sign for that. It's a DEFENSIVE MOVE. But if we attacked... You know the history.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 06:14:42 pm
NATO not being present doesn't seem to prevent conflict, as evidenced by Russia currently occupying part of the non-NATO Ukrainian state.
Read mah last/previous post please!
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:24:04 pm
But you are okay with Russian's engaging in Foreign Peacekeeping there?
(Note: They are by no means limiting themselves to Crimea, and have moved into the rest of the Ukraine)
Crimea is NOT a part of Russia, it is part of Ukraine. Russian presence there is the definition of Foreign Intervention.
No, I am not okay with that, but how it makes my previous points invalid? I already stated or, erhm.. hinted I am against Putin politics overall, but lets going to be clear.
Crimea is not going full Ukraine. Never. Putin will not allow that and I will fully sign for that. Gosh, who cares, ok, Crimea is Ukrainian ok enjoy that land guys, really, but we not going to give up ports and navy bases there. Do I need to explain why?
I am on with Putin on Crimea. Strategical value is immense.
And he is not going for the rest of Ukraine. He is smart enough. If he going otherwise he is politicaly dead.
Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly? That construct is purely russian. The impression we get in the rest of Europe is that Putin, and to a certain extent the rest of russia, feels that all of Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence. To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.
>>Why is it that Ukraine has to be either EU-friendly or Russia-friendly? That construct is purely russian.
Thats construct is purely ACTUALLY west/russian goverment. In fact nobody of russian common folk even care about Ukraine. Have you checked damn map? Man, I am being harsh here but you damn ignorant as heck. You really have no clue and I damn sure you never been closeby but you state is as a fact?
>>Ukraine "belongs" under russian influence.
I concede here.
But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
>>To suddenly remember that Crimea was signed away by Krushchev after some dinner party seems more like a handy excuse.
That region have a history dated way before Krushchev
edit: edited for racism and general shitness by me
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 06:27:19 pm
Quote
But if we attacked... You know the history.Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk of work was done by other countries?
Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?
Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)
Russia can fight either enemy that is much weaker than it is (most conquests of Russia is against small and\or technology backwards countries) or as a member of a large alliance (After such wars Russia claims that it has done all job)
When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan) And who are your allies, now?
In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....)
Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war
Post by: scrdest on March 05, 2014, 06:30:09 pm
But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 06:33:10 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 06:40:17 pm
Oi, UR, you're firing the opening salvos of a flame-war there. Why you do that? :(Don't worry, I am not gonna answer to any counterarguments from him :)
He looks like good but misguided guy
I hope that he may try to think that his president may lead his country to ruin and that "Russia can't be defeated" is a myth. Myth that may cost his nation too much
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:44:35 pm
QuoteBut if we attacked... You know the history.Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk of work was done by other countries?
Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?
Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)
Russia can fight either enemy that is much weaker than it is (most conquests of Russia is against small and\or technology backwards countries) or as a member of a large alliance (After such wars Russia claims that it has done all job)
When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan) And who are your allies, now?
In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....)
Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war
>>Do You mean Napolenoc wars when large chunk of work was done by other countries?
As you probably russian speaking I will recommend you this here, filmed by french, which is very convinient for my point
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4256324
They go by very strictly with timeline so you can catch up with numbers Napoleon army had at that point. You actually made mistake here, because I am very big admirer of Napoleon and I know that period well.
>>Or maybe you mean WW1 where Russia actually lost?
Yes it is. What your point? I dont get why you against me in first place. You remember my first post?
>>Or maybe you mean WW2 when USSR was saved by armadas of American bombers that criplled German war economics and kept >>most of it's airforce busy (without that USSR had zero chances against Germany)
Thats is interesting piece of information. Very much new to me. Thank you.
>>When it face equal enemy and alone Russia has huge problems (Crimean War, War with Japan) And who are your allies, now?
>>In conventional war Russia has zero chances, in economical war it has zero chances, in nuclear war it has zero chances (damage >>done to Russia and by Russia will be not comparable), in proxy war it has zero chances (Imagine that USA will move North >>Caucasians from terrorists to freedom fighters and actively supply them with modern weapons....)
>>Russia isn't attacked not because it's strong and can't be defeated, but because no sane persons want large-scale war
I am not going to comment any of that. I promised to not comment at all, but I am probably somewhat retarded and I did. But you need, you really need to find new sources of information. I feel cheated because I suspect you serious all the way here and you actually raging ukrainian nationalist. Because most of what you just provided is bullshit, sorry to say that.
Post by: mainiac on March 05, 2014, 06:46:11 pm
Oi, UR, you're firing the opening salvos of a flame-war there. Why you do that? :(
When you flame, Putin wins.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 06:50:05 pm
Any opinion on the ramifications for nuclear proliferation, or how Yanukovitch and his oligarchy allies (Not Russia) started the whole crisis?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5062623#msg5062623
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5051646;topicseen#msg5051646
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 06:51:35 pm
snip
Oh god, before this escalates, please let me just say that gogis meant that Russia, and USSR, and most other eastern european countries, absolutely including Ukraine, are very good at defending themselves. Not because of the armies, but because of the people who will hold their ground with grim determination, if needed. So if Russia is invaded, the russians will take up arms go down fighting. Likewise, Ukraine is prepared to fight to the last right now, as it seems.
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:52:49 pm
But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Thats not even ever to be the same, jesus. Russians never liberated Polish/Lithuanian lands. Or maybe some bit I dont recall. But there was a lot of cooperation and liberating with Ukraine.
And, after all, did you ever heard Warsaw Rus? Krakow Rus?
But I defenitely heard Kievan Rus, did I?
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:53:41 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 06:56:23 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 06:57:06 pm
snip
Oh god, before this escalates, please let me just say that gogis meant that Russia, and USSR, and most other eastern european countries, absolutely including Ukraine, are very good at defending themselves. Not because of the armies, but because of the people who will hold their ground with grim determination, if needed. So if Russia is invaded, the russians will take up arms go down fighting. Likewise, Ukraine is prepared to fight to the last right now, as it seems.
I know you wanted to stop me.
But thats true. And thats why russians will not going to fight ukrainians. Thats silly. We are the same people.
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 06:58:09 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 06:58:45 pm
It is perfectly clear that Russia sees itself as a successor to the Kievan Rus. That does not mean it owns Kiev today. Or that it can just go ahead and take Crimea because that was Russian territory once.But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Thats not even ever to be the same, jesus. Russians never liberated Polish/Lithuanian lands. Or maybe some bit I dont recall. But there was a lot of cooperation and liberating with Ukraine.
And, after all, did you ever heard Warsaw Rus? Krakow Rus?
But I defenitely heard Kievan Rus, did I?
This is not some computer game.
And you didn't answer the question. Lviv was a Polish city until 1939. Similarly Königsberg/Kaliningrad was a German city until 1945. By your logic, that means Poland and Germany should just march in and take them back?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 05, 2014, 07:02:45 pm
Gogis:
Any opinion on the ramifications for nuclear proliferation, or how Yanukovitch and his oligarchy allies (Not Russia) started the whole crisis?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5062623#msg5062623
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5051646;topicseen#msg5051646
I demand answers!
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 07:06:04 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 07:11:22 pm
It is perfectly clear that Russia sees itself as a successor to the Kievan Rus. That does not mean it owns Kiev today. Or that it can just go ahead and take Crimea because that was Russian territory once.But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Thats not even ever to be the same, jesus. Russians never liberated Polish/Lithuanian lands. Or maybe some bit I dont recall. But there was a lot of cooperation and liberating with Ukraine.
And, after all, did you ever heard Warsaw Rus? Krakow Rus?
But I defenitely heard Kievan Rus, did I?
This is not some computer game.
And you didn't answer the question. Lviv was a Polish city until 1939. Similarly Königsberg/Kaliningrad was a German city until 1945. By your logic, that means Poland and Germany should just march in and take them back?
Yes, thats could happen. You will be naive to belive otherwise. Again. You brought up Kievan Rus. In reality, this is Crimea and access to Black Sea. Nothing more. It's huge
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2014, 07:12:11 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 07:15:40 pm
Damnit!Gogis:
Any opinion on the ramifications for nuclear proliferation, or how Yanukovitch and his oligarchy allies (Not Russia) started the whole crisis?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5062623#msg5062623
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5051646;topicseen#msg5051646
I demand answers!
I have no answers on both questions, because I saw two different opinions on that, not surprisingly opposite. And it's, frankly, was again dreaded Russia/West thing. So I decided to not comment when you first time asked. So side with whatever you feel right.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 07:18:29 pm
What? You brought up Kievan Rus, I marked it for you.It is perfectly clear that Russia sees itself as a successor to the Kievan Rus. That does not mean it owns Kiev today. Or that it can just go ahead and take Crimea because that was Russian territory once.But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Thats not even ever to be the same, jesus. Russians never liberated Polish/Lithuanian lands. Or maybe some bit I dont recall. But there was a lot of cooperation and liberating with Ukraine.
And, after all, did you ever heard Warsaw Rus? Krakow Rus?
But I defenitely heard Kievan Rus, did I?
This is not some computer game.
And you didn't answer the question. Lviv was a Polish city until 1939. Similarly Königsberg/Kaliningrad was a German city until 1945. By your logic, that means Poland and Germany should just march in and take them back?
Yes, thats could happen. You will be naive to belive otherwise. Again. You brought up Kievan Rus. In reality, this is Crimea and access to Black Sea. Nothing more. It's huge
The issue is the sovereignty of a country, in this case Ukraine's, since Crimea is part of Ukraine.
And let me tell you as a German and a European that nobody intends to take Kaliningrad or Lviv. If you don't believe that much, I'm afraid you are seriously misinformed.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 05, 2014, 07:19:48 pm
Well, about nukes, I don't believe their number will increase significantly following the Ukrainian crisis. Most countries that want nukes are either armed already or too poor to afford them right now.The problem is that many more countries will add to "want nukes" list seeing that all treaties are paper and nothing more. Dozens of countries are capable to do nukes with relative ease
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 07:23:41 pm
I believe the situation will improve significantly when we finally depose Putin andWell, about nukes, I don't believe their number will increase significantly following the Ukrainian crisis. Most countries that want nukes are either armed already or too poor to afford them right now.The problem is that many more countries will add to "want nukes" list seeing that all treaties are paper and nothing more. Dozens of countries are capable to do nukes with relative ease
EDIT: What the effervescent airborne fuck does Kievan Rus have to do with the current situation? You might as well bring up Italy invading Greece because it was once part of the Roman Empire.
Post by: olemars on March 05, 2014, 07:24:20 pm
olemars: by their very nature, the deals on the table were mutually exclusive. It was trade agreement with Europe vs custom union with Russia, EU vs Eurasian Union.
I would say that customs union is exactly a construct by Putin (with some help from Nazarbayev) to lock in the members with Russia and largely isolate them from the rest of the world, to the point of making even WTO membership difficult. I can say lots of bad things about the EU, but it's at least far less of a lock-in. It's also quite possible to have a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU and not be part of its customs union, like Norway. As an aside, we also have an agreement with Russia whcih means residents of the regions along the common border (Finnmark and Murmansk) can cross freely.
I'm pretty sure the EU and the rest of europe would much much rather have a chill Russia&friends to do business with rather than the mess that's happened now. Which is why the idea that european governments would be at all interested in seeing Ukraine or Russia destabilized is as insane as the rest of the propaganda. Even the rather small ompany I work for is working on a contract with a russian company these days, and I bet my boss is pacing around and muttering right now. Not to mention my russian and ukrainian friends and coworkers who are all worried. And so am I.
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 07:28:52 pm
Frankly I think non-proliferation was a lost cause anyway, beyond cost-cutting measures for the existing nuclear powers. In the case of Ukraine, that was part of the dissolution of the USSR anyway, so a rather special case. And that treaty that promised never to invade, well, Russia considers it invalid as it doesn't recognize the government, so that's that.What? You brought up Kievan Rus, I marked it for you.It is perfectly clear that Russia sees itself as a successor to the Kievan Rus. That does not mean it owns Kiev today. Or that it can just go ahead and take Crimea because that was Russian territory once.But it's kind of historically true. I recommend exellent Europa Universalis series game here. Not even country for some game periods, but regions...
Would you support Polish army marching into Lviv, then? Same logic.
Thats not even ever to be the same, jesus. Russians never liberated Polish/Lithuanian lands. Or maybe some bit I dont recall. But there was a lot of cooperation and liberating with Ukraine.
And, after all, did you ever heard Warsaw Rus? Krakow Rus?
But I defenitely heard Kievan Rus, did I?
This is not some computer game.
And you didn't answer the question. Lviv was a Polish city until 1939. Similarly Königsberg/Kaliningrad was a German city until 1945. By your logic, that means Poland and Germany should just march in and take them back?
Yes, thats could happen. You will be naive to belive otherwise. Again. You brought up Kievan Rus. In reality, this is Crimea and access to Black Sea. Nothing more. It's huge
The issue is the sovereignty of a country, in this case Ukraine's, since Crimea is part of Ukraine.
And let me tell you as a German and a European that nobody intends to take Kaliningrad or Lviv. If you don't believe that much, I'm afraid you are seriously misinformed.
Do you swear for for future generations? You misunderstanding me completely all they way in all that damn thread. You treat me like all I am saying like it's my opinion. I tell you, *this could happen*. This does not imply nothing. I tell you that in some future it could happen, because there is a *CASUS BELLI* thats it.
Post by: Owlbread on March 05, 2014, 07:30:01 pm
Post by: gogis on March 05, 2014, 07:31:19 pm
So Scotland has a casus belli to annex Northern Ireland given that it was at one time part of the ancient kingdom of Dal Riata?
Could you swear it's never going to happen?
Post by: Ghazkull on March 05, 2014, 07:32:29 pm
starts laughing madly at the magnitudes of miscommunication going on there before choking on his food*
guys i just think you are talking miles past each other. While i still don't get what gogis means exactly, i think you guys are misunderstanding him in some way...just throwing that in here, propably not very helpful but meh.
*goes back to watching the thread interestingly*
also i would say something about burningpets arguments from earlier but that was a) ten pages ago and b) if it's me that drags that particular discussion about the difference of nationalism and neo-nazies back up i propably gonna shoot myself...
Post by: Knit tie on March 05, 2014, 07:37:34 pm
I can, because Scottish society has advanced past the point where they care about nationalism more than they believe in globalism. Unless they somehow regress, probably due to a cataclysm of some sorts, they won't care about conquest.So Scotland has a casus belli to annex Northern Ireland given that it was at one time part of the ancient kingdom of Dal Riata?
Could you swear it's never going to happen?
Post by: Owlbread on March 05, 2014, 07:38:46 pm
Could you swear it's never going to happen?
In the same way that I can't swear the population of the USA will never convert en masse to zoroastrianism.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 05, 2014, 07:46:14 pm
Well, we do have the third largest population of Zoroastrians in the world...Could you swear it's never going to happen?
In the same way that I can't swear the population of the USA will never convert en masse to zoroastrianism.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 05, 2014, 07:47:37 pm
Do you swear for for future generations? You misunderstanding me completely all they way in all that damn thread. You treat me like all I am saying like it's my opinion. I tell you, *this could happen*. This does not imply nothing. I tell you that in some future it could happen, because there is a *CASUS BELLI* thats it.Yeah, I think we keep misunderstanding each other.
"This could happen" is not an argument, it's completely unfounded. If you observe current politics at all you know it is not going to. And speculating about "future generations" is besides the point really. Maybe future generations of Mongolians will re-conquer Russia, maybe not. That doesn't really matter at all when we are talking about stuff that is actually happening.
Life is not a strategy game, "casus belli" is not as simple a concept in reality as in a Paradox game.
The point I was trying to explain to you is this: If Poland marched troops into Ukraine over Lviv, or Germany marched troops into Russia over Königsberg, you would probably consider that wrong. What Russia is doing now in Crimea is the same thing, because Ukraine is a sovereign country.
Post by: Bouchart on March 05, 2014, 08:18:53 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 10:37:00 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 05, 2014, 10:42:48 pm
I'm pleased about this, don't get me wrong, but this doesn't sit right with me. The Russian governments under Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev have done far worse things than the invasion of Ukraine but nobody bothered to speak out like this. I have a feeling it's because Ukrainians are famous, white, European, predominantly Christian and on the whole straight.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 05, 2014, 10:45:11 pm
This sits no more poorly with me than the wave of support for homosexuality and gay marriage in the US, even though those people probably should have done it BEFORE it was popular and STILL only support the most mainstream sort of divergent sexuality.
That it's happening at all is a good thing, even if it should have happened earlier, is what I'm saying.
Post by: Dutchling on March 05, 2014, 11:00:20 pm
Okay, something slightly less sensational: NATO Press Conference (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_107743.htm)
Quote
As you will recall, NATO made a decision back in 2008 at the NATO Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine and by the way also Georgia will become members of NATO, provided of course they so wish and provided they fulfilled the necessary criteria. This decision stands.
Post by: t. fortsorter on March 05, 2014, 11:52:22 pm
You identify as liberal and tolerant, do you not?
Why are you intolerant towards Russians? Is it because they're not a race nor a sexuality?
My question is directly linked with the attitude exhibited towards Avis-Mergulus, Eris bless him for leaving this thread peacefully. ^^
I'm Polish myself... there are historical reasons for any Pole to dislike the previous governments of Russia, and even this one a little! but what you guys are doing is just horrible. :w:
Post by: Dutchling on March 06, 2014, 12:06:56 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 06, 2014, 12:11:24 am
quotes plox~this please
Post by: Descan on March 06, 2014, 12:18:52 am
>:c
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 06, 2014, 12:30:19 am
quotes plox~this please
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2014, 12:45:22 am
You identify as liberal and tolerant, do you not?
Why are you intolerant towards Russians?
The accents, mostly. Also, I got an STD from a Russian guy once.
Post by: Sheb on March 06, 2014, 01:26:00 am
Post by: nenjin on March 06, 2014, 01:32:16 am
Where did you get that we hate the Russians?
Because I suppose we throw the word around when we're really referencing what their leader does. Then again, that should be pretty self-evident unless someone is looking to start a fight.
Post by: Knit tie on March 06, 2014, 02:25:29 am
We don't hate Russia. Even Ukrainian Ranger, who by all means should, said that.
Post by: scrdest on March 06, 2014, 02:29:51 am
So~ Due to the fact that the discussion looks somewhat civilized at this point of time, allow me to ask one thing of you.
You identify as liberal and tolerant, do you not?
Why are you intolerant towards Russians? Is it because they're not a race nor a sexuality?
My question is directly linked with the attitude exhibited towards Avis-Mergulus, Eris bless him for leaving this thread peacefully. ^^
I'm Polish myself... there are historical reasons for any Pole to dislike the previous governments of Russia, and even this one a little! but what you guys are doing is just horrible. :w:
Lolwut. Are we even using the same definition for 'tolerance'?
Post by: burningpet on March 06, 2014, 02:33:05 am
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/03/222988.htm
Spot the "inaccuracies".
Post by: Sheb on March 06, 2014, 02:33:24 am
Which I think mean us of the so-called Western side have an extra duty to be polite and respectful, because we're so many.
Still, I must say this reflect well on Bay12: thanks to the restraint of everyone (especially people like UR and Avis, who are emotionally engaged), we've managed to maintain a mostly polite conversation in the face of an invasion (Or call it whatever you like). Put another way: it takes an army to make a crack in Bay12 politeness.
scrdest, no need for lowuts.
burningpet: Yeah, 3 and 4 are debatable and 10 conveniently forget Svodoba.
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 04:22:36 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 04:37:09 am
Guys, just announce it was taken yesterday and print results. It is more practical
Post by: lemon10 on March 06, 2014, 04:40:05 am
Has anything been happening with the anti-goverment/corruption protests over the past week? Has Russia's actions stopped them all?
Because I haven't really heard anything, since the Russian invasion is taking up all of the news about Ukraine.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 06, 2014, 04:41:15 am
According to Lenta.ru, which cites RIA Novosti, the referendum will decide on should Crimea secede from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/06/change/)
Post by: Knit tie on March 06, 2014, 04:44:54 am
I don't hate Russians (more than any other people). Some of my favourite siblings are Russian.Wait, you are russian too?
Breaking news:I thought that was announced days ago.
According to Lenta.ru, which cites RIA Novosti, the referendum will decide on should Crimea secede from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/06/change/)
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 06, 2014, 04:46:06 am
Something tells me he is using or spoofing the "I don't hate X, some of my friends are X" excuse.I don't hate Russians (more than any other people). Some of my favourite siblings are Russian.Wait, you are russian too?
Before, it was only a rumour. Now, it's official.Breaking news:I thought that was announced days ago.
According to Lenta.ru, which cites RIA Novosti, the referendum will decide on should Crimea secede from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. (http://lenta.ru/news/2014/03/06/change/)
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 04:47:17 am
I have no idea where you get that idea from.I don't hate Russians (more than any other people). Some of my favourite siblings are Russian.Wait, you are russian too?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 06, 2014, 05:05:03 am
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 05:09:46 am
Post by: olemars on March 06, 2014, 05:16:19 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 06, 2014, 05:23:08 am
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 05:32:21 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 05:39:26 am
Have seen surprisingly little mention of it in english media, but seems like russian troops have pulled back from a number of surrounded ukrainian military bases tonight (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-russia-crimea-eu-un-live#block-53183803e4b0c8d9ae9a5567). Speculation ranges from that they've pulled back due to the OSCE observer delegation arriving later today, to leaving the field open to provocations from the civilian militias.That was just a rotation of troops, they came back shortly after
Post by: Sheb on March 06, 2014, 06:34:57 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2014, 07:24:08 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 06, 2014, 09:25:47 am
Also, Crimea speaker says:
"No need for observers because we are all honest people here."
in relation to both the parliaments vote to join Russia referendum or not, and to the referendum itself.
Edit:
Also, Crimean Vice Premier has publicly declared that the "Ukrainian Occupiers" must lay down their weapons and become Citizens of Russia or lay down their weapons and be shipped back to their foreign homeland.
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 09:42:03 am
The referendum will officially be a "formality".My eyes, they can't roll enough.
Also, Crimea speaker says:
"No need for observers because we are all honest people here."
in relation to both the parliaments vote to join Russia referendum or not, and to the referendum itself.
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2014, 09:43:24 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 09:45:03 am
Why don't they hold an open referendum? I thought it was pretty clear that they'd win anyway...They'll not win an open referendum with counter campaign in press and overall stabilization of Ukrainian government. They know that very well
Post by: Darvi on March 06, 2014, 09:46:06 am
Why don't they hold an open referendum? I thought it was pretty clear that they'd win anyway...Why would they waste time and resources on that when it's so glaringly obvious that Crimea wants to join Russia?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 06, 2014, 10:59:07 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 11:06:41 am
People in Crimea are just aren't patient enough to wait for referendum. The moved it again to 16th of march, and sent a request to Russia about annexing thing beforehand to perform it with maximum speed when the proposal obviously wins.Yes, and all Ukrainian army and navy units switched to Russian side as you said earlier
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2014, 11:15:07 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 11:17:49 am
Spoiler: Because Russian Navy is the best in.... (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2014, 11:20:10 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 06, 2014, 11:23:07 am
No, really, what the fuck? Turkey? Is it like "oh, are we remembering history? let me get my piece then"?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 11:33:19 am
Post by: scriver on March 06, 2014, 12:10:49 pm
Well, then Turkish navy will have a problemSpoiler: Because Russian Navy is the best in.... (click to show/hide)
Everybody keeps surpassing Sweden at her own achievments these days...
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 12:15:41 pm
Spoiler: Russia got a mighty ally in Crimean Crisis (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2014, 12:16:31 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 06, 2014, 01:25:12 pm
The referendum will officially be a "formality".
Also, Crimea speaker says:
"No need for observers because we are all honest people here."
in relation to both the parliaments vote to join Russia referendum or not, and to the referendum itself.
Edit:
Also, Crimean Vice Premier has publicly declared that the "Ukrainian Occupiers" must lay down their weapons and become Citizens of Russia or lay down their weapons and be shipped back to their foreign homeland.
What a farce.
Post by: burningpet on March 06, 2014, 01:27:46 pm
Spoiler: Russia got a mighty ally in Crimean Crisis (click to show/hide)
You gotta admit that if it wasn't so sad, this could have been a pretty good comedy. i can just imagine him sitting with Hassan nasrallah, smoking nargilla and laughing their asses off as they write it while issuing another bombing round on their own people. his cynicism is so extreme it does make it a little bit funny.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 06, 2014, 01:30:03 pm
I'll note that during the Crimean war the Russian Empire completely obliterated the Turkish armies and fleets. In record breaking time.
Not that any historical war prior to WW2 really has much relevance in predicting how things would work out now. The world has changed too much, both in geopolitical terms as well as military technology. And even WW2 is a poor indicator for how things would work out with modern armies.
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2014, 01:35:18 pm
As I said before the best solution for Ukraine is to sell Crimea to Turkey. You say it's illegal to sell territory without asking the population first? Pfff. We'll let Turkery to hold the referendum, sometime later. After they deport Russians away. It worked in Abkhazia when they forced Georgians away
I really hope this is a joke.
Post by: palsch on March 06, 2014, 01:49:17 pm
A few interesting answers there, but this one jumped out at me;
Quote
Does Russia really believe the uprising was provoked? Or are they using that as justification for their actions, which are actually driven by other motives?
Quote
No, I think this is one place where Western diplomats and commentators often slip up. They say things like: Putin can't possibly believe that, can he? Yes, I do think Russia believes the uprising was provoked by the EU and the US. The appearance of top US and EU politicians and diplomats on the square during the uprising (Victoria Nuland, John McCain, Catherine Ashton, and many others) only served to reinforce the Kremlin's suspicions.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 06, 2014, 01:55:03 pm
A few interesting answers there, but this one jumped out at me;Well, I think one thing we learned in this thread too is that the Russian perspective on these events is very different from the Western one. Of course we can dismiss that as propaganda, but the fact remains that many people believe it. Maybe there is really a need for a fact finding mission, to get to a narrative that is acceptable to both sides, but I doubt that will work with the biases and distrust on both sides here.QuoteDoes Russia really believe the uprising was provoked? Or are they using that as justification for their actions, which are actually driven by other motives?QuoteNo, I think this is one place where Western diplomats and commentators often slip up. They say things like: Putin can't possibly believe that, can he? Yes, I do think Russia believes the uprising was provoked by the EU and the US. The appearance of top US and EU politicians and diplomats on the square during the uprising (Victoria Nuland, John McCain, Catherine Ashton, and many others) only served to reinforce the Kremlin's suspicions.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 06, 2014, 02:14:10 pm
While it is horribly pretentious to try and do this, I will anyway.
With what misko said earlier in mind:
So, on a more, analytical note, the news from FreedomLand:
I've noticed two broad narratives in the US about Putin, what he wants, why he invades, and what can solve the crisis (well sorta). They are broad yet coherent, and have both negative and positive things to say about Putin (though it leans negative, shockingly). Here is a bit of my armchair analysis (the only way to analyze news).
I've euphemistically divided these into "Putin the Wolf", and "Putin the Bear". Remember, these aren't value judgments (although they do lend themselves to them), this is just me describing what they see.Spoiler: Putin the Wolf (click to show/hide)Anyway,the US government is disorganizedly planning all sorts of measures, with Obama organizing sanctions against Russian individuals, and Congress scrambling to press sanctions against Russia itself and others, possibly through an expansion of the Magnitsky Act, which froze assets of Russians involved with human rights violations, and by aiding Ukraine directly, through loan guarantees and direct aid and such things.Spoiler: Putin the Bear (click to show/hide)
My impression is more of the wolf, after all it's his job as a politician to be cunning, he's ex-KGB and everything, and intelligence agencies don't hire for sentimentality.
However, I think the alternate impression of 'the bear' can be construed because that's more reflective of the Russian people themselves, (can any ruskies on here offer their opinion on this?). And Putin, being the wolf, taps into this latent nationalistic feeling of the general population for the brownie points.
So in Russia he's viewed as the bear, just like the culture at large, and the lipservice he pays to this alternate image confuses analyses of his character.
tl;dr- He's a wolf in bear's clothing.
Am I onto something here or should I lurk more?
Post by: palsch on March 06, 2014, 02:16:06 pm
Well, I think one thing we learned in this thread too is that the Russian perspective on these events is very different from the Western one. Of course we can dismiss that as propaganda, but the fact remains that many people believe it. Maybe there is really a need for a fact finding mission, to get to a narrative that is acceptable to both sides, but I doubt that will work with the biases and distrust on both sides here.
One thing you will find with that is you need to go very deep to create the relative context.
You will notice in this thread that nearly everyone believes their own politicians are utterly incompetent. This is easy when you have to live with them. It's pretty hard to believe the clowns who are utterly failing to accomplish anything of merit on the local scale (read, any government ever) could pull of grand conspiracies and plots on the international scale. It's much easier to believe that about foreign leaders.
So it's easy for, say, a Russian to believe that Putin is a fool but has his heart in the right place and is taking actions he was forced into by western intervention in Ukraine. At the same time they might believe that Obama is playing a masterful game of 3 dimensional chess and elegantly set up the downfall of the Ukrainian government to install a NATO puppet, revoke Russian access to the Black Sea and oppress Russian speakers in Crimea.
At the same time believing such a thing is considerably harder for people who have watched Obama trying and failing to, say, shutdown a single prison over the course of six years (or pass a budget, or set up a healthcare website), but who are far more willing to believe that an ex-KGB agent is the architect of a scheme to establish a new greater Russia by establishing Russian populations he then has to move in to 'protect' once they are 'threatened' by western liberal values.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 06, 2014, 02:29:46 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 06, 2014, 02:36:22 pm
-snip-Yes, that is generally what I meant earlier when I said that it is difficult to voice a differentiated viewpoint when people on both sides think the other side is basically the devil.
I don't think for example the EU acted all that clever in this whole chain of events, starting with the trade agreement that forced Yanukovych to decide which side to pick. I do trust however that my own politicians do have good intentions overall and do not seek an actual conflict. Of course if you reject that basic premise and attribute any outcome that could be explained by incompetence to evil imperialistic intentions, it's very hard to get to a common point of view.
Of course the distrust goes both ways, the "West" has a very hard time to trust Putin and Russia in general too, so why should it be different the other way round. How we could come to a better mutual understanding, I don't know. In times of crisis that's harder than ever.
-snip-I don't fully buy either explanation, though I tend to agree a bit more with the "bear" interpretation. The old block thinking, nationalism, hurt pride and everything are a major factor in this. Putin is probably trying to restore some of Russia's lost imperial glory, but he may very well feel genuinely deceived and threatened by the West.
I don't think he really wants a war with Ukraine, that wouldn't have popular support in Russia, but he feels right to employ methods that we perceive as aggression, and feels justified to do so because he perceives many things the West (and the US specifically) have been doing in the last decades as the same thing.
Post by: palsch on March 06, 2014, 02:44:53 pm
Yes, that is generally what I meant earlier when I said that it is difficult to voice a differentiated viewpoint when people on both sides think the other side is basically the devil.It's less about believing the other side is evil and more that we are likely to overestimate the competence (and so likely hood of conspiracy theories and deep plots involving) foreign leaders while underestimating the competence of our own.
It's entirely possible that the same effect influences people who support foreign leaders over their own, or who distrust local media while taking foreign state media as gospel. Saw a fair amount of this with people citing Russia Today as a trusted news source over the last year. Seems to be fading out again now.
But my point is that's one of the deep biases you would have to account for in any attempt to create a "narrative that is acceptable to both sides". It's as much cultural context as any clear bias. And only one secondary aspect of such context which is still a gross generalisation.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 06, 2014, 03:11:28 pm
It's less about believing the other side is evil and more that we are likely to overestimate the competence (and so likely hood of conspiracy theories and deep plots involving) foreign leaders while underestimating the competence of our own.Well, realistically you could only have the leading politicians on both sides agreeing to a common viewpoint. I don't think this is possible on a scale much beyond that. There are multiple interpretations in the press coverage alone, and that does not account by far for the multitude of opinions people tend to have, some of which are pretty outlandish (and that is only what I've read or heard locally, not accounting for the rest of the world).
It's entirely possible that the same effect influences people who support foreign leaders over their own, or who distrust local media while taking foreign state media as gospel. Saw a fair amount of this with people citing Russia Today as a trusted news source over the last year. Seems to be fading out again now.
But my point is that's one of the deep biases you would have to account for in any attempt to create a "narrative that is acceptable to both sides". It's as much cultural context as any clear bias. And only one secondary aspect of such context which is still a gross generalisation.
Post by: Knit tie on March 06, 2014, 03:57:38 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 06, 2014, 04:00:51 pm
Considering most of the parliament that was elected isn't actually allowed to the participate, and unknown individuals who are currently making it up have decided to entirely side with Russia 100% no matter the outcome of the referendum, this is... unsurprising.
Not sure if that's new?
Post by: Dutchling on March 06, 2014, 04:07:17 pm
Note that Temirgaliev is a Ukranian/Crimean/Tartar of the Party of Regions, and not a Russian official.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 06, 2014, 04:10:18 pm
No big news elsewhere either.
There are some very mild EU sanctions against Russia now, talks continue with little outcome so far. The proposed contact group hasn't been established yet.
The US has moved a few fighter planes to Lithuania and Poland, which both serves to calm down the worried Baltic states and to do a bit of sabre-rattling on the NATO side.
Tymoshenko and Klitschko have asked the West for stronger measures, but I don't know how realistic that is at this point. Klitschko talked about Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, that seems far in the future right now to me.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 04:12:15 pm
Any news so far?
Not much. Starring matches continue. Crimean Parliament keep passing absurd decision and so on
But my friend said that he witnessed Ukrainian column that includedBM30s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-30_Smerch) moving from the West to either Crimea or Eastern borders. Quite worrisome I'd say. That means that Ukrainian army doesn't count out that serious large scale fighting will begin. BM30s aren't for police actions or defending bases. Those are for creating moon landscapes
Post by: Helgoland on March 06, 2014, 04:29:52 pm
There are some very mild EU sanctions against Russia now, talks continue with little outcome so far. The proposed contact group hasn't been established yet.These sanctions, however, come with a timeline: If Russia won't cooperate in the next few days, the sanctions will be expanded to include travel restrictions and the freezing of bank accounts; if the crisis persists, economic sanctions will be deployed.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 04:32:40 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 06, 2014, 04:33:13 pm
If there is even a chance that the situation in the West was a coup, the current Crimean situation is definitely one. And if anything about that was unconstitutional, the Crimean situation is definitely so.
So the situation is basically "unknown armed group" (Let's be honest, probably Russia) has seized control of Crimea and "unanimously" decided Crimea is part of Russia, but the actual Crimean elected government hasn't actually existed in any noticeable form since then.
This group of politicians couldn't care less what the rest of Ukraine thinks about them, as their ability to continue holding power is dependent entirely on the people with guns wanting them too, it seems.
Does this seem accurate, UR?
Post by: Sergarr on March 06, 2014, 04:41:14 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2014, 04:44:59 pm
We should write a letter to the Paradox Entertainment to give a player the ability to invade a state without declaring war.Putin confirmed for Suomenusko Reconstructionist.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 06, 2014, 04:48:10 pm
Well, not exactly. Formally the local government was formed by parliament that was elected in 2010 on local elections but
a) Somehow the parliament voted for the guy from a party that got 4% on the said local elections. Now he is a Prime Minister of Crimea
b) The voting was done behind the closed doors with armed men nearby and no no-Russian media were present
c) It is not enough to vote for new prime minister of Crimea, Prime minister of Crimea must be approved by the President of Ukraine
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 06, 2014, 05:34:18 pm
Putin confirmed for Suomenusko Reconstructionist.Now don't go giving him any ideas. Putin putting up his own religion or cult would be too... Stalin like.
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2014, 05:37:52 pm
You will notice in this thread that nearly everyone believes their own politicians are utterly incompetent.
I would question that strongly.
Obama is a leader in a democracy facing meaningful opposition. The constitution doesn't give him all that much power so there is a natural limit on what he can accomplish. Other western leaders face similar constraints. And Obama and other western leaders had no way of knowing they needed to pay particular attention to the Ukraine. There's a lot of global hotspots of potential instability out there, including Russia itself, and Ukraine wasn't high on that list. The only thing that elevated Ukraine to such a high priority was that the Russians moved in, if the Russians had stayed out, it wouldn't be a high priority.
So saying that the west was blindsided by this isn't to ascribe incompetence to them, it's the point out that there are a limited number of regions that can be prioritized at a given time. For the Russians, that is clearly much less of an issue because Putin obviously took a proactive role getting into this.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 06, 2014, 05:59:50 pm
And Obama and other western leaders had no way of knowing they needed to pay particular attention to the Ukraine. There's a lot of global hotspots of potential instability out there, including Russia itself, and Ukraine wasn't high on that list. The only thing that elevated Ukraine to such a high priority was that the Russians moved in, if the Russians had stayed out, it wouldn't be a high priority.There are points to make about Western politicians acting incompetent in this, but I do think they realized the potential danger early on. At least in Europe it was a big thing since it started. Our politicians do have a responsability to keep attention on all potential hotspots, and they usually do, especially if it involves a big player like Russia. That Putin would be unhappy with the prospect of Ukraine potentially joining the EU or NATO even was always perfectly clear to anyone, that is the reason they did not join NATO in 2008. We talked about potential Russian involvment way back in autumn, before this thread started, so I'm sure our governments were very aware of this possibility. Now I'm not sure what they could have done to avoid having a situtation like this, if anything could have prevented this at all.
So saying that the west was blindsided by this isn't to ascribe incompetence to them, it's the point out that there are a limited number of regions that can be prioritized at a given time.
Post by: mainiac on March 06, 2014, 09:39:17 pm
Our politicians do have a responsability to keep attention on all potential hotspots,
If they paid 1 hour a week attention to every potential hotspot, they wouldn't sleep or have time for domestic politics.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 01:33:52 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 03:28:18 am
We should write a letter to the Paradox Entertainment to give a player the ability to invade a state without declaring war.It'll be very useful when reconstructing American "humanitarian interventions", which were also started without any formal declarations of war.
They also should introduce information warfare - the ability to use unbiased independent Western media (or horrible Russian state media) to present them as totally justified and legitimate.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 05:01:25 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2014, 05:07:42 am
Yes, but if we can understand that statement as being directly related to the current events in Crimea: Do you seriously think that Crimea is comparable to, let's say, Srbenica?We should write a letter to the Paradox Entertainment to give a player the ability to invade a state without declaring war.It'll be very useful when reconstructing American "humanitarian interventions", which were also started without any formal declarations of war.
Post by: Sergarr on March 07, 2014, 05:24:54 am
Also he wants to rename his party.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 05:37:07 am
Apparently the infamous leader of the Right Sector wants to become the president of Ukraine. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/right-sector-leader-yarosh-to-run-for-president-338685.htmlWhat can I say? Svoboda is going back to a regional party status
Also he wants to rename his party.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 05:53:10 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 06:03:39 am
Russian media portray events in Ukraine as if Ukrainian nationalists have been practically on the verge of massacring Russian civilians and that only Russian intervention can save the Russian population of Ukraine and Crimea. However, the humanitarian aspect in Yugoslavia and Crimea (as well as elsewhere) was and remains only a formal excuse hiding the true reasons - the political and economic interests of intervening countries.Yes, but if we can understand that statement as being directly related to the current events in Crimea: Do you seriously think that Crimea is comparable to, let's say, Srbenica?We should write a letter to the Paradox Entertainment to give a player the ability to invade a state without declaring war.It'll be very useful when reconstructing American "humanitarian interventions", which were also started without any formal declarations of war.
Also, this picture is basically this thread in a nutshell: (https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-mMtlhF6a6og/Uxkyb-_SiiI/AAAAAAAAUjE/RjQzuBCrKmQ/w640-h456-no/2885582.jpg)
(the insignias read: The Sofa Self-Defense Hundred - #Eurosofa and Sofa Armed Forces - Slow Response Unit)
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 06:08:03 am
Also, I love that pic.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2014, 06:08:34 am
Funny - we have pretty solid evidence of mass killings in Srbenica, and the Rada didn't even manage to pass a law restricting the use of Russian as an official language that didn't even apply to Crimea... Even if the fundamental reasons for intervention are the same, I'd argue that the degree of justification is just so hilariously different as to make the two completely uncomparable.Russian media portray events in Ukraine as if Ukrainian nationalists have been practically on the verge of massacring Russian civilians and that only Russian intervention can save the Russian population of Ukraine and Crimea. The humanitarian aspect in Yugoslavia and Crimea (as well as elsewhere) was and remains only a formal excuse hiding the true reasons - the political and economic interests of intervening countries.Yes, but if we can understand that statement as being directly related to the current events in Crimea: Do you seriously think that Crimea is comparable to, let's say, Srbenica?We should write a letter to the Paradox Entertainment to give a player the ability to invade a state without declaring war.It'll be very useful when reconstructing American "humanitarian interventions", which were also started without any formal declarations of war.
And before anyone argues with the Iraq war: If you do that, you're basically saying Putin is wrong and should move out before he does any real damage.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 06:17:13 am
How is Ukraine's political system? Proportional? Or will the creating of that new far-right party split the vote and hurt the nationalist far-right's election chance?We have a nice tradition to change election system before any new elections in parliament :)
The last one was - half proportional with 4% barrier\half Majoritarian.
Right Sector vs Svoboda competition may reduce total number of nationalists in parliament but I'd wait for the political program of the party that will come from the Right Sector (It is announced that the name will be different)
Surprisingly, high anti-rating of Svoboda in South-Eastern Ukraine can benefit Right Sector a lot should they decide to attack the things that make Svoboda unpopular.
"we are different kind of nationalists" strategy can work very well.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 06:19:55 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 06:23:35 am
What was the Western economic benefits of intervening in Yugoslavia? Also, the evidence that massacre was going to happen in Yugoslavia was quite a big stronger. For example dead peoples. You didn't see lots of Ukrainian Russian being killed in Crimea or other places.
Also, I love that pic.
Russian sources, as well as some left-wing Western sources (Boris Malagurski and his film Weight of Chains is a good example) claim that the main Western goal in Yugoslavia was to tear it into several small, easily controllable colonies that would provide cheap labour and be a market for Western goods. They also claim that the Western policy towards Eastern European countries and the former USSR is basically the same - transforming independent countries into colonies. Judging by how the main export of Poland, the Baltic states and other former socialist countries is practically only cheap labour (the famous Polish plumbers come to mind), they are not entirely wrong.
Also, some Russians might say that the Russian intervention prevented the appearance of dead Russian peoples.
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2014, 06:26:32 am
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 06:32:38 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 06:41:33 am
Quote
What are the things that make Svodoba unpopular?
Overly aggressive language policy, idea to return to the Soviet norm with ethnicity written in passport, too much attention to 14th waffen SS division, torch marches*, former name and logo, stubborned in using "Жид" word** by some Svoboda members. That's to name few problems that create bad reputation
*I always said that this is idiotic
**another idiotic thing. Yep. It is a normal word meaning Jew in many Slavic languages including Ukrainian. It is the word that is used in all classical Ukrainian literature. But in Russian language that is derogatory term for Jews. Not strange that Russian speakers dislike hearing that word from someone who aims to be a respectable party.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 06:45:19 am
Yeah, right, that's why every Western country tried to impose limits on how many immigrants could come and work...Well, you can't just replace all unskilled workers with Poles, even though it would definitely be more profitable. Your reputation would suffer.
Still, if the EU decided to support the modernization of their Eastern European members's economies, especially industries, their people wouldn't have to go to Britain, France or Germany to find work, unskilled workers of Britain, France or Germany wouldn't object, Russians wouldn't have a point to build their propaganda around, the EU's reputation would be high and a lot of countries would genuinely desire to join the EU. But, such policies be very expensive and would create competition for EU and American corporations. They sponsor European politicians' political careers, and they definitely wouldn't approve that hurdle for their profit-making business.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 06:48:33 am
Guardian GI: the "dead russian people" excuse does not hold at all. There are no russian troops outside Crimea, and no ethnic cleansing or anything there.
As for industrial policy, well, I agree with you. The EU is way too liberal in some aspect, and we could do with more regional help (we do help them modernize, I just think we ought to do more). But still, why would be bomb and break apart Yougoslavia for cheap labor when we could just have a work permit system? That theory doesn't make any sense.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 06:56:28 am
As for industrial policy, well, I agree with you. The EU is way too liberal in some aspect, and we could do with more regional help (we do help them modernize, I just think we ought to do more). But still, why would be bomb and break apart Yougoslavia for cheap labor when we could just have a work permit system? That theory doesn't make any sense.
Bombing a country to smithereens allows Western companies to get their hands on reconstruction contracts. The activities of KBR and Halliburton in Iraq is a perfect example. Plus, dismembering a country makes it more susceptible to political and economic manipulation and pressure.
Russian anti-Western sources' claims that the West plans to dismember Russia aren't very illogical - the West would profit more from having several puppet states in the place of Russia instead of having to deal with a united Russia. Unfortunately for the West, the horrible totalitarian dick-tator Putin objects.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 07:03:14 am
Quote
And you think Right Sector will be, well, less extreme on those subjects?I don't know.
I am sure that it will be not more extreme.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 07:17:11 am
And do you really believe we bombed Serbia to get reconstruction contract? Also, Yugoslavia, even united, wouldn't be that big, 22 millions people at most (Before you account for population loss from the others Srebnica...). No trouble getting them to join the EU and adhere to our laws.
Post by: Helgoland on March 07, 2014, 07:20:13 am
We really need to open a West-Eastern news agency: In Germany, they claim that Schröder sold us out to the Russians! Maybe the problem is that the EU doesn't know how scary it can look...As for industrial policy, well, I agree with you. The EU is way too liberal in some aspect, and we could do with more regional help (we do help them modernize, I just think we ought to do more). But still, why would be bomb and break apart Yougoslavia for cheap labor when we could just have a work permit system? That theory doesn't make any sense.
Bombing a country to smithereens allows Western companies to get their hands on reconstruction contracts. The activities of KBR and Halliburton in Iraq is a perfect example. Plus, dismembering a country makes it more susceptible to political and economic manipulation and pressure.
Russian anti-Western sources' claims that the West plans to dismember Russia aren't very illogical - the West would profit more from having several puppet states in the place of Russia instead of having to deal with a united Russia. Unfortunately for the West, the horrible totalitarian dick-tator Putin objects.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 08:37:15 am
As for industrial policy, well, I agree with you. The EU is way too liberal in some aspect, and we could do with more regional help (we do help them modernize, I just think we ought to do more). But still, why would be bomb and break apart Yougoslavia for cheap labor when we could just have a work permit system? That theory doesn't make any sense.
Bombing a country to smithereens allows Western companies to get their hands on reconstruction contracts. The activities of KBR and Halliburton in Iraq is a perfect example. Plus, dismembering a country makes it more susceptible to political and economic manipulation and pressure.
Russian anti-Western sources' claims that the West plans to dismember Russia aren't very illogical - the West would profit more from having several puppet states in the place of Russia instead of having to deal with a united Russia. Unfortunately for the West, the horrible totalitarian dick-tator Putin objects.
You are really close for why west does shit it does.
Generally it's not only construction. There are a lot of thing, from loans the country need to take, to think like private businesses coming and buying out destroyed firms, and other things for low money than selling it. To "positive" things like moving factories to the country because of low work cost.
There is a standard procedure that almost every country that was bombard and invaded by west does. And most is coming of west firms to milk it more.
There is a very good documentary show explaining all this and giving examples of things that happend in the past on internet, will try to find it.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 09:11:30 am
The results of the referendum will not be public. Also, invitations to said referendum will only be extended to those who can be trusted to make the right decision. (I think that's what this says - confirmation?)
Come on guys, this is totally legit!
Post by: Darvi on March 07, 2014, 09:13:56 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 09:17:54 am
This is amusing:
Quote from: http://blogarmdavo.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/%D1%83-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0/
Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich.
We learned that you want to send troops to the Crimea, to protect the rights of Russian-speaking population.
In this regard, we have a big request - send troops to the Vologda region. We're all entirely Russian-speaking and our very rights are infringed. Our patients can not get the drugs and treatment they need, the level of our education falls every year, closed circles and children's sections , agriculture virtually destroyed. We all suffer.
And the invaders who seized power with the help of fraudulent elections, do nothing for the population. They spend money on themselves, on PR, their offices and country houses, the purchase of apartments and air charter.
We 'll be very grateful, and guarantee that no guerrilla war against the liberators will come. Yes, and international sanctions , for sure, will not follow.
We have also learned that you are going to spend a lot of money to normalize life in the Crimea. We are embarassed to ask whether it is possible to spend money for normalization of life in the Vologda region. Our region is in such a debt hole that no matter what, there is not enough money. And we really need bridges, roads, sports facilities, industrial facilities, new jobs ...
With respect and hope for liberation, Russian-speaking residents of the Vologda region.
Post by: Sheb on March 07, 2014, 09:25:34 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 09:30:56 am
http://www.unian.net/politics/894040-v-kryimu-reshili-ne-priglashat-na-nelegitimnyiy-referendum-teh-komu-ne-doveryayut.htmlIn article it's about ovserevers. They will invite only obserevers who can be trusted (that means only Russian)
The results of the referendum will not be public. Also, invitations to said referendum will only be extended to those who can be trusted to make the right decision. (I think that's what this says - confirmation?)
Come on guys, this is totally legit!
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 09:35:37 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 01:10:52 pm
The Russians, protecting Crimea from those dreaded fascists! (By carving 'x's into the homes of minorities it plans on persecuting), a bit of a throwback to good ol'1944 I guess?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 01:18:15 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 01:49:13 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 02:32:32 pm
I was reading an article about Yugoslavian wars earlier today and what's going on in Ukraine right now is strangely similar, if only in spirit.I see very few similarities myself.....
I am in pessimistic mood, looks like Crimea is lost already. Russia concentrates more and more troops there and nothing is done to stop them.
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 03:04:47 pm
Well, the Yugoslavian wars were born of greed and pride of the ruling elite and pitted the different peoples of a previously unified nation against each other, and so it is in Ukraine. But my argument is quite strained, I agree.I was reading an article about Yugoslavian wars earlier today and what's going on in Ukraine right now is strangely similar, if only in spirit.I see very few similarities myself.....
I am in pessimistic mood, looks like Crimea is lost already. Russia concentrates more and more troops there and nothing is done to stop them.
There is always hope. It is fully possible that Putin will eventually relent after realising that the problems he will get by annexing Crimea far outweigh the gains.
Post by: DJ on March 07, 2014, 03:12:43 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 03:17:57 pm
Quote
It is fully possible that Putin will eventually relent after realising that the problems he will get by annexing Crimea far outweigh the gains.I am fairly sure he will not stop. IMO, only full embargo on gas and oil or direct NATO military involvement can stop him. Both are impossible
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 03:25:24 pm
Putin is using justifications eerily similar to the ones Milosevic used.Dude, dont talk about something about you dont know much.
Unlike putin, people in ex yu where under danger. That is a big difference, especially as the separation was even worse than what russia is doing now.
Post by: DJ on March 07, 2014, 03:27:12 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 03:30:53 pm
IMO, only full embargo on gas and oil or direct NATO military involvement can stop him. Both are impossibleActually, while a full gas and oil embargo is unlikely (Europe depends on it and even bought gas and oil from Russia during the Cold War), it is not impossible.
There are actually debates in the US to at least temporarily start exporting gas and oil (currently they don't do that a lot because they try to become independent energy-wise), to compensate for the European energy problems in case of a full embargo.
So, while unlikely, it's not impossible, and as a measure of last resort it might happen, if things get really bad.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 03:33:22 pm
Well, I still live here, so I'd say I know a thing or two.Same as me.I survived two wars, lost two homes, and very well know what is what.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 03:39:19 pm
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 03:42:42 pm
I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Lol. From what source did you get that info?
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 03:45:20 pm
I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Standard russian practice, natch. Works the same way during our elections.
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?
Post by: Owlbread on March 07, 2014, 03:47:55 pm
Russian sources, as well as some left-wing Western sources (Boris Malagurski and his film Weight of Chains is a good example) claim that the main Western goal in Yugoslavia was to tear it into several small, easily controllable colonies that would provide cheap labour and be a market for Western goods. They also claim that the Western policy towards Eastern European countries and the former USSR is basically the same - transforming independent countries into colonies. Judging by how the main export of Poland, the Baltic states and other former socialist countries is practically only cheap labour (the famous Polish plumbers come to mind), they are not entirely wrong.
It always amuses me when Russian sources or sources from Russian satellites/puppet states like Belarus say these things. It's almost as if the Warsaw Pact never existed and Russia has always been that big.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 03:48:42 pm
rt.com says so. (http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/)I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Lol. From what source did you get that info?
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?
Quote
There will be two questions on the Crimean referendum ballots.Not sure how exactly that last part differs from the current constitution, I presume it does in some way.
“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev said.
According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.
There are of course also satirical versions circulating with: Do you want to a) join Russia or b) leave Ukraine?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 03:50:27 pm
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 03:52:05 pm
rt.com says so. (http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/)I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Lol. From what source did you get that info?
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?QuoteThere will be two questions on the Crimean referendum ballots.Not sure how exactly that last part differs from the current constitution, I presume it does in some way.
“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev said.
According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.
There are of course also satirical versions circulating with: Do you want to a) join Russia or b) leave Ukraine?
But, wait, if its 1992 constitution it will be part of ukraine?
Post by: Owlbread on March 07, 2014, 03:53:52 pm
A: "Do you want to become independent?"
B: "Do you want to leave the UK?"
Post by: Mipe on March 07, 2014, 03:56:04 pm
Damn, I wish we Scots were going to get a ballot paper as unbalanced as that.In either case, I doubt you'd get away scot free.
A: "Do you want to become independent?"
B: "Do you want to leave the UK?"
8)
On a more serious note, my understanding is that Ukrainian constitution doesn't allow for separation of a province? Isn't that kind of, you know, authoritarian?
"Oh, we should add this so nobody can ever break away legally!"
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 03:57:41 pm
But, wait, if its 1992 constitution it will be part of ukraine?Yes.
It's probably like GlyphGryph said, they would be far more autonomous than now. Wikipedia doesn't have many details on the Crimean constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Crimea), but that is what it looks like to me.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 03:59:43 pm
Damn, I wish we Scots were going to get a ballot paper as unbalanced as that.
A: "Do you want to become independent?"
B: "Do you want to leave the UK?"
Actually, this is basically a "Independence or Devolution, which do prefer?" ballot.
Post by: Owlbread on March 07, 2014, 04:00:40 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 04:10:06 pm
Labour MPs are balking at the idea of devolving income tax powersI want to make a satirical comment but have no idea what the above means. Is that bad? What the hell does military police have to do with this?
Post by: Owlbread on March 07, 2014, 04:17:40 pm
Labour MPs are balking at the idea of devolving income tax powersI want to make a satirical comment but have no idea what the above means. Is that bad? What the hell does military police have to do with this?
With "devolution of income tax powers", Scotland would be able to set up its own income tax regime independent of the UK at large. "Devolution" means giving power to a region.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 04:23:48 pm
Quote from: wiki
Crimea was at the time part of the Ukrainian SSR which was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union. In February 1992 the Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into "Republic of Crimea" and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government. On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992 and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day. On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine. On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea's independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same. In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic"1992 constitution is de facto independence but they'll still be able to vote on our elections, pay no tariffs and receive money from our budget for pensions and stuff. The best kind of Independence ever
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 04:27:13 pm
Labour MPs are balking at the idea of devolving income tax powersI want to make a satirical comment but have no idea what the above means. Is that bad? What the hell does military police have to do with this?
MP is "Member of Parliament", not "Military Police", in this case.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 04:59:57 pm
Pro-Russian soldiers are reported to have stormed a Ukrainian military base outside the Crimean city of Sevastopol, before withdrawing soon afterwards. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26492053) No shots fired though. Also various reports (https://twitter.com/RolandOliphant/status/442050694661808129) about journalists (https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/442055468836720641) being attacked.
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 05:04:09 pm
Why not MoP? It'd be hilarious.Labour MPs are balking at the idea of devolving income tax powersI want to make a satirical comment but have no idea what the above means. Is that bad? What the hell does military police have to do with this?
MP is "Member of Parliament", not "Military Police", in this case.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 05:18:02 pm
You see... That's about country prestige. We had enough time to demonstrate our peaceful intentions and restraint to the world. Now Ukraine is a country that has thousands of armed terrorist on it's territory and does nothing. It doesn't protects basic right of it's citizens in Crimea.TBH, there's not much you could have done.I was reading an article about Yugoslavian wars earlier today and what's going on in Ukraine right now is strangely similar, if only in spirit.I see very few similarities myself.....
I am in pessimistic mood, looks like Crimea is lost already. Russia concentrates more and more troops there and nothing is done to stop them.
People fight back? Justifies Russian intervention.
Ukrainian army fights back? Justifies it, and justifies Russia taking even more land.
Do nothing? This result.
Now it's time to declare state of emergence in Crimea, commandant hour and everything that comes with it - anyone coming close to a military base=Shoot anyone armed on the streets=shoot. If this means a war, then it is war. Else... There are no country and few months later Russians will just go and take the whole country.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 05:39:12 pm
Quote
You shoot them, there'll be no country and a lot of body bags.That is an old choice between war and dishonor. As it was 75 years ago choosing dishonor will guarantee that we'll get both. So no way to avoid body bags
Post by: Dutchling on March 07, 2014, 05:43:25 pm
You might want to revise that statement. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/who-will-protect-the-crimean-tatars.html)Putin is using justifications eerily similar to the ones Milosevic used.Dude, dont talk about something about you dont know much.
Unlike putin, people in ex yu where under danger. That is a big difference, especially as the separation was even worse than what russia is doing now.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:12:55 pm
Revise why, because something that had happen 50 years ago can happen again? The fact is the thing now that are happening in ukraine is nothing close to things in yugoslavia. Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.You might want to revise that statement. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/who-will-protect-the-crimean-tatars.html)Putin is using justifications eerily similar to the ones Milosevic used.Dude, dont talk about something about you dont know much.
Unlike putin, people in ex yu where under danger. That is a big difference, especially as the separation was even worse than what russia is doing now.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:18:39 pm
QuoteYou shoot them, there'll be no country and a lot of body bags.That is an old choice between war and dishonor. As it was 75 years ago choosing dishonor will guarantee that we'll get both. So no way to avoid body bags
Dude, as a person who survived this shit, you do not want this to happen. There is no honer or dishonor, that is propaganda bolshit for boosting moral and combat spirit. There is only the lives of people and family that you care about, that is the most important thing, nothing else.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 06:25:24 pm
You see... That's about country prestige. We had enough time to demonstrate our peaceful intentions and restraint to the world. Now Ukraine is a country that has thousands of armed terrorist on it's territory and does nothing. It doesn't protects basic right of it's citizens in Crimea.
Now it's time to declare state of emergence in Crimea, commandant hour and everything that comes with it - anyone coming close to a military base=Shoot anyone armed on the streets=shoot. If this means a war, then it is war. Else... There are no country and few months later Russians will just go and take the whole country.
That's stupid, you don't play to the enemies strengths, you play to your strengths.
Russia's strength is raw military power. They have a bigger military and everyone knows it. Ukraine's strength is that it has western sympathy. The west is hesitant to get militarily involved (unless Russia outright attacks western ukraine) but they are getting economically involved. Ukraine is getting a juicy economic stabilization package. Russia is getting sanctions.
The side that outlasts wins. Ukraine is getting stronger, NATO membership and it's security guarantee is now a much easier proposition and the west is willing to pour a lot of money into Ukraine if that's needed. You'd be stupid to not want this to be an economic showdown. Russia on the other hand is dependent on those same western nations for the import revenues that make their economy run. If western Europe decides this summer that it needs to start investing in alternative but secure natural gas sources (of which there are a lot, it's just an expensive proposition) then Russia's economy will be feeling the pain for decades.
In a war on soil close to home nationalist sentiments drive everything else aside and mothers send their sons to die while people accept economic hardship. All the soft power that Ukraine has, and it's a lot, will not matter because in war the weapons decide everything. But as long as the peace endures Ukraine has a very strong hand. Russia holds the ground but Ukraine has everything else.
My bet is that Ukraine wins this and Crimea will be part of Ukraine in ten years time because I think the Ukrainian leadership has been smart so far and will keep being smart while Putin has been stupid and has put himself in an untenable position.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 06:29:18 pm
Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
Spoken like a true blind nationalist. I love the attitude shown here. Just proves Imperialism isn't dead and certain nationalists will literally look the other way in any case. Did you come to this topic to tell everyone how ignorant they are? If so, I suggest using some citations bud.
I'd help you, but you seem to ignore any and all information presented that is contrary to your view here.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:33:34 pm
Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
Spoken like a true blind nationalist. I love the attitude shown here. Just proves Imperialism isn't dead and certain nationalists will literally look the other way in any case. Did you come to this topic to tell everyone how ignorant they are? If so, I suggest using some citations bud.
I'd help you, but you seem to ignore any and all information presented that is contrary to your view here.
Dude, read 10 times if you need to understand what I wrote, if you cant, than dont post.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 06:34:37 pm
rt.com says so. (http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/)I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Lol. From what source did you get that info?
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?QuoteThere will be two questions on the Crimean referendum ballots.Not sure how exactly that last part differs from the current constitution, I presume it does in some way.
“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev said.
According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.
There are of course also satirical versions circulating with: Do you want to a) join Russia or b) leave Ukraine?
You refused to acknowledge this, by the way. Not very helpful if you simply don't respond to things that make your predisposed view.. wrong.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 06:38:15 pm
Spoken like a true blind nationalist. I love the attitude shown here.
The attitude of saying that yugoslavia's breakup was hell to live through and people on these forums don't realize how bad it was?
Ex-yugoslavs must have a strange form of nationalism.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 07, 2014, 06:38:39 pm
snip
Revise why, because something that had happen 50 years ago can happen again? The fact is the thing now that are happening in ukraine is nothing close to things in yugoslavia. Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
Boki, could you please be more specific when you start supporting forced migration & oppression?
How are these things not fucking bad?
Seems like you should be feeling their pain, what with how you sympathized with the 'threatened' rus-crimeans.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 07, 2014, 06:40:05 pm
snip
Revise why, because something that had happen 50 years ago can happen again? The fact is the thing now that are happening in ukraine is nothing close to things in yugoslavia. Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
Boki, could you please be more specific when you start supporting forced migration & oppression?
How are these things not fucking bad?
Seems like you should be feeling their pain, what with how you sympathized with the 'threatened' rus-crimeans.
Pretty sure he's saying that things could be much worse, based on what happened when Yugoslavia broke up, rather than saying those things aren't in themselves bad.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 06:40:34 pm
Also read what he said about dying for honour, doesn't sound like blind nationalism to me.
I think you misunderstood him quite a bit.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 06:41:05 pm
Boki, could you please be more specific when you start supporting forced migration & oppression?
Dude, as a person who survived this shit, you do not want this to happen. There is no honer or dishonor, that is propaganda bolshit for boosting moral and combat spirit. There is only the lives of people and family that you care about, that is the most important thing, nothing else.
Yeah he sounds like a huge fan.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 06:41:20 pm
The attitude of saying that yugoslavia's breakup was hell to live through and people on these forums don't realize how bad it was?
Ex-yugoslavs must have a strange form of nationalism.
No, just that the persecution in Yugoslavia, amongst many other places, started with similar actions. 'Marks on doors and moving people' is essentially how ethnic cleansing begins.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 06:42:04 pm
No, just that the persecution in Yugoslavia, amongst many other places, started with similar actions. 'Marks on doors and moving people' is essentially how ethnic cleansing begins.
Dude, reread his post, you are massively misunderstanding him.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 07, 2014, 06:44:09 pm
hmpf
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:44:24 pm
I've just noticed you chiming in and telling that others that they 'don't know what you're talking about', with the complete inability to back up anything you've said. I'd just appreciate some sort of information. :)What information do you need to know? As I said, things that are happening in us are not at all same what happen in ex yu, with killing people, burning villages. Is it happening? No. Not even close. If you can not understand that from my post, than again, dont post and read 100 time if you need.
rt.com says so. (http://rt.com/news/crimea-referendum-status-ukraine-154/)I love the bulletin for the referendum. It looks like that:Lol. From what source did you get that info?
[] Do you want to join Russia?
[] Or you want to restore 1992 Crimean constitution ?
There are no "change nothing" option. Cool, isn't it?QuoteThere will be two questions on the Crimean referendum ballots.Not sure how exactly that last part differs from the current constitution, I presume it does in some way.
“The first one: Are you in favor of Crimea becoming a constituent territory of the Russian Federation. The second one: Are you in favor of restoring Crimea’s 1992 constitution,” the autonomous region’s First Deputy-Premier Rustam Temirgaliev said.
According to the 1992 constitution, the autonomous republic is part of Ukraine but has relations with Kiev, defined on the basis of mutual agreements.
There are of course also satirical versions circulating with: Do you want to a) join Russia or b) leave Ukraine?
You refused to acknowledge this, by the way. Not very helpful if you simply don't respond to things that make your predisposed view.. wrong.
What do I refuse? That they can vote to stay in UK and be more independent? Is it that? I asked what does it mean, I got a answer from a poster. You go read my post that you missed in your attempt to I dont know why, maybe troll, or just doesnt understand the things I posted?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 06:45:36 pm
What information do you need to know? As I said, things that are happening in us are not at all same what happen in ex yu, with killing people, burning villages. Is it happening? No. Not even close. If you can not understand that from my post, than again, dont post and read 100 time si fyou need.
Because the situation in Crimea hasn't evolved into full blown genocide yet makes it better? You're essentially arguing that we should ignore the impending Crimean population cleansing in light of the fact that Yugoslavia was so bad, then say what putin is doing, which was essentially how you cause that kind of strife in the first place, is alright. I'm curious why. Wouldn't you be predisposed to wanting to nip these things in the bud? You've said:
Putin is using justifications eerily similar to the ones Milosevic used.Dude, dont talk about something about you dont know much.
Unlike putin, people in ex yu where under danger. That is a big difference, especially as the separation was even worse than what russia is doing now.
Now, I hope you're wrong, but I can't help but find this odd. Being as sympathetic to breakups as you claim to be I'm just shocked that you hand wave Putin's actions here. This is how that kind of breakup and ethnic strife begins, and you ought to be well aware of it.
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:47:39 pm
What information do you need to know? As I said, things that are happening in us are not at all same what happen in ex yu, with killing people, burning villages. Is it happening? No. Not even close. If you can not understand that from my post, than again, dont post and read 100 time si fyou need.
Because the situation in Crimea hasn't evolved into full blown genocide yet makes it better?
Dude, stop trolling and learn to read. If you have anything smart to say I will replay, but if you are so much blind in your, i dont know what, just skip me.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 06:48:17 pm
Because the situation in Crimea hasn't evolved into full blown genocide yet makes it better?
What thread are you reading?
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:48:54 pm
Again, go fucking read if i ever posted that I agree to putin actions... OMG I replayed to you again
Now, I hope you're wrong, but I can't help but find this odd. Being as sympathetic to breakups as you claim to be I'm just shocked that you hand wave Putin's actions here. This is how that kind of breakup and ethnic strife begins, and you ought to be well aware of it.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 06:49:37 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 07, 2014, 06:54:12 pm
burp
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 07, 2014, 06:58:04 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 06:58:28 pm
Post by: boki on March 07, 2014, 06:59:26 pm
Here, Boki was associated with pro-putin in my head from back here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5056015#msg5056015).
burp
I was just posting the facts about the situation. I mean, people are making this look 10 times worse than it is, and in that post i said its not that bad, because its not. Bad things did not yet happen, and lets hope they will not happen. When I say bad, I really mean very bad things.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 07:00:20 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 07:11:32 pm
Boki's right, Yugoslavia was way worse than Ukraine. Mictlan is also right, what Putin does is still not okay
While what Putin is doing is still a problem this is ignoring the fact that Mictlan is arguing with things that Boki never said nor insinuated nor appears to agree with.
All I'm trying to say is that the Crimea/Yugoslav comparison falls short because the Crimean situation is still developing.
That's all very nice but it's completely different from what he was saying!
This isn't a pro-Putin anti-Putin argument, it's a pro-reading comprehension anti-reading argument.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 07:12:48 pm
Revise why, because something that had happen 50 years ago can happen again? The fact is the thing now that are happening in ukraine is nothing close to things in yugoslavia. Trust me if you think marker on doors, and possibility moving people to some other parts are bad, you dont know anything about shit that happend in ex yu. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
Is it
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 07:16:09 pm
Here, Boki was associated with pro-putin in my head from back here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5056015#msg5056015).That is not a pro-Putin position necessarily, it's not a Western one either, and not one I agree with, but not really defending Putin.
Yugoslavia was worse because the fucking situation continued as it did, if we ignore Crimea and allow factionalization and ethnic strife to continue to boil below the surface it will be akin to that situation.Yugoslavia was an entirely different situation. Ethnic strife might happen in Crimea or it might not, that is conjecture at this point. We don't know at all what is going on with Crimea at this point, there are plenty of possibilities.
Just because Putin is wrong doesn't mean we should prematurely accuse him of something that might never happen. That just devalues any serious arguments that are to be had. Currently the problem is not ethnic cleansing, but blatantly ignoring Ukraine's sovereignty and possibly provoking an armed conflict.
And yeah, you need to read a bit more carefully, you pretty much accused boki of saying the opposite of what he actually said. There's no problem with disagreeing, but there is really no need to take it over the top.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 07, 2014, 07:17:29 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 07, 2014, 07:36:58 pm
Putin is trying to stir up such strife.
And why does he try to to do that? If Crimean Tatars get killed by Russians, it'll ruin the excuse of Russian civilians being under threat. Unless Putin is going out of his way to be !ЁVIL!, there's absolute no reason for him to create ethnic strife on purpose.
Judging by your previous posts in this thread, you seem to think that Putin's actions in Crimea are motivated by one single goal - kill all the Crimean Tatars, Jews and other minorities, like he's a comic book villain. He's not one. He is trying to secure the strategic Sevastopol naval base, and not kill some people because he had a bad day.
Post by: scriver on March 07, 2014, 07:49:17 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 07, 2014, 07:55:44 pm
I don't see however how that would be in Putin's interest. If he wants to be the one to bring order to the region, and that is how he portrays himself, then that would be extremely counterproductive. His narrative is basically that he saves people from a fascist invasion. If he wants to annex Crimea, he will very much prefer to do that without bloodshed.
He already has a lot of diplomatic trouble with Crimea as it is, since the West won't accept the referendum on the basis that it's blackmail. Ethnic cleansing is the last thing he needs right now, it would be even worse for him than a conflict with the Ukrainian army (which also would be very unpopular), because it destroys his entire justification for the current army presence.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 07, 2014, 08:08:08 pm
Doesn't sound orchestrated/related.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 07, 2014, 09:28:00 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 09:31:10 pm
snipsnip
Quote
snip
Goddammit mainiac, I am trying to defuse a conflict here. /joke
Regarding the ethnic cleansing or just any violence towards civilians in general, I say that Putin's approval is not really needed for that kind of thing to occur. I am currently sitting in Russia, and the social media is abuzz with nationalistic and anti-ukrainian sentiments. Most of the people talking about the invasion seem to think that Putin's actions are either perfectly right or disproportionate but well-justified. The hurt national pride I mentioned earlier comes into play as well and introduces anti-maidan bias, since getting Crimea annexed would leave Russia much more "respected", to quote the most often used word in pro-Putin arguments. So far, a lot of Russians think that they genuinely are protecting their brethren from extremist depredations, and this sort of thinking can and has often lead to ethnic tensions and violence towards civilians. If the standoff continues, it is not unreasonable to assume that we will eventually see roving bands of vigilantes in Crimea "preemptively" lynching the Tatar and the ukrainians.
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 09:45:23 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 07, 2014, 10:17:16 pm
It'd be like two countries declaring war because they both want to do a surprise attack on the other, since they are both certain the other is about to declare war on them. Their paranoia is what caused it to happen.In the period following the end of the Second World War and preceding the first soviet nuclear test, there was a small but vocal minority that advocated for a preemptive war with the USSR. Other examples include the attack on Pearl Harbor (which backfired spectacularly) and the Six-Day War (which was much more successful).
So is anything happening on the ground? I wouldn't have expected untrained militias to be so, restrained. Disciplined.
Post by: mainiac on March 07, 2014, 10:52:22 pm
I am currently sitting in Russia, and the social media is abuzz with nationalistic and anti-ukrainian sentiments.
Is anyone discussing the inevitable economic retaliation?
To give a ballpark here, Russia exports 350 billion dollars of natural gas and has a gdp of 2 trillion dollars. Every 10% reduction in natural gas exports would mean a 1.5% decrease in GDP and Okun's Law tells us that we should approximate a 3% increase in unemployment from that drop. So supposing exports drop by 20%, not unreasonable. That's a really nasty recession in the making. Now it's not that cut and dried, Okun's law doesn't apply to all sectors equally, imports would also be affected, etc. etc. But the long and the short is that you guys have a pretty big issue looming there.
Post by: Knit tie on March 07, 2014, 11:22:14 pm
A lot of the saner minds are preoccupied with this, yes, but the general pubic is more concerned with imagining how the russian marines are gonna stroll all over ukraine like the unstoppable engines of semper fidelic death and destruction they so very obviously are.I am currently sitting in Russia, and the social media is abuzz with nationalistic and anti-ukrainian sentiments.
Is anyone discussing the inevitable economic retaliation?
To give a ballpark here, Russia exports 350 billion dollars of natural gas and has a gdp of 2 trillion dollars. Every 10% reduction in natural gas exports would mean a 1.5% decrease in GDP and Okun's Law tells us that we should approximate a 3% increase in unemployment from that drop. So supposing exports drop by 20%, not unreasonable. That's a really nasty recession in the making. Now it's not that cut and dried, Okun's law doesn't apply to all sectors equally, imports would also be affected, etc. etc. But the long and the short is that you guys have a pretty big issue looming there.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 08, 2014, 02:10:01 am
Do you remember why Russia genocided the Tartars and the other Black Sea peoples the other times they did so, Guardian?And let's not forget that Russia has much more recent genocide in Chechnya.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 08, 2014, 03:48:36 am
Spoiler: speaking about neo-nazies (click to show/hide)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 08, 2014, 04:29:56 am
Don't forget the first World war.It'd be like two countries declaring war because they both want to do a surprise attack on the other, since they are both certain the other is about to declare war on them. Their paranoia is what caused it to happen.In the period following the end of the Second World War and preceding the first soviet nuclear test, there was a small but vocal minority that advocated for a preemptive war with the USSR. Other examples include the attack on Pearl Harbor (which backfired spectacularly) and the Six-Day War (which was much more successful).
Then again, the majority of that export goes to Europe. And the EU isn't known for making swift decisions, especially not when several countries are 100% reliant on Russian gas.A lot of the saner minds are preoccupied with this, yes, but the general pubic is more concerned with imagining how the russian marines are gonna stroll all over ukraine like the unstoppable engines of semper fidelic death and destruction they so very obviously are.I am currently sitting in Russia, and the social media is abuzz with nationalistic and anti-ukrainian sentiments.Is anyone discussing the inevitable economic retaliation?
To give a ballpark here, Russia exports 350 billion dollars of natural gas and has a gdp of 2 trillion dollars. Every 10% reduction in natural gas exports would mean a 1.5% decrease in GDP and Okun's Law tells us that we should approximate a 3% increase in unemployment from that drop. So supposing exports drop by 20%, not unreasonable. That's a really nasty recession in the making. Now it's not that cut and dried, Okun's law doesn't apply to all sectors equally, imports would also be affected, etc. etc. But the long and the short is that you guys have a pretty big issue looming there.
Also, the EU will have to replace it's natural gas production by gas from other sources, and Russia can then simply sell it's gas to people who previously bought it from Europe's new suppliers. Only difference is raising infrastructure costs.
Post by: DJ on March 08, 2014, 05:04:03 am
Post by: burningpet on March 08, 2014, 05:08:33 am
http://tavernkeepers.com/evidence-surfaces-showing-pro-eu-bloc-in-ukraine-behind-snipers-that-fired-on-protestors/
http://www.vm.ee/?q=node/19352
Can anyone read estonian and confirm that the estonian government acknowledged that leaked phone call and allegations as authentic?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 08, 2014, 05:21:53 am
Post by: burningpet on March 08, 2014, 05:36:15 am
Edit:
Here's part of the leaked video without the static that, at least for me, completely blanks Paet:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573923/Estonian-Foreign-Ministry-confirms-authenticity-leaked-phone-call-discussing-Kiev-snipers-shot-protesters-possibly-hired-Ukraines-new-leaders.html#v-3297826421001
And UR- Rumors? heh :D
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 08, 2014, 05:59:00 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 08, 2014, 06:04:52 am
Quote
And UR- Rumors? hehYes, rumors. Estonian foreign minister retold to Ashton what he heard from one activist. What the problem? What does it prove?
Post by: scriver on March 08, 2014, 06:31:24 am
Do you remember why Russia genocided the Tartars and the other Black Sea peoples the other times they did so, Guardian?And let's not forget that Russia has much more recent genocide in Chechnya.
Indeed, but I was especially referring to how past regimes has viewed groups of different ethnicities as a direct threat to their strategic interests in the region.
But yeah, I guess too should put a "though there's nothing pointing at the Russian state being behind it" disclaimer on it so people don't assume I am jumping to conclusions. But it's obvious some group is preparing for something, and it probably song be very nice.
Post by: Sheb on March 08, 2014, 07:08:15 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 08, 2014, 01:59:25 pm
In a twist of irony Moscow has asked the OSCE to investigate the Maidan shootings, you know, the same OSCE observers that have now several times been refused access to Crimea, last time with warning shots. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26499328)
More interesting about these leaked phone calls is how they are strategically leaked as a part of the information war. There are now 3 leaked calls, the Nuland-Pyatt call (Americans complaining about the EU), the Schmid-Tombinski call (EU complaining about Americans) and the Paet-Ashton call (with a rumour that seems to confirm Putins view of the revolution). Each time they were recorded professionally, leaked through Russian channels and accompanied by a political message from the Kremlin. It's no surprise at all that the secret service bugs calls, but the pattern of what calls are leaked and how they are leaked is obviously not a coincidence.
Post by: Zangi on March 09, 2014, 05:08:19 pm
Since we once again bring up rumors of snipers being on the side of protesters... I'll dig this thing up from earlier... It seems convincing to me.
*Belated answer* There was no shoot-out, just snipers having a field day.Decent analysis of the recent shootout. Has some hardly provable suggestions at the end, though.What shoot out?
Not recommended for children or sensitive people.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Between the various debates going on here I must have missed the news.
Post by: martinuzz on March 09, 2014, 06:09:36 pm
Also curious to see if China can make it to Pearl Harbour.
Post by: Owlbread on March 09, 2014, 06:34:47 pm
Some pro-Ukrainians at a rally in Crimea have been beaten up by pro-Russian fellows with clubs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26504449). Around 100 pro-Russians, to be precise, against the 200 pro-Ukrainians at the rally.
There's also some pretty distressing stuff coming from the Tatars who have, until now, been pretty much helpless while Ukrainians and Russians duke it out over their land. Some militant Tatars have approached the great former Tatar leader and statesman Mustafa Dzhemilev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Abd%C3%BClcemil_Q%C4%B1r%C4%B1mo%C4%9Flu) and informed him that they will wage a jihad against the Russians if they are annexed, (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17bd814e-a7ab-11e3-9c7d-00144feab7de.html) one that seems to be of an Islamist colour.
Quote from: Financial Times
“We have Islamists, Wahhabis, Salafis . . . groups who have fought [with the opposition] in Syria,” he said in an interview in Simferopol, the Crimean capital. “They say: ‘an enemy has entered our land and we are ready’.
“We can’t stop people who want to die with honour,” he said, making he clear he did not endorse a jihadist campaign.
It's not that far fetched, either.
Quote from: Financial Times
Links already exist between some Crimean Tatars and the global Islamist militant network, with a number of Tatars having fought with the armed opposition to President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. One of them, under the nom de guerre “Abu Khaled”, carried out a suicide bombing in Aleppo last year.
So remember, though you guys were dismissing Ukrainian Ranger for talking about wanting to take a few Russians down with him if the country is invaded fully, there's a fair amount of Tatars that are thinking that way right now. There's only a handful of them but my god if you bring Islamists into this (Russia technically started that by including mean, battle-hardened, pretty much Islamist Chechen forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Battalions_Vostok_and_Zapad) as part of their security force deployment in the area) then they will take this crisis to a different level of hell.
Post by: Helgoland on March 09, 2014, 07:06:42 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 09, 2014, 07:08:09 pm
As in, the world will do absolutely nothing >.>
Post by: scriver on March 09, 2014, 07:31:43 pm
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 09, 2014, 08:38:20 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 09, 2014, 11:13:17 pm
So remember, though you guys were dismissing Ukrainian Ranger for talking about wanting to take a few Russians down with him if the country is invaded fully,
If the Russians invaded western Ukraine at this point, NATO would declare war. The only way Russia could get away with that is if Ukraine shot first.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 12:21:40 am
His assessment that the EU is partially responsible for this, with the EU association agreement and the Russian customs union being mutually exclusive rings true though, that seems like a miscalculation now, if the particular Ukrainian situation is considered.
The USA has warned Russia that they must not annex Crimea or that will close the door to diplomacy. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26501716) Exactly what that means I do not know. I don't think Obama knows either.Since they are barely talking now, probably economic sanctions I guess. Europe continues to talk with Putin, but it looks like he is going to push the referendum through. The West will consider it illegal, but for practical purposes this will not matter much. What happens then will remain to be seen. Economic sanctions will be hard on Russia, but hard on Europe too. Not only because of oil and gas, but because account freezing and wider visa restrictions will negatively affect Russian investments and tourism, which is quite important in some regions.
Since even the US need Russia (to resolve the stuff with Syria for example), it is at worst possible that - if this remains limited to Crimea and bloodless - this could be forgotten like Georgia all over again in a few years, just with a longer phase of sanctions and a new low in international relationships.
The Tatars thing - that's bad, but I guess that was to be expected.
I have also read that there is a (so far tiny) contingent of Serbian Pan-slavic militia in Crimea, to support the Russians. (Serbia's official position is against Crimean secession, because of their stance on Kosovo. They plan on punishing these guys when they come back.)
That goes to show though, there is a lot of potential for conflict there, even if it does not come to anything with the military.
There are also reports about Russians travelling to Eastern Ukraine to support pro-Russian protests there.
All in all lots of worrying signs that the situation is not exactly stabilizing. With so many different armed groups involved now, a lot could go wrong.
If the Russians invaded western Ukraine at this point, NATO would declare war. The only way Russia could get away with that is if Ukraine shot first.I highly doubt that, as bad as that would be for Ukraine. I don't know what would happen, but military intervention is not on the table. Even the Republicans have made that clear. It just is too risky, you can't start a war with a nuclear power, hoping that they only use conventional weapons if you do the same. You think the Russians will just sit there and hope the rockets and bombers flying at them won't have nukes in them, so they will respond accordingly to keep it a fair fight? ::) That's madness, no way that's gonna happen.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 12:35:24 am
TartarsAre we talking about the citizens of the Greek Tartar?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 12:39:22 am
You need to give me a chance to cover up my mistakes via editing. ;)TartarsAre we talking about the citizens of the Greek Tartar?
Done. It...ehm...never happened and if you say otherwise, that is just propaganda.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 12:41:17 am
Don't worry, though. You're not the first to make that mistake in this thread.You need to give me a chance to cover up my mistakes via editing. ;)TartarsAre we talking about the citizens of the Greek Tartar?
Post by: burningpet on March 10, 2014, 01:17:20 am
Quote from: Financial Times“We have Islamists, Wahhabis, Salafis . . . groups who have fought [with the opposition] in Syria,” he said in an interview in Simferopol, the Crimean capital. “They say: ‘an enemy has entered our land and we are ready’.
I have seen an extensive interview with a group of extreme belgian islamists, done by a reporter that presented himself as an extreme muslim, that said they will "liberate" the holy grounds of belgium, that belgium should adopt sharia and that there are a lot more of them than the belgians aware of.
I bet that if you go look for it, you will find those statements almost all throughout europe.
Those are brainwashed idiots who have been trained to fight, know nothing but fight, have no purpose other than fighting and have no other use by their makers other than dying. when their fighting will be over in the middle east, they will start fighting someplace else, because that's what they were trained and brainwashed for, it doesn't matter if its Crimea or Belgium.
So if any ukrainian thinks, even for a second, that those people share his cause or aspirations, he is dead wrong. they may share a temporary enemy, but that's about it. also, if you think those nut cases will only fight because of the russians annexation, or that its the russians fault they will start their jihad, you need to further educate your self on that matter.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 01:55:09 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Also, according to BBC, Russian troops are currently digging in on the Perekop isthmus. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26503456)
(first link fixed)
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 02:07:14 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 02:24:55 am
First link is broken.I fixed it.
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 02:43:51 am
It could be bad. Inch'allah it won't, but it could.
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 03:23:46 am
(https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1011573_580178495411825_1885187321_n.jpg)
Post by: scrdest on March 10, 2014, 03:53:36 am
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2014, 03:55:03 am
Post by: scrdest on March 10, 2014, 04:00:29 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 04:02:38 am
Also, according to BBC, Russian troops are currently digging in on the Perekop isthmus. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26503456)Ukrainians also claim that surveillance plane was shot at. Still currently all these militias are probably more to worry about than the military. They seem to be somewhat aggressive towards journalists and if another protest results in a streetfight and they do something stupid, things might escalate quickly.
German FM has announced that the EU will probably issue the next level of sanctions (account and visa stuff) if there is no progress in negotiations by tomorrow.
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 04:03:55 am
Post by: Ghazkull on March 10, 2014, 04:05:14 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 04:08:02 am
I really doubt anything will happen before the referendum. It'll be much harder for the West to defend Ukraine is there is at least the appearance of democratic legitimacy.There are rumours circulating on the Russian internet claiming that Ukrainian troops will probably assault Crimea in the upcoming days in order to prevent the 16 March referendum from taking place.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 04:08:48 am
The question is, what comes after that.
wait there is a difference between Tatars and Tartars? didn't know that...According to wikipedia Tartar is also an acceptable older spelling.
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 04:09:20 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 04:14:49 am
I don't think they're true: Ukraine knows that it doesn't stand a chance in case of an open war. Maybe try to disrupt the vote in other ways, but probably no more.It's very likely that Western powers will support them if they launch an offensive, in information warfare at the very least.
Post by: Sheb on March 10, 2014, 04:15:52 am
Post by: olemars on March 10, 2014, 04:17:28 am
Quote
Rules require that at least 51 representatives be present in order to hold a qualified vote. The new goverment says 61 members of parliament took part. Aftenposten’s research shows, however, that only 36 were present.
- The system which registers who voted, and what we voted for or against, shows I did cast a vote. But I was not there. Neither were a large majority of my colleagues, says Sumulidi. Representative Irina Klyuyeva also participated in the vote, according to the official records, but she was not present either.
- I didn’t want to go, because I knew what was going to happen. Only pro-Russia representatives were present, and they numbered far below 50. In other words, a legal vote was not possible, she tells Aftenposten.
But Dmitry Polonsky, vice chairman of the party, says «it was the people who decided that we needed a new government and a referendum. This is our will, nobody is forcing us».
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 04:19:37 am
The West will not accept the referendum as legal, but they won't be doing much, except for more sanctions of course.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 10, 2014, 05:12:19 am
I don't think they're true: Ukraine knows that it doesn't stand a chance in case of an open war. Maybe try to disrupt the vote in other ways, but probably no more.Main problem of Ukrainian armed forces is airforce. It is where Russia has huge dominance. Our air defense is another problem, not only it has seen very little modernization, we have a large chunk of it in Crimea and it is too easy to disable those when AA bases surrounded.. Plus navy where most of our ships are blockaded in port...
On the land situation is different, Russia has no total dominance overall and in very bad shape in Crimea. Because Crimean forces have very few tanks and heavy artillery in the area while we have both. So should we start anti-terrorism operation against unknown armed people in green uniform, those have no chances to survive unless Russian Airfoce and Navy will get involved
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 06:03:14 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 06:07:04 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 10, 2014, 06:14:44 am
*That is according to Russian Census... and I don't believe that Russian census is accurate
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 06:19:48 am
If that information is true, then the plans sound pretty anti-Ukrainian to me (Ukrainian is not offical language anymore and people can choose to lose citizenship and presumably leave the country.) That may be conjecture on my part though.
It sounds a bit less aggressive here (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/ukraine-crisis-language-idUKL2N0M70HL20140310), where it basically says people would not need to return their Ukrainian passports.
Post by: Owlbread on March 10, 2014, 06:40:41 am
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2014, 06:41:32 am
from 2011, over 13 years ago.Hands up, how many other people here are from the future?
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 06:55:13 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 06:57:01 am
Your media is lying, there are no mistakes or typos in this thread. ;)from 2011, over 13 years ago.Hands up, how many other people here are from the future?
The thing is though that poll was from 2001, over 13 years ago. Given that minority groups and the Ukrainian language speaking population of Ukraine have grown in number since then it is unclear what the situation is right now. I don't know about recent Russian immigration to Crimea or the scale of it.Yeah, well, I found that the passport thing sounded a bit more concerning than the language thing, but I may be reading too much into it. This all sounds pretty provisional and also the referendum has to happen first. Whatever comes out of that will be an odd situation anyway.
Moscow seems prepared though, they have taken up paying the Crimean budget the moment Kiev cut it off.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 10, 2014, 06:58:49 am
The thing is though that poll was from 2001, over 13 years ago. Given that minority groups and the Ukrainian language speaking population of Ukraine have grown in number since then it is unclear what the situation is right now. I don't know about recent Russian immigration to Crimea or the scale of it.Yep, we had planned census in 2010 but since Yanuk came to power we got it delayed, delayed and delayed. Many say it was done intentionally to hide unpleasant facts and to make rigging elections easier
There are more Crimean Tatars now, both in absolute numbers and as percentage. They still got people back from central Asia, they have higher birthrates and Crimea, as most Ukrainian regions has net negative migration (It is obvious that Crimean Tatars are less inclined to migrate away). 12% of Tatars is very outdated and it may be as high as 30%
As for migration from Russia. There are one important moment here: most immigrants from Russia to Ukraine are not ethnic Russians but North Caucasians so that 6% of others may have seen a nice raise, too
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 07:28:23 am
Post by: Ghazkull on March 10, 2014, 07:32:55 am
No matter what Putin said before, shouldn't that have moved him in a position where he can no longer justify his own troops nor Crimean Self Defense Units in the Area or if those "Self-Defense Units" are still there wouldn't that be a nice front to allow Ukrainian Army to disarm them?
How realistically possible would it be for Ukraine to move the date of the Referendum back(by negotiating with Russia) or interfere with it to keep it stalled until a proper Ukrainian Government has been elected?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 10, 2014, 07:37:14 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 07:44:56 am
How realistically possible would it be for Ukraine to move the date of the Referendum back(by negotiating with Russia) or interfere with it to keep it stalled until a proper Ukrainian Government has been elected?I think we're past that point, pretty sure Putin will make sure the referendum goes through. Elections in Ukraine would be difficult now, with Crimea in Russian control and unrest in some predominantly Russian-speaking cities like Odessa and Donetsk.
I'm afraid at this point we're negotiating about what happens with the rest of Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry has released a statement today accusing the Right Sector of being responsible for the unrest in Eastern Ukraine and some other stuff, and the government in Kiev of tolerating it (link (http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/newsline/EC608B56A810596344257C97002898CF) in Russian, got that from here (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/russland-ostukraine-sicherheit-putin)). Remember, Putin has a mandate to intervene in Ukraine if Russians are in danger, which is pretty much what they are saying right now.
Russia still does not want to participate in the proposed contact group and still refuses to talk to the Ukrainian government. I guess the plan is to push the referendum through, then the EU will issue sanctions which ideally should force Russia to talk with Kiev and come to some kind of understanding. I guess they will want to keep Crimea after the referendum though, that seems difficult to prevent now.
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2014, 09:08:42 am
Really though, Putin has spent basically all his international political capital to achieve this. The word of Russia is going to mean absolutely nothing internationally, and they're going to get sanctioned in pretty much every quarter....well, I hope it was worth it. Maybe in 10 years Russia can again start to earn their way back into the EU's and the West's good graces. But for now, no one is going to trust a damn thing they have to say on anything.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 09:43:35 am
Yeah, I feel like absorbing Crimea is all but a foregone conclusion now unless Ukraine wants to open fire on Russia. Which would only confirm Russia's position that Crimean's are in danger.I think the idea is that Russia does not need the West's good graces any longer.
Really though, Putin has spent basically all his international political capital to achieve this. The word of Russia is going to mean absolutely nothing internationally, and they're going to get sanctioned in pretty much every quarter....well, I hope it was worth it. Maybe in 10 years Russia can again start to earn their way back into the EU's and the West's good graces. But for now, no one is going to trust a damn thing they have to say on anything.
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2014, 09:54:04 am
Yeah, I feel like absorbing Crimea is all but a foregone conclusion now unless Ukraine wants to open fire on Russia. Which would only confirm Russia's position that Crimean's are in danger.I think the idea is that Russia does not need the West's good graces any longer.
Really though, Putin has spent basically all his international political capital to achieve this. The word of Russia is going to mean absolutely nothing internationally, and they're going to get sanctioned in pretty much every quarter....well, I hope it was worth it. Maybe in 10 years Russia can again start to earn their way back into the EU's and the West's good graces. But for now, no one is going to trust a damn thing they have to say on anything.
Except everyone knows that nationalistic bullshit. Just like it would be if America said they didn't need the rest of the world.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 10, 2014, 10:06:25 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiRtJR8IcAAhD40.jpg)
are those seriously chetniks
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 10:22:49 am
I think the idea is that Russia does not need the West's good graces any longer.
I'm sure that will be very comforting to them when they are in recession next year.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 10:46:18 am
Really though, Putin has spent basically all his international political capital to achieve this. The word of Russia is going to mean absolutely nothing internationally, and they're going to get sanctioned in pretty much every quarter....well, I hope it was worth it. Maybe in 10 years Russia can again start to earn their way back into the EU's and the West's good graces. But for now, no one is going to trust a damn thing they have to say on anything.Pretty much this. Also his allies will be worried too, if Belarus or Kazakhstan one day should have a regime change that Moscow doesn't like, they get an idea what might be happening.
are those seriously chetniksThey claim to be. Nobody knows how many exactly are in Crimea, maybe less than a dozen. Their government is not happy about that.
The EU has suspended talks about a new gas pipeline now. There are also talks about getting more independent from Russian gas, which will not go fast, but should hurt the Russian economy pretty bad. For now the next wave of sanctions (visa restrictions /account freezing) is meant to hit the oligarchs, who should have some influence with Putin. According to our Minister of Defense 15% of Russian GDP depends on Europe alone, while it's only 1% the other way round, so the sanctions should have some effect.I think the idea is that Russia does not need the West's good graces any longer.
I'm sure that will be very comforting to them when they are in recession next year.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 10, 2014, 10:48:39 am
Yeah, I feel like absorbing Crimea is all but a foregone conclusion now unless Ukraine wants to open fire on Russia. Which would only confirm Russia's position that Crimean's are in danger.
Really though, Putin has spent basically all his international political capital to achieve this. The word of Russia is going to mean absolutely nothing internationally, and they're going to get sanctioned in pretty much every quarter....well, I hope it was worth it. Maybe in 10 years Russia can again start to earn their way back into the EU's and the West's good graces. But for now, no one is going to trust a damn thing they have to say on anything.
Sanctions strike me as unlikely considering how many Western countries are dependent on Russian energy imports. Certainly would hurt the Russians quite a lot, but it'd hurt the Europeans just as much, if not more.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 10:58:40 am
Sanctions strike me as unlikely considering how many Western countries are dependent on Russian energy imports. Certainly would hurt the Russians quite a lot, but it'd hurt the Europeans just as much, if not more.Financial sanctions seem to be pretty much on the way if Putin does not want to negotiate.
Energy related sanctions are going to be problematic in the short term, but there are talks about that too. Poland's Prime Minister has criticised German dependence on Russian gas specifically, though I doubt that can be changed quickly with our ongoing energy reforms. At least in the long term Europe might go looking for different sources. There are talks in the US to jump in, but that does not seem to be easy either.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 10:59:45 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 11:01:10 am
Too bad the only viable alternative source of power is nuclear. And guess who's the leader on that front.I know. And the whole world is gonna follow our example, right? ::)
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 11:01:23 am
Reportedly they claim to be Chetniks. They said that they went to Crimea to help Russians in gratitude for their help during the war in Yugoslavia (Russian volunteers fought on the Serbian side in Croatia and Bosnia). I'm not sure if they are planning to help the Russians by doing what they have always done the best (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSCJxxI83v4), though.(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiRtJR8IcAAhD40.jpg)
are those seriously chetniks
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 10, 2014, 11:49:07 am
I dunno, Europe's pretty strong at nuclear stuff. Most of Russia's reactors are old Soviet remnants anyway. The reactors in Germany can and will be reactivated in short time if Russia cuts of the gas, so...Too bad the only viable alternative source of power is nuclear. And guess who's the leader on that front.I know. And the whole world is gonna follow our example, right? ::)
Edit: Anyway, the real threat for Russia are financial sanctions. Europe accounts for more than half the foreign investement in Russia.
Post by: scrdest on March 10, 2014, 11:49:12 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 11:58:13 am
Going back on nuclear plants would be an incredibly unpopular decision. It'll be like saying "ok we didn't really knew what we were doing before we take everything back lol". I think the anti-nuclear forces are currently strong enough to overthrow quite a lot of currently ruling parties.I dunno, Europe's pretty strong at nuclear stuff. Most of Russia's reactors are old Soviet remnants anyway. The reactors in Germany can and will be reactivated in short time if Russia cuts of the gas, so...Too bad the only viable alternative source of power is nuclear. And guess who's the leader on that front.I know. And the whole world is gonna follow our example, right? ::)
Edit: Anyway, the real threat for Russia are financial sanctions. Europe accounts for more than half the foreign investement in Russia.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 10, 2014, 12:01:17 pm
When the lights go out, people will reconsider.
Besides, they don't have to say that they're returning to Nuclear. The nuclear shutdown in Germany was -aside from a purely populistic descision- completely illegal, so they can just say they're allowing the plants to operate untill the end of their lifetime to avoid a multi-billion fine.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 12:39:21 pm
As a long term solution, the US might decide to export some of their natural gas from fracking. They are at least thinking about it, to possibly counter Russian influence in Europe.
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 01:18:50 pm
Sanctions strike me as unlikely considering how many Western countries are dependent on Russian energy imports. Certainly would hurt the Russians quite a lot, but it'd hurt the Europeans just as much, if not more.
The EU economy is 8 times that of Russia. Natural gas exports are 17% of the Russian economy, for Europe it's a drop in the bucket. And Russia isn't the only seller in the world of natural gas. If European countries decide that for security reason it makes sense to pay a modest premium on non-Russian sources of gas it would be devestating to the Russian economy but would be about the equivalent to a bad quarter for Europe. That's not too bad a price to pay to make sure that Putin never pulls another stunt that hurts the European economy like this.
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2014, 01:27:34 pm
Yeah, in the worst case the nuclear reactors are still there. If the light goes out, the reactors will become much more popular again. Also it was a very mild winter, so gas reserves are full.
As a long term solution, the US might decide to export some of their natural gas from fracking. They are at least thinking about it, to possibly counter Russian influence in Europe.
On this, Republicans here are basically using the Ukraine to push the same agenda they were for during Obama's first term.
"Automatically approve all pipelines"
"Open up protected areas to prospecting"
"Increase natural gas production so we can export it"
Replacing Russia as an energy producer and the Republican Energy Agenda intersecting is just political serendipity. Republicans don't give two shits about the rest of the world, they're just using it as an excuse to hammer Obama so energy barons can make even more money on their currently existing infrastructure, instead of converting to greener forms of energy.
Post by: Knit tie on March 10, 2014, 01:28:23 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 01:32:30 pm
Whatever the republican motives are, the democrats do now have a motive to consider natural gas exports so it might happen.
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2014, 01:47:44 pm
Whatever the republican motives are, the democrats do now have a motive to consider natural gas exports so it might happen.
Making use of our existing stockpiles for export I'm ok with. Declaring open season on all forms of energy production, I'm not. Deregulating the industry as Republicans want will just give us another Deep Water Horizon event, only with a natural gas flavor.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 10, 2014, 01:53:59 pm
Sanctions strike me as unlikely considering how many Western countries are dependent on Russian energy imports. Certainly would hurt the Russians quite a lot, but it'd hurt the Europeans just as much, if not more.
The EU economy is 8 times that of Russia. Natural gas exports are 17% of the Russian economy, for Europe it's a drop in the bucket. And Russia isn't the only seller in the world of natural gas. If European countries decide that for security reason it makes sense to pay a modest premium on non-Russian sources of gas it would be devestating to the Russian economy but would be about the equivalent to a bad quarter for Europe. That's not too bad a price to pay to make sure that Putin never pulls another stunt that hurts the European economy like this.
A drop in the bucket? Europe imports about 30% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia, hardly amounts that could be easily replaced by other sources in the near term. Considering the economic state of most EU countries, a cut in Russian energy supplies would be crippling.
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 01:58:48 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 10, 2014, 02:05:46 pm
How about the pipelines that run through Ukraine? West Ukraine gets invaded, Russia's economy might take a massive hit anyway.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
http://en.ria.ru/infographics/20120117/170800440.html
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 02:15:05 pm
A drop in the bucket? Europe imports about 30% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia, hardly amounts that could be easily replaced by other sources in the near term. Considering the economic state of most EU countries, a cut in Russian energy supplies would be crippling.
Way to use qualitative description completely devoid of any sense of scale of what you are actually talking about.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 10, 2014, 02:21:22 pm
A drop in the bucket? Europe imports about 30% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia, hardly amounts that could be easily replaced by other sources in the near term. Considering the economic state of most EU countries, a cut in Russian energy supplies would be crippling.
Way to use qualitative description completely devoid of any sense of scale of what you are actually talking about.
Right, because the European economy is very small, so 30% really isn't hard to replace after all.
Post by: scrdest on March 10, 2014, 02:24:10 pm
A drop in the bucket? Europe imports about 30% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia, hardly amounts that could be easily replaced by other sources in the near term. Considering the economic state of most EU countries, a cut in Russian energy supplies would be crippling.
Way to use qualitative description completely devoid of any sense of scale of what you are actually talking about.
Right, because the European economy is very small, so 30% really isn't hard to replace after all.
Analogy time! I used 50% of all the money I had on me to buy a can of Coke. It costs 1$. Expensive or not?
The fact that it's 30% of all oil doesn't mean it's a lot of oil.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 02:35:58 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2014, 02:37:32 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 02:42:52 pm
Well that's the greenhouse effect dealt with.Sadly, to get rid of the most active oil users in the world, we must get rid of both USA and Chinas oil economies.
And that's unthinkable to the current generation.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 10, 2014, 02:46:12 pm
A drop in the bucket? Europe imports about 30% of its oil and 40% of its gas from Russia, hardly amounts that could be easily replaced by other sources in the near term. Considering the economic state of most EU countries, a cut in Russian energy supplies would be crippling.
Way to use qualitative description completely devoid of any sense of scale of what you are actually talking about.
Right, because the European economy is very small, so 30% really isn't hard to replace after all.
Analogy time! I used 50% of all the money I had on me to buy a can of Coke. It costs 1$. Expensive or not?
The fact that it's 30% of all oil doesn't mean it's a lot of oil.
Please remind me how much oil and gas the EU consumes, because it sounds to me like you're trying to say it's a pretty small amount.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 10, 2014, 02:47:18 pm
Well that's the greenhouse effect dealt with.Sadly, to get rid of the most active oil users in the world, we must get rid of both USA and Chinas oil economies.
And that's unthinkable to the current generation.
I think he was being facetious.
Anyone know more about the oil pipelines? It looks like, if kiev had their shit together and have already mined all the piping in their territory, Russia's export capacity to the west would be halved or more.
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 02:49:49 pm
Right, because the European economy is very small, so 30% really isn't hard to replace after all.
Actually you've got it backwards. The European economy is very large, so replacing a hundred billion dollars of Russian energy imports would be very manageable for Europe. They could even push two hundred billion dollars if they wanted to. For Russia, such a loss of revenue would represent a 10% yearly drop in GDP. That's an event in the ballpark of the collapse of communism in terms of economic disruption.
This isn't complicated, Europe economy big. Russia economy small.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 03:07:51 pm
The Ukraine won't survive without those pipes, you know. They already have a giant hole in the place of their budget, without that.Well that's the greenhouse effect dealt with.Sadly, to get rid of the most active oil users in the world, we must get rid of both USA and Chinas oil economies.
And that's unthinkable to the current generation.
I think he was being facetious.
Anyone know more about the oil pipelines? It looks like, if kiev had their shit together and have already mined all the piping in their territory, Russia's export capacity to the west would be halved or more.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 10, 2014, 03:10:45 pm
Right, because the European economy is very small, so 30% really isn't hard to replace after all.
Actually you've got it backwards. The European economy is very large, so replacing a hundred billion dollars of Russian energy imports would be very manageable for Europe. They could even push two hundred billion dollars if they wanted to. For Russia, such a loss of revenue would represent a 10% yearly drop in GDP. That's an event in the ballpark of the collapse of communism in terms of economic disruption.
This isn't complicated, Europe economy big. Russia economy small.
They're going to take their money, put it into an alchemical mixture, and create natural gas to use? I didn't know it worked that way.
Now lets see, where would Europe get natural gas and oil from without Russia? First off, the price would be drastically increased to account for transportation cost, as Russia's pipeline is significantly cheaper to run and more efficient than shipping. Iran is embargoed under sanctions as well to my understanding, the US has sufficient energy needs that it isn't likely to export much, the Saudis have plenty but are supplying many other countries already right now and don't have unlimited production, etc etc etc.
You also seem to be forgetting that the economy is not a gigantic, amorphous mound of cash, but a system of trades conducted by many different individuals. So if I'm a German factory owner and suddenly my costs for energy skyrocket, I can't just say "well its a good thing I'm German, I'll just take my share of the national GDP to cover my expenses", I have to cut something to make up the cost. Maybe I increase prices, maybe I cut production a bit, maybe I lay off a bunch of workers or what have you, but whatever I do, it isn't good for me. Furthermore, everyone I do business with is hurt too, both directly by the drastic increase in energy costs (and I'm being generous here and assuming there isn't a massive shortage in the aftermath of Russian import cuts bringing European industry to a grinding halt) and indirectly by other German companies up and down the supply chain having to deal with these increased energy costs. Thus, you have a domino effect; companies go out of business, people lose their jobs, companies have to cut production because people lost their jobs and aren't buying their products, and so on and so forth. Now, there are plenty of ways to adjust to this in the long run that would minimize damage, but looking at the European Union's economic policies, it's doubtful that the adjustment would be anything but harsh.
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 03:21:43 pm
You also seem to be forgetting that the economy is not a gigantic, amorphous mound of cash, but a system of trades conducted by many different individuals.
No, you are just strawmanning as hard as you can.
It would be expensive for Europe to change it's energy portfolio on short notice. Doesn't mean it can't be done and doesn't mean it hasn't been done in the very recent past.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 10, 2014, 03:32:11 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 10, 2014, 03:34:06 pm
SnipThe Ukraine won't survive without those pipes, you know. They already have a giant hole in the place of their budget, without that.
But if they're facing an existential threat? And the EU isn't helping militarily? That's a big club to be brandished by a desperate man.
What do they get from the pipelines? A toll?
ALSO, how come no one's mentioned china, its hikes in military spending and how they & the US are getting a bit more buddy-buddy?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 10, 2014, 03:35:25 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 10, 2014, 03:37:14 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 10, 2014, 03:40:58 pm
Quote
Iran is embargoed under sanctions as well to my understandingI suspect that this visit (http://www.dw.de/eu-foreign-policy-chief-catherine-ashton-makes-first-visit-to-iran/a-17483663) may include some talks about oil
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 10, 2014, 03:57:12 pm
Post by: olemars on March 10, 2014, 03:59:17 pm
Post by: ivze on March 10, 2014, 04:11:21 pm
In both harsh and comic manner he describes his thinking about the crisis. It is true to say, that his feelings are shared among quite a big part of Russian society.
English subtitles included in video.
http://youtu.be/dfzMnP3ilcI (http://youtu.be/dfzMnP3ilcI)
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 05:13:50 pm
Post by: olemars on March 10, 2014, 05:21:14 pm
edit: OK, hadn't watched all of it yet, multiply the falsehood factor by about five.
Post by: Sergarr on March 10, 2014, 05:32:15 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 05:35:06 pm
He makes some good points in the first half, how all the politicians are oligarchs or paid by oligarchs who bleed their country dry. That seems pretty true, the current government consists mostly of wealthy people like the old one. It's basically true for all Eastern European presidential systems, including Russia. You guys need to do something about your campaign financing system over there (you too, US). One factual error, it was widely reported in the West that Yanukovych and others did bring millions out of the country.
He lost me of course in the second half, where it's the usual Nazi stuff again. Government is now controlled by Nazis, Nazis orchestrated shootings on Maidan, Russians are threatened and need to be protected, that kind of stuff.
So it starts off pretty well, but then becomes more and more distorted. It's all stuff we have heard already, just articulated more coherently and funnier.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 05:45:22 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 10, 2014, 05:46:32 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 10, 2014, 05:54:46 pm
GI, so Occupy was organized by the West as well? Sometimes I admire your ability to maintain cognitive dissonance...Occupy movement's camps are small family picnics compared to Maidan camps in 2004 and 2013. Occupy camps had about a hundred Americans at most, if I recall correctly, maybe several hundreds if I am mistaken. The population of Maidan is several thousands of people, if not tens of thousands.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 05:58:30 pm
Now the Maidan camp seemed definitely like something that could be sustained by people alone, we have seen similar things. While I guess it is possible that they had some people organizing and paying for stuff in the background, you wouldn't need logistics experts to pull that off. I've been on festivals with that many people and that works too, despite massive logistics failure. If enough people volunteer, you don't actually need that much per individual.
Post by: olemars on March 10, 2014, 06:03:27 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 10, 2014, 06:07:11 pm
Post by: FearfulJesuit on March 10, 2014, 06:08:07 pm
Post by: burningpet on March 10, 2014, 06:13:27 pm
Also, regarding organization and such, they probably have all sort of ex-military/executives/producers that organize it.
I seem to recall a story about a guy nicknamed "Delta" who is actually an ex israeli soldier that served in the time in samson foxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson's_Foxes - he served in the reestablished unit) that is behind one of the protesting groups. the logistics behind those groups are really no that hard or complicated and anyone who have served as a sergeant in the army should easily tackle this job.
Post by: olemars on March 10, 2014, 06:32:14 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 10, 2014, 06:35:20 pm
Post by: Zangi on March 10, 2014, 06:45:18 pm
According to my memory that's like a handful of small planes and a couple of sergeants. What are they hoping to accomplish?Its a message. "We ain't got much, but we got your back." and another interpretation which is hilarious: "We are serious guys, back off."
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 07:20:45 pm
IIRC, China's starting to run out of homegrown fossil fuels, fast. The Russians could probably make up for European consumption by selling to the Chinese.
Not without spending years and tens of billions of dollars building trans-continental pipelines. Maybe they want to do that long term but it won't protect them from a recession this decade.
Ocean transport isn't even an option. Going from the Black Sea to China is way farther then going from US ports to China.
Its a message. "We ain't got much, but we got your back." and another interpretation which is hilarious: "We are serious guys, back off."
More like "fuck it guys, I got this."
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2014, 07:38:26 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 10, 2014, 08:35:18 pm
Nothing could go wrong, amiright?
Sounds legit.
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 03:57:43 am
In the meantime, we should see significant LPG exporting capability in the US coming online over the next 5 years. So I think it'll be easier for Europe to diversify away from Russia than the other way around.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 04:51:18 am
Not sure if it's been posted here at all, but this was rather funny:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 05:26:52 am
The Goblin apparently wants to keep all Ukrainian vessels that are currently docked in Crimean ports; the harbors' exits have already been blockaded. (Link in German) (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/krim-ukraine-kriegsschiffe)
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:35:09 am
Post by: scrdest on March 11, 2014, 05:36:40 am
I really hope they botch the referendum to the point where it's totally useless. Like 95% of yes vote or something.
125% approval. Not like it would be surprising in Russia.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 05:44:01 am
I really hope they botch the referendum to the point where it's totally useless. Like 95% of yes vote or something.The Western countries won't recognize it no matter how high the result will be, 51%, 68%, 95% or 413%.
They don't seem to be willing to recognize independence referendums in troubled regions that they want to take in their sphere of influence, unless the referendum and the independence movement in particular are organized and backed by them (e.g. Kosovo).
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 11, 2014, 05:45:53 am
They don't seem to be willing to recognize independence referendums in troubled regions that they want to take in their sphere of influence, unless the referendum and the independence movement in particular are organized and backed by them (e.g. Kosovo).
I agree with what you're saying about the Kremlin.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 05:48:35 am
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:51:20 am
However, in the semi-independent republics like Chechnya, the local bosses sometime gets a bit to eager to please their overlord and do some pretty stupid-looking ballot-stuffing. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/chechnya-polling-station_n_1324799.html)
As for the referendum, it's a joke to run one in the current context. The West would probably get behind a deal that would offer a withdrawal of Russians troops in exchange for a internationally-observed referendum in May for example.
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2014, 05:52:20 am
Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0qSm8fBM3E)What an informative post. I've learned a lot of new things from it and it opened my eyes on the current global problems of humanity as a whole. Truly I am enlightened now, reveling in my newfound knowledge of Truth™ and running in majestic circles from overbearing joy.
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:54:49 am
What an informative post. I've learned a lot of new things from it and it opened my eyes on the current global problems of humanity as a whole. Truly I am enlightened now, reveling in my newfound knowledge of Truth™ and running in majestic circles from overbearing joy.Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0qSm8fBM3E)What an informative post. I've learned a lot of new things from it and it opened my eyes on the current global problems of humanity as a whole. Truly I am enlightened now, reveling in my newfound knowledge of Truth™ and running in majestic circles from overbearing joy.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 05:55:13 am
The Western countries won't recognize it no matter how high the result will be, 51%, 68%, 95% or 413%.That is correct, they have pretty much said so already, on the grounds that it is illegal/unconstitutional and basically blackmail because of the Russian army presence.
They don't seem to be willing to recognize independence referendums in troubled regions that they want to take in their sphere of influence, unless the referendum and the independence movement in particular are organized and backed by them (e.g. Kosovo).
I agree that Kosovo may have been an unfortunate precedent, I understand your impression of the situation in that regard, even if the situation there was quite different from what is happening in Crimea now, with the ethnic strife in Yugoslavia.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 05:56:18 am
Freedom! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0qSm8fBM3E)What an informative post. I've learned a lot of new things from it and it opened my eyes on the current global problems of humanity as a whole. Truly I am enlightened now, reveling in my newfound knowledge of Truth™ and running in majestic circles from overbearing joy.
Quote from: My favourite Youtube comment from that video
No idea what the political situation in Dagestan, Russia is (I'm from the U.S.), but FREE DAGESTAN!
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:04:36 am
I really hope they botch the referendum to the point where it's totally useless. Like 95% of yes vote or something.The Western countries won't recognize it no matter how high the result will be, 51%, 68%, 95% or 413%.
They don't seem to be willing to recognize independence referendums in troubled regions that they want to take in their sphere of influence, unless the referendum and the independence movement in particular are organized and backed by them (e.g. Kosovo).
It isn't 109 out of 120 voting in favor, it's 36 pretending to be 61. With armed men (russian soldiers) in-command of the building for the last few days.
Cursory research makes one of these two situations look a bit less legitimate.
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2014, 06:05:33 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:06:24 am
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 06:06:47 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 06:08:38 am
Like there weren't armed people in Kiev last month.Quiet, they were fighting for FREEDOM from bloodthirsty Russian orcs, they don't count. The free Western media said so (minus the orcs part), so it must be true.
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2014, 06:10:37 am
/They weren't foreign soldiers/Sooooooo a countrys own soldiers can stage coups in it with absolute legality. Oooooook.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:16:45 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 06:33:44 am
I don't think any progress will be made in that regard before the referendum is over. For practical purposes I don't think Crimea joining Russia can be prevented. This will result in some more sanctions and possibly isolate Russia diplomatically for quite a while. Ideally - if nothing else goes wrong - Russia will be more willing to negotiate (they are preparing their own proposals currently) after the referendum, and some arrangement will be found where they recognize the government in Ukraine.
BTW Yanukovych has given another press conference (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26524056), he says he will return to Kiev. Yanukovych does sound a bit delusional, but the fact that Putin let's him talk through official channels underlines that currently there seems to be no progress in the diplomatic stand-off.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 06:52:33 am
Does anyone here have a pro-Russia argument that isn't just desperate finger-pointing at everyone that isn't Russia?
Sergarr, Guardian G.I. - Do you actually think a referendum in Crimea held under these conditions should be legitimate? Would you accept it if the people voted for Russia to skedaddle? What would it actually take for you to consider Russia's actions here to be wrong? What it would it take for you to believe that the results of the referendum should be illegitimate?
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 07:10:30 am
Well, if there's one thing this thread and the others I've read has convinced me of, it's that a great many Russians (real Russians, not Russians as claimed by Russia) seem absolutely desperate for their country to be a super power again, and are willing to make themselves look like a laughingstock on the world stage if they can convince themselves of that for just a little while longer.That's a bit drastic, I think, but the gist of it is correct. To phrase it a bit more friendly: After 1990 the West made the same mistakes that the Allies made in 1919, leaving a proud and powerful country with a terrrible economy, a chronic inferiority complex and no chance to integrate themselves with the global community in a way that fits their self-image. And even though the ideologies are radically different, we can see some patterns repeating themselves: A strong leader, nationalist rhethorics, land grabs in border regions, and an appeasement policy from the other states...
The conclusion I'd draw fom this is that the West needs a two-pronged strategy for Russia: On the one hand, a military buildup and a strong defense cooperation of the other European states (minus Belarus, maybe) is needed to prevent further actions like the one against Crimea, to reduce the chance of further appeasement and to show that Russia has no right to a 'sphere of influence' in the sense of controlling its neighboring countries. On the other hand, Russia needs to be integrated into the European community through a system of official cooperation in most if not all fields to take away the perceived need for a 'buffer zone' and replace the idea of a 'sphere of influence' with that of good neighborship, hopefully strengthening the Russian civil society and helping its economy to become less reliant on the export of resources.
TL;DR: Russia post-1990 is like Germany after 1919. That means the West should stand strong against Russian expansionism and agression, but also acknowledge that Russia feels threatened; therefore we (the European states that are not Russia or Belarus) must strengthen our military cooperation and defence capacity while at the same time helping Russia with its economy and integrating it further with the community of European states to take away the cause of Russia's worries and phantom pain.
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 07:13:02 am
Post by: scriver on March 11, 2014, 07:36:36 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 07:44:05 am
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 08:47:09 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 11, 2014, 08:50:20 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 09:12:06 am
Ultimately, why not? Maybe in 50 years or so, who knows.Include Russia in NATO
I have no concrete proposals, but since it's all about Russian popular opinion, concrete proposals might not be all that important - the vital part is the shift in attitude. Let Russia know it's being heard! Projects to accomplish this should probably take place on a rather low level: Infrastructure projects, business investments, cooperation in peacekeeping missions, student exchanges, etc etc. Anything that gets the people to know each other better. Why is that necessary? For example, my father (certainly not dumb, certainly not politically apathetic) until recently believed that ~60% of Ukrainians were ethnic Russians. He probably knows more about Russia, but I'm confident the average German/Western European knows even less.
Why don't the Germans hate the French anymore?
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 09:31:36 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 09:45:25 am
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 09:51:44 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 09:52:07 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 09:54:03 am
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2014, 10:06:23 am
That's a bit drastic, I think, but the gist of it is correct. To phrase it a bit more friendly: After 1990 the West made the same mistakes that the Allies made in 1919, leaving a proud and powerful country with a terrrible economy, a chronic inferiority complex and no chance to integrate themselves with the global community in a way that fits their self-image.
Remind me again, what reparations have western nations taken from Russia? Which export industries has the west crippled? Which natural resources have the western nations appropriated? Which territories have the west stationed troops inside? What are the quotas for arms limits that the west has put on Russia? Where is the hardship among the families of profitable industries that the west has appropriated the pay of? Which Russian politicians have the western governments banned from politics?
The key difference between 1990 and 1919 is that German was put in an untenable situation and given very little support while the Russians have been allowed to conduct their affairs and it's only their own actions that have put them in a difficult situation.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 10:07:46 am
Quote
Infrastructure projects, business investments, cooperation in peacekeeping missions, student exchanges, etc etc.Everything you list here is practiced . Add to that joined Russian-NATO military exercises. Add major sport events granted to Russia (Olympic Games, Football World Cup, Formula 1 race) Add transformation of G7 to G8. Add APEC summit in Vladivostok and planned G8 summit in Sochi.
Post by: Zangi on March 11, 2014, 10:24:10 am
Sergarr, Guardian G.I. - Do you actually think a referendum in Crimea held under these conditions should be legitimate? Would you accept it if the people voted for Russia to skedaddle? What would it actually take for you to consider Russia's actions here to be wrong? What it would it take for you to believe that the results of the referendum should be illegitimate?
Legitimate =/= Everyone will accept it...
Nor does it mean that people can't find a way to question it's legitimacy.
Right now though, Russia is trying make it look legitimate, it is worth as much as actual legitimacy if Russia manages to convince the target demographic. (Obviously not the west, but Russia can still keep saying it is legitimate anyways when disputed by the west.)
Post by: Ghazkull on March 11, 2014, 10:26:20 am
The Problem Europe, The West (or rather I) have with the current situation is that independent Observers are shut out of the Referendum. If the whole thing were legal why keep neutral observers out? Why keep the whole thing secret? You wouldn't do that unless you don't want people to know whats really going on.
Im going to play the blue-eyed naive guy i usually am when it comes to girls here just for the sake to humour the argument:
Why not keep the thing official? Why not make it public and have independent Observers (if you don't want those OECD guys bring someone from Brazil or Australia or South Africa or India or whatever other place in the world) look into the voting process just to humour everybody. After all following the general Pro-Russian Opinion of various commenters here the People of Crimea want to go Independent anyway so you have nothing to lose right?
And lets be honest about the Krim Parliament out of the 500 or so guys who should be there only about 30 are actually there...even if the official 61 are there you have to agree that that is certainly not enough people to run Crimea. If everything is running legal why not make it legal by bringing in the rest of the elected government. After all to pick up the argument of a Crimean Official i saw somewhere earlier "We are all good and honest people here".
And finally it seems you assume the revolution in Ukraine was illegal and in reality a putsch by the West. Humour me for a bit. How do you come to that conclusion? But even if we assume Yanukovitsch and the former Government were wanted by the populace, why did nobody act? I mean if it really was just a rightist putsch were are the insurgents? Why did the military didn't act? Why did half of the police change sides to these, if i may paraphrase here "western supported illegal rebels"? Let's be honest here Yanukovitsch was a dick of several magnitudes, a leech on the back of the Ukraine who robbed the country. You have seen the pictures of his mansion.
I hope we can agree that such a Scumbag was deservedly removed from his position, unless you can give a good reason why he shouldn't be removed? Isn't it the Right of the Ukrainians to remove a Tyrant? isn't it their right to remove a corrupt and evil government?
Now of course the current Government in the Ukraine is not legal, but truth be told you never gave them the chance to get as far as vote on a new government or to bring things back into order. The moment they started to stabilize a hundred thousand ( i will humour you here) Self-Defense Units crossed borders from Russia and occupied a part of the Country.
These are the reasons the West doesn't recognize the current situation and the referendum. And now i would like to know from you pro-russian commenters what is wrong with my points. I apologize if anything of the above sounded derisive or sarcastic...i oftimes sound quite aggressive when writing.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 10:36:35 am
It's about the way they feel, not about what's happened. And from what I gathered 'Schandfrieden' describes the Russian perspective on the post-1990 situation pretty well.That's a bit drastic, I think, but the gist of it is correct. To phrase it a bit more friendly: After 1990 the West made the same mistakes that the Allies made in 1919, leaving a proud and powerful country with a terrrible economy, a chronic inferiority complex and no chance to integrate themselves with the global community in a way that fits their self-image.
Remind me again, what reparations have western nations taken from Russia? Which export industries has the west crippled? Which natural resources have the western nations appropriated? Which territories have the west stationed troops inside? What are the quotas for arms limits that the west has put on Russia? Where is the hardship among the families of profitable industries that the west has appropriated the pay of? Which Russian politicians have the western governments banned from politics?
The key difference between 1990 and 1919 is that German was put in an untenable situation and given very little support while the Russians have been allowed to conduct their affairs and it's only their own actions that have put them in a difficult situation.
Also, the material implications are the same, even if the causes are different: The Russian industry is crippled, Russian companies have been put out of business by Western/Chinese competitors, unemployment is high, the state is not exactly swimming in money, and NATO has expanded into Russia's (percieved) sphere of influence/stationed troops on ex-USSR territory.
UR: I know, but these things are being done right now without the explicit purpose of integrating Russia. What would you suggest to accomplish that goal?
(Also, could I get an opinion from one of the Russians/Belarusians in this thread on how far off the mark I am?)
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 10:43:18 am
At some point a delusional national perspective isn't a license for compromise.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 11:06:32 am
Quote
UR: I know, but these things are being done right now without the explicit purpose of integrating Russia. What would you suggest to accomplish that goal?You see... Integration is like relationships . Whatever you do if the (wo)man in question doesn't want to enter relationships those will not start. The fact is simple: Russians doesn't want to integrate. If you try to bribe them. Well that means being treated as a prostitute with obvious reaction. Using pressure is even worse because now we are talking about a rape.
Post by: vagel7 on March 11, 2014, 11:28:34 am
There must be a strong message sent to Russia, that their actions will not be tolerated. This soft kind-of-doing-something approach taken by the EU and NATO will get us nowhere.
Post by: Descan on March 11, 2014, 11:40:26 am
Security and resources. The ability to know that the territories in your empire are not a threat, and to use the resources of those territories.
Both would be accomplished with western economic and military integration.
But they wouldn't be able to wave to wave their would-be massive Imperial
Post by: vagel7 on March 11, 2014, 11:47:48 am
Post by: Descan on March 11, 2014, 11:58:36 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 12:18:40 pm
It's about the way they feel, not about what's happened. And from what I gathered 'Schandfrieden' describes the Russian perspective on the post-1990 situation pretty well.That's a bit drastic, I think, but the gist of it is correct. To phrase it a bit more friendly: After 1990 the West made the same mistakes that the Allies made in 1919, leaving a proud and powerful country with a terrrible economy, a chronic inferiority complex and no chance to integrate themselves with the global community in a way that fits their self-image.
Remind me again, what reparations have western nations taken from Russia? Which export industries has the west crippled? Which natural resources have the western nations appropriated? Which territories have the west stationed troops inside? What are the quotas for arms limits that the west has put on Russia? Where is the hardship among the families of profitable industries that the west has appropriated the pay of? Which Russian politicians have the western governments banned from politics?
The key difference between 1990 and 1919 is that German was put in an untenable situation and given very little support while the Russians have been allowed to conduct their affairs and it's only their own actions that have put them in a difficult situation.
Also, the material implications are the same, even if the causes are different: The Russian industry is crippled, Russian companies have been put out of business by Western/Chinese competitors, unemployment is high, the state is not exactly swimming in money, and NATO has expanded into Russia's (percieved) sphere of influence/stationed troops on ex-USSR territory.
(Also, could I get an opinion from one of the Russians/Belarusians in this thread on how far off the mark I am?)
Western and Chinese companies had nothing to do with the downfall of Russian industry in the 1990s. It occurred because of the devastating neoliberal economic policies conducted by Western-backed government of Yeltsin, his neoliberal economists and American advisors (http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/harvards-best-and-brightest-aided-russias-economic-ruin/). The unemployment, the rapid fall of living standards, the skyrocketing crime rate and many other plagues of Russian society in the 1990s were the result of policies conducted by Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chubais and other liberals, and Western politicians and organizations like the IMF supporting them. Washington Post, New York Times and other Western media that are currently blasting Russian imperialist threat to the Free World applauded such policies despite the fact that they did more harm than good to Russia.
During the times of the Soviet Union, especially the late Soviet Union, the absolute majority of Russian people didn't hold any grudge against Americans and Europeans and found official propaganda detailing the grave threat of USA and NATO to the USSR ridiculous. And then, the 1990s happened...
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 12:21:06 pm
Spoiler: Loved that (click to show/hide)
Post by: Zangi on March 11, 2014, 12:38:46 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 12:49:57 pm
Could I get your opinion on this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5079987#msg5079987) post? I'd like to improve my understanding of the Russian perspective.
UR: I need to drop the word 'integrate' - how about 'feel comfortable' instead?
Post by: ivze on March 11, 2014, 12:59:55 pm
The outer world might not imagine the power of a Renaissance in the minds of Russians, we have here. After more than 20 years of mental darkness, it's like a light of dawn, that breaks upon a morning sky to stop a long winter night of the North. Now all the political dispositions are clear.
Do you know what it is to live in a state, that's being destroyed slowly, like a withering flower? At first glance the life seems OK, but day after day you and your family are being slowly destroyed. Not necessary physically, despite this is also possible: a car crash on a highway, because it has not been repaired for some years; a heart attack because of the lack of medical treatment; a heroine overdose, because the drug usage spreads in the society, that has no will to live. The worst kind of destruction, that kindles all the minors, lives in minds. The people of Russia didn't know, for what purpose they live as Russians. They had lost the belief in their empire, after it collapsed in such a miserable way.
The West's only purpose it to complete the destruction of what has left of Soviet Union. After 20 years of political progress, we have no neutral country to the west of our borders: every state has joined NATO, except Belarus, that is allied to us. There has recently been an attempt to fix it, that didn't nearly come as far as in Ukraine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Belarusian_protests . Yugoslavia is no more. Before 2008 we had a pro-NATO Georgia, and the North Caucasis unrest is like a slow never ending inflamation at our south-west. And now the West decides to take over the Ukraine.
But No! - says our government, and moves in our military forces.
Yes, we've been waiting for that for 20 years! - say our people.
We have a president Putin. He's been making incredible tricks to stay president for the last many years. We have a reason to condemn him. But now, considering what has happened, this all does not matter. As after what he has done, Putin can be forgiven. Because what he does, comes to the prosperity of Russia. http://rt.com/politics/putin-rating-boost-crimea-122/ (http://rt.com/politics/putin-rating-boost-crimea-122/)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 01:08:38 pm
Quote
UR: I need to drop the word 'integrate' - how about 'feel comfortable' instead?I'll answer that question if you'll answer that one: Millions of Russians believe that Ukrainian nation doesn't exist, that Ukrainian language doesn't exist and in fact it is Russian language spoiled by Polish influence and so on. What should we Ukrainians do to make those people feel comfortable?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 11, 2014, 01:08:56 pm
And now the West decides to take over the Ukraine.
Naw, its actually the Russian military illegally occupying a sovereign nation. :)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 01:10:49 pm
snip
For what it's worth, I take it the following outlines what GI & (supposedly) the russian population at large believes:
GI's comment & the next handful of responses (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5067257#msg5067257)
And in case you missed this, a video (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5077840#msg5077840) (there're subtitles)
Also, 100,000 troops? I thought it was more like 10,000, with another twenty-k just recently.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 11, 2014, 01:14:06 pm
The West's only purpose it to complete the destruction of what has left of Soviet Union.I've seen a lot of people with persecution complexes in my life, but few things compare to the persecution complex Russia has in regards to...well, everybody, but especially the West.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 01:16:27 pm
I'm just going to assume that these are views you encounter, rather than views you hold, but if you do hold them, I honestly feel sympathy for you.
It's obvious Russians have a desperate need to blame the west for all their problems, but it's equally obvious there's nothing the West could do to destroy them (even if they wanted to, which is just... not true) that they haven't already done to themselves. :/
And yes, MSH, I was trying to think of the word, but that is it exactly. A nationwide persecution and inferiority complex.
This isn't to say that a large number of self-interested organizations and individuals from the reset of the world haven't been incredibly eager to profit off the sorry state of Russia, often to Russia's detriment, but the West certainly isn't responsible for putting them in that state.
Post by: ivze on March 11, 2014, 01:21:09 pm
Millions of Russians believe that Ukrainian nation doesn't exist, that Ukrainian language doesn't exist and in fact it is Russian language spoiled by Polish influence and so on.
WTH? Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Croatian and other Slavic cultures and languages all originate from the same branch, that diverged into diferent directions. No one here, in Russia, that thinks upon the question seriously, will think so. For me it's always been a lovely game to listen to diferent slavic languages and comprehend them, as it's wonderful to feel that my own Russian language is a part of a bigger three.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 01:21:15 pm
Could I get your opinion on this (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5079987#msg5079987) post? I'd like to improve my understanding of the Russian perspective.If I recall correctly, there are student exchange programs between Russian and Western universities (which will probably get axed by the West if the conflict heats up). Also, Russia cooperated with NATO in several peacekeeping missions in Kosovo. It helped Russians to break their prejudice towards the Americans and promoted mutual understanding - the popular Russian slur "Pindos", which denotes Americans, originated among Russian peacekeepers in Kosovo.
In my opinion, most Russians will go into "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" mode once West tries to offer assistance to Russia. Imagine Israel offering development aid to Egypt or other Arab states, or Japan offering assistance to China or both Koreas. The public reaction in Russia to Western offers of economic support will probably be the same as in these countries.
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2014, 01:24:58 pm
It's about the way they feel, not about what's happened. And from what I gathered 'Schandfrieden' describes the Russian perspective on the post-1990 situation pretty well.
Well the way americans feel is that russians are mean and scary so we'll just go occupying Moscow. Should make us feel a lot better.
Who knew that feelings of paranoia were justification to go around annexing territory!
The West's only purpose it to complete the destruction of what has left of Soviet Union. After 20 years of political progress, we have no neutral country to the west of our borders: every state has joined NATO, except Belarus, that is allied to us.
Or maybe this isn't about Russia. Maybe those are independent nations and they'd rather be trading partners with the greedy, self serving west. Look at Belarus, that's the example of what you get from being a Russian client state. Is it any wonder that all your neighbors are deciding that they'd rather look to Europe?
Post by: olemars on March 11, 2014, 01:26:44 pm
In my opinion, most Russians will go into "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" mode once West tries to offer assistance to Russia. Imagine Israel offering development aid to Egypt or other Arab states, or Japan offering assistance to China or both Koreas. The public reaction in Russia to Western offers of economic support will probably be the same as in these countries.
I think experience tells us that government initiatives generally are more harmful than good for fostering goodwill and cultural exchange.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 01:27:36 pm
Guardian, as far as I can tell, the general opinion of pretty much everyone where I live is that we really just wish Russia could be friends with us the same way France and Germany and the UK are with the US. Sure, we may not always like France and Germany, exactly, and they've both been our deadly enemies in the past.
The US has a long history of foregoing past enmity in favour of cooperation, and most people would be more than happy to see Russia be the newest step in that trend. It sort of feels like Russia is unwilling to let that happen though, because certain powerful individuals NEED an overwhelmingly powerful (but simultaneously weak) enemy if they have any hope of remaining in power.
Post by: Dutchling on March 11, 2014, 01:28:06 pm
There recently was a Netherlands-Russia year. Needless to say, it was filled with diplomatic incidents :PIn my opinion, most Russians will go into "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" mode once West tries to offer assistance to Russia. Imagine Israel offering development aid to Egypt or other Arab states, or Japan offering assistance to China or both Koreas. The public reaction in Russia to Western offers of economic support will probably be the same as in these countries.
I think experience tells us that government initiatives generally are more harmful than good for fostering goodwill and cultural exchange.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 01:32:31 pm
Look, I'm in Germany - if a conventional war breaks out, Russian bombers will definitely reach us. If anyone thinks the Russians are scary, it's us. And Poland. And the Baltic states. And Ukraine. And Turkey. And... but I digress.It's about the way they feel, not about what's happened. And from what I gathered 'Schandfrieden' describes the Russian perspective on the post-1990 situation pretty well.
Well the way americans feel is that russians are mean and scary so we'll just go occupying Moscow. Should make us feel a lot better.
The way they feel is no justification for agression - look a few pages back, and you'll see that I advocate a higher degree of militarization in Europe. But to understand the way they feel is vital for understanding Russia's motives and actions and avoiding a confrontation - and I'm trying to understand the best I can. After all, there's no thousand-kilometer ocean between Moscow and my home.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 11, 2014, 01:40:55 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 01:43:16 pm
I live in a town situated directly at the border with Poland, a EU and NATO member. You should probably guess it if you look at the map. If USA and NATO decide to enforce democracy in Russia, my town and me will be hit first, just like in the first half of the 20th century when an alliance of progressive European states led by Germany, which had some misunderstandings with Britain and the United States of America over foreign policy, decided to launch an offensive against Russia, which was led by a horrible dictator that violated human rights, in order to integrate Russian territories and the people living there into Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost).Look, I'm in Germany - if a conventional war breaks out, Russian bombers will definitely reach us. If anyone thinks the Russians are scary, it's us. And Poland. And the Baltic states. And Ukraine. And Turkey. And... but I digress.It's about the way they feel, not about what's happened. And from what I gathered 'Schandfrieden' describes the Russian perspective on the post-1990 situation pretty well.
Well the way americans feel is that russians are mean and scary so we'll just go occupying Moscow. Should make us feel a lot better.
The way they feel is no justification for agression - look a few pages back, and you'll see that I advocate a higher degree of militarization in Europe. But to understand the way they feel is vital for understanding Russia's motives and actions and avoiding a confrontation - and I'm trying to understand the best I can. After all, there's no thousand-kilometer ocean between Moscow and my home.
Unfortunately, Russia, who didn't understand the benefits of European integration, rolled its tanks into Europe, forcibly disbanded the alliance of progressive European states led by Germany and installed totalitarianism across Eastern Europe. Those bastards.
Post by: SquatchHammer on March 11, 2014, 01:48:15 pm
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 01:54:37 pm
QuoteUR: I need to drop the word 'integrate' - how about 'feel comfortable' instead?I'll answer that question if you'll answer that one: Millions of Russians believe that Ukrainian nation doesn't exist, that Ukrainian language doesn't exist and in fact it is Russian language spoiled by Polish influence and so on. What should we Ukrainians do to make those people feel comfortable?
Millions of Russians believe that Russia and Ukraine is same thing which is quite different from what you say. There is udmurtian language in town I was born, tatars speak tatar, moprdovs mordovian and that list goes on for all hundred nationalities living in Russia.
All that languages is not prosecuted, in fact I could learn udmurtian is school if I wanted, but since my parents is from Chelyabinsk Oblast I never felt obliged to that. And you can't deny that russian and ukrainian have the same roots.
There we go to another point many westerners is not aware of. In USSR was a policy called 'raspredelenie'. Basically put, is that when you finish your university education you get transferred to another city where your professional skills required. Thats how my parents was transferred from Chelyabinsk to Votkinsk, where I was born. They basically have not much choice. And, surprisingly, many russians were transferred same way to now ukrainian/estonian/etc territory.
And then split happened. And now your country tried to abolish russian language. Seriously? So it's like "hey russians, pack your shit and GTFO?" They have homes, families there now.
Post by: ivze on March 11, 2014, 01:57:34 pm
There are no human feelings in Geopolitics, only strategical calculations.
These calculations say, that NATO in Ukraine is a very bad idea, so Russia has to take measures.
These calculations say, that missile-defence systems in Europe would shut down Russian nuclear missiles in an event of Nuclear war. This deteriorates the strategical nuclear weapon balance. The same systems in Ukraine would do worse, so we take extra measures.
The last time Russia let feelings rule it's political decisions was in 1990s. We were promised peace that time, but the peace was a lie...
No one wants war. Anyway, we are on a tiny planet in a tremendously huge Universe. There is space for everyone, but in the current development phase of our Civilisation we have a strategical runaway, when everyone feels suspicious.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 01:58:23 pm
Quote
And then split happened. And now your country tried to abolish russian language. Seriously? So it's like "hey russians, pack your shit and GTFO?" They have homes, families there now.Ukraine never tried to abolish the Russian language.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 11, 2014, 01:58:49 pm
Unfortunately, Russia, who didn't understand the benefits of European integration, rolled its tanks into Europe, forcibly disbanded the alliance of progressive European states led by Germany and installed totalitarianism across Eastern Europe. Those bastards.
That's quite the revisionist view of WW2.
Post by: Descan on March 11, 2014, 02:03:06 pm
Anyway, EU is doing something, again. Seems like it's becoming a habit. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26531721)Europe really ought to get Europe back on it's leash, they MUST know by now.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 11, 2014, 02:04:02 pm
What, you think it's wrong? Don't try to excuse the obvious crimes of Russia against the free people of Europe, you Stalinist!Unfortunately, Russia, who didn't understand the benefits of European integration, rolled its tanks into Europe, forcibly disbanded the alliance of progressive European states led by Germany and installed totalitarianism across Eastern Europe. Those bastards.
That's quite the revisionist view of WW2.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 11, 2014, 02:05:11 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 02:09:49 pm
WTH? Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish, Croatian and other Slavic cultures and languages all originate from the same branch, that diverged into diferent directions. No one here, in Russia, that thinks upon the question seriously, will think so. For me it's always been a lovely game to listen to diferent slavic languages and comprehend them, as it's wonderful to feel that my own Russian language is a part of a bigger three.I haven't said all Russians. I said millions of Russians. Others, as you proved claim that Russian\Ukrainian\Belarusian form some kind of uniting "superlanguage" as if Ukrainian and Russian languages are more related than, for example, Ukrainian and Polish
Luckily many Russians are going away from that kind of imperial myths, unluckily they have little to no political power in modern Russia.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 02:12:12 pm
QuoteAnd then split happened. And now your country tried to abolish russian language. Seriously? So it's like "hey russians, pack your shit and GTFO?" They have homes, families there now.Ukraine never tried to abolish the Russian language.
First your snarky coment on nulandgate, then this? Are you hunting my replies or just read every thread where I post?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ukraine+abolish+russian
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 02:16:09 pm
Or maybe this isn't about Russia. Maybe those are independent nations and they'd rather be trading partners with the greedy, self serving west. Look at Belarus, that's the example of what you get from being a Russian client state. Is it any wonder that all your neighbors are deciding that they'd rather look to Europe?
This.
Iirc the russian language thing is being blown out of proportion. /and failed/
(On mobile device, can't do the googly-linky schtick)
Post by: andrea on March 11, 2014, 02:25:32 pm
Also, it seems that crimea's status as an autonomous province meant that it wouldn't have been affected by the change, as the double official language had deeper roots, independent of the law that the national parliament tried to abolish.
This is what I learned from your link, gogis. But google probably has regional preferences for what sites to show first.
edit: and abolishing russian as official language basically means that in most of ukraine ( crimea excluded) it couldn't be used in official documents.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 02:27:55 pm
First your snarky coment on nulandgate, then this? Are you hunting my replies or just read every thread where I post?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ukraine+abolish+russian
You should generally read the results before posting something like that, since every single item on the list that is returned says that I'm right here, and you're wrong?
Andrea accurately sums up what actually happened that you seem to have built your ludicrous claims on.
So, I expect you will immediately move the goal posts, rather than admitting that your statement was false, right? Or will you go with quietly dropping the issue?
And no, I'm not hunting your replies, but while I disagree with many other pro-Russia-action posters, you in particular have an astounding tendency to repost things that have been found to be false well after the conversation in question already happened - it makes you a rather easy target when you manage to not just be wrong, but be wrong after everyone else has already discussed to death how wrong what you are saying was.
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 02:29:52 pm
*snip*
As long as you guys keep blaming the West for how your own country deals with its neighbors, nothing is ever going to change. Other countries are afraid of what their lives would be like as a Russian client state, based on history and other past examples. Your government blames the West for how other countries view Russia; where is Russia's responsibility for how the rest of the world views it? Our politicians try to play up Russia as the lurking enemy of freedom, in order to do the same: distract the people from the decisions they make that have negative outcomes. Reasonable people know that's bullshit, that Russia and the West are somehow natural enemies like cats and dogs, and go looking for the actual people responsible for their plight.
I get it sucks to watch your quality of life continue to erode, to watch things gets worse. But are you really going to place blame for a decade's worth of decline on the West? What about your own leaders? Where is their responsibility? Where is your responsibility for electing them, or letting them stay in power?
And honestly, how can you say the West prompted Russia crossing into Ukraine? NATO, the EU, none of their boots were on the ground before Russia's. And yet you blame the West for the fear others feel when they see this happen? I'm sorry, I just don't understand how you can lay your government's choice to cross into Ukraine on the rest of the world's shoulders. No one forced Russia to do anything. That claim to their hand being "forced" is the only thing that's keeping them from being universally labeled as the hostile aggressor in this situation.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 11, 2014, 02:31:15 pm
This is what I learned from your link, gogis. But google probably has personal for what sites to show first.FTFY. The Search bubble is a thing, you know. By analyzing your previous research result, google is capable of predicting what information you would like to receive.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 02:33:18 pm
But it would be stupid and unproductive to do so, even if the Cold War with the USSR was a huge part of the problem - if it weren't for them, I'm sure our Ogilarchs would have found another way to screw us over, though. It's a constant battle, an internal struggle, and blaming outside enemies only serves to provide opportunities for the internal enemies to seize control.
Also, my personalization is actively disabled (side effect of working at a web company) for search results.
That doesn't remove localization though.
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 02:34:26 pm
Post by: andrea on March 11, 2014, 02:37:15 pm
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 02:46:33 pm
First your snarky coment on nulandgate, then this? Are you hunting my replies or just read every thread where I post?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ukraine+abolish+russian
You should generally read the results before posting something like that, since every single item on the list that is returned says that I'm right here, and you're wrong?
No, it's just proves that search engine have regional and user preferences ranking in output data which only proves the point that information is skewed for people in different regions.
I can bombard you with links written in bizzarelly looking language proving my points, but OMG, russian media is so rigged, right?
The biggest difference between you and me here is that you proving some facts to be false reading western media, while I have spoken with people who happen to be there RIGHT NOW. Alot of scary shit can be found in social networks aswell, but again, would you believe it? I am pretty sure not.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 02:53:07 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 02:53:17 pm
a) Not use personalized search results, and check that what the other person is going to see actually proves your point before posting a condescending link that not only completely fails to prove your point but provides a wealth of evidence to the contrary, from your own national media.
Source: http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/
b) Provide actual links with actual evidence instead. Hell, even the RT article I found didn't go so far as to claim what you are claiming!
So I have reporting, quotes from those responsible, released from the actual government proposing the actual law, but you have... rumour and anecdote? You know, I've kind of got you beat on that front too, since we've got actual Ukranians in this thread agreeing with me.
Please stand by to answer a few questions, the results of which will determine whether I should bother to continue engaging with you in anything approaching a reasonable way.
On the topic of the Russian-language-law-proposal, can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?
Or, if you want to just do the whole process at once...
(http://chisnell.com/Arg/general/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg)
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 02:55:18 pm
Sometimes it is bad to be good guys... Should we cut off electricity, freshwater, gas and block all roads in Crimea for a week then......That would probably harm the populace the most. Not a good move.
Post by: Descan on March 11, 2014, 02:57:52 pm
And, again, it wasn't actually abolished.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:00:40 pm
I get it sucks to watch your quality of life continue to erode, to watch things gets worse. But are you really going to place blame for a decade's worth of decline on the West? What about your own leaders? Where is their responsibility? Where is your responsibility for electing them, or letting them stay in power?
It's not decline, it's decades of opposite. 90s is long gone. Currently only thing that erode is our relationship with West. I don't get how exatly people believe in myth about incredibly low quality of life or severe oppression of human rights in Russia. I dont feel opressed at all. I actually think we get more freedoms in a practical sense. I can speak about Putin anything I care, I call lead party as "party of crooks and thieves" openly and yet I am still here. Not me nor any of my relatives living in poverty, yeah I can't afford yacht or private jet or a flat in the center of Moscow, but who can? All that crap makes me scratch my head, really.
We really, really not on the same page.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:03:13 pm
A law change is not some nebulous thing, gogis. You can pretty easily point to a law, see what it does, and see what abolishing it would mean, including which areas would be affected.
And, again, it wasn't actually abolished.
Which is why I said tried. Did I?
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 03:04:10 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on March 11, 2014, 03:05:01 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 03:05:35 pm
Doesposting that infographanything ever actually lead to a worthwhile discussion? Because I've certainly never seen it do so.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 03:07:25 pm
Gogis, please respond:
Do you intend to have a discussion, as outlined in the image I put forward above?
Cript
That isn't surprising, since it's generally only ever posted in a situation where one person has an obvious and expressed interest in not actually having a discussion and clearly isn't going to change that. But it at least outlines a way for the obstinate participant to redeem themselves, even if they choose not to do so. Maybe it just needs to be posted earlier? Open every single thread with it!
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 03:08:02 pm
I get it sucks to watch your quality of life continue to erode, to watch things gets worse. But are you really going to place blame for a decade's worth of decline on the West? What about your own leaders? Where is their responsibility? Where is your responsibility for electing them, or letting them stay in power?
It's not decline, it's decades of opposite. 90s is long gone. Currently only thing that erode is our relationship with West. I don't get how exatly people believe in myth about incredibly low quality of life or severe oppression of human rights in Russia. I dont feel opressed at all. I actually think we get more freedoms in a practical sense. I can speak about Putin anything I care, I call lead party as "party of crooks and thieves" openly and yet I am still here. Not me nor any of my relatives living in poverty, yeah I can't afford yacht or private jet or a flat in the center of Moscow, but who can? All that crap makes me scratch my head, really.
We really, really not on the same page.
The laws against gays, imprisoning your own artists for political dissent? Do you claim to represent all Russians of all socio-economic backgrounds? What about races, nationalities, religions?
The "I don't see so it must not be true" gets said a lot here in America too. By middle and upper class white people, mostly, when talking about non-white poverty or social issues they don't want to address.
Also, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the other Russian with a decidedly less content viewpoint as you.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 03:08:10 pm
*Moscow is not Russia
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:08:13 pm
a) Not use personalized search results, and check that what the other person is going to see actually proves your point before posting a condescending link that not only completely fails to prove your point but provides a wealth of evidence to the contrary, from your own national media.
Should I point out you to your answer with condescending link to not existing wikipedia 'Nulandgate' page? I call hypocrisy here.
I am pretty sure you was savvy enough to try google it before you made your post. But you decided to make it smart way.
And now you go all out when I did same to you.
With a nice gif, none the less.
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 03:09:02 pm
Open every single thread with it!The next time I start a game (maybe next year or so) I'll do exactly that!
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 03:13:34 pm
Quote
Should I point out you to your answer with condescending link to not existing wikipedia 'Nulandgate' page?Source? I don't recall this happening, and don't believe it is true.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:14:42 pm
gogis, first I was like - WTF you are talking about economic prosperity... but then I went to you profile to read Location:Russia, Moscow it became obvious. "Москва – не Россия"* is not empty words, you know?
*Moscow is not Russia
I am only one of my family living in Moscow. My relatives live in Perm and Votkinsk. I go there several times a year. So I kinda aware of situation in regions. Extreme poverty is a wild myth. Actually, while they have alot smaller paychecks, they also spend alot less (I rent a flat for example, they have their homes). So it's kind of evens out.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:18:02 pm
Gogis, we're done here. If/When you're interested in actually having a discussion, let me know. Until then, my only responses to you will be pointing out when you are trying to spread falsehoods, lest others actually be taken in by your duplicity.QuoteShould I point out you to your answer with condescending link to not existing wikipedia 'Nulandgate' page?Source? I don't recall this happening, and don't believe it is true.
Yeah I checked it was Dutchling. My apologies.
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 03:19:52 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 11, 2014, 03:24:05 pm
Yeah I checked it was Dutchling. My apologies.I'm sorry if that was deemed condescending. I legitimately had no idea what you were meant with Nulandgate.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 03:29:34 pm
Yeah I checked it was Dutchling. My apologies.Apology accepted. Thank you for that at least.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 03:48:03 pm
The laws against gays, imprisoning your own artists for political dissent? Do you claim to represent all Russians of all socio-economic backgrounds? What about races, nationalities, religions?
The "I don't see so it must not be true" gets said a lot here in America too. By middle and upper class white people, mostly, when talking about non-white poverty or social issues they don't want to address.
Also, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the other Russian with a decidedly less content viewpoint as you.
Law against gays - well, majority against gays. I had some fierce discussions about that topic, so I can tell you firsthand - most men I know strongly against gays. Democracy in action. People support it. I think it's sucks to be gay in Russia. I know some and they never expressed much happiness about whole thing. It's a reality to be beaten by some drunk bullies if you are gay.
"imprisoning your own artists for political dissent". Thats the funniest topic, actually. In fact, major uproar was caused by place where it's happened. All orthodox lunatics went ablaze to the point of "burn the witches" so repercussions was surprisingly harsh. Yeah. Political dissidents. Is that what western media tell you? It has nothing to do with content they singing. As I said, you can tell about polititians anything without repercussions.
"Do you claim to represent all Russians of all socio-economic backgrounds?"
Yes I do. My Votkinsk circle is all ranged from quite poor lads to petty criminals from childhood to govermental workeres to businessman to middle class office grunts. My Moscow circle is mostly young to middle aged IT professionals. Well, they are not poor, but whatever. Races? All workplaces had all post soviet block guys. No tension. Racist jokes are common. But nobody thinks it's offensive.
Religions - whatever, most people I know is not very religious.
"By middle and upper class white people, mostly, when talking about non-white poverty or social issues they don't want to address."
You need to understand, that there is no division by classes in your common sense. There is virtually no suburbs, people of different
"classes" live in same multiflat soviet block buildings. So you can't really build any shaded or delusional vision of quality of life. You can live with some poor and some rich people at the same floor. Obviously, when we talk about madly rich people, it's another thing. They have suburb house, but we talking about less than 1%. Alot less.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 03:52:34 pm
Post by: Sonlirain on March 11, 2014, 03:58:53 pm
Law against gays - well, majority against gays. I had some fierce discussions about that topic, so I can tell you firsthand - most men I know strongly against gays. Democracy in action. People support it. I think it's sucks to be gay in Russia. I know some and they never expressed much happiness about whole thing. It's a reality to be beaten by some drunk bullies if you are gay.
Now you've done it. the entire threaad will be derailed into talking about gays now.
It's funny how russians have to constantly prove to everyone that they're not camels and there are no polar bears walking on the streets eating people at random (unless it's the people who wrestle it down and snap its neck).
Even better that opinion somehow spills over to just about every slavic nation in existence... maybe aside of czech and slovaks for some odd reason.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:00:05 pm
gogis, while I condemn Pussy Riot (they're... lacking in taste. Let's leave it at that.), surely you're aware of what happens to other (sensible) artists and critical journalists in Russia?
Yeah. But it's always involved money and corruption topics. It's all very dirty and shady topics, but it's has very little to do with politics. It's undeniable that corruption in state is high. It's always was like that, be it Russian Empire, Soviets or present day.
But where are corruption is not high? I bet only some european nations can claim that.
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 04:02:32 pm
Quote
Is that what western media tell you? It has nothing to do with content they singing. As I said, you can tell about polititians anything without repercussions.
As opposed to....just Russian media? Put it this way. In the West, you can say something vulgar AND political and not land in jail indefinitely. And perhaps the reason you don't end up being punished for your political view point is you didn't publicly embarrass your government to the degree the West noticed.
Quote
It's a reality to be beaten by some drunk bullies if you are gay.
Oh, it's the same here too. The difference is, we got rid of (the most egregious) examples of state-sponsored discrimination against gays. You might be practicing democracy, but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of human rights.
Quote
It's funny how russians have to constantly prove to everyone that they're not camels and there are no polar bears walking on the streets eating people at random (unless it's the people who wrestle it down and snap its neck).
Oh please. I went to school with a woman from Russia, a co-worker was from a Bloc country. The last time I watched Rocky & Bulwinkle, I was 10. What we're asking for is examples and context. Yes, there are Americans who literally consume entertainment as truth, and those people suck. Let's rise above the lowest common denominator here.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 04:05:59 pm
And corruption certainly is a - if not the - political topic. A thing is good if it fulfils its purpose well. (Aristotle, and incredibly useful in surprisingly many areas.) As corruption hinders the purpose that is set for the state by the political process, it is the one thing that all political directions (minus cleptocracy) must work to abolish. The fight against corruption is the only way for Russia to ever get on the West's level!
Post by: olemars on March 11, 2014, 04:07:21 pm
BBC article on the law's passage and ensuing riots in 2012 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18725849)
RT coverage of the same event (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-language-law-clashes-427/)
Kyiv Post (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/language-law-comes-into-force-in-ukraine-311340.html)
OSCE criticism of the law before it was passed (http://www.osce.org/hcnm/92418)
Illuminating analysis by a Ukrainian scientist (http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/mykola-riabchuk/playing-with-ambiguities-ukraine%E2%80%99s-language-law).
I gather that this law was extremely controversial back then too, and seen at least as much as an attack on the Ukrainian language as its attempted repeal is seen by russians as an attack on their rigihts. This law might actually have helped get Svoboda their seats in parliament.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 04:08:00 pm
Yeah. But it's always involved money and corruption topics. It's all very dirty and shady topics, but it's has very little to do with politics. It's undeniable that corruption in state is high. It's always was like that, be it Russian Empire, Soviets or present day.If you think corruption has nothing to do with politics... whoo. Corruption is probably one of the most insidious and determined political motivators in history. And it's the thing that probably played the largest role in getting Russia into the trouble it got in in 90s (For all the complaints lodged against the West, the problems wouldn't have occurred without corrupt Russian's leading the charge).
But where are corruption is not high? I bet only some european nations can claim that.
It's funny, but most people see corruption, in the US, as a serious and real issue, many even see it as one of the biggest issues our country faces, and a large amount of effort is dedicated here to fighting it (even if it does feel like 2 steps forward one step back).
I would be horrified to hear a fellow countryman in my own country say "It's undeniable that corruption in state is high." and then move to minimize the impact of the statement.
Olemars - thanks for the sources.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 04:14:58 pm
Quote
This law might actually have helped get Svoboda their seats in parliament.Don't even doubt it. Cancellation of that law is one of electoral promises. Yep it should have been done later but the party lacks political wisdom sometimes and pushed as soon as possible
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 04:15:50 pm
snip
It's funny, but most people see corruption, in the US, as a serious and real issue, many even see it as one of the biggest issues our country faces, and a large amount of effort is dedicated here to fighting it (even if it does feel like 2 steps forward one step back).
I would be horrified to hear a fellow countryman in my own country say "It's undeniable that corruption in state is high." and then move to minimize the impact of the statement.
Olemars - thanks for the sources.
Pretty much this.
People get caught doing corrupt crap in the west, they get thrummed out of office, their political career ends, they get jail time.
It might not be eradicated, (and at least in the US, recent court decisions have been counter-productive, to our chagrin), but if it is undertaken it's done with much greater surreptitiousness, and is never hand-waved by the general public.
Woo a culture of integrity!
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:18:24 pm
I find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't "Haves and have nots" in Russia, particularly because of the last decade of your economy. I'm not saying I don't think it's true....but I find it hard to accept simply from your anecdote. Also, that you honestly think you can speak for Russians of all backgrounds. I wouldn't claim to speak for Americans of all backgrounds, because we're all too different and hold many conflicting viewpoints.
I was born in USSR, I survived 80's, I survived 90's (thats was very different hardships), I lived in cities of very different prosperity levels, then I traveled world (not much but still), so I kind of entitled to some opinion, ain't I? It's impossible to believe to anecdotical evidence if you biased to person and his origin, though.
Quote
As opposed to....just Russian media? Put it this way. In the West, you can say something vulgar AND political and not land in jail indefinitely. And perhaps the reason you don't end up being punished for your political view point is you didn't publicly embarrass your government to the degree the West noticed.
Before last presidential elections you could hear all kind of embarassing stuff about goverment on talk shows/tv programmes. Internet was all buzzing about Navalny uncoverings. Opposition parties went all out, really. You don't know that because you don't watch our television / read our media. Like I said, party of majority was called as "party of crooks and thieves" (and still is) everywhere. I bet you will be sued in US, aint ya?
Post by: miljan on March 11, 2014, 04:19:41 pm
gogis: Everywhere west ofRussiaBelarus until you start hitting China. There's literally no country there that's more corrupt than Russia.
How do you know it?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 04:22:55 pm
Before last presidential elections you could hear all kind of embarassing stuff about goverment on talk shows/tv programmes. Internet was all buzzing about Navalny uncoverings. Opposition parties went all out, really. You don't know that because you don't watch our television / read our media. Like I said, party of majority was called as "party of crooks and thieves" (and still is) everywhere. I bet you will be sued in US, aint ya?For what? Criticizing the party in power (or any politician, really)? No way. US is sue-happy for a lot of things, but 'public figures' have very little in the way of protections, and any politician that tried to sue someone criticizing them would be laughed at and hammered over it. (Not to say some of them don't try anyway, some politicians can be REALLY DUMB)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 04:24:44 pm
snip
Before last presidential elections you could hear all kind of embarassing stuff about goverment on talk shows/tv programmes. Internet was all buzzing about Navalny uncoverings. Opposition parties went all out, really. You don't know that because you don't watch our television / read our media. Like I said, party of majority was called as "party of crooks and thieves" (and still is) everywhere. I bet you will be sued in US, aint ya?
Nah, but they'd face a counter-smear campaign and be accused of 'dirty campaign tactics'. The shaming would be real. (woo slang- it would be pronounced/felt/impactful)
Political science is one of the worst inventions of humankind.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 04:28:45 pm
Now that would be a worthy project for Russia-EU collaboration.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:28:53 pm
snip
It's funny, but most people see corruption, in the US, as a serious and real issue, many even see it as one of the biggest issues our country faces, and a large amount of effort is dedicated here to fighting it (even if it does feel like 2 steps forward one step back).
I would be horrified to hear a fellow countryman in my own country say "It's undeniable that corruption in state is high." and then move to minimize the impact of the statement.
Olemars - thanks for the sources.
Pretty much this.
People get caught doing corrupt crap in the west, they get thrummed out of office, their political career ends, they get jail time.
It might not be eradicated, (and at least in the US, recent court decisions have been counter-productive, to our chagrin), but if it is undertaken it's done with much greater surreptitiousness, and is never hand-waved by the general public.
Woo a culture of integrity!
Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?
Post by: WealthyRadish on March 11, 2014, 04:37:25 pm
Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2014, 04:38:18 pm
Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?
So you can't be arsed to fight corruption, might as well accept it as a fact of life. Gee, wonder why your leadership sucks so much.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 04:40:24 pm
1. It allows minority groups to get their voices heard. This is why they became a thing in the first place; so disparate groups /of people/, not oligarchs, could get themselves organized and have a greater impact on how the government is run.
It allows faster feedback between the constituents & their representatives in-between elections, (a good thing).
2. It allows a tamer method to get these interests heard. So you don't have to resort to illegality to work towards your goals. This contributes to that 'culture of integrity' we've got going- we're more lenient with the money-in-politics thing, allowing the grey bits in exchange for truly outlawing the black bits.
Plus we get to monitor it.
Legalization & regulation, ya? Gets rid of back-alley coat-hanger abortions and seedy street-corner drug-dealers. Does the same for politics.
Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:41:42 pm
it's more about corporate and special interests getting disproportionate influence over legislature than political/personal gain (usually, though that line is always fuzzy with career politicians).
Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 04:43:18 pm
a) I am sure that Russia wants much more than Crimea. That region is not self-sufficient and with all that economic damage it suffers it will bring nothing but expenses for the next few years even if Crimean Tatars will not start Jihad (I think Putin will find some Ramzan Kadyrov like-guy and give him a lot of money, but doubt that it will help)
b) All that situation seriously undermines democratic reforms in Ukraine. You can't find worse time to do democratic reforms then when your country is invaded. How to reform law enforcement system and secret service when they are needed to counter enemy agents?
c) It sucks to live in a country that can't do anything to protect 2 millions of it's citizens that are captured by armed terrorists. It is a very awful feeling. Basic rights of people living here are not protected at all. There are first rumors of cases of rape and robberies from "liberators"
d) And still I am optimistic, nation has changed direction to the right one, the path will be not easy at all, but we'll get a country that we'll be proud of.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 04:46:32 pm
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:48:43 pm
I don't see all that 2008's bankers rot in jail as well.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 11, 2014, 04:52:36 pm
it's more about corporate and special interests getting disproportionate influence over legislature than political/personal gain (usually, though that line is always fuzzy with career politicians).
Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.
Outright bribary is illegal. There are strict limits on what lobbies can do and what politicians can accept. Obviously, some politicians break the law. If they're caught, that pretty much ruins their career.
Now, there is some indirect bribery. Nothing stops wealthy politicians from making sure that industries that they invest heavily in are given extra weight when making decisions, or are given tax breaks, or whatnot. It's far from 100% perfect.
Overall, I'd say the US has Mild to Moderate Corruption. It exists, and it causes problems, but there is strong pressure against it and most of it that does exist has to stay hidden because it is illegal. At which point it is simply another crime rather than an integral part of the system.
Areas with High corruption are usually third world countries. Mostly defined as anywhere that requires a bribe of government officials just to get something done, or as an easy way to avoid repercussions for breaking the law.
Interesting wikipedia page on corruption by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index).
To bring us back on subject, the page on Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine) is rather enlightening.
Post by: WealthyRadish on March 11, 2014, 04:53:04 pm
the good sides
I agree, it's a useful system, it's just gotten out of control. I'd rather not rant about corn subsidies and the weapons industry, though...
Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.
I don't think US corruption is usually about the personal economic gain of the politician, is what I meant. The vast majority of politicians here are already rich anyway, since it's practically a requirement to be independently wealthy. What they do need money for are the campaigns, which are getting increasingly expensive and need to be run perpetually for most legislators, and recent court rulings have made it even easier for private interests to donate unlimited amounts to these campaigns. But in terms of politicians actually stealing from the system, I don't think it's that common. Again, no idea if that happens in Russia or not.
Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 04:56:36 pm
Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?
So you can't be arsed to fight corruption, might as well accept it as a fact of life. Gee, wonder why your leadership sucks so much.
I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something? You know, Russia is exactly how it's described. Sleeping bear. You not poke it - everything is fine. Poke it too much and it's explode in blood fury.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 04:59:05 pm
Hey UR, has anyone been mentioning all those pipelines running through the rest of Ukraine? Those seem to be getting a disproportionately small amount of attention.Well, as long as there are no actual fighting nothing will happen to them... Else... even if our government will decide that blowing them up is not in our best interests, some citizens may disagree. Damaging pipes is not that hard to do
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:00:32 pm
Helgoland, I was reading a rather interesting opinion piece in the Economist today about how Merkel's Russophilia was grounded in the Ostpolitik of Helmut Schmidt and that other chancellor (Willy Brandt? Not sure anymore).
It really seems to apply to your position too. But I still think it's misguided. Part of the reasons the Ostpolitik worked was the pressure the US and the rest were applying on Russia, making any opening look worthwhile. (Or if you're cynical, they were trying to break the West apart).
As ivse said, the very fact that almost all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries decided to join NATO is seen as an agression by Russia. We can be as friendly as we want, unless we are willing to sacrifice the right of whole countries to freely choose their alliance (Which Russia agreed to in treaties BTW) Russia won't be satisfied.
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 05:05:25 pm
Quote
I bet you will be sued in US, aint ya?
Generally, no. You have to say or write something factual that is not true for you to be sued over it. (Libel and slander in American and British Law.) Simple hyperbole? No, you can do that all day long in America. Hell, conservatives have been calling Obama a Commie-Pinko-Socialist-Muslim-Fascist since he was elected. None of those are grounds for being sued over, even for a private citizen rather than a public, political figure.
Quote
It's impossible to believe to anecdotical evidence if you biased to person and his origin, though.
No, it's impossible to believe anecdotal observation without corroborating evidence. That's why it's an anecdote. I'm not biased towards you or Russia. However, your defense does make me question whether you're saying what you believe, or what you know.
Quote
As ivse said, the very fact that almost all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries decided to join NATO is seen as an agression by Russia. We can be as friendly as we want, unless we are willing to sacrifice the right of whole countries to freely choose their alliance (Which Russia agreed to in treaties BTW) Russia won't be satisfied.
It's very hard to reason with people who view free will as an act of aggression towards their interests. That's Imperial thinking.
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2014, 05:06:20 pm
I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something?It's... kind of a requirement for a functioning society, yes. The more people that are aware of and active in regards to what their country is doing, generally the less likely said country is going to go off the metaphorical rails. If you do not invest yourself in your country, you lose it, one way or another.
Bit back in the discussion, but is it wrong to be somewhat confused by how different a message this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5080615#msg5080615) and and this one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5081058#msg5081058) gives? Gogis says no decline, ivze says steady, nearly omnipresent erosion. From same nation, even, but very different views.
I'm kinda sad about the way the Ukrainian government seems to have been totally sidelined in the recent stuff. You only hear about the EU, US and Russia hashing it out, like we're at the congress of Vienna again.What can the Ukrainian government actually do at this point?
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:08:27 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 05:08:50 pm
snip
I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something? You know, Russia is exactly how it's described. Sleeping bear. You not poke it - everything is fine. Poke it too much and it's explode in blood fury.
Welp, as they say, you reap what you sow.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 05:13:05 pm
And yeah, Brandt is famous for his Ostpolitik, and Helmut Schmidt (the current German Übervater, the elder statesman, and one of my favorite politicians) continued that. Keep in mind though that Schmidt pushed through the NATO double-track decision against heavy domestic resistance, essentially following the principles I outlined a few pages ago: Holding the line, but extending a hand.
And sure, what ivse said is right. It's also right that the right to self-determination of Russia's neighbors is non-negotiable. So we need to get Russia to become comfortable with that right, otherwise things'll go down a very bad path.
gogis: Look up the etymology of the word 'idiot'. (I'm serious, not trying to insult you here.) There's a reason the Athenians thought so little of these people. If too many become apathetic, the ruling class can do what it wants. And that is generally not what you want.
Post by: PanH on March 11, 2014, 05:14:08 pm
I think one post was referring to now and another to the 90's.Also, it's not like everyone (or even anyone) in a country can actually describe this country's situation. Things can be quite heterogenous, and not everyone is an expert.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 05:18:20 pm
I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something?It's... kind of a requirement for a functioning society, yes. The more people that are aware of and active in regards to what their country is doing, generally the less likely said country is going to go off the metaphorical rails. If you do not invest yourself in your country, you lose it, one way or another.
Key words here is "The more people that are aware of and active". Blatantly attack person for passive political POV is insanely intolerant. So we kinda fight gays and it's troubling, but when I say it's ok to be unpolitical it's suddenly raises questions. I am not obliged to be active in politics and not going to change my mind because some person says I am naughty and I am doomed.
Quote
Bit back in the discussion, but is it wrong to be somewhat confused by how different a message this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5080615#msg5080615) and and this one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5081058#msg5081058) gives? Gogis says no decline, ivze says steady, nearly omnipresent erosion. From same nation, even, but very different views.
It means literately nothing. Maybe he is in depression. Wages rised tenfold, I have no problems to find a job. I don't see anything really bad, aside from the fact everybody now perceive us a pricks.
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 05:27:41 pm
Bit back in the discussion, but is it wrong to be somewhat confused by how different a message this post (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5080615#msg5080615) and and this one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5081058#msg5081058) gives? Gogis says no decline, ivze says steady, nearly omnipresent erosion. From same nation, even, but very different views.
Not at all. I assure you, this division of views is absolutely normal in Russia. Also, I'd like to mention how ivze's posts demonstrate the pervasiveness of antagonistic nationalism and the "enemy mentality" in Russia.
I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something? You know, Russia is exactly how it's described. Sleeping bear. You not poke it - everything is fine. Poke it too much and it's explode in blood fury.
Last time I checked, refusal to let yourself be treated like cattle was a necessary part of a human psyche. Otherwise, you are just shit.
Here's a good quote from my grandfather, who fought against Stalin's regime, which was, by the way, quite a bit more hardcore than the current one: "If you don't try to fix all the shit that surrounds you and instead just sit in it doing nothing, you have no fucking right to complain".
And the classis one: "You don't deserve freedom unless you are willing to fight for it".
EDIT: Gogis, are you by chance from Moscow?
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 05:32:30 pm
As XXSockXX said, you need to keep talking in these situations. If anything, the kind of "Good Cop, Bod Cop" routine we have with the US and Eastern European pushing for sanction and Germany holding the phone is probably the best we could do.
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2014, 05:36:24 pm
Blatantly attack person for passive political POV is insanely intolerant. So we kinda fight gays and it's troubling, but when I say it's ok to be unpolitical it's suddenly raises questions. I am not obliged to be active in politics and not going to change my mind because some person says I am naughty and I am doomed.Well, it's not so much naughty or doomed as it is that (political) apathy is as much an enemy of your state as actively working against it. And... yeah, that's a vice, so long as you live in society. It's a particular sort of not caring that hurts the people around you.
Which is also why other people in society may -- fairly -- attack that behavior and specifically note it as something bad. It is. It hurts others as much as the self, and it does hurt both. Doesn't necessarily mean the person is a bad person on the net, or anything, but it's definitely not a neutral or positive position to hold, and it's a position that anyone that wants society as a whole (either particular national or regional incarnations, or globally) to improve (or, at the very least, maintain the status quo), would reasonably be opposed to.
In other words, it's behavior that people should be intolerant of, just like more active forms of damage. A person is spoke ill of if they, though they could prevent it, just watch as a child runs into traffic. To the extent that person has a responsibility to stop that child, they also have a similar (if somewhat less pressing, of course) responsibility to involve themselves in the political process. Apathy stops being neutral when it starts causing the overall situation to grow worse.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 05:38:20 pm
EDIT: Gogis, are you by chance from Moscow?
Yeah, but pointedly asking where someone's from is kinda...not conducive to an 'unbiased' discussion. Call it a pet peeve, but I don't agree with just asking that, kinda rude.
Also, calling someone shit isn't nice. For the record.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 05:41:40 pm
That means that either you :
A) are a hypocrite and not voting is your political choice because you support the current system don't want to change but have no guts to take responsibility of all Putin's actions (while voting for Putin or doing else to support him will put responsibility on you)
OR
B) you are admitting that you are arguing about the subject you know very little about.
If I am not interested in coding I am not going to the nearby thread to participate in coding related discussions
Post by: Mephansteras on March 11, 2014, 05:43:02 pm
Sheb, don't underestimate Merkel. Do you know Yes Minister? The answer to "Which side is Merkel on?" is "The winning side." Die eiserne Kanzlerin, the only German politician in a hundred years who understands Realpolitik like the original. She's being pushed by the German NIMBY faux-pacifism; you shouldn't think she's weak because of that. She'll show him the instruments.
Great, now I'm picturing Merkel as Dr. Vahlen. (http://xcom.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Vahlen)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 05:43:51 pm
B) you are admitting that you are arguing about the subject you know very little about.
If I am not interested in coding I am not going to the nearby thread to participate in coding related discussions
To be fair, discussing it is part of getting involved in it. I wouldn't discourage his being here, (even if one doesn't agree with his views), because if he listens to us we'll be contributing to his apathy.
Not to confuse discouraging his presence with voicing our opposition to what he says.
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 05:45:55 pm
I am sorry, I overreacted. I try to keep myself calm, but, you know, I've got emotional investment in this whole situation on par with Avis, Gogis and UR, too.EDIT: Gogis, are you by chance from Moscow?
Yeah, but pointedly asking where someone's from is kinda...not conducive to an 'unbiased' discussion. Call it a pet peeve, but I don't agree with just asking that, kinda rude.
And while you are right and I shouldn't have asked this, I would like to say that Moscow is the absolute richest and most developed part of Russia, and if Gogis is from there, it would explain nicely why he stated to have not encountered the widespread poverty and human rights abuse that is prevalent in the more backwards parts of the country.
Post by: nenjin on March 11, 2014, 05:51:18 pm
B) you are admitting that you are arguing about the subject you know very little about.
If I am not interested in coding I am not going to the nearby thread to participate in coding related discussions
To be fair, discussing it is part of getting involved in it. I wouldn't discourage his being here, (even if one doesn't agree with his views), because if he listens to us we'll be contributing to his apathy.
Not to confuse discouraging his presence with voicing our opposition to what he says.
Likewise, despite him stating he is a-political, I crave all viewpoints on this situation from people in the region. Even ones I may disagree with. Because it's really the tapestry of beliefs, allegiances, prejudices and fears that is driving this whole mess. Even if we Westerns are ultimately powerless to make the situation better for anyone, the very least we can do is learn from it.
Anyways, right now I feel like this has become a game of chicken. It's a matter of who will move first. I don't think it will be Russia. I believe it will ultimately come down to the Western Ukrainian going "Ok, who will go with us to reclaim Crimea" and finding no takers from the US or Europe, at which point they will agree not to interfere in the new Crimean government/annexation. I don't believe Russia will fire on Ukrainian military bases, either. I think they'll just blockade them until the soldiers inside either starve for their country or withdraw. They're in operational control and they have supply lines, they can simply wait out the Ukrainian soldiers.
If Syria wasn't enough to motivate Obama and other powers to act, I highly doubt violence in the Ukraine will unless it comes from the mobilized Russian army. Sending troops into the Middle East than Europe is different....but is the same potential geopolitical powder keg in the end. So I have no doubt the US will err on the side of non-violence. Because no side is really infallible in this issue, and everyone's raison d'etat is a little compromised. What is driving this is majority wishes and little else. In the past when you overthrew a government and a region decided to consolidate its authority separate from the new regime....there'd be another war to decide who had the right to do what in the first place. Here? In this day and age? Morally you can't really fault Crimea for doing exactly what the current Ukrainian government did.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 05:53:52 pm
No biggie sir, just a pet peeve.
I think he talked about it before, but I'll let him speak for himself.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 11, 2014, 05:56:48 pm
-not me
Post by: miljan on March 11, 2014, 05:59:44 pm
"The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"
-not me
The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:03:25 pm
"The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"
-not me
The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
Woo, cynicism!
The situation changes if people get involved. Evil becomes less-so over time & with effort.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 06:04:15 pm
Here (http://uglich-jj.livejournal.com/62312.html) are some photos from Russian regional hospitals. Can't say that regional Ukrainian hospitals are better but we aren't pretending that we are a prosperous superpower
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 06:10:19 pm
Cynicism is just cowardice."The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"
-not me
The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
Woo, cynicism!
The situation changes if people get involved. Evil becomes less-so over time & with effort.
Otherwise, +1.
Post by: miljan on March 11, 2014, 06:17:59 pm
Nop. It does not get less, its always there, and will stay there. Hack half of people here think west is "good" guys, and russ is "bad" guys. I just see who ever is in power will always be a bad guy. USA is doing it for the last few decades, now russia is starting to do it again. The worst thing is people approve of thing russia is doing, or what USA/NATO is doing. Its just sad."The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"
-not me
The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
Woo, cynicism!
The situation changes if people get involved. Evil becomes less-so over time & with effort.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 06:18:39 pm
It was a reference to Life of Galilei (http://Leben des Galilei)... And to the Inquisition. But mostly to that drama.Sheb, don't underestimate Merkel. Do you know Yes Minister? The answer to "Which side is Merkel on?" is "The winning side." Die eiserne Kanzlerin, the only German politician in a hundred years who understands Realpolitik like the original. She's being pushed by the German NIMBY faux-pacifism; you shouldn't think she's weak because of that. She'll show him the instruments.
Great, now I'm picturing Merkel as Dr. Vahlen. (http://xcom.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Vahlen)
GrizzlyAdams: Knowing someone's origin is vital to contextualizing their opinion. I can easily dismiss the stuff that burningpet says, but when the Russians in this thread say the same thing I pay attention - not necessarily because I believe them, but because their opinion reflects (to a degree) the Russian popular opinion. If UR says Putin is a horrible dictator, I pay attention - but should GI ever utter those words, I'll be expecting a civil war. And if XXSockXX talks about German domestic policies, he's probably providing more valuable info than an American (with no ties to Germany) doing the same.
But okay, pet peeve, I get it. But the info's still interesting~
NINJAEDIT: If there are no good guys, we need to become them.
Post by: miljan on March 11, 2014, 06:19:25 pm
Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always where.Cynicism is just cowardice."The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"
-not me
The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
Woo, cynicism!
The situation changes if people get involved. Evil becomes less-so over time & with effort.
Otherwise, +1.
Post by: gogis on March 11, 2014, 06:19:39 pm
p.s
Knit tie, there are thorough answers on your questions just few pages back, read the whole damn thing and don't PM me anymore, I have no intention to chat with you even if we share same origin.
Post by: Helgoland on March 11, 2014, 06:20:56 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 11, 2014, 06:22:07 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:31:39 pm
Eh, I disagree. We've been making progress for 80 thousand years. Not much else to say- I doubt either of us will change from optimism to pessimism or vice-versa due to this thread.
@helgoland
In terms of context, yes it does provide insight. But that's separate from the actual content of their messages. Ascribing more weight to what Socks says about germany may be a good practical idea, but it is still technically a falsehood.
And directly asking someone where they're from in a geopolitical debate /is/ rude & implies their responses will be weighed against their location. (No offense)
We seem to slowly be driving all Russian guys from this thread... Could we somehow transport Crimea to Bay12?VICTORY! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQaH3-LK54)
:-\
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 06:37:46 pm
We seem to slowly be driving all Russian guys from this thread... Could we somehow transport Crimea to Bay12?You reminded me one joke I heard recently
There are three options what to do when you are invaded:
1. Fight
2. Surrender
3. Troll (First used by Ukrainian army in March 2014)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 06:38:40 pm
Morally you can't really fault Crimea for doing exactly what the current Ukrainian government did.I think most of the fault is found specifically in Crimea not being allowed to do anything.
In power? Maybe not. But there ARE good guys, and when there aren't we need to become them, because even if we can't make the people in power be "good", we can shape a society that requires good behaviour of them to become successful."The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
-not me
Things can get better over time, and they have! In so many ways. But it's not a guarantee, and it will last only as long as people are fighting for it.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 06:39:05 pm
We seem to slowly be driving all Russian guys from this thread... Could we somehow transport Crimea to Bay12?Yeah, I hope the Russian guys don't leave, we may not agree with them and sometimes misunderstand them, but I'm interested in their point of view too. We are not solving any real world conflicts in this thread anyway, so we might as well learn something from each other. It's different to hear from actual individuals than through the filter of journalists and such.
I'm very much with you on the whole bridging the divide between Russia and the West thing, at least in spirit. In practice I'm not sure how to accomplish that, much smarter people than me have tried and failed. It is one of the most important geopolitical challenges of this century.
Might of course be a German thing to think like that, we have made peace with neighbours and internal divisions a lot since WW2.
Generally I understand that Russia feels threatened if all their neighbours join NATO, which used to be an anti-Soviet alliance. On the other hand what is happening now makes us all glad we have NATO. That is pretty much the dilemma we are working with.
Post by: Sheb on March 11, 2014, 06:42:38 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 11, 2014, 06:44:02 pm
Hmm... I am getting fuck out of this thread. While some guys are nice, others are vehement beyond point of my tolerance. I don't even remember last time being called a shit so openly be it direct or indirect.Even though I've found you a stubborn and infuriating jerk at times, I do actually hope you stay. I want you to actually contribute in a meaningful way, and as much as our particular attitudes are likely to crash, your input is still valuable.
I also don't think Russia should have a veto over who can or cannot join NATO, whether they like it or not.If they want people to stop joining NATO, they should probably stop driving people into NATO's arms. I guess it's a bit late for that, though.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 11, 2014, 06:46:08 pm
Post by: moocowmoo on March 11, 2014, 06:46:40 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 06:49:23 pm
Morally you can't really fault Crimea for doing exactly what the current Ukrainian government did.I think most of the fault is found specifically in Crimea not being allowed to do anything.
Huh missed that edit.
Yeah, it isn't Crimea that's trying to do this, it's Russia. The referendum and the 'Crimean parliament' that's organized it are illegitimate, as in Russia orchestrated every part via force of arms.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 11, 2014, 06:54:20 pm
In power? Maybe not. But there ARE good guys, and when there aren't we need to become them, because even if we can't make the people in power be "good", we can shape a society that requires good behaviour of them to become successful."The only thing evil needs to succeed, is for the good guys to do nothing"The thing is, there is no good guys. There is only evil and lesser evil. :(
-not me
Things can get better over time, and they have! In so many ways. But it's not a guarantee, and it will last only as long as people are fighting for it.
[JOKE]
Clearly the answer is for Bay12 to run a Kickstarter Campaign to send MaximumZero and a bunch of equipment over to Ukraine so that UkraineRanger can be trained up as a real life Batman!
[/JOKE]
In all seriousness, yeah, reforms like this take a long time and people dedicated to making their country better. Especially if doing so doesn't involve any real personal gain for themselves. It is very difficult to do and few people have both the skills and determination to do it. But get enough leaders like that and enough people rallying behind them and some very good things can be accomplished.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 07:02:08 pm
Funniest thing is that Ukrainians were very "we should remain neutral and NATO brings many problems" Russian army in Crimea changed that in one dayThat is very understandable.
Some people here think that it was a mistake to try to bring Ukraine closer to NATO and the EU, at least in such an exclusive way. That does not mean Russia gets a say in these matters, but rather that Ukraine could have served as a bridge between Europe and Russia, with close economical and cultural ties to both, with the ultimate goal of also bringing Russia closer to Europe. Of course now it might be too late for such ideas, at least for years.
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 07:10:19 pm
Well, damn.
What should I do now?
Post by: Darvi on March 11, 2014, 07:12:41 pm
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 11, 2014, 07:16:53 pm
Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always were.My point stands.
I do note, however, that you did not add "and always will be". Make that what you will.
In all seriousness, yeah, reforms like this take a long time and people dedicated to making their country better. Especially if doing so doesn't involve any real personal gain for themselves. It is very difficult to do and few people have both the skills and determination to do it. But get enough leaders like that and enough people rallying behind them and some very good things can be accomplished.Never said, or thought, it would be easy. Yeah, big changes are hard, very hard. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it.
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 07:17:13 pm
But yes, most of us feel threatened by NATO, and that's why even some of the more liberal people support the invasion. I've heard one of my friends, a professor, gve a lengthy speech about how we "need to protect our interests" in Crimea.
Post by: olemars on March 11, 2014, 07:33:34 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 07:46:35 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 08:01:15 pm
Why this shallowness and rigidity of mind? They both read philosophy and Bulgakov. Why do they still think that all ukrainians are with the USA and all russians are with Putin?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 11, 2014, 08:05:30 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 11, 2014, 08:07:23 pm
I blame political science.For propaganda?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 11, 2014, 08:18:36 pm
Of course it is a very poor way to view the world, because the world is not like that, but much more complicated and multi-faceted.
But it works very well, politicians use it all the time too.
Post by: mainiac on March 11, 2014, 11:05:48 pm
It's honestly very sad, you know? Wonderfully educated, good-natured, kind people calling each other scum just because some hate NATO more than Putn and vice versa.
It's ironic that after ten years of everyone angrily telling Americans the world doesn't revolve around them... this crisis has legs because Russia thinks it's all about an American dominated organization. Meanwhile the Americans for a change don't think this remotely revolves around us.
Post by: nenjin on March 12, 2014, 12:51:47 am
Morally you can't really fault Crimea for doing exactly what the current Ukrainian government did.I think most of the fault is found specifically in Crimea not being allowed to do anything.
Huh missed that edit.
Yeah, it isn't Crimea that's trying to do this, it's Russia. The referendum and the 'Crimean parliament' that's organized it are illegitimate, as in Russia orchestrated every part via force of arms.
There's been enough popular demonstration on the streets that I don't think Russia is behind everything. They may have an intimate roll in the new Crimean government, but I don't think it's strictly a Russian endeavor.
It's honestly very sad, you know? Wonderfully educated, good-natured, kind people calling each other scum just because some hate NATO more than Putn and vice versa.
It's ironic that after ten years of everyone angrily telling Americans the world doesn't revolve around them... this crisis has legs because Russia thinks it's all about an American dominated organization. Meanwhile the Americans for a change don't think this remotely revolves around us.
I think it's more "Russia vs. Not Russia", with America leading the last bit. We get used as a polarizing factor in pretty much anything we're involved in. Not always without reason.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 01:20:20 am
If you've got any sources on the pro-russia protests, though, I'd appreciate them, since I've seen very little on that.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 01:34:10 am
If you've got any sources on the pro-russia protests, though, I'd appreciate them, since I've seen very little on that.Here's an older one (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/ukraine-crisis-secession-russian-crimea) and here a newer one. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/world/europe/developments-in-Ukraine.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0) The older one is more interesting since it was before there were Russian troops in Crimea.
I've seen more in articles and TV, so there were many pro-Russian protests in Crimea, though they seem to have become more prevalent with the leadership change and the arrival of Russian troops.
It is probably safe to say that a significant majority of the Russian population in Crimea supports joining Russia now. Correspondents have seen pro-Ukrainian protests too, but these were fewer and smaller by far (also no surprise with Russian troops in the country).
Generally speaking the whole crisis in Ukraine has fueled Russian national sentiment enormously, both in Russia but also everywhere where there are Russian minorities. Apparently that is true even for people who normally are not overtly patriotic, that seems to be confirmed by what the Russians in this thread are describing.
In Crimea Russians are a majority, so that was not surprising. There were also pro-Russian protests in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, which - with the tone we hear from Russian media - is a reason to worry that Putin might want to try something there too. The Ukrainian military is now trying to secure the Eastern border just in case, which is also why they won't intervene in Crimea. (Apart from the fact that they probably couldn't achieve much there.)
And of course the Baltic states, where Russians are up to 25% of the population, are worried, though they have been reassured that they don't need to worry, which I guess as NATO members they don't need to.
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 03:48:28 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 03:56:45 am
It is probably safe to say that a significant majority of the Russian population in Crimea supports joining Russia now.Thanks for the links. The question, of course, is whether or not that represents a majority of the Crimean population. Although we'll probably never know that, now.
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 04:11:59 am
Of course, there is plenty of dirty tricks they could pull off (closing polling station early in Ukrainian/Tatar areas, "forgetting" to give them enough ballot paper) etc etc to tip the balance.
Post by: Owlbread on March 12, 2014, 05:18:18 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 12, 2014, 05:20:59 am
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 06:02:47 am
Or maybe they'll just do what they did in Chechnya and count the occupying soldiers' votes.
That could be hard to pull off, since Crimea ain't part of the Russian federation yet.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 12, 2014, 08:14:15 am
Therefore their vote totally counts.
Post by: Helgoland on March 12, 2014, 09:16:38 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 10:17:48 am
But the occupying soldiers aren't Russian, they're spontaneous domestic militia!
Therefore their vote totally counts.
Hahaha, I wonder if this might be the real reason he's still keeping up the charade?
Also, I assume that, like with the recent parliament votes, Russia will only be letting those who plan on voting in the "correct way" vote anyway. I'd like to be proven wrong there, but I'm... not hopeful.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 10:59:37 am
There won't be any neutral observers, since they didn't let the OSCE in. Although some think there should be no international observers, as that would legitimize the vote too much.
It is still somewhat plausible that a majority would vote for Russia, even without occupation. People are heavily influenced by Russian media, so they think they are threatened and Russia is saving them. Also there have been promises of all kinds, much higher wages and stuff like that.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 11:18:55 am
Post by: Zangi on March 12, 2014, 11:28:33 am
I don't know man... you want to persecute and/or demonize people for not giving enough of a rat's arse to not take part in the political system? Sure it might also mean that they are content enough with the way things are 'now' to not even care either.Blatantly attack person for passive political POV is insanely intolerant. So we kinda fight gays and it's troubling, but when I say it's ok to be unpolitical it's suddenly raises questions. I am not obliged to be active in politics and not going to change my mind because some person says I am naughty and I am doomed.Well, it's not so much naughty or doomed as it is that (political) apathy is as much an enemy of your state as actively working against it. And... yeah, that's a vice, so long as you live in society. It's a particular sort of not caring that hurts the people around you.
Which is also why other people in society may -- fairly -- attack that behavior and specifically note it as something bad. It is. It hurts others as much as the self, and it does hurt both. Doesn't necessarily mean the person is a bad person on the net, or anything, but it's definitely not a neutral or positive position to hold, and it's a position that anyone that wants society as a whole (either particular national or regional incarnations, or globally) to improve (or, at the very least, maintain the status quo), would reasonably be opposed to.
In other words, it's behavior that people should be intolerant of, just like more active forms of damage. A person is spoke ill of if they, though they could prevent it, just watch as a child runs into traffic. To the extent that person has a responsibility to stop that child, they also have a similar (if somewhat less pressing, of course) responsibility to involve themselves in the political process. Apathy stops being neutral when it starts causing the overall situation to grow worse.
The whole political system can spew out a heck of a lot of information, that is not even including the various angles to the info coming out. That is a lot to take in...
Next we will have people complaining about uninformed voters...
Definition of Cynicism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cynicism): An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always were.My point stands.
I don't really see how anyone can be a coward for thinking that way?
And yea... B12 tends to dogpile people with opposing views... recurring theme in this thread.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 11:50:25 am
Yeah, I get the feeling a vote for independence would be possible, but Russia isn't particularly keen on rolling the dice.That is pretty much what is happening. In the best case that is, provided they don't have any goals beyond Crimea.
A vote would have been possible, but it would have been more complicated and it would have taken time, probably more than a year. By then things could have changed too much for it to happen. Also I'm not sure how the international community would have reacted to Crimea wanting to join Russia (which was more likely than independence anyway).
An obstacle to a regular, legitimate vote on independence would be that it is unconstitutional in Ukraine, there would have to be a referendum in all of Ukraine, not just in Crimea. Of course there was no time to change that, but I don't know if that would have been an acceptable change for Ukraine.
Also AFAIK the Russian constitution had to be changed to allow Crimea to join. Some argue that it is still unconstitutional, as Russia is violating it's international treaties, but their point of view is that the treaties with Ukraine are invalid because the government of Ukraine is illegitimate.
Of course they feel there is a precedent, since the West too has been bending and breaking international law a few times.
Generally secession is a complicated thing and the international community tends to discourage it more often than not. If you look at it from that angle, Scotland has it very easy.
I don't know man... you want to persecute and/or demonize people for not giving enough of a rat's arse to not take part in the political system? Sure it might also mean that they are content enough with the way things are 'now' to not even care either.Everybody has a right to be apolitical. Of course democracy will have problems if there are too many apolitical people, but that is their free choice, which is the whole point of democracy.
The whole political system can spew out a heck of a lot of information, that is not even including the various angles to the info coming out. That is a lot to take in...
Next we will have people complaining about uninformed voters...
Also on a minor side-note, outrage about gays getting persecuted is historically speaking a relatively recent development in the West. Only 30,40 years ago not many people would have cared much, so it's a lot to ask from somebody to become active against that in a cultural environment that is like that.
Post by: Helgoland on March 12, 2014, 01:18:43 pm
zeit.de reported that they expect ~85% approval - which would mean that significant amounts of non-Russians would vote 'yes' too. Plausibility has gone the way of legitimacy.
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 01:21:39 pm
Neither do I, but I made that post while my best friends were screaming hatefully at each other and obviously wasn't thinking straight. So in the end equally hateful gibberish came out. Not one of my best moments.Definition of Cynicism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cynicism): An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.Cynicism or not, that is how the things are, and always were.My point stands.
I don't really see how anyone can be a coward for thinking that way?
Post by: DJ on March 12, 2014, 01:40:43 pm
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 01:43:40 pm
Yakymenko was a head of Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) before the revolution. He is in Moscow now. In the interview he expresses his vision of the whole situation.
Text is in Russian, but google-translate will do it.
There is a video in Russian, that follows the text closely.
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1368925&cid=9 (http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1368925&cid=9)
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 01:53:12 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 01:58:21 pm
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 02:11:30 pm
Post by: vagel7 on March 12, 2014, 02:14:41 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 12, 2014, 02:15:56 pm
He also says, that the snipers from Philarmonia building killed both police and protesters. That's quite and old scheme to imitate government's aggression, to pretend, that the police started the massacre. That complies with what has leaked from Estonian Foreign Minister telephone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23_WlRsSOA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23_WlRsSOA).
Plus, there's layers of deception. Might as well be the old gov't pretending to fake gov't aggression as protesters.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 02:16:32 pm
So to sum it up, he says Western embassy got cash and used it to fund the protests and that the snipers were mercenaries hired by the opposition. I think.Google translate sucks, unfortunately, but I think that's what he is saying.
Other interesting points that I think I understood are that he seems to blame the CIA for being involved and - which seems far-fetched - Poland.
Also he argues that it was the US that tried to prevent Ukraine's eurointegration because they didn't like the connection between Europe, Ukraine and Russia. That I hadn't heard before, but it is false as the EU association treaty was incompatible with the Russian customs union.
Ukraine is expected to sign the association treaty soon BTW.
A lot of debates are currently going on on who the snipers were.Here not so much. Of course I haven't heard about the official investigation so far, but journalists seem convinced that at least the killings they witnessed were committed by police snipers.
The leaked call with the Estonian FM is not getting much weight, because it contained only a rumor that turned out to be not verifiable. (Because the doctor he spoke to only saw dead protesters, but not the dead policemen, and didn't look at ballistic evidence.)
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 02:18:18 pm
I wish they'd wait for the elections to sign the association agreement. It is a really significant step, the government that sign it should be totally legitimate.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 02:23:22 pm
I wish they'd wait for the elections to sign the association agreement. It is a really significant step, the government that sign it should be totally legitimate.Agreed, the timing is not good. I guess they're doing it both as a signal to Russia and as a part of the efforts to prevent bankruptcy, with giving Ukraine some trade benefits.
First part of the agreement is going to be signed next week, shortly after the Crimea referendum.
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 02:30:22 pm
Plus, there's layers of deception. Might as well be the old gov't pretending to fake gov't aggression as protesters.
All police riffles are databased. Considering all databases are in hands of the new government, they could trace all bullets, that killed protesters, back to police riffles.
But it has not been done. There is no investigation.
http://rt.com/news/pace-probe-snipers-kiev-358/ (http://rt.com/news/pace-probe-snipers-kiev-358/)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 12, 2014, 02:32:34 pm
Besides, tracing them won't do much good, as some police armories were allegedly captured by protestors.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 02:38:46 pm
But this:
I'm certainly that if I ordered snipers to shoot against protestors, I would give them rifles that aren't in the database. I mean, they can't be that hard to get, right?seems to be a problem for any investigation.
Besides, tracing them won't do much good, as some police armories were allegedly captured by protestors.
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 02:42:16 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 12, 2014, 02:44:06 pm
((Besides, it's not that hard to divide the tasks between different snipers.))
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 02:47:34 pm
Why, why on Earth would he give an order to kill ordinary protesters, as the results of that shooting are certainly the end of his presidency.
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 02:47:55 pm
But finding some bullets with the same riffle imprint from both protester's and police dead would be a dramatic blow.That's actually quite possible. What if the snipers were a part of some violently militant ultranationalist group that viewed both sides as enemies? There was infighting in the soviet resistance during the WW2, why can't there be some in the ukrainian opposition?
Post by: Pnx on March 12, 2014, 02:52:11 pm
Why, why on Earth would he give an order to kill ordinary protesters, as the results of that shooting are certainly the end of his presidency.The tricky thing about appeals to intelligence, is that you're assuming the other person is acting intelligently.
EDIT: Also even if he personally didn't order it, someone else down the chain of command that he put there might have.
Post by: PanH on March 12, 2014, 02:55:33 pm
I have one last argument, I would like to tell. Yanukovich's strategy was to avoid any shooting. It was not until the very end, as Berkut was given any firearms. Yanukovich understood well, that a massacre on Maidan would be completely against him.There's plenty of cases were violently suppressing protesters works. Plus, there's no guarantee that he acted rationally. I mean, his presidency wouldn't have lasted long unless he managed to suppress the protests. He was probably desperate.
Why, why on Earth would he give an order to kill ordinary protesters, as the results of that shooting are certainly the end of his presidency.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 02:57:44 pm
I have one last argument, I would like to tell. Yanukovich's strategy was to avoid any shooting. It was not until the very end, as Berkut was given any firearms. Yanukovich understood well, that a massacre on Maidan would be completely against him.Currently we don't know, we can only speculate. It is quite possible that Yanukovych ordered it.
Why, why on Earth would he give an order to kill ordinary protesters, as the results of that shooting are certainly the end of his presidency.
There is the rumour that it was Russian agents, not Yanukovych's people, who did the shooting. (Supposedly to have the situation escalate to have a cause for invasion). That is just a conspiracy theory too, but you see, people can speculate both ways.
What we know is just this: By far the most people who got shot are protesters. Witnesses (protesters, doctors and journalists) claim they saw police snipers. Some policemen got shot too, but it is possible that some protesters got their hands on sniper rifles.
That is the most obvious explanation, anything else we can not know without further investigation. That would require ballistic evidence, forensic evidence might not be enough. (Because if it is just the same type of rifle, not the exact same rifle, that doesn't mean much)
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 03:11:29 pm
I mean, 100 people died during the protests, yes. But what truly is 100 people? There could've been an uprising instead, with deaths numbering in the thousands. But instead, all there was is a peaceful demonstration.
And likewise, the current invasion is by far the most bloodless one ever seen in the history if Russia, and a lot of pro-russians are keen to keep it this way.
So if we disregard the extremist groups that are invariably present in each conflict, this whole situation is one of the most peaceful political clusterfucks in history.
Ivze, what do you think?
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 03:24:04 pm
Ivze, what do you think?
Yet 100 dead people are too much to call the situation peaceful.
On the contrary, what is happening in Crimea, IS peaceful, as even during sieges of pro-Ukrainian military bases by pro-Russian military forces no one has died yet.
Post by: ivze on March 12, 2014, 03:31:06 pm
http://weirdrussia.com/2014/03/02/polite-people-meme/ (http://weirdrussia.com/2014/03/02/polite-people-meme/)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 03:49:23 pm
If true, Russia's point men have passed legislation that forbids those with "nationalist" affiliation from participating in the referendum.
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukrainian-tv-channels-off-the-air/25293466.html
Also, Ukranian TV will not be allowed until afterwards, for "moral" reasons.
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 03:52:55 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2014, 03:55:33 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 04:02:14 pm
Still, the protests were peaceful, as opposed to a revolution that could've happened. You remember how many people died when the Russian Empire had a revolution?Of course it could have been worse. But it may still become a lot worse, depending on what happens next.
On the contrary, what is happening in Crimea, IS peaceful, as even during sieges of pro-Ukrainian military bases by pro-Russian military forces no one has died yet.It is currently bloodless and relatively peaceful. However it is very short of causing a lot of violence as a consequence. There are Russian troops in another sovereign country. There is a risk of Ukrainian and Russian troops clashing. It has caused fear of invasion in Ukraine (and other neighbouring countries). This pressure might escalate the situation in Ukraine into a civil war. In Crimea itself, there might be violence between ethnic groups, not sparked by Russian troops, but nationalists on both sides. So overall this is a very dangerous situation, there are many ways this could become a huge desaster quickly.
And whatever the outcome will be, I'm sure it will change the geopolitical climate for at least a decade.
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 04:08:03 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 12, 2014, 04:22:31 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 04:24:37 pm
Russia would then have isolated itself diplomatically, it has lost any sort of trust from the West and from it's neighbours (especially Ukraine, but possibly even some current allies), and that will last for some time. Ukraine and other countries will seek closer relations with West, and try to join NATO, maybe the EU.
Europe is already looking for other sources of gas and oil, Russia will definitely lose out on that business long-term wise. There may be sanctions, and some of them may stay in place for quite a while.
In the worst case we have another Cold War. NATO troops stationed at Russia's borders, rocket defense systems in Europe.
Also increased distrust will lead to Russia and the West cooperating even less, which will make diplomatic solutions to a lot of crisis or tension situations way more difficult (like Syria and Iran).
Additionally, as has been pointed out before, nuclear non-proliferation has become far more unlikely. (Though I personally didn't believe in it anyway.)
-----------------------------------------
Since we talked about how there will be no international observers at the referendum, here's a bizarre piece of information (link in German (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/krim-referendum-front-national-fpoe-und-lega-nord-sind-eingeladen-a-958334.html)):
Moscow has invited some European right-wing populist parties as observers, Front National, FPÖ, Lega Nord and Vlaams Belang. FN and FPÖ dislike the EU, the other two are separatists, that's why they support Russia in this. Clearly an attempt to get at least some international recognition, probably not a successful one.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 12, 2014, 05:28:38 pm
Not all of that 100 people were lucky enough to get a quick death from a bullet. Some were beaten to death. Some where burned alive in Trade Unions house Some were kidnapped and tortured to death... And there are 300+ missingIvze, what do you think?
Yet 100 dead people are too much to call the situation peaceful.
On the contrary, what is happening in Crimea, IS peaceful, as even during sieges of pro-Ukrainian military bases by pro-Russian military forces no one has died yet.
As for peaceful situation in Crimea... Maydan was peaceful for a long time. If it wasn't that peaceful we could have much less deaths... Same here. Sooner or later Russians will start a bloodbath, failure to oppose them will do nothing good
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2014, 06:07:42 pm
Not all of that 100 people were lucky enough to get a quick death from a bullet. Some were beaten to death. Some where burned alive in Trade Unions house Some were kidnapped and tortured to death... And there are 300+ missingIvze, what do you think?
Yet 100 dead people are too much to call the situation peaceful.
On the contrary, what is happening in Crimea, IS peaceful, as even during sieges of pro-Ukrainian military bases by pro-Russian military forces no one has died yet.
As for peaceful situation in Crimea... Maydan was peaceful for a long time. If it wasn't that peaceful we could have much less deaths... Same here. Sooner or later Russians will start a bloodbath, failure to oppose them will do nothing good
That's why Russians think West is ought to get them.
Post by: miljan on March 12, 2014, 06:15:07 pm
Some interesting things. Probably not all correct, but still
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 12, 2014, 06:19:37 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 12, 2014, 06:21:16 pm
The most likely scenario that at March 17, just after the "referendum" Russia will announce that Ukrainian units in Crimea are unlawfully stationed in Russian territory and demand their surrender. If this will be rejected, Ukrainian forces will be attacked... If this will be accepted Russia will get intact bases and weapons
Weeeell, they could always Blow Shit Up, don't they?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 12, 2014, 06:25:21 pm
Post by: Baffler on March 12, 2014, 06:34:23 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 06:40:11 pm
That's why Russians think West is ought to get them.I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2014, 06:42:45 pm
...Sooner or later Russians will start a bloodbath...Need further explaining?
Post by: Owlbread on March 12, 2014, 06:44:26 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 06:47:35 pm
Wouldn't this statement have to be coming from someone from "The West" in order for it to lead to the Russians thinking "The West" is out to get them?...Sooner or later Russians will start a bloodbath...Need further explaining?
I honestly don't understand.
In other news, apparently this isn't actually all that popular a situation in Russia, not like we've been lead to believe. Polling indicates 73% of the population are opposed, with the only regions actually majority supporting Russian intervention in Crimea and the Ukraine being... Moscow and St.Petersburg.
http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=114720.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 12, 2014, 06:55:20 pm
Yep, Russians are very peaceful nation and always were.... They don't deny genocides done by them, they don't glorify guys who did those genocides, they have no imperialists in government, and their government doesn't practice hate inducing propaganda....Sooner or later Russians will start a bloodbath...Need further explaining?
One of these days Ukraine should just invade the Ukrainian majority parts of Green Ukraine in eastern Siberia and form self defence militias.I bet that China will be there first...
Besides we don't need Siberia. I'll be fully satisfied with former Ukrainian parts of Russia as seen on that
Spoiler: map (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2014, 07:50:41 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 08:13:08 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2014, 08:27:05 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 08:30:10 pm
So there are some Russian news about the impending provocation from the Right Sector near airport Melitopol'... Have not found the english-speaking sources yet. http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1777366.html <=== Russian sourceI looked into that a bit. I don't speak Russian or Ukrainian and Google Translate cruelly butchers your language, but I think I understand enough.
Basically the article says a group called Anonymous Ukraine hacked emails from a US military attache and a Ukrainian official, who planned to stage an attack on an airport and blame it on Russia. Regnum has been accused of having a pro-Russian bias several times in the past, according to wikipedia (both English and Russian).
I haven't seen an English-speaking news-site reporting it, except this one (http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2014/03/proof-us-staging-false-flag-for-ww3-kickoff-with-russia-video-2451078.html) (which is hilarious BTW, they have proof that Michelle Obama is a man). They had a link to the documen (http://sporaw.livejournal.com/258830.html)ts however. There is also this. (https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/?p=17628&cpage=1)
Frankly I think this is fake.
Checking sources is always a good idea, likewise with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWkfpGCAAuwIt rehashes stuff we have already discussed, just from a blame-the-US angle. If you look at their other videos, it's mostly conspiracy theory crap, like "The Trayvon Martin case was overblown by the media to distract the public from the US police state killing civilians in the Middle East". What You're Not Being Told? For starters, the news or stuff that really happens.
Post by: Frumple on March 12, 2014, 08:32:12 pm
"If you're afraid of something, you'll want to destroy it"That's... still kind of confusing? From what I understand of GG's understanding, it's like saying the chinese (in this case, ukrainians) are scared of russia and so russia thinks the west is trying to eat them. Which is, like... that's got to be leaving something out.
Post by: Sergarr on March 12, 2014, 08:36:34 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 08:42:42 pm
In other news, apparently this isn't actually all that popular a situation in Russia, not like we've been lead to believe. Polling indicates 73% of the population are opposed, with the only regions actually majority supporting Russian intervention in Crimea and the Ukraine being... Moscow and St.Petersburg.Please don't take russian media statistics at face value. They have known to be extremely flexible in the past, and the majority of rural Russia is a very avid Putin supporter, as far as I know from personal experience.
http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=114720.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 08:54:22 pm
Actually I think GlyphGryph misunderstood the poll. It was about whether Russia should intervene in Ukraine (before there were troops in Crimea) on the side of the Yanukovych government, which 73% opposed. The other question was whether such protests would be possible in Russia, which 75% did not believe, except in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where it was only 64%.In other news, apparently this isn't actually all that popular a situation in Russia, not like we've been lead to believe. Polling indicates 73% of the population are opposed, with the only regions actually majority supporting Russian intervention in Crimea and the Ukraine being... Moscow and St.Petersburg.Please don't take russian media statistics at face value. They have known to be extremely flexible in the past, and the majority of rural Russia is a very avid Putin supporter, as far as I know from personal experience.
http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=114720.
That's what I figure from google translation.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 12, 2014, 09:09:13 pm
I wonder what a (good) study would reveal for support levels now, though?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 12, 2014, 09:22:34 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 12, 2014, 09:58:26 pm
That's absolutely correct.Actually I think GlyphGryph misunderstood the poll. It was about whether Russia should intervene in Ukraine (before there were troops in Crimea) on the side of the Yanukovych government, which 73% opposed. The other question was whether such protests would be possible in Russia, which 75% did not believe, except in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where it was only 64%.In other news, apparently this isn't actually all that popular a situation in Russia, not like we've been lead to believe. Polling indicates 73% of the population are opposed, with the only regions actually majority supporting Russian intervention in Crimea and the Ukraine being... Moscow and St.Petersburg.Please don't take russian media statistics at face value. They have known to be extremely flexible in the past, and the majority of rural Russia is a very avid Putin supporter, as far as I know from personal experience.
http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=114720.
That's what I figure from google translation.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 10:32:32 am
http://navalny.livejournal.com/914090.html.
It's by this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny
Quote from: Summary from someone on another board
- He completely opposes the invasion and supports the overthrow of the Ukrainian government
- He believes the main motivation of Putin for invasion is literally a twisted desire to punish all Ukrainians who overthrew Yanuck because he fears and sympathizes with that position, wanting to show Russians that 'look, bad things happen when you overthrow the government' (he actually uses some great analogies in the article that are too much of a pain to translate well)
- He actually says he does not believe Crimea should be part of Ukraine as the transfer of it in the 50s was illegitimate; with regard to referendum, he disagrees with the approach as it's too soon and too loaded but believes if they hold a real one, it will still be 'we want to join Russia'
- Despite that, he believes Russia should not accept Crimea as that would be going against the written agreements (the Budapest accords) and Russia should not show the rest of the world that it does not hold on to its commitments
- On Crimean future, he sees it likely becoming another 'weird place' as he calls it, similar to Transnistria or Karabakh, recognized by Russia but nobody else
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 10:45:05 am
I hope more will follow
Post by: XXSockXX on March 13, 2014, 10:51:44 am
-snip-If that summary is correct, that sounds like a more reasonable position. Of course, after a look at the guy's wiki page, I don't think it has much weight. Interesting though, he is a nationalist who wants to integrate Belarus and Ukraine into Russia, just in a more peaceful way.
Ukrainian oligarch Firtash arrested (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-ukraine-crisis-austria-arrest-idUSBREA2C0UQ20140313)Authorities say though they had been investigating him since 2006, and it had nothing to do with current events. Since he is probably not the only Ukrainian oligarch with shady business connection, more might follow indeed.
I hope more will follow
Not much else happening before the referendum I guess.
OECD has suspended the accession process with Russia. (http://www.oecd.org/russia/statement-by-the-oecd-regarding-the-status-of-the-accession-process-with-russia-and-co-operation-with-ukraine.htm)
Russia has stationed a handful of fighter planes in Belarus, probably as a reaction to the US moving planes to Poland.
The Ukrainian parliament has decided to form a National Guard.
Post by: Zangi on March 13, 2014, 11:37:28 am
They may be looking for a reason to roll out against the rest of Ukraine though. ... Plus, in the case of collateral damage... damage to infrastructure and civilian casualties, it is far better, in the standpoint of Russia to take the fight to the rest of Ukraine, rather then fighting in Crimea.
Post by: Knit tie on March 13, 2014, 02:17:03 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 13, 2014, 02:50:28 pm
I'm pretty sure the bloodbath that people are worrying about won't be started by the Russians/'Self Defense Militia' in Crimea.
They may be looking for a reason to roll out against the rest of Ukraine though. ... Plus, in the case of collateral damage... damage to infrastructure and civilian casualties, it is far better, in the standpoint of Russia to take the fight to the rest of Ukraine, rather then fighting in Crimea.
No it /really isn't/. A couple pages back I brought up a topic I wager is the biggest deterrent to a full invasion: 80% of Russia's natural gas/oil exports go through pipes in central Ukraine.
Screw EU sanctions- Ukraine gets invaded, those pipes are the first things to go & the Russian economy tanks, (along with the EU, to a lesser extent).
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 02:53:26 pm
I wonder, if I copy-pasted it here, if the thread would be blocked in Russia. Probably not, not being a Russian-language site....
(Russians! This is why "The West" doesn't really believe you when you insist you have a functioning democracy.)
Edit Update:
The Russian government has no blocked news sources that report on this as well:
Grani, Kasparov, EJ are all black for the moment, apparently.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 02:56:05 pm
Spoiler: Article (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 13, 2014, 03:08:59 pm
Heh, say what you want about globalization, but it sure puts a damper on old-style imperial conquest.snip
No it /really isn't/. A couple pages back I brought up a topic I wager is the biggest deterrent to a full invasion: 80% of Russia's natural gas/oil exports go through pipes in central Ukraine.
Screw EU sanctions- Ukraine gets invaded, those pipes are the first things to go & the Russian economy tanks, (along with the EU, to a lesser extent).
Also:
Holy shit glyphgryph, we were winning the conventional war of words- you didn't have to go nuclear!
(woo joke about 'ganging up on russians' & the possibility of getting bay12 censored)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 03:10:22 pm
US politicians continue to be shitheads!
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200716-reid-blames-ukraine-standoff-on-koch-brothers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Post by: olemars on March 13, 2014, 03:19:20 pm
Apparently the character limit on Russian is MUCH SHORTER than english, so my spoilerz kept breaking. The last third of the article is officially missing from the spoiler - hopefully this will protect us from the terrible Russian censors. In other news...
US politicians continue to be shitheads!
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200716-reid-blames-ukraine-standoff-on-koch-brothers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Politicians protecting oligarchs is at least something both Russians and Ukrainians truly understand. I have had a feeling the american diplomats communicate better with their russian counterparts than the europeans do. They speak the same language.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 13, 2014, 03:56:07 pm
Edit Update:Grani is out for me (probably because of routing blocked somewhere in Russia or because the server itself has been brought down), Kasparov.ru and EJ are working.
The Russian government has no blocked news sources that report on this as well:
Grani, Kasparov, EJ are all black for the moment, apparently.
Also, don't worry guys, the totalitarian watchdogs of the bloody KGB sniffing out the free people's websites and homosexuals to tear apart probably add websites to the Russian blacklist by hand, and not by snooping through the net and banning everything automatically.
Unless some of them are registered here (it could be you, it could be me!), Bay 12 won't be blacklisted.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 04:06:12 pm
And no, I don't actually expect the web-censors to block Bay12, I sort of imagined that as a joke. Although if they ARE doing it by hand, that at least puts them a few steps above the British censorship strategy which is pretty automated and also terrible.
Please try to remember that my criticism of the Russian government extends to most governments, but those governments aren't the subject of this thread. See my posts in the NSA and US politics threads, for example.
Edit:
Reports coming in about deaths Donetzk from "clashes". Don't know who, with whom, or how many. Any more info anyone?
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 13, 2014, 04:33:19 pm
Thanks for confirmation and clarification. I wonder if the other two might be regionally blocked? Other-Russians-I-know seem to be pretty sure they are inaccessible. It could be something else entirely though.The block was placed by Russian ISPs on the order of Roskomnadzor (the state agency regulating mass media). I can access them because the state-owned Belarusian ISP through which I'm connected to the Internet is not a Russian ISP.
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 13, 2014, 04:40:05 pm
Quote
Unless some of them are registered here (it could be you, it could be me!), Bay 12 won't be blacklisted.The bad thing (or Bad Thing) is that crazy psychopats that rule this country (this is my opinion only, ofc) are going to implement whitelists instead of blacklists.
One of laws (not sure if it would pass, however given how stupidity rules over the deputies) implies that a website MUST register itself on some weird crappy service to be accessible in Russia.
Won't affect much of the interested population, though: most ISPs are blocking the access using DNS, e.g. substituting addresses of blacklisted sites to their local server with special "yada yada I hate you and steal your websitez" page.
Over the years of weird shit in here I heard "The hardness of ru-laws is compencated by optionality of its enforcement", e.g. almost noone gives a penny over the quality of laws enforcement at least on administrative level.
Back when I became a 1st grade university student (5 years ago, actually) I thought that this was a good thing. Now I think that this is a plague: non-caring executors mean non-caring population means more weird laws, etc.
One of the main points in this are that government gets a lot of people on the streets to show that population supports the goverment in war movement ("Titushki" as called in UA; first time I've ever ever seen a "I want war" sign which was holded by some brain-dead commoner; I do not want to believe that all this people were not bought by govs cause in that case everything is fucked up beyond any considerable limits) while blocking/disallowing meetings of people that are against this, and most people in my circle say that they are not involved in politics.
Post by: miljan on March 13, 2014, 04:42:19 pm
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 13, 2014, 04:49:51 pm
Just watched the report in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUGFF8mM8Lfd1OFxtOa_bCMw&v=NVUAAL11rWY
Post by: miljan on March 13, 2014, 05:05:42 pm
I hope that east ukraine would see from this that real (or only, if you mind) facists in currently-existing world is Russian Federation.
Just watched the report in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUGFF8mM8Lfd1OFxtOa_bCMw&v=NVUAAL11rWY
What is so much horrible in that video? Just watch some football fights, 10 times worse :)
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 13, 2014, 05:11:20 pm
Quote
Just watch some football fights, 10 times worseFootball fights are better cause both 'teams' in this fights are prepared. Attacking a meeting of people that have another view on political shit AND which you call facists is hypocritic.
Post by: miljan on March 13, 2014, 05:17:31 pm
QuoteJust watch some football fights, 10 times worseFootball fights are better cause both 'teams' in this fights are prepared. Attacking a meeting of people that have another view on political shit AND which you call facists is hypocritic.
Actually they are not prepared. The only thing you need to wear some sign of other team to be attacked, so it's really same as here in that aspect. But again, the video really doesnt show anything that will make you call russia federation facists, as same as they can not call whole ukraine leaders facists (even if some elements/memmbers are/where actually 100% facists )
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 13, 2014, 05:25:52 pm
As a citizen of russia, given the way I understand this article, I see evidence of almost all key signs of facism in government of this country; exceptions are points 4 (well not really) and 12.
Post by: Knit tie on March 13, 2014, 05:30:30 pm
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 13, 2014, 05:32:22 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 05:52:06 pm
At Maydan it lead to deaths of Ukrainians, now it is all the same...
Where are mass arrests of Russian agents? Where are closed borders with Russia? Where are any attempts to evacuate citizens from Crimea?
Post by: miljan on March 13, 2014, 05:59:41 pm
I am getting tired of impotence of the transitional government. It reminds Maydan more and more use nothing but peaceful and diplomatic methods
At Maydan it lead to deaths of Ukrainians, now it is all the same...
Where are mass arrests of Russian agents? Where are closed borders with Russia? Where are any attempts to evacuate citizens from Crimea?
Do you think citizens that are pro ukraine would leave their homes in Crimea?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 06:06:39 pm
Some, who understand what can happen soon, will prefer to move to relatives.
Some have no other choice because they are open members of Pro-Ukrainian political parties
Some just works there and not permanent residents of Crimea
And at the very least we should do something for our soldiers there
Post by: miljan on March 13, 2014, 06:10:46 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 06:31:32 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 13, 2014, 06:33:37 pm
There must be some reason why soldiers are still there. Maybe they are waiting for the referendum before they move them outMy guess is that there are two reasons. First, it is symbolic, you don't withdraw your soldiers from your own country, that would look like surrender. Second, the Ukrainian government and the Russian government don't talk, same with the Crimean government, so they have nobody to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal with.
I have read that the commander of the troops in Crimea has asked Kiew for orders what to do if they are attacked or provoked though, so maybe it is something else.
Reports coming in about deaths Donetzk from "clashes". Don't know who, with whom, or how many. Any more info anyone?Only little confirmed information in the media. As has been mentioned at least one person died, maybe more. Rumor (https://twitter.com/m_kartinka/status/444250898156371968/photo/1) has it that it was Russians who came to Donetsk in busses to support the pro-Russian protests. Here are some pictures (https://twitter.com/novostidnua).
Post by: Knit tie on March 13, 2014, 06:40:53 pm
I am getting tired of impotence of the transitional government. It reminds Maydan more and more use nothing but peaceful and diplomatic methods
At Maydan it lead to deaths of Ukrainians, now it is all the same...
Where are mass arrests of Russian agents? Where are closed borders with Russia? Where are any attempts to evacuate citizens from Crimea?
Well, you don't suppose that a violent revolution would be preferable to what happened during maidan, do you?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 06:43:51 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2014, 06:45:32 pm
I suppose that going violent from day (december 1 2013) one would lead to much fewer deaths. When you have a million on the streets of capital and do nothing but sing an anthem - You are a moron. Tyrants aren't removed in that wayActually, they can be and have been (such as in Tunisia). Peaceful protests can accomplish a lot when they're overwhelming.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 06:47:26 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 13, 2014, 06:48:03 pm
Post by: Darvi on March 13, 2014, 06:49:45 pm
Well, my friend, you have to elaborate how waging a civil war can cause less casualties than not fighting at all.It allows for fewer people to breed, which, ultimately, means fewer people dying (because there's fewer people born in the first place).
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 13, 2014, 06:50:49 pm
Only if authoritarian leader isn't ready to fight. That wasn't the case. And it was obivious. Peaceful protests only allowed him to gather forcesYour authoritarian leader wasn't exactly ready to fight either. He ran away.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 13, 2014, 06:50:58 pm
Quote
Well, my friend, you have to elaborate how waging a civil war can cause less casualties than not fighting at all.Easy - Yanukovitch would fled to Russia much earlier. Don't forget that if we listened our opposition and now government, Yanukovich would stay in power even after the killings. The moment when people said "We'll fight" Yanukovich ran away
Quote
Your authoritarian leader wasn't exactly ready to fight either. He ran away.To be precise all that Berkut ran away first. They were not willing to die for him, and they would do exactly that earlier. No... "leaders" needed to wait for many, many bodies when they started yet another peaceful march
Now they use the same strategy against Russian army. Interesting, when will they order to defend, when enemy will capture Kiyv? Or few weeks later?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 13, 2014, 06:59:47 pm
The Ukrainian army has no chance against the Russian army, at least in an offensive war. They might do some damage on the defense, but ultimately they cannot win.
This way, they might be satisfied with Crimea. They say they will support OSCE observers now (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26564851). How true that is, we will soon find out in Eastern Ukraine.
Post by: lemon10 on March 13, 2014, 07:07:54 pm
The way it turned out, Russia invading is doing it massive global political problems, with a potential of economic problems. If they had actually intervened in a civil war they would have been somewhat justified (not the annexing part though).
And since I can't actually see a Ukraine in civil war managing to win against the Russian army, I don't think the civil war outcome would have turned out as anything but disastrous.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 13, 2014, 08:42:00 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 13, 2014, 08:59:59 pm
My sources say Donetsk is up to 50 casualties, 3 confirmed dead.My sources mention 3 dead too, but confirm only the one who died of knife wounds and many injured and hospitalized.
Post by: Knit tie on March 13, 2014, 09:08:04 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 14, 2014, 04:51:04 am
Ukrainians have been exceptionally brutal in asymmetric warfare the last time they tried. Just ask wehrmacht.
Well, they DO have an extensive military tradition of asymmetrical warfare after all.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 05:25:00 am
Also, Putin will have hard time clearing his own army from people with Ukrainian roots that may aid underground resistance
Finally, Russians will see guerrilla spread to their territory, if Chechens managed that, Ukrainians will, too. Stuff will "spontaneously" explode here and there.
War with Ukraine is insanity for Russia... It can't bring political or economic benefits.
Post by: Sergarr on March 14, 2014, 07:35:52 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 14, 2014, 08:29:54 am
Well it's obviously because there won't be a war, just a "restoration of just government". And they'll probably send your own Ukraine troops to pacify any unrest or resistance. It's a very common practice among all evil empires, of course.
That's how they handled Chechnya. Putin bribed local warlords to be loyal to the Kremlin then allowed them to form death squads.
Post by: Sergarr on March 14, 2014, 08:56:52 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 09:07:57 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 14, 2014, 11:03:04 am
I'd say the World is fucked. And everything because they didn't finished Russia in the Cold war. That friendship in 1991 is like If Nazies would remove Hitler from power in 1944 (While Nazi party would rename and remain in power) and then allies agreed to stop the war allowing Germany to have pre-1939 territoryWell, Germany was utterly defeated in WW2, while the Soviet Union basically dissolved itself peacefully. And that was the only possible solution, if the Cold War had turned into WW3, that would have been the end, because of the nukes. Russia today is not the Soviet Union, it just did not develop the way we hoped.
There are now talks between US and Russian FMs (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26572530), Russia still insists that Kiev is not in control and that it might intervene in Ukraine, so that's not good.
Russia has also started an investigation to seek international arrest warrants against Oleh Tyahnybok (Svoboda) and Dmytro Yarosh (Right Sector), for their alleged involvement in Chechnya in the 90s.
Media here have also reported on the internet censorship that Russia employs against the internet sites that were mentioned here earlier (kasparov.ru, ej.ru, grani.ru and navalny.livejournal.com).
Some Russian authors and human rights activists have issued a statement against Russia's Crimea policy (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/1679348.html), after there was an official one (http://mkrf.ru/press-tsentr/novosti/ministerstvo/deyateli-kultury-rossii-v-podderzhku-pozitsii-prezidenta-po-ukraine-i-krymu) supporting it.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 11:15:23 am
Quote
. And that was the only possible solution, if the Cold War had turned into WW3,Nope. Another solution was to keep using political and economic methods to weaken Russia to the point of another self-dissolving...
Just supporting North Caucasus separatism could be enough to start the chain reaction
Post by: XXSockXX on March 14, 2014, 11:23:16 am
I'm not so sure if that would have worked. Also the idea of friendship with Russia was right I think, it just did not work out very well, and both sides had their part in that.Quote. And that was the only possible solution, if the Cold War had turned into WW3,Nope. Another solution was to keep using political and economic methods to weaken Russia to the point of another self-dissolving...
Just supporting North Caucasus separatism could be enough to start the chain reaction
In the current situation however, I think if Russia invades Ukraine, the EU and US should employ total political and economic isolation. I don't know if the Crimea situation can be reversed (that is a quite specific problem), but if something happens in Eastern Ukraine and the West does nothing, it proves to be weak and without values. That would be such a disastrous signal, I don't think they can afford that, at least from a moral point of view. From what I've heard politicians say, that seems to be consensus.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2014, 11:29:55 am
I'd say the World is fucked. And everything because they didn't finished Russia in the Cold war. That friendship in 1991 is like If Nazies would remove Hitler from power in 1944 (While Nazi party would rename and remain in power) and then allies agreed to stop the war allowing Germany to have pre-1939 territoryAs I said before: The proper analogy is Germany 1919. A major power is defeated, humiliated, and left with no productive way to re-establish its sense of self-worth. I'm afraid that we'll get a war sooner or later...
I think some of the same ideas apply to the US - after all, the idea that the US constitution gives us so much trouble because it was never changed after a crushing military defeat is well-established.
Post by: Owlbread on March 14, 2014, 11:32:55 am
Quote. And that was the only possible solution, if the Cold War had turned into WW3,Nope. Another solution was to keep using political and economic methods to weaken Russia to the point of another self-dissolving...
Just supporting North Caucasus separatism could be enough to start the chain reaction
All this will come when Putin loses power for whatever reason, or when he begins to lose his grip. The opposition parties in Russia (e.g. Navalny, people like that) are overwhelmingly in favour of North Caucasian independence due to their inherent Russian nationalism. They would prefer to build a Russia for Russians and feel that Putin is needlessly pouring money into the Caucasus when he should be concentrating on "Russian" affairs.
If you ask me that's my attitude too (less so the Russia '88-esque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_88) "Russia for Russians" bit), I just hope they also come to understand that Caucasian independence with Russian/Georgian co-operative protection and observance is the most beneficial thing for the Caucasians themselves.
But yeah, if that kind of thing started to happen then you'd probably see the secession of states like Tuva and Kalmykia, but ethnically divided states like Bashkortostan and Tatarstan are another matter.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 14, 2014, 01:59:43 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 14, 2014, 02:05:10 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 02:12:16 pm
A Russian corporation claims that a US drone (type UAV MQ-5B) was captured by self defense forces in Crimea, after they managed to interrupt contact between the drone and it's control center using Rostec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostec) technology. (link in German) (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/amerikanische-drohne-ueber-der-krim-flugkoerper-uav-mq-5b-abgefangen-12847782.html) Another interesting piece that shows what kind of stuff self defense forces can buy freely in local shops.Look's like pro-Ukrainian self-defense units bought a drone in a local shop. If only pro-Ukrainian self-defense units could afford an aircraft carrier....
Post by: olemars on March 14, 2014, 02:38:02 pm
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_14/US-drone-intercepted-in-Crimean-airspace-Russias-state-corporation-2994/
A few issues with that:
It says this is mentioned on the Rostec web page (http://rostec.ru/), where I find zero mention of any UAV's.
Apparently the drone is marked MQ-5, which is a nearly obsolete short range drone, of which two are deployed in Germany for training purposes (both now in Crimean hands if the article is true). It's got a range of 260km, so it would have had to be launched from within Ukraine itself.
The picture in the article is a stock photo of a ScanEagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Insitu_ScanEagle) (even though it is claimed Rostec has photos of the captured drone), which has an even shorter range. Incidentally Iran has claimed to have captured a few scaneagles, and gave a replice to a russian air force general at some point.
Not buying it without proof.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 14, 2014, 02:42:47 pm
Not buying it without proof.The article I got it from only mentions Rostec, and says a Russian corporation made the claim, but confirms nothing. I don't really buy it either, just wanted to point out that we are apparently still playing the "self defense forces" charade, even if it's as ridiculous as this.
If only pro-Ukrainian self-defense units could afford an aircraft carrier....Maybe there is one on sale, your hardware stores over there seem like they got everything.
Post by: misko27 on March 14, 2014, 04:04:35 pm
So you would prefer Germany and Japan 1945, total and abject surrender? Not a loaded question mind.I'd say the World is fucked. And everything because they didn't finished Russia in the Cold war. That friendship in 1991 is like If Nazies would remove Hitler from power in 1944 (While Nazi party would rename and remain in power) and then allies agreed to stop the war allowing Germany to have pre-1939 territoryAs I said before: The proper analogy is Germany 1919. A major power is defeated, humiliated, and left with no productive way to re-establish its sense of self-worth. I'm afraid that we'll get a war sooner or later...
I would like to hear more about this well-established thing that I've never heard of.I'd say the World is fucked. And everything because they didn't finished Russia in the Cold war. That friendship in 1991 is like If Nazies would remove Hitler from power in 1944 (While Nazi party would rename and remain in power) and then allies agreed to stop the war allowing Germany to have pre-1939 territoryAs I said before: The proper analogy is Germany 1919. A major power is defeated, humiliated, and left with no productive way to re-establish its sense of self-worth. I'm afraid that we'll get a war sooner or later...
I think some of the same ideas apply to the US - after all, the idea that the US constitution gives us so much trouble because it was never changed after a crushing military defeat is well-established.
While there are complaints about the US constitution, it longevity has had numerous positive effects, notably a very well-ingrained tradition of peaceable transfer of power. It never aspired to be a actual reflection of whatever the present body of US laws were or will be, but a basic framework that would enforce certain constants onto the US government; that is to say, it's basicness and high bar to change makes it tamper-proof, if hard to alter. Even during the most corrupt period of US history the constitution was still holding it above the brink, and was eventually used to help dispel some of the corruption (I am thinking of the 17th amendment). Changing interpretations of it, however, have given some degree of flexibility (the post-civil war government certainly never imagined Gay marriage would ever be a thing, but nonetheless the amendment they passed is now the primary argument in court battles to allow it). It could use a few changes, but it is the keystone through which the US operates, and it does it well. And the US would probably attempt to readopt it if it was ever dissolved by a foreign power, such is it's influence.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Anyway, as I understand it Russian troops are on the Ukrainian border. And Diplomacy continues to do nothing. And the situation is slowly escalating.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 14, 2014, 04:09:39 pm
But yep.
This.I would like to hear more about this well-established thing that I've never heard of.snipAs I said before: The proper analogy is Germany 1919. A major power is defeated, humiliated, and left with no productive way to re-establish its sense of self-worth. I'm afraid that we'll get a war sooner or later...
I think some of the same ideas apply to the US - after all, the idea that the US constitution gives us so much trouble because it was never changed after a crushing military defeat is well-established.
What are you talking about helgo?
Post by: olemars on March 14, 2014, 04:13:00 pm
On the drone- yeah, I think it was announced a while back that the drones were being publicly supplied to Ukraine.
Sources please.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 14, 2014, 04:22:21 pm
Mm, looking for NATO sharing the stuff, closest headline I've found in the 5 minutes of looking is this bugger (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-flying-surveillance-planes-ukraine-border-22871991), (but it's two days after the video post).
Also, according to BBC, Russian troops are currently digging in on the Perekop isthmus. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26503456)Ukrainians also claim that surveillance plane was shot at. Still currently all these militias are probably more to worry about than the military. They seem to be somewhat aggressive towards journalists and if another protest results in a streetfight and they do something stupid, things might escalate quickly.
German FM has announced that the EU will probably issue the next level of sanctions (account and visa stuff) if there is no progress in negotiations by tomorrow.
So, apologies, assume I was incorrect until further notice.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 14, 2014, 04:28:58 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 14, 2014, 04:37:37 pm
Also, Russian supporters and Ukrainian nationalists are fighting in Kharkov at the moment. Shots have been fired. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42556-v-centre-harkova-otkrylas-strelba-po-ljudjam) One person was killed - he was a Russian supporter. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42557-v-hode-perestrelki-v-harkove-pogib-chelovek)
Post by: Aqizzar on March 14, 2014, 04:46:03 pm
Yeah, probably gonna be a war this weekend.
Post by: Darvi on March 14, 2014, 04:47:33 pm
Also also meanwhile: the Russian government has effectively quashed all remaining vestiges of independent media in Russia over the last couple days (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117007/while-west-watches-crimea-putin-cleans-house-moscow), and look prepared to start shutting down access to Twitter et al in Russia and eastern Ukraine. Just like Iran, Egypt, China, Thailand, so on and so forth before them.They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Yeah, probably gonna be a war this weekend.
How did they manage to forget that so quickly. Even I remember that!
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 04:53:17 pm
Also, Russian supporters and Ukrainian nationalists are fighting in Kharkov at the moment. Shots have been fired. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42556-v-centre-harkova-otkrylas-strelba-po-ljudjam) One person was killed - he was a Russian supporter. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42557-v-hode-perestrelki-v-harkove-pogib-chelovek)Russian supporters (The same guys who were the well known titushkas during Maydan) attacked office of Prosvita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosvita) and office of nationalist organization "Patriot of Ukraine"* Looks like they got some resistance. And no police around... That guys should have been arrested long time ago, but our interim government somehow fails to arrest anybody
*Edit. It is Right Sector's office now
Of cause in Russian media it will be - Right Sector from the Westerm Ukraine arrived in Kharkov and started shooting random people
Post by: olemars on March 14, 2014, 04:53:30 pm
Hrm, looks like I got it from back here, but this's actually referred to as a surveilance plane.
Mm, looking for NATO sharing the stuff, closest headline I've found in the 5 minutes of looking is this bugger (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-flying-surveillance-planes-ukraine-border-22871991), (but it's two days after the video post).Also, according to BBC, Russian troops are currently digging in on the Perekop isthmus. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26503456)Ukrainians also claim that surveillance plane was shot at. Still currently all these militias are probably more to worry about than the military. They seem to be somewhat aggressive towards journalists and if another protest results in a streetfight and they do something stupid, things might escalate quickly.
German FM has announced that the EU will probably issue the next level of sanctions (account and visa stuff) if there is no progress in negotiations by tomorrow.
So, apologies, assume I was incorrect until further notice.
The Ukraine border guards operate a few of these surveillance planes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA42#Operators).
The NATO planes mentioned (the Luxembourg Air Force :P ) are E-3 AWACS, huge radar planes based on 707 passenger jets. They can monitor all of Ukraine's airspace (among other things), and probably Turkey for that matter, from within Polish air space.
And I might have an unhealthy interest in military tech...
Post by: olemars on March 14, 2014, 05:26:40 pm
http://www.stopfake.org/en
http://fakecontrol.org/en/
Even factchecking sites like this should of course be read with skepticism since they're as prone to bias as anyone, but at least they provide sources.
Post by: Owlbread on March 14, 2014, 06:32:20 pm
Also, Russiansupportersnationalists and Ukrainian nationalists are fighting in Kharkov at the moment. Shots have been fired. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42556-v-centre-harkova-otkrylas-strelba-po-ljudjam) One person was killed - he was a Russiansupporternationalist. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42557-v-hode-perestrelki-v-harkove-pogib-chelovek)
Fixed that for you.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 14, 2014, 06:36:14 pm
Fixing the fixAlso, RussiansupportersNationalistsImperialists and Ukrainian nationalists are fighting in Kharkov at the moment. Shots have been fired. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42556-v-centre-harkova-otkrylas-strelba-po-ljudjam) One person was killed - he was a Russian supporter. (http://vesti.ua/harkov/42557-v-hode-perestrelki-v-harkove-pogib-chelovek)
Fixed that for you.
Post by: Owlbread on March 14, 2014, 06:42:31 pm
The Oxford English Dictionary definition of Nationalism is "patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts." The pro-Russians in Crimea tick all those boxes, and given that those patriotic feelings, principles and efforts among Russo-Crimeans and other ethnic Russo-Ukrainians are highly politicised, they are most certainly Nationalists.
Now, I am a Scottish Nationalist. I don't hide it though, I make no apologies for who I am or my views, neither does Ukrainian Ranger. I cannot say the same for the irredentists in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2014, 09:18:26 pm
I think the Russian people (!) need to be shown/need to understand that the times of imperialism, that the times of Russia acting as a 'great power' which didn't need to pay much respect to the surrounding countries have gone. And if necessary (which it might not be), that needs to be achieved through - you said it - total surrender. Anything else wouldn't have worked for Germany and Japan, even after their military defeats - the military defeats aren't that vital.So you would prefer Germany and Japan 1945, total and abject surrender? Not a loaded question mind.I'd say the World is fucked. And everything because they didn't finished Russia in the Cold war. That friendship in 1991 is like If Nazies would remove Hitler from power in 1944 (While Nazi party would rename and remain in power) and then allies agreed to stop the war allowing Germany to have pre-1939 territoryAs I said before: The proper analogy is Germany 1919. A major power is defeated, humiliated, and left with no productive way to re-establish its sense of self-worth. I'm afraid that we'll get a war sooner or later...
Maybe this transition can be achieved peacefully, but I wouldn't count on it. We should work towards it anyway, because the only alternative is preparing for the apocalypse while praying it won't happen.
So yes: Germany 1945 is vastly preferrable to Germany 1919. If only because Germany 1939 lies in between.
About that 'well-established' thought: It's actually more of a thing I heard from a friend (who claimed it was an established thought), but it seems plausible. The US constitution contains many archaic bits and pieces - I'm no US citizen, I don't know the details, but the wholee states' rights issue, the second amendment, the fact that the US system is presidential rather than parliamentary*, the death penalty, the fact that you guys elect your judges and so on (seriously, WTF?), and the general lack of positive rights** come to mind. Some of these may not exactly be issues with the constitution, but would have been resolved along with a major post-defeat restructuring. It's about attitudes within society as well: A whole lot of right-wing nutters would not exist/no longer be important, for example.
And at last, a link. (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalstate/decline-influence-united-states-constitution/#)
*It's a miracle you guys never turned into a dictatorship. In any other country the system would collapse within fifty years.
**Compare the first sentence of the first article of the German constitution (actually called the Basic Law, due to historical quirks), the very first law of them all: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." In fact, just compare the US (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and the German (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html) constitution directly, and you'll see what I mean.
Post by: Sergarr on March 14, 2014, 10:11:55 pm
And it's funny to hear from a German citizen about how good a crushing defeat can be.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 14, 2014, 10:46:16 pm
Constitution:
You're making some statements out of left field there. Why would any other country have dissolved into a dictatorship? Outline the problem with electing judges?
Positive rights? You mean the bill of rights? (first 10 amendments to the constitution, pretty much ratified with the constitution simultaneously.)
Critical remarks on that source:
-They seem to be confusing 'amendments' with 'rights' in the first bullet. Which is both ambiguous and seems rather arbitrary, to the point of being nonsensical.
-I'm not really getting the point of bullet two. If the point is 'the second amendment is archaic', I disagree & would rather interpret that statistic through the lens of: this would be one of the first rights to be skipped in the constitutions of less..savory..'democracies'.
Otherwise, I would like to point out the significant role of court decisions when it comes to rights & constitutionality. Such as the freedom of movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law).
-The contrary position as far as 'the constitution is old, therefore it must be antiquated & dysfunctional', is that since it has survived so long, it must not be dysfunctional. Else it would have been replaced just like all the others.
Your friend's views are pretty much antithetical to the views our public school system holds & teaches.
Post by: Zangi on March 14, 2014, 10:56:47 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 14, 2014, 11:11:12 pm
I suppose when you take the national pride out of the education system and general media... and replace it with shame and guilt. You could stamp out Nationalism...I personally think a little national pride is healthy. It's important to take pride in who you are and where you came from, weather it be geographically, culturally, or ancestrally. And I don't care where you are from.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 14, 2014, 11:21:11 pm
I suppose when you take the national pride out of the education system and general media... and replace it with shame and guilt. You could stamp out Nationalism...
Yaaaaay shame and guilt.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 15, 2014, 01:01:22 am
And it's funny to hear from a German citizen about how good a crushing defeat can be.Germany wouldn't be where it is today without that defeat. It's a unique situation however, I'm not sure it's applicable to anywhere else, certainly not at all in Russia today. At least it made us question a lot of things, that is never a bad thing.
I would say, Germany today has some national pride, but jingoistic nationalism is stamped out. Still nationalism and patriotism are more complicated issues than anywhere else.I suppose when you take the national pride out of the education system and general media... and replace it with shame and guilt. You could stamp out Nationalism...I personally think a little national pride is healthy. It's important to take pride in who you are and where you came from, weather it be geographically, culturally, or ancestrally. And I don't care where you are from.
Spoiler: Spoilered for tangent (click to show/hide)
Post by: Descan on March 15, 2014, 02:27:13 am
I'd rather take pride in where I am or want to be, rather than where I come form.I suppose when you take the national pride out of the education system and general media... and replace it with shame and guilt. You could stamp out Nationalism...I personally think a little national pride is healthy. It's important to take pride in who you are and where you came from, weather it be geographically, culturally, or ancestrally. And I don't care where you are from.
See: Scottish Nationalism. And in the personal sense, I'm probably as much English or Irish as I am Scottish, but I'd rather the Scots than the Anglos, so that's why I'm a Scottish-Canadian nationalist than an Anglo-Canadian.
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 04:15:46 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 15, 2014, 04:25:46 am
Spoiler: Continued tangent (click to show/hide)
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2014, 04:29:11 am
Er, Helgoland, you're making the idea of less rivalry as unpalatable as possible there, talking about 'total surrender' & whatnot. Not to mention the idea is unattainable, as it was in the 1990s- you can't make a country go into 'total surrender' if it has nukes. Things would have gotten /really/ dicey when the soviet union collapsed if NATO had gone to occupy them or some shit like that.I'm not saying it's desirable, I'm saying that it might be the only way for Russia to get over their desire to be a dominant power, eye-to-eye with America. Plus I've made suggestions for avoiding such a scenario, but the consensus was that their chance of success was rather low.
On war between nuclear powers: Interestingly, MAD still works in a conventional war - at each point each country does not benefit from using their nukes. Under the assumption that there are no General Rippers, it's completely possible for nuclear powers to attack each other without triggering the apocalypse. There's always the chance that the assumption is false, though...
Spoiler: On the other stuff (click to show/hide)
The problem might be that I blur the line between issues with the constitution and issues with American society; but because the first is shaped by the second, that should not be such a big problem.Sergarr: It may seem weird, but I don't want to imagine what Germany would look like without it. Crushing defeats are often the start of great transormations - Prussia, for example, only became great after the reforms prompted by the Napoleonic occupation. I don't wish for war, but war is better than a string of foul compromises that inhibit true change and renewal.
Getting true change and renewal without shooting each other would be even better, of course.
Ninjaedit: Yeah, it's nice - and it fits the tune of the BRD one! There have been several attempts to stitch the two together. And apparently there was the idea to adapt a Brecht poem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Hymn) as the post-1990 anthem, which... doesn't really seem like such a bad idea. Huh, just found out about this.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 15, 2014, 04:37:25 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2014, 04:50:12 am
In a few days, I'll see the guy I got the idea from - I'll try to get a more detailed account of his view. I hope it's shorter than three beers, though :D
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 04:54:37 am
Also, it's not unique to Germany. In Belgium, no one really know the anthem (We had a very funny video where our prime minister, asked to sing the anthem, started singing the French one). Speaking of the French anthem, it is really violent, as it started as a marching song for the revolutionary army. I remember friends in Austria shocked at the lyrics.
Post by: scrdest on March 15, 2014, 05:07:16 am
On the other hand, it is not clearly something to be actively protected; still, I reckon that it's more of a kind of 'Congress shall make no law' (prohibiting possession of firearms, in this case) thing.
Post by: Helgoland on March 15, 2014, 05:10:16 am
Post by: scrdest on March 15, 2014, 05:13:38 am
I think I made a mistake with that example - the concept doesn't exist in German, it's quite new to me. Better example: Right to food?
Ah, yes, that would be classical positive right. You want food, you have no food, X needs to give you food.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 15, 2014, 06:04:53 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 15, 2014, 06:20:54 am
An interesting article about US shale gas. (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/john-boehners-misleading-argument-on-natural-gas-and-ukraine/)Well, I'm not going to complain if I get both subsidized American natural gas and subsidized Russian natural gas.
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 06:28:11 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2014, 06:28:44 am
I'd get the American magic gas transporters.An interesting article about US shale gas. (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/john-boehners-misleading-argument-on-natural-gas-and-ukraine/)Well, I'm not going to complain if I get both subsidized American natural gas and subsidized Russian natural gas.
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 06:30:25 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2014, 06:54:22 am
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 07:12:49 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2014, 07:34:20 am
The other variant is that Europe doesn't enact any real sanctions. But then it will send a message that Europe is weak.
There's probably the third variant. But I can't see it at the moment.
Post by: Sheb on March 15, 2014, 07:46:38 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 15, 2014, 08:12:03 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2014, 09:03:45 am
Post by: scriver on March 15, 2014, 10:34:44 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 15, 2014, 11:20:57 am
Spoiler: Anti-war protest, Moscow, today (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Putin supporters, Moscow, today (click to show/hide)
That and:
Time Person of the year - check
Hosts Olympic Games - check
Stupid marches - check
Invade neighboring country- check
Post by: XXSockXX on March 15, 2014, 11:44:07 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Again, it really depends on what happens tomorrow at the referendum. There are 2 ways it could go: the somewhat reasonable way, and the batshit insane way. I would prefer the first, to be honest.Actually that depends mostly on Russia, if there is an invasion in Eastern Ukraine, it will get pretty bad. Otherwise, with only the referendum, the EU will just issue the next level of sanctions (visa and acccount stuff affecting 30 high-ranking people). Economic sanctions might follow after that, but negotiations will continue.
Spoiler: Continued tangent (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: More tangent stuff (click to show/hide)
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 15, 2014, 03:07:21 pm
The official statement is that the troops were not invading, merely "responding to an imminent threat of terrorist attack" and it occurred by request of the de facto Crimean PM.
Post by: burningpet on March 15, 2014, 03:20:13 pm
watching the two opposing leaders:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Well, despite my absolute contempt of how the recent Ukraine government was established, putin is really stepping out of line and needs to be stopped.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 15, 2014, 03:20:55 pm
Russia has moved troops out of Crimea into the Ukraine proper. there was a clash with Ukrainian border defenses, and the Russian's emerged victorious.Clash is a loud word here. One more starring match
The official statement is that the troops were not invading, merely "responding to an imminent threat of terrorist attack" and it occurred by request of the de facto Crimean PM.
Post by: Ghazkull on March 15, 2014, 04:05:00 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 15, 2014, 04:47:49 pm
Post by: scriver on March 15, 2014, 05:10:31 pm
People watch those events as if watching football matches and pick a side by the most superficial reasons (messi is cute, ronaldo is handsome).
watching the two opposing leaders:putin is really stepping out of line and needs to be stopped.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I'm sad that people can look at pictures like that and not think it's utterly ridiculous.
Post by: Sergarr on March 15, 2014, 05:27:02 pm
EDIT: And that image is ridiculous. Who's the guy on the right, though?
Post by: Knit tie on March 15, 2014, 05:33:13 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 15, 2014, 06:55:07 pm
One thing I never understood is that in large areas of the internet, Putin is considered awesome.Well, I can partially understand how common people in Russia can think that someone like Putin is needed to lead the country, with all the corruption in the system and oligarchs running amok. Conditions like that practicaly beg for support for totalitarian regime to purge the system, no mater how misguided and manipulated said support is. But outside Russia? Fuck, these people would probably vote for
To me, he's always (not recently, ALWAYS) seemed like a dick.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 15, 2014, 07:01:26 pm
Were any shots fired in the confrontation?No. A gas plant 10km north of the Crimean border was occupied though.
People watch those events as if watching football matches and pick a side by the most superficial reasons (messi is cute, ronaldo is handsome).That might be true for some people. I'm more concerned that there might be a war pretty close. If I start driving right now, I'm in Ukraine in under 2 days. So, that's not a place I want to see sink into chaos, not even considering the WW3 speculation stuff.
As expected the UN security council failed in their vote against the Crimea referendum, due to the Russian veto. However, China abstained from voting, so they are not throwing their support behind Putin.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 15, 2014, 07:34:10 pm
So absurd. >_<
Post by: XXSockXX on March 15, 2014, 07:43:39 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 15, 2014, 07:45:58 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 15, 2014, 08:01:02 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 15, 2014, 08:02:08 pm
China's attitude is not surprising. I heard people predict they wouldn't be cool with Russia a month ago, at least.Yes, because while they have so far backed Russia politically, they have no economic interest in a renewed Cold War style division of the world.
Post by: misko27 on March 15, 2014, 09:17:47 pm
On the other hand, Russia. Russia is China's big ole partner. They do business together, they both used to be part of the eastern bloc, they stand against the west together. Not supporting Russia is betrayal.
On a third hand, China has invested a lot in Ukraine. That's some real monies right there man. Money means a lot to the modern day merchant state.
China is trying very, very hard to pretend it doesn't exist.
One thing I never understood is that in large areas of the internet, Putin is considered awesome.Well unlike a certain country I can think of, Russia has, largely, had a free internet (although there has been some subtle things going on. Nothing overt until 2012, and the serious enforcement appears to be coming out now). There is no "Great firewall of Russia" type deal going on, and no censor army the size of Detroit. Thus, Russians are more or less part of the Confederacy of the Greater Interwebz like most nations. Maybe an autonomous region (lol, autonomous in a confederacy. What would that even mean?)
To me, he's always (not recently, ALWAYS) seemed like a dick.
So it seems Russia is moving to secure regions near Crimea. That makes sense; there has been a lot of talk about how Russia would handle Crimea if Ukraine pulled the plug on them.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 04:48:25 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Note the glass boxes, no pressure there, just transparency. (I've read though that is common in Ukraine, which would explain that.)
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 04:51:16 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 04:56:41 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 04:59:35 am
Well, the glass boxes aren't problematic. It's not like Yes and No votes have to go in separate boxes, so the material really doesn't matter.I wasn't sure on the separate boxes, so yeah, that might not be a problem. Still it's not really a secret vote I think, at least not something I've seen before.
I am wondering what the numbers will be. Will they try to remain in the realm of plausibility?Well, they said they expect over 80% for Russia, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they got 80%. Something between 60% and 70% would be plausible I guess, considering ethnicities and pressure.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 05:02:58 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 05:23:03 am
I've read that Belarus, Kasachstan and Kirgistan are more or less distancing themselves from the Russian course of action here, which goes to show how much diplomatic influence this costs Putin.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 06:51:46 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 07:00:19 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 16, 2014, 07:39:29 am
I actually like the DDR anthem a lot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auferstanden_aus_Ruinen)The anthem of Oceania (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6psBoDDJUo) from the film adaptation of Orwell's "1984" seems to be inspired by it. Just compare it to the GDR anthem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_er_CuUiWU), especially the instrumental version of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zGFZNinsk).
I'm sorry guys, I haven't kept track of last 50 pages, and maybe this video from ZDF (Die Anstalt show) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGOUoPSIa4s) was already posted. If not, there it went.
The translation is rather bad. Judging by what I have understood, I want to say one thing.
[liberalmode]These people can't understand a damn thing. As we all know, and as the most truthful and democratic Western media say, the free people of Ukraine have peacefully overthrown the totalitarian dictator installed and backed by Russia, and they did that all by themselves, without any foreign support; there were no radical nationalists and neo-Nazis among them, everyone who says otherwise repeat Putin's propaganda.
Today, these satirists condemn the peaceful Ukrainian democratic revolution, and it's very likely that Russia paid them to do that. Tomorrow, they will praise Putin (who is basically the reincarnation of Hitler, or maybe even worse, the reincarnation of Stalin) invading the EU. The day after tomorrow, they will praise the return of Stasi![/liberalmode]
Post by: scrdest on March 16, 2014, 07:45:50 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 07:55:45 am
I'm sorry guys, I haven't kept track of last 50 pages, and maybe this video from ZDF (Die Anstalt show) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGOUoPSIa4s) was already posted. If not, there it went.
The translation is rather bad. Judging by what I have understood, I want to say one thing.
[liberalmode]These people can't understand a damn thing. As we all know, and as the most truthful and democratic Western media say, the free people of Ukraine have peacefully overthrown the totalitarian dictator installed and backed by Russia, and they did that all by themselves, without any foreign support; there were no radical nationalists and neo-Nazis among them, everyone who says otherwise repeat Putin's propaganda.
Today, these satirists condemn the peaceful Ukrainian democratic revolution, and it's very likely that Russia paid them to do that. Tomorrow, they will praise Putin (who is basically the reincarnation of Hitler, or maybe even worse, the reincarnation of Stalin) invading the EU. The day after tomorrow, they will praise the return of Stasi![/liberalmode]
Well, I actually found this video with russian subtitles first, and then looked for a decent analog with english ones. I cannot judge about translation (I mean how much it is relevant to the point of speaker) due to the fact I do not speak German.
Also, I liked that liberal opinion...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scriver on March 16, 2014, 07:59:05 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2014, 08:29:49 am
Guardian, stop hoarding all the straw, you're raising the prices for the rest of us.Dirty capistalist, you!
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 08:43:44 am
Post by: Willfor on March 16, 2014, 10:18:03 am
That's ... not actually a straw man. That's a simple accusation. You're not painting a picture of his arguments as the most easy to defeat. You're just calling him racist for no appreciable reason . . .That's racist!Guardian, stop hoarding all the straw, you're raising the prices for the rest of us.Dirty capistalist, you!
There we go, now I have some straw for a bed :P
Post by: Willfor on March 16, 2014, 10:32:13 am
I can construct them purposefully! But I find myself constructing them accidentally far more often.Great.That's ... not actually a straw man. That's a simple accusation. You're not painting a picture of his arguments as the most easy to defeat. You're just calling him racist for no appreciable reason . . .That's racist!Guardian, stop hoarding all the straw, you're raising the prices for the rest of us.Dirty capistalist, you!
There we go, now I have some straw for a bed :P
I can accidentally construct strawmen, but have no clue how to do so purposefully.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2014, 10:32:21 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 16, 2014, 12:34:11 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 12:35:52 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 16, 2014, 12:44:21 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 12:47:51 pm
For all intents and purposes South Ossetia and Transnistria are subjects/republics of the Russian Federation, but problems with international recognition and hostility mean they are forced to be de facto independent countries. They were formed however with clear "independence" mandates, not mandates for joining Russia. I don't know if that means Crimea will be a very unique entity, more clearly a federal subject but almost Kashmir-like given the lack of international recognition and disputed sovereignty.
In any case, from now on any maps purchased in the West will probably show a dotted line around Crimea with "Russia" written in grey italics next to it.
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2014, 01:11:49 pm
Spoiler: Has this infographic been posted yet? (click to show/hide)
If Ukraine joined NATO and then tried to retake Crimea, what would happen?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 01:18:04 pm
Spoiler: Has this infographic been posted yet? (click to show/hide)
If Ukraine joined NATO and then tried to retake Crimea, what would happen?
WWIII.
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 01:19:14 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 01:20:33 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Interesting what turnout they'll announce
Comrade P.
WW3 will happen anyway, either now or several years later when Russia will do something that West can't tolerate, like occupying Baltic states
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 16, 2014, 01:53:35 pm
I'd wager for that reason (among others) Ukraine won't get to join.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 02:01:44 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 02:08:02 pm
Comrade P.
WW3 will happen anyway, either now or several years later when Russia will do something that West can't tolerate, like occupying Baltic states
Ahem. [sarcasm]Comrade Russian Foreign Mininster! Why you reveal yourself and our top secret plans?[/sarcasm]
Seiously.W hat is the reason that makes you think this way? Why the fuck Russia should escalate conflict? In order to do what? Start a WWIII? This is not the russian goal. Nobody wants WWIII. Or maybe some of you guys? Anyone? No?
Looks like another genocide of Crimean Tatars begins (http://ukraineinvestigation.com/the-dead-сrimean-tatar-man-tortured-to-death-was-found-in-crimea/) :(Did someone said something about biased media? Should I spam you with plenty of sources telling of genocide performed by right sector?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2014, 02:11:53 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 02:24:25 pm
Quote
Seiously.W hat is the reason that makes you think this way? Why the fuck Russia should escalate conflict? In order to do what? Start a WWIII? This is not the russian goal. Nobody wants WWIII. Or maybe some of you guys? Anyone? No?I bet that average German in 1939 would say - "no, we don't want a new Great War. For what? Nobody want the second Great War. We are a peaceful nation. "
I don't believe that Russian invasion will stop with Crimea. It's a nonsense to launch an expensive military operation, ruin diplomatic capital and hit domestic economics in exchange for a underdeveloped poor region (Even by Ukrainian standard Crimea is poor 3% of GDP, while 4.3% of territory and 4-5% of population), that will be further hit by all that instability. Doing the same in exchange for industrial part of Ukraine and\or placing Yanukovitch back in power is much more logical.
Post by: Bauglir on March 16, 2014, 02:30:58 pm
Why the fuck Russia should escalate conflict? In order to do what? Start a WWIII? This is not the russian goal. Nobody wants WWIII. Or maybe some of you guys? Anyone? No?Nobody wanted what WW1 turned out to be, either. When people predict WW3, it's not a prediction of scheming masterminds bringing down the world, it's a prediction of somebody getting overconfident or making a mistake or otherwise taking a gamble that doesn't pay off. We had a Cold War for a reason, although I'm not saying you can equate modern-day Russia with the Soviet Union in all ways - just that you can equate nearly any nuclear-armed state with the Soviet Union for the purposes of predicting the efficacy of military deterrence.
Saying WW3 is impossible is disturbingly similar to some advice that came up during the Cuban Missile Crisis: No rational person would choose nuclear war. Therefore, there could be no possible response to an attack by a nation armed with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the best option for the US to resolve a diplomatic problem was to bomb the shit out of it. Hopefully, it's obvious why that's insane. Basically, it's not a realistic strategy to assume that nobody will choose an option that no rational actor would choose - there are a lot of reasons why, and I highly recommend studying this stuff for a better explanation than I can ever give over a forum, but things can happen that nobody wants. Game theory's a good place to start, although it tends to have the troublesome assumption that everyone involved is rational. Again, bringing up the Soviet Union is kind of a coincidence, since this thinking kind of applies to everyone, but here we are.
I don't know the politics well enough to say how likely some kind of WW3 scenario actually is to spring from Russian actions, but I know enough about human nature to say you should never rule something out because it's too terrible to contemplate.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 02:41:37 pm
You say that Crimea is underdeveloped. Maybe. But it still has important naval bases. Pplus, they had referendum and such. Any news about russian troops in Donetzk? Harkiv? Lugansk?
And you continue plotting russian external political course by yoursef. Sounds like you know better what Russia will do than Russia herself.
Baulgir, I noticed your post. I have read and considrered it, though I do те agree with all of your points. But the general idea is clear. I just would not like to debate about the soviet/US thematics at all.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 02:47:35 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 02:48:59 pm
Post by: DJ on March 16, 2014, 02:49:47 pm
Comparisons of Putin with Hitler are cropping up simply because Crimea has a multitude of similarities to Sudetenland.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 16, 2014, 02:53:24 pm
Closest analogue I can get is (again) nazi germany, and France. When France surrendered, germany completely annexed Alsace and Lorraine, and turned the northern half of France into a german dominion. South was puppeted, but "free". Inhabitants of the southern half were worried that germany wouldn't stop there, and they were right.
So there is precedent and while the situation is very different, there is enough similarities for worries about Russia going full-annexation to be valid.
That doesn't mean Russia will go balls-out and annex all of Ukraine, but it still may.
Post by: Sergarr on March 16, 2014, 02:54:24 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 16, 2014, 02:56:13 pm
Come on, "coming genocide"? Russia is full of non-Russians, it's not like they couldn't accommodate Tatars.Fun fact: a lot of Tatars live in Russia, mostly in Tatarstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan).
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 03:05:19 pm
Quote
You say that Crimea is underdeveloped. Maybe. But it still has important naval bases.You see... that base is important ONLY if you plan a large war in the region later. Even if new Ukrainian government would decide to kick out the Russian Navy tommorow (impossible) Russia could easily rebase most of the fleet to Novorossiysk, and larger vessels to ports in other seas. Later Novorossiysk can be easily upgraded and it will cost way less then the Olympics and will provide workplaces
Quote
Plus, they had referendum and such. Any news about russian troops in Donetzk? Harkiv? Lugansk?Nope, they are just concentrated near the borders and we have various strange people including Russian citizens among them doing weird stuff, like capturing administrative building to put Russian flag on it
Quote
Come on, "coming genocide"? Russia is full of non-Russians, it's not like they couldn't accommodate Tatars.Let's not forget how Russians accommodated Chechnya.
Quote
Fun fact: a lot of Tatars live in Russia, mostly in Tatarstan.Another fun fact, that Tatars is different nation. If you call a Crimean Tatar a Tatar without Crimean part he will get offended
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 03:14:13 pm
QuotePlus, they had referendum and such. Any news about russian troops in Donetzk? Harkiv? Lugansk?Nope, they are just concentrated near the borders and we have various strange people including Russian citizens among them doing weird stuff, like capturing administrative building to put Russian flag on it
As far as I know, right now they are not so willing to secede as Crimeans, more like federalize. Like, let us maintain ourselves rather than oligarchs sent from Kiev.
Russian flags... Well, they chose it as an opposing symbol, I guess. With all the subtext it bears.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 03:16:16 pm
Like, let us maintain ourselves rather than oligarchs sent from Kiev.
Rather have proper Kremlinized oligarchs anyways.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 03:24:24 pm
Quote
As far as I know, right now they are not so willing to secede as Crimeans, more like federalize.So... let me think... One country annexes part of the territory and then supports forces inside the country to increase autonomy of various regions to swallow that weakened, (semi)disintegrated state a bit latter
Hello Germany vs Czechoslovakia 1938-1939!
OK, Hitler shared with other countries and allowed "independent" Slovakia. but other than that...
If Russia is keen to copypaste ideas from the past. I suggest to blow up the Cruiser "Moskva" and blame Ukrainians. That worked in 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1))
Post by: stabbymcstabstab on March 16, 2014, 03:36:37 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 03:41:59 pm
Hey the Maine was actually pure accident, the media just blame it on the Spanish. A better way to do it would be kill a dozen or so Russian civilians in Crimea and dress up some Ukrainians in military uniforms and gun them down as a accuse.UR was alluding to the relatively popular theory that the US blew up their own ship in order to start a war.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 03:46:58 pm
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 16, 2014, 03:52:41 pm
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 16, 2014, 03:59:15 pm
As for the benefits of this whole affair - foreign relations may have taken a hit, but the popularity of the government and national morale in general has improved tremendously. I have never liked my country's politicians much, but I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised that my government has taken measures to protect and support the place where my family lives. As such, I don't think any further military intervention is required, because with the retarded way the new government of Ukraine has been going about business, it'll fall apart all by itself in short order. And then everybody in Ukraine can see for themselves the benefits of eurointegration. We had one in Russia - mom still tells frightening tales about there being no bread in shops for weeks, and the river vale in front of my house still has all those little plots of land where people - people in Moscow, mind you - used to grow potatoes to feed themselves.
Now the Tatars. Tatar genocide by Russians is a fucking ridiculous idea. First of all, the Tatars in Crimea are far better organized than the Russians. They are not frightened little lambs - they're people who can make others respect them with force. Back in the nineties, they used to evict people from premises because apparently, the bones of their ancestors lie in the foundations, and move in. If anyone tries anything against them, they will give us the guerilla war that UR has been so loftily blabbing about before. This leads smoothly into my second point. Those times are long past. The Tatar and Russian populations of Crimea have been living in peace for twenty years. My grandfather's institute has plenty of Tatar scientists. A lot of Crimean Russians are half- or quarter-Tatar. We're all buddy-buddy. Third, Ukrainians whining about the rights of Tatars are starting to piss me off, because the Ukrainian government has been stepping all over those for the whole period of Ukrainian occupation (this is the word I will use: it was one. I was there, I know.), with the exception of short periods when it needed them to counterweigh the Russian population. Tatar support for Ukraine (already negligible - where's the boycott we were promised?) will fade quickly, because Russia can give them and their language and culture long-term rights and privileges as a sovereign people, unlike the government of Ukraine, which is only interested in the rights of Ukrainians - make that right Ukrainians.
All in all, you guys may say whatever you want (make no mistake, I love you all, it's just that you don't know shit about Crimea, Russia, Ukraine, or anything east of Tallin), and I will live and work in the homeland of my father. It looks like it will need me in the upcoming period.
P.S. As for provocations, I wonder whose train full of soldiers and military hardware was recently stopped in Donetsk. It wasn't mine for sure, this I know.
Post by: scrdest on March 16, 2014, 04:02:10 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 04:05:49 pm
Post by: ivze on March 16, 2014, 04:09:34 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 16, 2014, 04:14:50 pm
We haven't seen such a new year, as we are having here now. We are all drunk and happy :DI look at the ongoing events and the escalating Russo-Western conflict with a little bit of worry. If WW3 begins, I'll be conscripted into the army once general mobilization is announced, unlike many of you Western folks.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 04:17:35 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2014, 04:19:34 pm
-snip-Heh, the German army is shite - if we ever need to deploy large amounts of people, conscription willl come back faster than a fighter jet. I might be able to get around it, but most won't. You can't fight a large scale war without conscription nowadays.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 04:24:16 pm
And then everybody in Ukraine can see for themselves the benefits of eurointegration. We had one in Russia - mom still tells frightening tales about there being no bread in shops for weeks, and the river vale in front of my house still has all those little plots of land where people - people in Moscow, mind you - used to grow potatoes to feed themselves.Eurointegration has very little to with both of these really.
Post by: Frumple on March 16, 2014, 04:27:25 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 04:28:21 pm
You know, UR, it is strange to hear your country being compared with nazi Germany by a man who has a revolutionary-nationalist government.
It's so tiring when people say stuff like that. The Ukrainian government is not a revolutionary nationalist government. They are not Pravy Sektor and they are not even Svoboda, given that Svoboda are very minor partners in the coalition.
The Ukrainian government are Liberals with pro-Ukrainian sympathies. That means they advocate the promotion of the Ukrainian language over Russian as the sole official language, and want to promote Ukrainian culture and so on and so forth. They are, however, fundamentally Liberal in the European sense, but quite socially Conservative given their opposition to gay marriage etc. They stand for the old pro-Ukrainian oligarchy more than anything else.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 16, 2014, 04:34:58 pm
Can you tell us more about what you call the Ukrainian occupation?Sure as heck. The most noticeable aspect was that everything state- beginning with voting bulletins and ending with nameplates on schools and hospitals - got converted into Ukrainian. Russian in schools was demoted to secondary language - that in a region where 90+% of the population speaks it - and Ukrainian was instated in its place. The grammar of this wondrous language used to change from year to year, because apparently, the folks up Kiev way couldn't decide which way was more Ukrainian. The TV constantly blared that Russia this and Russia that, Russia eats children and rapes honest Ukrainian cattle, which is the oldest and most advanced cattle in the world - this in a region where 70% of the population self-identifies as Russian. All the funds those folks spent on Crimea went into anti-Russian propaganda - my grandfather's house used to have hot water for two hours in the morning, and one in the evening for twenty years. Every single billboard bore the face of some fat-ass western politician, not one of which was interested in Crimean well-being. Research institutes were closed and no shit ever got done. My grandfather is one of the people who created the geological map of Crimea - he's the chief geologist. He has been reduced to selling his old work to a bunch of thieves, who have gotten his institute shut. That's what it was like. And through all this, the bastards in the west - those same bastards who are now in government - told us that we were not "nationally conscious" enough, and that we needed to be more loyal to our country. Fuck them. We are.
It's just going to be fun pulling up most of these posts next time something similar like this happens. Hope you guys are atleast consistent in your support for illegal occupations and annexation.I hope you are consistent in your support for gangs of nationalist bandits and one-culture states. Eat your heart out: I have lived in Crimea and I will live there again. You never have and never will, and yet you talk so much, one might think you're an expert.
What, you mean you DON'T have a military regiment of your own, or just that you didn't deploy it? If the former, sir, I am disappoint. How did you circumvent the Submit Your Regiment's ID part of forum registration?If I had one, someone - let's not point fingers - would have noticed that by now. It's good that I don't, because that would have been unwise from a political standpoint.
You know, UR, it is strange to hear your country being compared with nazi Germany by a man who has a revolutionary-nationalist government.
It's so tiring when people say stuff like that. The Ukrainian government is not a revolutionary nationalist government. They are not Pravy Sektor and they are not even Svoboda, given that Svoboda are very minor partners in the coalition.
The Ukrainian government are Liberals with pro-Ukrainian sympathies. That means they advocate the promotion of the Ukrainian language over Russian as the sole official language, and want to promote Ukrainian culture and so on and so forth. They are, however, fundamentally Liberal in the European sense, but quite socially Conservative given their opposition to gay marriage etc. They stand for the old pro-Ukrainian oligarchy more than anything else.
And that's good how? The Ukrainian oligarchy doesn't care for anything but its pockets, and the only "liberal" thing they're gonna do is promote laws that benefit those pockets. It's like the nineties all over again. You know, people here were enthusiastic about the Soviet Union falling, being friends and all with the West - and then it turned out it wasn't going to feed them. It isn't going to feed Ukraine either. And the people who suffer will not be the oligarchs.
Brb, sleep.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 04:37:38 pm
... y'know, it's sorta' been bothering me. If it does come down to conventional warfare, why would it be WW3? Russia seems to be pissing off or cutting ties with pretty much everyone, not just the west. If things do go hot, what coalition is going to follow the belligerent nation into the fire, especially considering most other non-western powers have serious economic ties with western ones? Russia seems to think it can weather the almost certainly incoming recession that's going to come from pissing all over international diplomacy, but why would anyone else want to follow them down that path?I think the WWIII comes more from the fear of atomic annihilation, rather than a world wide war.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 16, 2014, 04:38:49 pm
It's just going to be fun pulling up most of these posts next time something similar like this happens. Hope you guys are at least consistent in your support for illegal occupations and annexation.
And you are an ever-right politically correct and the only adequate person here, aren't you?
Plus, legality of Crimean annexation is under heavy debate all along. And not just on forums.
Okay. One thing I really missed - the Right Sector (or Pravy Sector, whatever you like) and current government are not the same guys. But the Right Sector is nationalist. I now recall that guy who was interviewed by BBC on Maidan (link was posted here earlier) - the one who said "One nation, one country, one leader. No, we won't do like Hitler, well, not like, maybe just a bit..."You know, UR, it is strange to hear your country being compared with nazi Germany by a man who has a revolutionary-nationalist government.
It's so tiring when people say stuff like that. The Ukrainian government is not a revolutionary nationalist government. They are not Pravy Sektor and they are not even Svoboda, given that Svoboda are very minor partners in the coalition.
The Ukrainian government are Liberals with pro-Ukrainian sympathies. That means they advocate the promotion of the Ukrainian language over Russian as the sole official language, and want to promote Ukrainian culture and so on and so forth. They are, however, fundamentally Liberal in the European sense, but quite socially Conservative given their opposition to gay marriage etc. They stand for the old pro-Ukrainian oligarchy more than anything else.
Feelin' myself stupid each time Avis posts. :(
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 16, 2014, 04:41:33 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2014, 04:45:55 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 04:48:20 pm
Comrade P: There is no arguing that the annexation of Crimea was illegal under international an Ukrainian law. Whether it's legitimate can be discussed, but its illegality cannot.
Avis: I get your disgust for Western oligarchs, but were things better in the rest of Ukraine? Or in Russia? It seems the 90's were pretty bleak all over the place.
Anyway, the kleptocracy is not the same thing as euro-integration. Those countries that did integrate and joined the EU are doing better than Russia or Ukraine that did not.
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 04:51:07 pm
Sure as heck. The most noticeable aspect was that everything state- beginning with voting bulletins and ending with nameplates on schools and hospitals - got converted into Ukrainian. Russian in schools was demoted to secondary language - that in a region where 90+% of the population speaks it - and Ukrainian was instated in its place.
It's so funny how Russians cannot under any circumstances take what they've dished out to countless nations and peoples. The minute they're under serious threat from a nation powerful enough to subjugate them (see Mongols and Nazi Germany) it defines them in ways virtually nothing else can. When you were talking about the Russian language in schools I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Quote
And through all this, the bastards in the west - those same bastards who are now in government - told us that we were not "nationally conscious" enough, and that we needed to be more loyal to our country. Fuck them. We are.
I'm sure Russia is big enough for all of you.
Quote
I hope you are consistent in your support for gangs of nationalist bandits and one-culture states. Eat your heart out: I have lived in Crimea and I will live there again. You never have and never will, and yet you talk so much, one might think you're an expert.
And so commenceth the insufferable "You don't even live here, silly foreigner!" arguments.
Quote
And that's good how? The Ukrainian oligarchy doesn't care for anything but its pockets, and the only "liberal" thing they're gonna do is promote laws that benefit those pockets. It's like the nineties all over again. You know, people here were enthusiastic about the Soviet Union falling, being friends and all with the West - and then it turned out it wasn't going to feed them. It isn't going to feed Ukraine either. And the people who suffer will not be the oligarchs.
You will notice at no point have I praised or expressed support for the people in government in Ukraine right now. I agree with their approach to the National question but I am a Socialist. I have no time for them or for the rightists that govern Russia and Belarus and will soon govern Crimea.
Okay. One thing I really missed - the Right Sector (or Pravy Sector, whatever you like) and current government are not the same guys. But the Right Sector is nationalist. I now recall that guy who was interviewed by BBC on Maidan (link was posted here earlier) - the one who said "One nation, one country, one leader. No, we won't do like Hitler, well, not like, maybe just a bit..."
Right Sector and Svoboda (the most junior partners in the coalition that governs Ukraine) are far-right and Nationalist. You are completely correct, and you could argue that the government in Ukraine is quite Nationalistic in their promotion of Ukrainian and so on, but they're really more Liberal than anything else.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 04:53:05 pm
Quote
foreign relations may have taken a hit, but the popularity of the government and national morale in general has improved tremendously.Jingoism on the march. I wonder what will happen with the national morale when effects of the upcoming recession will hit Russian economics
Quote
As such, I don't think any further military intervention is required, because with the retarded way the new government of Ukraine has been going about business, it'll fall apart all by itself in short order.Common Russian belief - Ukrainians are retards who can't manage their own country.
You know what the difference with your country? A colony named Siberia, That one. With Oil and Gas
Quote
A lot of Crimean Russians are half- or quarter-Tatar.So what? That never was a problem in any genocide
Quote
Now the Tatars. Tatar genocide by Russians is a fucking ridiculous idea.Sure. And Tatars just forgot 1944
Quote
Back in the nineties, they used to evict people from premises because apparently, the bones of their ancestors lie in the foundations, and move inMostly because of support of Ukrainian government and they failed to get most of their homes back, getting inferior land.
Quote
Third, Ukrainians whining about the rights of Tatars are starting to piss me off, because the Ukrainian government has been stepping all over thoseUnfortunately it is true... Ukrainian government did almost nothing for Crimean Tatars You see, most of the time we had government that huge majority of Crimeans voted for, including Yanukovitch who got 75%+ of votes in Crimea. So yep, Crimean Tatars didn't got enough support from the Government, because it was pro-Russian and that exactly what Russians of Crimea wanted. That is especially true for the local government of Crimea.
Quote
for the whole period of Ukrainian occupationYou made me laugh here
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 04:54:49 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 04:55:17 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 05:11:43 pm
Post by: scriver on March 16, 2014, 05:12:17 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 16, 2014, 05:15:16 pm
RT is reporting 95% of yes vote, with around half of the ballots counted. (http://www.rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/)So, what does everyone think? Is it a fixed vote? Do they genuinely want to join Russia? Should the referendum even be recognized by the international community?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 05:16:10 pm
I really want to hear your explanation why it is a righteous way to act
Post by: olemars on March 16, 2014, 05:16:24 pm
P.S. As for provocations, I wonder whose train full of soldiers and military hardware was recently stopped in Donetsk. It wasn't mine for sure, this I know.
So Ukraine is moving Ukrainian military units around inside Ukraine and feel a need to beef up alertness by the border? I guess russian media isn't mentioning much about the large russian military exercises that suddenly and conveniently began a couple of days ago right next to Donetsk and Kharkiv (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26564846).
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2014, 05:17:16 pm
Yes, probably, definitely not.RT is reporting 95% of yes vote, with around half of the ballots counted. (http://www.rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/)So, what does everyone think? Is it a fixed vote? Do they genuinely want to join Russia? Should the referendum even be recognized by the international community?
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 05:18:26 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 16, 2014, 05:19:10 pm
Lagslayer: definitely fixed, although it is entirely possible that a majority of Crimeans wants to join, there is no way 95 percents of Crimea support independence. You've got something like 20% of ethnic Ukrainians living there, I don't believe over 75% of them support joining Russia.40% ethnic Ukrainians, 15% Crimean Tatars, IIRC.
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:19:48 pm
How many more pro ukraine basses are there on crimea left?
RT is reporting 95% of yes vote, with around half of the ballots counted. (http://www.rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/)Hmm, 81,37% people voted, that is a surprise if its true. Does it mean Tatars also voted?
Edit: Nevermind, they say in that link that they also voted
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 05:20:58 pm
Hmm, 81,37% people voted, that is a surprise if its true. Does it mean Tatars also voted?
There were requirements to vote; i.e. being supportive or neutral on Russia's occupation.
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 05:21:45 pm
miljan: The article claims Tatars voted en mass for joining Russia.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 16, 2014, 05:22:25 pm
miljan: The article claims Tatars voted en mass for joining Russia.There you go.
Mict: source?
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:22:38 pm
Hmm, 81,37% people voted, that is a surprise if its true. Does it mean Tatars also voted?
There were requirements to vote; i.e. being supportive or neutral on Russia's occupation.
How I understand it is, will crimea be in russia or be part of ukraine with more autonomy
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:24:30 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 05:29:25 pm
miljan: The article claims Tatars voted en mass for joining Russia.There you go.
Mict: source?
https://twitter.com/MaximEristavi/status/445157314157215747/photo/1
Correction, looks like they just bussed in voters. :)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/amid-vote-preparations-in-ukraines-crimea-allegations-of-poll-rigging-intimidation/2014/03/15/1d8b4c54-ac7f-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_story.html
And dead people.
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/16/why-the-crimean-referendum-is-a-manipulation-10-facts-you-should-know/
And pro-russian 'protestors' are the people who control the voting booths/voter lists are made up on the spot.
If it smells and looks like it.. You know the idea.
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 05:31:02 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 16, 2014, 05:37:01 pm
But she's holding an Ukrainian passport!Comments say it's "temporary registration ID as a foreigner"... don't know what that is.
Post by: olemars on March 16, 2014, 05:37:52 pm
Spoiler: Interesting touch on the concept of secret ballots (click to show/hide)
As for eastern Ukraine, it seems clear what'll happen if Crimean leaders have a say (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/russia-or-ukraine-polls-close-crimeas-referendum-n53831)
Quote
But local politicians here in Crimea are speaking optimistically about expanding Russia's reach into other areas of Ukraine.
During an interview with NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel, Crimea's Deputy Prime Minister called Sunday's referendum "the first step."
"It's the first step. I really think so," the deputy prime minister, Rustam Temirgaliev, said. "I think the second step will be eastern Ukraine."
There's another gem later in the article about the vote:
Quote
Later, during a brief interview with NBC NEWS on Sunday, the monitor, Serge Trifkovic, a Serbian-American foreign affairs commentator, described the results of the referendum as "pre-ordained."
NBC News encountered Trifkovic in a downtown Simferopol square, where he said he was on lunch break from his monitoring duties.
"Let's face it," Trifkovic said. "Such referenda are not meant to be lost."
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:43:25 pm
Spoiler: Interesting touch on the concept of secret ballots (click to show/hide)
What is wrong with that?
Post by: Darvi on March 16, 2014, 05:44:07 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 05:48:52 pm
Spoiler: some old polls (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 16, 2014, 05:49:59 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 05:50:11 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 05:51:34 pm
Also, they could have selected only those who definetly supported joining Russia.
According to this: http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf The vote would have been closer to 50% and looks like a good deal were happy with being an autonomous state.
Opinions could have changed since the protests started though.
Edit: Ukranian ranger beat me to the link, but yes, 95% seems very odd when you include the ethnic ukranians and tatars.
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:51:48 pm
You can see what the last person voted.
Well, you can and can not, depends how it drops. So no, it does not make it non secret. The practice anyway is to make clear boxes, but when you vote you can fold over the paper, so things like this dont happen.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 05:55:29 pm
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 05:58:38 pm
The CNN ticker said that remaining with the Ukraine (whether as an autonomous state or not) was NOT an option on the ballot and what with the 95%, yeah something's up because as Helgoland said, there are about 40% ethnic Ukranians living in Crimea.
Also, they could have selected only those who definetly supported joining Russia.
According to this: http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf The vote would have been closer to 50% and looks like a good deal were happy with being an autonomous state.
Opinions could have changed since the protests started though.
Edit: Ukranian ranger beat me to the link, but yes, 95% seems very odd when you include the ethnic ukranians and tatars.
Hmm, than CNN lies (i think).
Here is the thing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797
Can someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraine (i think)
No, the reason they do that is to make sure they can see what the person voted. Remove it accordingly, and make sure to intimidate the person on their way home to make it full circle.Dude :). I mean really. Stop posting nonsense without any proofs.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 06:00:06 pm
The only way to reach such turnout %'s matched with a ridiculously high supportive percentage is, in fact, through manipulation.
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 06:01:05 pm
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 06:01:43 pm
Hard to get any facts when the only journalists allowed to be around are Kremlin loyalists.
Dude, that is not correct. Anyone from journalists can be there. Stop posting nonsense.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:02:06 pm
No, the reason they do that is to make sure they can see what the person voted. Remove it accordingly, and make sure to intimidate the person on their way home to make it full circle.
What's the REAL purpose of the clear boxes then?
Seeing how Putin supposedly got 140% of the vote (so I heard), he is obviously not above rigging votes.
The CNN ticker said that remaining with the Ukraine (whether as an autonomous state or not) was NOT an option on the ballot and what with the 95%, yeah something's up because as Helgoland said, there are about 40% ethnic Ukranians living in Crimea.
Also, they could have selected only those who definetly supported joining Russia.
According to this: http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf The vote would have been closer to 50% and looks like a good deal were happy with being an autonomous state.
Opinions could have changed since the protests started though.
Edit: Ukranian ranger beat me to the link, but yes, 95% seems very odd when you include the ethnic ukranians and tatars.
Hmm, than CNN lies (i think).
Here is the thing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797
Can someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraine (i think)No, the reason they do that is to make sure they can see what the person voted. Remove it accordingly, and make sure to intimidate the person on their way home to make it full circle.Dude :). I mean really. Stop posting nonsense without any proofs.
I saw it briefly and the ticker itself was brief. It might have been saying something else but wasn't clear on that fact.
A translation of that poll thing linked would be good.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 06:03:22 pm
Quote
Can someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraineIt is but there are a huge but. It is not a status quo option. It gives much much much wider autonomy to Crimea
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 06:04:57 pm
Hard to get any facts when the only journalists allowed to be around are Kremlin loyalists.
Dude, that is not correct. Anyone from journalists can be there. Stop posting nonsense.
Where are the reporters in Sevastopol? Note: Not allowed to be Russian state media.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:05:51 pm
QuoteCan someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraineIt is but there are a huge but. It is not a status quo option. It gives much much much wider autonomy to Crimea
Its entirely possible that CNN misinterpreted what that option is. However, with the last poll saying around half wanted to stay autonomous, the 95% is odd.
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 06:06:08 pm
Seeing how Putin supposedly got 140% of the vote (so I heard), he is obviously not above rigging votes.
That's bullshit. There was some really weird results in parts of Chechnya and the like but overall Putin was elected with 63% of the vote in relatively clean elections. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012)
I'm not pro-Russian, but no need to spout non sense. Just use the damn wikipedia dammit.
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 06:06:42 pm
QuoteCan someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraineIt is but there are a huge but. It is not a status quo option. It gives much much much wider autonomy to Crimea
Than it is the thing I said, in ukraine, but with more autonomy. So there is a option no, but there is no option do be 100% same as before.
Can you translate the warning part ? What does it say?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 06:08:50 pm
Quote
Voters were seen casting their ballots even before the official start of Crimea's referendum on Sunday at a polling station in Sevastopol in one of several possible irregularities.
Journalists including AFP were also turned away at some polling stations in Sevastopol and Simferopol despite having official media accreditation from Crimea's authorities.
These will keep coming. Who wants to deny this vote is entirely a fraud?
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:09:42 pm
QuoteCan someone translate it. I can clearly see a option to stay in ukraineIt is but there are a huge but. It is not a status quo option. It gives much much much wider autonomy to Crimea
Than it is the thing I said, in ukraine, but with more autonomy. So there is a option no, but there is no option do be 100% same as before.
Can you translate the warning part ? What does it say?
Maybe that's what CNN meant, to stay 100% as before.
Seeing how Putin supposedly got 140% of the vote (so I heard), he is obviously not above rigging votes.
That's bullshit. There was some really weird results in parts of Chechnya and the like but overall Putin was elected with 63% of the vote in relatively clean elections. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012)
I'm not pro-Russian, but no need to spout non sense. Just use the damn wikipedia dammit.
Sorry, no idea where the 140% someone told me came from.
Post by: olemars on March 16, 2014, 06:11:40 pm
Hard to get any facts when the only journalists allowed to be around are Kremlin loyalists.
Dude, that is not correct. Anyone from journalists can be there. Stop posting nonsense.
Where are the reporters in Sevastopol? Note: Not allowed to be Russian state media.
There are tons of international media there, it's from those I'm getting the pictures and interviews. There was even a norwegian livefeed from one of the voting locations.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 06:12:46 pm
No imperialism here, move along folks.
Maybe I'm just too old, but seeing a bonefide soviet flag pop up after something like this doesn't look too pretty.
There are tons of international media there, it's from those I'm getting the pictures and interviews. There was even a norwegian livefeed from one of the voting locations.
Can you give me a link? And are they reporting from Sevastopol or Kiev?
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:17:46 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 16, 2014, 06:19:32 pm
Post by: olemars on March 16, 2014, 06:20:07 pm
Can you give me a link? And are they reporting from Sevastopol or Kiev?
Simferopol, Sevastopol and various smaller towns.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/16/crimea-referendum-polls-open-live
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Folg-folkeavstemningen-pa-Krimhalvoya-7504725.html
https://twitter.com/dpeleschuk
https://twitter.com/pkaale
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=crimea+referendum (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=crimea+referendum)
Post by: scrdest on March 16, 2014, 06:22:08 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:22:23 pm
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/16/1395006435720/0eafa572-c706-44e4-b9b6-ce0f146ec504-460x276.jpeg)
No imperialism here, move along folks.
Maybe I'm just too old, but seeing a bonefide soviet flag pop up after something like this doesn't look too pretty.There are tons of international media there, it's from those I'm getting the pictures and interviews. There was even a norwegian livefeed from one of the voting locations.
Can you give me a link? And are they reporting from Sevastopol or Kiev?
CNN is reporting from Sevastopol, so there.
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 06:24:37 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 06:24:51 pm
Quote
Sorry, no idea where the 140% someone told me came from.140% is from the last Russian parliamentary elections
When central election commission announced results by regions, in some regions sum of results of all parties was over 100%, in one case it was 140%. Later the "technical error" was fixed
Spoiler: It looked like this (click to show/hide)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 06:26:48 pm
The translation is really very bad. Many references are difficult to translate, but still. BTW this is mostly a satire of reactions in the German press and in certain political camps, taking stabs at German politicians (especially Schröder and Steinmeier). It does not say that much about the general view on the Ukraine/Crimea situation, it rather presents some points to the extreme, while at the same time condemning the US, Russia, EU, Germany and the state of politics in general. I also didn't think it was very good or poignant.I'm sorry guys, I haven't kept track of last 50 pages, and maybe this video from ZDF (Die Anstalt show) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGOUoPSIa4s) was already posted. If not, there it went.
The translation is rather bad. Judging by what I have understood, I want to say one thing.
[liberalmode]These people can't understand a damn thing. As we all know, and as the most truthful and democratic Western media say, the free people of Ukraine have peacefully overthrown the totalitarian dictator installed and backed by Russia, and they did that all by themselves, without any foreign support; there were no radical nationalists and neo-Nazis among them, everyone who says otherwise repeat Putin's propaganda.
Today, these satirists condemn the peaceful Ukrainian democratic revolution, and it's very likely that Russia paid them to do that. Tomorrow, they will praise Putin (who is basically the reincarnation of Hitler, or maybe even worse, the reincarnation of Stalin) invading the EU. The day after tomorrow, they will praise the return of Stasi![/liberalmode]
Can you give me a link? And are they reporting from Sevastopol or Kiev?Livestreams are over AFAIK, but there are plenty of correspondents in Crimea, especially in the capital, Simferopol.
Post by: miljan on March 16, 2014, 06:28:15 pm
A bit like how the Native Americans watched white settlers quarreling and killing each-other en-masse in North America throughout the 19th century, drawing lines in the sand and dirt to mark their territory, the true Crimeans will watch the results of today with impotence and sadness.
Who are true Crimeans? Is there another "faction" in Crimea?
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 06:29:54 pm
Who are true Crimeans? Is there another "faction" there?
The Tatars whose ancestors have lived in Crimea for millennia.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:30:51 pm
QuoteSorry, no idea where the 140% someone told me came from.140% is from the last Russian parliamentary elections
When central election commission announced results by regions, in some regions sum of results of all parties was over 100%, in one case it was 140%. Later the "technical error" was fixedSpoiler: It looked like this (click to show/hide)
Oh I see, sorry for the misunderstanding then.
A bit like how the Native Americans watched white settlers quarreling and killing each-other en-masse in North America throughout the 19th century, drawing lines in the sand and dirt to mark their territory, the true Crimeans will watch the results of today with impotence and sadness.
Who are true Crimeans? Is there another "faction" there?
I think Owlbread is referring to the Tatars, who are the origional Crimeans.
Edit: NINJA'D You guys post fast
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 16, 2014, 06:32:10 pm
https://twitter.com/dpeleschuk
I can say I only trust direct-from reporters, like the twitter links you have. Most of these pages are reporting via proxy from Kiev, regurgitating the same 'breaking' information.
I did enjoy this, though:
https://twitter.com/dpeleschuk/status/445199246627995648/photo/1
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 16, 2014, 06:35:25 pm
A bit like how the Native Americans watched white settlers quarreling and killing each-other en-masse in North America throughout the 19th century, drawing lines in the sand and dirt to mark their territory, the true Crimeans will watch the results of today with impotence and sadness.Sad truth is that there are will be very few winners in Crimea, even among ethnic Russians. When soldiers will move away back to their bases and the residents will be in the hands of new governors, Crimeans will learn what unlimited corruption and rampant crime mean.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 06:35:58 pm
What's the REAL purpose of the clear boxes then?I read this was common practice in Ukraine. It is supposed to make the elections more transparent, though it conflicts with our ideas of a secret vote.
Maybe that's what CNN meant, to stay 100% as before.Exactly, there was no "status quo" option, just "join Russia" or "get wide-reaching autonomy from Ukraine".
Post by: mainiac on March 16, 2014, 06:37:46 pm
That's bullshit. There was some really weird results in parts of Chechnya and the like but overall Putin was elected with 63% of the vote in relatively clean elections. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012)
Yeah, Putin was elected in a "relatively clean election" in which he got more of the popular vote then any president in US history. Nothing to see here, move along.
When you run without meaningful opposition because you rigged the elections and media, it's very easy to steal an election by a comfortable margin without needing to outright fabricate the results. It's even possible to have a sizable plurality of people supporting you while you do it. But it doesn't mean democracy took place.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:39:02 pm
Maybe that's what CNN meant, to stay 100% as before.Exactly, there was no "status quo" option, just "join Russia" or "get wide-reaching autonomy from Ukraine".
Blame CNN on not being clearer then.
How much autonomy do they already get from Ukraine though?
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 06:44:30 pm
Sad truth is that there are will be very few winners in Crimea, even among ethnic Russians. When soldiers will move away back to their bases and the residents will be in the hands of new governors, Crimeans will learn what unlimited corruption and rampant crime mean.
There will be that for a period, perhaps for a longer time than normal if it remains a disputed territory under international law. Things will eventually stabilise and yet more "strong leaders" will be elected on a platform of anti-corruption when there's really no difference between them and the previous leaders, they just know how to hide their activities better. They've probably got clean fingernails too and look good in suits.
It often seems to me that the average Russian does not care how much freedom he has as long as his leader seems honest, seems to have backbone and seems to know what he's doing, prioritises the economy and such. He's probably a crook like the rest of them but hey, everyone's a crook.
I know that could be said the world over but for a nation that has been so politically turbulent, even pioneering if you look at the accomplishments of the USSR, it still pains me to see a people who really haven't changed in hundreds of years. Russia is still the very definition of a petty bourgeois state - still obsessed with nationalism, money, power, control, empire building, militarism, even isolationism at times. The whole idea of Communism and all the people that worked and died for it in Russia was all for nothing.
Post by: burningpet on March 16, 2014, 06:50:17 pm
Who are true Crimeans? Is there another "faction" there?
The Tatars whose ancestors have lived in Crimea for millennia.
Lets give crimea to the greeks.
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 06:50:55 pm
Lets give crimea to the greeks.
Let's give Israel to the Jews.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:53:07 pm
Who are true Crimeans? Is there another "faction" there?
The Tatars whose ancestors have lived in Crimea for millennia.
Lets give crimea to the greeks.
Based on what? Long gone colonies?
In one of my EU4 games, greece also appeared in the crimea penninsula for some reason.
Post by: Darvi on March 16, 2014, 06:53:40 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 06:54:37 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 06:57:12 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 06:58:35 pm
How much autonomy do they already get from Ukraine though?We discussed that earlier, but didn't go into details. In short, as I understand it, they are quite autonomous now, with some budget rights, but there are some things that need to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament and/or President. The return to the 1992 constitution would have made them almost semi-independent, while still getting a budget from Kiev and being able to vote in Ukraine.
Some more details are to be found in the wiki articles and wikisource versions of the different Ukrainian (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#Chapter_X:_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea) and Crimean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_constitution) constitutions.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 07:03:05 pm
How much autonomy do they already get from Ukraine though?We discussed that earlier, but didn't go into details. In short, as I understand it, they are quite autonomous now, with some budget rights, but there are some things that need to be approved by the Ukrainian parliament and/or President. The return to the 1992 constitution would have made them almost semi-independent, while still getting a budget from Kiev and being able to vote in Ukraine.
Some more details are to be found in the wiki articles and wikisource versions of the different Ukrainian (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#Chapter_X:_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea) and Crimean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_constitution) constitutions.
I started reading this in the last one or two pages or so. So I didn't see that discussion.
If Russia gets what they want with Crimea (and they most likely will, none of the powers want to risk a nuclear war if they fight Russia directly), whats going to stop them from trying to get pieces of former soviet sattelites? If they even have any plans to.
Post by: Frumple on March 16, 2014, 07:09:04 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 07:16:04 pm
I started reading this in the last one or two pages or so. So I didn't see that discussion.There wasn't much more to that discussion than what I summed up, so no problem.
If Russia gets what they want with Crimea (and they most likely will, none of the powers want to risk a nuclear war if they fight Russia directly), whats going to stop them from trying to get pieces of former soviet sattelites? If they even have any plans to.
The question is whether they will try that or not. In case of the Baltic states they can't (NATO members), in case of other states like Belarus it's highly unlikely (they are still close allies, so there is really no need to at this point).
It all depends on what happens in Eastern Ukraine now, where there are Russians and some support for joining Russia, on a much much smaller scale than in Crimea though. If they do that, well, there won't be a nuclear war since the West won't intervene directly, but probably war with Ukraine, which the West will support economically and indirectly with military logistics. Also we'll have another Cold War, with full sanctions and diplomatic isolation.
That is going to be very interesting in the next days, now after the referendum, things could normalize somewhat if Russia is content with Crimea or become very ugly and dangerous should this become an open military conflict with Ukraine.
My personal opinion, or rather what I hope will happen, is that Putin will now be more willing to negotiate, with the goal of somehow legitimizing the annexation of Crimea, as a bargain he might recognize the government in Kiev. The West will employ sanctions and try to refuse, but it seems likely that Crimea will remain with Russia, recognized or not. This has cost Russia so much money and diplomatic influence already, a further escalation would be insane and might be much less popular in Russia than the Crimea thing.
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 07:21:54 pm
If a new Cold War does start up, it'll be a lot less 'war' since we aren't combating communist influence and Russia doesn't have a whole lot of allies. Even China seems to be backing away from Russia over the whole thing. Don't know whether we can get China to flex it's economic muscle against Russia though.
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2014, 07:26:42 pm
I think the UN is already preparing those sanctions, or will be very soon.Not the UN, Russia is on the security council, so they can, and will, block any attempt to take action against them through the UN.
Post by: Owlbread on March 16, 2014, 07:27:05 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 07:30:15 pm
I think the UN is already preparing those sanctions, or will be very soon.Not the UN, Russia is on the security council, so they can, and will, block any attempt to take action against them through the UN.
There are other ways to do sanctions that don't involve Russia having a vote in.
Speaking of the security council, it's pretty useless with the way it works currently.
@xxsocksxx: Yeah, the whole thing right after the olympics has probably erased whatever diplomatic influence and public pr that was gained from the olympics.
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2014, 07:38:11 pm
There are other ways to do sanctions that don't involve Russia having a vote in.Yes... by not going through the UN... As far as I know they can just block the UN itself from taking any action against them all day long.
Speaking of the security council, it's pretty useless with the way it works currently.It's basically the only way to make sure the major powers agree to be a part of the UN. If they didn't have those permanent positions they wouldn't want to agree to the organisation, because after all, all the world's major powers have done something most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with, and they want the ability to keep doing those sorts of things.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 07:40:07 pm
@xxsocksxx: Yeah, the whole thing right after the olympics has probably erased whatever diplomatic influence and public pr that was gained from the olympics.Worse than that, China isn't backing Russia on this. Russia's neighbours, while still allies, will certainly re-evaluate their relationship with Russia after this demonstration of what might be in their own future. Any trust that might have existed in the US and in Europe is gone.
In terms of sanctions, I think the US has gone ahead in this already, the EU will issue visa and account restrictions for some high-ranking people tomorrow, but reserves the option of full economic sanctions. Other countries (like Turkey and non-EU European countries) might join on their own, so this doesn't need UN involvment. Economic sanctions from Europe would be quite crippling for the Russian economy, they would be hard on Europe too, but if necessary it might come that far.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 16, 2014, 07:53:55 pm
On other topics:
I do have to say one positive thing about Russia here. If you're gonna invade a country, this is the way to do it. They have clearly demonstrated themselves something on the order of a hundred times better than the US at invasions, that is for sure.
Although I guess that's basically the same way the US got a good chunk of it's current territory, now that I think about it...
Post by: Pnx on March 16, 2014, 08:04:48 pm
Instead they seem to be preferring to take the opportunity to push claims to oil and natural gas rich islands in the Philippines. Something I suspect they chose to do now while the world's attention is focused on Russia/Ukraine.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 16, 2014, 08:17:51 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 16, 2014, 09:11:47 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 16, 2014, 10:04:58 pm
Every time I open this thread up I think "Still no war? Come on, seriously? Just nuke Crimea and get it over with if you aren't going to fight, god".
Because nobody wants to take even the slimmest chance that Russia will use nukes if the US and Europe fight them directly? The itchy trigger finger days of the Cold War are over and I doubt Putin really wants to use them, but theres always that ever so slim chance.
Also, nuking Crimea does no good for anybody.
Post by: misko27 on March 16, 2014, 11:19:31 pm
...Where's Kappa (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kappa) when you need it?Every time I open this thread up I think "Still no war? Come on, seriously? Just nuke Crimea and get it over with if you aren't going to fight, god".
Because nobody wants to take even the slimmest chance that Russia will use nukes if the US and Europe fight them directly? The itchy trigger finger days of the Cold War are over and I doubt Putin really wants to use them, but theres always that ever so slim chance.
Also, nuking Crimea does no good for anybody.
I wasn't being literal. At all. I was not expressing my desire for nuclear annihilation. I was expressing my frustration at another day of "Diplomats gonna diplomasize".
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2014, 12:54:04 am
Post by: mainiac on March 17, 2014, 02:25:55 am
On other topics:
I do have to say one positive thing about Russia here. If you're gonna invade a country, this is the way to do it. They have clearly demonstrated themselves something on the order of a hundred times better than the US at invasions, that is for sure.
Chronologically speaking, Russia is at about the point where Bush was flying the mission accomplished banner.
Most plans generally look good when you consider all the upside and none of the downside. Russia's invasion gets all it's upside at the start with the annexation. The downside hasn't even started yet, the first round of sanctions are just about to start.
Post by: Sheb on March 17, 2014, 02:56:25 am
When you run without meaningful opposition because you rigged the elections and media, it's very easy to steal an election by a comfortable margin without needing to outright fabricate the results. It's even possible to have a sizable plurality of people supporting you while you do it. But it doesn't mean democracy took place.
Indeed. As I said, I'm not pro-Putin. But the truth in itself is bad enough, we don't need fabrications and further demonization that just make the anti-Putin camps look stupid (why do you think Guardian GI is ranting about glorious western democracy all the time?)
Anyway, final results in: 96.77% in favor with over 80% participation. I'm glad they went so much over the board: a 60% win for the Russian would have been much more credible. In a way, they shot themselves in the foot with those Kadyrov-like numbers.
The Crimean PM is announcing plans to start accepting the ruble as a second currency next week and start integrating within Russia in the coming year. So this would make Crimea different from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as it would become just another Russian province.
Post by: Descan on March 17, 2014, 03:19:00 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 17, 2014, 03:28:48 am
The Crimean PM is announcing plans to start accepting the ruble as a second currency next week and start integrating within Russia in the coming year. So this would make Crimea different from Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as it would become just another Russian province.
But the difference is that the international community will not recognise Russian sovereignty over the peninsula. That means it will be closer to Transnistria or South Ossetia than another Russian province. It will just pretend it's a part of Russia, pretend being the key word.
Post by: Sheb on March 17, 2014, 03:33:05 am
Post by: sneakey pete on March 17, 2014, 03:59:37 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 04:07:03 am
Spoiler: Tatars get out from Crimea (click to show/hide)
Post by: Owlbread on March 17, 2014, 05:27:06 am
That doesn't look like neo-nazis at all.
I mean, look at the symbol! Clearly it was liberals.
1. Pravy Sektor are not in government.
2. That was in Crimea where the noble antifascist pro-Russians are now in government.
What would be the difference though? Crimean citizens will have Russians passports, and will just have to go through Russia for all their international dealings.
Disputed sovereignty raises lots of legal issues though. From now on Russian tourists in Crimea will be entering Ukraine illegally.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 17, 2014, 07:01:44 am
I was expressing my frustration at another day of "Diplomats gonna diplomasize".I'm pretty sure, even in the best possible circumstances, ideally with the military part of this being over, this will last quite a while, months possibly.
Putin will make a statement tomorrow. Crimea is preparing joining Russia, which will take a while. In terms of sanctions and diplomacy, we're still negotiating, that means no side blows all their leverage in one go. I don't think Putin will give up on Crimea after all this effort. There will be more talks in the next weeks and it might become a long economic pissing contest. And that's just in the best case, if anything goes wrong, this might still blow up.
Yeah, this could be problematic for the Crimean economy, if they're in legal limbo nobody except Russia will invest there and there might be import/export issues. Trade and investment require some sort of legal stability. As for the passports, I don't know, there might be problems when travelling outside Russia I guess, maybe not. There might be problems for non-Russians travelling to Crimea too, depending on how the visa stuff works. At last it leaves a lot of stuff unclear for now, which is not a good prospect, as people don't like doing business or spending money without some (legal) safety. Will be interesting too to see if Belarus and Kazakhstan accept this expansion of their customs union with Russia without being asked.What would be the difference though? Crimean citizens will have Russians passports, and will just have to go through Russia for all their international dealings.
Disputed sovereignty raises lots of legal issues though. From now on Russian tourists in Crimea will be entering Ukraine illegally.
Post by: scrdest on March 17, 2014, 07:19:57 am
[sarcasm] I guess the Right Sector did it [/sarcasm]That doesn't look like neo-nazis at all.
I mean, look at the symbol! Clearly it was liberals.
Don't be silly. It's a swastika. It is obvious Indians did that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 08:03:42 am
Yearly graphs:
Spoiler: Sberbank(the largest bank of Russia) (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: MTS(the largest mobile operator) (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Aeroflot(airlines) (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: AvtoVAZ(automobile manufacturer) (click to show/hide)
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 17, 2014, 09:05:32 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 09:17:31 am
Why should end of Olympics hurt economy?
Post by: Darvi on March 17, 2014, 09:30:00 am
Given that the olympics have been over for a while now, doesn't seem likely the case here.
Post by: Sheb on March 17, 2014, 09:32:30 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 17, 2014, 09:33:55 am
It looks that way for the airline and the mobile operator. Furthermore the car manufacturer looks like it was in decline already. I'll concede that the bank seems to corroborate your view though.
Damned, ninja. I didn't pay attention to the olympics so I don't know the dates, but for three of the graphs it looks more like a return to normal than a krach to me.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 17, 2014, 09:37:41 am
UR why is your signature in Russian?
I think because it is a line from soviet WWII song "Sacred War", which originally was
Вставай, страна огромная
(Rise, giant country)
And now it is
Отстань страна огромная
(Back off, giant country)
Irony, maybe.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 17, 2014, 11:02:16 am
I know that could be said the world over but for a nation that has been so politically turbulent, even pioneering if you look at the accomplishments of the USSR, it still pains me to see a people who really haven't changed in hundreds of years. Russia is still the very definition of a petty bourgeois state - still obsessed with nationalism, money, power, control, empire building, militarism, even isolationism at times.
On the other hand, despite the changes in political ideologies, the Western world's unspoken belief in the ultimate superiority of their political and economic systems hasn't changed much since the XIX century. It became more subtle, but it didn't vanish with the demise of big European colonial empires. The concept of the white man's burden didn't go away. In the XIX century, colonists from Great Britain, France, Belgium and other European countries brought civilization to African savages; today, United States, Great Britain, France and other Western states bring freedom, democracy and human rights to people around the world. In both cases, ulterior motives often masked political and economic exploitation of the "enlightened" territories. In both cases, the Westerners were confident that at least Russia is much worse than them.
John Kerry's remarks that Russia is using the diplomatic methods of XIX century are a little bit hypocritical - the West didn't change much since the XIX century either.
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced a list of suggestions (e.g. demands) to end the Ukrainian crisis. (http://mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/49766426492B6E9644257C9E0036B79A) These are:
- Ukraine should become a federation;
- The Russian language should become the second state language of Ukraine;
- Ukraine should recognize the Crimean independence referendum;
- Ukraine should become a politically and militarily neutral state.
Post by: Sheb on March 17, 2014, 11:07:41 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 11:08:52 am
Quote
Ukraine should become a federation;Yeah. And some time later parts of that federation will have referendums where 97% will want join Russia
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 11:31:14 am
Let's be honest, the country is probably better off without Crimea anyway.
But those suggestions from Russia are not in Ukraine's interest, they are in the interests of Russia.
What Ukraine needs to do is figure out a way to stabilize and defend the rest of their country while reforming and dealing with the corruption and internal problem that put them in a position where Crimea could be carved off with such relative ease. They should probably contest Crimea, but only half-heartedly, while they work things out, and then dump them completely if they have an opportunity to join Nato.
Quote
Ukraine should become a politically and militarily neutral state.Hahaha. I think we all know that what Russia means by this has very little to do with what the words are saying. A neutral state requires a level of self-defense ability that Russia almost certainly doesn't want to see in Ukraine. They were a neutral state - but generally successfully invading a neutral state is a pretty strong incentive for them to under no circumstances remain neutral, since it's obvious they don't have the ability to pull it off, and Russia has just killed any chance of Ukraine being neutral - it's not even a choice any more.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 11:37:59 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 11:40:29 am
To be honest, I think Ukraine is (hopefully) in a good position moving forward, assuming Russia stops where it is.
Let's be honest, the country is probably better off without Crimea anyway.
But those suggestions from Russia are not in Ukraine's interest, they are in the interests of Russia.
What Ukraine needs to do is figure out a way to stabilize and defend the rest of their country while reforming and dealing with the corruption and internal problem that put them in a position where Crimea could be carved off with such relative ease. They should probably contest Crimea, but only half-heartedly, while they work things out, and then dump them completely if they have an opportunity to join Nato.
That's an interesting opinion. Was Crimea that economically detrimental to Ukraine?
Also, speaking of countries becoming better through losing stuff. You know what we need to lose for Russia to become better? Moscow. American pigdogs should come and occupy Moscow. We'll build them a monument for that.
Post by: Avis-Mergulus on March 17, 2014, 12:14:27 pm
Avis: I get your disgust for Western oligarchs, but were things better in the rest of Ukraine? Or in Russia? It seems the 90's were pretty bleak all over the place.In Russia, they were actually worse: food shortages and all. Not a nice time in general. And the countries that did integrate into the EU had functioning economies to begin with: Ukraine, on the other hand, requires craptons of financial support that has to appear from somewhere. I don't see people lining up to pay, but I'm no expert on such things - this is me repeating stuff I have heard, just like the rest of you.
Anyway, the kleptocracy is not the same thing as euro-integration. Those countries that did integrate and joined the EU are doing better than Russia or Ukraine that did not.
Avis-Mergulus, and one question. Why your so called "Crimean Government" behaves like an armed robber? With all that "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy (the most expensive ships were built in Ukraine so even the "it's all Soviet" claim doesn't work) Ukrainian state-owned companies (Those where funded from the budget of Ukraine, you know? ) and even private property owned by "the wrong people"?Look who's talking. Tell me, for how long does one have to beat an eastern communist deputy to get him to sign the repeal of the Regional Languages law? For some reason, nobody was bothered when the Rada unanimously - you know, even the absent and the socialist members - voted for all that shit you did in the recent period. What the hell are all those videos where rightist activists beat "titushki (http://m.youtube.com/results?q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC&sm=1)"? Are they all staged? Interesting it is, how many names Ukrainians have for Russians. "Moskali", "katsapy", now this one... heh.
I really want to hear your explanation why it is a righteous way to act
Are you going to defend your position with photos of graffiti? If one takes the things that people write on the walls in Kiev for real... well, let's not talk about it.
But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants. If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.
Ukrainian state-owned companies, funded from the budget of Ukraine, which included Crimean taxes as well. If those "state-owned companies" really did work for the good of the people of Crimea, then they have no right to go against the Crimean government.
And I will not be told of "wrong people" by folks who are twiddling their thumbs and contemplating lustration, having already jailed numerous innocents for allegedly "supporting the bloody regime of Yanukovich". Bloody regime my ass. You interesting people up west can never accept the fact that there are people other than you in Ukraine, and mark my words - when this is done, you'll be right. And then we will all be content.
"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.
"Most of the time" you did not have the government that the majority of Crimean voted for - you had snivelly bastard Kuchma and warty bastard Yuschenko with his paranoia and his hilarious fascist antics. Besides, I see a flaw in your logic here: if 75% of Crimeans voted for Yanukovich, whom you call pro-Russian (ha-ha), then why are you crying foul when the overwhelming majority of Crimeans votes to join Russia? Why so surprised?
Sure as heck. The most noticeable aspect was that everything state- beginning with voting bulletins and ending with nameplates on schools and hospitals - got converted into Ukrainian. Russian in schools was demoted to secondary language - that in a region where 90+% of the population speaks it - and Ukrainian was instated in its place.
It's so funny how Russians cannot under any circumstances take what they've dished out to countless nations and peoples. The minute they're under serious threat from a nation powerful enough to subjugate them (see Mongols and Nazi Germany) it defines them in ways virtually nothing else can. When you were talking about the Russian language in schools I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.QuoteAnd through all this, the bastards in the west - those same bastards who are now in government - told us that we were not "nationally conscious" enough, and that we needed to be more loyal to our country. Fuck them. We are.
I'm sure Russia is big enough for all of you.QuoteI hope you are consistent in your support for gangs of nationalist bandits and one-culture states. Eat your heart out: I have lived in Crimea and I will live there again. You never have and never will, and yet you talk so much, one might think you're an expert.
And so commenceth the insufferable "You don't even live here, silly foreigner!" arguments.QuoteAnd that's good how? The Ukrainian oligarchy doesn't care for anything but its pockets, and the only "liberal" thing they're gonna do is promote laws that benefit those pockets. It's like the nineties all over again. You know, people here were enthusiastic about the Soviet Union falling, being friends and all with the West - and then it turned out it wasn't going to feed them. It isn't going to feed Ukraine either. And the people who suffer will not be the oligarchs.
You will notice at no point have I praised or expressed support for the people in government in Ukraine right now. I agree with their approach to the National question but I am a Socialist. I have no time for them or for the rightists that govern Russia and Belarus and will soon govern Crimea.Okay. One thing I really missed - the Right Sector (or Pravy Sector, whatever you like) and current government are not the same guys. But the Right Sector is nationalist. I now recall that guy who was interviewed by BBC on Maidan (link was posted here earlier) - the one who said "One nation, one country, one leader. No, we won't do like Hitler, well, not like, maybe just a bit..."
Right Sector and Svoboda (the most junior partners in the coalition that governs Ukraine) are far-right and Nationalist. You are completely correct, and you could argue that the government in Ukraine is quite Nationalistic in their promotion of Ukrainian and so on, but they're really more Liberal than anything else.
1. And you, of course, know what "we Russians did to people", being so highly educated in matters historical. Countless Ukrainians fought for the Reds (you might want to read up on the classical literature of that period, Bulgakov's "White Guards" being the most prominent example), and unlike in modern Ukraine, Ukrainian was taught in schools in the Ukrainian SSR - my father has some rather extensive memories on the subject. It was never stamped out as Russian now is in Ukraine, and had protected status. Dual names for stuff and all. I don't know where you get your info - I get mine from people who were there and whom I trust. You may choose to trust me or not - I have nothing to gain by deceiving you. Whatever.
2. Yes, it is. That was the whole point.
3. You don't live here, silly foreigner. This discussion is basically you all comparing sources - and if of turns out you got your info from the same loudmouth on the telly, look, you're on the same side! I would laugh, but my eyes seem wet for some reason. If the argument is so insufferable, well, doh. Do you live here or not? That's right, you don't, but somehow you feel that you are as entitled to a say in the matter as people who do. Why?
4. "Rightists who govern Russia" has me smiling. Of course, for more than ten years, my country was a political corpse that could only shrug weakly and say "yes, yes" when the so-called free world wanted another war somewhere. And now it's not, and the very fact that Russia actually has national interests has you frothing with rage. Too late.
I don't know what kind of socialist you are if you agree that the language of such a significant sector of the population has no right to status. Not the kind I am used to for sure, but maybe it's for the best.
5. You say they are liberal. Please, clarify. In which economic or social sphere they are going to apply their liberalism? What do you mean when you say that the government in Kiev is liberal? It's not snark - I sincerely don't know what you mean.
Having written this wall of text, I'm off to happier things. Bye and all, will check back tomorrow.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 12:30:26 pm
Quote
That's an interesting opinion. Was Crimea that economically detrimental to Ukraine?Crimea is important for territorial waters there are unexploited oil and gas in the Black Sea. Also, loss of Crimea will hit Ukrainian Azov ports, because Kerch straight will become controlled by Russia. Other than that. Yes, Crimea is not an important asset
1) It's GDP per capita is lower than average in Ukraine . It has few industries but none are vital for our economy or defense industry
2) It has many, many pensioners.
3) Large chunk of GDP of Crimea comes from tourism. But partly it is from budget of Ukraine that provides free\discounted tours to some social groups, partly it is "wild" tourism were with majority of money remaining untaxed.
4) We are subsidizing region with free freshwater and cheap energy. It is hard to say how will this be treated... but I doubt that we'll sell it for the same price
5) It is not economy but important. Crimea always voted for Pro-Russian politicians with them being unable to vote electoral map of Ukraine will change somewhat
Add Ukraine-wide effect that a large chunk of the nation will be more ready to accept unpopular reforms (We are partially occupied, that's why need to do it) and economical war with Russia (Before it would be "Our idiotic government pissed of our friend and partner", now it is "Russia is mean")
That's why I believe that Putin wants much more than Crimea. It is illogical to do what he does. It only helps Ukraine to leave Russian sphere of influence
Post by: Scoops Novel on March 17, 2014, 12:33:03 pm
Anyone care to venture how far this move by Russia was anticipated?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 17, 2014, 12:35:51 pm
"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.Morgan Stanley cuts Russian growth forecast to 0.8% from 2.5%
http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2014/03/17/morgan-stanley-cuts-russian-growth-forecast-to-0-8-from-2-5/
Quote
Set against what’s going on in Ukraine, which to be fair is the context in which he was talking, this may be true, but even so, it’s a bit of a stretch given the financial and economic mayhem of the last three years to think the single currency such a defense against the elements. If this is what stability looks like, I hate to think what constitutes a crisis.http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/mar/06/ecb-eurozone-bank-of-england-interest-rates-business-live
Quote
We downgrade GDP growth on heightened uncertainty. The rising tensions in Ukraine make for a very challenging backdrop to the Russian economy, creating substantial downside risks to economic performance. The combination of more subdued investment and consumption spending related to heightened uncertainty, and tighter monetary policy, lead us to downgrade our 2014 GDP forecast from 2.6% to 1.0% (1.3% in 2013).http://www.businessinsider.com/citi-cuts-russian-growth-2014-3
Investment spending will be the key avenue via which market volatility will affect growth performance. The sectoral breakdown of last year’s investment suggested that private-sector consumption-related investment has been growing, while it was oil and gas investment that was holding back overall investment activity. Our more positive view on 2014 GDP was critically dependent on the assumption that government-led oil and gas investment would come out of its 2013 doldrums, with new projects coming on stream. However, given the uncertain backdrop, we now have much less confidence about this scenario playing out, even if, in principle, the government may feel more pressure to ‘take control’ of SOE investment plans. We, therefore, cut our real investment growth forecast to zero from 3.8% previously
Quote
In our view, Bank Rossii’s hike is unlikely to do very much to curb the sell-off in RUB, but today’s decision will seriously damage the country’s economic growth through a sharp slowdown in private consumption, an extended fall in fixed investments and increased volatility in money market rates. We cut our 2014 GDP forecast to 1.0% y/y from 2.6% previously and even consider the new forecast to be optimistic in such an uncertain geopolitical environment. This monetary tightening could send Russia into recession even in 2014, as businesses and consumers will experience more troubles with credit.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-10/russian-2014-growth-forecast-cut-by-imf-as-inflation-persists.html
Quote
Capital flight from Russia has risen sharply since the start of this year to $45-$50 billion, Goldman Sachs said on Thursday, predicting full-year outflows could be as much as $130 billion, or double 2013 levels.http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/ukraine-crisis-russia-capital-idUSL6N0MA2N720140313
Goldman says its calculations show capital outflows have jumped 60 percent from year-ago levels as the economy slows and the threat of Western sanctions bites. It also slashed its forecast for Russian economic growth this year to 1 percent.
Western powers are considering imposing sanctions on Moscow in response to its military intervention in neighbouring Ukraine, especially if the Crimea region votes this weekend in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
"The Achilles heel of the Russian economy remains the flow abroad of Russian capital following any shock. We would also think that any sanctions or even the threat of sanctions will be ultimately targeted at these flows," Goldman analysts Clemens Grafe and Andrew Matheny said in a note.
They might not show this to you on your state news. :)
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 17, 2014, 12:44:52 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 12:54:33 pm
That's why I believe that Putin wants much more than Crimea. It is illogical to do what he does. It only helps Ukraine to leave Russian sphere of influenceIt's certainly the way it looks from a foreign-policy perspective.
But remember that there's a lot to suggest the invasion was done for domestic reasons, to shore up waning support, rather than for any true "foreign affairs" reason - after all, Putin certainly seems like the type to let his country be a bit worse off in the long run so long as he's still the guy in charge, and while an invasion of Ukraine proper has been polled as unpopular, the invasion of the Crimean region has met with lots of support back home and mounting Russian pride.
If he's done this primarily for domestic reasons, then he has a very good reason to stop while he's ahead, regardless of what Ukraine does next.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 01:18:34 pm
Quote
But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants. If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.I am too lazy to comment that wall of text, but here that is just wow level of absurd
Yep, Sahaidachny (corvette) was started as Kirov in Ukrainian city of Mykolaiv and completed in 1992
Lutsk (corvette) was laid down in 1992, launched in 1993. It is not Soviet by any means
Ternopil (corvette) was laid down in April 1991, launched in 2002. Yep it was long.
That is the the three best vessels in Ukrainian Navy. But even the rest that are Soviet built... Who said you that you can just steal them? What kind of rights on it you have? I can understand demanding 5% of the fleet as a fair share but that is just a theft even if Crimea would legally leave as true independent country.
PS. we have one good NATO-level corvette under construction. But it was halted by Yanukovitch's government, restoring domestic shipbuilding was less important than mansions. Hope it will change under the new government. Also, I hope that we'll buy some used reasonably priced ships from NATO. Those heroic blockaded sailors that don't switch sides deserve new ships even if we'll be not able to evacuate them
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 17, 2014, 01:52:45 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 01:56:26 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 01:57:40 pm
On second thought, puppet state. All the benefits with none of the drawbacks of a colony.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 02:01:18 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 17, 2014, 02:20:36 pm
Yo dawgs, I'm Avis and I'm replying to a bunch of ancient posts.Nah, their economies were not that much better off. While the crash in Ukraine was amongst the worst, in general there was a decline in 40% of GDP. Point is, the euro-integration nations started their recovery almost 3 year earlier than the others. While Ukraine was another 4 years later.Avis: I get your disgust for Western oligarchs, but were things better in the rest of Ukraine? Or in Russia? It seems the 90's were pretty bleak all over the place.In Russia, they were actually worse: food shortages and all. Not a nice time in general. And the countries that did integrate into the EU had functioning economies to begin with: Ukraine, on the other hand, requires craptons of financial support that has to appear from somewhere. I don't see people lining up to pay, but I'm no expert on such things - this is me repeating stuff I have heard, just like the rest of you.
Anyway, the kleptocracy is not the same thing as euro-integration. Those countries that did integrate and joined the EU are doing better than Russia or Ukraine that did not.
Anyway, in 1995 there was still time to fix stuff. However, now you're facing a 2-3 decade old industrial complex, reliant on Russian gas delivered at massive discounts, which will collapse eventually. Question is if the collapse can be softened, of if they're going to stick with the old system.
The Regional Languages law was not repealed, and you'll have to provide a source for the claim that everyone supported it. I mean, the descision was vetoed by the interim president, so I highly doubt that it was unanimous.Avis-Mergulus, and one question. Why your so called "Crimean Government" behaves like an armed robber? With all that "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy (the most expensive ships were built in Ukraine so even the "it's all Soviet" claim doesn't work) Ukrainian state-owned companies (Those where funded from the budget of Ukraine, you know? ) and even private property owned by "the wrong people"?Look who's talking. Tell me, for how long does one have to beat an eastern communist deputy to get him to sign the repeal of the Regional Languages law? For some reason, nobody was bothered when the Rada unanimously - you know, even the absent and the socialist members - voted for all that shit you did in the recent period. What the hell are all those videos where rightist activists beat "titushki (http://m.youtube.com/results?q=%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC&sm=1)"? Are they all staged? Interesting it is, how many names Ukrainians have for Russians. "Moskali", "katsapy", now this one... heh.
I really want to hear your explanation why it is a righteous way to act
Are you going to defend your position with photos of graffiti? If one takes the things that people write on the walls in Kiev for real... well, let's not talk about it.In that case, most of the Russian fleet belongs in Ukraine as well. Anyway, the Soviet origin doesn't matter, it's a separate transfer, almost 2 decades ago. The new transfer will be regarded as an entirely separate manner.
But enough about you. "The most expensive ships built in Ukraine", I don't see what are you talking about: there's not a single ship on the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, that was not built basing on Soviet projects. The famed Sagaidachny was started in 1990 as Kirov, and almost finished before it was stolen by occupants. If Ukraine, by some strange chance, had to fight at sea, those ships would have sailed from Crimean ports, staffed by Crimean sailors. We have a right to them, more so than some twit in Kiev.
Ukrainian state-owned companies, funded from the budget of Ukraine, which included Crimean taxes as well. If those "state-owned companies" really did work for the good of the people of Crimea, then they have no right to go against the Crimean government.So you're saying that companies that aid the local economy should be nationalized, and companies that only serve to fill their own pockets shouldn't. Strange logic...
And I will not be told of "wrong people" by folks who are twiddling their thumbs and contemplating lustration, having already jailed numerous innocents for allegedly "supporting the bloody regime of Yanukovich". Bloody regime my ass. You interesting people up west can never accept the fact that there are people other than you in Ukraine, and mark my words - when this is done, you'll be right. And then we will all be content.
"Recession hitting Russian economics", my ass. We've been in one since the nineties, we're used to it. You, however, less so, with how some people have been threatening to cut the gas to Europe - do you think it's gonna love you for this? - and having untold shittons of debt, which nobody is interested in holding off anymore. You are going to eat your boots sooner than I, and so there's not going to be a banquet. Shame.Based on the official statistics, Russia had continues economic growth since 1999 (excluding the world wide economic crisis of 2007-2009). Anyway, point still remains that Russia is dependent on Europe for about 60% of it's economy, while the reverse is less than 10% (IIRC). Sure a major part of this are energy resources, but those can be replaced.
"Most of the time" you did not have the government that the majority of Crimean voted for - you had snivelly bastard Kuchma and warty bastard Yuschenko with his paranoia and his hilarious fascist antics. Besides, I see a flaw in your logic here: if 75% of Crimeans voted for Yanukovich, whom you call pro-Russian (ha-ha), then why are you crying foul when the overwhelming majority of Crimeans votes to join Russia? Why so surprised?Nobody is surprised. But it's pretty clear that the referendum was pretty much fixed, and can't be recognized internationally. I mean, aside from the possibility fraud and data manipulation, which has not been proven, the fact remains that there was no option to maintain the status-quo. You either chose to annex Crimea into Russia, or turn Crimea in a quasi independent state.
When I saw that, I thought 'but would it be an economically viable state?' Someone further up said that much of its economy is tourism based, but I don't know how strong of a local economy Crimea has.It's mostly dependent on tourism and agriculture, but it does have some oil.
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 02:47:42 pm
Putin signs order to recognize Crimea as a sovereign independent state - RT (http://rt.com/news/russia-recognize-crimea-independence-410/)It seems Russia has gone rampant. West, I'm still waiting for you to gang up. And no, freezing the assets of 21 politicians won't cut it. You didn't even bother to freeze Putin's assets. You need an embargo.
Isolate and build a wall.
I mean, if Russia is just going to invade because a Russian was mistreated in a different country, there's a whole strip of countries ready to be invaded. And they're not going to just let it slide.
The fact that Mr. Putin thinks a country has a right to invade because a citizen of that country, or just with the same mothertongue, was mistreated in another country is preposterous. If he truly believes that then there'll be a whole lot of invading countries.
Post by: Zangi on March 17, 2014, 02:53:16 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 03:13:48 pm
Putin signs order to recognize Crimea as a sovereign independent state - RT (http://rt.com/news/russia-recognize-crimea-independence-410/)
Hahaha.
He has them hold a referendum on whether or not they will join Russia, and then refuses to allow them to join Russia, leaving his puppet parliament in place but not having to fulfill any of his promises!? Hah. That's clever.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fan.crimea.ua%2Fpage%2Fnews%2F59359%2F
Withdrawing the legislation that would allow a speedy annexation, it seems?
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 03:23:53 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 03:24:40 pm
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 03:27:04 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 17, 2014, 03:32:59 pm
I am wondering.... If Russia will make Crimea join as an independent country, will it annex Abkhazia, Osetia and Transinistria in the same way? Why not?
There were such proposals, in South Ossetia especially. The first President of South Ossetia described himself as a "Eurasianist" and sought a grand Eurasian Federation that South Ossetia could join. The trouble is though that the Russians can't actually annex a territory in the modern era if the international community still considers that territory to belong to, for instance, Moldova or Georgia or in this case Ukraine. Chechnya, a country that was annexed, declared its independence from Russia so that was an internal matter. The matters around the Dniester and the southern Caucasus are much too external.
Interestingly the South Ossetians backtracked quite substantially a few years ago and started making clear that they, under no circumstances, will give up their independence because they voted for it in a democratic referendum. I don't know what that means in the big scheme of things, whether it's just the Kremlin trying to justify the lack of inclusion of South Ossetia into Russia and thus unification with their fellow Ossetes in the North. If they are genuinely that pro-independence maybe the truth is that the Ossetes want an independent Alania more than anything else.
I would support that, the Ossetes have as much a right to that territory as the Kosovar Albanians do to Kosovo. The trouble was their ethnic cleansing of the native Georgian families in the South Ossetian war and all that, but such is life the world over.
You may consider me somewhat hypocritical if I would be more open minded about South Ossetian union with North Ossetia-Alania to create an independent state, given that I am vehemently opposed to what the Crimean government is doing, but I've said before that the Crimean government is not separatist. They are irredentist and there's another ethnic group in that area that, in my opinion, should have their own independent state.
I say Crimea should be independent. They should be a very neutral state like Bosnia-Herzegovina where, on paper, all three ethnic groups are equal. The state should be trilingual with special multi-ethnic representation in government. Crimean Tatars should be allowed to return home easily and, if the full Crimean Tatar population return home from Central Asia and elsewhere, they will at first rival the Russian population and even if less than a quarter of the 6 million who claim to be of strong Crimean Tatar descent in Turkey (enough that it matters to them) move back as well then they will vastly outnumber the Russians, giving the Tatars their country back.
Post by: Descan on March 17, 2014, 03:37:46 pm
So less "I am a citizen, I deserve to be treated in the language I am comfortable in," and more "We are your government, you will deal with us as we tell you."
Of course, I could be wrong.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 03:45:54 pm
Hey... it worked before.
Not sure what you are referring to, but Texas comes up as an example.
It appears that Russia has now decided to sanction back at the US and mirror what we sanction. Not that it's going to do a lot of good for Russia.
I agree with Da_Nang, sanctioning 21 people (and not even Putin!) isn't going to do anything. Why they didn't put sanctions on Putin, no idea. Still though, it was a first step and arent going to be the last sanctions.
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 03:54:18 pm
Very interesting sociological experience.
But now I honestly wonder what the hell was with that languages law? Both sides seem to treat it as a powerful argument.
Post by: olemars on March 17, 2014, 03:57:21 pm
Just trying to see parallels and differences between it and the Kielilaki, language legislation in Finland.
I'm not a local, but I did some research on it earlier. The gist of it is that in administrative regions where at least 10% of the population has a minority language as their primary language, that language can be adopted as a regional official language for courts, government documents etc. About a dozen regions where russian is a dominant language did so immediately (the law is recent, 2012 I believe), one region adopted hungarian and another a language I can't remember (possibly romani?) If you dig through my recent posts there is one with a few in-depth links.
edit: found my own post from earlier:
I, for one, like to do my research rather than accept whatever's currently on the front page as truth, so here is some links with background on the language law in question:
BBC article on the law's passage and ensuing riots in 2012 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18725849)
RT coverage of the same event (http://rt.com/news/ukraine-language-law-clashes-427/)
Kyiv Post (http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/language-law-comes-into-force-in-ukraine-311340.html)
OSCE criticism of the law before it was passed (http://www.osce.org/hcnm/92418)
Illuminating analysis by a Ukrainian scientist (http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/mykola-riabchuk/playing-with-ambiguities-ukraine%E2%80%99s-language-law).
I gather that this law was extremely controversial back then too, and seen at least as much as an attack on the Ukrainian language as its attempted repeal is seen by russians as an attack on their rigihts. This law might actually have helped get Svoboda their seats in parliament.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 04:05:53 pm
As for languages, the recent events demonstrated that having Russian speaking people in a country is dangerous, so the stare must work hard to reduce their number.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 04:10:36 pm
Also, the stock here in the US went up by 200 points when the Crimean referendum went through, go figure. The stock market doesn't like instability.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 17, 2014, 04:13:08 pm
As for languages, the recent events demonstrated that having Russian speaking people in a country is dangerous, so the stare must work hard to reduce their number.That sounds orwellian. If there are no words in language to express your thoughts, no revolts come ever. Here it will be no language at all.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 04:18:11 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 04:18:20 pm
As for languages, the recent events demonstrated that having Yiddish speaking people in a country is dangerous, so the stare must work hard to reduce their number.Since you love Nazi Germany parallels so much, here's another: with "Russian" above replaced by "Yiddish", this sentence would not look out of place in an SS propaganda broshure distributed before the Kristallnacht.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 17, 2014, 04:19:59 pm
Do you think it's unreasonable that places like.. Afghanistan, Iraq, and such are weary of US/Russian integration and full cooperation? I sure don't.
Post by: DJ on March 17, 2014, 04:27:29 pm
I say Crimea should be independent. They should be a very neutral state like Bosnia-Herzegovina where, on paper, all three ethnic groups are equal. The state should be trilingual with special multi-ethnic representation in government.Nobody should try to emulate Bosnia & Herzegovina, it's a political clusterfuck that has produced one of the world's most bloated and corrupt governments.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 04:28:47 pm
But yeah, Russia invaded in what seemed to be a snap decision (though maybe it was planned, since he pre-emptively did a massive war drill right next to the border) on the pretext of 'Ethnic Russians are in danger, we must protect them' when there was no evidence of violence against ethnic Russians specifically aside from the pro-government and anti-government protestors.
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 04:28:56 pm
Ah, the great Jewish invasion of Hamburg. I remember that. Comparison fail, the Russian government is the one who attacked Ukraine and now certain states should take a second look at open-border and integration policies, since, remember, the casus belli was 'There's ethnic Russians here'. There was no Jewish aggression on the German people leading up to the propaganda of the reich.I personally don't consider invasion as reasonable grounds for ethnic purging. If a country A with a dominant nationality X invades another country B, it is still morally wrong if country B responds by killing/deporting all the X people in its borders.
Do you think it's unreasonable that places like.. Afghanistan, Iraq, and such are weary of US/Russian integration and full cooperation? I sure don't.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 17, 2014, 04:32:54 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 17, 2014, 04:34:28 pm
'You're being imperialist'
'NO U'
'You're infringing on the right to self-determination of the Crimeans'
'NO U'
'Man, you goofed. You're getting hit with sanctions'
'NO U'
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 04:36:44 pm
-snip-
Quote
The bill has nothing to do with the official bilingualism in some Western democracies where the citizen has priority while the state (state officials) must provide services in the customer’s language of preference. The Soviet type of “bilingualism,” on the contrary, prioritizes the state, i.e. the bureaucracy that chooses the preferable language (inevitably Russian) and imposes it upon citizens.Meanwhile, in Finland, you'd be damn lucky to find state services in Swedish despite Swedish being the second state language, mandated by law. You really have to live in the right places to get that quality or cry to high heaven.
I still remember reading with horror through Finnish court papers last Summer.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 04:37:14 pm
You seeAs for languages, the recent events demonstrated that having Yiddish speaking people in a country is dangerous, so the stare must work hard to reduce their number.Since you love Nazi Germany parallels so much, here's another: with "Russian" above replaced by "Yiddish", this sentence would not look out of place in an SS propaganda broshure distributed before the Kristallnacht.
a) Russia claims that Russian speaking people are persecuted in Ukraine. If we do start to persecute them Russian actions will not change. So, why not? Warning : it's sarcasm
b) Racism and.... khm... how to name it... Languagephobia are different worlds. And yes, I am afraid of Russian language. It is dangerous
c) If you want historical parallels look at postwar Czechoslovakia and ask yourself why German language died in the region where it was the main one. In the first half of 20th century many urban Czechs used German language as their main language.
But I do hope that we'll not go revenge route like Czechs did
d) I find it fun that you, Russians, understand my "work hard" as a genocide against Russian speaking people. No, I mean soft but determined reukrainization
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 04:37:19 pm
If only Russia hadn't just invaded and annexed a country illegally under the pretext of ethnic Russians being more worthy of being represented than their countrymen, states with weary governments might be more willing to accept open cooperation and integration [something Russia has not, in fact, embraced]. I like how you worry about the effects of outright hostility and agitation towards others after the fact. Can't play the victim now, noone believes it.
I don't really know if I wrote something agitating or not. Did I? Or do you mean the stance of russian propaganda?
EDIT: With all due respect for you and your position, Ranger, my comment was intended as a reaction to you using the Russia/Nazi Germany comparison so many times in this thread. I don't mean anything political in it.
Post by: Frumple on March 17, 2014, 04:39:44 pm
I personally don't consider invasion as reasonable grounds for ethnic purging. If a country A with a dominant nationality X invades another country B, it is still morally wrong if country B responds by killing/deporting all the X people in its borders.Wouldn't have to go that far, I imagine. Just don't allow russian as an official language and refuse further russian immigration and let the problem sort itself out.
Though it's not quite as clear cut as you present, KT. If it were like that, then yeah, but when Country A is using the existence of Nationality X in Country B as the reason for invasion... well, it's perhaps not moral to want (and perhaps encourage, so long as it doesn't come to violence) members of Nationality X to gtfo, but at that point it might not be immoral, either. Not when having the ethnicity in your border is a literal existential threat for your nation.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 04:41:49 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 04:42:55 pm
It's a non-event used as a diversionary argument, nothing more and nothing less.
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 04:43:17 pm
Seriously, why not just support government documents in both languages? I get that Ukraine wants to stay as far away as possible from Russian culture, but if you use both, everybody is happy.
Because that would mean outright surrender for Ukraine, especially now that it's been invaded.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 17, 2014, 04:44:10 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 17, 2014, 04:45:42 pm
Nobody should try to emulate Bosnia & Herzegovina, it's a political clusterfuck that has produced one of the world's most bloated and corrupt governments.
At least they aren't butchering each-other though, you've got to give them that. Plus they're on their way to joining the EU, I'm sure we'll sort it out then.
Here's an interesting blog post that I agree with (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/03/when-lavrov-was-right/) showing the naked hypocrisy of Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 17, 2014, 04:46:12 pm
I'd be rather careful with that rhetoric if I were you, though. A Yugoslavia-style bloodbath should be avoided, both by Russians and Ukrainians.You seeAs for languages, the recent events demonstrated that having Yiddish speaking people in a country is dangerous, so the stare must work hard to reduce their number.Since you love Nazi Germany parallels so much, here's another: with "Russian" above replaced by "Yiddish", this sentence would not look out of place in an SS propaganda broshure distributed before the Kristallnacht.
a) Russia claims that Russian speaking people are persecuted in Ukraine. If we do start to persecute them Russian actions will not change. So, why not? Warning : it's sarcasm
b) Racism and.... khm... how to name it... Languagephobia are different worlds. And yes, I am afraid of Russian language. It is dangerous
c) If you want historical parallels look at postwar Czechoslovakia and ask yourself why German language died in the region where it was the main one. In the first half of 20th century many urban Czechs used German language as their main language.
But I do hope that we'll not go revenge route like Czechs did
d) I find it fun that you, Russians, understand my "work hard" as a genocide against Russian speaking people. No, I mean soft but determined reukrainization
Post by: scrdest on March 17, 2014, 04:46:45 pm
I personally don't consider invasion as reasonable grounds for ethnic purging. If a country A with a dominant nationality X invades another country B, it is still morally wrong if country B responds by killing/deporting all the X people in its borders.Wouldn't have to go that far, I imagine. Just don't allow russian as an official language and refuse further russian immigration and let the problem sort itself out.
Though it's not quite as clear cut as you present, KT. If it were like that, then yeah, but when Country A is using the existence of Nationality X in Country B as the reason for invasion... well, it's perhaps not moral to want (and perhaps encourage, so long as it doesn't come to violence) members of Nationality X to gtfo, but at that point it might not be immoral, either. Not when having the ethnicity in your boarder is a literal existential threat for your nation.
It's a really, really tough situation. Even discarding the possibility of Russia playing the 'WAA(G)H OPPRESION OF RUSSIANS' card, it's either:
a) Punish people whose only fault was being born to people who were born in another country, or who were forcibly relocated to live there;
b) Leave them be and have a couple thousands of living Casi Bellorum in your country;
c) Try to install a sense of belonging to the nation, and end up with weak points of both a) and b).
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 04:47:38 pm
Seriously, why not just support government documents in both languages? I get that Ukraine wants to stay as far away as possible from Russian culture, but if you use both, everybody is happy.We tried that in Finland. I still get Finnish papers. It's like as if they don't bother looking me up in the register and notice the "Native Tongue: SWEDISH" sign in big red letters.
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 04:49:18 pm
Good point, but I honestly doubt that Putin, if he needs to keep up the landgrabbing spectacle to stay in power, would not interpret the deportation of russian speakers as "obvious oppression" and thus an even better casus belli.I personally don't consider invasion as reasonable grounds for ethnic purging. If a country A with a dominant nationality X invades another country B, it is still morally wrong if country B responds by killing/deporting all the X people in its borders.Wouldn't have to go that far, I imagine. Just don't allow russian as an official language and refuse further russian immigration and let the problem sort itself out.
Though it's not quite as clear cut as you present, KT. If it were like that, then yeah, but when Country A is using the existence of Nationality X in Country B as the reason for invasion... well, it's perhaps not moral to want (and perhaps encourage, so long as it doesn't come to violence) members of Nationality X to gtfo, but at that point it might not be immoral, either. Not when having the ethnicity in your border is a literal existential threat for your nation.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 04:54:32 pm
If he were to try attacking Finland, well, Finland kicked Russian butt before and Norway and Sweden will definetly help defend.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 17, 2014, 04:55:30 pm
Good point, but I honestly doubt that Putin, if he needs to keep up the landgrabbing spectacle to stay in power, would not interpret the deportation of russian speakers as "obvious oppression" and thus an even better casus belli.
Options for states bordering the nu-USSR:
- Cooperate with the Kremlin, implement dual language laws and act steadfastly in the face of opposition to integrate and respect their rights as fellow countrymen, even having Russian language textbooks in schools. Get invaded for changing their leadership to a non-Kremlin aligned philosophy.
- Do not have open borders with Russia, do not implement forced dual language laws, and assimilate Russian culture into your own while respecting their rights to self determination [Like every real society]. Get invaded for 'not respecting the rights of Russians'
Post by: olemars on March 17, 2014, 04:57:46 pm
If anything might give another attempt at the repeal legs, yeah, this would be it. The people who most benefited from official russian language stuff are now gone.
The law didn't apply to Crimea, they have their own language laws.
-snip-QuoteThe bill has nothing to do with the official bilingualism in some Western democracies where the citizen has priority while the state (state officials) must provide services in the customer’s language of preference. The Soviet type of “bilingualism,” on the contrary, prioritizes the state, i.e. the bureaucracy that chooses the preferable language (inevitably Russian) and imposes it upon citizens.Meanwhile, in Finland, you'd be damn lucky to find state services in Swedish despite Swedish being the second state language, mandated by law. You really have to live in the right places to get that quality or cry to high heaven.
I still remember reading with horror through Finnish court papers last Summer.
Finland and its efforts to drive out the Swedish language is an interesting parallell to Ukraine. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but they were pretty fierce about it and the swedish minority wasn't happy at all (probably still isn't I guess). Then Russia built a naval base in one of the swedish language bastions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang%C3%B6#Soviet_naval_base).
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 17, 2014, 04:58:20 pm
Well, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members, so he can't touch them, I don't know how many Russians live in Finland, but that doesn't seem likely. If he were to go after Poland, he would have to get through Belarus and I don't think anybody is going to fall for that 'massive military drill on the border and then invade' trick again.If Putin decides to be more evil for the sake of being evil by invading Poland, he'll encounter another problem - it is also a NATO member.
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 04:59:12 pm
Well, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members, so he can't touch them, I don't know how many Russians live in Finland, but that doesn't seem likely. If he were to go after Poland, he would have to get through Belarus and I don't think anybody is going to fall for that 'massive military drill on the border and then invade' trick again.More than 70 000, last I checked. And here there be Finns who haven't forgotten the Winter War and Continuation War.
Russophobia is very real here.
If he were to try attacking Finland, well, Finland kicked Russian butt before and Norway and Sweden will definetly help defend.Considering the laughable state the Swedish military is in right now, it will take more than that I fear to fend off Russia.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 05:00:12 pm
Good point, but I honestly doubt that Putin, if he needs to keep up the landgrabbing spectacle to stay in power, would not interpret the deportation of russian speakers as "obvious oppression" and thus an even better casus belli.
Options for states bordering the nu-USSR:
- Cooperate with the Kremlin, implement dual language laws and act steadfastly in the face of opposition to integrate and respect their rights as fellow countrymen, even having Russian language textbooks in schools. Get invaded for changing their leadership to a non-Kremlin aligned philosophy.
- Do not have open borders with Russia, do not implement forced dual language laws, and assimilate Russian culture into your own while respecting their rights to self determination [Like every real society]. Get invaded for 'not respecting the rights of Russians'
Now that we have seen that 'mass drill on the border and then invade' tactic, it shouldn't fool anybody a second time. Not sure why nobody saw through it the first time.....
Post by: Knit tie on March 17, 2014, 05:03:42 pm
Perhaps the ukrainian government did, but was in too much chaos to react properly, like the soviet government was before Hitler invaded USSR.Good point, but I honestly doubt that Putin, if he needs to keep up the landgrabbing spectacle to stay in power, would not interpret the deportation of russian speakers as "obvious oppression" and thus an even better casus belli.
Options for states bordering the nu-USSR:
- Cooperate with the Kremlin, implement dual language laws and act steadfastly in the face of opposition to integrate and respect their rights as fellow countrymen, even having Russian language textbooks in schools. Get invaded for changing their leadership to a non-Kremlin aligned philosophy.
- Do not have open borders with Russia, do not implement forced dual language laws, and assimilate Russian culture into your own while respecting their rights to self determination [Like every real society]. Get invaded for 'not respecting the rights of Russians'
Now that we have seen that 'mass drill on the border and then invade' tactic, it shouldn't fool anybody a second time. Not sure why nobody saw through it the first time.....
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 05:07:24 pm
Well, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members, so he can't touch them, I don't know how many Russians live in Finland, but that doesn't seem likely. If he were to go after Poland, he would have to get through Belarus and I don't think anybody is going to fall for that 'massive military drill on the border and then invade' trick again.More than 70 000, last I checked. And here there be Finns who haven't forgotten the Winter War and Continuation War.
Russophobia is very real here.If he were to try attacking Finland, well, Finland kicked Russian butt before and Norway and Sweden will definetly help defend.Considering the laughable state the Swedish military is in right now, it will take more than that I fear to fend off Russia.
Excuse my lack of knowledge of Scandinavian military. Finland is apparently not in NATO, now would be a good time to join it.
There are a good deal of Russian born and self reported as Russian people in the US, but that only makes up a small percentage of the total US population and Putin would have to be absolutely insane to attack the US.
This kind of behavior by Russia is what NATO was created for wasn't it......
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 17, 2014, 05:11:31 pm
We have this in Belgium, but it's not that functional. Doesn't help that both sides will use even the tiniest slip-up to block the other side.Seriously, why not just support government documents in both languages? I get that Ukraine wants to stay as far away as possible from Russian culture, but if you use both, everybody is happy.We tried that in Finland. I still get Finnish papers. It's like as if they don't bother looking me up in the register and notice the "Native Tongue: SWEDISH" sign in big red letters.
Highlights include, but are not limited too:
Mayor's not being appointed because they sent election letters in French to French speaking citizens, without them having explicitly requested it (which involves a lot of paperwork).
Flemish representatives started to converse in French, on a meeting where everyone is legally required to speak Dutch, in order to be able to block a soon to be voted proposal for constitutional reasons.
Operating without government for more than 500 days, trying to resolve troubles and simplify systems in the municipalities mentioned above.
...
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 05:11:41 pm
There are certainly talks of joining NATO in the air right now.Well, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members, so he can't touch them, I don't know how many Russians live in Finland, but that doesn't seem likely. If he were to go after Poland, he would have to get through Belarus and I don't think anybody is going to fall for that 'massive military drill on the border and then invade' trick again.More than 70 000, last I checked. And here there be Finns who haven't forgotten the Winter War and Continuation War.
Russophobia is very real here.If he were to try attacking Finland, well, Finland kicked Russian butt before and Norway and Sweden will definetly help defend.Considering the laughable state the Swedish military is in right now, it will take more than that I fear to fend off Russia.
Excuse my lack of knowledge of Scandinavian military. Finland is apparently not in NATO, now would be a good time to join it.
There are a good deal of Russian born and self reported as Russian people in the US, but that only makes up a small percentage of the total US population and Putin would have to be absolutely insane to attack the US.
This kind of behavior by Russia is what NATO was created for wasn't it......
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 05:13:52 pm
Seriously, why not just support government documents in both languages? I get that Ukraine wants to stay as far away as possible from Russian culture, but if you use both, everybody is happy.1) Some explanation of the current language situation
Russian and Ukrainian is not like Finnish and Swedish in Finland or English and French in Canada or German\French\Italian in Switzerland were person may don't understand the other language at all or don't understand it enough
In Ukraine huge majority of population* knows both Russian and Ukrainian. Yep, some may have some minor problems writing\talking the other's language. Not that they will not be misunderstood, but their grammar\pronunciation will be weird and funny. That's all. Languages are too similar to not learn the second one when you live in a country.
* mostly morons like our last Prime Minister.
2) Russian is dominating in nation-wide mass media. Local Ukrainian media in Crimea\Eastern Ukraine is non-existent
3) There are no lack of Russian language education from elementary schools to universities there are enough Russian language options. Contrary Ukrainian language education is often not available, especially in Crimea
4) I was badly insulted more than once in my life when I asked a governmental official to use Ukrainian language to answer me. That's forcing guys like them to use Ukrainian is what they call persecution
You see they want second official language not to have a right to use Russian. They have that. They want to have a right to never use Ukrainian. Language that they despise. Language that they call an ugly dialect of Russian. Language of the cattle. Language of stupid villagers. Language of Banderas (read Fascists) and more, more and more.
They, in their heads, still live in Russian Empire as the main ethnicity and should not have a duty to learn the language of that savages they conquered. Ukraine, Baltic States. Central Asian countries, everywhere the situation is the same.
Don't you find it strange that Russian language is "persecuted" in each and every post-Soviet country?
I don't say that all Russians behave like that. I have friends, Ethnic Russians, who love Ukrainian culture and language, speak Ukrainian no worse then me and have no imperialism virus in their head
PS, Also, some ethnic Ukrainians do have inferiority complex and try to be like Russians, including shunning Ukrainian language
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 05:17:55 pm
There are certainly talks of joining NATO in the air right now.Well, Estonia and Latvia are NATO members, so he can't touch them, I don't know how many Russians live in Finland, but that doesn't seem likely. If he were to go after Poland, he would have to get through Belarus and I don't think anybody is going to fall for that 'massive military drill on the border and then invade' trick again.More than 70 000, last I checked. And here there be Finns who haven't forgotten the Winter War and Continuation War.
Russophobia is very real here.If he were to try attacking Finland, well, Finland kicked Russian butt before and Norway and Sweden will definetly help defend.Considering the laughable state the Swedish military is in right now, it will take more than that I fear to fend off Russia.
Excuse my lack of knowledge of Scandinavian military. Finland is apparently not in NATO, now would be a good time to join it.
There are a good deal of Russian born and self reported as Russian people in the US, but that only makes up a small percentage of the total US population and Putin would have to be absolutely insane to attack the US.
This kind of behavior by Russia is what NATO was created for wasn't it......
I bet Ukranians are wishing they HAD joined the NATO. Don't know what the requirements are though, if any.
Post by: da_nang on March 17, 2014, 05:42:36 pm
That's forcing guys like them to use Ukrainian is what they call persecutionWait... They know both languages decently at least and refuses to use the other one when asked. And they call that persecution???
Holy fuck. Here I'm lucky to find anyone with decent Swedish. Here there be hate-speeches, death (http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2013/05/29/polisen-borjar-utreda-mordhot-mot-finlandssvenskar) threats (http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-spraket-har-lett-till-dodshot-i-finland_8229482.svd), racism and right-wing nationalists. Here it's a constant struggle to maintain the state language status of Swedish. Even more so with the True Finns gaining more popularity.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 17, 2014, 06:13:57 pm
I agree with Da_Nang, sanctioning 21 people (and not even Putin!) isn't going to do anything. Why they didn't put sanctions on Putin, no idea. Still though, it was a first step and arent going to be the last sanctions.Yeah, step 2 isn't even active yet. There is also a step 3 which would include heavy economic sanctions. Remember, we are negotiating, so we can't waste all leverage at once. Step 2 is meant to show that it's serious and that we want to talk, sanctioning Putin personally would be an affront that might prevent further talks. If these further talks work out positively, we can think about going back to step 1 or even back to normal ideally. If the talks remain fruitless, we can go to step 3. If everything goes to shit, we'll have to think about what we'll do then. That's how negotiation works, it's all offers and threats, give and take, step by step. You need some wiggle room.
Now that we have seen that 'mass drill on the border and then invade' tactic, it shouldn't fool anybody a second time. Not sure why nobody saw through it the first time.....Actually most people saw it through from relatively early on, except that the official Kremlin version is still that it is self defense forces in Crimea. Some people here predicted it quite early, I personally would not have thought that Putin would risk it, mostly because I think that all this so far could have been achieved diplomatically.
I bet Ukranians are wishing they HAD joined the NATO. Don't know what the requirements are though, if any.There were talks about joining, in the early 2000s. Ukraine was offered the prospect of joining some time in the future, but it never came to that for the exact reason that is at the core of this situation: If you force Ukraine to decide between Russia and the West, you will make Russia feel threatened and you risk tearing Ukraine apart. Ukrainians were aware of that and didn't really wish to join, which they probably regret now.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 06:24:31 pm
You see... Finnish and Swedish languages are very differentThat's forcing guys like them to use Ukrainian is what they call persecutionWait... They know both languages decently at least and refuses to use the other one when asked. And they call that persecution???
Holy fuck. Here I'm lucky to find anyone with decent Swedish. Here there be hate-speeches, death (http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2013/05/29/polisen-borjar-utreda-mordhot-mot-finlandssvenskar) threats (http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-spraket-har-lett-till-dodshot-i-finland_8229482.svd), racism and right-wing nationalists. Here it's a constant struggle to maintain the state language status of Swedish. Even more so with the True Finns gaining more popularity.
Russian and Ukrainian share something like 2\3rds words, have very similar grammar and not so different phonetics. So even a Russian from Russia who never learned Ukrainian will partially understand what a Ukrainian says.
Russian that lives in Ukraine has regular contacts with Ukrainians and has access to Ukrainian media should learn it easily without spending any effort.
When a Russian who was born in Ukraine and lived there all his life claims that he has problem with officials using Ukrainian I find it very weird
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 17, 2014, 06:31:46 pm
True FinnsAs a Finn I take offence to that. Call it Clown Party (Pelle Seura, PS).
Holy fuck. Here I'm lucky to find anyone with decent Swedish.Given the state of Swedish language education, it's not lucky, it's a fucking miracle. You couldn't make it any worse from what it is even if you try.
We tried that in Finland. I still get Finnish papers. It's like as if they don't bother looking me up in the register and notice the "Native Tongue: SWEDISH" sign in big red letters.Or basic bureaucracy. Even if you file every paper they need in the whole process you're going through right at the start, and tell them that, they stay on the desk of the first bureaucrat while he hands the mater to the next, who will then ask you to send new copies for what's missing. Those office rats only look at the papers in front of them, and never look up your information even if they have acces to it. Nope, just keep sending those papers in snail mail.
And that's for every little thing you need to get done. The rage never ends...
Finland is apparently not in NATO, now would be a good time to join it.There's lot of opposition to that, thanks to americans playing
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2014, 06:34:01 pm
Maybe we should start revolting against the oppressing bureaucracy? ;)
Post by: mainiac on March 17, 2014, 06:37:13 pm
Well, the US hasn't finished doing sanctions (no sanctions on Putin? What's up with that??) and I don't know what Germany and the rest of Europe are doing with sanctions.
Also, the stock here in the US went up by 200 points when the Crimean referendum went through, go figure. The stock market doesn't like instability.
Maybe sanctions take time? It's easy to throw together a loophole prone thing that looks good but the US under Obama has taken the approach of working out a framework that's works and most western leaders seem inclined to follow the lead.
Maybe the stock market is more likely to respond to unexpectedly slightly better then expected domestic numbers then on the results of a referendum that everyone knew was rigged ahead of time? A small change generally doesn't need foreign events to explain it.
Now that we have seen that 'mass drill on the border and then invade' tactic, it shouldn't fool anybody a second time. Not sure why nobody saw through it the first time.....
Sure they recognized the possibility, they just had faith that the Russians would do the smart thing rather then the stupid thing. Countries have military drills on the border all the time. The US tends to do several a year near North Korea. That doesn't mean we are planning to invade the second they lower their guard. Assuming that the russians would invade, throwing away huge amounts of economic and diplomatic capital for a sliver of land would be paranoid.
It's like when your opponent draws the inside straight in poker. Folding against an opponent who just drew the inside straight isn't a good move, it's a bad one.
Post by: Frumple on March 17, 2014, 06:39:33 pm
Maybe we should start revolting against the oppressing bureaucracy? ;)Sure, sure... just sign form 420-R in triplicate and submit it to the Bureau of Domestic Reform and you'll be contacted within 36 weeks as to whether your application to participate in bureaucratic revolution has been rejected or denied.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 17, 2014, 06:44:56 pm
There's lot of opposition to that, thanks to americans playingIronically, one of the changes this whole thing might bring is that it has the potential to unite both the EU internally and the EU with the US, in times when these relationships were quite strained. Putin is indeed bringing peace and unity by turning back the clock 30 years. It was mentioned earlier in the thread, he is already nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.cowboysworld police around the globe. The only one who can push Finland to NATO is the Democratically Elected President of Democratic Russia. He is doing good job at it, maybe we should give him some kind of award?
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced a list of suggestions (e.g. demands) to end the Ukrainian crisis. (http://mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/49766426492B6E9644257C9E0036B79A) These are:The thing with that list is how you interpret it.It seems that Putin is not interested in conquering Ukraine, but in keeping the United States, EU and NATO away from it.
- Ukraine should become a federation;
- The Russian language should become the second state language of Ukraine;
- Ukraine should recognize the Crimean independence referendum;
- Ukraine should become a politically and militarily neutral state.
Ukraine becoming a federation looks good on paper, as there is some division in the country and decentralisation could help with that. Then it looks like preparation for repeating the Crimea scenario piece by piece. Constitutional reform might be a good idea, but that is up to Ukraine, not Russia. First Russia would need to recognize the Ukrainian government and/or allow for elections that are not disturbed by military presence, provocations and the threat of invasion.
I'm sure something with the languages could be figured out, solutions on regional levels might make more sense. Also something that should be up to Ukrainian lawmakers after elections.
Getting the Crimea referendum recognized will be a main goal. I have doubts that it can be reversed, even with kicking and screaming. This might be a point where the West will eventually give in, at least leaving it in the "de-facto" limbo.
A neutral Ukraine sounds reasonable, let them sign an EU association treaty AND the customs union. On the other hand, being a militarily powerless state neighbouring an aggressive Russia is not a prospect Ukrainians are going to be happy about after this. Figuring out a scenario that is acceptable to Ukraine, Russia and the West is not going to be easy. It wasn't easy before and now it's a lot harder.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 06:45:44 pm
Finland is apparently not in NATO, now would be a good time to join it.There's lot of opposition to that, thanks to americans playingcowboysworld police around the globe. The only one who can push Finland to NATO is the Democratically Elected President of Democratic Russia. He is doing good job at it, maybe we should give him some kind of award?
Not like Finland absolutely HAS to join into whatever the US is doing.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2014, 06:47:36 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 17, 2014, 06:54:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 17, 2014, 06:55:50 pm
We have this in Belgium, but it's not that functional. Doesn't help that both sides will use even the tiniest slip-up to block the other side.
To be fair, only the Flemish refuses to speak the other language while knowing it. We simply refuse to learn Dutch. :p
Also, the Russians didn't so much invade during the drills as step out of their military base. It's not even clear they have more troops in Crimea than their deal with Ukraine allow, it's just that they're supposed to be in their bases, not invading the country.
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 17, 2014, 06:56:03 pm
Not like Finland absolutely HAS to join into whatever the US is doing.Tell that to the american politicians who cry out for
Edit:
To be fair, only the Flemish refuses to speak French. We refuse to learn it. :pThis reminds me of my current EU3 game where all former Flemish now speak either portuguese or English.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 17, 2014, 07:03:38 pm
That's is. Putin is in fact the good guy and has been so all along! His only goal is to unite the globe into a peaceful coalition, like the UN were intended to be, but he knows that the only way to do so is to unite the world against an evil emperor. Since Best Korea is far from credible enough, and Crazy Iran failed despite his backup, Putin decided to martyr himself and pose as the Evil Emperor the free world need to unite against! [/1amsarcasm]There's lot of opposition to that, thanks to americans playingIronically, one of the changes this whole thing might bring is that it has the potential to unite both the EU internally and the EU with the US, in times when these relationships were quite strained. Putin is indeed bringing peace and unity by turning back the clock 30 years. It was mentioned earlier in the thread, he is already nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.cowboysworld police around the globe. The only one who can push Finland to NATO is the Democratically Elected President of Democratic Russia. He is doing good job at it, maybe we should give him some kind of award?
Seriously though, if the situation diplomatically escalate to CWII and the West manage a lasting, deeper unity, Putin deserves that peace nobel.
Or IgNobel at the very least.
Post by: smjjames on March 17, 2014, 07:05:02 pm
Not like Finland absolutely HAS to join into whatever the US is doing.Tell that to the american politicians who cry out forinvadingdefending themselves against Iran/Pakistan/North Korea/whatever next time there is terrorist attack on USA. Most people here just don't want to have anything to do with that.
Edit:To be fair, only the Flemish refuses to speak French. We refuse to learn it. :pThis reminds me of my current EU3 game where all former Flemish now speak either portuguese or English.
Oh? then don't come crying to us for help if you get attacked by terrorists, or Russia for that matter!
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 17, 2014, 07:09:36 pm
Post by: scriver on March 17, 2014, 07:25:54 pm
That's forcing guys like them to use Ukrainian is what they call persecutionWait... They know both languages decently at least and refuses to use the other one when asked. And they call that persecution???
Holy fuck. Here I'm lucky to find anyone with decent Swedish. Here there be hate-speeches, death (http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2013/05/29/polisen-borjar-utreda-mordhot-mot-finlandssvenskar) threats (http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-spraket-har-lett-till-dodshot-i-finland_8229482.svd), racism and right-wing nationalists. Here it's a constant struggle to maintain the state language status of Swedish. Even more so with the True Finns gaining more popularity.
Welp, I guess we just have to invade then. Target all Baltic Party Boats on Helsinki! Bring in the Drunk Legions! We will drown them below waves and waves of pissed 50-somethings behaving embarrassingly inappropriate for their age!
Post by: Sergarr on March 17, 2014, 07:56:00 pm
It's easy to win CWII. Stop supplying Iphones to Russia and Putin will be overthrown as soon as a new model appearsThat's against the very idea of free market! Next you'll probably propose to distribute the Iphones equally between all people! ;)
Post by: Helgoland on March 17, 2014, 09:19:56 pm
I still think we should make Mallorca the 17th Bundesland. "While everybody was watching Crimea, Merkel acted swiftly and resolutely. Und so wuchs zusammen, was zusammengehört..."That's forcing guys like them to use Ukrainian is what they call persecutionWait... They know both languages decently at least and refuses to use the other one when asked. And they call that persecution???
Holy fuck. Here I'm lucky to find anyone with decent Swedish. Here there be hate-speeches, death (http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2013/05/29/polisen-borjar-utreda-mordhot-mot-finlandssvenskar) threats (http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-spraket-har-lett-till-dodshot-i-finland_8229482.svd), racism and right-wing nationalists. Here it's a constant struggle to maintain the state language status of Swedish. Even more so with the True Finns gaining more popularity.
Welp, I guess we just have to invade then. Target all Baltic Party Boats on Helsinki! Bring in the Drunk Legions! We will drown them below waves and waves of pissed 50-somethings behaving embarrassingly inappropriate for their age!
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 18, 2014, 01:20:19 am
And before scriver jumps in to defend Glorious Mother Sweden, learn perfect Finnish so you're not 'persecuting' those poor Swedish Finns with your insufficient grasp of the language.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 18, 2014, 02:09:34 am
It's easy to win CWII. Stop supplying Iphones to Russia and Putin will be overthrown as soon as a new model appearsHah. A lot of people are switching to Samsung here anyway. Better software catalog, less oppressive marketing model, lower prices. Plus Android>iOS. ^_^
Post by: scriver on March 18, 2014, 02:30:00 am
The Finno-Swede minority constitutes only 5% of the population, and still has driven through mandatory Swedish education, bilingual signs, channels, services, etc., and you call that persecution? I'm no PS supporter, and that these systems fail in practice sucks, but come on.
And before scriver jumps in to defend Glorious Mother Sweden, learn perfect Finnish so you're not 'persecuting' those poor Swedish Finns with your insufficient grasp of the language.
Hey now, that hurts. I would never defend those oppressive barbarians! I'm Geat, remember? We have a blood debt to settle with the Swedish imperialists.
On more serious note, it's wasn't about "learning perfect Swedish" he was complaining about, it was not being able to get government papers in it. Which Finns in Sweden are entitled to as well, you know, and it's just as bad if they can't get them.
I'm all for forcing all Finns to learn Swedish though, because the fialift is mad adorbes :P
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 18, 2014, 04:17:26 am
In Belarus, HTC and Huawei phones are also popular - and they are made by Chinese companies (HTC is from Taiwan, Huawei is from mainland China). No one except 'creative' hipsters (which constitute a very small minority of the population) would suffer much from an iPhone embargo, both here and in Russia.It's easy to win CWII. Stop supplying Iphones to Russia and Putin will be overthrown as soon as a new model appearsHah. A lot of people are switching to Samsung here anyway. Better software catalog, less oppressive marketing model, lower prices. Plus Android>iOS. ^_^
The recent news are:
RT's Youtube account was banned
According to RIA Novosti, the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, unanimously passed a declaration urging America and the EU to apply asset freezes and travel bans against them in solidarity with the sanctioned Russian officials. (http://ria.ru/politics/20140318/999997251.html) Plus, it will help Russia enforce the law that forbids owning foreign assets for all Russian officials.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 05:30:59 am
There are TV advertisements to send $0.5 worth SMS for the needs of the armed forces.
I think the next step is crowdfunding campaigns in Internet.
Post by: DJ on March 18, 2014, 05:31:51 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 05:51:33 am
Army can offer various stuff as rewards, ranging from your own uniform and one day visit to a military base to your own out of service APC.
Post by: burningpet on March 18, 2014, 06:03:46 am
When my friend lost all of his gear, he was trialed for ~7M USD. he was found guilty and had to pay a fine of ~100 USD.
Post by: scrdest on March 18, 2014, 06:08:41 am
I wonder what the stretch goals on Kickstarter will be.
100$: Get an authentic army experience! Your very own uniform, bunk, and rifle. Russians to shoot not included. Following the commands of the officers is prerequisite to receiving the prize.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 18, 2014, 06:08:54 am
That's is. Putin is in fact the good guy and has been so all along! His only goal is to unite the globe into a peaceful coalition, like the UN were intended to be, but he knows that the only way to do so is to unite the world against an evil emperor. Since Best Korea is far from credible enough, and Crazy Iran failed despite his backup, Putin decided to martyr himself and pose as the Evil Emperor the free world need to unite against! [/1amsarcasm]There's lot of opposition to that, thanks to americans playingIronically, one of the changes this whole thing might bring is that it has the potential to unite both the EU internally and the EU with the US, in times when these relationships were quite strained. Putin is indeed bringing peace and unity by turning back the clock 30 years. It was mentioned earlier in the thread, he is already nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.cowboysworld police around the globe. The only one who can push Finland to NATO is the Democratically Elected President of Democratic Russia. He is doing good job at it, maybe we should give him some kind of award?
Seriously though, if the situation diplomatically escalate to CWII and the West manage a lasting, deeper unity, Putin deserves that peace nobel.
Or IgNobel at the very least.
Spoiler: Evil Empire uniforms (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 06:13:17 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 18, 2014, 06:20:27 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 06:26:51 am
Well, prices might have changed since then but when i was in the army, my sort of APC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_armored_engineering_vehicle) without gear cost ~20M USD (and that's cheap considering the vehicle is a modified one and not a brand new model), so that would have to be a really successful kickstarter.
When my friend lost all of his gear, he was trialed for ~7M USD. he was found guilty and had to pay a fine of ~100 USD.
Sorry, but $20 millions for an engineering vehicle based looks very doubtful
With Merkava IV tanks costing something like $6 millions per piece (http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=1260) I highly doubt that conversation of an old tank into an engineering vehicle can cost three times more
And I want to hear more about $7 millions worth personal gear. That is some very high-tech stuff
But procurement of new equipment is not a small scale project.
Small scale projects could include stuff like: Repairing all APCs in some unit. Building new barracks for some soldiers. Procuring new small arms for some unit. Paying for the runninmg cost of some small-scale exercises
Stuff like that can be achieved with small relatively small budgets
Post by: Knit tie on March 18, 2014, 06:38:37 am
As for Avis and co., I'd like to remind you that they are as entitled to their opinion as we are to ours. Even assing they are wrong, that is no reason for contempt.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 18, 2014, 06:47:55 am
Quote from: Putin
Crimea will always belong to both Russians, and Ukrainians, and Crimean Tatars. *interrupted by applause* But it will never belong to the Bandera.(translation mine (funny how it's hard to find a translation for "бандеровцы" on the internet :P), emphasis his, applause indeterminable)
I am fiercely indifferent to this whole affair, to be honest. Just observing.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 06:53:01 am
Thank you for announcing your long-term plans, mr Putin
Post by: DJ on March 18, 2014, 06:54:36 am
Post by: scrdest on March 18, 2014, 06:56:28 am
I was talking stretch goals, not rewards. Like $1 000 000 000 000 - Ukrainian army will burn down Moscow.
I know, but that was what sprung to my mind upon hearing it.
15 000 000 000$ - Ukrainian Army trains the world's first Space Marine regiments.
Post by: da_nang on March 18, 2014, 07:34:30 am
Post by: ed boy on March 18, 2014, 07:36:46 am
Post by: moondowner on March 18, 2014, 09:31:09 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 18, 2014, 09:55:19 am
In my twitter timeline, there are some suggestions to dig a trench along the Eastern border and fill it with magma. Suddenly, now I feel as I might be useful to the cause.http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/uk-ukraine-crisis-east-idUKBREA2G1J820140317
Post by: da_nang on March 18, 2014, 11:10:09 am
Post by: Mephansteras on March 18, 2014, 11:43:45 am
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 12:06:26 pm
According to Reuters, a Ukrainian army base in Simferopol has been attacked. Russian soldiers are suspected.
I guess that cease-fire deal signed earlier wasn't worth much. One Ukrainian soldier reported killed now after their base was stormed by soldiers without insignia. Russian media claims there was a sniper shooting at "self-defence-forces".
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 18, 2014, 12:06:59 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 18, 2014, 12:07:44 pm
According to Reuters, a Ukrainian army base in Simferopol has been attacked. Russian soldiers are suspected.
I guess that cease-fire deal signed earlier wasn't worth much. One Ukrainian soldier reported killed now after their base was stormed by soldiers without insignia. Russian media claims there was a sniper shooting at "self-defence-forces".
Reported by Polish media as well, and we're not exactly Team Russia.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 12:28:01 pm
Even if this was not somehow planned, incidents like this could escalate the situation really bad.
Post by: tryrar on March 18, 2014, 12:48:48 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 18, 2014, 12:58:45 pm
Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Uhm. Please point at any Ukrainian trooper in Crimea that would do that.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 01:04:03 pm
Right, that seems unlikely. The problem is, it seems they are arresting the Ukrainian soldiers, presumably to send them to Ukraine. If there is some kind of incident where someone one either side loses it and starts firing...Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Uhm. Please point at any Ukrainian trooper in Crimea that would do that.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 18, 2014, 01:14:46 pm
Well, our media says that Ukrainian soldiers are kept inside their bases and were only allowed to come out to participate in referendum, and some just flee to serve in Russian military afterwards.Right, that seems unlikely. The problem is, it seems they are arresting the Ukrainian soldiers, presumably to send them to Ukraine. If there is some kind of incident where someone one either side loses it and starts firing...Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Uhm. Please point at any Ukrainian trooper in Crimea that would do that.
I do not claim it is true, but it is what our media says. Actually, today most of the media was broadcasting Putin's speech.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 01:19:03 pm
Well, IIRC you said that all Ukrainian units in Crimea will switch sides in the next few days and mocked me with Ukrainian flagship that "raised Russian flag"Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Uhm. Please point at any Ukrainian trooper in Crimea that would do that.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 18, 2014, 01:24:34 pm
Well, most of them did. But in some particular bases autorities were not so pro-russian like their soldiers, so, they were just sitting there. And for now, they still do. Some soldiers try just try to resign, but that doesn't work for conscripts, only for those who work by contract. And I still believe that by the end of integration of Crimea all of them would switch sides.Well, IIRC you said that all Ukrainian units in Crimea will switch sides in the next few days and mocked me with Ukrainian flagship that "raised Russian flag"Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Uhm. Please point at any Ukrainian trooper in Crimea that would do that.
On an unrelated note:
Fun fact: sanctions on russian politicians were meant to arrest their US/EU property and actives. A year ago, a law in Russia was set, prohibiting politicians and government workers to have any actives out of Russia. So, they're, like, helping us a bit.
Another fun fact: presidents' assistant claimed today that he's fine with sanctions that US declared against him, for he has no actives in US. In fact, he said, he is a bit proud - being a person on US black list is something like an political Oscar for best man's role of second plan.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 18, 2014, 01:35:17 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 01:45:54 pm
Quote
Well, most of them did.Only in Russian media. Yep, local police and secret service switched instantly but there are very few defections among army, navy and border guards
Quote
But in some particular bases autorities were not so pro-russian like their soldiersWho said you that soldiers are pro-Russian? Oh, Russian media
Quote
And I still believe that by the end of integration of Crimea all of them would switch sides.All of them? Are you that sure that no single unit will remain loyal?
Here are one video for you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1JotTcryPY It is mostly in Russian.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 18, 2014, 01:54:26 pm
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 01:54:35 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 02:17:05 pm
BlindKitty, it remains to be seen if we'll see a guerrilla war in Crimea... That really depends on how Crimean Tatars will be treated and how bad economic situation there will be. As for far-right volunteer forces from Europe... I think it will happen only in the case of full-scale invasion in Ukraine and will be merely symbolic
As for Ukrainian armed forces, now units there have no chance to actually fight. Yes, in the first days we could wipe Russian forces out simply because they had no heavy armor nor heavy artillery, only light troops. That would lead to many civilian causalities and not winnable full-scale war on the Eastern border, but very few Russians would remain alive in Crimea. Our dove government decided against that and probably it was a right decision
Now it's late, they brought more forces and heavy weaponry here... Now our forces need to be evacuated and that is not an easy task. Russian want to "nationalize"(read steal) all Ukrainian military hardware stationed in Crimea to use it against us in attacking on the mainland Ukraine (Now or few years later... It's hard to say)
I'd really prefer if our current government would order our troops to do what surrounded troops should do - start a breakthrough to the friendly territory, blowing up\disabling everything that can't be evacuated but chances of orders like that are close to zero
Quote
They do not want to escalate the conflict, that is clear.Yes, any sane person doesn't want to start a fight. But doesn't want not the same as isn't ready
Post by: Toady One on March 18, 2014, 02:27:31 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 18, 2014, 02:30:37 pm
I must say Comrade P., I've not seen any report of mass desertions outside Russian medias (except for some individual soldiers being pressured into surrendering by large Russian contingent). Since several of those report (including the one about the Frigate) turned out to be false, I'm not inclined to believe them at all.
Okay, I understand that I just got pumped up with our propaganda. I do not know what is really going on in Crimea right now. I'm sorry if I got too annoying and abusive with my words and opinions. But I sincerely believe that the situation is going to become stable, for Russia has no other goals in Ukraine. Even Crimea wasn't a goal, but since they asked themselves for help. Or even if they didn't, it seems that no further escalation comes now from Russia. In reions of eastern Ukraine, Russians are truly minorities, and in the case of referendum (which is much less likely than in Crimea, I think) no chance the seceding proposals get enough votes.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 18, 2014, 02:38:01 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 18, 2014, 02:41:33 pm
Well, OK, I'll keep things (mostly) to myself from now on. Just wanted to say that if there are two parties in conflict, and only one is ready to go to war, this party will always win the confrontation, no matter what. Keep that in mind, people from the West. Because next time Poland may not be enough of a buffer.
Russian troops aren't mobilized. They are not concentrated around EU borders even. You call that ready to war?
Post by: Dzedajus on March 18, 2014, 02:49:39 pm
If Russian government isn't that fucking stupid yet they won't repeat same mistake as in ww2.Well, OK, I'll keep things (mostly) to myself from now on. Just wanted to say that if there are two parties in conflict, and only one is ready to go to war, this party will always win the confrontation, no matter what. Keep that in mind, people from the West. Because next time Poland may not be enough of a buffer.
Russian troops aren't mobilized. They are not concentrated around EU borders even. You call that ready to war?
Post by: smjjames on March 18, 2014, 02:53:04 pm
If Russian government isn't that fucking stupid yet they won't repeat same mistake as in ww2.Well, OK, I'll keep things (mostly) to myself from now on. Just wanted to say that if there are two parties in conflict, and only one is ready to go to war, this party will always win the confrontation, no matter what. Keep that in mind, people from the West. Because next time Poland may not be enough of a buffer.
Russian troops aren't mobilized. They are not concentrated around EU borders even. You call that ready to war?
Putin is smart enough to know that it would be suicide to invade Estonia and Lithuania, both NATO members. The most he could do is to rattle them by doing military exersizes near their borders, but he hasn't shown any interest in doing so.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 18, 2014, 02:57:17 pm
Post by: Dzedajus on March 18, 2014, 03:01:46 pm
Putin is smart enough to know that it would be suicide to invade Estonia and Lithuania, both NATO members. The most he could do is to rattle them by doing military exersizes near their borders, but he hasn't shown any interest in doing so.EU wouldn't do anything if he did invade my country, probably only Poland would save us. Some people are seriously afraid of getting invaded for the 5th or so times already. Also I think Russia did some military exercises in Baltic sea already or still doing.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 03:06:54 pm
Anyway, I really feel like we should work on a EU army and better defense integration. Not only would that save tons on money, but it would make it easier to reassure the Baltic people. Also, I think we should station a "tripwire" of various NATO troops there.
Post by: Dutchling on March 18, 2014, 03:07:22 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 18, 2014, 03:16:59 pm
Quote
We'll show those fascists and their Judeo Masonic masters their place!
IS it just me, or are some of the pro-Russian groups a bit... fuzzy... on who exactly their enemy is?
Anyway, it's pretty interesting to actually here direct quotes from the pro-russian groups.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 03:20:04 pm
So apparentlyYeah, I heard about that treaty.the Ottoman EmpireTurkey wants Crimea too now (http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/17/turkey-under-ottoman-empire-treaty-with-catherine-the-great-if-crimea-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/)
It would be amusing if Crimean Tatar defense units suddenly appear armed with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokar_Cobra) this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-155_Fırtına) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-600T_Yıldırım)
All that can be purchased in Ukrainian general stores.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 18, 2014, 03:21:19 pm
Umm, guys, hold on to your butts, cause things are about to get ugly. I've heard reports that the Ukrainian Minister of Defense just authorized the use of leathal force for the troops in Crimea.
Just how much of Ukraine's military capital is in Crimea?
And any word on where those extra 20k russian troops were deployed?
If it's a significant chunk, (more than 5-10%), I won't be surprised to hear about a breakout attempt in the next few days. Perhaps before the 21st, in spite of their agreement, (wouldn't count on Russia's word if I were them..). It really depends on how much of their men & equipment could feasibly escape, (and if the alternative loss of equipment is unbearable).
On the NATO, I let my fingers run about that a few score pages back. Rather than repeat it, here's (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=135758.msg5053971#msg5053971) where that started.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 18, 2014, 03:37:58 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c6eYId4fPE
I'm beginning to think things are honestly going to get a lot worse. Protests in kiev appear to be starting back up as well?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 03:40:42 pm
1) It has a Crimean Tatar minority
2) It's army is stronger than Russian (minus nuclear weapons)
3) It has economic interests in the region
4) Noticeable part of Russian export goes through Bosporus
5) Erdogan needs to fix his own popularity
_____
Quote
Someone tell me this isn't real, and that Svobada is NOT this stupid.Unfortunately it is true... I am used for stupid moves but that one.... It is like working for Russian propaganda
Post by: smjjames on March 18, 2014, 03:41:01 pm
So apparentlythe Ottoman EmpireTurkey wants Crimea too now (http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/17/turkey-under-ottoman-empire-treaty-with-catherine-the-great-if-crimea-declares-independence-it-returns-to-turkey/)
Lol on Turkey invoking that centuries old treaty. Though it's just that author and I don't think Turkey has officially invoked the treaty.
I wonder if Putin is even aware of that treaty. If Turkey goes ahead and invokes that treaty for real, it would make things REALLY complicated. Not sure if Turkey even cares about wanting Crimea anymore, but it's pretty funny that there is this centuries old treaty ready to spring to life in the background of all this.
Post by: smjjames on March 18, 2014, 03:43:36 pm
Edit: Sorry for double post, I half expected someone to post in between this one and my previous post.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 03:55:38 pm
They have no legal claims through that treaty though, because neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Russian monarchy still exist as legal entities. Imagine what the world would look like if all these centuries old treaties would still matter, that's silly.
Post by: Veylon on March 18, 2014, 04:02:49 pm
Granted, NATO won't get the Crimea back for them, but it would pretty much guarantee that they won't lose anything else. It sounds like they are all scared of what further mischief Putin has planned (assuming he's planned anything) and this would be the obvious solution.
What? And now Turkey's wants to fish in troubled waters, too? Oy.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 04:03:22 pm
@ Ukranian Ranger: Just a thought, would you (and other Ukranians) be happier if Crimea was in Turkish hands rather than Russian? I know ultimately you'd rather keep Crimea, but it's just a hypothetical.Hypothetically I'd prefer Turkey.
Edit: Sorry for double post, I half expected someone to post in between this one and my previous post.
a) +one country at borders to trade with is always good
b) Straight of Kerch would be Turkey-Russian controlled not Russian
c) Turkey may be our future ally should Ukraine ever join NATO.
d) Turkey knows how to make nice resorts, so Crimea would turn in good tourism destination for Ukrainians. Russian Crimea is just unsafe, getting killed as Ukrainian nazi for speaking Ukrainian is not a good attraction for tourists
e) I highly doubt that Turkey would have plans to annex lands south of Crimea sometime later.
Of cause that is hypothetic Turkey will never push for annexation. It is a civilized country
And if you ask me what ideal future of Crimea is - I dream that Crimea will be independent few decades later when Crimean Tatars will restore their numbers. It's their land.
Post by: andrea on March 18, 2014, 04:05:43 pm
If turkey and russia start fighting over crimea, I'll stop reading the news and pick up some history books to follow current events.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 04:07:25 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 04:09:09 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 04:10:30 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on March 18, 2014, 04:11:41 pm
Not that I expect this to be the case, mind you, just saying that the usual formalities would be swept away given enough political will.
Post by: burningpet on March 18, 2014, 04:23:06 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 04:26:10 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 18, 2014, 04:32:33 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
From wiki on the NAC:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
About the membership action plan:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Basically, it seems to be a unanimous-decision kind of thing. And also assimilation, (to a degree).
Post by: scrdest on March 18, 2014, 04:48:16 pm
it would be quite silly to invoke a centuries old treaty, especially considering that russia underwent a quite radical revolution in the mean time, voiding any expectation of continuity. that document isn't worth anything, legally. Could be used to fuel internal support for a war, but I don't think that will be done either, since the link was about a random idea a newspaper had, not a statement from government.
If turkey and russia start fighting over crimea, I'll stop reading the news and pick up some history books to follow current events.
Half a league! Half a league! Half a league onwards...
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 05:08:23 pm
There are some worrying parallells with Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the military junta in the shadows. If you look at the timeline it's not hard to imagine that the generals didn't mind letting the MB fuck things up for a while so people would want the military back in power.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 05:10:32 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 05:33:54 pm
NATO don't give a fuck about members with far-righter in government. Greece was in NATO under the colonels.Heh. But Ukrainian Far-Rights don't like the whole idea of NATO.
On other hand Svoboda is a borderline political corpse and can save itself only by changing leadership and kicking some people from the party... but knowing internal working of the party. I doubt that it will be done. My prediction at most 3% percents on the next parliamentary elections assuming that it will happen relatively soon
As for The Right Sector I am still wondering what will happen with it. It has many different guys inside, ranging from liberals with nationalistic tendencies to the guys who have huge swastika tatooed on their backs. It is a wartime alliance and it can't be very stable.
I like Yarosh very much. He is way closer to my own vision of nationalism than Svoboda ever was but I am waiting what will be done with destructive elements of the Right Sector. Kicking out "White hammer" for "lack of discipline and actions that hurts reputation of the Right Sector" was a nice first step.
What can Right Sector reformed into a party achieve? Hard to say. But winning elections is out of the question
Post by: Helgoland on March 18, 2014, 05:37:25 pm
Of course, Turkey is not interested in a war, and so these speculations are completely hypothetical. But they have a valid claim (if that treaty is valid, that is).
Post by: burningpet on March 18, 2014, 05:55:59 pm
How did your friend loose that kind of equipment? A cart shooting rockets ain't exactly the kind of stuff you leave behind sofa cushions.
his puma was completely stripped, but he didn't have the CARPET nor the Viper. it was during a rather big operation with lots of forces camping in the same rally area, so it was probably stripped by a company from another battalion. its sadly a pretty common practice on some battalions and even in the more decent ones, you are pretty much encouraged to "grow" (making things "magically appear") what you miss.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 06:08:20 pm
On centuries-old treaties: They still are legally binding, very much so. The close cooperation between Portugal and England is based on a treaty from the 12th century IIRC, and it was never revoked. Revolutions and such don't matter: The legal successor still has to follow any agreements and fulfill any duties that were previously agreed upon. That's why the BRD had to pay the Weimar Republic's reparations for WWI, you know?Germany is a special case, because the BRD is indeed the legal sucessor state of the German Empire, which is why reparations from WW1 (until recently) and WW2 continue, these were part of peace treaties also. It wasn't until after WW2 that there were some rules for the legal sucession of states, sometimes this stuff isn't even clear today.
Of course, Turkey is not interested in a war, and so these speculations are completely hypothetical. But they have a valid claim (if that treaty is valid, that is).
That treaty between Portugal and England wouldn't be legally binding today anymore. It's highly doubtful that Turkey could use that treaty to get a valid legal claim out of it. Even if Turkey and Russia were legal sucessors to the parties in the treaty, which is questionable, nobody would recognize such a claim as legally relevant.
Still Turkey sees itself as a protector of the Crimean Tatars. They apparently threatened to close the Bosphorus for Russian ships (http://www.novinite.com/articles/159035/Turkey+Threatens+to+Close+Bosphorus+for+Russian+Ships), if there is violence against the Crimean Tatars.
Post by: Bouchart on March 18, 2014, 06:13:36 pm
It's from Zero Hedge, which isn't always the most credible.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 06:15:47 pm
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 06:20:19 pm
Still Turkey sees itself as a protector of the Crimean Tatars. They apparently threatened to close the Bosphorus for Russian ships (http://www.novinite.com/articles/159035/Turkey+Threatens+to+Close+Bosphorus+for+Russian+Ships), if there is violence against the Crimean Tatars.
Incidentally: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-tatars-burial-idUSBREA2H1NR20140318)
Quote
Hundreds of mourners gathered at a cemetery outside Simferopol on Tuesday for the burial of Reshat Ametov, whose murder has sparked anger and fear in a Crimean Tatar community bitterly opposed to Russia's annexation of the Black Sea peninsula.
Ametov, who was in his 30s, disappeared on March 3 when three men in military jackets led him away from the scene of a protest in the Crimean regional capital of Simferopol, witnesses said.
One friend at the burial, who declined to be named for fear of reprisals from pro-Russian agitators, said the father of three had gone into town in order to enlist for the Ukrainian army amid escalating tensions with Russia.
His body was found nearly two weeks later near the town of Belogorsk, 50 km (30 miles) east of Simferopol, naked and showing signs of torture and beating.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 18, 2014, 06:20:58 pm
They apparently threatened to close the Bosphorus for Russian ships (http://www.novinite.com/articles/159035/Turkey+Threatens+to+Close+Bosphorus+for+Russian+Ships), if there is violence against the Crimean Tatars.
Looks like they'd better get to it, then. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-tatars-burial-idUSBREA2H1NR20140318)
Damn you olemars. I challenge you to a duel for this link.
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 06:22:19 pm
edit: now you ninjaed my comment about the link.
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on March 18, 2014, 06:25:02 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 06:25:34 pm
NATO don't give a fuck about members with far-righter in government. Greece was in NATO under the colonels.By the way I am among the guys who has little trust in NATO. For example: I doubt that Spain will be ready to send it's soldiers in a war vs Russia should it attack Estonia just because Spain has signed some piece of paper.
The treaty had sense in the times of Warsaw Pact vs NATO situation when it was obvious that USSR may try to bring communism to the whole Europe and neutrality was a very questionable option
Quote
UKRAINIAN PM: "TODAY RUSSIAN SOLDIERS BEGAN SHOOTING AT UKRAINIAN SERVICEMEN. THIS IS A WAR CRIME"So typical for him. Loud words but little to no actions
He issued something like dozens of ultimatums to Yanukovich....
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 06:26:49 pm
Post by: olemars on March 18, 2014, 06:38:59 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 06:40:45 pm
By the way I am among the guys who has little trust in NATO. For example: I doubt that Spain will be ready to send it's soldiers in a war vs Russia should it attack Estonia just because Spain has signed some piece of paper.NATO invaded Afghanistan because something a dozen people did was ruled as an attack on a NATO member. Defense is the purpose of NATO and members are legally bound to defend each other. It's not like that is optional, it would have dire diplomatic repercussions if a country ignored these treaties.
The treaty had sense in the times of Warsaw Pact vs NATO situation when it was obvious that USSR may try to bring communism to the whole Europe and neutrality was a very questionable option
Also it doesn't really matter which country sends how many troops, the US and Turkey have the two biggest armies in the NATO and are not known for their reluctance when it comes to military action. Even Germany sent troops to Afghanistan, I can tell you that takes some convincing to achieve that. Most importantly several NATO countries have nukes. I really don't see how anybody would want to risk an open conflict with NATO, hoping they don't react.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 06:44:24 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 07:00:17 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 18, 2014, 07:01:26 pm
Touting singular incidents of abductions or graffiti is silly. Not unless it's state-sponsored or /wide-spread/ is it relevant.
According to NPR, that Ukrainian soldier that was killed was killed by a pro-russian sniper, (not a russian(yet)), and ironically the Russian troops were the ones that stopped him.
(looking for confirmation now)
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 07:05:39 pm
According to NPR, that Ukrainian soldier that was killed was killed by a pro-russian sniper, (not a russian(yet)), and ironically the Russian troops were the ones that stopped him.According to the Crimean police a sniper killed a pro-russian militia member and an Ukrainian soldier, and injured two in Simferopol. It really isn't clear what happened yet, except it seems that two people died and some were injured.
Post by: Sheb on March 18, 2014, 07:06:34 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 18, 2014, 07:11:57 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 07:15:50 pm
If soldiers in Russian gear without insignia would be seen wandering around in Estonia, that would fool nobody anymore. Also NATO was initially founded to protect against a potential conflict with Russia, I doubt many governments would be that reluctant, seeing how worried Eastern Europe is already.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 18, 2014, 07:34:13 pm
I am worrying about Lukashenko, assassinating him and annexing Belarus without real government is a very practical way to continue that gathering of Russian lands.
Armenia may have some weird self-defense units appearing on its territory because it has Russian base on it's territory
Central Asian countries are interesting direction for annexing, "nationalizing" their gas would be a huge buff for Gazprom but here China has serious interests and may answer with something more dangerous than deep concern.
Of cause Transinistria, Abkhazia and Ossetia are in the list, too. But it may be easier to keep them in that state
Post by: XXSockXX on March 18, 2014, 07:54:17 pm
Ukraine is in a very particular situation compared to these countries, especially with Crimea. I don't know how easily that model could be repeated ouside of Crimea, and how the locals would react. Really the question remains what will happen in Eastern Ukraine now, a lot depends on that.
I'm not sure what Putin wants, maybe Crimea will be enough. Maybe he does dream of reuniting the USSR territories, but that could prove way harder than it was gaining Crimea (and even that is not fully achieved yet).
Post by: Dutchling on March 18, 2014, 07:55:50 pm
Post by: Descan on March 18, 2014, 07:56:33 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 18, 2014, 10:50:53 pm
Post by: Beznogim on March 19, 2014, 12:31:31 am
On centuries-old treaties: They still are legally binding, very much so. The close cooperation between Portugal and England is based on a treaty from the 12th century IIRC, and it was never revoked. Revolutions and such don't matter: The legal successor still has to follow any agreements and fulfill any duties that were previously agreed upon. That's why the BRD had to pay the Weimar Republic's reparations for WWI, you know?
Of course, Turkey is not interested in a war, and so these speculations are completely hypothetical. But they have a valid claim (if that treaty is valid, that is).
Turkey since under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is de-jure not the successor of the Ottoman empire, but an entirely new country. One of the many reasons for this was the necessity to escape huge money debts after WW1.
So, this basically annuls any centuries old treaties Turkey could possibly have.
But even if we consider, that Turkey would attempt to reclaim its former glory, then it would also give Turkey several huge pains in the ass, such as paying reparations for armenian genocide and etc.
Edit: corrected some grammatical errors
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 12:41:25 am
Forget about the Crimea, or Belarus... (http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130316/180055377.html)No way. Alaska was sold legally. Not like I approve it, but there is no chance of any kind of independence/annexation. Their claims are just... meh, stupid. They do not tolerate gays - they do not speak or interact in other way with them.
EDIT: In English it's Ottoman Empire, not Osman, Beznogim.
Post by: Veylon on March 19, 2014, 01:47:48 am
Central Asian countries are interesting direction for annexing, "nationalizing" their gas would be a huge buff for Gazprom but here China has serious interests and may answer with something more dangerous than deep concern.The seizure of Crimea basically destroys any reason for Russia's neighbors to trust them. Kazakhstan could well fall into Beijing's orbit. If that happens, then China has a jumping-off point nearly as close to Moscow and Volgograd (former Stalingrad) as Ukraine is. Most of the major cities of Russia hug the southern, a quick blitz away for invading forces. If the Kazakhs call in China, Russia is a short spit from losing Siberia - and maybe independence altogether. It's possible we'll look back on this Crimean situation as the beginning of the end for Russia.
In general, everything is closer to Moscow than it was in the Cold War. If war breaks out, it won't be in the middle of Germany or in the conquered buffer state of Poland, but right on the Kremlin's doorstep. And the Warsaw Pact is dead. Warsaw itself is likely to be the staging area for war on Russia. Russia is just a shadow of the Soviet Union; it has less than half the people it once did.
Post by: mainiac on March 19, 2014, 02:11:07 am
By the way I am among the guys who has little trust in NATO. For example: I doubt that Spain will be ready to send it's soldiers in a war vs Russia should it attack Estonia just because Spain has signed some piece of paper.
This is what the tripwire defense is for. If you want France or Spain or the US to be willing to fight, you just put a few of their soldiers near the border but clearly in friendly territory and give them orders not to provoke. If a countries soldiers are shot at under those situations, that country is suddenly going to be a hell of a lot more inclined to fight then before.
This is why the US keeps 30k troops in South Korea, a nation with a modern standing army 20 times that size. It's not like those 30k troops are going to tilt the scales of battle (although they would help coordinate some strategic assests). But keeping those 30k troops there means that it's impossible for the North Koreans to launch a sudden attack without killing Americans. If the North Koreans killed Americans launching an attack on the South then it changes the game vis-a-vis American willingness to fight and the value that China sees in North Korea as a buffer state.
It's not like MAD, where you are promising to escalate in retaliation. It's not about retaliation at all, it's about making sure that the allied country is politically and diplomatically able to fight if it comes to that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 02:47:07 am
I was under the impression that the only reason Lukashenko hasn't made his country join Russia yet is that Russia doesn't want Belarus.Why should Lukashenko give up all his power and become local governor in Russia? I am sure that as long as he is in power no Belarus joining Russia
Forget about the Crimea, or Belarus... (http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130316/180055377.html)There are one more interesting piece Russian land to return: Port Arthur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lüshunkou_District)
But I know what is absolutely the best target for the next Russian invasion: Israel
a) 1\6 of population are Russian speakers and no official status of Russian
b) It has strategically important location
c) Russian Orthodox Church should liberate Jerusalem in the name of Christ
There are only one "minor" problem. Israeli army will not show "restraint" and "determination to maintain peace"
Post by: Willfor on March 19, 2014, 03:12:00 am
But I know what is absolutely the best target for the next Russian invasion: IsraelYou do not understand how many Christian movements in America view the End Times starting with a Russian invasion of Israel. It's not a small number. Hell, I heard it dozens of times even though I grew up after the Cold War rhetoric died down. If that happens, you're not just going to hear "Israel is our ally" coming from the US. You're going to have a literal Protestant crusade coming in from America.
a) 1\6 of population are Russian speakers and no official status of Russian
b) It has strategically important location
c) Russian Orthodox Church should liberate Jerusalem in the name of Christ
There are only one "minor" problem. Israeli army will not show "restraint" and "determination to maintain peace"
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 03:17:14 am
a literal Protestant crusade21st century, ladies and gentlemen!
Post by: Willfor on March 19, 2014, 03:24:16 am
... Yeah, no, that ecumenical pea soup would fall apart like ... pea soup.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 03:32:53 am
I was under the impression that the only reason Lukashenko hasn't made his country join Russia yet is that Russia doesn't want Belarus.Lukashenko has been quietly sabotaging all Union State integration efforts since Putin came to power in 2000. I remember endless talks about installing Russian rouble as Belarusian currency and other such proposals that didn't result in anything fruitful. Some Russian nationalists are mad at him for that.
There were very shaky rumours that when Lukashenko signed the Union State treaty with Yeltsin, he planned to take part in the presidential elections of the unified state. The best friend of the 'international community' Yeltsin was incredibly unpopular among the Russian people (he had an approval rating of only 2% in 1999), and Lukashenko was well known in Russia for his leftist economic policies - liberals condemned him, communists and socialists adored him. It would be very likely for Lukashenko to win the presidential elections with a landslide victory and thus take control of both Belarus and Russia. Unfortunately for him (and fortunately for the West) some Putin guy became the president of Russia in 2000.
Guys, I need to say that all predictions of Putin's future actions sounded here and elsewhere are extrapolations, and not clever ones, actually - you just assume that Putin is trying to imitate Hitler, and that if Hitler had done something, than Putin will do it too. I can imagine him sitting in his Kremlin office with a checklist, thinking "Hmm, what should I do next? Jews as scapegoat - check, remilitarization - check, Sudetenland - check, Poland - not now... uhmhm... oh, I've almost forgot, Austria! *calls Alexander Grigoryevich* "
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 03:37:43 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 03:46:54 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 03:56:10 am
Putin is not Hitler. Russians aren't 1930s Germans but similarities are alarming
I see that modern Russian nation is full of jingoism. Be it random internet troll in social networks, Russian media propagandizing hate and spreading blatant lies or Putin with his revanchist speeches . Everything indicates that Russia will not stop unless stopped by force.
I know Russian, I have relatives and friends in Russia, I have access to Russian media and Russian internet. I have enough data to make conclusions
Post by: XXSockXX on March 19, 2014, 04:07:41 am
Guys, I need to say that all predictions of Putin's future actions sounded here and elsewhere are extrapolations, and not clever ones, actually - you just assume that Putin is trying to imitate Hitler, and that if Hitler had done something, than Putin will do it too. I can imagine him sitting in his Kremlin office with a checklist, thinking "Hmm, what should I do next? Jews as scapegoat - check, remilitarization - check, Sudetenland - check, Poland - not now... uhmhm... oh, I've almost forgot, Austria! *calls Alexander Grigoryevich* "You are right about this, I don't think Putin is some evil overlord. He is however behaving somewhat unpredictably and takes huge risks. Part of that impression may be my lack of knowledge about Russian internal affairs and contradictory opinions of various experts, journalists and politicians. Still I think he might have achieved what he claims he wants - protecting Russians and preserving order in Ukraine - relatively easy with soft power instead of this military action. Crimea was talking about independence since this started and Putin has made arrangements with other possibly corrupt politicians in Ukraine before. Russia has a lot of economic influence in Ukraine. By not choosing the diplomatic way, he has caused a lot of fear not only in Ukraine, but in the whole of Europe, so all this talk about an upcoming aggression doesn't come out of nowhere.
BTW Gorbatchev (Germany's favourite Russian of all time for obvious reasons), has welcomed the Crimea referendum. I guess this still does not help his popularity in Russia.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 04:09:36 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 04:17:40 am
Remember; Russia doesn't invade countries who can actually put up a fight.Same thing goes for America. The last time America fought someone who wasn't a small country with a tiny obsolete military was in the 1940s.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 04:23:16 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 19, 2014, 04:43:33 am
From my position of an idle observer, this kinda reminds me of that one music video, "A complete history of the Soviet Union through the eyes of a humble worker", otherwise known as "Complete History of the Soviet Union, arranged to the music of Tetris". Especially the bit about the future of Russia at the end.
The US gave us crystal meth,
and Yeltzin drank himself to death,
but now that Putin's put the boot in, who'll be in our way?
So we reject free enterprise,
and once again the left will rise!
Prepare our flags to be unfurled,
'cause we're seceding from the world!
We shall regain the Georgian soil!
We shall attain the Arctic oil!
We shall arrange the blocks and toil, forever and a day!
(GAME OVER) :P
Post by: Ak-Sai on March 19, 2014, 04:44:31 am
Ukrainian myself, living in Kherson (Kherson region is closest to Crimea part of Ukraine). Situation is relatively calm, at least for now (if not counting that Russian troops captured gas dispenser unit somewhere in our region and their overall presence at borders). So... we'll see what will happen next.
I think that they wouldnt stop just on Crimea and would annex Southern-east parts of Ukraine as well, just to make land border with newly annexed Crimea (and, to say, capturing industrial centers like Donetsk, or Odessa which has major port facilities would definetely seems like a tasty piece of territory). They may also press their influence towards Moldova borders, where also some dispute Russian-oriented territories are. And if that "I'lljust come and take your territories" game would escalate into real war... I hope that it wouldnt, because: a) war is terrible b) Ukrainian army (if alone) cannot match with our (suddenly) agressive neighbour, so it would lead us to same annexation, but burdened with hatred, corpses and destruction. So... my personal predictions are quite grim. I'll be happy if they would not become real.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 05:12:02 am
Quote
I hope that it wouldnt, because: a) war is terrible b) Ukrainian army (if alone) cannot match with our (suddenly) agressive neighbour, so it would lead us to same annexation, but burdened with hatred, corpses and destruction.So you suggest to wait till Russian enter, disarm us and do whatever they want hoping that they'll be merciful?
It looks like our current government acts in the same way. Hope you like it
Post by: MarcAFK on March 19, 2014, 06:01:46 am
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html)
What kind of reaction would be expected from this?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 06:08:51 am
Post by: Ak-Sai on March 19, 2014, 06:10:46 am
QuoteI hope that it wouldnt, because: a) war is terrible b) Ukrainian army (if alone) cannot match with our (suddenly) agressive neighbour, so it would lead us to same annexation, but burdened with hatred, corpses and destruction.So you suggest to wait till Russian enter, disarm us and do whatever they want hoping that they'll be merciful?
It looks like our current government acts in the same way. Hope you like it
No, I am not suggesting anyone to anything, and no, I'm not asking anyone to wait. I am sharing my view of situation, while not trying to provoke someone to actions, this is a bay12 community forum, after all, not the local resistance forum ).
I just hope that our government would gather some true support (something more influental than sanctions or just disagreement) before armed confrontation with enemy which exceeds us in terms of force (number of soldiers, their equipment and training quality, machines and so on). Else, as I said, we'll end with same foreign occupation perils multiplied by war perils. If it helps - all aforemention thoughts are IMHO. And, in case if it is unclear - no, I definitely dont want occupation of my country (nor region or even town) by foreigners.
BTW, I came without any offence to anyone person or opinion, just to calmly share some thoughts, gather viewpoints and see what people (especialy foreign) think about our situation. Definetely not to be attacked for just for expressing my thoughts.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 19, 2014, 06:16:27 am
So uh, Crimean Tartars to be evicted from the land they're 'Illegally occupying" and to be peacefully resettled in new terretory in the region.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html)
What kind of reaction would be expected from this?
Well that's not good.
Though, it's important to note the old Ukrainian gov had land disputes with them as well, (which weren't settled).
It'll definitely make (more) headlines. Am more worried about local crazies using it as an excuse, personally.
Post by: da_nang on March 19, 2014, 06:20:48 am
So uh, Crimean Tartars to be evicted from the land they're 'Illegally occupying" and to be peacefully resettled in new terretory in the region.Lebensraum. One by one, the pieces fall into place.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html)
What kind of reaction would be expected from this?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 06:26:29 am
Though, it's important to note the old Ukrainian gov had land disputes with them as well, (which weren't settled).Wrong. Ukrainian government had no land disputes with Tatars. Local Crimean government did and would throw Crimean Tatars away much sooner if Crimean Tatars didn't have some support from Kyiv. Now with that gone all Crimean Tatars will be kicked out from all lands that have any value.
Post by: DJ on March 19, 2014, 06:42:56 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 06:51:28 am
So, can we expect Tatar insurgence now?Insurgencies don't appear out of thin air. Insurgents need weapons and getting those aren't easy. So don't expect stuff blowing up in the the next few months. But it will appear I don't doubt it
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2014, 07:54:18 am
Well, you know. Unless Russia starts putting the Tatars in "temporary holding facilities" for "the mutual safety of the Crimean people".So, can we expect Tatar insurgence now?Insurgencies don't appear out of thin air. Insurgents need weapons and getting those aren't easy. So don't expect stuff blowing up in the the next few months. But it will appear I don't doubt it
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2014, 07:57:21 am
Giving Turkey the possibility to recycle the Russians' excuse for getting involved...Well, you know. Unless Russia starts putting the Tatars in "temporary holding facilities" for "the mutual safety of the Crimean people".So, can we expect Tatar insurgence now?Insurgencies don't appear out of thin air. Insurgents need weapons and getting those aren't easy. So don't expect stuff blowing up in the the next few months. But it will appear I don't doubt it
Post by: Ghazkull on March 19, 2014, 08:24:32 am
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
i wonder if russia would either leave Crimea if we pulled it, would really hand over Eastern Prussia or if jus ton the next day german proteters would look into the barrels of some Russian Tanks.
EDIT: sorry i just noticed that there are more Ukrainians and Tatars in there, maybe the Ukrainian Government should play a little bit of "an eye for an eye".
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 08:45:03 am
Quote
EDIT: sorry i just noticed that there are more Ukrainians and Tatars in there, maybe the Ukrainian Government should play a little bit of "an eye for an eye".Heh. You can leave Königsberg for yourself.
There are quite a lot of ethnic Ukrainians in oil\gas rich areas of Siberia.... And Russia has zero Ukrainian schools (not counting some private ones)
Official Russian census claims that there are only 2 millions of ethnic Ukrainians but I say that it is a total bullshit. 5-10 if not 15 millions is a much more realistic number.
It is a shameless hypocrisy to talk about persecutions of Russian speakers in Ukraine when ethnic rights of Ukrainians in Russia are ignored
Post by: olemars on March 19, 2014, 08:48:21 am
Quote
OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović today expressed her outrage about the attack by a group of members of the Ukrainian political party “Svoboda”, including some members of Verkhovna Rada, on the acting President of National Television Company of Ukraine (NTU), forcing him to resign.
“I am appalled by this outrageous action, which goes against all media freedom values and cannot be tolerated,” Mijatović wrote in a letter to Oleksandr Turchinov, the acting President of Ukraine. “This is a particularly serious incident as some attackers not only represent the legislative branch of power, but also are members of the freedom of speech and information committee of the Parliament.”
On 18 March a group of individuals reportedly belonging to Ukrainian political party “Svoboda”, including some members of Verkhovna Rada, stormed the office of the acting President of the National Television Company of Ukraine, Aleksandr Panteleymonov, intimidated him and forced him to sign a resignation letter over allegations that his channel criticized “Svoboda” and aired anti-Ukrainian content. One of the attackers was identified as Igor Miroshnychenko, Deputy Head of the Parliament's Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information.
At least the election observer mission is already shaping up and will presumably not consist of a Moscow biker gang. (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/116568)
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 09:11:33 am
So uh, Crimean Tartars to be evicted from the land they're 'Illegally occupying" and to be peacefully resettled in new terretory in the region.Lebensraum. One by one, the pieces fall into place.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140319/188544777/Crimean-Tatars-Will-Have-to-Vacate-Land--Official.html)
What kind of reaction would be expected from this?
More like taking a page, or even an entire chapter right out of US history with relocating Native Americans to reservations. Which is exactly what it looks and sounds like to me.
This might be cause enough for Turkey to try and intervene on the behalf of Crimean Tatars.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 19, 2014, 09:12:38 am
This is extremely not cool. (http://www.osce.org/fom/116599) I guess this was what happened in that video someone posted yesterday?They forgot to wear brown uniforms and swastika armbands if they were trying to fit the Russian story. At least Tyahnybok isn't endorsing this, but seriously, Svoboda has got to go.QuoteOSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović today expressed her outrage about the attack by a group of members of the Ukrainian political party “Svoboda”, including some members of Verkhovna Rada, on the acting President of National Television Company of Ukraine (NTU), forcing him to resign.
“I am appalled by this outrageous action, which goes against all media freedom values and cannot be tolerated,” Mijatović wrote in a letter to Oleksandr Turchinov, the acting President of Ukraine. “This is a particularly serious incident as some attackers not only represent the legislative branch of power, but also are members of the freedom of speech and information committee of the Parliament.”
On 18 March a group of individuals reportedly belonging to Ukrainian political party “Svoboda”, including some members of Verkhovna Rada, stormed the office of the acting President of the National Television Company of Ukraine, Aleksandr Panteleymonov, intimidated him and forced him to sign a resignation letter over allegations that his channel criticized “Svoboda” and aired anti-Ukrainian content. One of the attackers was identified as Igor Miroshnychenko, Deputy Head of the Parliament's Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information.
At least the election observer mission is already shaping up and will presumably not consist of a Moscow biker gang. (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/116568)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 09:24:12 am
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 10:00:41 am
I don't know how, um, supportive (was gonna say fanatic, bit that's not the connotation I mean), Turkey is about their Crimean Tatar brethren, but depending on how things go, they could pull the same causus belli that Russia pulled.
They could invoke the treaty for the lulz and then grant Crimea independence, but given how much change both countries have gone through, it's validity is likely questionable.
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2014, 10:11:26 am
Sounds like the Crimean and Ukrainian situation is slowly becoming even more pear shaped than it has already gotten, if you get what I mean.
I don't know how, um, supportive (was gonna say fanatic, bit that's not the connotation I mean), Turkey is about their Crimean Tatar brethren, but depending on how things go, they could pull the same causus belli that Russia pulled.
They could invoke the treaty for the lulz and then grant Crimea independence, but given how much change both countries have gone through, it's validity is likely questionable.
The validity of pretty much everything going on in Greater Ukraine is questionable.
Post by: Zangi on March 19, 2014, 10:26:28 am
Of course, I guess we can continue debating the validity of an unopposed and bloodless entry by 'armed self defense units who are obviously not Turks'.
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2014, 10:29:11 am
Welp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Post by: Zangi on March 19, 2014, 10:32:05 am
Don't forget the Native Americans. They've got a bit of land to take back.Welp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2014, 10:36:22 am
From Russia?Don't forget the Native Americans. They've got a bit of land to take back.Welp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 19, 2014, 10:36:40 am
Given the military situation, I don't think Turkey would be able to enter unopposed, like how Russia went in...Russia never really had to "go in". All the soldiers had to do was step out of their base.
Of course, I guess we can continue debating the validity of an unopposed and bloodless entry by 'armed self defense units who are obviously not Turks'.
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 10:37:47 am
Don't forget the Native Americans. They've got a bit of land to take back.Welp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Lets throw in every repressed minority and native peoples around the world. Also, how far back in history should we go? The premise for Israel is over two thousand years old.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 19, 2014, 10:37:59 am
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 19, 2014, 10:39:29 am
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2014, 10:43:14 am
Given the military situation, I don't think Turkey would be able to enter unopposed, like how Russia went in...Russia never really had to "go in". All the soldiers had to do was step out of their base.
Of course, I guess we can continue debating the validity of an unopposed and bloodless entry by 'armed self defense units who are obviously not Turks'.
There were 6,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea prior to this. Now there are 22,000+.
It's pretty amazing to me that a world leader can sit there and repeatedly tell bald faced lies that are contradicted by hundreds of hours of videos and interviews, and even his own soldiers, and there's nothing to do about it.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 19, 2014, 10:45:37 am
The US plans to station troops in the Baltic States, obviously both to guarantee their safety and as a bit of sabre-rattling of their own.
If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too!Me too, definitely.
Given the military situation, I don't think Turkey would be able to enter unopposed, like how Russia went in...No way Turkey is doing anything on their own military-wise. They have a decisive stance on protecting the Crimean Tatars, but that's it.
Of course, I guess we can continue debating the validity of an unopposed and bloodless entry by 'armed self defense units who are obviously not Turks'.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 11:02:17 am
What about Pomerania and Silesia? Danzig is Germany! :PWelp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2014, 11:12:10 am
But Poland hasn't occupied Ukraine... Also, we kinda ceded all that land to Poland and Russia, and claiming that the Poles oppress their local German population would be a hard sell.What about Pomerania and Silesia? Danzig is Germany! :PWelp, time to get some Old Friends together, hustle up all the displaced Prussians and march back into Königsberg.If we apply the same reasoning that's used with the Palestinians, roughly 100% of ethnically German Germans count as refugees by now. Me too! So yeah, let's take Könnigsberg (and give it back its proper name). The Poles might want their eastern territories back, too, and I'm sure some Polish people are being repressed...
After all, there are still some ethnic germans left there last i looked and their german speaking is persecuted too, maybe the house of my great-grandfather still stands...
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2014, 11:13:51 am
Quote
Also, we kinda ceded all that land to Poland and Russia, and claiming that the Poles oppress their local German population would be a hard sell.
As Russia has shown though, you can completely ignore what your forebearers did and the treaties they signed when it serves your own political interests.
Post by: Ghazkull on March 19, 2014, 11:17:33 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 11:33:16 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2014, 11:44:36 am
By the way, guys, I found the original Russian article about the 'expulsion' of Crimean Tatars at RIA Novosti's website (http://ria.ru/world/20140318/1000005009.html). According to that article, Rustam Temirgaliev said that the land required for building infrastructure in and around Simferopol has been seized by Crimean Tatar squatters. They will be asked to free the territory, he said. He didn't state anything about forcing all Crimean Tatars in the peninsula to relocate elsewhere.Come on, Guardian, don't play dumb. "Infrastructure land seized by Tatar squatters"? I know you can read between the lines here.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 11:50:48 am
If my shaky knowledge of ethnic composition of the population of Crimea is correct, Simferopol isn't the only place where Crimean Tatars live. Or do you assume that if at least one Crimean Tatar is forced to move for whatever reason, then sooner or later Russia will deport every one of them?By the way, guys, I found the original Russian article about the 'expulsion' of Crimean Tatars at RIA Novosti's website (http://ria.ru/world/20140318/1000005009.html). According to that article, Rustam Temirgaliev said that the land required for building infrastructure in and around Simferopol has been seized by Crimean Tatar squatters. They will be asked to free the territory, he said. He didn't state anything about forcing all Crimean Tatars in the peninsula to relocate elsewhere.Come on, Guardian, don't play dumb. "Infrastructure land seized by Tatar squatters"? I know you can read between the lines here.
Post by: Helgoland on March 19, 2014, 11:53:43 am
If Russia is going to start deportations, they have to begin somewhere. Not that it's sure that they will, but this shows a lack of tact at least as bad as that of the Ukrainian parliament with that language law.If my shaky knowledge of ethnic composition of the population of Crimea is correct, Simferopol isn't the only place where Crimean Tatars live. Or do you assume that if at least one Crimean Tatar is forced to move for whatever reason, then sooner or later Russia will deport every one of them?By the way, guys, I found the original Russian article about the 'expulsion' of Crimean Tatars at RIA Novosti's website (http://ria.ru/world/20140318/1000005009.html). According to that article, Rustam Temirgaliev said that the land required for building infrastructure in and around Simferopol has been seized by Crimean Tatar squatters. They will be asked to free the territory, he said. He didn't state anything about forcing all Crimean Tatars in the peninsula to relocate elsewhere.Come on, Guardian, don't play dumb. "Infrastructure land seized by Tatar squatters"? I know you can read between the lines here.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 19, 2014, 12:10:25 pm
Point One: "Squatters" being on land that "isn't theirs" is a pretty clear attempt to justify mass deportations, and I vaguely recall that it might have been used before, though dammed if I can't remember where.If my shaky knowledge of ethnic composition of the population of Crimea is correct, Simferopol isn't the only place where Crimean Tatars live. Or do you assume that if at least one Crimean Tatar is forced to move for whatever reason, then sooner or later Russia will deport every one of them?By the way, guys, I found the original Russian article about the 'expulsion' of Crimean Tatars at RIA Novosti's website (http://ria.ru/world/20140318/1000005009.html). According to that article, Rustam Temirgaliev said that the land required for building infrastructure in and around Simferopol has been seized by Crimean Tatar squatters. They will be asked to free the territory, he said. He didn't state anything about forcing all Crimean Tatars in the peninsula to relocate elsewhere.Come on, Guardian, don't play dumb. "Infrastructure land seized by Tatar squatters"? I know you can read between the lines here.
Point Two: This is directed at the Tatars. Are you assuming that only the Tatars are squatting in Simferopol, if there is indeed such a problem?
Point Three: Russia kind of has a history when it comes to forced relocation in territories recently acquired through conquest.
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 12:16:22 pm
Post by: scriver on March 19, 2014, 12:19:07 pm
By the way, is there anything else to this resettlement, like monetary embursenent if another area given to them that they can actually own legally, or is it just a straight deportation?
Given the military situation, I don't think Turkey would be able to enter unopposed, like how Russia went in...
Of course, I guess we can continue debating the validity of an unopposed and bloodless entry by 'armed self defense units who are obviously not Turks'.
Well, if one thinks the Russian actions to "protect Russians" were valid, then certainly a completely hypothetical Turkish invasion (that I agree won't happen) would be even more valid as it seems like the Crimtars are coming under actual oppression.
It's funny, I would've actually supported the Crim-Russians' right to self-determination of governing (the history as a particularly independent province just makes their case even more valid) if Russia hadn't invaded and the vote hadn't appeared so rushed and faked.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 12:51:53 pm
Do you think they will all be deported through boats? There's not a land border between Crimea and Russia... yet.They'll not deport them from Crimea. That is too much. They'll deport them to useless parts of Crimea
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 12:53:01 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2014, 01:21:18 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 01:23:01 pm
So apparently the sanctions are working. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26641217)Personally I think they're a joke. Come on, Russia invades and you don't even declare a partial embargo?
Post by: Dutchling on March 19, 2014, 01:25:22 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 01:27:26 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 19, 2014, 01:31:17 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 01:32:14 pm
Well, they're throwing a hissy fit, so it's doing something :P
They started throwing a hussy fit and warning the west against sanctions the instant the word sanction was mentioned. They even warned against the warnings of sanctions.
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 01:48:54 pm
So apparently the sanctions are working. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26641217)I like this.
It's actually somewhat amusing.
They invade a place, and say what we're doing is bad.
There's also the bit about calling the sanctions an act of aggression and will retaliate. Retaliate how? By attacking? It's like calling a bluff on something that everybody knows would be suicidal to even do and it's obvious that he is just posturing.
If Putin actually means what he said and is stupid enough to attack, well, lets just hope he isn't so suicidal as to launch nukes.
Post by: Darvi on March 19, 2014, 01:50:09 pm
Well, obviously. Imagine they'd approved of it.So apparently the sanctions are working. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26641217)I like this.
It's actually somewhat amusing.
They invade a place, and say what we're doing is bad.
"Yeah so we invaded this place, good job slapping us on the wrist for that. We kind of deserved it."
Doesn't work well with their rhetoric.
There's also the bit about calling the sanctions an act of aggression and will retaliate. Retaliate how? By attacking? It's like calling a bluff on something that everybody knows would be suicidal to even do and it's obvious that he is just posturing."I dare you, I double-dare you!
If Putin actually means what he said and is stupid enough to attack, well, lets just hope he isn't so suicidal as to launch nukes.
Post by: Knit tie on March 19, 2014, 01:56:31 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 02:04:13 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 19, 2014, 02:07:21 pm
Or be a pain in the US's ass on Iran or Syria or NK.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt being a pain in the ass kind of Russias defualt role at the UN or on the security council with thier veto power?
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 02:09:13 pm
Anyway, Russia is actually cooperating (albeit reluctantly) with the US on a number of issues. They're not cartoons villain. There is also a big supply route to Afghanistan going through Russia, that will be sorely needed as the US need to bring all its hardware back.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 02:19:37 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 02:31:46 pm
Sounds a bit arrogant. Sorry for that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 02:32:52 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 02:33:14 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 02:38:01 pm
That's about as close to democracy as you get in Russia, that's for sure. Fake ballots, dead people voting and over 100% turnout if you actually add up the people. Much democracy, very prestige.
I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 02:39:35 pm
Anyway, no one object to the right to self-determination here, it's just the way things went in Ukraine.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 02:41:35 pm
That's about as close to democracy as you get in Russia, that's for sure. Fake ballots, dead people voting and over 100% turnout if you actually add up the people. Much democracy, very prestige.
I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
I'm not lecturing you, just saying your votes are rigged and entirely dependent on the will of your Kremlin.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 19, 2014, 02:42:16 pm
I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
Yeah, just like the Maiden protests, right? When the people express their will the government can not stand against them! Power to the people!
(Unless, like in Syria, they are willing to start a war over it and a murder a good chunk of the country...)
On the other hand, unlike with Crimea, there's actually good evidence Trans-Dniestra actually wants to overwhelmingly join russia, so it really is a different case.
Post by: cerapa on March 19, 2014, 02:48:59 pm
And Estonia may be the next after Molvoda (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319)
Welp. Fuck.
Hoping for NATO support I suppose.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 19, 2014, 02:49:50 pm
I'm not saying Cracked is in any way a trustworthy resource, but what makes you think it's any different anywhere else? (http://www.cracked.com/article_20705_5-ways-u.s.-democracy-more-rigged-than-you-think.html)That's about as close to democracy as you get in Russia, that's for sure. Fake ballots, dead people voting and over 100% turnout if you actually add up the people. Much democracy, very prestige.
I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
I'm not lecturing you, just saying your votes are rigged and entirely dependent on the will of your Kremlin.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 02:50:13 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 02:51:42 pm
I'm not lecturing you, just saying your votes are rigged and entirely dependent on the will of your Kremlin.That's about as close to democracy as you get in Russia, that's for sure. Fake ballots, dead people voting and over 100% turnout if you actually add up the people. Much democracy, very prestige.I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
Ye olde Soviet legacy.
You know, before nationalists of Right Sector appeared on Maidan, it wasn't so bad. They were really starting like a peaceful demonstration, ask UR.I know how it is done here - I actually live here. Don't you lecture me. But still, when all the people express their will at once, no government can stop them. That is inspiring.
Yeah, just like the Maiden protests, right? When the people express their will the government can not stand against them! Power to the people!
(Unless, like in Syria, they are willing to start a war over it and a murder a good chunk of the country...)
On the other hand, unlike with Crimea, there's actually good evidence Trans-Dniestra actually wants to overwhelmingly join russia, so it really is a different case.
On the second point, about Crimea. Wat? You thought Crimea didn't want to join Russia before the shit messed up? There just was no way of doing so. When the central rule disappeared, thy used their chance.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 19, 2014, 02:53:08 pm
I'm not saying Cracked is in any way a trustworthy resource, but what makes you think it's any different anywhere else? (http://www.cracked.com/article_20705_5-ways-u.s.-democracy-more-rigged-than-you-think.html)Long live European Democracy. Quite a few of the continental nations have decent systems going.
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 02:53:52 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 19, 2014, 02:54:26 pm
You thought Crimea didn't want to join Russia before the shit messed up? There just was no way of doing so. When the central rule disappeared, thy used their chance.
Yeah, but it would have been nice for it to occur WITHOUT the Russian trrops and strutting of Putin - you know, if it had been 100% self determined and didnt look dodgy as fuck.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 02:54:56 pm
Well, generally, I think that Crimea just reminded people over the world (or at least former Soviet union and whatever russian-speaking countries) that the supreme law of democratic society is people's will expressed through referendum.
Sounds a bit arrogant. Sorry for that.
There is no difference between what Russia has done in Crimea and what the United Kingdom did in Northern Ireland. The same could be said of what the USA did in Hawaii, California, Texas and Oklahoma.
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 02:58:01 pm
Look who wants to join Russia! (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_19/Gaza-Strip-also-wants-to-join-Russia-Hamas-website-9554/)
Pfft, Hamas just wants the backing of a powerful government, I doubt the Palestinian people want Russia to be their overlords either.
As for Transinistria (or is that a different region?), Ukraine is kind of in the way. Moldova isn't in NATO, but its neighbor, Romania IS, along with being in the EU.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 02:59:20 pm
Look who wants to join Russia! (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_19/Gaza-Strip-also-wants-to-join-Russia-Hamas-website-9554/)O_O
Well, eh... okay?
Comrade P, someone posted polls from mid-2013 a bit earlier that showed only a minority supported joining Russia. (Although a large one).
You see, I cannot resist the fact, but my personal opinion stands. I think they were just not that serious about their separatism (pan-nationalism?) intentions and were more modest in their claims. Nevertheless, things are changing as the time passes, right?
Post by: Frumple on March 19, 2014, 03:00:31 pm
There is no difference between what Russia has done in Crimea and what the United Kingdom did in Northern Ireland. The same could be said of what the USA did in Hawaii, California, Texas and Oklahoma.Yeah... it's kinda' painfully obvious that people's will this referendum wasn't. Or at least not even remotely an accurate representation of it. More than a bit of a shame, as has been noted.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:01:38 pm
There is no difference between what Russia has done in Crimea and what the United Kingdom did in Northern Ireland. The same could be said of what the USA did in Hawaii, California, Texas and Oklahoma.Yeah... it's kinda' painfully obvious that people's will this referendum wasn't. Or at least not even remotely an accurate representation of it. More than a bit of a shame, as has been noted.
Even if it was the people's will, it's the will of the settlers who moved there during the colonisation of the territory, exploited by their motherland as political tools in landgrabs like the Crimean annexation.
I've been thinking. Apologies if I'm terribly wrong (I don't live in Russia so what do I know?) but it seems to me like the main reason people in Russia vote for United Russia and are happy with them being in government despite rampant corruption and disregard for human rights is that they have ensured that Russia is economically and socially stable. They are a slick, well oiled political machine with a vision of power and domination that appeals to the common Nationalist consciousness, plus there's a bit of demagoguery thrown in too with the anti-Western stuff.
If, however, that economic and social stability vanishes as a result of an economic collapse induced by Western sanctions, there is no reason for Russians to support Putin or United Russia. If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 19, 2014, 03:04:38 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 03:04:58 pm
Indeed, it is entirely possible that Crimeans really wants to join Russia. If so, why not. The fact is that we simply don't know, thanks to Russian intervention.
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 19, 2014, 03:06:14 pm
If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.
Which may very well happen, if Russia ends up out in the cold regarding oil/gas.
Post by: Knit tie on March 19, 2014, 03:10:59 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 19, 2014, 03:12:46 pm
On the second point, about Crimea. Wat? You thought Crimea didn't want to join Russia before the shit messed up? There just was no way of doing so. When the central rule disappeared, thy used their chance.
Comrade P, someone posted polls from mid-2013 a bit earlier that showed only a minority supported joining Russia. (Although a large one).You see, I cannot resist the fact, but my personal opinion stands. I think they were just not that serious about their separatism (pan-nationalism?) intentions and were more modest in their claims. Nevertheless, things are changing as the time passes, right?
It's pretty clear Russia did not want to take the gamble that you were right, so there's no way to be sure. It's perfectly possible that the Maidan thing ousting Yakunacrook would have made the general population fearful enough of Ukraine's future to support Russian reunion. We don't know, and we honestly can't know. Times haven't exactly been great for Crimea in particular or even Ukraine in general.
What's obvious is that Russia did not want to take that chance.
Generally, though, "secession of passion" is a remarkably bad idea, and the whole "rushed through referendum without the option of maintaining the status quo and under the control of armed soldiers who can see what you're voting" is pretty much guaranteed to produce an outcome that is very far from "the will of the people".
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:12:52 pm
If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.
Which may very well happen, if Russia ends up out in the cold regarding oil/gas.
Don't they have plenty of oil in siberia? Of course though, that means nothing if they can't sell it.
Embargoing Russian oil will also jack up oil prices for EVERYBODY, which nobody really wants. Unless the Middle East and other places make up for it by increasing whatever production they can squeeze out of what's left in the ground.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 19, 2014, 03:14:38 pm
Most legit important votes are on the edge, nearly 50-50. Only once I saw a presidential election ending with a 82% vote in favor of the winner. It was in 2002 and through massive abstension the far-right candidate made it to the second turn instead of the leftist. Being faced with a choice of "moderate republican equivalent or massively racist far-righter?", the country understandably choose the moderate.
The crimean referendum was massively rigged, there's no "will of the people" in it. That's why the West denounce it.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:14:47 pm
Anyway, it's not because the UK and USA have done it earlier that it's behavior that should be tolerated, or worse, promoted.
My thoughts exactly.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 03:16:52 pm
If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.
Which mayvery wellwill happen, if Russia ends up out in the cold regarding oil/gas.
It already has begun. Capital flight is expected to reach 130 billion dollars this year alone, before sanctions are taken into account (http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/723413), 200 billion afterward. The Russian central bank is hemmoraging money to prop up the useless rouble. (http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/18/russia-won-t-block-capital-flight-despite-weakening-rouble/) The oligarchs are moving their money to non-Russian assets because the Russian economy is a house of sticks.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 19, 2014, 03:17:25 pm
I actually don't really mind Trans-Dniestra. That's less like an invasion and more like Russia diplo-annexing a vassal.Transdnestria secured its independence from Moldova in 1992 thanks to Russian 14th Guards Army joining the war on the side of Transdnestrian forces. (http://Transdnestria secured its independence from Moldova in 1992 thanks to Russian 14th Guards Army joining the war on the side of Transdnestrian forces.). Some of you may find their independence sentiment to be caused by those bloodthirsty Russian imperialists, like in Crimea.
If, however, that economic and social stability vanishes as a result of an economic collapse induced by Western sanctions, there is no reason for Russians to support Putin or United Russia. If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.If Putin's government falls, no one can guarantee that pro-Western liberals will take charge of the country. In fact, it may result in more radical politicians being voted into office or seizing power. None of Russian opposition leaders enjoy any significant popular support outside of Moscow.
Damn it, guys, why are you writing so fast?
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 03:19:04 pm
Also, I had to share this website: Putin's Gay DressUp (http://www.putingaydressup.com/putin/27805). Yeah I know I've posted messages about avoiing that kind of stupid stuff, but that one is too fun to pass. :p
Guardian: Transdniestra has been de facto independent for 20 years. I guess at some points even a Russia-hating baby-eating westerners such as myself will get on with it.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:20:22 pm
The problem is that this referendum was held in a whirlwind of Nationalist fervour, passion and in the aftermath of a revolution and violence in the streets of Kiev where a pro-Russian government was overthrown by people the average Russo-Crimean wouldn't give the time of day.
To put it in perspective if Margaret Thatcher won another general election tomorrow in the UK(suspend your disbelief, even though she's dead) then there would probably be a 60-70% Yes vote in the independence referendum in September.
Post by: palsch on March 19, 2014, 03:22:41 pm
There is a presidential election scheduled for 25 May, but what is going to happen with Parliamentary elections?
My understanding is that, at least in the last elections, Ukraine uses a mixed voting system, with half the representatives being elected on a majority constituency basis and half appointed from party lists on a proportional basis.
It looks like ~12 seats (going from bad maps, looks like somewhere between 10 and 13) have just attempted to secede.
Ukraine can't recognise this. There is no legal basis to suggest that the secession is legitimate. At the same time, any constitutional or other major action by this provisional government is going to be questionable and weaken their (correct) arguments about what's going on in Crimea being illegal.
That means, in my eyes, that they have to, somehow, hold elections that include Crimea. That looks flatly impossible. But I'm not clear what the clean solution to this is. They can't exclude Crimea while holding legitimate elections.
As far the secession, if I were a Crimean secessionist who wanted to join Russia, this would be the worst possible method. It's ensured that the region is stuck in a 'disputed' status into the foreseeable future. I can't imagine more than a handful of nations recognising Crimea being part of Russia, and none with internal separatist movements. Hell, China have had to take a very serious stance of pretending the whole thing doesn't exist, given it strikes scarily close to home to some of their own separatist regions. The way the vote was conducted, under the apparent shadow of the Russian military in a rush, means it is unlikely to be considered legitimate, let alone legal.
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:23:07 pm
If Putin's government falls, no one can guarantee that pro-Western liberals will take charge of the country. In fact, it may result in more radical politicians being voted into office or seizing power. None of Russian opposition leaders enjoy any significant popular support outside of Moscow.
I am aware of this. That's why I said it would all come down like a house of cards. The "Russian Federation" is the house of cards, not the party itself or the government. Most of the North Caucasus would become independent within a few years (there would be no reason for them to remain pro-Russian anymore) and probably places like Tuva as well if there was a precedent for it.
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:27:10 pm
If Putin's government falls, no one can guarantee that pro-Western liberals will take charge of the country. In fact, it may result in more radical politicians being voted into office or seizing power. None of Russian opposition leaders enjoy any significant popular support outside of Moscow.
I am aware of this. That's why I said it would all come down like a house of cards. The "Russian Federation" is the house of cards, not the party itself or the government. Most of the North Caucasus would become independent within a few years.
What about the eastern and far eastern portions? Like Siberia and further east? I don't know how well held together that region and east is as far as connection to Russian culture.
Cechenya and Dagestan will definetly sieze the moment and go independent.
It would be just the beginning of the Balkanization of Russia and losing large portions of territory.
Oh yeah, I just realized while typing, there is the issue of any nukes in the breakaway territories.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 03:30:15 pm
Oh yeah, I just realized while typing, there is the issue of any nukes in the breakaway territories.
Maybe the US can sign a non-proliferation treaty with them under terms that we promise to never, ever be hostile in return for their giving up nukes? :)
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:32:07 pm
What about the eastern and far eastern portions? Like Siberia and further east? I don't know how well held together that region and east is as far as connection to Russian culture.
Cechenya and Dagestan will definetly sieze the moment and go independent.
It would be just the beginning of the Balkanization of Russia and losing large portions of territory.
Oh yeah, I just realized while typing, there is the issue of any nukes in the breakaway territories.
There are many Republics further East that should generally belong to their respective ethnic minorities e.g. Buryatia, the Altai Republic and so on, but there are similar numbers of Russians in those Republics as there are in Crimea now so I would imagine they would stay close to Russia. However they would probably seek greater autonomy in general over there because seemingly a lot of Far Eastern Russians are unhappy with the over-centralisation in the country.
To put it in perspective, I remember when I asked a Russian friend of mine where he was from he said "Central Russia" so I said "Wow, do you mean like around Novosibirsk?" and he said "No, near Moscow".
Tuva is one of the only places outside of the Caucasus that I think could conceivably secede. They are basically independent right now in that they have a tiny Russian minority there (comparatively), they're predominantly Buddhist, they used to have a lot of trappings of an independent state back in the '90s (they were de facto independent like Tatarstan) and they're so far from Russia and so close to Mongolia there's really no reason to be a part of Russia.
Maybe the US can sign a non-proliferation treaty with them under terms that we promise to never, ever be hostile in return for their giving up nukes? :)
I'm sure everyone will work it out. Kazakhstan briefly held a hilarious quantity of nuclear weapons when they became independent. It's a miracle Islamic extremists were so stupid and single minded in their attempts to rule Afghanistan/take over Tajikistan and the like that they never tried to take any of it.
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:33:39 pm
Oh yeah, I just realized while typing, there is the issue of any nukes in the breakaway territories.
Maybe the US can sign a non-proliferation treaty with them under terms that we promise to never, ever be hostile in return for their giving up nukes? :)
Never ever be hostile to THEM you mean.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 03:40:18 pm
Indeed, it is entirely possible that Crimeans really wants to join Russia. If so, why not. The fact is that we simply don't know, thanks to Russian intervention.
Do you mean that they were military oppressed? I disagree with that point because it sounds pretty strange. In Moscow, representatives of Crimea claimed that they asked for military assistance in frames of international treaty between Ukraine and Russia - Russia was allowed to have troops in Sevastopol, 25000 tops, and that number was not exceeded during the whole so called intervention. Source - Putin's recent speech. I sincerely believe that our president does know shiznit about our military treaties.
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 03:42:22 pm
shiznitFirst time I hear that word.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 03:44:55 pm
Don't you see some difference between having a right to have a base and some troops inside and invading using that base?
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 03:46:02 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:46:42 pm
Comrade P. So, if American troops from Guantanamo will capture Havana it will be totally legit?
Don't you see some difference between having a right to have a base and some troops inside and invading using that base?
I like this example of yours.
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 03:48:15 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:50:32 pm
I don't think there even is a mechanism for booting permanent members out.
Too bad they didn't make a contingency plan.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 19, 2014, 03:51:08 pm
Spoiler: very symbolic (click to show/hide)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 03:51:34 pm
Gizoogle (http://www.gizoogle.net/), bro. At least it was intended to be. Spontaneous willing to add a bit of dat shiznit.shiznitFirst time I hear that word.
Comrade P. So, if American troops from Guantanamo will capture Havana it will be totally legit?
Don't you see some difference between having a right to have a base and some troops inside and invading using that base?
It depends on how the people see these troops. If they see them like oppressors, they will be oppressors. In Crimea, different thing happened. They just didn't see them in that way. I think.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 19, 2014, 03:52:03 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 19, 2014, 03:54:13 pm
Gizoogle (http://www.gizoogle.net/), bro. At least it was intended to be. Spontaneous willing to add a bit of dat shiznit.
Quote
Scottish independence is ballin over uncommitted, say SNP
Da Guardian - 4 minutes ago
There was tha rap up in February by George Osborne, tha chancellor, vetoin any sterlin pact between tha UK n' a independent Scotland.
Oh god, this website.
Quote
Scotland's Referendum 2014
www.scotreferendum.com/
If Scotland votes Fuck dat shit, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date, biatch? ... What will a independent Scotland's policy be on immigration?
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 03:54:31 pm
Spoiler: very symbolic (click to show/hide)
Poor Mr. Russian ambassador looks frustrated.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 03:54:59 pm
Poor Russian. He didn't even get drinking water.
He has two extra ones from Nigeria and Korea :)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 19, 2014, 03:56:35 pm
It depends on how the people see these troops. If they see them like oppressors, they will be oppressors. In Crimea, different thing happened. They just didn't see them in that way. I think.
(http://hdleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3mission-accomplished.jpg)
Taking a page out of the Bush Iraq propaganda book.
Invasion is easy. Occupation is hard. Just hope the Balkanization of the 'federation' is worth Sevastopol's army base.
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 03:58:18 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 19, 2014, 03:59:08 pm
So I heard there was an ultimatum which expires in an hour.
Ahem. A bit more info, please.
Post by: da_nang on March 19, 2014, 04:02:53 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 04:05:10 pm
http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1780419.htmlSo I heard there was an ultimatum which expires in an hour.
Ahem. A bit more info, please.
Anyone guessing what their "technological" response will be?
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 04:06:25 pm
http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1780419.htmlSo I heard there was an ultimatum which expires in an hour.
Ahem. A bit more info, please.
Anyone guessing what their "technological" response will be?
Good job in not posting an english translation.....
To Google Translate!!!
Edit: First headline on the page: 'In Karabakh held a concert in honor of the self-determination of Crimea' Um, not with the ridiculous vote.
Post by: Sergarr on March 19, 2014, 04:12:14 pm
I think Comrade understands russian...http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1780419.htmlSo I heard there was an ultimatum which expires in an hour.
Ahem. A bit more info, please.
Anyone guessing what their "technological" response will be?
Good job in not posting an english translation.....
To Google Translate!!!
Edit: First headline on the page: 'In Karabakh held a concert in honor of the self-determination of Crimea' Um, not with the ridiculous vote.
Post by: Sheb on March 19, 2014, 04:12:58 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 19, 2014, 04:15:44 pm
I think Comrade understands russian... also, anyone with a brain can use a google translate themselves.http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1780419.htmlSo I heard there was an ultimatum which expires in an hour.
Ahem. A bit more info, please.
Anyone guessing what their "technological" response will be?
Good job in not posting an english translation.....
To Google Translate!!!
Edit: First headline on the page: 'In Karabakh held a concert in honor of the self-determination of Crimea' Um, not with the ridiculous vote.
I was just complaining and I did use google translate :P
I did read the translation and I at least get the gist of it. Maybe they are going to use cyberwarfare.
Post by: Baffler on March 19, 2014, 05:17:58 pm
Quote
В Севастополе временно задержан командующий ВМС Украины
Which it translates as:
Quote
In Sevastopol, temporarily detained by the commander of the Ukrainian Navy
Exactly the opposite of what happened, it seems.
Post by: burningpet on March 19, 2014, 06:07:34 pm
Look who wants to join Russia! (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_19/Gaza-Strip-also-wants-to-join-Russia-Hamas-website-9554/)
:D Pure comedy.
Btw, that article has quite a different number of those russian wives comparing to the articles in israelis newpapers. i wonder which ones skewed the numbers...
In another news, i have recently read that now russia threaten to temper with the western attempts of blocking the iranian nuclear bomb if the sanctions against russians continue.
Post by: nenjin on March 19, 2014, 06:09:45 pm
Look who wants to join Russia! (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_19/Gaza-Strip-also-wants-to-join-Russia-Hamas-website-9554/)
:D Pure comedy.
Btw, that article has quite a different number of those russian wives comparing to the articles in israelis newpapers. i wonder which ones skewed the numbers...
In another news, i have recently read that now russia threaten to temper with the western attempts of blocking the iranian nuclear bomb if the sanctions against russians continue.
There's lots of things Russia could do diplomatically. That's actually what everyone is hoping for. The alternative is pretty unsettling.
Just be glad Ahmadinejad isn't in office anymore.
Post by: Moghjubar on March 19, 2014, 06:18:30 pm
Post by: XXSockXX on March 19, 2014, 06:40:37 pm
Google translation into English cruelly butchers anything that isn't from Western Europe, really. Sometimes to the point of saying something else entirely.Google translate sucks. It's even bad with German -> English sometimes. You get a general idea of the content, but through tiny translation mistakes the whole thing can become difficult to understand and very misleading. Seen that with many Russian or Ukrainian texts that were posted here.
Post by: Zangi on March 19, 2014, 06:59:36 pm
I can see why they would think that Russia could do something for them. Cause we all know who the red headed step child is.Look who wants to join Russia! (http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_19/Gaza-Strip-also-wants-to-join-Russia-Hamas-website-9554/)
:D Pure comedy.
Btw, that article has quite a different number of those russian wives comparing to the articles in israelis newpapers. i wonder which ones skewed the numbers...
In another news, i have recently read that now russia threaten to temper with the western attempts of blocking the iranian nuclear bomb if the sanctions against russians continue.
There's lots of things Russia could do diplomatically. That's actually what everyone is hoping for. The alternative is pretty unsettling.
Just be glad Ahmadinejad isn't in office anymore.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 19, 2014, 07:03:31 pm
That is an argumentation I've seen a lot. The US does X, so Russia can do X too. Even if the first part is right, that is not how laws are supposed to work.Anyway, it's not because the UK and USA have done it earlier that it's behavior that should be tolerated, or worse, promoted.My thoughts exactly.
It depends on how the people see these troops. If they see them like oppressors, they will be oppressors. In Crimea, different thing happened. They just didn't see them in that way. I think.That is not the point. Even if we assume that a) Crimea wants to join Russia and b) Crimea wants Russian soldiers as protection, that doesn't mean the Russian intervention was right. Putin could have used diplomatic pressure to achieve these things. He could have trippled the gas prices. He could have let elections happen in Ukraine and support a constitutional change that allows for Crimean independence. He could have involved international organisations. There were a lot of options and he chose the one that he knows everyone will understand as a massive disruption of international stability.
I remember, when Putin first became president, a lot of "experts" were arguing that Russia needed "a strong hand" for a time, as a transition into democracy. Yeltsin obviously was not strong, and people at the time were worried about the likes of Zhirinovsky. Our chancellor praised Putin as a great democrat.If, however, that economic and social stability vanishes as a result of an economic collapse induced by Western sanctions, there is no reason for Russians to support Putin or United Russia. If the Russians came anywhere close to where they were in the 1990s the whole thing would come down like a house of cards.If Putin's government falls, no one can guarantee that pro-Western liberals will take charge of the country. In fact, it may result in more radical politicians being voted into office or seizing power. None of Russian opposition leaders enjoy any significant popular support outside of Moscow.
Now I'm sure if Putin would fall and Russia would experience a bad economic downturn, there would be far worse and more radical people coming into power. I don't think Russia would fall apart, it might become more nationalistic instead. But Putin is looking much more authoritarian now than back then, and it's not getting better.
Apologies if I'm terribly wrong (I don't live in Russia so what do I know?) but it seems to me like the main reason people in Russia vote for United Russia and are happy with them being in government despite rampant corruption and disregard for human rights is that they have ensured that Russia is economically and socially stable.This was also important in regards to the Crimea referendum. The average income in Russia is way higher than in Ukraine. Compared to Ukraine, Russia has developed much better economically since the dissolution of the USSR. Pensions will be much higher (and apparently there are a lot of pensioners living in Crimea). State employees will get triple or more as much in wages.
I haven't got the numbers, but that might have been a factor too.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 03:36:28 am
That is an argumentation I've seen a lot. The US does X, so Russia can do X too. Even if the first part is right, that is not how laws are supposed to work.Anyway, it's not because the UK and USA have done it earlier that it's behavior that should be tolerated, or worse, promoted.My thoughts exactly.
At this point, the Russian leadership thinks that Russian national interests in Eastern Europe can be protected only by doing X that has been done by the US all the time, even if it contravenes the American interests in the region.
The main result of this crisis is that the US suddenly found out that Russia has national interests and the desire to achieve or protect them, and that Russia doesn't seem to be content with the role of a subservient nation bending to every will of their American masters.
No wonder that Samantha Power, the US representative in the United Nations flew into a fury when Russian representative in the UN Vitaly Churkin refused to obey the United States and vetoed the anti-Russian resolution of the UNSC on Ukraine on the 15th of March. Angry remarks attributed to her about Russia being a defeated nation probably meant that Russia wasn't supposed to rise up against the US like that after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR.
Spoiler: Power vs. Churkin (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 03:40:34 am
Russia got a shitload of money from raising oil prices. Russia got Bush who damaged American economy and crippled it's foreign relations by two wars. Russia got remains of Soviet science that wasn't bad at all. Russia had friendly governments in countries around (-Baltic states but even it was reparable)
They could invest in infrastructure, truly link Asian and European parts of Russia and get much large scale trading with China\Japan\South Korea , they could invest in modernization and produce high tech stuff. They could grant autonomy or even full independence to it's "Muslim" regions losing very few resources and mostly underdeveloped regions. They could calm down anti-Russian notions in post Soviet-countries by simply banning Soviet ideology and symbolics and apologize for the wrongdoings of the past. They could act as a stabilizing force in Post-Soviet region and be one of the forces opposing North Korea to create a reputation of a good guy
Instead they wasted money on Olympics, wars, Bribing North Caucasus elites and
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 03:45:20 am
The main result of this crisis is that the US suddenly found out that Russia has national interests and the desire to achieve or protect them, and that Russia doesn't seem to be content with the role of a subservient nation bending to every will of their American masters.
Keep telling yourself that
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:52:45 am
Maybe. you'e right. You see, it just costs a shitload of money each ear to maintain Russian interests in Crimea. So, that was one of th points to enforce it's annexation. And another one - Khruschev was giving Crimea to Ukraine while it was one and the same country - nobody could imagine that Ukraine will be another country. When union has fallen apart, that was act was secured because Yeltsin didn't give a fuck. Generelly when the union fallen apart nobody gave a fuck about what people felt about that.It depends on how the people see these troops. If they see them like oppressors, they will be oppressors. In Crimea, different thing happened. They just didn't see them in that way. I think.That is not the point. Even if we assume that a) Crimea wants to join Russia and b) Crimea wants Russian soldiers as protection, that doesn't mean the Russian intervention was right. Putin could have used diplomatic pressure to achieve these things. He could have trippled the gas prices. He could have let elections happen in Ukraine and support a constitutional change that allows for Crimean independence. He could have involved international organisations. There were a lot of options and he chose the one that he knows everyone will understand as a massive disruption of international stability.
UR, you mister Russian politician #1, please stop. You see, banning a significant part of our history is stupid, making to soviet period the same thing that Germany did to Nazi period - why should we do that?
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 03:59:49 am
UR, you mister Russian politician #1, please stop. You see, banning a significant part of our history is stupid, making to soviet period the same thing that Germany did to Nazi period - why should we do that?A lot of people in the West, especially in the countries which haven't saw much fighting on its territory during WW2 think that Soviet Union was much worse than Nazi Germany.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 04:03:41 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 04:05:06 am
Comrade P.
Russians have a full right to view your own history in any way you think is right. But your neighbors have a right to make conclusions on your plans based on your vision of history and who you name to be your heroes
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 04:08:44 am
Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I'm going to repeat a question I've asked earlier - did Russians kill any of your ancestors (or oppress them)? Such a high level of anti-Russian sentiment coming out of all of your posts here is baffling. I'm genuinely confused.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 04:10:46 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 04:15:40 am
UR, you mister Russian politician #1, please stop. You see, banning a significant part of our history is stupid, making to soviet period the same thing that Germany did to Nazi period - why should we do that?A lot of people in the West, especially in the countries which haven't saw much fighting on its territory during WW2 think that Soviet Union was much worse than Nazi Germany.
But Ukraine had plenty of bloodiest fights on it's own territory. Oh, and it had Bandera, The National Hero.
Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I see that as a proof of Guardian's point. Yes, Soviet union had political cleansings. Even anti-Jewish ones. It was discredited right after Stalin's death. And we regret we sincerely regret about that part of our history, just as Germans do about Nazis. But that doesn't equals two ideologies.
UR, well, yes. I'll just stop right here. Although I do not like your point and personally disapprove it.
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2014, 04:38:11 am
Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I thought we tried to have a rational and logical conversation in this thread, but it seems like certain individuals attempt to sabotage that by posting provocative information without any citation. Did Soviet Union killed your cat or what? ;)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 04:47:38 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 04:55:10 am
Should just get to naming this the Glorious Liberation of Crimea topic already if we're so dead set on parroting state media and feeding into victim complexesDon't tempt me :D
(But the very first name of the topic - 3rd Soviet-Ukrainian war was the best one)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 04:59:42 am
Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I thought we tried to have a rational and logical conversation in this thread, but it seems like certain individuals attempt to sabotage that by posting provocative information without any citation. Did Soviet Union killed your cat or what? ;)
HA! So it isn't just me who thinks in that way.
By the way, fun fact: РФ (Российская Федерация - Russian Federation) is turns to HA when the keyboard layout switches to english on my laptop.
HAHAHAHAHA - now laughing is patriotic scanding :).
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 20, 2014, 05:03:06 am
Curiously, "US" the other way turns to "ГЫ". Гыгыгыгыгыгы. :PYeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I thought we tried to have a rational and logical conversation in this thread, but it seems like certain individuals attempt to sabotage that by posting provocative information without any citation. Did Soviet Union killed your cat or what? ;)
HA! So it isn't just me who thinks in that way.
By the way, fun fact: РФ (Российская Федерация - Russian Federation) is turns to HA when the keyboard layout switches to english on my laptop.
HAHAHAHAHA - now laughing is patriotic scanding :).
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 05:05:22 am
Similarly, switching the keyboard layout from English into Russian turns the abbreviation EU into УГ, an abbreviation from the Russian equivalent of Encyclopedia Dramatica, Lurkmore.ru meaning "Унылое говно" (boring shit).Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I thought we tried to have a rational and logical conversation in this thread, but it seems like certain individuals attempt to sabotage that by posting provocative information without any citation. Did Soviet Union killed your cat or what? ;)
HA! So it isn't just me who thinks in that way.
By the way, fun fact: РФ (Российская Федерация - Russian Federation) is turns to HA when the keyboard layout switches to english on my laptop.
HAHAHAHAHA - now laughing is patriotic scanding :).
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 05:08:02 am
Post by: nekoexmachina on March 20, 2014, 05:12:02 am
Quote
By the way, fun fact: РФ (Российская Федерация - Russian Federation) is turns to HA when the keyboard layout switches to english on my laptop.By the way, fun fact: "HA" abbrevature means 'high-availability' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability).
Post by: Owlbread on March 20, 2014, 05:27:36 am
Curiously, "US" the other way turns to "ГЫ". Гыгыгыгыгыгы. :P
Isn't that literally "huehuehuehue"?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 05:44:47 am
I hope they are doing something to counter Russians and that is secret... But with every day I am more and more confident that they are doing nothing.
Post by: Ghazkull on March 20, 2014, 06:04:57 am
Now, if we could please turn the "Your Great-Grandfathers butchered my Great-Aunt of Third Degree in a [Insert Ethnical,Political, Religious Other Cleansing here] YOUR COUNTRY IS EVIL-INCARNATE!" off, that would be really nice.
Now fact is that yes the West has it's imperialists and people who go "MURRRRRICAAA" and Germany and Ukraine has its share of Neo-Nazies and Russia it's share of Soviet-Dudes who would like to see nothing more than UDSSR Flags hanging all over europe, but i think we can all agree that those people are in each country in a minority - Ukraine isn't ruled by Neo-Fascists but by Liberals,Old Guard and Some Nationalists which helped bring down Yanukovich and seem to get the Short End of the Stick now. And please get it straight here Nationalist equals NOT Fascist, Neo-Fascist and Nazi or Neo-Nazi. Those two ideologies while both being seen in the right corner are vastly different and like each other about as much as Communists or Socialists like Anarchists which are apparently considered to be in the left corner.
Next on the plate. Russia. IS also apparently governed by Nationalists with
Next: the US. While i understand arguments from the Eastern corner that the Americans did the same in Iraq and (arguably) in Afghanistan, that doesn't make what you did in Crimea right. Nor for that matter does it make the Iraq right. The difference which you and i have to see here is that America (in contrary to Russia) is a close ally to Europe. You don't start sanctioning your allies now would you? If China marches right into Siam or Burma Russia would shrug. But if China annexes let's say ( im not so firm with central asian geography so if what i say next doesn't sound threatening enough replace it with something fitting) Khazakstan you Russians would not be very happy either i presume and since it's so close you would threaten sanctions too, no matter how many chinese lived in Khzakastan and wheter or not a part of it would like to declare independence and join China. The same it is with Ukraine. It's awfully close to Europe and if we are honest our shared History doesn't make Europe and Russia the best of Neighbours.
@UR: of course they are doing nothing, they are just the transitional government they fear the anger of somebody coming down on them the moment they do something and it turns out wrong. At that moment everybody will point at them " WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DO THAT" ...so yeah apart from holding tight till the elections those guys won't do anything due to fearing for their own hides.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 20, 2014, 06:17:48 am
Thus, my personal opinion, as a politically ignorant but principally curious observer, is that the situation in Crimea was leading up to someone's intervention, and the EU and US are mostly angry at Russia for beating them to the punch. :P
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2014, 06:30:47 am
Current Ukrainian Government looks like imported from EU. Declarations, declarations and more declarations....Don't worry. It's the necessary step of every revolution. First the monarch is dethroned by liberal forces. Then liberal forces are crushed by an ideological revolution. It was the same in France, Russia, and now it will be in Ukraine.
I hope they are doing something to counter Russians and that is secret... But with every day I am more and more confident that they are doing nothing.
Post by: ibot66 on March 20, 2014, 06:35:32 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 20, 2014, 06:38:53 am
I did not get that impression from my media. The impression I got was some discontent at the government in Kiev, then Russians. I didn't get the need to invade.Because Russian Empire.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 20, 2014, 06:45:33 am
That's not a viper at that point, it's a fucking anaconda.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 20, 2014, 06:53:27 am
I did not get that impression from my media. The impression I got was some discontent at the government in Kiev, then Russians. I didn't get the need to invade.That's mostly correct, except apparently in Crimea, and the discontent apparently included police forces that are not allowed to use their weapons while hiding behind a row of shields from a crowd that hurls Molotovs at them and turns the streets into a warzone. I am fairly hesitant to believe that any police force would be so hell-bent on following orders as to not start firing back while being partially set on fire, therefore something was definitely up between the actual events and their representation on the newsreel, but what exactly and to what extent is impossible to gauge from my point of view.
If the general sentiment of the people of Russia were anything at all like what got thrown around at our dinner table while the news was on at that point, I wouldn't have been surprised to see volunteer peacekeeping squads marching over the border to quell the chaos in the Ukraine with boot and fire, consequences be damned. :P
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 20, 2014, 06:55:13 am
Post by: olemars on March 20, 2014, 07:24:10 am
Post by: MarcAFK on March 20, 2014, 07:39:34 am
Should just get to naming this the Glorious Liberation of Crimea topic already if we're so dead set on parroting state media and feeding into victim complexesDon't tempt me :D
(But the very first name of the topic - 3rd Soviet-Ukrainian war was the best one)
Sadly you called it correctly way back in January, though it's looking more likely to be much farther reaching than just Ukraine/Moscow, I'm actually rather worried that Russia's actions might trigger more violent nationalist revolutions in other countries that seemed relatively stable, yet fall apart as certain demographics lose confidence in their governments ability to keep Russia's influence out of their backyard.
In fact I'm surprised there hasn't been widespread violence against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, either your most fanatical neo-nazi nationalists lack the resources to do this, or more likely; they lack the desire to do it. I'm thinking it's a good sign anyway.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 08:59:30 am
Quote from: Ghazkull
@UR: of course they are doing nothing, they are just the transitional government they fear the anger of somebody coming down on them the moment they do something and it turns out wrong. At that moment everybody will point at them " WHAT YOU DID WAS WRONG AND YOU ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DO THAT" ...so yeah apart from holding tight till the elections those guys won't do anything due to fearing for their own hides.Yep. But doing not enough in times like that may leave us without a country...
Still that is the best government Ukraine ever had. But it still has to many guys with roots in the former system. And let's be honest: They sucked in a role of opposition, if opposition is good in can become government without waiting till people start a rebellion .
Quote from: MarcAFK
In fact I'm surprised there hasn't been widespread violence against Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, either your most fanatical neo-nazi nationalists lack the resources to do this, or more likely; they lack the desire to do it. I'm thinking it's a good sign anyway.Whatever Russian propaganda may say, we have very few "All Russian speakers are enemies" kind of nationalist. Sadly after the events the number will raise but I think it will be manageable. And in long term very good for Ukrainian nationalism.
Nationalist is a very vague word. It's something like describing a person like "he is a member of Abrahamic religion". That can mean very different beliefs.
Same with Nationalism. You know what I think when I hear neo-nazi youth? "Guys to convert" not "Those demi-humans that must go to prison as soon possible" opinion that most liberals tend to have. In fact most of neo-nazi are guys who badly want to help their nation
They just choose easy routes Finding enemies and blaming them for everything bad that happens is one of that ways. As for Hitlerophilia... Well third Reich is alluring in it's own way and young minds may fall in that trap
*Yep there are sadistic losers, paranoiacs and sociopaths among them. Even worse they tend to take leadership. That's why it is extremely important to work with right youth. And work in style - "boo, you are a bad nazi, boo" will do nothing good.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 09:01:28 am
Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.
A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
And if this isn't what the Russian posters in this thread were trying to convey, well... you might want to work on your communication a bit, because that's basically the only message I've gotten, over and over again.
Post by: burningpet on March 20, 2014, 09:09:38 am
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2014, 09:19:37 am
Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I'm going to repeat a question I've asked earlier - did Russians kill any of your ancestors (or oppress them)? Such a high level of anti-Russian sentiment coming out of all of your posts here is baffling. I'm genuinely confused.
Yes. Volga Germans. Forcibly deported from the Saratov oblast to Siberia and their villages bulldozed into the earth. Your move, tovarisch.
Post by: smjjames on March 20, 2014, 09:21:40 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 20, 2014, 09:23:53 am
You guys keep saying or thinking Ukranian Ranger is Russian, but isn't he actually Ukranian? And no I'm not going by his username alone....I think you have to be literally blind to think UR is Russian.
Post by: smjjames on March 20, 2014, 09:28:30 am
You guys keep saying or thinking Ukranian Ranger is Russian, but isn't he actually Ukranian? And no I'm not going by his username alone....I think you have to be literally blind to think UR is Russian.
I'm not one of those who think UR is Russian, but several posters in the last few pages have claimed he is Russian or called him Russian.
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.
Post by: Helgoland on March 20, 2014, 09:43:46 am
You are putting words into their mouths.Nope - the 'US did it too' argument comes up surprisingly often, even in a discussion this good.
Now this is something I don't get - Sergarr, are you going soft? Hehe~I did not get that impression from my media. The impression I got was some discontent at the government in Kiev, then Russians. I didn't get the need to invade.Because Russian Empire.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 20, 2014, 09:49:20 am
That was directed at Mictlantecuhtli specifically I think.Yeah, the Soviet Nazis only killed a few ten millions. Nothing bad or anything.I'm going to repeat a question I've asked earlier - did Russians kill any of your ancestors (or oppress them)? Such a high level of anti-Russian sentiment coming out of all of your posts here is baffling. I'm genuinely confused.
Yes. Volga Germans. Forcibly deported from the Saratov oblast to Siberia and their villages bulldozed into the earth. Your move, tovarisch.
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.That was sarcasm, he called him Russian politician No1.
Same with Nationalism. You know what I think when I hear neo-nazi youth? "Guys to convert" not "Those demi-humans that must go to prison as soon possible" opinion that most liberals tend to have. In fact most of neo-nazi are guys who badly want to help their nationExactly. There are plenty of people who easily fall for what looks like a simple solution and a clear world view. Maintaining democracy means you have to reach out to misguided people too, especially youths.
They just choose easy routes Finding enemies and blaming them for everything bad that happens is one of that ways. As for Hitlerophilia... Well third Reich is alluring in it's own way and young minds may fall in that trap
*Yep there are sadistic losers, paranoiacs and sociopaths among them. Even worse they tend to take leadership. That's why it is extremely important to work with right youth. And work in style - "boo, you are a bad nazi, boo" will do nothing good.
Post by: gogis on March 20, 2014, 09:53:15 am
The Crimean authorities claim they arrested the sniper from the shooting in Simferopol. They say it was a 17 year old from Western Ukraine, who shot at both sides to provoke an incident. If that is true (I haven't seen confirmation), I have to note that this would be the first instance of such a provokation in Crimea or in Ukraine that would be proven. Might very well just be a confused angry kid.
That's most likely a fake
http://www.stopfake.org/militsiya-kryma-ne-podtverdila-novost-o-zaderzhanii-snajpera/
Post by: smjjames on March 20, 2014, 09:57:08 am
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.That was sarcasm, he called him Russian politician No1.
Oh, apologies for misunderstanding.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 20, 2014, 10:01:03 am
Very good then, thanks. I had only seen the initial report, not the second one denying it.The Crimean authorities claim they arrested the sniper from the shooting in Simferopol. They say it was a 17 year old from Western Ukraine, who shot at both sides to provoke an incident. If that is true (I haven't seen confirmation), I have to note that this would be the first instance of such a provokation in Crimea or in Ukraine that would be proven. Might very well just be a confused angry kid.
That's most likely a fake
http://www.stopfake.org/militsiya-kryma-ne-podtverdila-novost-o-zaderzhanii-snajpera/
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 11:04:54 am
Spoiler: More sanctions (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2014, 11:08:40 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 11:10:51 am
Any idea why Putin himself isn't on the list?That will result in a Nuclear War :D
To be serious I think it is reserved for later use
Post by: smjjames on March 20, 2014, 11:11:42 am
Honestly, no idea why Putin hasn't been sanctioned yet.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 11:14:54 am
You guys keep saying or thinking Ukranian Ranger is Russian, but isn't he actually Ukranian? And no I'm not going by his username alone....I think you have to be literally blind to think UR is Russian.
I'm not one of those who think UR is Russian, but several posters in the last few pages have claimed he is Russian or called him Russian.
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.
I dissaprove your words. I am well aware that he is Ukrainian. Since the very beginning of this thread. Even from the Sheb's thread abouet EU politics, to be precise.
Ugh, the pro-soviet folks in this thread... It's like talking to a goddamn southerner who wants to relive the glory days of slavery, or those who idolize racist imperialists like Jackson.
Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.
A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
And if this isn't what the Russian posters in this thread were trying to convey, well... you might want to work on your communication a bit, because that's basically the only message I've gotten, over and over again.
You're saying all that like it's a bad thing. Yeah, yeah, stupid russkie I am, yeah...
I guess that it is all about ethernal "Conservative vs. Liberal"
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2014, 11:20:27 am
Any idea why Putin himself isn't on the list?
Putin has been zealous about keeping his assets inside Russia AFAIK.
Post by: smjjames on March 20, 2014, 11:20:38 am
You guys keep saying or thinking Ukranian Ranger is Russian, but isn't he actually Ukranian? And no I'm not going by his username alone....I think you have to be literally blind to think UR is Russian.
I'm not one of those who think UR is Russian, but several posters in the last few pages have claimed he is Russian or called him Russian.
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.
I dissaprove your words. I am well aware that he is Ukrainian. Since the very beginning of this thread. Even from the Sheb's thread abouet EU politics, to be precise.
Comrade P. It was a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of your words on my part and I apologize. I didn't catch the fact that the russian politician #1 bit was sarcasm and thought it was something else.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 11:24:48 am
You guys keep saying or thinking Ukranian Ranger is Russian, but isn't he actually Ukranian? And no I'm not going by his username alone....I think you have to be literally blind to think UR is Russian.
I'm not one of those who think UR is Russian, but several posters in the last few pages have claimed he is Russian or called him Russian.
Or rather I think it was just Comrade P. who was calling UR out as Russian, not sure if a few others were calling UR Russian.
I dissaprove your words. I am well aware that he is Ukrainian. Since the very beginning of this thread. Even from the Sheb's thread abouet EU politics, to be precise.
Comrade P. It was a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of your words on my part and I apologize. I didn't catch the fact that the russian politician #1 bit was sarcasm and thought it was something else.
Apologies accepted :).
Post by: Xeron on March 20, 2014, 11:36:19 am
Post by: Beznogim on March 20, 2014, 11:40:30 am
Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.None of us wants somebody to forgive us for it. We (at least, the overwhelming majority) are proud of our past, we are absolutely cool with it, and have nothing to be ashamed of.
A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
What future could your southern confederates possibly have offered and now southerners regret of not having it? Plantations, slavery, agriculture. It was a road to nowhere, stagnation being a banana republic.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.
Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
We admitted, that the fall of the Soviet Union was a great geopolitical catastrophe. Yes, we suffered defeat. But do you really think, we would be content with the current configuration? USA, being the only superpower in the world, invading any country it wants and bossing everyone around? The fact that we also have imperial ambitions, should serve as a sobering revelation and a counterbalancing factor, making the world realize again, that the West can no longer just enforce its will on the rest of the world. Not in our sphere of interest.
Our actions seem righteous enough to me. If the law is not effective in the slightest, then it is a bad law. If one side inconsequentially breaks it numerous times for decades, we would be fools to just sit humbly by.
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 11:47:34 am
But whatever. It's known as Machismo in Latin America. What's the Russian word for it?
Post by: scriver on March 20, 2014, 11:51:46 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 11:53:07 am
Post by: scrdest on March 20, 2014, 11:53:38 am
Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.None of us wants somebody to forgive us for it. We (at least, the overwhelming majority) are proud of our past, we are absolutely cool with it, and have nothing to be ashamed of.
A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
What future could your southern confederates possibly have offered and now southerners regret of not having it? Plantations, slavery, agriculture. It was a road to nowhere, stagnation being a banana republic.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
We admitted, that the fall of the Soviet Union was a great geopolitical catastrophe. Yes, we suffered defeat. But do you really think, we would be content with the current configuration? USA, being the only superpower in the world, invading any country it wants and bossing everyone around? The fact that we also have imperial ambitions, should serve as a sobering revelation and a counterbalancing factor, making the world realize again, that the West can no longer just enforce its will on the rest of the world. Not in our sphere of interest.
Our actions seem righteous enough to me. If the law is not effective in the slightest, then it is a bad law. If one side inconsequentially breaks it numerous times for decades, we would be fools to just sit humbly by.
This is a little thing known as 'Tu quoque'.
The fact that USA does something =/=
a) it being good
b) allowing anyone else to do so.
Furthermore, sure, you can argue that, but be congruous. If you allow Russia to respond by doing the same thing as the US, you have no right to condemn the US.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 11:58:25 am
I dunno about Russia, but up here we just call it small penis complex.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2014, 11:59:31 am
We admitted, that the fall of the Soviet Union was a great geopolitical catastrophe. Yes, we suffered defeat. But do you really think, we would be content with the current configuration? USA, being the only superpower in the world, invading any country it wants and bossing everyone around? The fact that we also have imperial ambitions, should serve as a sobering revelation and a counterbalancing factor, making the world realize again, that the West can no longer just enforce its will on the rest of the world. Not in our sphere of interest.
Our actions seem righteous enough to me. If the law is not effective in the slightest, then it is a bad law. If one side inconsequentially breaks it numerous times for decades, we would be fools to just sit humbly by.
Have fun living in the 19th century while your neighbors join the modern world. Want to know why they are fleeing you in droves? This exact opinion.
It will be funny to watch when the energy boom in Russia has run it's course and you lot realize that opportunities you pissed away.
Post by: Descan on March 20, 2014, 11:59:43 am
And you can be proud of progress while being remorseful for atrocities. Even if that progress was because of the atrocities.
As a Canadian, I'm proud of my nation for it's historical commitment to liberalism and social democracy, as well as it's technological advances and multicultural society. But I am ashamed of it's colonialism and desecration of the land in pursuit of profits, of the genocide against natives in the residency schools as late as the 60s or 70s. Of the fact that we only got our first great national pride because of an act of brutal war at Vimy Ridge, killing innocent teenage German conscripts.
Without the colonialism Canada wouldn't even exist, let alone be technologically or politically advanced. That doesn't mean that colonialism is a GOOD thing.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 20, 2014, 12:01:01 pm
If they sanctioned Putin directly, he'd throw an even bigger hissy fit and refuse to negotiate with anyone, most likely.Any idea why Putin himself isn't on the list?That will result in a Nuclear War :D
To be serious I think it is reserved for later use
Post by: scriver on March 20, 2014, 12:03:10 pm
I dunno about Russia, but up here we just call it small penis complex.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Heh.
Now, did they account for shrinkage? :P
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 20, 2014, 12:03:57 pm
Not saying that people should feel bad for everything that every country has done bad in the past, but people really should accept history for what it is, not rewrite it.Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.None of us wants somebody to forgive us for it. We (at least, the overwhelming majority) are proud of our past, we are absolutely cool with it, and have nothing to be ashamed of.
Also on the list of achievements : World's worst nuclear disaster, World's largest non-nuclear accidental explosion**, and persistent shortages of consumer goods due to economic priorities*A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
What future could your southern confederates possibly have offered and now southerners regret of not having it? Plantations, slavery, agriculture. It was a road to nowhere, stagnation being a banana republic.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.
Anyway, both of these things are largely irrelevant. The USSR's technological accomplishments were largely unrelated to the Gulag system, or other crimes against humanity. Nobody is stopping your from hailing the accomplishments of your nation, but this does not give it the right to blindly ignore it's flaws.
The Goal justifies the Means is a really dangerous ideology.
*Not that that was resolved when the country was liberalized. It became worse, but anyway.
**N-1 moon rocket
The USA isn't the only superpower in the world, and hasn't been for the last decade. And really, nobody is content with the USA messing up with all their stuff everywhere. Truly, I'm waiting for one of their meddlings to blow up in their face, and quite bit worse than what happened in Iraq.Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".We admitted, that the fall of the Soviet Union was a great geopolitical catastrophe. Yes, we suffered defeat. But do you really think, we would be content with the current configuration? USA, being the only superpower in the world, invading any country it wants and bossing everyone around? The fact that we also have imperial ambitions, should serve as a sobering revelation and a counterbalancing factor, making the world realize again, that the West can no longer just enforce its will on the rest of the world. Not in our sphere of interest.
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
Our actions seem righteous enough to me. If the law is not effective in the slightest, then it is a bad law. If one side inconsequentially breaks it numerous times for decades, we would be fools to just sit humbly by.
Skipping to my final point, you should not fight fire with fire. It's not because some other nations are arguably breaking international law, that you get a free pass as well.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 12:11:42 pm
You're saying all that like it's a bad thing. Yeah, yeah, stupid russkie I am, yeah...It's got nothing to do with intelligence.
I guess that it is all about ethernal "Conservative vs. Liberal"
It's a commentary on a lot of things, but "intelligence" isn't one of them.
None of us wants somebody to forgive us for it. We (at least, the overwhelming majority) are proud of our past, we are absolutely cool with it, and have nothing to be ashamed of.Look, if you want to be a cartoon villain, fine. But don't get upset about people calling you an outright evil motherfucker when you are explicitly admitting to being such (And yes, arguing that any cost paid to achieve power, influence, and personal prosperity is worth it is pretty much the dictionary definition of "evil"), and don't bother to complain about fascists when your mindset is virtually indistinguishable.
Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
What future could your southern confederates possibly have offered and now southerners regret of not having it? Plantations, slavery, agriculture. It was a road to nowhere, stagnation being a banana republic.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.
Post by: Sheb on March 20, 2014, 12:13:45 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 20, 2014, 12:15:05 pm
Ninjaedit: Didn't Knit say some anti-Russian stuff as well?
* Edit: GG was right, he has shown a fascist mindset. Worrying...
Post by: Sheb on March 20, 2014, 12:15:35 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 12:17:21 pm
I'd like to adress a minor mistake, GG: Until now, he has only shown an imperialist mindset, not a fascist one - imperialism being a kind of foreign and fascism one of domestic politics. These two often go hand in hand, I admit, but right now 'fascist' is not the right word.He said he's perfectly cool with all of the internal stuff the Soviets did as well (no problems at all with any of their "brutal and terrible past", after all), since it made them a powerful nation. I might be ignorant here, though - exactly what points would he need to adopt that he hasn't, so far, in order to be considered fascist?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 12:25:09 pm
Yanukovich would continue drift to Russia, all our defense industry would fall in Russian hands because it was ready for privatization (It's not world class but is worthwhile especially after modernization), Ukrainian army would be further reduced to a small, well controlled by Russians, professional force (2014 should have been the last year of conscription) and Russia would have several more years to boost it's military and strike somewhere else
Post by: Mephansteras on March 20, 2014, 12:43:02 pm
Stop justifying your own evils by arguing that other people were worse. This forgives nothing.None of us wants somebody to forgive us for it. We (at least, the overwhelming majority) are proud of our past, we are absolutely cool with it, and have nothing to be ashamed of.
A country who romanticizes its brutal and terrible past and attempts to justify what was done as being not-so-bad, is a country that will have great difficulty ever moving on, and who are far more likely to try and justify evils being done in the present. There were terrible evils committed by the soviet government, and arguments about "well you can't criticize because it didn't effect you directly" are just... pathetic.
Actually, if the Russian folks in this thread have convinced me of anything, it's just how alike they are with the southern confederate stalwarts.
Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
What future could your southern confederates possibly have offered and now southerners regret of not having it? Plantations, slavery, agriculture. It was a road to nowhere, stagnation being a banana republic.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.Unwilling to admit defeat. Constant apologists for the evils their people did. Stuck in the past. Constant persecution complex. Incredibly powerful Us vs. Them mentality. Strong internal narrative casting themselves as the righteous standing up against the pervasive encroaching forces of immorality. A need for strong ideological leaders and a willingness to look the other way when those leaders break the law. An entire historical view built around "Fuck you, got mine".
It really seems like the same exact sort of mentality. No wonder some hard-line conservatives are such big fans of Putin and Russia.
We admitted, that the fall of the Soviet Union was a great geopolitical catastrophe. Yes, we suffered defeat. But do you really think, we would be content with the current configuration? USA, being the only superpower in the world, invading any country it wants and bossing everyone around? The fact that we also have imperial ambitions, should serve as a sobering revelation and a counterbalancing factor, making the world realize again, that the West can no longer just enforce its will on the rest of the world. Not in our sphere of interest.
Our actions seem righteous enough to me. If the law is not effective in the slightest, then it is a bad law. If one side inconsequentially breaks it numerous times for decades, we would be fools to just sit humbly by.
Except that I would argue that Russia could have been so much better off if they hadn't done all of that. Can you imagine how much stronger the entire world would be if we'd had Russia as an enlightened democracy after WWI? What if the United States and Russia (rather than the USSR) had been firm friends? How much different would history have been with strong ties there? Would WW2 even have happened if the Germans were convinced that the United States would stand with Russia instead of being 'scared by the greater threat of Communist USSR'?
What about the millions of people killed or shipped off to nowhere. What strength could Russia have gained if it had used those people rather than discarding them?
Russia is the largest country in the world with a large population and huge amounts of natural resources, and yet California alone has a greater GDP than Russia does. The United States as a whole is several times the GDP of Russia. So while I don't think your past failed, I think those actions were ultimately to the detriment of your people and its future.
I'm far from proud of many of the things that the US has done over the years, but I am at least proud that as a nation we seem to be evolving more and more into a truly civilized country. Maybe we'll get to the point where our leaders start realizing that the US needs to set a positive example for the world that doesn't involve rushing in guns blazing to save the day. I can hope. But at least we don't seem to be backsliding into the bloodier parts of history.
Post by: Helgoland on March 20, 2014, 12:58:16 pm
Post by: Beznogim on March 20, 2014, 01:01:05 pm
I'd like to adress a minor mistake, GG: Until now, he has only shown an imperialist mindset, not a fascist one - imperialism being a kind of foreign and fascism one of domestic politics. These two often go hand in hand, I admit, but right now 'fascist' is not the right word.He said he's perfectly cool with all of the internal stuff the Soviets did as well (no problems at all with any of their "brutal and terrible past", after all), since it made them a powerful nation. I might be ignorant here, though - exactly what points would he need to adopt that he hasn't, so far, in order to be considered fascist?
Calling Soviet reign a fascism is incorrect, mind you. Totalitarian? Yes. Fascist? No.
What do you understand under fascism, btw? Or do you use it merely as insult, uncomprehending its meaning?
What evil stuff did Soviet do? Let's see:
-2,9 mln imprisoned in gulag (a prison, where you forced to work). But it is a large country, and, in comparison, USA currently holds now 2,1 mln prisoners and they are also obligatory to work (although, they are payed a cent per hour). Apparently, this is how the civilized world works.
-600 thousand executed (not millions, as considered by some). In harsh conditions of rebuilding after both WW1, civil war and foreign intervention, I think it is understandable and reasonable enough. Even if there were mistakes in judge verdicts, most of people executed or imprisoned were not innocent saints.
-moving some ethnicities from one place to another? Considering the situation - the war with the Germany (whose war goal was extermination of Russian population) - it would have been completely unreasonable to leave large amounts of other smaller ethnicities on soon-to-be-occupied territories, who did not show much loyalty to you and are likely to betray you.
-and so on, and so forth. All perfectly explained by completely rational motivation.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 01:05:20 pm
Some info on the killed Ukrainian soldier:
He was an Ethnic Russian had 4-year old daughter and a pregnant wife...
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2014, 01:10:58 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 20, 2014, 01:11:46 pm
There were quite a few more people imprisoned in the Gulag's. 2.9mln was their peak size. The actual level of people passing through is about
Quote
These data allowed scholars to conclude that during the period of 1928–53, about 14 million prisoners passed through the system of GULAG labour camps and 4-5 million passed through the labour colonies
Also, don't forget about alternate methods of suppression, like the political abuse of Psychiatry (dissent against the state being classified as a sign of schizophrenia)
Anyway, the point is not that these actions were a sign of a cartoonishly evil regime, or completely unjustified, the point is that they should still be criticized for what happened. Strategic bombing of cities was nessecairy to bring an end to the Second World war, but that does not mean that we should just accept that the Allies deliberately bombed entire cities, with the intent to cause as much suffering as possible.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 01:18:19 pm
Sadly, last time Russia lost Cold War :(
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 20, 2014, 01:19:51 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 01:22:07 pm
Truly, I don't think anyone lost or won the Cold War. It just ceased to exist when the USSR did.
Well, yes. I consider the fact that USSR has fallen apart as a defeat in the Cold War. It is sad for me, but we continue living, right?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 01:26:26 pm
Truly, I don't think anyone lost or won the Cold War. It just ceased to exist when the USSR did.
Well, yes. I consider the fact that USSR has fallen apart as a defeat in the Cold War. It is sad for me, but we continue living, right?
The USSR was undoubtedly defeated, but that doesn't imply the USA won, especially since I was under the impression that said defeat was essentially a collapse rather than an outside take down. The USA suffered a lot of losses during the cold war too, both domestic and abroad, and gained... well, not a whole lot. If the US "won" the cold war, it was a pyrrhic victory that only served to justify the stupid and evil decisions they made about a whole host of issues that they were only able to choose because the USSR provided such a convenient enemy and a justification for arguing "we HAVE to do this terrible thing because THEY are so much worse!".
They came out of it better than the USSR did, but that's a pretty low standard for "winning" in my book.
Post by: kaijyuu on March 20, 2014, 01:27:28 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 01:30:33 pm
blah blah no one actually wins wars blah blah hippie stuff blah blah love and peace blah blah
Nah, people can definitely win wars. Winning a war is when you end up better off than if you hadn't fought the war at all. The Allies definitely won WWII, for example. (All of them, Russia included) The US won the Cold War about as much as they "won" the war in Iraq, though.
But back to Ukraine stuff...
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 01:32:55 pm
Truly, I don't think anyone lost or won the Cold War. It just ceased to exist when the USSR did.
Well, yes. I consider the fact that USSR has fallen apart as a defeat in the Cold War. It is sad for me, but we continue living, right?
The USSR was undoubtedly defeated, but that doesn't imply the USA won, especially since I was under the impression that said defeat was essentially a collapse rather than an outside take down. The USA suffered a lot of losses during the cold war too, both domestic and abroad, and gained... well, not a whole lot. If the US "won" the cold war, it was a pyrrhic victory that only served to justify the stupid and evil decisions they made about a whole host of issues that they were only able to choose because the USSR provided such a convenient enemy and a justification for arguing "we HAVE to do this terrible thing because THEY are so much worse!".
They came out of it better than the USSR did, but that's a pretty low standard for "winning" in my book.
I actually had no clear vision of how that looked like from, you know, their side. Anyway, world is no longer bi-polarized.
blah blah no one actually wins wars blah blah hippie stuff blah blah love and peace blah blah
Nah, people can definitely win wars. Winning a war is when you end up better off than if you hadn't fought the war at all. The Allies definitely won WWII, for example. (All of them, Russia included) The US won the Cold War about as much as they "won" the war in Iraq, though.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 01:34:36 pm
And also to specifically get ahead of anyone who might try to claim that they weren't part of the victory.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 01:34:52 pm
-snip-
Beznogim, I understand your point of view, but I think that your attempts to explain the necessity of Soviet policies are fruitless. As your signature says, НЕ ПЫТАЙТЕСБ ЧТОТ0 NЗМЕНИТЬ. The majority of people here come from countries where the concept of "necessary sacrifice" is regarded as ultimate evil. Individualist societies cannot accept loss of human life no matter how necessary it might be for the country. Stalin's policies will always be regarded as absolute evil from Western point of view, even though from Stalin's viewpoint, his actions were necessary to ensure survival of the Soviet Union. It's not just a conflict of political ideologies, the moralities of Western and Russian societies contradict each other here.
Truly, I don't think anyone lost or won the Cold War. It just ceased to exist when the USSR did.Apparently some people in the West think or at least thought that because of the collapse of the USSR, Russians should behave like Germans after WW2 - constantly stress that they were wrong, constantly apologize for their history and ban practically every display of national pride.
Alright, let us not discuss history any more, shall we?
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 01:38:49 pm
Quote
The majority of people here come from countries where the concept of "necessary sacrifice" is regarded as ultimate evil.
Oh please, like Russia is the only one that's sacrificed for something.
Here's the difference: over here, "necessary sacrifice" is a choice of last resort. Not, you know, international politics in general, as Putin seems to believe. All this "our hand was forced" nonsense is trying to make the rest of the world feel responsible for a choice Putin deliberately made, and with the flimsiest of pretexts.
Honestly, watching Russia try and justify their choices is like watching someone try to lie to you about what they just posted on social media.
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2014, 01:41:14 pm
Post by: Mephansteras on March 20, 2014, 01:54:58 pm
Beznogim, I understand your point of view, but I think that your attempts to explain the necessity of Soviet policies are fruitless. As your signature says, НЕ ПЫТАЙТЕСБ ЧТОТ0 NЗМЕНИТЬ. The majority of people here come from countries where the concept of "necessary sacrifice" is regarded as ultimate evil. Individualist societies cannot accept loss of human life no matter how necessary it might be for the country. Stalin's policies will always be regarded as absolute evil from Western point of view, even though from Stalin's viewpoint, his actions were necessary to ensure survival of the Soviet Union. It's not just a conflict of political ideologies, the moralities of Western and Russian societies contradict each other here.It's not that. The West does have a concept of 'Necessary Sacrifice', it's just that the bar for when it becomes necessary seems to be quite different.
I think a lot of it has to do with an Expectation of Sacrifice. A Firefighter who dies in the line of duty is in many ways viewed as a 'necessary sacrifice' for society. They specifically risk their lives to save others and western society both expects this of them and lauds them for their heroics.
In much the same way Soldiers who die in the line of duty are treated as 'acceptable' Sacrifices (Although that varies much more depending on Popular opinion of the operation they were engaged in).
However the idea that the Government can decide for its citizens that they are a 'necessary' sacrifice for the good of the nation is an anathema. It is accepted that the primary Function of government in the west is to safeguard the lives and welfare of its citizens and any deviation from that has to have some major justifications behind it for people to even tolerate it.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 02:04:23 pm
Post by: Baffler on March 20, 2014, 02:05:27 pm
So Russian soldiers have stormed Ukrainian vessels. Shots may have been fired. (Link in German.) (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/krim-russland-ukraine-stuermung-kriegsschiffe)
Weren't people discussing the future of the Ukrainian ships moored in Sevastopol a few days ago? It seems a decision has been made. The Russians haven't said anything about it (at least not that I've seen), but there don't seem to have been any casualties. American media sources report that "pro-Russian crowds" seized the ships, while the German source claims it was Russian soldiers.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 20, 2014, 02:20:58 pm
I'm not sure there's any justification for the 'acceptable sacrifice' of people
It's usually cases like quarantine or the like where the government has to sacrifice a small number of people in order to prevent many more people dying. There is pressure to find a better solution that doesn't involve any sacrifice, but that isn't always possible. That's about the only situation I can think of where people would find it acceptable, even if it is always regrettable.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 02:21:28 pm
I'm not sure there's any justification for the 'acceptable sacrifice' of people300 Spartans?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 02:22:56 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 02:27:35 pm
state sponsored genocide
I'm tired of being at least relatively polite. Go fuck yourself, Mictlantecuhtli. Every argument against your point of view you are given you reduce to "you Russians perform genocide". WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. Tired of repeating.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 02:31:33 pm
I'm not sure there's any justification for the 'acceptable sacrifice' of people300 Spartans?
I'm pretty sure he was speaking in the definition used earlier, the one we were debating when it was said that the West understands sacrifice, but seems to disagree on what that entails.
In Western terms we would say: They made a necessary sacrifice to insure Greek liberty. They are heroes! (Or something, I mean it was mostly Athenian's who made the sacrifice not Spartans but whatever)
But in terms of the Russian definition brought up earlier, where it a "sacrifice" is made of unwilling third parties, we would ask: Who did the Spartan's sacrifice? And/or who made an acceptable sacrifice of the Spartan's?
This appears to be where the definition of an "acceptable sacrifice" comes from. The West sees sacrifices as acceptable and even heroic when they are made willingly, it sees the murder of third parties to achieve its goal as, at best, a necessary evil.
I guess it depends on whether you are using the Western definition of the "heroic sacrifice" a la the Spartans and firefighters and stuff, or the pro-Russian-proposed-definition which seems to be "it's worth killing this dude to get what we want" a la the human sacrifice of the Aztecs.
The US wouldn't really consider the people we shoot to be "sacrifices" even if we are shooting them to achieve what would be a worthwhile goal (like stopping an armed robber or something).
state sponsored genocideI'm tired of being at least relatively polite. Go fuck yourself, Mictlantecuhtli. Every argument against your point of view you are given you reduce to "you Russians perform genocide". WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. Tired of repeating.
Admittedly, you weren't really helped by a Pro-Soviet dude coming into the thread and saying he was totally happy about any possible genocides and was not going to feel bad about them in the slightest since they were a good thing. This was quite specifically the issue that raised the whole "sacrifice" thing, since it was said those victims were "sacrificed" for the good of Russia by that poster. You can disagree with that and still be Pro-Current-day-Russia, and I hope you do, but keep that context in mind here.
Post by: XXSockXX on March 20, 2014, 02:32:19 pm
You're right, Soviet-style communism is not fascism, totalitarianism is the better word.I'd like to adress a minor mistake, GG: Until now, he has only shown an imperialist mindset, not a fascist one - imperialism being a kind of foreign and fascism one of domestic politics. These two often go hand in hand, I admit, but right now 'fascist' is not the right word.He said he's perfectly cool with all of the internal stuff the Soviets did as well (no problems at all with any of their "brutal and terrible past", after all), since it made them a powerful nation. I might be ignorant here, though - exactly what points would he need to adopt that he hasn't, so far, in order to be considered fascist?
Calling Soviet reign a fascism is incorrect, mind you. Totalitarian? Yes. Fascist? No.
What do you understand under fascism, btw? Or do you use it merely as insult, uncomprehending its meaning?
What evil stuff did Soviet do? Let's see:
-2,9 mln imprisoned in gulag (a prison, where you forced to work). But it is a large country, and, in comparison, USA currently holds now 2,1 mln prisoners and they are also obligatory to work (although, they are payed a cent per hour). Apparently, this is how the civilized world works.
-600 thousand executed (not millions, as considered by some). In harsh conditions of rebuilding after both WW1, civil war and foreign intervention, I think it is understandable and reasonable enough. Even if there were mistakes in judge verdicts, most of people executed or imprisoned were not innocent saints.
-moving some ethnicities from one place to another? Considering the situation - the war with the Germany (whose war goal was extermination of Russian population) - it would have been completely unreasonable to leave large amounts of other smaller ethnicities on soon-to-be-occupied territories, who did not show much loyalty to you and are likely to betray you.
-and so on, and so forth. All perfectly explained by completely rational motivation.
Guardian G.I. is right too, this line of thinking is very alien to me and most people here. You do realize that by that logic, Germany's attempt to colonize Eastern Europe in WW2 while moving or killing the population was completely rational as well? Germany was defeated in WW1 because the homefront collapsed due to food shortages, thus it was necessary to take land in the East, so that could never happen again. Is that a fair judgement in your opinion?
Generally I find the differences in mentality here very interesting, I don't know how representative they are, but it is these differences that have prevented a better relationship between Russia and the West after the Cold War ended. (Which by the way, I also wouldn't regard as a defeat of the USSR, rather as the collapse of a system that no longer worked.)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 02:33:48 pm
Admittedly, you weren't really helped by a Pro-Soviet dude coming into the thread and saying he was totally happy about any possible genocides and was not going to feel bad about them in the slightest since they were a good thing. This was quite specifically the issue that raised the whole "sacrifice" thing, since it was said those victims were "sacrificed" for the good of Russia by that poster. You can disagree with that and still be Pro-Current-day-Russia, and I hope you do, but keep that context in mind here.
I don't think he cares about that, the discussion on the pro-soviet side consists entirely of falsehoods of misrepresentation anyways
Just more: "you're a westerner and soviet russia didn't do things that bad" victim complex puffing up like usual
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2014, 02:34:08 pm
Would you prefer past tense then?state sponsored genocide
I'm tired of being at least relatively polite. Go fuck yourself, Mictlantecuhtli. Every argument against your point of view you are given you reduce to "you Russians perform genocide". WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. Tired of repeating.
Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, Poles, Koreans, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Kalmyks, Chechens....it's quite an impressive list.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 02:35:37 pm
Would you prefer past tense then?
Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, Poles, Koreans, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Kalmyks, Chechens....it's quite an impressive list.
In the mind of imperialist modern soviets.. Those are acceptable sacrifices.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 02:35:54 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 02:37:29 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 20, 2014, 02:38:43 pm
Post by: da_nang on March 20, 2014, 02:39:49 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 02:40:59 pm
Out of curiosity, what would the Russians classify the Great Purge as?It depends on who you ask about it.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 20, 2014, 02:43:44 pm
Since this thread went up in flames because of my previous post, I want to say that by "sacrifices" I originally meant people sacrificing themselves for the Soviet Union (e.g. soldiers during WW2). While some may say that it is also necessary in some cases, killing political dissidents isn't a sacrifice (although if Stalinist Aztecs had existed, they would have regarded that as a genuine contribution to the country).
You mean those soldiers who were forced to attack fortified positions with rifles only because all the best equipment was used by NKVD to stop them from retreating?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 02:47:39 pm
Our "brutal and terrible past" has brought us might and prosperity. It definitely is "not-so-bad' in my book, for it is due to it we are where we are and who we are - even after USSR collapse we are still a considerable force to be reckoned with, not some third world country.
And what did we achieve under Soviet regime? Nuclear power, space program, heavy industrialization. Even if you say there were crimes committed, it was damn worth it. No regrets, no remorse.
[...]
Our actions seem righteous enough to me.
Keep in mind that this was the particular sequence of words that seems to have set most people off as far as declaring a certain sort of Russian viewpoint unacceptable, and that the response to that was then responded to in turn by this post:
-2,9 mln imprisoned in gulag (a prison, where you forced to work). But it is a large country, and, in comparison, USA currently holds now 2,1 mln prisoners and they are also obligatory to work (although, they are payed a cent per hour). Apparently, this is how the civilized world works.
-600 thousand executed (not millions, as considered by some). In harsh conditions of rebuilding after both WW1, civil war and foreign intervention, I think it is understandable and reasonable enough. Even if there were mistakes in judge verdicts, most of people executed or imprisoned were not innocent saints.
-moving some ethnicities from one place to another? Considering the situation - the war with the Germany (whose war goal was extermination of Russian population) - it would have been completely unreasonable to leave large amounts of other smaller ethnicities on soon-to-be-occupied territories, who did not show much loyalty to you and are likely to betray you.
-and so on, and so forth. All perfectly explained by completely rational motivation.
And Guardian G.I. then defended that post by arguing that the Westerner's just can't understand how that stuff was good because they don't understand the need for necessary sacrifices.
Beznogim, I understand your point of view, but I think that your attempts to explain the necessity of Soviet policies are fruitless. As your signature says, НЕ ПЫТАЙТЕСБ ЧТОТ0 NЗМЕНИТЬ. The majority of people here come from countries where the concept of "necessary sacrifice" is regarded as ultimate evil. Individualist societies cannot accept loss of human life no matter how necessary it might be for the country. Stalin's policies will always be regarded as absolute evil from Western point of view, even though from Stalin's viewpoint, his actions were necessary to ensure survival of the Soviet Union. It's not just a conflict of political ideologies, the moralities of Western and Russian societies contradict each other here.
At no point was the conversation about "voluntary sacrifice" on the part of Russian's, it was specifically a discussion about the concept of "necessary sacrifice" applying to those who were thrown in the gulag, those who were executed, and those who were relocated against their will.
Of course, Guardian G.I is now arguing
Since this thread went up in flames because of my previous post, I want to say that by "sacrifices" I originally meant people sacrificing themselves for the Soviet Union (e.g. soldiers during WW2). While some may say that it is also necessary in some cases, killing political dissidents isn't a sacrifice (although if Stalinist Aztecs had existed, they would have regarded that as a genuine contribution to the country).
And I'm... not entirely sure how to understand that, since there didn't seem to be any mention of soldiers or anything at all in the circumstances leading up to the post.
But I think that about sums up the position that Mict is specifically arguing against here.
Post by: olemars on March 20, 2014, 02:49:26 pm
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2014, 02:49:59 pm
@ GI: I... don't think it's actually on fire yet, s'just Mict actively trying to set it alight. And CP helping a little, I'unno.I've got extra matches, if anyone wants 'em.
I'm not terribly anti-Russian, and I'm not even thoroughly anti-Soviet. I can understand why they did what they did. But at the same time, I'm definitely anti-Stalin, and anti-Putin, and anti-anyone who thinks fondly on that "strong Slavic autocrat" type of ruler and thinks that Russia can't function without one.
They probably CAN'T, mind you (I think the 1990's showcased that pretty well)...but then IMHO the solution is to break Russia up into more manageable chunks than to keep putting iron-fisted powermongers in charge.
Part of my family lived in the Saratov region for around 200 years until their ethnic group began getting the shit end of the stick from neighboring Russians and the Russian Imperial government. They got out just shortly before the 1917 Revolution, which is good. Because after 1943 or so, those who were still left found themselves on trains bound for Siberia because they were deemed insufficiently loyal because they were ethnic Germans. Ignoring the fact that when they originally migrated in the 1700s, there was no German state, and that their version of German language was so heavily divergent that it's almost unintelligible to native Germans, and that they had fought and died for the Tsar in the Russo-Japanese War....
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 02:51:29 pm
I don't think he cares about that, the discussion on the pro-soviet side consists entirely of falsehoods of misrepresentation anyways
Just more: "you're a westerner and soviet russia didn't do things that bad" victim complex puffing up like usual
I just invented a perfect argument I'll give towards you since now.
Spoiler: Argument for Mictlantecuhtli (click to show/hide)
Since this thread went up in flames because of my previous post, I want to say that by "sacrifices" I originally meant people sacrificing themselves for the Soviet Union (e.g. soldiers during WW2). While some may say that it is also necessary in some cases, killing political dissidents isn't a sacrifice (although if Stalinist Aztecs had existed, they would have regarded that as a genuine contribution to the country).
You mean those soldiers who were forced to attack fortified positions with rifles only because all the best equipment was used by NKVD to stop them from retreating?
Proof. I want a proof of your words.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 20, 2014, 02:52:17 pm
On topic, unidentified soldiers have boarded and taken control over at least four Ukrainian navy corvettes. Under normal circumstances that's an act of war. Technically so is blockading another country's ports. Sinking old ships as a blockade is probably a violation of any number of international conventions and protocols. So is having your soldiers running around without insignia.
I'm half sure that having soldiers run around without insignia is even a war crime under Geneva convention or something similar, but it's only half sure and Russia may not have yet signed those.
(It's actually a funny bit of trivia - Soviet soldiers during Cold War didn't know that shooting things with big red crosses on white fields on them is considered rude out there in the West.)
I don't think he cares about that, the discussion on the pro-soviet side consists entirely of falsehoods of misrepresentation anyways
Just more: "you're a westerner and soviet russia didn't do things that bad" victim complex puffing up like usual
I just invented a perfect argument I'll give towards you since now.Here I cease all the offense towards him.Spoiler: Argument for Mictlantecuhtli (click to show/hide)Proof. I want a proof of your words.Since this thread went up in flames because of my previous post, I want to say that by "sacrifices" I originally meant people sacrificing themselves for the Soviet Union (e.g. soldiers during WW2). While some may say that it is also necessary in some cases, killing political dissidents isn't a sacrifice (although if Stalinist Aztecs had existed, they would have regarded that as a genuine contribution to the country).You mean those soldiers who were forced to attack fortified positions with rifles only because all the best equipment was used by NKVD to stop them from retreating?
Order No. 227 and Order No. 270 issued by the Stalin, for example. Various memoirs of the Red Army soldiers. Books about the 'Great Patriotic War' (is this the right term in English?) written by people who have no interest in conforming with the propaganda (for starters, Victor Suvorov). You know, things like that. I'm actually interested in the history of WW II, but most of my sources aren't in English (or Russian, for that matter), so I can only direct you to things that Googling 'barrier troops in Red Army' uncovers, or Suvorov books, as those are available in English for sure.
Post by: miljan on March 20, 2014, 02:52:44 pm
Duhh, call of duty... :)
Proof. I want a proof of your words.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 20, 2014, 02:52:48 pm
*pokes thread*Me too. Let's agree to disagree, guys.
I think I'll leave this until it's cooled down a bit.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 20, 2014, 02:53:01 pm
Now that IS interesting. What can they discuss?
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 02:56:58 pm
I actually was just looking into this. Apparently it's not a violation. The passage pertaining to this reads:On topic, unidentified soldiers have boarded and taken control over at least four Ukrainian navy corvettes. Under normal circumstances that's an act of war. Technically so is blockading another country's ports. Sinking old ships as a blockade is probably a violation of any number of international conventions and protocols. So is having your soldiers running around without insignia.
I'm half sure that having soldiers run around without insignia is even a war crime under Geneva convention or something similar, but it's only half sure and Russia may not have yet signed those.
(It's actually a funny bit of trivia - Soviet soldiers during Cold War didn't know that shooting things with big red crosses on white fields on them is considered rude out there in the West.)
Quote
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
So, obviously being soldiers counts as distinction, even if not showing any insignia is still looked down on.
@Comrade Lol. Chill out dude. Did your family personally participate in the purges, or something? /sarcasm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 20, 2014, 02:59:16 pm
MINSK, 20 March (BelTA) – A delegation of the NATO headquarters has arrived in Belarus on a visit until 21 March, BelTA learnt from the press service of the Defense Ministry of Belarus. (http://news.belta.by/en/news/society?id=743174)Perhaps NATO will be considering allowing Ukraine to join.
Now that IS interesting. What can they discuss?
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2014, 02:59:41 pm
MINSK, 20 March (BelTA) – A delegation of the NATO headquarters has arrived in Belarus on a visit until 21 March, BelTA learnt from the press service of the Defense Ministry of Belarus. (http://news.belta.by/en/news/society?id=743174)Looks like a pre-planned typical attache type meeting. Nothing major there.
Now that IS interesting. What can they discuss?
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 03:01:37 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:06:22 pm
My family didn't. Checked that. If you are just fond of making me feel discomforted, congrats, you succeed.
@Comrade Lol. Chill out dude. Did your family personally participate in the purges, or something? /sarcasm
CP, you need to read the rules of this forum. Disagreeing with someone, and even an attitude you don't like, isn't grounds to just start throwing f-bombs around. You're bringing this discussion down, and honestly, your entire argument. Was your first warning from Toady not enough?That time it was BlindKitty who posted a text full of racial hatred towards Russians. Now it is my bad, I know. I'll go chill out for a while, you guys are right.
EDIT: @BlindKitty you know, you should definitely read sources beyond Victor Suvorov. Suvorov is actually translating his books to English because he is flooded with critics in his homeland. It was different from place to place. Somewhere, things like that could occur. But that was minority. Soviet Army wasn't in great condition, but not like that everywhere.
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 03:07:27 pm
My family didn't. Checked that. If you are just fond of making me feel discomforted, congrats, you succeed.
@Comrade Lol. Chill out dude. Did your family personally participate in the purges, or something? /sarcasmCP, you need to read the rules of this forum. Disagreeing with someone, and even an attitude you don't like, isn't grounds to just start throwing f-bombs around. You're bringing this discussion down, and honestly, your entire argument. Was your first warning from Toady not enough?That time it was BlindKitty who posted a text full of racial hatred towards Russians. Now it is my bad, I know. I'll go chill out for a while, you guys are right.
If you feel that way, report him and let Toady decide.
It's what I did with your post.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 03:08:37 pm
Order No. 227 and Order No. 270 issued by the Stalin, for example. Various memoirs of the Red Army soldiers. Books about the 'Great Patriotic War' (is this the right term in English?) written by people who have no interest in conforming with the propaganda (for starters, Victor Suvorov). You know, things like that. I'm actually interested in the history of WW II, but most of my sources aren't in English (or Russian, for that matter), so I can only direct you to things that Googling 'barrier troops in Red Army' uncovers, or Suvorov books, as those are available in English for sure.
Hey, wait a goddamn second... You mean this mission wasn't based on made-up stories? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDIED5k2iI4)
Post by: Criptfeind on March 20, 2014, 03:09:45 pm
CP, you need to read the rules of this forum. Disagreeing with someone, and even an attitude you don't like, isn't grounds to just start throwing f-bombs around. You're bringing this discussion down, and honestly, your entire argument. Was your first warning from Toady not enough?To be fair, he is pretty much right about Mictlantecuhtli, who seems to do nothing but post a single sentence flippant remark every once in a while. Although technically I agree with much of what Mictlantecuhtli says and the meaning behind his words his actions are also pretty much just deliberately provoking and not really conductive to the argument that is going on (unlike most of Comrade Ps remarks, which although I personally disagree with him he is at least trying to have a conversation with other people.)
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 03:15:45 pm
And you know, Toady has never had a problem identifying instigators who aren't swearing.
Anyways, I'd rather not see this thread get closed because more than one person can't reign it in. It's the only place I'm going to get to hear from Russians and Ukrainians that isn't coming from one or another biased news source or out of context video.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 20, 2014, 03:18:49 pm
Order No. 227 and Order No. 270 issued by the Stalin, for example. Various memoirs of the Red Army soldiers. Books about the 'Great Patriotic War' (is this the right term in English?) written by people who have no interest in conforming with the propaganda (for starters, Victor Suvorov). You know, things like that. I'm actually interested in the history of WW II, but most of my sources aren't in English (or Russian, for that matter), so I can only direct you to things that Googling 'barrier troops in Red Army' uncovers, or Suvorov books, as those are available in English for sure.Hey, wait a goddamn second... You mean this mission wasn't based on made-up stories? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDIED5k2iI4)
As far as the Penal units went, the guys from this mission had it pretty good. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat#.22Trampler.22_mine-clearing_battalions
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:19:55 pm
My family didn't. Checked that. If you are just fond of making me feel discomforted, congrats, you succeed.
@Comrade Lol. Chill out dude. Did your family personally participate in the purges, or something? /sarcasmCP, you need to read the rules of this forum. Disagreeing with someone, and even an attitude you don't like, isn't grounds to just start throwing f-bombs around. You're bringing this discussion down, and honestly, your entire argument. Was your first warning from Toady not enough?That time it was BlindKitty who posted a text full of racial hatred towards Russians. Now it is my bad, I know. I'll go chill out for a while, you guys are right.
If you feel that way, report him and let Toady decide.
It's what I did with your post.
I did. That post I was talking about was deleted. Well, if you reported, okay. That post of mine was somehow against rules. I could report Mict for trlling, because it sounds to me like that, but you guys like him, so I don't.
@nenjin: I am empty on arguments, you are right. No, really. Whatever way discussion goes, whatever arguments spoken, Mict keeps his line with sincere devotion.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 20, 2014, 03:23:39 pm
I don't really disagree either Cript. But IMO, the first one to be reduced to saying FU is the one that has "lost" the argument. If debating on the Internet is a matter of knowledge and wit, then making your argument "FU!" essentially says you've got nothing left but rage.I doubt it's even possible to hear something from a Russian or Ukrainian on this matter that isn't going to be biased, in some ways even to a worse extent than any news source.
And you know, Toady has never had a problem identifying instigators who aren't swearing.
Anyways, I'd rather not see this thread get closed because more than one person can't reign it in. It's the only place I'm going to get to hear from Russians and Ukrainians that isn't coming from one or another biased news source or out of context video.
Even I, apathetic as I am to this whole ordeal, and with as much as I know about not trusting any given media sources, would still put my trust in my government over someone else's, all other probabilities being equally uncertain. That's just the way these things work.
Post by: Baffler on March 20, 2014, 03:24:18 pm
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 03:26:57 pm
Quote
Even I, apathetic as I am to this whole ordeal, and with as much as I know about not trusting any given media sources, would still put my trust in my government over someone else's, all other probabilities being equally uncertain. That's just the way these things work.
I guess what I mean is, I'd rather hear a "man on the street" view than an official report or statement. Perhaps because I want to know the bias inherent in everyday people's view of the situation. (Plenty of that on display already.)
Quote
I could report Mict for trlling, because it sounds to me like that, but you guys like him, so I don't.
It's not about who likes who. It's about putting an honest debate first above everything.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:34:14 pm
QuoteI could report Mict for trlling, because it sounds to me like that, but you guys like him, so I don't.
It's not about who likes who. It's about putting an honest debate first above everything.
That was mine point too. I just can't have those with a man who is not about to change his mind at all and believes his is right. I cannot reject the fact I am stubborn in the bad sense of it as well, but I'm mostly speaking of my own country's actions here, trying to avoid discussion of other's policies/history.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 20, 2014, 03:36:51 pm
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 03:37:46 pm
Honestly, at the point where you have nothing left to really say the best thing to do is just ignore that person's posts and move on.
Or, you know, recenter and hope the other person goes "alright, I wasn't exactly being intellectually fair either."
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:38:45 pm
Honestly, at the point where you have nothing left to really say the best thing to do is just ignore that person's posts and move on.I confess, I just do not have enough will to do this reasonable thing.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 20, 2014, 03:40:05 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:43:01 pm
Ah, there is a ignore list, under profile, Buddies/Ignore List, Edit Ignore list. Very useful sometimes.But what if he occasionlly says a thing I agree with? Then this ignoring would be unjustified, for I could find a common language and establish dialog. I actually believe I can, if the discussion goes in normal way.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 03:45:24 pm
Since this thread went up in flames because of my previous post, I want to say that by "sacrifices" I originally meant people sacrificing themselves for the Soviet Union (e.g. soldiers during WW2). While some may say that it is also necessary in some cases, killing political dissidents isn't a sacrifice (although if Stalinist Aztecs had existed, they would have regarded that as a genuine contribution to the country).You didn't mention this in response to Beznogin, you mentioned it after you told me to fuck off, which is alright, but it doesn't help that I thought you agreed with his held view of acceptable sacrifice. I apologize for that misrepresentation.
But. Same way if someone from the US told me it was perfectly alright for us to genocide the natives, or that slavery was a reasonable sacrifice, I'd go to great lengths to atleast condemn such a viewpoint. I'm an enemy of these viewpoints, not any nationality.
Post by: RedKing on March 20, 2014, 03:51:07 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 20, 2014, 03:53:11 pm
So, are the both sides of accident reported to Toady satisfied now? Good. Note that please, Toady.
Back to the point... Where have we slipped into history and racial cleansing from Crimean/Ukrainian events, guys?
EDIT: I'm off to sleep.
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 20, 2014, 03:58:02 pm
Well, if we're not gonna kill any
Post by: nenjin on March 20, 2014, 04:04:35 pm
Quote
Back to the point... Where have we slipped into history and racial cleansing from Crimean/Ukrainian events, guys?
Because those are the fears of many involved in the Crimean Annexation. There's precedent. And given that Putin is willing to say one thing (Local militias) and do another (Russian military), no one is exactly filled with reassurance for the future. Putin seems immune to international attention to what he's doing, so what's to stop him from ordering the thing everyone is afraid of?
Or maybe even worse, that he's willing to stand aside while the unchecked passions of Crimeans rage and people get victimized.
Post by: Toady One on March 20, 2014, 06:33:36 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 20, 2014, 07:12:07 pm
I found this very funny:
Quote
In a statement accompanying the list, Russia’s Foreign Ministry denounced the American sanctions as a tool “from the arsenal of the past” that would backfire.
Yeah, of all the stuff being done here it's definitely the sanctions that are clearly misguided throwbacks to the past.
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2014, 07:17:01 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 20, 2014, 07:32:30 pm
Well, if people are satisfied, I'll just leave the reports alone.That's why I really like this thread: We have Soviet revisionists, Ukrainian nationalists, Europeans of all sorts, some Americans, in a situation where there's a real possibility that we'll be drafted and sent to kill each other within the next five years. But every time stuff starts getting heated, we somehow sort it out. You don't see that very often.
GI, Comrade, and all you other Russians: How do you think will the Russian economy react to the sanctions? In Germany, summer is getting started, I went out in a T-shirt today - for the next ~9 months oil and gas won't be too desperately needed...
Post by: smirk on March 20, 2014, 07:43:39 pm
I wasn't expecting any military involvement on the States' part anyway, but official announcement is official announcement.
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2014, 07:43:47 pm
Spoiler: somewhat entertaining image (click to show/hide)
Post by: smirk on March 20, 2014, 07:48:16 pm
/me joins the fight>_< C'mon man, that's not the kind of attitude we need in this thread right now. Keeping it civil, informative and unlocked is a big enough challenge =PSpoiler: somewhat entertaining image (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2014, 07:49:17 pm
"Good News From Ukraine: Everyone Still Hates Hitler"
Post by: Helgoland on March 20, 2014, 07:51:12 pm
Spoiler: The correct response to 'Heil X' (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 20, 2014, 07:59:17 pm
I should probably have linked to the article where I got it from, titled: (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/good-news-from-ukraine-everyone-still-hates-hitler/284489/)
"Good News From Ukraine: Everyone Still Hates Hitler"
Quote
Russian and Western leaders don't see eye-to-eye on the crisis in Ukraine, but they've reached consensus on another important issue: Adolf Hitler was bad.
Did the Onion write this? My sides. What a great article, heh.
Post by: Dutchling on March 20, 2014, 08:02:16 pm
Post by: MarcAFK on March 21, 2014, 12:55:43 am
Well, if people are satisfied, I'll just leave the reports alone.That's why I really like this thread: We have Soviet revisionists, Ukrainian nationalists, Europeans of all sorts, some Americans, in a situation where there's a real possibility that we'll be drafted and sent to kill each other within the next five years. But every time stuff starts getting heated, we somehow sort it out. You don't see that very often.
I'm glad things have calmed down in here, like many on the forum I'm actually relying on this thread for somewhat more informed unbiased information than I could get from local news alone. Sure there are many in here who are only partly informed, and with their own personal bias, but with civil discourse everyone's opinion and knowledge can be digested in an intelligent manner.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 21, 2014, 01:06:36 am
Spoiler: The correct response to 'Heil X' (click to show/hide)
I'll translate this for anyone who doesn't understand german or whatever.
"heilen" also means to cure somebody from a sickness. So:
"2 Irrenärzte treffen sich, sagt der eine: Heil Hitler! Darauf der andere: Heil du ihn doch!" Translates to:
"2 mad-doctors meet, one says: Heil Hitler! wheron the other says: Heil him yourself!"
ahh, sorry for the doublepost.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 01:48:43 am
In relation to Beznogim, I'd like to say that the majority of russians are as distant from his viewpoint as normal americans are distant from the KKK's agenda. He's probably just a government-raised "internet warrior", whose specific job is to spew jingoistic gibberish on forums to garner support for Putin's regime. Or a troll.
And as for Suvorov-Rezun, his writing is widely known to be very anti-soviet and thus biased, mostly because otherwise it wouldn't have sold well in the USA during the cold war.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 01:54:59 am
Well, if people are satisfied, I'll just leave the reports alone.That's why I really like this thread: We have Soviet revisionists, Ukrainian nationalists, Europeans of all sorts, some Americans, in a situation where there's a real possibility that we'll be drafted and sent to kill each other within the next five years. But every time stuff starts getting heated, we somehow sort it out. You don't see that very often.
GI, Comrade, and all you other Russians: How do you think will the Russian economy react to the sanctions? In Germany, summer is getting started, I went out in a T-shirt today - for the next ~9 months oil and gas won't be too desperately needed...
GI comes from Belarus, so he might be unaware. We have Sean here who comes from Russia. And Beznogim, since recently. If I occasionally forget some of you, Russian folks, I'm sorry for that. Just first ones who come in mind.
On the point of economy, our financial minister claims that we fund Crimea from our reserve funds, and the sum named was 50 billion dollars. But since Russia paid something like that for possibility to maintain Black Sea fleet on foreign land, and it is a great recreation zone, we are likely to have maybe even a minor economy boost, or at least have our money back.
But you know, some social researches here say that even if that annexation would cost us, people would accept it just because they are glad to see Crimea in Russia.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:05:16 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 02:20:43 am
If I'm drafted and sent off to kill you, I promise to make it quick and give you a nice burial. If I'm gonna have a choice, I'll go for just wounding. You know, in the legs and stuff.
Let's hope we do not come up like this. If we somewhat do, you know me by a confederate naval jack on my sleeve :).
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:21:46 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 02:24:57 am
I think we'd be on the same side, comrade.Now re-read my previous post considering that. I mean, I still hope we do not come up with war. But in case, you still know me by that sign, who knows if we meet.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:27:20 am
EDIT: When I said "you" I meant that in plural, like "y'all". Stupid english language.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 02:31:12 am
We are both russian.I think Comrade got that. What he's saying is that he STILL hopes that there's no war, even if you are on the same side.
EDIT: When I said "you" I meant that in plural, like "y'all". Stupid english language.
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:34:09 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 02:34:23 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:37:46 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 21, 2014, 02:43:02 am
Right now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.I guess USA will bring a Predator drone to a tank fight ;D
Post by: scrdest on March 21, 2014, 02:45:38 am
Right now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.I guess USA will bring a Predator drone to a tank fight ;D
That's... uhhhhhhh..... It's a flying tank, okay?
Post by: Knit tie on March 21, 2014, 02:50:32 am
"That's outdated, Napoloni! Tomania has already developed a flying dreadnought."Right now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.I guess USA will bring a Predator drone to a tank fight ;D
That's... uhhhhhhh..... It's a flying tank, okay?
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 21, 2014, 02:53:37 am
Post by: scrdest on March 21, 2014, 02:55:45 am
Oh come on, I was looking forward to this event! And now it's probably going to be cancelled... (making two countries which are technically at war compete in a tank biathlon is not a good ide).
Wow, holy shit, I thought it was a war joke, turns out it's an actual biathlon. With tanks.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 03:01:33 am
And I think it's going to happen. As far as I know, the shooting part is performed not from the main armament, but from the mounted machine gun.
And it won't be in the center of Moscow, we have polygons far over the city limit.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 03:13:15 am
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 03:40:08 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 21, 2014, 03:46:37 am
EDIT:
Rossiya Bank gets the Wikileaks treatment from Visa/Mastercard (http://en.ria.ru/business/20140321/188628529/Visa-Mastercard-Freeze-Customer-Cards-at-Russian-Bank.html).If this trend continues, Russia will be forced to create its own national payment system, similar to Belarusian Belkart system.
EDIT x2:
In relation to Beznogim, I'd like to say that the majority of russians are as distant from his viewpoint as normal americans are distant from the KKK's agenda. He's probably just a government-raised "internet warrior", whose specific job is to spew jingoistic gibberish on forums to garner support for Putin's regime. Or a troll.I wouldn't label him as a paid provocateur, though. A lot of people around the Russian internet who have opposite political viewpoints love to accuse each other of being paid shills, either for US State Department or for bloody KGB. They can't accept that there can be a person who can genuinely support their political adversaries.
It occurs not only on the Russian internet. Judging by the commentary section on Reddit's /r/worldnews, McCarthysm has returned - people constantly accuse each other of being "Kremlin propagandists". Sooner or later, they'll probably reform the HUAC to reed out all political opponents from the website.
Post by: SquatchHammer on March 21, 2014, 04:10:14 am
We'll know if bay12ers are fighting each other because, rather than directly fighting, we'll be flinging minecarts full of lava at each other via physics-breaking machinery.
We're Dwarfs! We do not have the word for this thing you call "lava". Anything that's about molten or semi-molten rock is MAGMA!!
And yes you'll find the B12's all over the place with their horrifically over engineered
----
After all fun and games, it is kinda worrying to see this blowing up into the next World War. I thought the end of the world's economy would happen first but hey you never know when a comic like Twilight X (before the stoopid shiny wanna be blood sucker books) got things exactly right. I hate sci-fi sometimes because it is scary how close some of those authors got.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 04:15:24 am
There are many reasons why that happened. Some sailors don't mind to serve in Russian Navy either because they support the annexation or hope to get better salary. Some sailors feared that their families may become that reasonable Russian sacrifice. Some sailors got fed up with lack of any serious support from the high command
Anyway it was good while it lasted. Should they switched in the first few days that would be a huge win for Russian propaganda
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 04:22:20 am
Right now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.
Tank biathlon? Seriously?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 04:27:53 am
And mentioning the "sports above politics" thing got me thinking. The Olympics is essentially a mini-world-war, with different countries challenging each other for superiority of their people, except by means other than having said people try to kill each other. (sometimes substituting it for the environment itself trying to kill them... how many short-track and skiing/snowboarding participants wiped out on these latest Olympics anyway?)
War's advanced beyond merely having people fight each other since then. Tanks, bombers, battleships. Why are there no "mini world wars" with military hardware?
edit:
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlonRight now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.
Tank biathlon? Seriously?
Post by: scrdest on March 21, 2014, 04:34:26 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 04:35:32 am
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 04:43:09 am
As far as Russian propaganda specifically is concerned, the Ukrainian Navy started surrendering much earlier, even if it wasn't true at that time - so the morale effect was at least partially achieved anyway.
And mentioning the "sports above politics" thing got me thinking. The Olympics is essentially a mini-world-war, with different countries challenging each other for superiority of their people, except by means other than having said people try to kill each other. (sometimes substituting it for the environment itself trying to kill them... how many short-track and skiing/snowboarding participants wiped out on these latest Olympics anyway?)
War's advanced beyond merely having people fight each other since then. Tanks, bombers, battleships. Why are there no "mini world wars" with military hardware?
edit:Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlonRight now I'm wondering what this whole situation means for the first World Championship of Tank Biathlon that Russia was supposed to host this year. Considering US, Italy, Germany, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and even Ukraine all agreed to participate in it before. And it's supposed to happen in the vicinity of Moscow.
Tank biathlon? Seriously?
I looked at the video after I posted, but I was like, 'huh? That's a thing?' Nothing like having Russia invite the US in some friendly competition huh. Shoulda invited the French too, before all this blew up anyway.
It most likely will be cancelled and Germany and the US would pull out of it anyway because of the crisis.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 05:23:29 am
Sean Mirrsen, I care little about successes of Russian Propaganda in Russia. Russian propaganda in Ukraine and Europe is way more important
By the way, UR, what happened with director of First channel (I mean Ukrainian first channel).
Here it was like he was beaten until he was close to death in order to make him resign because he broadcasted Putin's speech.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 05:23:56 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 05:28:14 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 05:30:21 am
Russia demands 11 billion USD from Ukraine (http://news.yahoo.com/russian-pm-says-ukraine-pay-moscow-11-billion-093330599--business.html) since Ukraine can no longer uphold their end of the deal for the lease on Sevastopol. Predictable, but still a shitty thing to do.
Sorry to say, but under that link is a report of demand of unpaid 11 billion for all the gas they bought. Found no word about Sevastopol there.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 05:33:16 am
Quote
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday Ukraine should pay back $11 billion to Russia because an agreement under which Russia provided cheap gas would cease to be valid, RIA news agency reported.
He said the Kharkiv agreements under which Russia was to provide the cheap gas in return for the lease of the Sevastopol naval base in Crimea were "subject to denunciation", giving Russia a legal right to sue for money back from Ukraine.
Reuters adds the following (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/ukraine-crisis-russia-debt-idUSL6N0MI1RS20140321):
Quote
In addition, he said that Ukraine owes Russia $3 billion for a recent loan in the form of Russian purchase of Eurobonds, and that around $2 billion is owed to Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled gas concern.
Post by: andrea on March 21, 2014, 05:37:35 am
But wouldn't such an treaty only become void after crimea became independent? there shouldn't be any reason to make ukraine pay retroactively.
Or did they buy 11b worth of gas in the last 5 days?
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 05:52:11 am
Obviously, Ukraine isn't going to agree to that, but Russia gets to use it as a bargaining chip next time they make a natural gas deal.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 05:56:16 am
The deal being referenced would be the Kharkiv Accords, wherein Russia leases a naval base in Sevastopol from Ukraine and pays for the lease by giving Ukraine cheaper prices on natural gas from Gazprom, the Russian's government-owned natural gas company. Since Russia has just annexed Sevastopol (which is in Crimea), Russia is now saying that the lease is void (can't lease what you no longer own) and that Ukraine should pay back Russia back for the difference in prices. Obviously, Ukraine isn't going to agree to that, but Russia gets to use it as a bargaining chip next time they make a natural gas deal.
What this guy says. Sorry, misread about Sevastopol in linked article myself, but what Grek says is pretty nice explanation.
Post by: andrea on March 21, 2014, 05:58:08 am
Although I guess it depends on the exact terms of the agreement.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 21, 2014, 05:58:45 am
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 05:59:50 am
but why would this apply retroactively? between 2010 and now, ukraine held its end of the deal.
Although I guess it depends on the exact terms of the agreement.
The Kharkiv Accords are an extension of the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet which had already let Russia lease the base until 2017. Essentially, Russia is demanding to be paid back for natural gas that Ukraine has bought from 2010 (when the Kharkiv Accords were signed) to today.
I've edited my prior post to reflect this fact.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 06:08:57 am
Post by: Sheb on March 21, 2014, 06:13:47 am
I find this map makes the point nicely. Russia may stretch all the way to the pacific, but Russians are mostly Europeans.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 06:21:18 am
Yeah, but Russia to me still sees itself as a European countries. As Owlbread said before, "Central russia" is around Moscow on the westernmost edge of Russia, not around Novosibirsk. Those neighbors are a fucking long way away.The main thing about Russia - it is frecking big. So, opinion of european-part Russians is often different from Asian part Russians. I have no exact demographic data to say which population is bigger. You see, though the density is lower, sizes are bigger.
I do not know what people beyond Ural think about such partnership, for example. Though for some of them China is at and and Moscow is as distant as hell.
Post by: Sheb on March 21, 2014, 06:29:09 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 06:33:50 am
The Urals, Siberian and Far Eastern federal districts have only 38 millions people between them.
Well, yes, they are not the majority. But a very considerable part of population, claiming a lot of them are factory workers, miners, etc. - men on whom economy actually depends.
Post by: Sheb on March 21, 2014, 06:38:00 am
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 07:29:20 am
Right, and more significantly I guess a lot of the oil actually come from over there.
Exactly, rich resources out there.
These regions is underdeveloped not because people lean to be closer to Europe, but because costs of living and construction costs in "vechnaya merzlota" is ridiculously high. You can read it up if you interested. Also, if "leaning to the east" is ever going to happen, it's not going to be bad for russia, quite opposite. Some healthy decentralization and economical boost to eastern regions is not a bad thing. Not at all. And suprisingly, nothing good happening for EU in this case.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 07:37:38 am
Post by: MarcAFK on March 21, 2014, 07:39:37 am
Yeah, but Russia to me still sees itself as a European countries. As Owlbread said before, "Central russia" is around Moscow on the westernmost edge of Russia, not around Novosibirsk. Those neighbors are a fucking long way away.
I find this map makes the point nicely. Russia may stretch all the way to the pacific, but Russians are mostly Europeans.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
A more recent map may be more informative, that one shows something like a third of 'Russia's population over in Ukraine and Belarus.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 07:45:04 am
Here you go (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB_2.png?uselang=en).Yeah, but Russia to me still sees itself as a European countries. As Owlbread said before, "Central russia" is around Moscow on the westernmost edge of Russia, not around Novosibirsk. Those neighbors are a fucking long way away.
I find this map makes the point nicely. Russia may stretch all the way to the pacific, but Russians are mostly Europeans.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
A more recent map may be more informative, that one shows something like a third of 'Russia's population over in Ukraine and Belarus.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 07:51:50 am
Why do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?China won't. Beijing and Moscow shield each other in the UN Security Council. Besides, the chief concern for the PRC is cold, hard cash. They're not going to risk losing trade deals and business contracts unless they were facing sanctions for not imposing sanctions.
India tends to stay neutral in great power dustups, unless Pakistan is involved.
Japan on the other hand might join in with the West. A newly resurgent and expansionist Russia would be a major strategic concern for them.
Post by: miljan on March 21, 2014, 08:03:47 am
Why do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?Why would they?
I even thing EU will not make any real sanctions, and will more do the small ones for medias and where it will not hurt EU itself. The reason I say this is because as everything in world the most important thing is $$$. If sanctions will hurt their own economy (and gas is not the only problem that russia can do, there is huge import in russia, from industry, cars, food and several other things, hack only germany has exports of 36 billion for a year and 300,000 German jobs depend on trade with Russia) I am 90% sure they will not do something that will hurt themselves.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 08:05:22 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-japan-idUSBREA2H02T20140318
http://business.asiaone.com/news/japan-unveil-s125-billion-aid-ukraine-g7-summit-nhk
They seem to be rather fond of the new Chief Prosecutor in Crimea though (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26663168)
India has been more supportive of Russia, at least in words.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Russian-interests-in-Ukraines-Crimea-legitimate-India-says/articleshow/31638375.cms
China will do its hardest to pretend Crimea doesn't exist. I bet internal reporting of this in China is something along the line of "Western savages fighting over petty differences, peaceful Chinese collectively shaking heads in dismay over primitive barbarianism".
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 08:10:48 am
US politicians have been repeatedly claiming that Russia has broken international law by annexing Crimea. Which law are they talking about, specifically? Is this just a rhetorical thing, or is there an actual treaty that can be pointed to that Russia signed?
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 08:14:44 am
So, my question:Well, they've certainly broken the Ukrainian non-proliferation agreement (Ie, Ukraine hands over it's nuclear weaponry, Russia and others pledge not to attack it), but anyway they're talking about the UN Charter.
US politicians have been repeatedly claiming that Russia has broken international law by annexing Crimea. Which law are they talking about, specifically? Is this just a rhetorical thing, or is there an actual treaty that can be pointed to that Russia signed?
Quote from: UN Charter, Article 2, Subsection 4
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Post by: MarcAFK on March 21, 2014, 08:18:54 am
Also back to that demographic image, it's weird seeing all Russia's population clustered around either Moscow, or the Crimean border.
Hmm, is it significant that the highest density part of Russia is right next to the place they just annexed?
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 08:21:37 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Quote
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.[7]
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 08:22:45 am
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 08:23:17 am
Why do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G8 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 08:24:00 am
China will do its hardest to pretend Crimea doesn't exist. I bet internal reporting of this in China is something along the line of "Western savages fighting over petty differences, peaceful Chinese collectively shaking heads in dismay over primitive barbarianism".
Not at all. Actually, they're being mildly supportive of Ukraine, citing the Chinese commitment to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs (i.e. they support any country's right to do whatever the fuck they want within their own borders, because otherwise Tibet and Taiwan gets kind of messy). Since Ukraine's borders have been internationally established and recognized, Russian intervention in Crimea violates that principle. That said, you won't see anything with teeth come out of Beijing, for the reasons I stated earlier.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 08:26:12 am
Hmm, is it significant that the highest density part of Russia is right next to the place they just annexed?Front row seats are ninety thousand rubles per square meter. :) [/badjoke]
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 08:36:36 am
FixedWhy do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G7 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
It is about $$$. Don't you think that China may get some benefits from Russian isolation and possible collapse? Especially if the West will manage to offer something to compensate the short time losses. Extreme case - USA will reduce support of Independent Taiwan
Post by: miljan on March 21, 2014, 08:43:01 am
Actually, china will get benefit already, as russia is searching for bigger market in the asia and will probably sell gas to them on wery low price. So yes, there will be benefit for china.FixedWhy do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G7 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
It is about $$$. Don't you think that China may get some benefits from Russian isolation and possible collapse? Especially if the West will manage to offer something to compensate the short time losses. Extreme case - USA will reduce support of Independent Taiwan
Post by: smirk on March 21, 2014, 08:44:26 am
Nah, China would be worse off if Russia collapsed. They wouldn't want that much destabilisation right next door. Redking has a point about China's policy of non-interference in internal affairs, but we might yet see them be mildly supportive of Russia if the rest of the world steps up on sanctions.FixedWhy do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G7 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
It is about $$$. Don't you think that China may get some benefits from Russian isolation and possible collapse? Especially if the West will manage to offer something to compensate the short time losses. Extreme case - USA will reduce support of Independent Taiwan
In regards to Ukraine's non-proliferation treaty: If Russia has already declared they're not bound by that treaty because Ukraine's new government is not legitimate, then that puts the Kremlin on much shakier ground asking for that 11bn in back gas payment, doesn't it? Since they won't officially recognize the entity they're requesting it from.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 08:55:31 am
FixedWhy do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G7 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
See, thats the reason why discussing anything with you is pointless. You just can't say anything credible without a bit of snide remark.
Quote
It is about $$$. Don't you think that China may get some benefits from Russian isolation and possible collapse? Especially if the West will manage to offer something to compensate the short time losses. Extreme case - USA will reduce support of Independent Taiwan
There is not going to be any isolation or collapse no matter how hard you want it. We live in the world of global economics where to cut country NK style require this country leader to be batshit insane, which is not the case with Putin, no matter how your clouded mind think he is. No trade with g
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 09:05:53 am
Quote
We live in the world of global economics where to cut country NK style require this country leader to be batshit insane, which is not the case with PutinSanity or insanity of a leader means little. Few considered Saddam sane even before Kuwait annexation but only after that annexation Iraq got retaliation from the world
You see, one can't ignore all laws and practices of international community as easily as get away with murdering your own population.
Steps like "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy are absurd and don't fit any legal norms. Even if each and every sailor willingly switched sides vessels are still property of Ukraine.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 09:28:23 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 09:30:53 am
Doesn't china import a good deal of oil and gas from russia anyway? I don't know the percentage, but I'm sure it's a significant amount for them to not want to cut off supply from russia.It certainly isn't bigger than the European reliance, so ...
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 09:37:17 am
QuoteWe live in the world of global economics where to cut country NK style require this country leader to be batshit insane, which is not the case with PutinSanity or insanity of a leader means little. Few considered Saddam sane even before Kuwait annexation but only after that annexation Iraq got retaliation from the world
You see, one can't ignore all laws and practices of international community as easily as get away with murdering your own population.
Steps like "nationalization" of Ukrainian Navy are absurd and don't fit any legal norms. Even if each and every sailor willingly switched sides vessels are still property of Ukraine.
Why you keep strawmanning everything I wrote? I was talking about very different subject. Should you now attack "different" bit of my answer or some other words? What kind of rhetoric you was taught? It's sickening.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 09:40:20 am
Doesn't china import a good deal of oil and gas from russia anyway? I don't know the percentage, but I'm sure it's a significant amount for them to not want to cut off supply from russia.They do, but gas (~5%) and even oil (~20%) are minute portions of their energy profile compared to coal (~70%). Of course, Beijing is also trying to move the country steadily away from coal because they realize the long-term environmental damage that's accruing. Beijing is becoming downright unlivable because of it.
And actually no, China doesn't get much if any gas from Russia. They tried to, starting in the early 1990s but eventually gave up and turned to the 'Stans like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. And they're also importing from Myanmar now.
China is also the world's 3rd largest natural gas producer. It's just that their energy demand is becoming so voracious that there's no hope they'll be a net exporter anytime soon.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 09:40:24 am
Doesn't china import a good deal of oil and gas from russia anyway? I don't know the percentage, but I'm sure it's a significant amount for them to not want to cut off supply from russia.It certainly isn't bigger than the European reliance, so ...
It is certainly not, currently. Reason is previously Russia was trying to strengthen EU ties. It can change, mind you. And China is in evergrowing demand of energy products.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 09:48:00 am
Nah, China would be worse off if Russia collapsed. They wouldn't want that much destabilisation right next door. Redking has a point about China's policy of non-interference in internal affairs, but we might yet see them be mildly supportive of Russia if the rest of the world steps up on sanctions.FixedWhy do you hope that China, India and Japan will not join sanctions against Russia?
You mash up together BRIC countries and G7 country.
Japan will obviously join, while China and India will not. And anyways, it's all about $$
It is about $$$. Don't you think that China may get some benefits from Russian isolation and possible collapse? Especially if the West will manage to offer something to compensate the short time losses. Extreme case - USA will reduce support of Independent Taiwan
In regards to Ukraine's non-proliferation treaty: If Russia has already declared they're not bound by that treaty because Ukraine's new government is not legitimate, then that puts the Kremlin on much shakier ground asking for that 11bn in back gas payment, doesn't it? Since they won't officially recognize the entity they're requesting it from.
That's what I was thinking. Claiming that previous treaties don't apply and then calling on an old treaty? Are they just /trying/ to add insult to injury?
Yeah, China has more interest in keeping Russia around to both distract & check the west & it's influence. Not that they want Russia to be particularly strong either though.
Looks like all the progress in Russia/west relations have gone out the door.
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2014, 09:52:41 am
Actually, china will get benefit already, as russia is searching for bigger market in the asia and will probably sell gas to them on wery low price. So yes, there will be benefit for china.
Russia can't sell to China unless they build pipelines to China and pipelines are very expensive and slow to build. They can't ship by sea because the distances is too big for them to undercut China's logistically closer suppliers.
They could do some shipment by rail but IIRC that's still a pretty expensive option and certainly one which doesn't scale well (lack of rolling stock and limited rail capacity.)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 09:53:56 am
Question is not only "will China buy Russian hydrocarbons?" but also "what price China is ready to pay?"Doesn't china import a good deal of oil and gas from russia anyway? I don't know the percentage, but I'm sure it's a significant amount for them to not want to cut off supply from russia.It certainly isn't bigger than the European reliance, so ...
It is certainly not, currently. Reason is previously Russia was trying to strengthen EU ties. It can change, mind you. And China is in evergrowing demand of energy products.
Selling for lower price is still lost money. Especially when you need to build an infrastructure to start selling
But even if EU will not introduce any actions(most likely) it will become more active reducing reliance on Russia. Still a long term loss for Russia.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 09:57:25 am
That's what I was thinking. Claiming that previous treaties don't apply and then calling on an old treaty? Are they just /trying/ to add insult to injury?
Yeah, China has more interest in keeping Russia around to both distract & check the west & it's influence. Not that they want Russia to be particularly strong either though.
Looks like all the progress in Russia/west relations have gone out the door.
Russian
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 10:05:26 am
So long as 'New' Ukraine is a separate entity, that money is out of legal reach.
Unless there's some clause in international law that makes new govs inherit old debts but not old treaties?
Post by: da_nang on March 21, 2014, 10:05:35 am
Apparently, activists in St. Petersburg have petitioned for a referendum regarding the secession of the city from Russia.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 10:06:19 am
Russian
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Regardless, the reason Ukraine can't fulfill their end of the bargain is directly related to the Russians TAKING the thing that was their "collateral" in the agreement. It's a bullshit argument.
It would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.
Now I'm half-expecting Putin to use that as casus belli for invading Ukraine proper (much as European powers did to Mexico in the 1800s when Mexico owed a shitton of cash to Europe and couldn't pay).
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 10:07:44 am
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010I for one don't :P
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 10:11:00 am
Actually, china will get benefit already, as russia is searching for bigger market in the asia and will probably sell gas to them on wery low price. So yes, there will be benefit for china.
Russia can't sell to China unless they build pipelines to China and pipelines are very expensive and slow to build. They can't ship by sea because the distances is too big for them to undercut China's logistically closer suppliers.
They could do some shipment by rail but IIRC that's still a pretty expensive option and certainly one which doesn't scale well (lack of rolling stock and limited rail capacity.)
http://www.gazprom.ru/about/production/projects/pipelines/ykv/
It's 2017. Not like a far away goal by any margin.
That railway you mentioned is 60km long and for transportation of crude oil.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 10:13:02 am
Related news:
Apparently, activists in St. Petersburg have petitioned for a referendum regarding the secession of the city from Russia.
Ouch, having Peter the Greats city seceede (or wanting to) from Russia would hit Russian morale pretty good. Putin definetly wouldn't let them seceede anyway.
Probably comparable to having a major city in the US, like maybe Boston, wanting to seceede.
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 10:14:26 am
But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.IS that what Russia claimed? My understanding of it was that Russia has acknowledged that the non-Crimean parts of Ukraine are still "Ukraine" and subject to all the treaties with Ukraine, but that the Crimean parts of Ukraine have broken off and formed their own country. Because Ukraine (the non-Crimean part) will no longer be able to lease the military base to Russia (what with it being in the newly formed country of Crimea now), Russia feels that it shouldn't have to hold up its end of the bargain.
Remember, under the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet, Russia is permitted to maintain up to "25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems (with a caliber smaller than 100 mm), 132 armored vehicles and 22 military planes" in Crimea. Wikipedia informs me that Russia currently has elements from one mechanized infantry battalion, two air infantry divisions, an air infantry brigade, a special forces brigade and a reconnaissance regiment in Crimea. So it seems completely plausable that Russia has not violated that agreement and that the Russian forces in Crimea are allowed to be there under international law. Further, given that all three of the Ukranian casualties thus far were caused by Crimean rebel forces rather than Russian forces, it can't really be said that Russia has attacked any Ukranians.
With those two points in mind, let's take the treaties one at a time:
Quote from: UN Charter, Article 2, Subsection 4
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United NationsThis requirement seems to have been met so long as the Russian military did not use force to attempt to influence the secession vote. Russia is not using force as no Russian soldiers have shot at any Ukranian soldiers, nor (to my knowledge) has Russia threatened to do so.
Quote from: Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Ukraine becoming party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:Points 4 and 5 do not apply here as nuclear weapons are not involved. 3 was possibly violated in 2009 as 10ebbor10 pointed out, but can probably be justified as a reasonable response to Ukraine not paying for any of the gas rather than an attempt at influencing Ukrainian policies. #2 and #1 are covered above in the first paragraph. #6 only applies if Russia is unsure about any of the above, which does not appear to be the case.
Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 10:15:52 am
It's 2017. Not like a far away goal by any margin.It's all about inflicting short-term pain on Russia. For medium- and long-term damage, Europe doesn't need economic sanctions. LNG terminals, renewables and financial and personal sanctions (no money and no Harrod's) will be quite sufficient.
To put it bluntly: It's a country of ~140 million against the whole developed world, with no allies to speak of. Even if Russia finds some counter-measures, it'll hurt it more than the Europeans.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 10:18:16 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 10:20:52 am
Quote from: Grek
IS that what Russia claimed?Yes, that's their explanation why they broke 1994 memorandum. Said by Putin himself
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 10:22:24 am
I would expect to see NATO rapidly lining up assistance to the Ukrainian military, in the form of training, supplies and some cast-off hardware that donator countries don't really use anymore (which would still be an upgrade). Actual NATO membership for Ukraine is unlikely at this time.
Expect pro-Russian demonstrations to magically erupt around Donetsk and Kharkhov, possibly leading to more "totally grassroots, we swear we're not involved" referendums in those regions similar to Crimea. Or, things go uglier and there's some civil unrest/rioting in those regions and some Russians/pro-Russian Ukrainians killed, giving Putin a tenuous casus belli to send in Russian troops to restore peace and order.
And expect more finger-wagging and sanctions from the West, but no real teeth.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 10:23:21 am
Further, given that all three of the Ukranian casualties thus far were caused by Crimean rebel forces rather than Russian forces, it can't really be said that Russia has attacked any Ukranians.
Russia is not using force as no Russian soldiers have shot at any Ukranian soldiers, nor (to my knowledge) has Russia threatened to do so.
I enjoy how when Russian soldiers are serving their nation's orders others won't even do them the service of calling them soldiers. I wonder how it feels to be taken for such granted, as a Russian soldier 'rebel' 'self defense unit' who never actually gets credit from the host government despite being sent into harms way in the name of their expansionist policies.
I bet there'd be all sorts of 'outraged' Russians had one of these.. 'rebels' or 'self defence' servicemen died serving the Kremlins orders. Atleast give your soldiers the respect to acknowledge they're in harms way for your nation.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 10:24:56 am
RussianIt would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Wow, wait a second. Russia already paid till 2017, we talk about deal after 2017 which is providing cut since 2010.
How your example is even relevant? It's all upside down
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 10:27:27 am
RussianIt would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Wow, wait a second. Russia already paid till 2017, we talk about deal after 2017 which is providing cut since 2010.
How your example is even relevant? It's all upside down
The whole situation is upside down and I guess is coming to whatever Russia decides to use for justification in what is clearly a land grab.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 10:29:50 am
RussianIt would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Wow, wait a second. Russia already paid till 2017, we talk about deal after 2017 which is providing cut since 2010.
How your example is even relevant? It's all upside down
Russia's deal was contingent on using Sevastopol. Russia then directly acted to deny Sevastopol to Ukraine, thereby rendering them unable to comply on their end of the deal. That does give them the right to discontinue the discount from here on out. It does NOT give them the right to demand retroactive repayment. I realize fair business practices may be an exotic concept in Russia, but over here that's a total bullshit deal.
Let me give you an analogous example: We rent Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. If the US just moved in and took Guantanamo, you're saying we'd be totally justified in then demanding decades of back payment (it's a 99-year contract) because Cuba could no longer provide Guantanamo to us for rent (because we already took it)?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 10:30:25 am
You see Ukraine and Russia had 1997-2017 treaty for loan of the base. In 2010 a new deal with new loan conditions was singed. Old contract is auto-canceled by singing the new one.
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 10:33:45 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 10:39:19 am
I think you never played chess. If the government of the Ukraine is legitimate as it claims, it is subject to the treaty and can be asked to pay up. If the government of the Ukraine is illegitimate as Russia claims, Russia gets a free pass on its intervention (or any number of other advantages). Either state of their legitimacy is a loss for Ukrainian government.New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010I for one don't :P
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.
See:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 10:41:40 am
RussianIt would be like getting a getting a lower mortgage rate for purchasing a "starter" home, then the bank seizing the home and demanding retroactive repayment because you're not in that home anymore.
http://www.gazeta.ru/business/2014/03/21/5958825.shtml
Related bit.
Дело в том, что договор подразумевал продление срока пребывания Черноморского флота в акватории Крыма лишь с 2017 года (до этого времени действовал старый договор), а скидку Украина получила уже в 2010 году, то есть авансом. Все это время «Газпром» фактически дотировал «Нафтогаз Украины». Однако после того, как Крым перешел под юрисдикцию России, продление пребывания Черноморского флота потеряло смысл, а цена на газ уже четыре года как была снижена. То есть Россия предоставила льготу, не получив ничего взамен.
In short words.
New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
Wow, wait a second. Russia already paid till 2017, we talk about deal after 2017 which is providing cut since 2010.
How your example is even relevant? It's all upside down
Russia's deal was contingent on using Sevastopol. Russia then directly acted to deny Sevastopol to Ukraine, thereby rendering them unable to comply on their end of the deal. That does give them the right to discontinue the discount from here on out. It does NOT give them the right to demand retroactive repayment. I realize fair business practices may be an exotic concept in Russia, but over here that's a total bullshit deal.
Let me give you an analogous example: We rent Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. If the US just moved in and took Guantanamo, you're saying we'd be totally justified in then demanding decades of back payment (it's a 99-year contract) because Cuba could no longer provide Guantanamo to us for rent (because we already took it)?
Why you keep ignoring the fact that there is 2 deals? You keep giving examples with one deal. It's just ridiculous how you drawing parallels here.
You have 99 year contract. You then sign another contract, giving Cuba forward some $$$ to renew this deal in 10 years since now.
Then Cuba goes apeshit and perform coup, overthrowing goverment which signed second contract and asks NK to employ some nukes to deter imperialistic US right near border of free Cuba.
Thats proper example. Now you act.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 10:43:47 am
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 10:49:38 am
@smjjames: Can I get a source for that? All I can find is that Interfax says that the Ukrainian Defence Ministry says that the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet said that Ukrainian troops stationed in Crimea should surrender and something from Al Jazeera saying that Russia denies that their commander said so. I'm sure you can forgive me for not being 100% convinced that the ultimatum is real.
Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071
It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 10:51:32 am
Unless there was a clause in the contract specifically describing this sort of situation, the idea that Ukraine should be on the hook for anything is ludicrous. And no one in their right mind would ever agree to those sorts of terms.
And after all, Russia is still going to get to use it's military bases over the named time span, aren't they?
Hell, it seems like Ukraine's end of the deal is pretty much insured indefinitely.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 10:51:56 am
So, Russia was afraid that the post-Yanukovich government was going to renege on the Sevastopol deal in 2017? That's why they
And no, NATO was not planting nukes in Ukraine. Or even missile defense batteries. That was decided back in 2008.
Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.
Post by: smirk on March 21, 2014, 10:57:48 am
If the Ukraine government is legitimate, they can claim bad faith on the deal because of Russia's takeover of Crimea. The argument hinges, I think, on whether the Crimean referendum can be said to have been fair and free of Russian influence. Russia says it was, Ukraine and most of the West say it wasn't. Conflict!I think you never played chess. If the government of the Ukraine is legitimate as it claims, it is subject to the treaty and can be asked to pay up. If the government of the Ukraine is illegitimate as Russia claims, Russia gets a free pass on its intervention (or any number of other advantages). Either state of their legitimacy is a loss for Ukrainian government.New agreement was allowance of Black Sea Fleet from 2017, while Ukraine got discout since 2010I for one don't :P
Do you see that major "but", which is completely discounted in western media?
But what you're saying is beside the point: Russia claimed the treaties were no longer valid because the new government isn't legitimate, yet still tries to invoke these treaties when dealing with Ukraine's debt. If what UR did was strawmanning, this must be too... Not that I think either post was, mind you.
Quote
Heheheh.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 11:00:51 am
Russia's deal was contingent on using Sevastopol. Russia then directly acted to deny Sevastopol to
Why you keep ignoring the fact that there is 2 deals? You keep giving examples with one deal. It's just ridiculous how you drawing parallels here.
You have 99 year contract. You then sign another contract, giving Cuba forward some $$$ to renew this deal in 10 years since now.
Then Cuba goes apeshit and perform coup, overthrowing goverment which signed second contract and asks NK to employ some nukes to deter imperialistic US right near border of free Cuba.
Thats proper example. Now you act.
I like how the analogy kinda breaks when you add the motive- Ukraine wasn't asking anyone for nukes. And also: implying anyone in the west is (was) as hostile to Russia as NK is to the US.
Oh, and you forget the part where the US invades Cuba, pronounces it's treaties with Cuba null & void, annexes Guantanamo and then demands back pay since Cuba can no longer rent it to us as per our previous treaties.
Post by: Grek on March 21, 2014, 11:01:15 am
Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071
It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.
Right. That's the Associated Press saying that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry claims that Russia is demanding that their ships surrender. As you can imagine, the Ukrainian military has every reason to say that Russia is violating international law, even if that isn't true. If the accusation sticks, it means more support for Ukraine abroad, which is desperately needed if Ukraine is to have any chance of getting Crimea back. I'm not saying that Maksim Prauta is lying, just that he has some pretty strong incentives to do so and that we shouldn't immediately take him at his word.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:06:11 am
Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.
In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.
Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 11:11:25 am
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:14:31 am
Since just about every news outlet is covering it, it's a bit hard to find the specifics of what I mean, but here http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140303/NEWS04/140309861/1071
It's not so much surrender or die, but surrendering or prepare to be boarded is still threatening to use force.
Right. That's the Associated Press saying that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry claims that Russia is demanding that their ships surrender. As you can imagine, the Ukrainian military has every reason to say that Russia is violating international law, even if that isn't true. If the accusation sticks, it means more support for Ukraine abroad, which is desperately needed if Ukraine is to have any chance of getting Crimea back. I'm not saying that Maksim Prauta is lying, just that he has some pretty strong incentives to do so and that we shouldn't immediately take him at his word.
CNN also reported that and at the same time Russia denied that there was going to be some aggressive action. No violence erupted though and it could have been a commander doing something he wasn't supposed to. It was never really 100% clear what was going on with that incident, whether it was a commander being a loose cannon or the kremlin actually sanctioned it behind the scenes.
Russia has still done threats, which is what I was getting at.
Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.
In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.
Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.
Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:16:05 am
And there we go with the tu quoque argument, right on schedule.
This can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverb
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
Post by: Zangi on March 21, 2014, 11:16:39 am
I see the thing as damage control. You don't let someone else write the story for you. Especially the people who don't like what you just did.Look, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I understand grabbing Sevastopol. Without it, Russian defense plans have a big gaping hole along the Black Sea. We'd probably react the same way if Hawaii decided to become an independent kingdom again and kick the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor. But then just man up and admit it's a land grab and stop trying to dress it up in the frilly skirts of legitimacy. Or to put it in Europa Universalis terms, take your stability hit and warmonger penalty and accept that sometimes that's the cost of being pragmatic.
In Europe Universalis terms I see a casus belli, a claim, an unquashed rebels and a defected province.
West sees it's as a declaration of war without casus belli, sieging and forced peace deal due to low war rating of Ukraine followed by annexation of province.
My biggest gripe is that West sees no casus belli nor claim, which is stupid in Europa Universalis terms, because not even required 30(50?) years passed.
Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.
So the dog and pony show has to keep going or else the only thing people hear about is how Russia is the bad guy and has zero plausible reason to do what they did.
Paradox terms: No dog and pony show = Not even a murky/forged casus belli or any other can-be-spun-as-legitimate reason to do what they done.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:18:46 am
Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.
Thats why I inspecificaly mentioned land grab *slash* conflict. And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 11:19:15 am
And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
Huh
So............. You're saying we didn't have faulty/made-up intelligence when invading iraq? I'm a bit confused.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:21:39 am
Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.
Thats why I inspecificaly mentioned land grab *slash* conflict. And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
By faulty intelligence, I meant the claim of Iraq WMDs which hinged on an informant which wasn't particularly credible.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 11:22:01 am
Quote from: gogis
Back to real life. I am absolutely sure not a single world land grab/conflict was ever purely legitimate. Who cares about this shit anyways? Bush still not in prison, last time checked.I could say that USA doing some bad stuff doesn't excuse doing something much worse... But I understand that this is useless.
Gogis I want to tell you that USA is the world mightiest country. While Russia is nothing but a very large gas station with nuclear missiles. I understand that looking on the map you look huge and powerful but that is illusion created by your propaganda. If you want to live in the world were strongest allowed to do whatever he wants, you'll suffer badly
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:24:16 am
Paradox terms: No dog and pony show = Not even a murky/forged casus belli or any other can-be-spun-as-legitimate reason to do what they done.
That exactly the problem.
What you see murky and/or forged is plain and justified to other party.
You say Khrushev gave it to Ukraine? They say he gave it to republic which was part of the same country so it's not counts.
You say all russians bad and should be kept in check. They say west is insidious and russia mostly fought defensive wars.
I can go on and go on, it wouldnt change prejudice towards each other of both parties. Not in a near future, alas.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 11:25:09 am
No, as in bush used 'faulty intelligence' as an excuse to cover his ulterior motives.
But it's not quite as insultingly obvious, because the 'faulty intelligence' wasn't standing around in Iraq, demonstrating its non-faultiness and getting caught with nametags linked to its non-faulty intelligence Facebook accounts.
Post by: Sergarr on March 21, 2014, 11:25:39 am
Russia is nothing but a very large gas station with nuclear missiles
Somehow I think you underestimate Russia. Very well, the more you underestimate us, the bigger the surprise will be.
EDIT: Oh god I butchered that quote so bad I'm sorry
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:26:58 am
Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.
Thats why I inspecificaly mentioned land grab *slash* conflict. And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
By faulty intelligence, I meant the claim of Iraq WMDs which hinged on an informant which wasn't particularly credible.
Or meticulously ... redacted ... for a purpose. I know people who believe in that.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:28:58 am
Last time I checked, the Iraq war WAS NOT a landgrab. Faulty intelligence or not. Did we keep any of the territory for our uses? No, and don't use the puppet state argument because Iraq is far from being under US control.
Thats why I inspecificaly mentioned land grab *slash* conflict. And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
By faulty intelligence, I meant the claim of Iraq WMDs which hinged on an informant which wasn't particularly credible.
Or meticulously ... redacted ... for a purpose. I know people who believe in that.
We never did find the huge stockpiles of WMDs that Bush claimed Iraq had.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 11:29:56 am
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 11:31:32 am
And there we go with the tu quoque argument, right on schedule.
This can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverb
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
That there exists a proverb for it does it make it any less worthless as an argument. It's a self-defeating justification that goes a long way to explain why Russia isn't nearly as well off as they could be - an excuse to blame all of their flaws on the flaws of others instead of fixing the stuff that's gone wrong. It's nothing more and nothing less than a complete denial of responsibility for one's own actions.
If I was to argue that cutting off my own legs wasn't stupid because some other guy (that everyone knows is pretty damned stupid) cut off both his legs AND an arm, I would hope to hell you would laugh at the outright absurdity of my argument.
That the US has acted like a moronic bully moving at the self-destructive whims of a group of selfish ogilarchs and downright evil politicians provides no reason whatsoever for Russia to do the same, unless it's controlled by people who value their pride more than their prosperity.
But hey, maybe it is!
Every single time the US government has done something based on the argument that the Soviets were worse, the American nation and it's people where the ones who suffered from the stupidity of such a decision. Anyone who honestly propounds such a stupid argument is someone who is begging to become a victim of the crooks and tyrants who will be more than happy to abuse it to their own profit.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:32:10 am
Mostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 11:34:30 am
Russia is nothing but a very large gas station with nuclear missiles
Somehow I think you underestimate Russia. Very well, the more you underestimate us, the bigger the surprise will be.
And you wonder why people like mict are around.
And yet there's a victim complex.
Post by: smirk on March 21, 2014, 11:36:29 am
I think gogis meant that 'faulty intelligence' is unbelievable because it implies an honest mistake, rather than people knowingly abusing it.Mostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 11:36:34 am
Quote from: gogis
This can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverbThe Bible - The book of Russian proverbs :D
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
If you wander it is - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye"
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:38:49 am
Mostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Why you keep calling it's "faulty" if it could be as well a "faulty on a purpose". It's very different entities.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 11:39:43 am
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 21, 2014, 11:42:01 am
Well, less faulty intelligence, and more willful ignorance. Based on the data they had, the US knew that they didn't have solid evidence for the existence of Weapons of Mass destruction.Mostly because they were never there.Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Fun fact, according to some 2005 polls, 30% of Fox News watchers believes that WMD's were found in Iraq.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:43:10 am
I think gogis meant that 'faulty intelligence' is unbelievable because it implies an honest mistake, rather than people knowingly abusing it.Mostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Except that Bush kind of hid just how little credibility the informant actually had.
Mostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Why you keep calling it's "faulty" if it could be as well a "faulty on a purpose". It's very different entities.
I suspect we are using the term 'faulty' in two different ways here.
We are going offtopic with the Iraq stuff though.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:43:18 am
That the US has acted like a moronic bully moving at the self-destructive whims of a group of selfish ogilarchs and downright evil politicians provides no reason whatsoever for Russia to do the same, unless it's controlled by people who value their pride more than their prosperity.
But hey, maybe it is!
Every single time the US government has done something based on the argument that the Soviets were worse, the American nation and it's people where the ones who suffered from the stupidity of such a decision. Anyone who honestly propounds such a stupid argument is someone who is begging to become a victim of the crooks and tyrants who will be more than happy to abuse it to their own profit.
Oh, this "Tu quoque" discussion continues.
Well, imagine that dialogue
- You know man, I killed some men. It's bad thing to do, but hey I am strong, so I am not going to face a consequences
- You know, I did kill some men too, man, sorry...
- THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
- You know, you did this too..
- Sorry bro, but thats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque, so shoo, you bad and you have victim complex
Post by: smirk on March 21, 2014, 11:43:41 am
Same way the Russian soldiers being called rebels and self-defense units is equally ridiculous in your mind, right?Exactly, as he said earlier:
And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
Remember we're working through significant language barriers here folks, so triple-check your words =P
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2014, 11:45:47 am
http://www.gazprom.ru/about/production/projects/pipelines/ykv/
It's 2017. Not like a far away goal by any margin.
That railway you mentioned is 60km long and for transportation of crude oil.
English link: http://www.gazprom.com/about/production/projects/pipelines/ykv/
2017 is when the red section is done. The dotted yellow section hasn't even been finished being planned yet. Without the yellow section, the red section can't get the natural gas that was going to europe to instead go to China.
Yes there will be Russian natural gas going to China, but that is natural gas that was going to go to China anyway regardless of this incident. Any rerouting of gas from Europe to China is still a lot more then three years away.
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2014, 11:48:21 am
Fixed that quote for you... and with that done, is it an underestimation? Basically every discussion in this thread involving Russian power projection so far, from either side, has hinged on its gas production or nuclear capability, and... basically nothing else. Hell, the whole reason being given for the EU not just saying FU to Russia and cutting everything off has been the gas dependency. Just about the only reason I've been seeing for hesitance in military intervention has been the worry Putin's willing to drop the nuke. Insofar as discussion here has been concerned, it's very much sounded like summarizing Russia as a large gas station with nukes is... fairly accurate.Russia is nothing but a very large gas station with nuclear missilesSomehow I think you underestimate Russia. Very well, the more you underestimate us, the bigger the surprise will be.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 11:48:53 am
Same way the Russian soldiers being called rebels and self-defense units is equally ridiculous in your mind, right?Exactly, as he said earlier:And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
Remember we're working through significant language barriers here folks, so triple-check your words =P
I'm just curious if he's finally going to admit the soldiers occupying the land and committing hostilities there are in fact Russian military. He's more interested in being snide to people and not responding or clarifying what he means, though, so I'm not going to bother.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 11:49:29 am
There's a Russian language-based joke that they did finally find nuclear weapons in Iraq... a medieval cannon that shoots cannonballs. ("ядерное оружие" -> "пушка стреляющая ядрами") :PMostly because they were never there.
Exactly, which is what the faulty intelligence was, that Iraq had them.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:49:37 am
Quote from: gogisThis can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverbThe Bible - The book of Russian proverbs :D
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
If you wander it is - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye"
So my argument just got stronger in eyes of Christians? Isnt that a good thing? You need to check proverb about рыльце в пушку as well. Maybe it's from Torah
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 11:52:22 am
Same way the Russian soldiers being called rebels and self-defense units is equally ridiculous in your mind, right?Exactly, as he said earlier:And "faulty intelligence" is as believable as noninsignia soliers being not russians.
Remember we're working through significant language barriers here folks, so triple-check your words =P
I'm just curious if he's finally going to admit the soldiers occupying the land and committing hostilities there are in fact Russian military. He's more interested in being snide to people and not responding or clarifying what he means, though, so I'm not going to bother.
X is as believable as Y
Does not imply "he's finally going to admit". Either my english suck so much, or you just refuse to carefully read what I write.
Notice that you was perpetually most demeaning poster towards russians/russia in this thread.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 11:57:21 am
Fixed that quote for you... and with that done, is it an underestimation? Basically every discussion in this thread involving Russian power projection so far, from either side, has hinged on its gas production or nuclear capability, and... basically nothing else. Hell, the whole reason being given for the EU not just saying FU to Russia and cutting everything off has been the gas dependency. Just about the only reason I've been seeing for hesitance in military intervention has been the worry Putin's willing to drop the nuke. Insofar as discussion here has been concerned, it's very much sounded like summarizing Russia as a large gas station with nukes is... fairly accurate.Russia is nothing but a very large gas station with nuclear missilesSomehow I think you underestimate Russia. Very well, the more you underestimate us, the bigger the surprise will be.
Yeah, if he is willing to break a treaty the way he did, how do we know he would keep a promise to not use nukes if things came to blows? I'm sure Putin knows that it would be suicide to launch nukes and there are no winners in a nuclear war, the entire human race suffers. Even if there is a 99.99% chance he won't launch nukes, it's still a non-zero chance
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 12:00:42 pm
So my argument just got stronger in eyes of Christians? Isnt that a good thing?Considering that all that you do the last few posts is looking for sawdust in USA's eyes I think that argument is very good
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 12:04:10 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 12:08:15 pm
Either my english suck so much, or you just refuse to carefully read what I write.
Notice that you was perpetually most demeaning poster towards russians/russia in this thread.
I think it's pretty demeaning you won't even recognize your soldiers [which, if your previous posts are to believed, you should revere as fellow soldiers] are in harm's way for your Kremlin.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 21, 2014, 12:17:07 pm
- You know man, I killed some men. It's bad thing to do, but hey I am strong, so I am not going to face a consequencesRight there. There is the problem. It's not what you're saying. It's more like:
- You know, I did kill some men too, man, sorry...
- THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
- You know, you did this too..
- Sorry bro, but thats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque, so shoo, you bad and you have victim complex
-My boss killed people. I feel it was a bad thing, and I feel bad because he was my boss then.
-Well, my boss killed people and I'm OK with it because yours did it too.
-Hey, killing people is a bad thing, no matter who did it!
-But you did it too.
-Not me, my boss, and I'm not OK with it.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 12:19:54 pm
But somehow, "we are only doing what USA did" type of Russian hope that Crimea will bring them profit and increase Russian might while it will bring nothing but loses even if no sanctions at all will be used
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 12:26:28 pm
So my argument just got stronger in eyes of Christians? Isnt that a good thing? You need to check proverb about рыльце в пушку as well. Maybe it's from TorahQuote from: gogisThis can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverbThe Bible - The book of Russian proverbs :D
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
If you wander it is - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye"
This quote is literally condemning the argument you are making. It is literally saying "do not do what you are doing". I'm not sure if this is just a language issue or if there's something more in the line of willful ignorance going on, but... seriously.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 21, 2014, 12:54:11 pm
The best part of that "USA did that, too" argument is that Afghanistan and Iraq wars were harmful for American economy and foreign relationsYou misunderstand. These types of Russian mean only to use the "we are only doing what USA did" as a justification - not, in fact, implying that what we did was in any way like what USA did. For one, we appear to actually have a measure of honest support in the country/region we are "invading", and there are no clear ways from which we could directly profit from the place. We "did what USA did", but for entirely different reasons and in entirely different circumstances. That is why those types of Russian are doing what they do.
But somehow, "we are only doing what USA did" type of Russian hope that Crimea will bring them profit and increase Russian might while it will bring nothing but loses even if no sanctions at all will be used
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 12:58:57 pm
The best part of that "USA did that, too" argument is that Afghanistan and Iraq wars were harmful for American economy and foreign relationsYou misunderstand. These types of Russian mean only to use the "we are only doing what USA did" as a justification - not, in fact, implying that what we did was in any way like what USA did. For one, we appear to actually have a measure of honest support in the country/region we are "invading", and there are no clear ways from which we could directly profit from the place. We "did what USA did", but for entirely different reasons and in entirely different circumstances. That is why those types of Russian are doing what they do.
But somehow, "we are only doing what USA did" type of Russian hope that Crimea will bring them profit and increase Russian might while it will bring nothing but loses even if no sanctions at all will be used
Except that our (that is, the US) justification was something entirely different for Iraq than the justification Russia is pulling, which is protecting Russians IN Crimea.
@GlyphGryph: Could be a combination of cultural differences and language barrier.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 01:02:41 pm
Spoiler: love this foto (click to show/hide)
Post by: Dutchling on March 21, 2014, 01:06:22 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 01:31:27 pm
Either my english suck so much, or you just refuse to carefully read what I write.
Notice that you was perpetually most demeaning poster towards russians/russia in this thread.
I think it's pretty demeaning you won't even recognize your soldiers [which, if your previous posts are to believed, you should revere as fellow soldiers] are in harm's way for your Kremlin.
There is no proof it's russian soldiers, yet. It could be russian sevastopol soldiers going rogue without direct order. It could be provocateurs planted there by west to tarnish russian reputation. It could be anything. As I said (and you ignored) it's as shady as "faulty" intelligence about Iraq WMD
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 01:37:26 pm
The more I read this thread, the more I get the impression that there is a profound misunderstanding somewhere as how people relate to their governments.- You know man, I killed some men. It's bad thing to do, but hey I am strong, so I am not going to face a consequencesRight there. There is the problem. It's not what you're saying. It's more like:
- You know, I did kill some men too, man, sorry...
- THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!
- You know, you did this too..
- Sorry bro, but thats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque, so shoo, you bad and you have victim complex
-My boss killed people. I feel it was a bad thing, and I feel bad because he was my boss then.
-Well, my boss killed people and I'm OK with it because yours did it too.
-Hey, killing people is a bad thing, no matter who did it!
-But you did it too.
-Not me, my boss, and I'm not OK with it.
I stated my own opinion on russian goverment and Putin and my political views and shared plenty of personal information good hundred pages back. Now I voice over opinions which is very popular amongst hefty chunk of russian population. I know it's not because I read or watch national media, but because I've participated in such conversations. Call me a devil advocate if you want, it doesnt change the fact that most of what I said is shared amongst sufficient number of people.
I call bs on some but I can't defy logic of some aswell.
Saddest part is that current western politics actually empower Putin and goverment. And you don't even understand why. Well, most of you.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 01:40:09 pm
Quote
Saddest part is that current western politics actually empower Putin and goverment. And you don't even understand why. Well, most of you.And what should "The West" do to remove Putin from power? Any suggestions? Allow him to do whatever he wants?
Post by: Descan on March 21, 2014, 01:41:35 pm
Russians, got nothin' against them. I love Americans too, but America is a dick too.
Apologists are dicks as well, because you're sucking on your governments propaganda because... uhm... Why? Is it pride? Is your sense of self-worth tied up in your country? You'd think that, even if that was the case, you'd want your country to... actually be something to be proud of. Instead of just saying "Nonono it's great shut up!", you'd think you'd want to actually try and make it better? Saying your country can do no wrong means that you ignore when they do wrong, it's pretty cut-and-dry.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 01:43:59 pm
So my argument just got stronger in eyes of Christians? Isnt that a good thing? You need to check proverb about рыльце в пушку as well. Maybe it's from TorahQuote from: gogisThis can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverbThe Bible - The book of Russian proverbs :D
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
If you wander it is - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye"
This quote is literally condemning the argument you are making. It is literally saying "do not do what you are doing". I'm not sure if this is just a language issue or if there's something more in the line of willful ignorance going on, but... seriously.
Yes, you read it right. Whats wrong with that? It's an irony. He literally poking every single bit of what I write so whatever. Just ignore messages between us. He is filled with hatred to russians I can't take it very seriously
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 01:47:51 pm
And still with flavor of personal opinions.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 01:48:10 pm
It could be provocateurs planted there by west to tarnish russian reputation.
Cant tell if joking
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 01:51:26 pm
I do hate. I hate Soviet ideology, the decease of Russian and Ukrainian* nation. And all that happens is a relapse of that deadly thing.
* but Maydan gives us a hope of curing
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 01:52:07 pm
And the other 10%, I think I may just be deluding myself and am actually completely wrong.
Yes, you read it right. Whats wrong with that? It's an irony. He literally poking every single bit of what I write so whatever. Just ignore messages between us. He is filled with hatred to russians I can't take it very seriouslyWhat does this meeeeean? I haven't the slightest idea!
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 01:52:57 pm
QuoteSaddest part is that current western politics actually empower Putin and goverment. And you don't even understand why. Well, most of you.And what should "The West" do to remove Putin from power? Any suggestions? Allow him to do whatever he wants?
Don't support fascists Bandera movement, don't hold yearly former SS parades, don't surround every bit of russian land with NATO, dont support coups, don't think that you had rightfull end in Georgia/Chechen conflict, don't piss of if russians vote no to gays or piss of if someone launching concert in orthodox church of nationwide significance... And nothing will ever started.
(for those angry with me personally in advance I welcome you to search page and find my older posts. I dont support even 1/3 of what I just mentioned)
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 01:58:31 pm
Quote from: gogisThis can be actually pretty legit due to russian proverbThe Bible - The book of Russian proverbs :D
В чужом глазу соринку видим, в своем бревно не замечаем
If you wander it is - "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye"
So my argument just got stronger in eyes of Christians? Isnt that a good thing? You need to check proverb about рыльце в пушку as well. Maybe it's from Torah
Actually, it was reminding me of the scene in Star Trek VI, when a Klingon comments on how Shakespeare should be read in its native Klingon. ::)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 21, 2014, 02:01:40 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 02:06:36 pm
I prefer this one:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Love the death-glare that Merkel is giving Putin there.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 21, 2014, 02:07:13 pm
You guys add religion flavor here - you put the last nail in this thread's coffin. Really. We hardly cope with each other when it is about politics.I no longer have any idea what any of the Pro-Russia posters are talking about. T_T
Post by: RedKing on March 21, 2014, 02:08:24 pm
Maybe she's "seeing into his soul" like Shrub did. He could have transferred that power to her with the neckrub.I prefer this one:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Love the death-glare that Merkel is giving Putin there.
Post by: Darvi on March 21, 2014, 02:09:49 pm
Why? Is it pride? Is your sense of self-worth tied up in your country?I've heard that Russion culture is so linked to collectivism that, yes, they treat any offense to their nation as if it was personal.
Post by: gogis on March 21, 2014, 02:12:02 pm
Why? Is it pride? Is your sense of self-worth tied up in your country?I've heard that Russion culture is so linked to collectivism that, yes, they treat any offense to their nation as if it was personal.
No, you heard it wrong :D
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 02:12:48 pm
I no longer have any idea what any of the Pro-Russia posters are talking about. T_TNow imagine Obama vs Putin chats....
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 02:13:52 pm
You guys add religion flavor here - you put the last nail in this thread's coffin. Really. We hardly cope with each other when it is about politics.I no longer have any idea what any of the Pro-Russia posters are talking about. T_T
Probably the Catholic-Orthodox divide. But yeah, we should drop the religious stuff before it goes any further at this point. Which is the point that Comrade P. was trying to make.
Post by: nenjin on March 21, 2014, 02:23:37 pm
QuoteSaddest part is that current western politics actually empower Putin and goverment. And you don't even understand why. Well, most of you.And what should "The West" do to remove Putin from power? Any suggestions? Allow him to do whatever he wants?
Don't support fascists Bandera movement, don't hold yearly former SS parades, don't surround every bit of russian land with NATO, dont support coups, don't think that you had rightfull end in Georgia/Chechen conflict, don't piss of if russians vote no to gays or piss of if someone launching concert in orthodox church of nationwide significance... And nothing will ever started.
(for those angry with me personally in advance I welcome you to search page and find my older posts. I dont support even 1/3 of what I just mentioned)
Then why are you supporting it? Seriously. You're making the argument then backing away as if it's not your's. You're basically asking everyone to both agree with everything your country does, regardless, and not to judge you for anything you do, period.
In what fucking world does that fly now? This isn't 1940. We can all see each other, talk to each other and look into each other's lives in seconds. Why does Russia seem to think it deserves to be immune? FFS, look at the US. We can't even fart without half the goddamn world saying we have an ulterior motive for doing so.
Russia wants to be a super power again? Start playing by the rules of super powers in the 21st century. And that is, you don't not have the right to be left alone. Especially when you're marching into someone else's country.
It's why everyone still considers Russia politically backasswards. Because they're living 50 years in the past when it comes to rhetoric, as though we're not all globally connected now and it still takes 4 days for news to travel outside of where it happened. We can see in 30 seconds that "No Russian" in Crimea is bullshit. And yet Putin keeps staring into the distance when he says it, like making eye contact would expose the lie for what it is.
If you're not supporting those points, quit fighting for them and start fighting against them. Or to put it another way....put what's right above fucking nationalism.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 02:29:30 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2014, 02:31:29 pm
Then why are you supporting it?
Was he?
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 02:33:46 pm
I am curious to hear from some of the pro-Putin Russians in this thread exactly why it is such a bad idea for Russia to join NATO and the EU.
NATO was origionally formed to defend against Russia. I think there were actually talks of dismantling NATO since it wasn't needed anymore, but that was before this crisis blew up. I'd be curious about what the pro-Putin Russians think about joining NATO and the EU.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 02:37:17 pm
NATO was origionally formed to defend against Russia. I think there were actually talks of dismantling NATO since it wasn't needed, but that was before this crisis blew up.
Yes, I know why we created NATO in the first place, it's just that I can't see why Russia shouldn't join. If they are so concerned about NATO being an American puppet organisation going on globetrotting adventures, intervening in foreign lands (Crimea is not foreign, remember, neither is Chechnya, or Azerbaijan, or Georgia) it makes perfect sense for them to join and create a greater east-west balance in the organisation. Russia wants to stay a nuclear power, so does the USA. Why not join forces? Why not build friendships?
Post by: miljan on March 21, 2014, 02:38:09 pm
I am curious to hear from some of the pro-Putin Russians in this thread exactly why it is such a bad idea for Russia to join NATO and the EU.
I dont know about NATO (well i know, they dont want to be US dogs ;D), but it is not good for everyone to join EU, as it brings a lot of different things, bad and good, depends from country to country (it can harm your industry, small businesses and other things).
Post by: Baffler on March 21, 2014, 02:40:39 pm
Post by: nenjin on March 21, 2014, 02:41:43 pm
Then why are you supporting it?
Was he?
He's suggesting taking no position on anything Russia does as a way to appease them. An odd stance to take when followed directly by "now I don't support all these things....."
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 02:42:55 pm
I dont know about NATO (well i know, they dont want to be US dogs ;D), but it is not good for everyone to join EU, as it brings a lot of different things, bad and good, depends from country to country (it can harm your industry, small businesses and other things).
Considering the number of Russians that are currently in Western Europe, having left EU countries with substantial Russian minorities (e.g. Latvia), I think Russians from the motherland would enjoy the new freedom of movement.
The New Russian oligarchs would love it too; they would have easier access to the various European banking and financial sectors. I know their influence is already felt in Iceland and Cyprus but I'm sure this would make life easier for them. This way you won't even have to be as wealthy as the Lebedevs to make it big in London, come over while you're just starting out.
Post by: smirk on March 21, 2014, 02:45:01 pm
Dunno; it seems to me like he's posting points he doesn't necessarily agree with but that many(?) Russians do hold, as a way to keep the thread a bit more informed of those thought processes. Playing devil's advocate.Then why are you supporting it?
Was he?
He's suggesting taking no position on anything Russia does as a way to appease them.
I could be wrong though; the language barrier seems to get in the way quite a bit. But that's what I'm getting from his posts.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 02:45:10 pm
NATO was origionally formed to defend against Russia. I think there were actually talks of dismantling NATO since it wasn't needed, but that was before this crisis blew up.
Yes, I know why we created NATO in the first place, it's just that I can't see why Russia shouldn't join. If they are so concerned about NATO being an American puppet organisation going on globetrotting adventures, intervening in foreign lands (Crimea is not foreign, remember, neither is Chechnya, or Azerbaijan, or Georgia) it makes perfect sense for them to join and create a greater east-west balance in the organisation. Russia wants to stay a nuclear power, so does the USA. Why not join forces? Why not build friendships?
Maybe because they don't want to be stopped from intervening in places like Crimea, Chechnya, Azerbajian, and Georgia?
On the wiki, they actually didn't want Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.
Post by: da_nang on March 21, 2014, 02:46:14 pm
Alright, I've got to ask. What's with this Bandera movement the general Russian population is screaming about? I don't recall the Euromaidan being of fascist nature. I can understand if certain right-wing extremists would take advantage of the situation but the gist of it has still been about EU integration.QuoteSaddest part is that current western politics actually empower Putin and goverment. And you don't even understand why. Well, most of you.And what should "The West" do to remove Putin from power? Any suggestions? Allow him to do whatever he wants?
Don't support fascists Bandera movement, don't hold yearly former SS parades, don't surround every bit of russian land with NATO, dont support coups, don't think that you had rightfull end in Georgia/Chechen conflict, don't piss of if russians vote no to gays or piss of if someone launching concert in orthodox church of nationwide significance... And nothing will ever started.
(for those angry with me personally in advance I welcome you to search page and find my older posts. I dont support even 1/3 of what I just mentioned)
Also, may I ask for the opinion of other Russians (theirs and and what they think the general population's opinion is) regarding the following:
- Right to free speech - I know neo-Nazism has bad connotations and all but holding demonstrations (or parades if that's what one chooses to call them) is within their right. Remember, they still have to abide by the law.
- A sovereign nation is free to ally itself with anyone as it sees fit - Let's be honest here, there typically does exist bad blood between former Soviet states and Russia. Even though the Soviet Union fell three decades ago, there's still that fear of once again being cast into servitude and the rise of Russian nationalists isn't helping. (I don't claim to know which came first.)
- Coups - Now I don't know if gogis here meant all coups or specific ones, so please elaborate. I personally can see myself supporting it as a last resort in the name of [insert ideals]. (Yes, moral relativity makes it kinda moot and all.)
- Homosexuality and speech thereof - It personally saddens me to see the what's happening in Russia. That simply shouldn't have to happen, for humanity's sake.
Post by: miljan on March 21, 2014, 02:46:45 pm
Umm, because things what US wants and Russia wants are different. In other simple words, the corporation behind US and the ones on power in russia want to have more for them, they dont want to share.NATO was origionally formed to defend against Russia. I think there were actually talks of dismantling NATO since it wasn't needed, but that was before this crisis blew up.
Yes, I know why we created NATO in the first place, it's just that I can't see why Russia shouldn't join. If they are so concerned about NATO being an American puppet organisation going on globetrotting adventures, intervening in foreign lands (Crimea is not foreign, remember, neither is Chechnya, or Azerbaijan, or Georgia) it makes perfect sense for them to join and create a greater east-west balance in the organisation. Russia wants to stay a nuclear power, so does the USA. Why not join forces? Why not build friendships?
Also god help us all if US and russia really join forces, than the world will be fucked up for real (never ever wish that, to have one supper power, you are assuming here that NATO and US are good, thy are not, they are as crap as russia). There needs to be competition in everything, if you have one on power, they will always, do whatever they want.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 02:47:34 pm
Maybe because they don't want to be stopped from intervening in places like Crimea, Chechnya, Azerbajian, and Georgia?
On the wiki, they actually didn't want Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.
Yes, you see, I have a number of reasons I have read somewhere already but I wanted to hear from people like Comrade P (a reasonable and friendly man) or even the passionate Avis or collected Gogis regarding joining NATO and the EU before I started firing those off.
Umm, because things what US wants and Russia wants are different. In other simple words, the corporation behind US and the ones on power in russia want to have more for them, they dont want to share.
This interests me a lot. In Europe we've pretty much all got the same "elite" whether you're in the UK, France, Spain or Germany. They've all got shared interests and they all lean in similar directions. The Scottish Independence debate has been illustrative of this; the ease with which certain EU-commisioner types like Barroso fell behind British Government arguments was one example. Evidently the Russian and CIS elite is very separate to the Western one, which is unusual.
Quote
Also god help us all if US and russia really join forces, than the world will be fucked up for real (never ever wish that, to have one supper power, you are assuming here that NATO and US are good, thy are not, they are as crap as russia).
If you knew me you would know that I have never thought that in my life. I've spent the last two years arguing that Scotland must be an independent, non-aligned country (i.e. not in NATO) for all the same reasons you have for opposing NATO.
I just think the main issue in this whole conflict is the fact that we have a world with two main players - China and the USA. The rest are periphery, though the EU is still in the West's sphere and China/Russia/India are almost in another sphere.
The problem is none of us are very comfortable in our respective "spheres" (see the enormous diplomatic rifts between China and India for example and Russia's superpower ambitions) and we're all trying to do our own thing.
If we're going to bother with these alliances at all it makes perfect sense for Russia to join the Western sphere in order to counter China. Even though the Western sphere may force them to make uncomfortable choices regarding human rights (as in they'd actually have to get some) I think the Western sphere would suit them better financially and economically. China's sphere is too unpredictable, ours is far more established and stable - and what do Russians like better than stability and economic security?
Quote
There needs to be competition in everything, if you have one on power, they will always, do whatever they want.
I'm pretty much proposing a NATO where there is greater competition within the organisation between East and West. That may lead to things "balancing out", or it could lead to a collapse of NATO. Either way I'm happy.
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2014, 02:48:35 pm
He's suggesting taking no position on anything Russia does as a way to appease them. An odd stance to take when followed directly by "now I don't support all these things....."
I don't think he was suggesting those things be done. I'm thinking he's suggesting those are the extreme lengths it would take if we actually wanted to appease them.
Yes, I know why we created NATO in the first place, it's just that I can't see why Russia shouldn't join.
Because they just invaded their neighbor and are hostile towards the purpose of NATO?
It would be great if Russia wanted to get on board with the European identity but they don't. Letting them into NATO wouldn't change that, it would just turn NATO meaningless.
Post by: GreatJustice on March 21, 2014, 02:55:10 pm
I dont know about NATO (well i know, they dont want to be US dogs ;D), but it is not good for everyone to join EU, as it brings a lot of different things, bad and good, depends from country to country (it can harm your industry, small businesses and other things).
Considering the number of Russians that are currently in Western Europe, having left EU countries with substantial Russian minorities (e.g. Latvia), I think Russians from the motherland would enjoy the new freedom of movement.
The New Russian oligarchs would love it too; they would have easier access to the various European banking and financial sectors. I know their influence is already felt in Iceland and Cyprus but I'm sure this would make life easier for them. This way you won't even have to be as wealthy as the Lebedevs to make it big in London, come over while you're just starting out.
Russian industry would collapse in on itself as there is no way it could realistically compete on the same terms as Western European firms operating under European trade and tax rules. The Russian economy would become even more heavily dependent on natural resources, and even in that respect they'd be in danger of becoming shackled by EU environmental laws. The oligarchs would love it, but the net benefit for the average Russian would be quite poor.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 03:07:29 pm
Because they just invaded their neighbor and are hostile towards the purpose of NATO?
Well, again, I was going to wait until I heard from some Russian people on the matter before I started giving those kinds of reasons. I'd rather give them a chance.
Quote
It would be great if Russia wanted to get on board with the European identity but they don't. Letting them into NATO wouldn't change that, it would just turn NATO meaningless.
If the purpose of our Alliance is to defend against Russia, keeping them as perpetual boogiemen, we are being deceived and used in much the same way as the Russian public have been for decades. Russia should not be our Goldstein, nor should NATO be Russia's.
Post by: Zangi on March 21, 2014, 03:12:08 pm
Dunno; it seems to me like he's posting points he doesn't necessarily agree with but that many(?) Russians do hold, as a way to keep the thread a bit more informed of those thought processes. Playing devil's advocate.Then why are you supporting it?
Was he?
He's suggesting taking no position on anything Russia does as a way to appease them.
I could be wrong though; the language barrier seems to get in the way quite a bit. But that's what I'm getting from his posts.
So... from what I understand:
gogis: I don't believe in this myself, but this is what the Russian people think.
B12ers: What?! That is bad, you are just spewing Russian propaganda! You believe all this?! What is wrong with you!?
Post by: Dutchling on March 21, 2014, 03:12:49 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 21, 2014, 03:15:27 pm
I am curious to hear from some of the pro-Putin Russians in this thread exactly why it is such a bad idea for Russia to join NATO and the EU.Anti-Western Russian publications and websites justify Russian anti-Western foreign policies by claiming that that the Western world have always regarded and will always regard Russia and Russians like Western colonial empires viewed other non-European nations and civilizations - as backwater primitive savages. According to them, trying to appease the Western powers is fruitless, because they will always look down on Russia. Only a strong authoritarian Russia can successfully defend its independence and national interests and force the West to respect them, they say.
A very good example of the views of the anti-Western crowd in Russia on maintaining good relations with the West is the book "Marauder" by Berkem al-Atomi (a Tatar writer, by the way).
According to the plot, the liberal Russian government which maintained good relations with the West accepted NATO's request to accommodate a Western military task force, under the pretext of guarding Russian nuclear weapons against terrorists. After deploying in Russia, NATO forces swiftly took control of the Russian government, dismantled the Russian army, declared that Russian sovereignty should be "temporarily" suspended until "the rule of law" in Russia is restored, divided the country into occupation zones and started ruling it like Combines from Half-Life 2: they took control of Russian cities, began strip mining Russian natural resources and left the rest of the country to its own devices, responding with punitive expeditions to any resistance to Western forces. It is also implied midway through the book that NATO killed everyone in the European part of Russia with biological weapons (also like the Combines from Half-Life 2). The protagonists is a Tatar resident of a small Russian town of Tridtsatka located in Southern Siberia (Big Thirty in the video game adaptation) who struggles to survive after the town and its vicinity descends into anarchy after the fall of the Russian government.
The intro of the video game adaptation of the novel, Man of Prey sums the plot nicely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSl0HSINeII)
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 03:19:46 pm
It's very hard to keep balancing these posts out (tiring, in fact) but I feel compelled to make reference to the very heavy indoctrination in the West (more so in the USA than here but we've got it bad too) that I regularly rail against when making arguments in favour of Scottish independence.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 03:22:45 pm
I am curious to hear from some of the pro-Putin Russians in this thread exactly why it is such a bad idea for Russia to join NATO and the EU.Anti-Western Russian publications and websites justify Russian anti-Western foreign policies by claiming that that the Western world have always regarded and will always regard Russia and Russians like Western colonial empires viewed other non-European nations and civilizations - as backwater primitive savages. According to them, trying to appease the Western powers is fruitless, because they will always look down on Russia. Only a strong authoritarian Russia can successfully defend its independence and national interests and force the West to respect them, they say.
A very good example of the views of the anti-Western crowd in Russia on maintaining good relations with the West is the book "Marauder" by Berkem al-Atomi (a Tatar writer, by the way).
According to the plot, the liberal Russian government which maintained good relations with the West accepted NATO's request to accommodate a Western military task force, under the pretext of guarding Russian nuclear weapons against terrorists. After deploying in Russia, NATO forces swiftly took control of the Russian government, dismantled the Russian army, declared that Russian sovereignty should be "temporarily" suspended until "the rule of law" in Russia is restored, divided the country into occupation zones and started ruling it like Combines from Half-Life 2: they took control of Russian cities, began strip mining Russian natural resources and left the rest of the country to its own devices, responding with punitive expeditions to any resistance to Western forces. It is also implied midway through the book that NATO killed everyone in the European part of Russia with biological weapons (also like the Combines from Half-Life 2). The protagonists is a Tatar resident of a small Russian town of Tridtsatka located in Southern Siberia (Big Thirty in the video game adaptation) who struggles to survive after the town and its vicinity descends into anarchy after the fall of the Russian government.
The intro of the video game adaptation of the novel, Man of Prey sums the plot nicely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSl0HSINeII)
Owlbread was asking about your opinion and that of other pro-putin russian posters here on why it's so bad to join NATO and EU, not what the mainstream anti-western crowd thinks.
Also, it sounds like the cold war mentality of West VS East is still going for the anti-western crowd.
Post by: Dutchling on March 21, 2014, 03:23:14 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 03:23:26 pm
If the purpose of our Alliance is to defend against Russia, keeping them as perpetual boogiemen, we are being deceived and used in much the same way as the Russian public have been for decades. Russia should not be our Goldstein, nor should NATO be Russia's.Russia isn't our Goldberg. Russia's the country that has invaded two European countries within the last six years. NATO exists to defend against Russia because Russia is the only country that needs defending against. That's why Russia can't join NATO: It isn't at all established what happens when NATO members attack each other.
Looks more like 'Bitch please' to me. No offence intended ;)I prefer this one:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Love the death-glare that Merkel is giving Putin there.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 03:24:48 pm
I am curious to hear from some of the pro-Putin Russians in this thread exactly why it is such a bad idea for Russia to join NATO and the EU.Anti-Western Russian publications and websites justify Russian anti-Western foreign policies by claiming that that the Western world have always regarded and will always regard Russia and Russians like Western colonial empires viewed other non-European nations and civilizations - as backwater primitive savages. According to them, trying to appease the Western powers is fruitless, because they will always look down on Russia. Only a strong authoritarian Russia can successfully defend its independence and national interests and force the West to respect them, they say.
A very good example of the views of the anti-Western crowd in Russia on maintaining good relations with the West is the book "Marauder" by Berkem al-Atomi (a Tatar writer, by the way).
According to the plot, the liberal Russian government which maintained good relations with the West accepted NATO's request to accommodate a Western military task force, under the pretext of guarding Russian nuclear weapons against terrorists. After deploying in Russia, NATO forces swiftly took control of the Russian government, dismantled the Russian army, declared that Russian sovereignty should be "temporarily" suspended until "the rule of law" in Russia is restored, divided the country into occupation zones and started ruling it like Combines from Half-Life 2: they took control of Russian cities, began strip mining Russian natural resources and left the rest of the country to its own devices, responding with punitive expeditions to any resistance to Western forces. It is also implied midway through the book that NATO killed everyone in the European part of Russia with biological weapons (also like the Combines from Half-Life 2). The protagonists is a Tatar resident of a small Russian town of Tridtsatka located in Southern Siberia (Big Thirty in the video game adaptation) who struggles to survive after the town and its vicinity descends into anarchy after the fall of the Russian government.
The intro of the video game adaptation of the novel, Man of Prey sums the plot nicely. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSl0HSINeII)
For those wondering; "Man of Prey" is the name of this game. I want to play it, looks like Silent Storm/7.62 with an actually unique plot.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 03:25:27 pm
Not trying to bring religion into this, I'm just saying that it's a factor as far as the culture goes.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 21, 2014, 03:31:05 pm
For those wondering; "Man of Prey" is the name of this game. I want to play it, looks like Silent Storm/7.62 with an actually unique plot.Man of Prey was made by the same developer who made 7.62, Apeiron. A proper working English version is very hard to find on the Internet. Here's an English LP of the game (http://lparchive.org/Marauder-Man-of-Prey/).
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 03:35:14 pm
As for the whole anti-west thing, the west-east split in the christian church probably plays into this.That's... actually a rather plausible explanation that I hadn't heard before. The canonical explanation is that eastern and western feudal economies reacted differently to the plague, resulting in a great divide in political systems, though. Cause Poland is solidly Catholic, but still definitely part of Eastern Europe.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 03:37:29 pm
For those wondering; "Man of Prey" is the name of this game. I want to play it, looks like Silent Storm/7.62 with an actually unique plot.Man of Prey was developed by the same developer who made 7.62, Apeiron. A proper working English version is very hard to find on the Internet. Here's an English LP of the game (http://lparchive.org/Marauder-Man-of-Prey/).
Well of course, there's a bit of rampant nationalism in publishers, good luck getting something like that opened to 'western' [Well, US] markets. The typical Fight-the-terrorist[brown]-people/totally-not-Russians formula deserves to be shaken up a bit. I'm definitely looking into getting ahold of the book, though.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 03:46:00 pm
Russia isn't our Goldberg. Russia's the country that has invaded two European countries within the last six years. NATO exists to defend against Russia because Russia is the only country that needs defending against. That's why Russia can't join NATO: It isn't at all established what happens when NATO members attack each other.
By my experience Russia has been used as a Goldberg-entity to scare Scots away from voting for independence (allegedly we could not defend against them militarily) and as a means of justifying the presence of nuclear weapons on our land. I predict that it will be used in similar arguments in the USA to justify the obscene levels of military spending in that country.
I think this is where our opinions are going to diverge and the Russians that I've spent the last two weeks criticising and accusing of genocide will begin to understand that there's more to us than some homogenous "Western" Goldberg bloc. I would have liked to have heard from some more Russians (Guardian is basically Russian) on this issue before the debate commences but ach well.
As belligerent as Russia is under Putin and the current elite who exploit the anti-Western, nationalist undercurrent that grew in Tsarist times and was expanded upon by the Soviets, I do not believe that we need to defend against them militarily. Russia is no threat to us, only to the poor bastards that they consider to be on their "turf" - that goes for the Baltic Republics and the Black Sea region.
They may expand their sphere of influence as much as they like within that area, but they will never invade Western Europe or drop a bomb on Paris or something like that. You understand that I object to the very existence of the Russian Federation (though I do not object to the existence of "Russia") and oppose the current Russian government in every way, but I do not see them as being the threat that our governments make them out to be.
Even if we are in a situation where military force could be a factor, like the invasion of Ukraine, the only things we are able to do are apply economic sanctions that don't seem to be working much. We can't go to war with Russia. I don't even need to qualify that statement with reasons, they're obvious to you all.
We're thus left with only two options - sit and watch, hoping for an economic crisis to sweep the country and force Russia into a state of chaos after Putin is ousted (you can imagine the problems this will create), or integrate them into our sphere, thereby taking away the best tool the Russian elite has for controlling the Russian people.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 21, 2014, 03:48:25 pm
I don't think the book was translated into English. No one in the West would like to read a Russian book of questionable quality with them being the bad guys.For those wondering; "Man of Prey" is the name of this game. I want to play it, looks like Silent Storm/7.62 with an actually unique plot.Man of Prey was developed by the same developer who made 7.62, Apeiron. A proper working English version is very hard to find on the Internet. Here's an English LP of the game (http://lparchive.org/Marauder-Man-of-Prey/).
Well of course, there's a bit of rampant nationalism in publishers, good luck getting something like that opened to 'western' [Well, US] markets. The typical Fight-the-terrorist[brown]-people/totally-not-Russians formula deserves to be shaken up a bit. I'm definitely looking into getting ahold of the book, though.
The genre of action books with plots like "Western aggressors invade Russia, brave Russian soldiers kick their asses", "Brave Russian soldiers travel back in time to fix what went wrong and kick some Western aggressors' asses" and "Western aggressors invade Russia, brave Russian soldiers travel back in time to fix what went wrong and kick some Western aggressors' asses", usually written by veterans of Soviet special ops units, has been quite popular in Russia since the 1990s. A lot of such books of various degrees of awfulness have been written. None of them have been translated into English.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 03:51:36 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 21, 2014, 03:54:39 pm
We're thus left with only two options - sit and watch, hoping for an economic crisis to sweep the country and force Russia into a state of chaos after Putin is ousted (you can imagine the problems this will create), or integrate them into our sphere, thereby taking away the best tool theRussianelite has for controlling theRussianpeople.
I'd argue integration and cooperation wouldn't stop manipulation of sentiment in just Russia -- Look at it this way, this situation will give authoritarians of any stripe in Europe [and elsewhere] a reason to claim an impending existential threat, and only serve to radicalize both sides. I just hope this doesn't lead to a domino effect of 'sacrifices' in the name of containing a threat. We've seen it before and we will see it again.
But, I do agree, cooperation and appealing to moderation is the best way to serve not only the 'west' but all people.
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 03:55:58 pm
The KGB cloned Tom Clancy?
Or more like the Cold War mentality hasn't died out. If and when (including being elected out of office) Putin loses power, lets just hope the next one wasn't in the KGB or had anything to do with Soviet Russia. Russia really needs to free itself from the mentality of the Cold War era.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 03:57:47 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 03:59:04 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 21, 2014, 04:01:12 pm
Post by: scrdest on March 21, 2014, 04:02:28 pm
The KGB cloned Tom Clancy?
It's not a new phenomenon. The 'our country gets lolinvaded' was a VERY popular genre before WWI.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 04:02:44 pm
True, Russia just seems to be stuck in the mentality a whole lot more than other countries. From what you guys are saying that is.
Russia was under a more totalitarian system than we were, experienced heavier indoctrination and their mentality is also more established - it goes back to the 19th century, hence Guardian's constant invocation of the Colonial Era.
Post by: Frumple on March 21, 2014, 04:05:52 pm
I don't think the book was translated into English. No one in the West would like to read a Russian book of questionable quality with them being the bad guys.You'd... be pretty wrong, there. There wouldn't be the largest of markets for it, but it would exist. I would almost guarantee you there's been some of that stuff translated and sold in western markets already, if you dig hard enough. There'd be stuff sold untranslated, too. Plenty of folks in the west that would love to see some western nations getting shin-kicked.
Post by: Dutchling on March 21, 2014, 04:07:05 pm
Also I'd love to read that book, assuming it's well written of course.
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 04:16:29 pm
As belligerent as Russia is under Putin and the current elite who exploit the anti-Western, nationalist undercurrent that grew in Tsarist times and was expanded upon by the Soviets, I do not believe that we need to defend against them militarily. Russia is no threat to us, only to the poor bastards that they consider to be on their "turf" - that goes for the Baltic Republics and the Black Sea region.Yup, this is where I disagree, but in a different way that you probably thought. Everybody knows that Putin attacking any Central European power would result in it getting kicked back to Port Arthur by all of what's left of Europe. But we can reasonably assume that Putin will try to continue his expansionist policies, maybe even including an attack on the Baltics and/or Poland (discounting NATO).
There's one thing you need to know about me before I continue. I consider Europe my home. All of it. Literally. That's why I'd be just as pissed at an attack on Tallinn or Helsinki as at an attack on, let's say, Magdeburg. And I'm just as willing to defend the Baltics as to defend the Rhine, if that should become necessary.
Russia invading European countries violates my sense of aestethics. I do not like that. And if you're serious about positive nationalism, you should be feeling the same way, Owlbread.
Post by: Owlbread on March 21, 2014, 04:33:34 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 21, 2014, 04:34:45 pm
One question - does the Baltic states and/or Poland have enormous supplies of unobtanium that Russia can't live without?As belligerent as Russia is under Putin and the current elite who exploit the anti-Western, nationalist undercurrent that grew in Tsarist times and was expanded upon by the Soviets, I do not believe that we need to defend against them militarily. Russia is no threat to us, only to the poor bastards that they consider to be on their "turf" - that goes for the Baltic Republics and the Black Sea region.Yup, this is where I disagree, but in a different way that you probably thought. Everybody knows that Putin attacking any Central European power would result in it getting kicked back to Port Arthur by all of what's left of Europe. But we can reasonably assume that Putin will try to continue his expansionist policies, maybe even including an attack on the Baltics and/or Poland (discounting NATO).
I understand the point of Russian meddling in Ukraine - to keep NATO away from Russian naval base in Sevastopol, but attacking Poland or Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia is not only very dangerous in the long term (guaranteed WW3) but also incredibly pointless.
Post by: nenjin on March 21, 2014, 04:47:05 pm
One question - does the Baltic states and/or Poland have enormous supplies of unobtanium that Russia can't live without?As belligerent as Russia is under Putin and the current elite who exploit the anti-Western, nationalist undercurrent that grew in Tsarist times and was expanded upon by the Soviets, I do not believe that we need to defend against them militarily. Russia is no threat to us, only to the poor bastards that they consider to be on their "turf" - that goes for the Baltic Republics and the Black Sea region.Yup, this is where I disagree, but in a different way that you probably thought. Everybody knows that Putin attacking any Central European power would result in it getting kicked back to Port Arthur by all of what's left of Europe. But we can reasonably assume that Putin will try to continue his expansionist policies, maybe even including an attack on the Baltics and/or Poland (discounting NATO).
I understand the point of Russian meddling in Ukraine - to keep NATO away from its naval base in Sevastopol, but attacking Poland or Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia is not only very dangerous in the long term (guaranteed WW3) but also incredibly pointless.
I think the threat of Russian invasion elsewhere is pretty far-fetched.
That said, I thought capturing Crimea was far-fetched too. And currently the US is working itself up into a tizzy over the prospect of Russia crossing into more of Ukraine. Russia deciding now is the perfect time to conduct military exercises along the border isn't helping matters.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 21, 2014, 05:07:39 pm
The KGB cloned Tom Clancy?Heh, my impression exactly.
True, Russia just seems to be stuck in the mentality a whole lot more than other countries. From what you guys are saying that is.@this kinda stuff
If it's using the books/game as an example, the same can be said about the less-thought out crap like cod mw 2. Which was the triple-A-est of AAA games.
I can't remember, was that the one where the player shoots up a Russian airport, the Russians invade the west coast, or both?
Post by: Helgoland on March 21, 2014, 05:28:25 pm
I know Helgoland, I feel the same way about Europe and about Russia invading other countries. It does violate my sense of aesthetics, just like their laws on homosexuality and separatism. I just think though we may need to look at extraordinary methods to counter this and integration may be the only way forward.Exactly! I'd even go so far as to say that integration will eventually happen (see a few posts of mine around page 200), but we should avoid a situation in which it'll be a war that makes it possible. I thought you were saying you were willing to let a Russian expansion of that sort go by unnoticed... Why are you against NATO, then? Integration needs to happen on a civilian level - EU or similar. Military integration won't achieve anything.
Guardian: I don't think they will, and I hope and pray that they won't, but the past weeks have taught every European west of Russia/Belarus that it's not completely unthinkable. And if it happens, we should not be caught unprepared. So basically what nenjin said ;)
Post by: Sonlirain on March 21, 2014, 05:34:00 pm
So the simplest solution? Cap it while ukraine is still in dissaray.
Basically if UPA didn't destabilize the country sevastopol would stay ukrainian because russia would have no real buisness in taking it.
Now Poland and Baltic states... tbh i don't really see a reason for them to do anything beyond maybe trying to nudge us into having a more pro russian goverment but that ain't happening anytime soon and going all Georgia style on them would sprng NATO into action beccause unlike georgia Poalnd and baltics are too close for comfort.
Post by: olemars on March 21, 2014, 05:48:18 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 21, 2014, 05:53:26 pm
Would be nice but in Ukraine we have liberals in power.
Post by: Sonlirain on March 21, 2014, 06:31:13 pm
Yay. UPA got here from 1940s :DAs far as i'm concerned (flags waved around back in maidan) those guys who blew up the legal goverment were their spiritual succesors so you can say they're in control of ukraine now.
Would be nice but in Ukraine we have liberals in power.
Nothing changed really since the 40's as even now they want to make friends with germany like in the olden times.
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 21, 2014, 06:54:09 pm
Nothing changed really since the 40's as even now they want to make friends with germany like in the olden times.You do know that Germany today is quite different from Germany in 40's, right? It's hard to spot sarcasm...
Post by: Descan on March 21, 2014, 08:14:16 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 21, 2014, 09:05:59 pm
Nono, the civilized world is run from Rome, the Germans are barbaric tribes, and dangerous horse-nomads are coming from the East to over-run western civilizations. Nothing has changed!
This is why the treaty for the Sevastopol base lease should have specified the number of horses allowed. Those fools.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 21, 2014, 09:20:58 pm
Nono, the civilized world is run from Rome, the Germans are barbaric tribes, and dangerous horse-nomads are coming from the East to over-run western civilizations. Nothing has changed!They are bear-nomads, now.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 22, 2014, 12:23:53 am
True, Russia just seems to be stuck in the mentality a whole lot more than other countries. From what you guys are saying that is.@this kinda stuff
If it's using the books/game as an example, the same can be said about the less-thought out crap like cod mw 2. Which was the triple-A-est of AAA games.
I can't remember, was that the one where the player shoots up a Russian airport, the Russians invade the west coast, or both?
I believe it was both. It should be noted, however, that the Airport scene was essentially Russian-based terrorists knowing that the guy who "infiltrated" their ranks was actually an American spy, and believed that by murdering Russian civilians and, at the end, shooting and killing the American and leaving him on-site would set the world into motion in a way that most benefited Glorious Mother Russia; sacrifice the few for the betterment of all. The only important thing is the player character's presence: that is, the player may opt to never fire a single bullet. In addition to that, that scene is absolutely not meant to be enjoyed. It is full of panic and terror and screaming and hopelessness, and if I recall correctly, not even the terrorists find the events good in any way (though it's been a long while and I could be wrong).
This also isn't anything against Russians in general, because in Modern Warfare 1, Russia was then in a civil war between... I think it was "ultranationalists" versus whatever group it was that the Americans sided with, and players fight alongside Russians during said civil war. In MW2, you learn that the US "backed the wrong horse" and their involvement only spurred on the ultranationalists who ended up taking the country. And after THAT, you learn the whole thing was heavily instigated by the machinations of a US General, so in the end, the BBEG is an American. I haven't played MW3, so I don't know how the story goes on after that.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 22, 2014, 02:18:38 am
I've held my tongue until now but I'm getting sick and tired of these sovok-era lies, and then claiming that the Ukrainian people must tiptoe around the truth about the UPA and Bandera, who was thrown into a Nazi concentration camp while his two brothers were murdered at Auschwitz. Not to mention the Gestapo liquidating some 80% of OUN leadership after they learned those pesky Ukrainians were trying to declare independence. Now that's some collaboration. I mean, Christ, a few months of non-military cooperation with the Abwehr must mean that the UPA (formed throughout 1943) and its multiple branches/factions (some of which openly fought against each other) ate Russian babies on the behalf of their German overlords. OUN/UPA Cooperation with the Germans was opportunistic at best. If you remember a certain Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Soviets collaborated with the Germans as much if not more than the UPA.Yay. UPA got here from 1940s :DAs far as i'm concerned (flags waved around back in maidan) those guys who blew up the legal goverment were their spiritual succesors so you can say they're in control of ukraine now.
Would be nice but in Ukraine we have liberals in power.
Nothing changed really since the 40's as even now they want to make friends with germany like in the olden times.
The UPA was the only Ukrainian resistance to take up arms against the Nazis and the Soviets for a free Ukraine, the two most brutal regimes in modern times. In the wake of 300+ years of oppression culminating in the Holodomor, the UPA didn't really have much room to pussyfoot around if you ask me.
As for current events, Ukrainian so-called "Fascists" who use the UPA as a symbol of resistance are not the problem here, Putin's aggressive imperialistic nature is.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 04:17:51 am
I'll tell you one secret that Russian propaganda will never tell you. 90% of Ukrainian nationalists are against integration in EU and NATO. Lesser evil is still evil.Yay. UPA got here from 1940s :DAs far as i'm concerned (flags waved around back in maidan) those guys who blew up the legal goverment were their spiritual succesors so you can say they're in control of ukraine now.
Would be nice but in Ukraine we have liberals in power.
Nothing changed really since the 40's as even now they want to make friends with germany like in the olden times.
I am from other 10%, but I am pro-NATO because it is good opportunity to upgrade Ukrainian army and I am pro-EU because I hope that in future Ukraine-Poland influence will change EU for better not because I like EU ideology
Post by: Sergarr on March 22, 2014, 04:40:26 am
Ukraine-Poland
will change EUYeah, I guess they need an U. to add to their P.I.G.S. I wonder, will it be the P.I.G.U.S. or the U.P.I.G.S. ?
Post by: Darvi on March 22, 2014, 04:41:07 am
Post by: Beznogim on March 22, 2014, 04:44:10 am
I'm breaking my hiatus on Russian criticism temporarily; it always amuses me when I hear from anti-Western Russians about Western colonial Empires when Russia is a Western colonial Empire.
No. The situation is absolutely different.
Colonies are the territories separated by large distance from metropole. This means the situation, when the leading ethnicity of the country is a considerable minority in its colonies. For example, there are a lot of British people in England and quite few in India, when it was British colony. Yet what is British people? These are English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish. Indians, despite India being a jewel of British empire - never were to be considered British, they were strangers and were deprived of civil rights.
Considering that large distance implies a lot of time of moving from metropole to colony, it raises the problem of keeping the territories under control. Especially, if the native populance is very different from you in terms of culture and mindset, dislikes you and overwhelms you in numbers.
Therefore, colonial empires trigger a specific type of behavior, where you either beat a native populace into submission to prevent rebellions, or almost completely exterminate it. Which was the fate of Native Americans and Australians, for example. So, basically, colonial empire means treating native population as lower race, sub-humans, untermenschen.
What we have here, I think, is better called - a continental Empire.
When the new territories are adjacent to the main land, you see, it allows the common folk to migrate proportionally, have active contacts with each other, already have some shared history, borrow culture elements, integrate and intermingle into each other. So, almost none ethnicities were discriminated in Russia throughout the history, no one here sent blankets with smallpox to the native peoples of Siberia, for example, and their nobles often became Russian nobility, too. Relations between, say, Russians and Tatars are like between English and Welsh - foreigners would hardly make a difference. Now, imagine an Indian noble in the British House of Lords during Victorian era - while in Russia we had, for example, Bashkir and Azerbaijani nobles, muslim generals, etc. Also we develop new territories, not bleed them out of resources.
We have and always had, especially in comparison to European countries experience, a surprisingly peaceful, united and multi-cultural society.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 05:01:44 am
As for role of Indians in Victorian Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake_Dean_Mahomet
Enjoy guys. Enjoy that "Russia never conquered. It developed (ungrateful) savages" mentality. It's the good old White Man's Burden
Post by: Sergarr on March 22, 2014, 06:55:52 am
Beznogim, Oh, you chose a fitting person to tell him that English andSome of these "savages" managed to scare Europe so much they stopped washing themselves for several centuries.ScotsWelsh had same rights in British Empire. :D
As for role of Indians in Victorian Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake_Dean_Mahomet
Enjoy guys. Enjoy that "Russia never conquered. It developed (ungrateful) savages" mentality. It's the good old White Man's Burden
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2014, 07:37:29 am
No. The situation is absolutely different.
Colonies are the territories separated by large distance from metropole. This means the situation, when the leading ethnicity of the country is a considerable minority in its colonies. For example, there are a lot of British people in England and quite few in India, when it was British colony. Yet what is British people? These are English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish. Indians, despite India being a jewel of British empire - never were to be considered British, they were strangers and were deprived of civil rights.
I could talk about how Scots, Welsh, English and especially Irish people did not have the same rights in the British Empire (Irishmen were considered "n*ggers turned inside out") but that would distract from the main issues here.
Quote
Therefore, colonial empires trigger a specific type of behavior, where you either beat a native populace into submission to prevent rebellions, or almost completely exterminate it. Which was the fate of Native Americans and Australians, for example. So, basically, colonial empire means treating native population as lower race, sub-humans, untermenschen.
This is very interesting considering I have heard several Russians use those exact words to describe Caucasians, and if you don't call this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Circassians) genocide I don't know what is. Same with the deportations that lead to nearly 50% of the Crimean Tatar population dying of starvation, or the deportation of the Vainakh (Chechen/Ingush) peoples which led to up to 200,000 of the 500,000 Vainakhs in total dying of starvation and neglect.
Again with the Soviet revisionist bile. I know we criticise the Japanese for rewriting history in school history textbooks but this really gets on my wick.
Quote
What we have here, I think, is better called - a continental Empire.
When the new territories are adjacent to the main land, you see, it allows the common folk to migrate proportionally, have active contacts with each other, already have some shared history, borrow culture elements, integrate and intermingle into each other.
I take it by "intermingle and integrate" you mean ethnically cleanse and displace? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union) Leading to, in effect, genocide as a result of starvation and hardship?
Quote
So, almost none ethnicities were discriminated in Russia throughout the history, no one here sent blankets with smallpox to the native peoples of Siberia, for example, and their nobles often became Russian nobility, too.
You mean certain ethnic groups were considered more useful than others to the Russian colonists, like the Ossetians. They have been consistently used in attempts to keep tabs on the Caucasian nations whether they were Ingush, Chechen or especially Georgian. Those that were considered a problem (i.e. wanted independence) were going to have it tough. In Scotland the British government did the same thing by choosing Protestant Highland clans like the Munros and Campbells to control the rebellious ones.
Ethnic groups considered useful to the Russian establishment have been rewarded in the past for their support. Take a look at the East Prigorodny Conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prigorodny_Conflict) where native Ingush were ethnically cleansed from their lands in North Ossetia-Alania by Ossetian militias supported by Russian government forces.
Quote
Relations between, say, Russians and Tatars are like between English and Welsh - foreigners would hardly make a difference.
I notice you are bringing up the Tatars and Bashkirs, ethnic groups considered useful and non threatening to Russian control.
Quote
Now, imagine an Indian noble in the British House of Lords during Victorian era
Why, yes. Yes, imagine that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Prasanno_Sinha,_1st_Baron_Sinha)
Quote
Also we develop new territories, not bleed them out of resources.
So that's what you call it.
Quote
We have and always had, especially in comparison to European countries experience, a surprisingly peaceful, united and multi-cultural society.
I was going to give you a list of all the nationalist insurgencies that the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation have faced in the last 300 years of expansion but I realised it was going to be so long it would be virtually impossible to fit in. Let me just say that nearly 20,000 Russian men and boys didn't die in two wars 20 years ago because you showed the people of the mountains too much kindness, nor those who died in the last insurgency, or the insurgency before that...
I'm just going to show you this quote taken from this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin:_The_First_In-depth_Biography_Based_on_Explosive_New_Documents_from_Russia%27s_Secret_Archives) by the Russian playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edvard_Radzinsky) in which Soviet records were examined in order to write a biography of Stalin.
The following quote is taken from an eyewitness of the Khaibakh massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaibakh_massacre) during the Vainakh deportations (previously mentioned) also known as "Operation Lentil".
Quote from: Eyewitness, 1944
they combed the huts to make sure there was no one left behind... The soldier who came into the house did not want to bend down. He raked the hut with a burst from his submachine gun. Blood trickled out from under the bench where a child was hiding. The mother screamed and hurled herself at the soldier. He shot her too. There was not enough rolling stock. Those left behind were shot. The bodies were covered with earth and sand, carelessly. The shooting had also been careless, and people started wriggling out of the sand like worms. The NKVD men spent the whole night shooting them all over again.
During the massacre more than 700 people were locked in a barn and burned to death by NKVD General Gveshiani who was awarded a medal for his efforts by Beria. Chechen soldiers came home to discover that while they had been fighting for the USSR on the Eastern Front, their relatives had been burned alive. I should have made it clear that these people, the ones killed in the massacre, were the people considered impossible to transport. That meant they were basically all old women, newborn babies and children.
I have similar quotes to hand for the genocide/ethnic cleansing of the Circassians, Nogai, Balkars etc if you want. Stories that are certainly burned into my mind, anyway.
It's funny, I know how people often talk about "American Exceptionalism" but there's still very much an old concept of Russian/Soviet benevolence that just refuses to die no matter how many Russians are killed in inter-ethnic wars and insurgencies.
Post by: Knit tie on March 22, 2014, 07:41:30 am
Post by: XXSockXX on March 22, 2014, 07:59:09 am
What we have here, I think, is better called - a continental Empire.I could use your exact words to describe German Ostsiedlung from the 12th - 19th century, migration of common folk, trade contacts, mixing of nobility, shared history and culture, foundation of settlements near the main territory. That all describes the situation quite well. I have no idea why, barring some minor misunderstandings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uez8dJ-MGw), Russians would have objected to joining our peaceful, multicultural society.
When the new territories are adjacent to the main land, you see, it allows the common folk to migrate proportionally, have active contacts with each other, already have some shared history, borrow culture elements, integrate and intermingle into each other. So, almost none ethnicities were discriminated in Russia throughout the history, no one here sent blankets with smallpox to the native peoples of Siberia, for example, and their nobles often became Russian nobility, too. Relations between, say, Russians and Tatars are like between English and Welsh - foreigners would hardly make a difference. Now, imagine an Indian noble in the British House of Lords during Victorian era - while in Russia we had, for example, Bashkir and Azerbaijani nobles, muslim generals, etc. Also we develop new territories, not bleed them out of resources.
We have and always had, especially in comparison to European countries experience, a surprisingly peaceful, united and multi-cultural society.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 22, 2014, 08:29:09 am
Mostly frozen and starved to death, disease, and of course beatings, rape, etc from people who were pissed off as a result of the war.
Most of Europe can't be found blameless as a result of the 20th century, it was as bloody, depraved, and savage as any century in the past and anyone who believes otherwise has been brainwashed by their government.
God or whatever diety you believe in help us if we cant avoid this kind of shit returning, and honestly it seems that whenever a population is deprived, mistreated, or starved enough they will always turn to enhanced nationalism and violently oppress whatever minoritys happen to be around. Universally, no exception, laws, morals, religion, all fall down against the mighty weight of human nature. The only thing that keeps us away from that kind of carnage is open dialogue, transparent government, free media, and even then corruption and atrocity always manage to find a way of sneaking in, but we can hope that things can get better, right?
Post by: DJ on March 22, 2014, 09:14:25 am
And if you think the Russians treated their colonies well, you should read up on Hungary '56.
Post by: Beznogim on March 22, 2014, 09:48:47 am
As for role of Indians in Victorian Britain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake_Dean_MahometIt is more of an exception to the rule. Similar to the existence of black slaveholders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slaveholders) in USA.
Owlbread
I could talk about how Scots, Welsh, English and especially Irish people did not have the same rights in the British Empire (Irishmen were considered "n*ggers turned inside out") but that would distract from the main issues here.Ok, maybe I had too idealistic picture about Britain society. My bad, sorry.
This is very interesting considering I have heard several Russians use those exact words to describe Caucasians,
It is mostly the product of "city vs village" conflict, because some Caucasus rural inhabitants for some reasons still possess warlike medieval mentality (plus religious zeal). All village folk, disregarding ethnicity, is generally considered as "быдло" (cattle), so no surprise, that their migration to the capital causes some tension.
and if you don't call this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Circassians) genocide I don't know what is.First, I said, "almost". Second, genocide is a mass killing of an ethnic group. These people were offered: either resettlement within Russian empire, or resettlement into Turkey. Only a small part chose to remain in Russia - and this group exists still. No intentional killings - no genocide.
And the whole Caucasus conflict initially escalated, because local inhabitants were constantly robbing Russian trade caravans moving to Georgia. It was like having a pirate enclave, similar to Caribbean pirates, only on land.
Same with the deportations that lead to nearly 50% of the Crimean Tatar population dying of starvation, or the deportation of the Vainakh (Chechen/Ingush) peoples which led to up to 200,000 of the 500,000 Vainakhs in total dying of starvation and neglect.Crimean Tatar and Vainakh deportations were the WW2 necessity. If they had supported the German invaders, it would cause some very huge problems.
And again, they were moved, not deliberately killed. As for starvation - the whole country was scarce on food at that period.
You mean certain ethnic groups were considered more useful than others to the Russian colonists, like the Ossetians. They have been consistently used in attempts to keep tabs on the Caucasian nations whether they were Ingush, Chechen or especially Georgian. Those that were considered a problem (i.e. wanted independence) were going to have it tough. In Scotland the British government did the same thing by choosing Protestant Highland clans like the Munros and Campbells to control the rebellious ones.Russia consists of about 185 ethnic groups. So more than a hundred and a half were considered useful. That is - almost all.
Ethnic groups considered useful to the Russian establishment have been rewarded in the past for their support. Take a look at the East Prigorodny Conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prigorodny_Conflict) where native Ingush were ethnically cleansed from their lands in North Ossetia-Alania by Ossetian militias supported by Russian government forces.This conflict is of 1989 - 1992, so it is of time, when USSR was crumbling apart. The late 80s - early 90s were a really shitty time, indeed.
Why, yes. Yes, imagine that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Prasanno_Sinha,_1st_Baron_Sinha)1919. XX century, civilized time period already.
Victorian era is approximately 1837 - 1901. So, in 1800 - 1900 it would have still been an unthinkable act, I guess. And that proves my point.
India was colonised in 1612. And the first Indian lord in Britain appeared only 300 years after that.
Russia was cool with foreign culture nobility since about 1700.
Let me just say that nearly 20,000 Russian men and boys didn't die in two wars 20 years ago because you showed the people of the mountains too much kindness, nor those who died in the last insurgency, or the insurgency before that...People of the mountains 20 years ago got under heavy influence of the Wahhabism ideology, sponsored by Saudi Arabia in an attempt to turn the land into second shithole like Afghanistan.
I'm just going to show you this quote taken from this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin:_The_First_In-depth_Biography_Based_on_Explosive_New_Documents_from_Russia%27s_Secret_Archives) by the Russian playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edvard_Radzinsky) in which Soviet records were examined in order to write a biography of Stalin.Worse than citing Radzinsky is to cite Fomenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko) with his alternate timeline.
Knit tie
Beznogim, Russia is a colonial empire even now. Moscow is its pampered metropole, everything other than central Russia is its neglected colony.I have relatives in Vladivostok. The living conditions are quite decent there, I assure you.
Post by: Cheeetar on March 22, 2014, 09:57:19 am
I'm just going to show you this quote taken from this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin:_The_First_In-depth_Biography_Based_on_Explosive_New_Documents_from_Russia%27s_Secret_Archives) by the Russian playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edvard_Radzinsky) in which Soviet records were examined in order to write a biography of Stalin.Worse than citing Radzinsky is to cite Fomenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko) with his alternate timeline.
How are these two people related in the slightest?
Post by: Beznogim on March 22, 2014, 10:00:27 am
How are these two people related in the slightest?
Both are considered clowns by a lot of people in Russia.
Post by: Cheeetar on March 22, 2014, 10:04:36 am
How are these two people related in the slightest?
Both are considered clowns by a lot of people in Russia.
[citation needed]
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2014, 10:06:20 am
Both are considered clowns by a lot of people in Russia.
So what historians do I have to quote for you to consider my arguments credible?
Post by: Sindain on March 22, 2014, 10:12:01 am
Colonies are the territories separated by large distance from metropole. This means the situation, when the leading ethnicity of the country is a considerable minority in its colonies. For example, there are a lot of British people in England and quite few in India, when it was British colony.
So, if the main ethnicity of the mother country and the main ethnicity of the colony have to be different, that means the 13 colonies were never actually colonies? nice to know.
and if you don't call this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_of_Circassians) genocide I don't know what is.First, I said, "almost". Second, genocide is a mass killing of an ethnic group. These people were offered: either resettlement within Russian empire, or resettlement into Turkey. Only a small part chose to remain in Russia - and this group exists still. No intentional killings - no genocide.
And the whole Caucasus conflict initially escalated, because local inhabitants were constantly robbing Russian trade caravans moving to Georgia. It was like having a pirate enclave, similar to Caribbean pirates, only on land.Same with the deportations that lead to nearly 50% of the Crimean Tatar population dying of starvation, or the deportation of the Vainakh (Chechen/Ingush) peoples which led to up to 200,000 of the 500,000 Vainakhs in total dying of starvation and neglect.Crimean Tatar and Vainakh deportations were the WW2 necessity. If they had supported the German invaders, it would cause some very huge problems.
And again, they were moved, not deliberately killed. As for starvation - the whole country was scarce on food at that period.
Whenever you say resettlement like its a good thing or even just not bad I flinch. Maybe this just highlights the difference in mindset, but I know in my country some of our worst atrocities were under the veil of "resettlement" and "necessary for the war effort".
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2014, 10:19:33 am
It is mostly the product of "city vs village" conflict, because some Caucasus rural inhabitants for some reasons still possess warlike medieval mentality (plus religious zeal). All village folk, disregarding ethnicity, is generally considered as "быдло" (cattle), so no surprise, that their migration to the capital causes some tension.
I think that sounds a lot like a dodge. I heard them being described as subhuman monkeys. People who "aren't human". If you want to put that down to a non-racist, non-sectarian conflict of rural vs urban people hell mend you.
Quote
First, I said, "almost". Second, genocide is a mass killing of an ethnic group. These people were offered: either resettlement within Russian empire, or resettlement into Turkey. Only a small part chose to remain in Russia - and this group exists still. No intentional killings - no genocide.
No intentional killings...
Quote from: Alexander Ohtov, President of the Federal National Cultural Autonomy of Russian Circassians
"Yes, I believe that the concept of genocide against the Circassians was justified. To understand why we are talking about the genocide, you have to look at history. During the Russian-Caucasian war, Russian generals not only expelled the Circassians, but also destroyed them physically. Not only killed them in combat but burned hundreds of villages with civilians. Spared neither children nor women nor the elderly. The entire fields of ripe crops were burned, the orchards cut down, so that the Circassians could not return to their habitations. A destruction of civilian population on a massive scale is it not a genocide?"
In the modern era it is still possible to find the bones of Circassian civilians in valleys in Krasnodar Krai lying out in the open, butchered by Russian soldiers.
Quote
And the whole Caucasus conflict initially escalated, because local inhabitants were constantly robbing Russian trade caravans moving to Georgia. It was like having a pirate enclave, similar to Caribbean pirates, only on land.
So that warrants deporting the entire nation to another country, killing tens of thousands in the process?
Quote
Crimean Tatar and Vainakh deportations were the WW2 necessity. If they had supported the German invaders, it would cause some very huge problems.
So because a number of Vainakhs supported the German invaders (there was no Crimean Tatar support of any meaningful sort) in an alliance that was extremely shaky and basically collapsed within a few years because they both hated each other's guts, that warranted the deportation of 500 000 people? An entire nation? To the middle of the steppe? With no food or work or services?
Quote
And again, they were moved, not deliberately killed. As for starvation - the whole country was scarce on food at that period.
This is just wonderful. I really hope Ukrainian Ranger reads this because you'd make the same argument about the Holodomor. "It was just an accident, we didn't mean to kill 200,000 on purpose... Who knew what would happen if we put hundreds of thousands of people in packed, uninsulated, unheated freight trucks and sent them 2000 miles into the desert/steppe?"
Quote
Russia consists of about 185 ethnic groups. So more than a hundred and a half were considered useful. That is - almost all.
The vast majority were/are so tiny they couldn't mount a resistance of any meaningful sort, nor could they in the past.
Quote
This conflict is of 1989 - 1992, so it is of time, when USSR was crumbling apart. The late 80s - early 90s were a really shitty time, indeed.
This is the response I always hear when I make reference to the Russian state's appalling actions. "Oh but it happened in the 90s - we don't talk about the 90s". Where do you think the guys that committed those atrocities and gave the orders are today?
Quote
India was colonised in 1612. And the first Indian lord in Britain appeared only 300 years after that.
Russia was cool with foreign culture nobility since about 1700.
The "foreign cultural nobility" of cultures considered useful to the establishment, like those you have repeatedly mentioned - Tatars and Bashkirs and my own mention the Ossetes.
Quote
People of the mountains 20 years ago got under heavy influence of the Wahhabism ideology, sponsored by Saudi Arabia in an attempt to turn the land into second shithole like Afghanistan.
Fantastic. So the first Chechen War and the Second Chechen war had nothing to do with National Liberation or grievances about human rights abuses in the past, only foreign influence. Russia has never done anything wrong and outside forces are responsible for all your problems. Excuse my straw man but that kind of thought process gets on my nerves to no end.
Again, I look forward to you informing me which historians I need to be quoting and citing before you'll bother to consider what I'm saying to be credible. Evidently the ones I've chosen haven't passed the test.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 22, 2014, 10:29:05 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 10:32:50 am
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 10:34:32 am
Though if he really IS the only one in the Duma who voted against the thing, then good for him for not going with the bandwagon.
Unsurprisingly, Russian authorities retaliated against this one guy who dared to speak out and disagree with Putin.
Post by: smirk on March 22, 2014, 10:40:14 am
Owlbread, That may be rude but... I suggest to stop wasting your time on a guy who has 25 posts over three years. Your arguments will not change his mindset and he is not a true Bay12er to care about his walls of textThat's not quite fair; Bay12 isn't a gated community. Beznogim has played and (presumably) enjoyed DF; they're not a spambot and that's really the only hurdle they need to clear.
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 10:43:40 am
Post by: Lagslayer on March 22, 2014, 10:47:31 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 10:51:36 am
Russia seems about ready to flood through the Ukranian border and make Ukraine into a vassal state of Russia.All I ask is a proof. Actual proof.
Post by: scriver on March 22, 2014, 10:52:11 am
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 10:55:56 am
Russia seems about ready to flood through the Ukranian border and make Ukraine into a vassal state of Russia.All I ask is a proof. Actual proof.
The only proof I have is their massing on the Ukranian border and their past actions, I didn't say it was fact. If anything, it's a statement of opinion.
Honest line of thought: Should the interregnum government of Ukraine organise their own referendums in the provinces of asking them whether they want to stay in Ukraine or join Russia? As a preemptive move to counter any possible claim Russia might come up with.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 10:58:37 am
Russia seems about ready to flood through the Ukranian border and make Ukraine into a vassal state of Russia.All I ask is a proof. Actual proof.
The only proof I have is their massing on the Ukranian border and their past actions, I didn't say it was fact. If anything, it's a statement of opinion.
You know, our Misnistry of Defence allowed Ukrainian scout plane to cross the border and scout on Russian side in order to ensure them we have no forces concentrated on the border. No more than we used to have before this mess began. Waiting for results.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 22, 2014, 11:01:55 am
Not only would the interim gov get soooo ousted, they may be giving it away for nothing. Not to mention, you're assuming Russia's motives are /actually/ aligned with 'protecting ethnic russians'.
The only reason I can see for an invasion of Ukraine proper is to prevent them getting nukes & integrating with the EU.
Giving them Ukraine's eastern industrial hubs won't dissuade that.
Also, if they hold the referendums & they come back 'stay with Ukraine', would you really expect Russia to go 'welp, the people spoke, guess that's that' if they want to invade?
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:06:05 am
Scriver, that's like mailing the bully your lunchmoney.
Not only would the interim gov get soooo ousted, they may be giving it away for nothing. Not to mention, you're assuming Russia's motives are /actually/ aligned with 'protecting ethnic russians'.
The only reason I can see for an invasion of Ukraine proper is to prevent them getting nukes & integrating with the EU.
Giving them Ukraine's eastern industrial hubs won't dissuade that.
Also, if they hold the referendums & they come back 'stay with Ukraine', would you really expect Russia to go 'welp, the people spoke, guess that's that' if they want to invade?
Um, reality check, since when have they expressed a desire for getting nukes? Also, remember that Budapest treaty? They gave up the nukes that they accquired from the Soviet Union* and promised not to make any.
*More like suddenly found themselves owning the nukes that were on their lands.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 11:08:20 am
You know, our Misnistry of Defence allowed Ukrainian scout plane to cross the border and scout on Russian side in order to ensure them we have no forces concentrated on the border. No more than we used to have before this mess began. Waiting for results.Yes. Allowed. In predefined zone in Russian aircraft without special equipment installed. At least that what it was two weeks ago. Doubt that the offer changed
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 22, 2014, 11:09:16 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 11:13:22 am
As far as I know, it is Ukrainian AН-30Б. With equipment. No idea about predefined zone, but if it's true, it has very little sense, except the zone includes all the border region, but I doubt it is so.You know, our Misnistry of Defence allowed Ukrainian scout plane to cross the border and scout on Russian side in order to ensure them we have no forces concentrated on the border. No more than we used to have before this mess began. Waiting for results.Yes. Allowed. In predefined zone in Russian aircraft without special equipment installed. At least that what it was two weeks ago. Doubt that the offer changed
I'm just generally convinced that Russia has no interventional intensions. It causes a war, and I doubt that most of Russians can even imagine war with Ukraine. Don't know about Ukrainians, but overall it seems to me they are looking at it as if it is a very possible variant, though among them points of view are also different.
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:14:24 am
Besides, nukes aren't that easily fabricated.
And if they had been trying to get nukes, they would be breaking the Budapest memorandum, specifically the nuclear non-proliferation part of it.
It's pretty clear that Russia broke part 1 and 2 of that memorandum. It would have been great if the memorandum specified the consequences of breaking the treaty, but then again, Russia might not have agreed or recognized the memorandum if consequences were specified.
Edit: Huh, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#1994_Crimean_crisis Crimea (a republic back then) tried to join Russia some 20 years ago but Ukraine absorbed it. I wonder if this is a factor in Russias' motives.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 22, 2014, 11:21:21 am
Someone mentioned Ukraine played a major role in ICBM manufacturing in soviet times. Therefore they could still retain the capability to manufacture their own.
Russia's broken that treaty, and both the USA & UK could seek to revise it given Russia's recent actions.
Heh, yeah, I saw that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 11:22:44 am
Link in Russian (http://www.dw.de/в-россии-могут-запретить-закупать-импортное-медицинское-оборудование/a-17509711?maca=rus-rss-ru-all-1126-xml-mrss)
How many Russians will die if that will happen? I guess it is another necessary sacrifice (c)
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:25:45 am
There are enough nuclear weapons in the world already, we don't need to proliferate them.
Russia may ban import of medical equipment as response to the western sanctions
Link in Russian (http://www.dw.de/в-россии-могут-запретить-закупать-импортное-медицинское-оборудование/a-17509711?maca=rus-rss-ru-all-1126-xml-mrss)
How many Russians will die if that will happen? I guess it is another necessary sacrifice (c)
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction that isn't thought out as far as the consequences. Heck, medical equipment and medicine don't fall under international sanctions, so the Russians are only hurting themselves if they do this.
Post by: martinuzz on March 22, 2014, 11:26:16 am
Post by: KingBacon on March 22, 2014, 11:31:00 am
I have read that the only land transportation routes into Crimea are through Ukraine, why don't Ukrainian officials prepare to blockade the peninsula? Are they afraid this might prompt further incursions?
Post by: Dutchling on March 22, 2014, 11:32:08 am
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 11:34:10 am
Russia may ban import of medical equipment as response to the western sanctions
Link in Russian (http://www.dw.de/в-россии-могут-запретить-закупать-импортное-медицинское-оборудование/a-17509711?maca=rus-rss-ru-all-1126-xml-mrss)
How many Russians will die if that will happen? I guess it is another necessary sacrifice (c)
You know, I usually try to defend Russian political acts and turn them the good side front-wise, but this is really fucking horrible. Russian beraucrats are so Russian. "Let's do something!" "Yes!" "What gives foreign companies large profits and still is rather small buisness?" "Medical equipment!" "Let's ban it! I'll get to heal in EU in case!" "Yeah, me too! Let's do that!"
Fuckers.
I have read that the only land transportation routes into Crimea are through Ukraine, why don't Ukrainian officials prepare to blockade the peninsula? Are they afraid this might prompt further incursions?Because Kerch. Russia has another access to Crimea, though the normal bridge over the strait is only about to be established in few years.
EDIT: And because blockading Crimea would mean they confess it is now a part of Russia. And they haven't officially confessed yet.
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:35:02 am
Question, why didn't the Ukrainain's try to pull out war material from it's bases? Why didn't they mine the harbors?
I have read that the only land transportation routes into Crimea are through Ukraine, why don't Ukrainian officials prepare to blockade the peninsula? Are they afraid this might prompt further incursions?
They didn't mine the harbor because 1, it's a major shipping zone, and 2, they got surprise attacked by Russia.
I can't answer the part about war material and blockading the penninsula because I simply don't know.
Pretty sure mining is against international law so I'm not sure they even have mines.
I think that's just landmines? They got caught by surprise anyway and didn't even have time to place any, if they have seamines.
Post by: scrdest on March 22, 2014, 11:38:29 am
Russia may ban import of medical equipment as response to the western sanctions
Link in Russian (http://www.dw.de/в-россии-могут-запретить-закупать-импортное-медицинское-оборудование/a-17509711?maca=rus-rss-ru-all-1126-xml-mrss)
How many Russians will die if that will happen? I guess it is another necessary sacrifice (c)
You know, I usually try to defend Russian political acts and turn them the good side front-wise, but this is really fucking horrible. Russian beraucrats are so Russian. "Let's do something!" "Yes!" "What gives foreign companies large profits and still is rather small buisness?" "Medical equipment!" "Let's ban it! I'll get to heal in EU in case!" "Yeah, me too! Let's do that!"
Fuckers.I have read that the only land transportation routes into Crimea are through Ukraine, why don't Ukrainian officials prepare to blockade the peninsula? Are they afraid this might prompt further incursions?Because Kerch. Russia has another access to Crimea, though the normal bridge over the strait is only about to be established in few years.
EDIT: And because blockading Crimea would mean they confess it is now a part of Russia. And they haven't officially confessed yet.
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 11:39:27 am
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Sure thing. But they can visit Israel in that case.
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:40:56 am
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Sure thing. But they can visit Israel in that case.
Not unless Israel sanctions them. I suppose they can always go to China, or Cuba.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 11:41:48 am
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Sure thing. But they can visit Israel in that case.
Not unless Israel sanctions them. I suppose they can always go to China, or Cuba.
Well, yes. But you got the point, right?
Post by: scrdest on March 22, 2014, 11:42:23 am
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Sure thing. But they can visit Israel in that case.
Not unless Israel sanctions them. I suppose they can always go to China, or Cuba.
Maybe that's why Cuba has so much doctors, USSR used them as a medical treatment reserves :P
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 11:46:32 am
Hmm, that would be poetic justice if, when they got sick, they would find themselves unable to go to EU because sanctions.
Sure thing. But they can visit Israel in that case.
Not unless Israel sanctions them. I suppose they can always go to China, or Cuba.
Well, yes. But you got the point, right?
Yes I got the point. :)
Still going to hurt all those Russians who can't afford to travel to other countries for medical care.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 22, 2014, 12:21:37 pm
Not only would the interim gov get soooo ousted, they may be giving it away for nothing. Not to mention, you're assuming Russia's motives are /actually/ aligned with 'protecting ethnic russians'.I am honestly rather amused by this. Russia can't even have an honestly morally sound basis for its actions without it seeming like a coverup for something anymore. :P Not claiming it's true, just observing - if Russia did have the interests of ethnic Russians abroad in mind first and foremost, it would still get the same treatment, because 'obviously they can't be doing that just for the people'. :)
Also, shortage of something = incentive to develop better ways to produce something. Cruel and effective. ^_^
Post by: Beznogim on March 22, 2014, 12:49:47 pm
[citation needed]
It is general public opinion, really.
For example, this guy (also historian, and politologist) (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вершинин,_Лев_Рэмович) has called him several times an idiot, while analyzing in this blog (http://putnik1.livejournal.com/1950611.html). Careful, links in Russian!
And I could find a lot more stuff like that, if I wished.
Owlbread
So what historians do I have to quote for you to consider my arguments credible?I can't really tell, it's just this one isn't the best choice, really.
I think that sounds a lot like a dodge. I heard them being described as subhuman monkeys. People who "aren't human". If you want to put that down to a non-racist, non-sectarian conflict of rural vs urban people hell mend you.No, the attitude is really dependent on person's initial behavior. If that Caucasian doesn't assault you and acts like a normal, civilized person, then he is treated like a normal person. If the person behaves like a subhuman monkey, then he is a subhuman monkey.
Some Caucasians in terms of appearance are hardly distinguishable from Russians (Chechen leader, Kadyrov, for example) and can be identified only by behavior or accent. Some Caucasians, like Armenians, are tan-skinned, yet very close to Russians in terms of mentality. So, this is a very complex matter.
I guess, those who say stuff about monkeys are either a minority (like the neo-nazis in Germany, for example), or do not really mean it. There are a lot of mocking and insulting nicknames in Russia for many ethnicities and neighboring countries - Ukraine for example is called "Khokhlostan", yet those say it do not actually feel hate or prejudice.
Russian wiki mentions burning the crops and stealing cattle. The main goal was to drive people out, to demoralize them - not to slaughter them.QuoteFirst, I said, "almost". Second, genocide is a mass killing of an ethnic group. These people were offered: either resettlement within Russian empire, or resettlement into Turkey. Only a small part chose to remain in Russia - and this group exists still. No intentional killings - no genocide.
No intentional killings...Quote from: Alexander Ohtov, President of the Federal National Cultural Autonomy of Russian Circassians"Yes, I believe that the concept of genocide against the Circassians was justified. To understand why we are talking about the genocide, you have to look at history. During the Russian-Caucasian war, Russian generals not only expelled the Circassians, but also destroyed them physically. Not only killed them in combat but burned hundreds of villages with civilians. Spared neither children nor women nor the elderly. The entire fields of ripe crops were burned, the orchards cut down, so that the Circassians could not return to their habitations. A destruction of civilian population on a massive scale is it not a genocide?"
In the modern era it is still possible to find the bones of Circassian civilians in valleys in Krasnodar Krai lying out in the open, butchered by Russian soldiers.
And yes, it is somewhat justifiable, considering the war lasts for 50 years and it is not Russians, who started it.
So that warrants deporting the entire nation to another country, killing tens of thousands in the process?A comparatively small nation, that literally has a robber culture and preys on your caravans, on your people? The war started, because these people attacked Russian people - no one cared about them and their territories before that for centuries.
If people cannot be reasoned with and cause trouble, you do not humbly endure that, you do something. And their resettlement to a place, where they cannot cause trouble, was a reasonable measure.
So because a number of Vainakhs supported the German invaders (there was no Crimean Tatar support of any meaningful sort) in an alliance that was extremely shaky and basically collapsed within a few years because they both hated each other's guts, that warranted the deportation of 500 000 people? An entire nation? To the middle of the steppe? With no food or work or services?Rural Vainakh villages are self-sustainable medieval-style villages. They do not work or have sophisticated services. Most North Caucasians do not work even now - a true mountain-person is supposed to take things from others by force - work is humiliation for them. Besides, what's wrong with the steppe? Kazhakhs live there, they don't complain.
And many Crimean Tatars were collaborating with Germans. Maybe it was too harsh to condemn the whole nation for that, but they had quite a bad reputation already. Also, it is a very small nation - 500 000 people is like 1/20 of Moscow.
This is just wonderful. I really hope Ukrainian Ranger reads this because you'd make the same argument about the Holodomor. "It was just an accident, we didn't mean to kill 200,000 on purpose... Who knew what would happen if we put hundreds of thousands of people in packed, uninsulated, unheated freight trucks and sent them 2000 miles into the desert/steppe?"Since they embarked in a steppe, I would expect them to dig, find a water source for a well, grow some plump helmets, build some workplaces and surround their fortress with walls to withstand a goblin siege.
This is the response I always hear when I make reference to the Russian state's appalling actions. "Oh but it happened in the 90s - we don't talk about the 90s". Where do you think the guys that committed those atrocities and gave the orders are today?It's not that "we don't talk about the 90s" - it is that the 90s are a really shitty time - a time of anarchy, economical collapse and territories falling apart. A geopolitical catastrophe. Whatever happened during that period - is a shameful part of our history, indeed.
The "foreign cultural nobility" of cultures considered useful to the establishment, like those you have repeatedly mentioned - Tatars and Bashkirs and my own mention the Ossetes.Of course they must be useful. Geopolitics is not charity.
Fantastic. So the first Chechen War and the Second Chechen war had nothing to do with National Liberation or grievances about human rights abuses in the past, only foreign influence. Russia has never done anything wrong and outside forces are responsible for all your problems.No, the Chechen Wars are our war against radical islamists. And radical islamism is bad, m'kay?
Ukrainian Ranger
Owlbread, That may be rude but... I suggest to stop wasting your time on a guy who has 25 posts over three years. Your arguments will not change his mindset and he is not a true Bay12er to care about his walls of text
If I post rarely, doesn't mean I dwell here rarely.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 22, 2014, 01:01:10 pm
I don't think they would be more democratic and humane.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 01:06:02 pm
Quote
No, the attitude is really dependent on person's initial behavior. If that Caucasian doesn't assault you and acts like a normal, civilized person, then he is treated like a normal person. If the person behaves like a subhuman monkey, then he is a subhuman monkey.If that would be an American racist he would say something like:
"No, the attitude is really dependent on person's initial behavior. If that Black doesn't assault you and acts like a normal, civilized person, then he is treated like a normal person. If the person behaves like a subhuman monkey, then he is a subhuman monkey."
Racists don't seem to understand that calling a person something like n***r or monkey for his behavior is unacceptable even if that person does act
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 22, 2014, 01:09:25 pm
Before people start tearing Beznogim to shreds, I want to say that I'm curious: how would Great Britain, France or any European country react to a similar situation Russia ended up in before the Caucasian War with mountain people constantly causing trouble on their borders?
... The only reason those 'mountain people' caused trouble is because of Russia occupying and destroying their lands. Occupying lands, being outright hostile to 'mountain people' and even not allowing them to represent themselves may build up resentment in local populations and lead to insurgency. Go figure.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 22, 2014, 01:13:17 pm
Since when is it unacceptable to insult someone for their unacceptable behavior, regardless of any other variables? Russians (or Russia as a whole) get a whole lot of things being said at them for the events in Crimea.QuoteNo, the attitude is really dependent on person's initial behavior. If that Caucasian doesn't assault you and acts like a normal, civilized person, then he is treated like a normal person. If the person behaves like a subhuman monkey, then he is a subhuman monkey.If that would be an American racist he would say something like:
"No, the attitude is really dependent on person's initial behavior. If that Black doesn't assault you and acts like a normal, civilized person, then he is treated like a normal person. If the person behaves like a subhuman monkey, then he is a subhuman monkey."
Racists don't seem to understand that calling a person something like n***r or monkey for his behavior is unacceptable even if that person does actbadlyin a way the racist dislike
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 01:17:42 pm
Mountain people tend to create serious problems for invaders. Be it Scotland, Montenegro, Afghanistan, Western Ukraine, Caucasus.... And all of them were called dirty cruel savagers and bandits who doesn't know how to workBefore people start tearing Beznogim to shreds, I want to say that I'm curious: how would Great Britain, France or any European country react to a similar situation Russia ended up in before the Caucasian War with mountain people constantly causing trouble on their borders?
... The only reason those 'mountain people' caused trouble is because of Russia occupying and destroying their lands. Occupying lands, being outright hostile to 'mountain people' and even not allowing them to represent themselves may build up resentment in local populations and lead to insurgency. Go figure.
Quote
Since when is it unacceptable to insult someone for their unacceptable behavior, regardless of any other variables? Russians (or Russia as a whole) get a whole lot of things being said at them for the events in Crimea.While discussion in this thread is rather heated I don't remember anti-Russian racism. At least large scale one
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 22, 2014, 01:28:13 pm
I didn't say "racist". Does a person have to be of any specific ethnicity, or fall under any other easily applicable label, in order to be eligible for verbal assault in response to unacceptable actions? That's what I meant, re: this:QuoteSince when is it unacceptable to insult someone for their unacceptable behavior, regardless of any other variables? Russians (or Russia as a whole) get a whole lot of things being said at them for the events in Crimea.While discussion in this thread is rather heated I don't remember anti-Russian racist. At least large scale one
Quote
Racists don't seem to understand that calling a person something like n***r or monkey for his behavior is unacceptable even if that person does actThe labels just make the assault easier to carry out, and more/less effective.badlyin a way the racist dislike
Post by: misko27 on March 22, 2014, 01:31:54 pm
On what I hope is a new subject, no Russia doesn't have a land bridge into Crimea. And saying there will be one doesn't count, it doesn't exist until it does. So until then Crimea is dependent on Ukraine for supplies, unless Russia wants to import it by sea, but that won't work on their most dependent substances, Water and Electricity, of which they get 80% from Ukraine. And, should Ukraine suddenly wish to change that relationship, Russia will need negotiate with people they do not recognize. This is quite possibly related to the reported seizure of a gas plant near the Crimean border
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 22, 2014, 01:35:16 pm
Yep, entered thread, still arguing, and still about race. Why even bother having a thread if it does nothing but provoke people? I mean I want Russia-Ukraine to have it's own thread a lot, but this thread is not that. If you guys are going to continue on this train-of-thought, this thread will end up locked, and frankly it will not be missed.In the grim darkness of any political and historical dispute about Russia, there is only war.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 22, 2014, 01:36:14 pm
Not only Not to mention, you're assuming Russia's motives are /actually/ aligned with 'protecting ethnic russians'.I am honestly rather amused by this. Russia can't even have an honestly morally sound basis for its actions without it seeming like a coverup for something anymore. :P Not claiming it's true, just observing - if Russia did have the interests of ethnic Russians abroad in mind first and foremost, it would still get the same treatment, because 'obviously they can't be doing that just for the people'. :)
So, you're saying "Not that what you say isn't true, but you'd be saying that even if it weren't"?
That assertion's uh, it's kind of unfounded.
Meanwhile, the gravest 'threat' to crim-russians was the language law that was vetoed.
Also, would like to point out: your leader dude, good old Vlad, is /still/ telling everyone, personally, that the Russian troops in Crimea aren't Russian troops but 'local self-defense militias'. Forgive us for doubting him. ::)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 01:37:54 pm
Yep, entered thread, still arguing, and still about race. Why even bother having a thread if it does nothing but provoke people? I mean I want Russia-Ukraine to have it's own thread a lot, but this thread is not that. If you guys are going to continue on this train-of-thought, this thread will end up locked, and frankly it will not be missed.In the grim darkness of any political and historical dispute about Russia, there is only war.
I'd add that there is only one war. We all know which one - whatever we discuss, we come up to one and the same war.
Post by: Darvi on March 22, 2014, 01:39:18 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 01:44:01 pm
The War on Christmas?
Yes, yes. With two mustache-wearing guys one of whom stands for bearded man's thoughts and another wishing to get all the presents.
Post by: misko27 on March 22, 2014, 01:45:38 pm
The War on Christmas?Oh sure, many here are veterans of the Christmas wars; some even participated in the Bombardment of News Corp Headquarters.
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2014, 01:59:19 pm
Spoiler: In response to Beznogim. (click to show/hide)
This is getting pretty heated now and I'm starting to get a bit upset. Pretty much all of my sensibilities have been offended in the last 2 minutes. It would be best if I keep I spoiler on it and wrap it up there, we've pretty much said what needed to be said.
Current affairs regarding Crimea are more important than this line of thought and I'm sure people would rather not see my enormous walls of text, no matter how passionate they are.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 22, 2014, 02:10:19 pm
QuoteIt's not that "we don't talk about the 90s" - it is that the 90s are a really shitty time - a time of anarchy, economical collapse and territories falling apart. A geopolitical catastrophe. Whatever happened during that period - is a shameful part of our history, indeed.
But it's very much behind you, isn't it? It's well behind you. The '90s were another time and all the guys who committed the atrocities and the crimes are all gone. They couldn't possibly be in government right now, could they?
90's just set a paradigm in heads: take whatever you want from your state, who cares, the get the hell out of country. It still works for a lot of men here.
It sucks. But what we do now - we set a new paradigm. At leat try to. When the generation in charge of power changes, things'll change all around us. No idea in what way they'll change, however.
Post by: Owlbread on March 22, 2014, 02:13:08 pm
90's just set a paradigm in heads: take whatever you want from your state, who cares, the get the hell out of country. It still works for a lot of men here.
It sucks. But what we do now - we set a new paradigm. At leat try to. When the generation in charge of power changes, things'll change all around us. No idea in what way they'll change, however.
Out of interest Comrade, when do you think the current generation in power will change? Can you see an end to the current establishment in the same way that things changed in the early 90s?
Post by: olemars on March 22, 2014, 02:23:54 pm
Not only would the interim gov get soooo ousted, they may be giving it away for nothing. Not to mention, you're assuming Russia's motives are /actually/ aligned with 'protecting ethnic russians'.I am honestly rather amused by this. Russia can't even have an honestly morally sound basis for its actions without it seeming like a coverup for something anymore. :P Not claiming it's true, just observing - if Russia did have the interests of ethnic Russians abroad in mind first and foremost, it would still get the same treatment, because 'obviously they can't be doing that just for the people'. :)
Also, shortage of something = incentive to develop better ways to produce something. Cruel and effective. ^_^
Welp, maybe someone doing risk assessment for the russian action plan in Crimea should have had a look at recent history and noticed that when the USA decided to go it alone, flout international opinion and fuck over another country, they took a massive cred hit that weakened their position globally and they're still barely recovering from it. A US politician can't even get out of bed without being accused of having ulterior motives.
Putin has done exactly the same arrogant mistakes that W did. "I'm going to fix something my predecessor couldn't, I might have to tweak some facts and twist some elbows to do it, but I'm going to be so popular afterwards!"
Post by: Knit tie on March 22, 2014, 03:10:54 pm
So I would like to ask you a question: we now know what you think of Circassian deportation, so please tell us what do you think of the Native American/American Indian deportation by the US?
Comrade P, yes, it's all about that damn paradigm.
Post by: Descan on March 22, 2014, 03:58:29 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 22, 2014, 04:08:35 pm
Spoiler: Typical Ukrainian gas station nowadays (click to show/hide)
Banning medical imports seems like something you do TO a country, if you want to be really evil. Not something you do to yourself...You see not only it doesn't hurt business of any of Putin's friend I am sure that contracts on that medical equipment will go to Putin's friend meaning more profit for some oligarch. Win-Win. They punish the West and make MORE money.
Post by: Sergarr on March 22, 2014, 05:30:55 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 22, 2014, 05:47:21 pm
Banning medical imports seems like something you do TO a country, if you want to be really evil. Not something you do to yourself...You see not only it doesn't hurt business of any of Putin's friend I am sure that contracts on that medical equipment will go to Putin's friend meaning more profit for some oligarch. Win-Win. They punish the West and make MORE money.
Still hurts the Russian people. I know they are just banning medical imports from the west, but Iran doesn't do that to itself and yet they have shortages. If they want to use bogus pharmaceuticals from China or use traditional medicine like ground up seahorse, that's their problem.
Post by: Sheb on March 23, 2014, 06:14:30 am
Anyway, I had one question: does the Russian language differentiate between "ethnic Russians" and "citizens of the Russian federation"? If yes, which Russians is Putin claiming to help when going in Crimea?
Post by: Sergarr on March 23, 2014, 06:19:34 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 23, 2014, 06:26:53 am
The Russian language differs even in between the "ethnic Russians". Also, don't use that word combination. There are no "ethnic Russians". The Russia is too big to have one single ethnicity.That's not what he meant.
The difference in terms is subtle. "Russkiy" could denote anything and anyone simply relating to Russia - be it as a citizen or as a cultural root of some kind. "Rossiyanin" can still be used ambiguously, but it's leaning much more strongly towards "citizen of Russia". I honestly don't remember which Putin was using, but if I had to guess, it's probably the former.
Post by: Sheb on March 23, 2014, 07:02:44 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 23, 2014, 07:42:47 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 23, 2014, 10:22:53 am
Googling it, apparently there was a dick-swinging contest in the baltic area concerning missiles back in december.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 10:48:43 am
10-15 years maybe. Maybe more.90's just set a paradigm in heads: take whatever you want from your state, who cares, the get the hell out of country. It still works for a lot of men here.
It sucks. But what we do now - we set a new paradigm. At leat try to. When the generation in charge of power changes, things'll change all around us. No idea in what way they'll change, however.
Out of interest Comrade, when do you think the current generation in power will change? Can you see an end to the current establishment in the same way that things changed in the early 90s?
I think things won't go 90's-wise here because this generation was generally raised by people who scared the shit out of them with their talks about "horrible 90's when there was no bread in shops and bandits all over streets with no police against them (and sometime with them) and army that apparently completely fallen apart. So, do you want those back, kiddos?"
There is a strange thing: in Russia - especially in Moscow - there is a rather small strata of people who arу very well-run, never were hungry, have plenty of money and have good jobs, but still complain about government constantly because it "oppresses people of Russia (c)", though they maybe haven't been anywhere but Moscow in Russia. They are very active in socium, however, and most of opinions that are shown on "progressive and liberal" TV shows and written by "progressive and liberal" people in their LJ's come from those. And the main thing - most of them have no will to change a damn thing. All they like is to complain in internet or TV, maybe go to a meeting occasionally. That is their maximum. They prefer that to start actual work on improving their country. Example: a person has a lawyer dyploma and is capable to work in justice system. He thinks that the justice is performed badly because the judges are bribed. What does that person do? Right, he starts complaining IRL, on internets and TV instead of becoming a judge and actually performing justice.
And those people are the ones we used to call intelligentsia. It is an old tradition, which started even before USSR, in Russian Empire. Not like it is the best of our traditions. Overall, I don't think - I hope - things won't go 90's-wise, but we'll have some reforms. Lots of them. I hope they'd be performed more... smoothly since we need no general reforms, like from planned economy to market structure, but it'll take a whole abyss of lesser ones.
Post by: Knit tie on March 23, 2014, 12:47:43 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 23, 2014, 01:08:44 pm
Quote
They prefer that to start actual work on improving their country. Example: a person has a lawyer dyploma and is capable to work in justice system. He thinks that the justice is performed badly because the judges are bribed. What does that person do? Right, he starts complaining IRL, on internets and TV instead of becoming a judge and actually performing justice.Changing system from inside is a rather naive idea. Quite a lot of Ukrainians tried to do that with the communist party.
Problem here that if you put a fresh cucumber in a barrel with prickled cucumbers it will not remain fresh for a long
If you don't follow the rules of the system you will be kicked out of corrupted system. If you follow them then you are a part of the corrupted system.
Post by: kaijyuu on March 23, 2014, 01:16:28 pm
Also I'll echo the statements about changing a system from within a system. Most systems are intentionally designed to inhibit that.
Sometimes you have to throw yourself on the wheels of the machine and make it stop. Sometimes you're given no other recourse.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 23, 2014, 01:17:40 pm
This is one of the main problems of post-Soviet politics. The word "changes" constantly muttered by liberal opposition members (and generally all opposition members around here) means complete destruction of the existing political and economic system. Any idea of non-radical reforms is discarded. The Russian version of the Internationale sums it up perfectly:QuoteThey prefer that to start actual work on improving their country. Example: a person has a lawyer dyploma and is capable to work in justice system. He thinks that the justice is performed badly because the judges are bribed. What does that person do? Right, he starts complaining IRL, on internets and TV instead of becoming a judge and actually performing justice.]
Changing system from inside is a rather naive idea. Quite a lot of Ukrainians tried to do that with the communist party.
Problem here that if you put a fresh cucumber in a barrel with prickled cucumbers it will not remain fresh for a long
If you don't follow the rules of the system you will be kicked out of corrupted system. If you follow them then you are a part of the corrupted system.
Весь мир насилья мы разрушим
До основанья, а затем
Мы наш, мы новый мир построим, —
Кто был ничем, тот станет всем!
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 23, 2014, 01:30:00 pm
You need to hurt healthy parts of your body to have any hope to survive. Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy and surgery can kill you but not using that will kill you with 100% probability.
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 01:32:18 pm
This is one of the main problems of post-Soviet politics. The word "changes" constantly muttered by liberal opposition members (and generally all opposition members around here) means complete destruction of the existing political and economic system. Any idea of non-radical reforms is discarded. The Russian version of the Internationale sums it up perfectly:QuoteThey prefer that to start actual work on improving their country. Example: a person has a lawyer dyploma and is capable to work in justice system. He thinks that the justice is performed badly because the judges are bribed. What does that person do? Right, he starts complaining IRL, on internets and TV instead of becoming a judge and actually performing justice.]
Changing system from inside is a rather naive idea. Quite a lot of Ukrainians tried to do that with the communist party.
Problem here that if you put a fresh cucumber in a barrel with prickled cucumbers it will not remain fresh for a long
If you don't follow the rules of the system you will be kicked out of corrupted system. If you follow them then you are a part of the corrupted system.
Весь мир насилья мы разрушим
До основанья, а затем
Мы наш, мы новый мир построим, —
Кто был ничем, тот станет всем!
So, basically 'nuke the world'?
Post by: kaijyuu on March 23, 2014, 01:33:01 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 23, 2014, 01:43:17 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 01:48:59 pm
Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
... at the same time, if no one at least tries to fight it from the inside, there's absolutely nothing preventing it from reaching the point outside intervention is required. Until something external can be done, someone has to fight the internal battle :-\This was my original point.
Well, P., we complain here as well, so I guess we are intelligentsiya too?Well, yes. But hey, as for me, I don't complain all the time. Actually, I complain rarely and mostly to myself, keeping it inside. Doesn't make me better, but ::).
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 23, 2014, 01:52:14 pm
Post by: Dutchling on March 23, 2014, 01:54:31 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 23, 2014, 01:58:13 pm
So you had one revolution in your history that changed country for worse and now wary of doing any revolution?Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
And don't say me that 1991-1993 events were a revolution. Just a coup, elites were not changed
Not sure how that's relevant to Crimea though.Well, I changed the name of the topic some time ago exactly because discussion is not Crimea centered for a quite a long time
Post by: kaijyuu on March 23, 2014, 01:58:33 pm
Okay, Please list all active recourses against corruption you have available in the current system, and whether they actually work. How can you actively fight it, not just be personally better? If someone in, say, a police department spoke out against their supervisor's corruption, would they get a medal or would they get fired?Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 02:00:26 pm
No idea what the heck she is talking about with her thinking that Euromaidan is going to bring about a second holocaust, HOW would that even happen? Besides, any jewish genocide is going to get heavily cracked down on.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 02:06:48 pm
And they call us antisemitic? (http://euromaidanpr.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/russian-tv-host-says-jews-brought-the-holocaust-around-themselves/)Either they cut the actual moment from Youtube video, either I just cn't see where it was so horribly antisemitic.
Anв the source - radio Svoboda - I think cannot be called completely unbiased.
Still, it was shitty time.So you had one revolution in your history that changed country for worse and now wary of doing any revolution?Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
And don't say me that 1991-1993 events were a revolution. Just a coup, elites were not changed
I meant that if people generally do their duty as they should be, it'd be already better. Overall, I think corruption takes a special place among men and will be always represented. The question is, how important is it's role. If you can get away with speeding for a small fee to policeman, it's one case. If you can get away with mass murder, that's another.Okay, Please list all active recourses against corruption you have available in the current system, and whether they actually work. How can you actively fight it, not just be personally better? If someone in, say, a police department spoke out against their supervisor's corruption, would they get a medal or would they get fired?Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
You know, passive resisting. Gandhi and stuff. Remembered that while typing.
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 02:15:20 pm
I meant that if people generally do their duty as they should be, it'd be already better. Overall, I think corruption takes a special place among men and will be always represented. The question is, how important is it's role. If you can get away with speeding for a small fee to policeman, it's one case. If you can get away with mass murder, that's another.Okay, Please list all active recourses against corruption you have available in the current system, and whether they actually work. How can you actively fight it, not just be personally better? If someone in, say, a police department spoke out against their supervisor's corruption, would they get a medal or would they get fired?Corruption is one of those things that is really difficult if not impossible to fix without completely breaking something down and rebuilding it.Thanks had that done twice in previous century. Lets try something else.
You know, passive resisting. Gandhi and stuff. Remembered that while typing.
I think you're avoiding the question.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 02:26:54 pm
To be serious, I see either radical way, either thing I tried to suggest in previous post. All those "fair and legal" ways are nothing yet another fancy useless entertainment for perverted lawyers.
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 02:35:36 pm
Yes I know I gave an American example, I don't know of any Russian political figures (or even emerging figures) who are actually interested in fighting corruption. Other than maybe that one guy who is the only one who voted against annexation.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 02:40:16 pm
It might help if you had leader(s) who are actually interested in rooting out corruption, like say, Theodore Roosevelt.
Yes I know I gave an American example, I don't know of any Russian political figures (or even emerging figures) who are actually interested in fighting corruption. Other than maybe that one guy who is the only one who voted against annexation.
Do you make a reference between two facts:
>Guy votes against annexation
>Guy is fighting corruption
Or it is something I should know about this guy?
Neither I can name a figure who actually tried to terminate corruption in an effective way. Because Putin is often like: "Here is some money for you guys, it is to terminate corruption".
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 02:49:27 pm
It might help if you had leader(s) who are actually interested in rooting out corruption, like say, Theodore Roosevelt.
Yes I know I gave an American example, I don't know of any Russian political figures (or even emerging figures) who are actually interested in fighting corruption. Other than maybe that one guy who is the only one who voted against annexation.
Do you make a reference between two facts:
>Guy votes against annexation
>Guy is fighting corruption
Or it is something I should know about this guy?
Neither I can name a figure who actually tried to terminate corruption in an effective way. Because Putin is often like: "Here is some money for you guys, it is to terminate corruption".
I don't actually know his stance or activeness against corruption, but at least he didn't roll with the current bandwagon.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 23, 2014, 02:53:48 pm
Post by: burningpet on March 23, 2014, 04:33:57 pm
And they call us antisemitic? (http://euromaidanpr.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/russian-tv-host-says-jews-brought-the-holocaust-around-themselves/)
Not sure whats so anti-semitic about that.
This is a sentiment that is widespread in israel as well. we got a phrase that, in free and broken translation, goes something like "we were being like lambs that were lead to the butchers", its a common belief and fact that jews did not oppose hitler and nazism as strongly as they should have and except a few small pockets of resistance, the majority of the jews were fooled by the notion that everything would be ok, or that the nazi party would actually turn out good for them (as i said, there were many delusional rabbis that issued manifestos that supported the Nuremberg Laws because they thought it would bring the jewish communities closer and would prevent the further integration and secularization of the jewish people that started in the "Enlightment/Haskala" age in germany.)
When i see jewish rabbis issue confused statements like "Svoboda leaders promised me everything would be ok" i can't help but think that this rabbi is not too different than those, now probably dead, rabbis in germany.
I know there's not a chance of it happening now, because the times are different and i am pretty sure ukraine can't mess with israel, but if somehow svoboda gain enough power and start rounding up jews, those rabbis should take part of the blame.
Post by: Descan on March 23, 2014, 05:28:53 pm
Well, to express an opinion contradicting the majority's doesn't equals to being undoubtedly right.No, but it helps.
Post by: Bouchart on March 23, 2014, 05:41:36 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 23, 2014, 06:01:51 pm
Neither I can name a figure who actually tried to terminate corruption in an effective way. Because Putin is often like: "Here is some money for you guys, it is to terminate corruption".
If we want to stay in the post-soviet sphere, I would propose Saakashvilii as a corruption-fighter. And some of his actions were radical enough (such as firing the whole traffic police and re-hiring some of them). Although of course he was far from perfect in other aspects (like giving in to Russian-Ossetes provocation in Ossetia, repressing opposition protests etc etc), but he did make progress against corruption and generally greatly improved the country.
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 23, 2014, 07:42:10 pm
And they call us antisemitic? (http://euromaidanpr.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/russian-tv-host-says-jews-brought-the-holocaust-around-themselves/)Speaking of the supposed pogroms and persecution of Russian speakers being carried out in Ukraine according to Russian media: Ukrainian-Jewish leaders wrote a letter to Putin, dissuading some myths. (http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/05/open-letter-of-ukrainian-jews-to-russian-federation-president-vladimir-putin/#trackbacks) (Not sure if this has been posted here and it's from a few weeks ago, but still relevant)
Post by: smjjames on March 23, 2014, 09:42:28 pm
Putin eyes Moldova. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/23/ukraine-crisis-idUSL5N0MK0D020140323)
Well, more specifically, Transinistria. Only problem though, Ukraine is in the way. I guess they could try to run across Ukraine, but unless they do an amphibious assault on the western shore of the black sea, the troops at Ukraines eastern border have a long way to go and you can absolutely bet there will be resistance to the Russians moving through.
There is no way around it, if Putin chooses to send troops, he'll either have to do a mass airlift or otherwise invade Ukraine.
The MUCH saner option would be to make Transinistria an exclave of Russia, like that chunk between Germany and Lithuania. I know Ukraine and Moldova wouldn't like them to become part of Russia, but better than having Russian troops romp through Ukraine, right? Though I could see it becoming Russias excuse to annex Ukraine.
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2014, 01:01:54 am
So I checked Saakashvilii.Neither I can name a figure who actually tried to terminate corruption in an effective way. Because Putin is often like: "Here is some money for you guys, it is to terminate corruption".
If we want to stay in the post-soviet sphere, I would propose Saakashvilii as a corruption-fighter. And some of his actions were radical enough (such as firing the whole traffic police and re-hiring some of them). Although of course he was far from perfect in other aspects (like giving in to Russian-Ossetes provocation in Ossetia, repressing opposition protests etc etc), but he did make progress against corruption and generally greatly improved the country.
http://rt.com/news/saakashvili-questioning-criminal-georgia-569/
Welp. So much for corruption-fighter.
Post by: Sheb on March 24, 2014, 02:59:48 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 02:59:57 am
Luckily it's temporary. What pleases my most that majority of young Georgians do not know Russian
Post by: Sheb on March 24, 2014, 03:20:47 am
Also, this is a nice article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/20/ukrainians-mourn-their-loss-of-crimea-to-russia-but-there-could-be-a-silver-lining.html) about the mood in Kiev, for those that wonder what the rUkraine's up to now. Written by a friend of my dad, and his praise is endless.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 03:36:10 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 24, 2014, 04:06:31 am
(Merely "living under oppressive Russian rule" does not count. :p )
Post by: olemars on March 24, 2014, 04:14:02 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 24, 2014, 04:31:54 am
I think he refers to the military stationed in Crimea. I doubt they have received many orders at all, except perhaps to please not do anything that could be a pretext for full invasion.Hmm, yeah, probably. But still, could that not apply to the military as well? If the units are local, and especially if they have local families, could they not be supportive of the new government, given potential benefits?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 04:34:33 am
And it remains to be seen if there will be any actions beyond words.
Post by: Sheb on March 24, 2014, 06:56:58 am
Post by: mainiac on March 24, 2014, 09:18:10 am
The petition website is seriously one of Obama's most famously stupidly funny idea. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/alaska-back-russia/SFG1ppfN) Cannot wait to see the answer to that one.
Give it back to the traitors who overthrew the 1917 government? Never!
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2014, 09:20:19 am
Replace "traitors" with "double traitors" or "traitors squared"The petition website is seriously one of Obama's most famously stupidly funny idea. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/alaska-back-russia/SFG1ppfN) Cannot wait to see the answer to that one.
Give it back to the traitors who overthrew the 1917 government? Never!
Post by: scriver on March 24, 2014, 09:28:17 am
Post by: Darvi on March 24, 2014, 09:29:09 am
Post by: mainiac on March 24, 2014, 10:59:50 am
Post by: smjjames on March 24, 2014, 11:15:41 am
It was legitimately sold to the US anyhow.
Post by: nenjin on March 24, 2014, 12:17:37 pm
I still can't understand why no resistance exists in Crimea. Either all local units are traitors\cowards or they got an order from a cowardly government. I think the later, because logic dictates that some of the units should have acted in a different way
I get you just watched a chunk of your country walk away from Ukraine. But is it really surprising that no one wants to get shot?
I'm just surprised that you're spoiling for a guerrilla war so much. Because it's behavior like that, which touches off indiscriminate mass killings.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 24, 2014, 12:20:11 pm
The petition website is seriously one of Obama's most famously stupidly funny idea. (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/alaska-back-russia/SFG1ppfN) Cannot wait to see the answer to that one.
The petition website is genius. Can you imagine how much entertainment he must get out of those? It's gotta be a gold mine for chuckles when the stress of being President gets to be a bit much.
Post by: Sergarr on March 24, 2014, 12:22:02 pm
Some people just want the world to burn.I still can't understand why no resistance exists in Crimea. Either all local units are traitors\cowards or they got an order from a cowardly government. I think the later, because logic dictates that some of the units should have acted in a different way
I get you just watched a chunk of your country walk away from Ukraine. But is it really surprising that no one wants to get shot?
I'm just surprised that you're spoiling for a guerrilla war so much. Because it's behavior like that, which touches off indiscriminate mass killings.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 12:30:05 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 24, 2014, 12:52:52 pm
Why not if army doesn't resist?How about "Because it makes no sense to do so"? Or, perhaps more appropriately, "because it's no longer really needed". Why spend the effort on going somewhere, when the aftershock of what's already done can set the necessary stones into motion by itself?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 12:55:46 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 24, 2014, 01:09:03 pm
You mean that Putin may wait till situation in Ukraine destabilizes further and move troops in after that?I mean he won't have to move troops anywhere else unless somebody actually asks him to. And I didn't mean just the Ukraine - however humorous it may seem, other contestable territories holding their own little referendums is entirely possible, even if highly unlikely to succeed.
Even then, Crimea will be enough of a strain on our existing resources as is - we just won't have the infrastructure capacity to outright acquire any more territory. It'll take time and effort to organize things there until they once again run smoothly. Just compensating for the lost electrical power supply is going to be quite the project on its own, with both temporary measures needed yesterday and the more permanent solutions rerouted from elsewhere. Add on to that economical restructuring to anticipate any further moves by the West (I've already backed up my Steam library in case Valve caves in, so I'm good), and it's pretty clear that any further annexatory movements are not in Russia's - or Putin's - interests in the slightest.
Plus, if anyone's going to move troops into Ukraine now, it'll most likely be NATO. It's more than likely that everyone's already mobilized enough that we won't beat anyone else to the punch in any other destabilizing region.
The only way we'll gain more territory after Crimea, at least in foreseeable future, is if that territory just up and changes flag on its own.
Post by: nenjin on March 24, 2014, 01:14:07 pm
Some people just understand that failing to resist will lead to a catastrophe. I think probability of full scale Russian invasion before April 1st is very high. Why not if army doesn't resist? Or, more likely, got an order to not resist
It sounds more like you're spoiling for a fight after Russia basically ignored everything your government and the world said. Which I understand. But it sounds like bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed, so you at least did something in the face of Russian aggression. Meanwhile, open hostilities would trigger the exact scenario everyone has been afraid of since the beginning: unrestrained Russian aggression.
Either way, if Russia has plans for the rest of Ukraine, you're going to get all the war you want and then some.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 01:55:28 pm
First I was sure that this "not shooting" order is a cunning plan to not repeat Georgia 2008. Now I am sure that this is just impotence, cowardice or treason. The very same impotence that guys demonstrated negotiating with Yanukovich. Who knows, maybe they got some kind of deal with Putin like him allowing them to rule on the chunk of Ukraine
OK, they choose not violent resistance. Why they don't resist using other methods? Why they didn't order to disable military equipment that may very likely be used against us soon?. Why they didn't close border with Russia? Why they didn't ban Russian television? Why they didn't start counter-propaganda campaign? Why they don't arrest Russian assets in response to stolen Ukrainian property in Crimea? Why they don't arrest collaborators that walk on the streets with flags of the aggressor and destabilize the situation? Why they didn't organize "an accident" on powerlines making Crimea go dark
Post by: olemars on March 24, 2014, 01:58:03 pm
Why they didn't organize "an accident" on powerlines making Crimea go dark
Didn't that actually happen?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 24, 2014, 02:03:38 pm
If it was shut down from Ukraine then the whole Crimea would go dark, not a large chunk of it like it happened last night
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 24, 2014, 02:05:50 pm
Post by: Moghjubar on March 24, 2014, 02:06:55 pm
http://i.imgur.com/MnDZOja.jpg
Post by: mainiac on March 24, 2014, 02:14:52 pm
nenjin, Not defending against the first punch gives huge advantage to the enemy. Showing that your army will not fight is inviting him to invade. I am almost sure that our forces on the eastern border will get the very same - "hold up and not shoot" order when Russian will move further.
You are substituting platitudes for facts on the ground. Ukraine is in a vastly better condition to defend itself now and has a much strengthened diplomatic position. If you had been in charge there would have been a war a month ago, Ukraine would have gotten 0 outside support and Russia would have already annexed eastern Ukraine. If Russia attacked Ukraine today then it would mean the doom of the Putin administration. It's called picking your battles, you don't fight on the enemies terms.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 24, 2014, 02:16:23 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 24, 2014, 02:31:48 pm
(http://cs6053.vk.me/u16000057/docs/91473696bb47/file.gif?extra=nVioeMBZ0--A3q2F-i6Vx38bMul7wW7O7hgpEi-EQhsX2WfITDwsbPzcwa4cgv2OOlSJaQL9uyndp8fgOHQC8dCq53y5qkni)
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2014, 03:23:19 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2014, 03:28:56 pm
Post by: MonkeyHead on March 24, 2014, 03:29:10 pm
Post by: ibot66 on March 24, 2014, 03:31:02 pm
Post by: Vector on March 24, 2014, 03:32:12 pm
Your government thinks you're morons. Do me a favour and start WWIII already. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/acabracket) Humanity's had a good run, it's about time we hand over this planet to jellyfish anyways.
The government needs to get young people insured so that the older population can be covered, even though it's not as much benefit directly to the young and young people often go without. So they're trying to at least speak our language.
Post by: smjjames on March 24, 2014, 03:32:44 pm
Also, for some reason the text input is lagging on my iPad all of a sudden.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2014, 03:36:45 pm
If we're going to hand over the planet to some animal, I'd suggest bonobos.Bonobos are awful, and not likely to do much except die in a thermonuclear Russian rave. Jellyfish have many brains, and are sure to find a way to build civilization out of the radioactive ocean somehow. Crab people is an acceptable alternative.
So they're trying to at least speak our language.If they're trying to speak reddit they have succeeded, and I still wish for the destruction of humanity if this is what our hegemony thinks the bright future is only capable of understanding.
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2014, 03:37:22 pm
Bonobos? They are just too busy fucking everything to do any kind of planet ruling, unless it exclusively involved fucking the planet.Aside from the massive amount of sex, they're also known for having deep compassion for each other and strong social bonds.
They'd be the perfect hippie rulers.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2014, 03:38:18 pm
Uh, all I see is a bunch of stuff about obamacare.Presumably you missed the stuff about the American government only YOLOing once.
Post by: Vector on March 24, 2014, 03:40:00 pm
So they're trying to at least speak our language.If they're trying to speak reddit they have succeeded, and I still wish for the destruction of humanity if this is what our hegemony thinks the bright future is only capable of understanding.
Also tumblr, and ... a whole lot of the young internet? It's not about what we're capable of understanding, it's about using our language so that we feel more comfortable. Of course we're all versed in speaking Old Powerful Mandude talk. But our demographic is seldom discussed... it's usually the middle-aged folks with kids who count as "people," so they're making it clear that they're talking to us in particular, and care that we get the message.
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2014, 03:42:20 pm
Don't be such a fuddy duddy, LW.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2014, 03:45:30 pm
But our demographic is seldom discussed... it's usually the middle-aged folks with kids who count as "people," so they're making it clear that they're talking to us in particular, and care that we get the message.And in the most insulting way possible at that. Might as well dangle car keys on the web page. I honestly do prefer speaking in English than poorly coddled macros, and I find this to be as eye-bleeding as that senator commissioning a doge meme because this keeps happening.
Don't be such a fuddy duddy, LW.Epic
Post by: Vector on March 24, 2014, 03:48:39 pm
EDIT: For reference, I've used a gif exactly once, and that was because it was appropriate to an essay I was writing. This isn't my preferred mode of communication, either, but I respect it as an attempt at outreach.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 24, 2014, 03:55:08 pm
I really don't think it's "the most insulted way possible." It's coded language. Too bad for you--this is our generation's slang.Honestly I do prefer slang to this monstrosity, the weight of the American state somehow becomes all the more bearing when its public image is... Catz.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I don't suppose I can hammer on my thoughts on this any more without dragging it through the mud; but this is the government of the USA. Have some decency dammit.
Post by: Vector on March 24, 2014, 03:57:01 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 24, 2014, 03:59:51 pm
-snip-That episode was awesome.
Also, Vector: Someone here said a similar thing about the doge meme. Something along the lines of "much annoy" being more compact than saying "I don't like that, please stop." Applying this idea to the concept of memes itself is very interesting.
Post by: Owlbread on March 24, 2014, 04:33:40 pm
Your government thinks you're morons. Do me a favour and start WWIII already. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/acabracket) Humanity's had a good run, it's about time we hand over this planet to jellyfish anyways.
Smells a lot like the American Politics Megathread in here.
Post by: smjjames on March 24, 2014, 04:44:00 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on March 24, 2014, 04:44:56 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 24, 2014, 05:00:22 pm
Another interesting phone call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEFCmJ-VGhA) was posted on YouTube, this time (reportedly) starring former deputy chairman of National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Nestor Shufrych and former Ukrainian Prime Minister and presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko. RT's translation can be found here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo&feature=player_embedded)
Someone who sounded like Yulia Tymoshenko stated that Russians living in Ukraine must be "shot with nuclear weapons", Russia should be turned into a scorched field and that she's ready to pick up a gun and go shooting Russians along with their leader.
Yulia Tymoshenko confirmed the authenticity of the phone call on Twitter. (https://twitter.com/YuliaTymoshenko/statuses/448100004407029761) However, she denied saying anything about shooting Russians with nuclear weapons.
Post by: burningpet on March 24, 2014, 05:19:35 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 24, 2014, 09:10:46 pm
If Ukraine did have nuclear weapons, this confrontation would be a whole new thing. For one, I'd be too busy stocking up on radiation medication to post.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 02:37:39 am
Post by: MarcAFK on March 25, 2014, 03:36:27 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 25, 2014, 03:38:24 am
But with whose nuclear weapons? Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons; she knows that. Is she speaking for the West now?Obviously she didn't actually meant that nuclear weapons should be used against Russian people in South East Ukraine. She meant that all Russians should be expelled from South East Ukraine, provided that she wasn't overreacting and the phone call is legit.
If Ukraine did have nuclear weapons, this confrontation would be a whole new thing. For one, I'd be too busy stocking up on radiation medication to post.
Still, if it's true, it shows the mood of some members of Ukrainian political elite.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:50:55 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 25, 2014, 04:11:54 am
I think if you asked most nationally conscious Ukrainians in private what they think should be done with the Russo-Ukrainians that are agktating, you would get a similar answer.I'm honestly under the impression that if you took the most nationally conscious citizens of any country and asked them about any other culturally distinct population on the country's territory, the answers would not be a whole lot softer. Of course, there's also the matter of how decent the person him/herself is, so that "national consciousness" is far from being the only variable.
In other news, apparently there's no longer a G8. As far as I can tell, our response is a thunderous, resounding 'meh'.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 25, 2014, 04:18:17 am
In other news, apparently there's no longer a G8. As far as I can tell, our response is a thunderous, resounding 'meh'.
I was under the impression that we're just sending Putin to the corner in time-out? We go a couple rounds of G7 before we ask him if he knows what he did and why it's wrong before we invite him back to our reindeer games?
Post by: Sheb on March 25, 2014, 04:21:44 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 25, 2014, 04:36:19 am
I think if you asked most nationally conscious Ukrainians in private what they think should be done with the Russo-Ukrainians that are agktating, you would get a similar answer.I'm honestly under the impression that if you took the most nationally conscious citizens of any country and asked them about any other culturally distinct population on the country's territory, the answers would not be a whole lot softer. Of course, there's also the matter of how decent the person him/herself is, so that "national consciousness" is far from being the only variable.
The "most nationally conscious" people are also known as radical nationalists in some circles.
Post by: Sheb on March 25, 2014, 04:40:33 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 25, 2014, 05:32:14 am
It depends on how the people see these troops. If they see them like oppressors, they will be oppressors. In Crimea, different thing happened. They just didn't see them in that way. I think.That is not the point. Even if we assume that a) Crimea wants to join Russia and b) Crimea wants Russian soldiers as protection, that doesn't mean the Russian intervention was right. Putin could have used diplomatic pressure to achieve these things. He could have trippled the gas prices. He could have let elections happen in Ukraine and support a constitutional change that allows for Crimean independence. He could have involved international organisations. There were a lot of options and he chose the one that he knows everyone will understand as a massive disruption of international stability.
The reason why the Russian leadership decided to use force is probably based on past experience of trying to defend its interests from Western actions by diplomatic means. For example, Russia and China were against NATO's "humanitarian bombings" of Serbia in 1999. NATO simply started bombing Serbia without the UN's consent, and Russian resolution condemning it didn't do anything because America and its allies voted against it. Russia's current Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used to be the Russian ambassador to the UN back then, so he certainly saw it first-hand.
As a result, people in charge of Russia, looking back at all that, probably think that diligently following 'international law' while Russian opponents constantly violate it under various noble pretexts is incredibly foolish and harmful to Russia. They assume that it would be naive to expect the West to follow international law if the West has no qualms about violating it. Thus, the only way to defend Russia from Western actions violating international law is committing actions violating international law.
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2014, 05:55:58 am
NATO simply started bombing Serbia without the UN's consent, and Russian resolution condemning it didn't do anything because America and its allies voted against it.A permanent member of the UN security counsel using its powers to frustrate defensive measures? Never...
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 25, 2014, 06:04:27 am
Did anyone even suggest booting the United States from G8, for Serbia, or Iraq or anything? Did anyone put forward a plan of economic sanctions against the United States? Did anyone suggest isolating the United States? Were American politicians banned from entering the EU? Did the EU freeze their assets? Did they cut off any political, economic or military cooperation?NATO simply started bombing Serbia without the UN's consent, and Russian resolution condemning it didn't do anything because America and its allies voted against it.A permanent member of the UN security counsel using its powers to frustrate defensive measures? Never...
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2014, 06:07:48 am
Post by: Sheb on March 25, 2014, 06:11:31 am
Post by: mainiac on March 25, 2014, 07:19:07 am
Did anyone even suggest booting the United States from G8, for Serbia, or Iraq or anything? Did anyone put forward a plan of economic sanctions against the United States? Did anyone suggest isolating the United States? Were American politicians banned from entering the EU? Did the EU freeze their assets? Did they cut off any political, economic or military cooperation?
No. And?
Pointing out vague parallels between events in very different contexts doesn't constitute a study of foreign policy. It doesn't even constitute a study of Russian opinions because very few Russians are thinking along the lines you are.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 07:29:12 am
Did anyone even suggest booting the United States from G8, for Serbia, or Iraq or anything? Did anyone put forward a plan of economic sanctions against the United States? Did anyone suggest isolating the United States? Were American politicians banned from entering the EU? Did the EU freeze their assets? Did they cut off any political, economic or military cooperation?NATO simply started bombing Serbia without the UN's consent, and Russian resolution condemning it didn't do anything because America and its allies voted against it.A permanent member of the UN security counsel using its powers to frustrate defensive measures? Never...
The problem is if someone else did something wrong, it does not give russia right to do it also. Yes, there are double standards, and yes USA did far worse crap than russia is doing now, but no matter how big shit USA/NATO did in the past, there is no excuse for russia doing the same. Russia is simply in wrong here, as same as USA was back than.
Post by: Helgoland on March 25, 2014, 07:33:48 am
@Expelling ethnic Russians: I'd condemn any such action, but seeing how Russia has acted in its neighborhood since 2008 I'd completely understand if, let's say, Estonia started to expell all the stateless ethnic Russians. It's not something I'd advocate, but it's the logical consequence of Russia's policies.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 07:45:16 am
@Expelling ethnic Russians: I'd condemn any such action, but seeing how Russia has acted in its neighborhood since 2008 I'd completely understand if, let's say, Estonia started to expell all the stateless ethnic Russians. It's not something I'd advocate, but it's the logical consequence of Russia's policies.
You know, if international community swallows the expelling of large ethnical groups, I'd be completely dissapointed about it. But whatever, we would expell Caucassians that perform crimes or form ethnical bands. Say,
Really, not all the Caucassians are unpleasant guys. Moreover, most of them are nice people with ancient traditions and stuff, very hospitable. But the minority that are fuckups make the whole group look wrong.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 07:57:39 am
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 08:00:20 am
@Expelling ethnic Russians: I'd condemn any such action, but seeing how Russia has acted in its neighborhood since 2008 I'd completely understand if, let's say, Estonia started to expell all the stateless ethnic Russians. It's not something I'd advocate, but it's the logical consequence of Russia's policies.
Actually, the logical consequence of Russia's policies would be quite opposite, and that is to be scared to do anything what you are saying.
Post by: Helgoland on March 25, 2014, 08:02:06 am
FTFY. Also, not saying it's a sensible course of action, mind you.
@Expelling ethnic Russians: I'd condemn any such action, but seeing how Russia has acted in its neighborhood since 2008 I'd completely understand if, let's say, Estonia started to expell all the stateless ethnic Russians. It's not something I'd advocate, but it's the logical consequence of Russia's policies.
Actually, the logical consequence of Russia's policies would be quite opposite, and that is to bescared to do anything what you are sayingpreemptively hand oneself over to Russia.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 08:06:45 am
FTFY. Also, not saying it's a sensible course of action, mind you.
@Expelling ethnic Russians: I'd condemn any such action, but seeing how Russia has acted in its neighborhood since 2008 I'd completely understand if, let's say, Estonia started to expell all the stateless ethnic Russians. It's not something I'd advocate, but it's the logical consequence of Russia's policies.
Actually, the logical consequence of Russia's policies would be quite opposite, and that is to bescared to do anything what you are sayingpreemptively hand oneself over to Russia.
Not sure I understand what now you are trying to say, is it that estoniea would preemptively hand itself to Russia now? Or that ethnic Russians will try to do it?
Post by: Helgoland on March 25, 2014, 08:45:31 am
1) Fighting back
2) Giving in
The extremes of these courses would be 1) ethnic cleansings, to rob Russia of any pretext for invasion, and 2) letting oneself be annexed immediately.
None of these are sensible, desirable, or realistic! But it might be interesting to keep them in mind, in order to evaluate new developments.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 08:57:36 am
The two possible courses of action the neighbors of Russia can take are:Sorry, but there is little logic in your post.
1) Fighting back
2) Giving in
The extremes of these courses would be 1) ethnic cleansings, to rob Russia of any pretext for invasion, and 2) letting oneself be annexed immediately.
None of these are sensible, desirable, or realistic! But it might be interesting to keep them in mind, in order to evaluate new developments.
1) will actually bring a russian invasion
2) letting to be annexed? You mean, if russia already moves on the country? Otherwise there is no reason for 2) if russia is not interested.
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2014, 09:05:58 am
And the revolution consumes itself, as always.
Ukraine has no future with leaders like that.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 25, 2014, 09:11:15 am
Yeah, the most reasonable course of action for a smart government of any small nation is just keeping calm and carrying on. Best way to avoid any kind of trouble is just making sure your population is happy and the general mood is stable. Neither Russia, nor anyone else, will just up and move into a stable region that does not want them there. (maybe except the US) Both parts of that clause are important - Crimea was neither. Ukraine is unstable, but the general consensus of the majority of the public - so far - is that Russia should stay out, so my guess is out it will stay unless something downright nasty develops.The two possible courses of action the neighbors of Russia can take are:Sorry, but there is little logic in your post.
1) Fighting back
2) Giving in
The extremes of these courses would be 1) ethnic cleansings, to rob Russia of any pretext for invasion, and 2) letting oneself be annexed immediately.
None of these are sensible, desirable, or realistic! But it might be interesting to keep them in mind, in order to evaluate new developments.
1) will actually bring a russian invasion
2) letting to be annexed? You mean, if russia already moves on the country? Otherwise there is no reason for 2) if russia is not interested.
It's kinda hard to imagine a stable region that will want Russia to come to them though, or more precisely I think that if the government of that region wants to stay as is, and the people as a whole want some changes - like joining another country - the region will pretty soon cease being 'stable'. :P
Post by: Sergarr on March 25, 2014, 09:13:00 am
The nasty is going to happen very soon. See my post above.Yeah, the most reasonable course of action for a smart government of any small nation is just keeping calm and carrying on. Best way to avoid any kind of trouble is just making sure your population is happy and the general mood is stable. Neither Russia, nor anyone else, will just up and move into a stable region that does not want them there. (maybe except the US) Both parts of that clause are important - Crimea was neither. Ukraine is unstable, but the general consensus of the majority of the public - so far - is that Russia should stay out, so my guess is out it will stay unless something downright nasty develops.The two possible courses of action the neighbors of Russia can take are:Sorry, but there is little logic in your post.
1) Fighting back
2) Giving in
The extremes of these courses would be 1) ethnic cleansings, to rob Russia of any pretext for invasion, and 2) letting oneself be annexed immediately.
None of these are sensible, desirable, or realistic! But it might be interesting to keep them in mind, in order to evaluate new developments.
1) will actually bring a russian invasion
2) letting to be annexed? You mean, if russia already moves on the country? Otherwise there is no reason for 2) if russia is not interested.
It's kinda hard to imagine a stable region that will want Russia to come to them though, or more precisely I think that if the government of that region wants to stay as is, and the people as a whole want some changes - like joining another country - the region will pretty soon cease being 'stable'. :P
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 09:35:31 am
http://rt.com/news/muzychko-avakov-revenge-ukraine-109/I actually see this as a positive thing. It shows that the ukraine leaders are at least trying to arrest some of the criminals. Will it blow up, maybe, but I dont think it will.
And the revolution consumes itself, as always.
Ukraine has no future with leaders like that.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 09:50:43 am
http://rt.com/news/muzychko-avakov-revenge-ukraine-109/Revolution is not quite over to start consuming itself. Problem in Ukraine - the guys who are ruling right now haven't participated in revolution. In fact that acted against it by making deals with Yanukovich and calming down radical groups.
And the revolution consumes itself, as always.
Ukraine has no future with leaders like that.
Yes, Turchinov, Yatsenyuk and others they were allowed to rule till elections to have legitimate transition of power...
But now we see that they do nothing to counter Putin's actions (If you don't count " international community, please, help us" screams. If I was that international community I'd say - "hey, maybe you'll start to do something yourself before calling for help?")
The fail to arrest police officers and titushkas responsible for violence on Maydan
They fail to arrest open Russian collaborators
But hey, they managed to kill a nationalist who Russia dislikes a lot. At least they could blame it on FSB, but no...
If Turchinov (read Tymoshenko) hopes that threat of a war with Russia will keep the people silent... They are wrong
PS. Muzichko is very compicated issue. While he is a hero of the first Chechen war his biography isn't clean. But I don't believe in that "killed while resisted arrest" nonsene. It is a murder without trial. Exactly what Maydan was against
PPS. How Russian TV channel brigade arrived that fast?
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 12:43:32 pm
http://rt.com/news/muzychko-avakov-revenge-ukraine-109/Revolution is not quite over to start consuming itself. Problem in Ukraine - the guys who are ruling right now haven't participated in revolution. In fact that acted against it by making deals with Yanukovich and calming down radical groups.
And the revolution consumes itself, as always.
Ukraine has no future with leaders like that.
Yes, Turchinov, Yatsenyuk and others they were allowed to rule till elections to have legitimate transition of power...
But now we see that they do nothing to counter Putin's actions (If you don't count " international community, please, help us" screams. If I was that international community I'd say - "hey, maybe you'll start to do something yourself before calling for help?")
The fail to arrest police officers and titushkas responsible for violence on Maydan
They fail to arrest open Russian collaborators
But hey, they managed to kill a nationalist who Russia dislikes a lot. At least they could blame it on FSB, but no...
If Turchinov (read Tymoshenko) hopes that threat of a war with Russia will keep the people silent... They are wrong
PS. Muzichko is very compicated issue. While he is a hero of the first Chechen war his biography isn't clean. But I don't believe in that "killed while resisted arrest" nonsene. It is a murder without trial. Exactly what Maydan was against
PPS. How Russian TV channel brigade arrived that fast?
After reading your posts for awhile, I have some questions
- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?
- You completely ignore the offchance that crimean majority actually genuinely wanted to join Russia. Fuck all this legitimacy sake, you really feel it's was all staged? I mean you set in stone that majority of Crimea is against separation?
- Why you insist that what happened in Ukraine is not a coup, but democratic revolution? I am thorn on that subject. We can't really talk into something meaningful here if one side is thinking it's genuine revolution and wish of the masses and another party thinks it's a bloody coup orchestrated by western influence. It's not going to work. It does not compute.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 01:40:51 pm
Quote
- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?I believe that bloodshed is unavoidable whatever Ukrainians will do. Not resisting the evil will lead to more blood but later. I never wanted blood in January when I started the thread, but I knew that it is unavoidable
Quote
- You completely ignore the offchance that crimean majority actually genuinely wanted to join Russia. Fuck all this legitimacy sake, you really feel it's was all staged? I mean you set in stone that majority of Crimea is against separation?1) I don't give a fuck even if majority does wants to join Russia. They can do it in another way, immigrate to their beloved country. The only people who have a moral right to be separatists are Crimean Tatars, exactly because they have no own country to move into
2) I am not a liberal-democrat, sorry. I don't believe that desires of 70-year old brainless Soviet army-retire who does (and never did) nothing good for a country and desires of a young specialist should have an equal weight in determining the fate of a country or any territory.
3) Any referendum without normal campaign were both sides have a chance to talk and a status quo option is not a referendum at all.
Quote
- Why you insist that what happened in Ukraine is not a coup, but democratic revolution?I don't understand the question. Democratic revolution? WTF? Revolutions happen when democratic methods don't work. What happened in Ukraine is overthrowing a tyrant. That resulted in a political crisis that had chances to resolve itself with elections but the country got invaded by "friendly neighbor"
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 01:42:16 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 25, 2014, 01:50:51 pm
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 01:51:37 pm
Edit: It's funny because this mindset is actually common even when they're the aggressor
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 01:54:48 pm
Quote- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?I believe that bloodshed is unavoidable whatever Ukrainians will do. Not resisting the evil will lead to more blood but later. I never wanted blood in January when I started the thread, but I knew that it is unavoidableQuote- You completely ignore the offchance that crimean majority actually genuinely wanted to join Russia. Fuck all this legitimacy sake, you really feel it's was all staged? I mean you set in stone that majority of Crimea is against separation?1) I don't give a fuck even if majority does wants to join Russia. They can do it in another way, immigrate to their beloved country. The only people who have a moral right to be separatists are Crimean Tatars, exactly because they have no own country to move into
2) I am not a liberal-democrat, sorry. I don't believe that desires of 70-year old brainless Soviet army-retire who does (and never did) nothing good for a country and desires of a young specialist should have an equal weight in determining the fate of a country or any territory.
3) Any referendum without normal campaign were both sides have a chance to talk and a status quo option is not a referendum at all.Quote- Why you insist that what happened in Ukraine is not a coup, but democratic revolution?I don't understand the question. Democratic revolution? WTF? Revolutions happen when democratic methods don't work. What happened in Ukraine is overthrowing a tyrant. That resulted in a political crisis that had chances to resolve itself with elections but the country got invaded by "friendly neighbor"
You are to keen on this have something to do with Soviets. I was risen on books about Russo-Turkish war, whatever biased it was. It's was obviously biased actually, probably. It has pictures!!! j/k. Like any media, right now. You need to dig deeper to understand. Crimea and Soviets is nothing, like a bump on a road. It's a lot more ancient story.
And a tyrant? Seriously? All your presidents and anybody in power was opportunists. Same corruption, same level. Same shit, even.
Cmon, again. We simply see everything from different angles. It's not going to work, ever.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 01:58:20 pm
I'm sure noone in Russia would hold the same sentiment had they been invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign government which looks down upon their ethnicity in general
Edit: It's funny because this mindset is actually common even when they're the aggressor
Man, you already proved that you have no idea how russians thinks and act. Just a test.
Tell me, what is going to happen when airbus full of your people happen to land?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 01:59:55 pm
Spoiler: Russia is not Putin (click to show/hide)
I really hope to see Maydan the Russian edition. Else, IMO, everything will end very badly not only for Ukraine but for the whole planet
Quote
UR seems to be content to have Ukraine "go out in a blaze of glory" rather than attempt to survive in any meaningful shape. >_>You know... I would happily give Russia away Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk if we would be able to evacuate loyal citizens and be sure that Russia will stop there and we'll have no war. But I don't believe that appeasing aggressor works.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 25, 2014, 02:02:03 pm
Quote- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?I believe that bloodshed is unavoidable whatever Ukrainians will do. Not resisting the evil will lead to more blood but later. I never wanted blood in January when I started the thread, but I knew that it is unavoidableQuote- You completely ignore the offchance that crimean majority actually genuinely wanted to join Russia. Fuck all this legitimacy sake, you really feel it's was all staged? I mean you set in stone that majority of Crimea is against separation?1) I don't give a fuck even if majority does wants to join Russia. They can do it in another way, immigrate to their beloved country. The only people who have a moral right to be separatists are Crimean Tatars, exactly because they have no own country to move into
2) I am not a liberal-democrat, sorry. I don't believe that desires of 70-year old brainless Soviet army-retire who does (and never did) nothing good for a country and desires of a young specialist should have an equal weight in determining the fate of a country or any territory.
3) Any referendum without normal campaign were both sides have a chance to talk and a status quo option is not a referendum at all.Quote- Why you insist that what happened in Ukraine is not a coup, but democratic revolution?I don't understand the question. Democratic revolution? WTF? Revolutions happen when democratic methods don't work. What happened in Ukraine is overthrowing a tyrant. That resulted in a political crisis that had chances to resolve itself with elections but the country got invaded by "friendly neighbor"
You are to keen on this have something to do with Soviets. I was risen on books about Russo-Turkish war, whatever biased it was. It's was obviously biased actually, probably. It has pictures!!! j/k. Like any media, right now. You need to dig deeper to understand. Crimea and Soviets is nothing, like a bump on a road. It's a lot more ancient story.
And a tyrant? Seriously? All your presidents and anybody in power was opportunists. Same corruption, same level. Same shit, even.
Cmon, again. We simply see everything from different angles. It's not going to work, ever.
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country just got annexed by what is essentially Third Reich 2.0 minus the blatant killing. Soviets? Ya, Putin is basically a leftover over from the KGB glory days, he's not afraid to be brazen, he'll risk a lot to increase Russian power. "Crimea and Soviets is nothing"??? That's literally what this is all about!
As far as Poor Presidents, I must agree they have a bad track record in the Ukraine, but the uprising was a very clear signal that Ukrainians had had enough in my eyes. New elections will be brought forward, I highly doubt they will be totally legitimate, but at least they're trying.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 02:03:09 pm
Man, you already proved that you have no idea how russians thinks and act. Just a test.
Tell me, what is going to happen when airbus full of your people happen to land?
lol, okay 'expert'
Hint: I take your posts as comedy
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:03:59 pm
That's fans of FC Zenit Saint Petersburg with a banner that has first words of Ukrainian national anthem on itSpoiler: Russia is not Putin (click to show/hide)
I really hope to see Maydan the Russian edition. Else, IMO, everything will end very badly not only for Ukraine but for the whole planetQuoteUR seems to be content to have Ukraine "go out in a blaze of glory" rather than attempt to survive in any meaningful shape. >_>You know... I would happily give Russia away Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk if we would be able to evacuate loyal citizens and be sure that Russia will stop there and we'll have no war. But I don't believe that appeasing aggressor works.
You just dissaproving your words about rampant propaganda here.
Here is example of propaganda
http://vk.com/photo-67972801_324175755
http://vk.com/photo-67972801_324175756
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 02:05:26 pm
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:05:37 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:06:15 pm
Man, you already proved that you have no idea how russians thinks and act. Just a test.
Tell me, what is going to happen when airbus full of your people happen to land?
lol, okay 'expert'
Hint: I take your posts as comedy
It's was a simple question. What you do?
Post by: cerapa on March 25, 2014, 02:07:39 pm
I understand the words and everything, but I don't understand what he is trying to convey with them or what their relevance is.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 02:07:50 pm
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:08:16 pm
I don't wish to be rude or to insult anyone, but I really don't understand what gogis is saying.
I understand the words and everything, but I don't understand what he is trying to convey with them or what their relevance is.
Devil advocate
It's not lame politicalforum I hope you all played CK or atleast EU, or wtf we do here?
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 25, 2014, 02:08:39 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 02:09:54 pm
Devil advocate
Playing the advocate without backing up what you say, while telling others they're wrong, is called trolling. Or you just don't know what you're saying, which is a very large possibility.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:10:44 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Exactly. But Crimea is big for Russia, for Ukraine in terms of GDP is like 3% iirc
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:12:07 pm
Devil advocate
Playing the advocate without backing up what you say, while telling others they're wrong, is called trolling. Or you just don't know what you're saying, which is a very large possibility.
You still didnt answered on a very simple simple question which will undermine huge cultaral difference. Do me a favor, dig it and answer. And I will will answer back to you.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 02:14:11 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Occupied? Wat? Did I slept when that happened or what?
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 25, 2014, 02:14:54 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Exactly. But Crimea is big for Russia, for Ukraine in terms of GDP is like 3% iirc
Doesn't matter, it was a huge bargaining chip for Ukraine, they got to lease the Svestapol port at their terms. It's also big for everyone, you think that what happens in Crimea applies only to Ukraine and Russia? This is literally how it starts, next it's Kiev, then who knows how far Putin will go?
EDIT: @Comrade, I meant the percentage of landmass which it had in comparison to the rest of the country!
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 02:15:05 pm
Quote
http://vk.com/photo-67972801_324175755Oh common. Do you want me to find similar photos from Sudetenland 1938?
What the hell you want to prove with it? That some Crimeans great Russian Soldiers as liberators. OK. I know that. That doesn't change the fact that they are invaders
PS. German Soldiers never hid their faces or denied that they are soldiers of the Reich
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:18:22 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Exactly. But Crimea is big for Russia, for Ukraine in terms of GDP is like 3% iirc
Doesn't matter, it was a huge bargaining chip for Ukraine, they got to lease the Svestapol port at their terms. It's also big for everyone, you think that what happens in Crimea applies only to Ukraine and Russia? This is literally how it starts, next it's Kiev, then who knows how far Putin will go?
EDIT: @Comrade, I meant the percentage of landmass which it had in comparison to the rest of the country!
You should never judge size of landmass to it's real value. And no, Kiev is not next, we dont need it.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:22:20 pm
Quotehttp://vk.com/photo-67972801_324175755Oh common. Do you want me to find similar photos from Sudetenland 1938?
What the hell you want to prove with it? That some Crimeans great Russian Soldiers as liberators. OK. I know that. That doesn't change the fact that they are invaders
PS. German Soldiers never hid their faces or denied that they are soldiers of the Reich
I said you it's "propaganda". I see that in vkontakte, chuckle and move on. It's obviously propaganda crap. But you also keep posting links like that. Remember you posted links for Peter's child hospital? It's same shitty value. We all know that Peter have some of the oldest and unkempt buildings in whole russia. Whats the point? It's propaganda! No, most russia is not like Peter, I know that. I am citizen of 3 cities atleast.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 25, 2014, 02:23:23 pm
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:24:29 pm
Anyway, you can't say that Crimea wasn't important to Ukraine. I mean, the naval base there pretty much saved Ukraine's economy on it's own, as it's lease was a key part of the agreement that netted Ukraine it's 30% gas discount, without which both government and economy will pretty much collapse.
I agree
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 02:31:35 pm
Quotehttp://vk.com/photo-67972801_324175755PS. German Soldiers never hid their faces or denied that they are soldiers of the Reich
That's why they lost in the end.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 25, 2014, 02:31:48 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Exactly. But Crimea is big for Russia, for Ukraine in terms of GDP is like 3% iirc
Doesn't matter, it was a huge bargaining chip for Ukraine, they got to lease the Svestapol port at their terms. It's also big for everyone, you think that what happens in Crimea applies only to Ukraine and Russia? This is literally how it starts, next it's Kiev, then who knows how far Putin will go?
EDIT: @Comrade, I meant the percentage of landmass which it had in comparison to the rest of the country!
You should never judge size of landmass to it's real value. And no, Kiev is not next, we dont need it.
... You didn't need Crimea.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:35:23 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country ...
Stopped reading right there. Keep your numbers straight. Numbers dont lie.
Keep my numbers straight? Dude, look at the percentage of land that it occupied in the Ukraine. FURTHERMORE, look at its location in the Black Sea, that is a huge strategic advantage for Russia to now control Crimea.
Exactly. But Crimea is big for Russia, for Ukraine in terms of GDP is like 3% iirc
Doesn't matter, it was a huge bargaining chip for Ukraine, they got to lease the Svestapol port at their terms. It's also big for everyone, you think that what happens in Crimea applies only to Ukraine and Russia? This is literally how it starts, next it's Kiev, then who knows how far Putin will go?
EDIT: @Comrade, I meant the percentage of landmass which it had in comparison to the rest of the country!
You should never judge size of landmass to it's real value. And no, Kiev is not next, we dont need it.
... You didn't need Crimea.
Obviously we did. We paid huge amount amount of money for stationed fleet. It's politics.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 02:37:29 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 25, 2014, 02:37:50 pm
Also, Lithuania request the US to speed up natural gas exports. (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26724081)
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:39:30 pm
I can tolerate many things in this thread evenRussiansSoviets, but, please, no quote pyramids
Soviets - russians whatever. I stand to my point (literally my point, no devil advocates here). Russia + Ukraine + Belarus = same people, same country. (quotes being a lazy)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 02:44:01 pm
Russia + Ukraine + Belarus = same people, same country.And after that he claims that he doesn't want Kiev :D
PS, I suggest you to add Bulgaria to that same people list, Bulgarian language is much more closer to Russian than Ukrainian and similarities in Language is usually your main argument in that "same people" nonsense
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 02:45:11 pm
People are different, there just was a common power that united them. And it always turned out to be fine, until some men up above though that it's time to have more power in a smaller territory and played it out as a "raise of national self-consciousness".I can tolerate many things in this thread evenRussiansSoviets, but, please, no quote pyramids
Soviets - russians whatever. I stand to my point (literally my point, no devil advocates here). Russia + Ukraine + Belarus = same people, same country. (quotes being a lazy)
EDIT: Though in Ukraine they always had plenty of latter, so they didn't even need to raise a thing there.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:46:46 pm
Russia + Ukraine + Belarus = same people, same country.And after that he claims that he doesn't want Kiev :D
PS, I suggest you to add Bulgaria to that same people list, Bulgarian language is much more closer to Russian than Ukrainian and similarities in Language is usually your main argument in that "same people" nonsense
I am sad you drawing parallels. I believe we all came from Kievean Rus. Number of people called me idiot on that sentence, but whatever. I dont think it's language. It's mentality. On the other hand, you hate Russia. I am okay with that.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:47:58 pm
People are different, there just was a common power that united them. And it always turned out to be fine, until some men up above though that it's time to have more power in a smaller territory and played it out as a "raise of national self-consciousness".I can tolerate many things in this thread evenRussiansSoviets, but, please, no quote pyramids
Soviets - russians whatever. I stand to my point (literally my point, no devil advocates here). Russia + Ukraine + Belarus = same people, same country. (quotes being a lazy)
EDIT: Though in Ukraine they always had plenty of latter, so they didn't even need to raise a thing there.
I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody believe me anyways.
Post by: cerapa on March 25, 2014, 02:49:17 pm
I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody belive me anyways.
I..buh..wha...
I...just...
Wat?
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:50:24 pm
I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody belive me anyways.
I..buh..wha...
I...just...
Wat?
We clap when airbus landed.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 25, 2014, 02:54:07 pm
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2014, 02:55:18 pm
I my disagree with Guardian and Comrade about plenty of stuff, but at least I've normally got an idea of what they are saying and when we miscommunicate we seem to be able to identify and address the miscommunication. If you ask gogis to clarify or explain something you don't think you understand, he just doubles down.
Is there any actual *thing* happening that we can talk about? Did we talk about Russia banning S.T.A.L.K.E.R yet?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 25, 2014, 02:56:43 pm
We clap when airbus landed.
I..buh..wha...
I...just...
Wat?
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 02:56:54 pm
Is there any actual *thing* happening that we can talk about? Did we talk about Russia banning S.T.A.L.K.E.R yet?
To be frank, I am proud for stalker games. I'ts made in Russia! (they think not)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 02:58:28 pm
Spoiler: verse in Russian (click to show/hide)
same verse read by the author (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv97YeC563Y)
Spoiler: Translation of that verse but rather far from the original (click to show/hide)
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:00:18 pm
Gogis, same mentality you say? Nope, we have very different mentalities. . Read that:
You think so. But I think different. Same country.
Post by: mainiac on March 25, 2014, 03:01:16 pm
First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country just got annexed by what is essentially Third Reich 2.0 minus the blatant killing.
This might be the largest qualifier I've ever seen in a statement. Once you've removed the murder and war from the Nazis, what exactly are you trying to invoke? Autobahns?
Also I'm pretty sure that a second Third Reich should be called the Fourth Reich.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2014, 03:01:56 pm
Quote
Russian military after two hours of resistance stormed minesweeper "Odessa" in Lake Donuzlav.
The assault began with persecution at 18:13 , reported "Ukrainian Truth" senior artillery miner mines and torpedoes warhead senior sailor of the ship "Odessa" Alexander Gutnyk.
"Institute proceedings minesweeper" Odessa "two speedboats Russian Federation", - he said.
"So far, the minesweeper" Odessa "evades the attackers, maneuvering," - he added.
As of 18:50 stormed Cherkas with two Mi-35, three speedboats
"Personnel within zadrayanyy" - added Gutnyk.
As the head of the Ukrainian Pravda Media Center Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in Crimea Vladislav Seleznev, the "Cherkassy" going tug "Kovel". According to some information, heard explosions and gunshots.
At 19:14 Alex Tamrazov povdiomlyaye that heard a lot of shooting.
As of 19:18 lasting delight. "We drove and hitched explosive aboard," - said Gutnyk.
"We put smoke bombs that they have not caught up. But they caught us and made explosives. Nobody knows what this stuff. Zadrayani We. This is very dangerous because it can explode at any time" - said Gutnyk.
At 19:40 the ship went down the main control position the wheel "- said Gutnyk.
When asked whether this was because of the explosion, he said: "Yes."
"Ship" Odessa "switched to emergency management post the wheel," - he added.
As of 19:48 Russian invaders have landed on the ship and break the internal bulkhead to get to the room where the crew zabarykaduvalasya "Odessa", - said Vladislav Seleznev.
As of 20:00 heard gunshots and explosions, according to an eyewitness, located on the banks of Donuzlav.
At 20:17 the assault lasted more than two hours.
At 20:30 , according Selezneva citing eyewitness, who was on the shore Donuzlava, tug "Kovel" pulls mosrkyy trawler "Odessa" toward the 5 military town. Above the lake there is the smell of "dymovuhy."
Phone Gutnyk, contacted "Ukrainian Truth" is not responding.
"Odessa" - the only ship that remained in the Crimea with Ukrainian flag.
Do people think that if Ukraine was acting, militarily, like a normal country (instead of being absolutely terrified and basically completely acquiescing) that there wouldn't be a bunch of killing? Because I would imagine that had they resisted there would have been a lot of killing. The question is how long they can appease Russia's military and still stand as an independent country. Hopefully, indefinitely.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:01:59 pm
I have no fucking clue what he is saying, ever.
You lack reading comprehension. I know you think that I am retarded, but no.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2014, 03:06:02 pm
I have no fucking clue what he is saying, ever.
You lack reading comprehension. I know you think that I am retarded, but no.
... I can't even.
Where is that "ignore" function, I think I'm going to need to use it for my own mental health...
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:06:45 pm
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/25/7020294/QuoteRussian military after two hours of resistance stormed minesweeper "Odessa" in Lake Donuzlav.
The assault began with persecution at 18:13 , reported "Ukrainian Truth" senior artillery miner mines and torpedoes warhead senior sailor of the ship "Odessa" Alexander Gutnyk.
"Institute proceedings minesweeper" Odessa "two speedboats Russian Federation", - he said.
"So far, the minesweeper" Odessa "evades the attackers, maneuvering," - he added.
As of 18:50 stormed Cherkas with two Mi-35, three speedboats
"Personnel within zadrayanyy" - added Gutnyk.
As the head of the Ukrainian Pravda Media Center Ministry of Defense of Ukraine in Crimea Vladislav Seleznev, the "Cherkassy" going tug "Kovel". According to some information, heard explosions and gunshots.
At 19:14 Alex Tamrazov povdiomlyaye that heard a lot of shooting.
As of 19:18 lasting delight. "We drove and hitched explosive aboard," - said Gutnyk.
"We put smoke bombs that they have not caught up. But they caught us and made explosives. Nobody knows what this stuff. Zadrayani We. This is very dangerous because it can explode at any time" - said Gutnyk.
At 19:40 the ship went down the main control position the wheel "- said Gutnyk.
When asked whether this was because of the explosion, he said: "Yes."
"Ship" Odessa "switched to emergency management post the wheel," - he added.
As of 19:48 Russian invaders have landed on the ship and break the internal bulkhead to get to the room where the crew zabarykaduvalasya "Odessa", - said Vladislav Seleznev.
As of 20:00 heard gunshots and explosions, according to an eyewitness, located on the banks of Donuzlav.
At 20:17 the assault lasted more than two hours.
At 20:30 , according Selezneva citing eyewitness, who was on the shore Donuzlava, tug "Kovel" pulls mosrkyy trawler "Odessa" toward the 5 military town. Above the lake there is the smell of "dymovuhy."
Phone Gutnyk, contacted "Ukrainian Truth" is not responding.
"Odessa" - the only ship that remained in the Crimea with Ukrainian flag.
Do people think that if Ukraine was acting, militarily, like a normal country (instead of being absolutely terrified and basically completely acquiescing) that there wouldn't be a bunch of killing? Because I would imagine that had they resisted there would have been a lot of killing. The question is how long they can appease Russia's military and still stand as an independent country. Hopefully, indefinitely.
I bet you think they shouldnt? Same country, bet you.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 03:07:18 pm
I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody believe me anyways.
And what's so bad about nationalism itself? You know, I always thought about it like it is a snake's venom. In very small doses it is a treatment, and a nice one it is, but once you got more than dose, even a slightest bit, it kills you in a horrible way or cripples.
I mean, nothing's wrong with having a position that includes racial compound, but, you know, your own freedom stops where the other man's freedom begins.
Is there any actual *thing* happening that we can talk about? Did we talk about Russia banning S.T.A.L.K.E.R yet?Hu? Really? Well, Pirate Bay to the rescue, I guess. Never played it anyway.
@UR: Oh, Maidan poetry. Pretty.
In fact, if you remove ethnic cleansings from Third Reich as well as WWII you get a decent state.First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country just got annexed by what is essentially Third Reich 2.0 minus the blatant killing.
This might be the largest qualifier I've ever seen in a statement. Once you've removed the murder and war from the Nazis, what exactly are you trying to invoke? Autobahns?
Also I'm pretty sure that a second Third Reich should be called the Fourth Reich.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:07:27 pm
I am sad you drawing parallels. I believe we all came from Kievean Rus. Number of people called me idiot on that sentence, but whatever. I dont think it's language. It's mentality. On the other hand, you hate Russia. I am okay with that.
Gogis, correct me if I'm wrong but are you not a Mordvin? Surely when we talk about ancient history you're closer to Digital Hellhound than Ukrainian Ranger? If I remember correctly, I don't think your ancestors came from Kievan Rus, rather... they were conquered. I mean, forgive me, you probably do have a lot of ancestors that came from it but there's more layers to this, surely.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:08:50 pm
I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody believe me anyways.
And what's so bad about nationalism itself? You know, I always thought about it like it is a snake's venom. In very small doses it is a treatment, and a nice one it is, but once you got more than dose, even a slightest bit, it kills you in a horrible way or cripples.
I mean, nothing's wrong with having a position that includes racial compound, but, you know, your own freedom stops where the other man's freedom begins.Is there any actual *thing* happening that we can talk about? Did we talk about Russia banning S.T.A.L.K.E.R yet?Hu? Really? Well, Pirate Bay to the rescue, I guess. Never played it anyway.
@UR: Oh, Maidan poetry. Pretty.In fact, if you remove ethnic cleansings from Third Reich as well as WWII you get a decent state.First of all, don't trivialize shit bro. A large section of a country just got annexed by what is essentially Third Reich 2.0 minus the blatant killing.
This might be the largest qualifier I've ever seen in a statement. Once you've removed the murder and war from the Nazis, what exactly are you trying to invoke? Autobahns?
Also I'm pretty sure that a second Third Reich should be called the Fourth Reich.
I think that nationalism bordering fascism. In any froms. Not like it means something, it's just in lines.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 03:09:21 pm
Where is that "ignore" function, I think I'm going to need to use it for my own mental health...And I have regular contact with people like him in Real Life.....
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 25, 2014, 03:10:50 pm
Well, I'd like to echo the refrain I make every time gogis manages to fill up a page - I have no fucking clue what he is saying, ever. He doesn't even seem to agree with himself about anything, or understand the arguments he's making or the end to which they are made, so how am I supposed to figure it out.His command of the English language isn't particularly good, apparently.
Comrade Gogi, I'm afraid you should work on your English language skills. The ability to convey your thoughts clearly is crucial if you are engaged in a political shitstorm with foreigners.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 03:11:35 pm
I think that nationalism bordering fascism. In any froms. Not like it means something, it's just in lines.Yes it borders. It is silly to deny this fact. Stay within the borders and it'll be fine.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:12:23 pm
I am sad you drawing parallels. I believe we all came from Kievean Rus. Number of people called me idiot on that sentence, but whatever. I dont think it's language. It's mentality. On the other hand, you hate Russia. I am okay with that.
Gogis, correct me if I'm wrong but are you not a Mordvin? I don't think your ancestors came from Kievan Rus, rather... they were conquered. I mean, forgive me, you probably do have a lot of ancestors that came from it but there's more layers to this, surely.
I am literally Udmurt. I was born there. But my parents from Chelyabinsk, so I am not sure. As I understood, you are Scot? Well okay. You try and die trying to be a scot? Or what? I am russian. Fuck it. Bigger is better.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2014, 03:13:22 pm
The irony is that he's making numerous nationalistic arguments while claiming that. I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing's wrong with having a position that includes racial compound", though.I am fiercely against nationalism. Not like anybody believe me anyways.And what's so bad about nationalism itself? You know, I always thought about it like it is a snake's venom. In very small doses it is a treatment, and a nice one it is, but once you got more than dose, even a slightest bit, it kills you in a horrible way or cripples.
I mean, nothing's wrong with having a position that includes racial compound, but, you know, your own freedom stops where the other man's freedom begins.
All Ukrainian video games, apparently.Is there any actual *thing* happening that we can talk about? Did we talk about Russia banning S.T.A.L.K.E.R yet?Hu? Really? Well, Pirate Bay to the rescue, I guess. Never played it anyway.
In fact, if you remove ethnic cleansings from Third Reich as well as WWII you get a decent state.I suspect we have some serious moral, ideological, practical, and historical disagreements about pretty much everything, if you're actually making this as a real claim. But maybe we're imagining a different set of situations where you could possible get the 3rd Reich but no WWII.
His command of the English language isn't particularly good, apparently.I'm not actually sure if this is the problem. I mean, it definitely could be, but I've met "native English speakers" who talk in the exact same (personally) incomprehensible way, but I'm sure any language issues aren't helping. I'm just relieved to discover I'm not the only one have difficulties.
Comrade Gogi, I'm afraid you should work on your English language skills. The ability to convey your thoughts clearly is crucial if you are engaged in a political shitstorm with foreigners.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:16:33 pm
Well, I'd like to echo the refrain I make every time gogis manages to fill up a page - I have no fucking clue what he is saying, ever. He doesn't even seem to agree with himself about anything, or understand the arguments he's making or the end to which they are made, so how am I supposed to figure it out.His command of the English language isn't particularly good, apparently.
Comrade Gogi, I'm afraid you should work on your English language skills. The ability to convey your thoughts clearly is crucial if you are engaged in a political shitstorm with foreigners.
I think my english skills is just enough to be understood, so I am going to abstain, you know?. It's mostly my hobby, so whatever.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:21:54 pm
I am literally Udmurt. I was born there. But my parents from Chelyabinsk, so I am not sure. As I understood, you are Scot? Well okay. You try and die trying to be a scot? Or what? I am russian. Fuck it. Bigger is better.
Well, that's one of the issues that people like Ukrainian Ranger and myself face. Is it better to be a part of a wider nation? Is "bigger" better? I think smaller countries all over the world tend to be happier places and can address their own problems better. They are also easier to integrate into genuine multinational unions like the EU (I would prefer most of the EU member states to be a bit smaller though).
Bigger countries just tend to cause problems and, more often than not, just become vehicles for small numbers of people to become very, very powerful and wealthy when they form elites.
It's just unfortunate when I see a modern day descendant of a conquered nation so assimilated into the conquerer's realm that they do not think of themselves as distinct anymore, even making the mistake of seeing themselves as being a part of that nation even in antiquity.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:24:42 pm
I am literally Udmurt. I was born there. But my parents from Chelyabinsk, so I am not sure. As I understood, you are Scot? Well okay. You try and die trying to be a scot? Or what? I am russian. Fuck it. Bigger is better.
Well, that's one of the issues that people like Ukrainian Ranger and myself face. Is it better to be a part of a wider nation? Is "bigger" better? I think smaller countries all over the world tend to be happier places and can address their own problems better. They are also easier to integrate into genuine multinational unions like the EU (I would prefer most of the EU member states to be a bit smaller though).
Bigger countries just tend to cause problems and, more often than not, just become vehicles for small numbers of people to become very, very powerful and wealthy when they form elites.
It's just unfortunate when I see a modern day descendant of a conquered nation so assimilated into the conquerer's realm that they do not think of themselves as distinct anymore, even making the mistake of seeing themselves as being a part of that nation even in antiquity.
Last 8 years I lived in Moscow, so it's relevant. Go on with direct question. I know everything about Russia. Be it rural or not.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 03:25:07 pm
By a phrase about "opinion including racial compound" I mean that a person can think and speak freely about how he thinks about nationalities, say, black people or Caucassians as long as he understands that they are no less human beings than he is. I on't know if it sounds contradicting to you, if it is, then I probably should reconsider things.
About Third Reich, I might have too little info about it, but as far as I know, this point stands. Maybe during my further learning my opinion will change in a radical way.
@gogis: don't get mad with it, but if you wanna speak on political topics, your language should be as sharp as razorblade. Mine, for example, is pretty blunt, and it enrages me, so I'm working on it.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:27:31 pm
Last 8 years I lived in Moscow, so it's relevant. Go on with direct question. I know everything about Russia. Be it rural or not.
I don't doubt that. I'm not even talking about rural or urban differences. It's just that, even if they have been so assimilated, I still believe there is an Udmurt nation distinct from Russia.
"Dun oşmes vu žiľırté şur'yosın,
Volga-Kam – pacıyl virséram.
Rossien çoş kaygın no danın Ton,
Udmurtie mınam! Yugdıtı."
I hope that one day Udmurts will see the light and seek their own freedom, but the world would probably have to shift quite dramatically for anything like that to happen.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:29:23 pm
@gogis: don't get mad with it, but if you wanna speak on political topics, your language should be as sharp as razorblade. Mine, for example, is pretty blunt, and it enrages me, so I'm working on it.Though,as for me, it doesn't matter how long you try to make a club sharp...
They do understand me, I am 100% certain ) I can't really work on it, I suck in russian same way. Grammar is a biatch.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:30:56 pm
They do understand me, I am 100% certain ) I can't really work on it, I suck in russian same way. Grammar is a biatch.
Hmmm. Perhaps the spirits of your ancestors are trying to tell you something, Gogis.
You know, I once heard that the Irish President "Eamon de Valera" once complained of having to "twist his mouth with the English tongue". I feel like that sometimes.
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 03:31:58 pm
Last 8 years I lived in Moscow, so it's relevant. Go on with direct question. I know everything about Russia. Be it rural or not.
I don't doubt that. I'm not even talking about rural or urban differences. Even if they have been so assimilated I still believe there is an Udmurt nation distinct from Russia.
Uuuuuu, Owlbread, you separatist ::) You wanna see the world map as a patchwork blanket, don't you. Alright, I know you do.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:32:58 pm
Last 8 years I lived in Moscow, so it's relevant. Go on with direct question. I know everything about Russia. Be it rural or not.
I don't doubt that. I'm not even talking about rural or urban differences. It's just that, even if they have been so assimilated, I still believe there is an Udmurt nation distinct from Russia.
"Dun oşmes vu žiľırté şur'yosın,
Volga-Kam – pacıyl virséram.
Rossien çoş kaygın no danın Ton,
Udmurtie mınam! Yugdıtı."
I hope that one day Udmurts will see the light and seek their own freedom, but the world would probably have to shift quite dramatically for anything like that to happen.
They don't want to be free. My former classmate is hardcore Udmurt. He don't want to segregate, what I should say here? I am not really "udmurt" I just was born there. I mean all minorities is fine. I can't undertsand why you are not (or you are okay?)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 03:34:57 pm
It's just unfortunate when I see a modern day descendant of a conquered nation so assimilated into the conquerer's realm that they do not think of themselves as distinct anymore, even making the mistake of seeing themselves as being a part of that nation even in antiquity.That kind of people form a backbone of Soviet people. They lost their nationality but never got a new one. They may think they are Russian but if you dig up you'll see that they know very little about Russian history, Russian traditions, Russian ethics and substitute that with USSR era morals and historical myths.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:35:02 pm
They do understand me, I am 100% certain ) I can't really work on it, I suck in russian same way. Grammar is a biatch.
Hmmm. Perhaps the spirits of your ancestors are trying to tell you something, Gogis.
You know, I once heard that the Irish President "Eamon de Valera" once complained of having to "twist his mouth with the English tongue". I feel like that sometimes.
I am pretty sure my ancestors is simplier than you imply. They are russians.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:36:11 pm
It's just unfortunate when I see a modern day descendant of a conquered nation so assimilated into the conquerer's realm that they do not think of themselves as distinct anymore, even making the mistake of seeing themselves as being a part of that nation even in antiquity.That kind of people form a backbone of Soviet people. They lost their nationality but never got a new one. They may think they are Russian but if you dig up you'll see that they know very little about Russian history, Russian traditions, Russian ethics and substitute that with USSR era morals and historical myths.
Or not... You dig way too shallow.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:39:11 pm
Uuuuuu, Owlbread, you separatist ::) You wanna see the world map as a patchwork blanket, don't you. Alright, I know you do.
I do. I really do. Cartographers would need buckets of paracetamol and aspirin to cope with all the headaches I'd give them.
They don't want to be free. My former classmate is hardcore Udmurt. He don't want to segregate, what I should say here? I am not really "udmurt" I just was born there. I mean all minorities is fine. I can't undertsand why you are not (or you are okay?)
Oh indeed, I don't doubt that there is no desire for independence in Udmurtia. That's a given. That's not to say these ideas couldn't awaken in the future one day, maybe even after we're all dead; once upon a time a lot of the Central Asian states would have rejected independence.
But I don't see it as segregation though, I'm sure Russians and Udmurts would be welcomed equally in an independent Udmurtia. You could even create a system like the EU allowing for freedom of movement.
I am pretty sure my ancestors is simplier than you imply. They are russians.
But can you be so sure? I'm sure they were "Russians" in much the same way that UR's were 200 years ago.
Post by: Baffler on March 25, 2014, 03:41:42 pm
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:43:52 pm
Uuuuuu, Owlbread, you separatist ::) You wanna see the world map as a patchwork blanket, don't you. Alright, I know you do.
I do. I really do. Cartographers would need buckets of paracetamol and aspirin to cope with all the headaches I'd give them.They don't want to be free. My former classmate is hardcore Udmurt. He don't want to segregate, what I should say here? I am not really "udmurt" I just was born there. I mean all minorities is fine. I can't undertsand why you are not (or you are okay?)
Oh indeed, I don't doubt that there is no desire for independence in Udmurtia. That's a given. That's not to say these ideas couldn't awaken in the future one day, maybe even after we're all dead; once upon a time a lot of the Central Asian states would have rejected independence.
But I don't see it as segregation though, I'm sure Russians and Udmurts would be welcomed equally in an independent Udmurtia. You could even create a system like the EU allowing for freedom of movement.I am pretty sure my ancestors is simplier than you imply. They are russians.
But can you be so sure? I'm sure they were "Russians" in much the same way that UR's were 200 years ago.
There is actually vow for independence in Udmurtia. Small %. Democracy. Like everywhere else. I am against, I can vote there btw.
There is no segregation, oh fuck what we talking about? Ukraine? SAME SHIT, RUSSIA
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 03:44:05 pm
Quote
But can you be so sure? I'm sure they were "Russians" in much the same way that UR's were 200 years ago.BTW, One of my Grandfathers is a Russian by any definition of the word.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:45:06 pm
I know very little about what's going on there, so take this with a grain of salt, but if a group doesn't want to be separate, why make them? Unless I've completely missed the point, in which case, don't listen to me.
I've spent the last 3 years trying to convince a group of people who broadly do not want to separate to separate. For the reasons I've already explained though I think the world would be better off reduced to its component nations, not the pseudo-Imperial states it has today.
That kind of people form a backbone of Soviet people. They lost their nationality but never got a new one. They may think they are Russian but if you dig up you'll see that they know very little about Russian history, Russian traditions, Russian ethics and substitute that with USSR era morals and historical myths.
At times people like that remind me of African Americans. Having had their culture, language, religion and everything that was once dear to them taken away, they're left as the by-products of an Imperial or economic machine; without a nation to truly call home. Soviet people no longer have a USSR to be loyal to, so even if they feel closer to Russia they'll never really be content again.
I watched an old woman crying tears of joy clutching a picture of Stalin at a pro-Russian rally in Crimea after the vote on TV recently. Sadly for her she'll never get Stalin again, those days are gone. No matter what federation they belong to.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:46:04 pm
QuoteBut can you be so sure? I'm sure they were "Russians" in much the same way that UR's were 200 years ago.BTW, One of my Grandfathers is a Russian by any definition of the word.
My grand grand mother is Ukrainian from mother side.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:48:00 pm
gasp(c)
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:49:06 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:51:13 pm
My grand grand mother is Ukrainian from mother side.
Gogis, you should get a DNA test. My father took one and we discovered our ancestors were conquered by the Scots in the dark ages. Very interesting stuff.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:52:25 pm
My grand grand mother is Ukrainian from mother side.
Gogis, you should get a DNA test. My father took one and we discovered our ancestors were conquered by the Scots in the dark ages. Very interesting stuff.
Whats your point?
Post by: Mephansteras on March 25, 2014, 03:53:23 pm
I know very little about what's going on there, so take this with a grain of salt, but if a group doesn't want to be separate, why make them? Unless I've completely missed the point, in which case, don't listen to me.
I've spent the last 3 years trying to convince a group of people who broadly do not want to separate to separate. For the reasons I've already explained though I think the world would be better off reduced to its component nations, not the pseudo-Imperial states it has today.That kind of people form a backbone of Soviet people. They lost their nationality but never got a new one. They may think they are Russian but if you dig up you'll see that they know very little about Russian history, Russian traditions, Russian ethics and substitute that with USSR era morals and historical myths.
At times people like that remind me of African Americans. Having had their culture, language, religion and everything that was once dear to them taken away, they're left as the by-products of an Imperial or economic machine; without a nation to truly call home. Soviet people no longer have a USSR to be loyal to, so even if they feel closer to Russia they'll never really be content again.
Americans in general are kinda like this, though. Many of us have very mixed heritages, and the United States is the only thing we really have as a proper national identity anymore. For me the idea of the United States splintering is just...weird. Sure, there are regions that it could be broken up into, but it'd always feel a bit artificial. Especially since the past few generations have been extremely mobile and you have a lot less of the 'My family has lived in this town for hundreds of years' sort of thing. I mean, my own family (aunts, uncles, cousins) are scattered all across the US and I myself have lived in 4 different states covering 3 of the 4 corners of the country. I don't even properly identify with a region of the US, let alone a specific state.
I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 03:56:18 pm
I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.
They defenitely did. It's was called "Raspredelenie". You was called as a specialist in some area.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 03:57:07 pm
Whats your point?
Nothing, just that it might be interesting for you. You might find out that you're actually an Udmurt after all. Or who knows, maybe even a Bashkir... I remember one Russian historian I read about claimed that the Romanov dynasty were descended from Khazars. He was of course a very controversial fellow.
Americans in general are kinda like this, though. Many of us have very mixed heritages, and the United States is the only thing we really have as a proper national identity anymore. For me the idea of the United States splintering is just...weird. Sure, there are regions that it could be broken up into, but it'd always feel a bit artificial. Especially since the past few generations have been extremely mobile and you have a lot less of the 'My family has lived in this town for hundreds of years' sort of thing. I mean, my own family (aunts, uncles, cousins) are scattered all across the US and I myself have lived in 4 different states covering 3 of the 4 corners of the country. I don't even properly identify with a region of the US, let alone a specific state.
I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.
I think the main difference is that the USA is a very artificial state constructed on land literally taken from the Natives. Even though there's been talk of a Republic of Lakotah, it would be very difficult for the remaining Native Americans to attempt anything like that, and most prefer to fight for their rights within the USA. Or so it seems to me.
The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.
This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.
Post by: gogis on March 25, 2014, 04:00:01 pm
Whats your point?
Nothing, just that it might be interesting for you. You might find out that you're actually an Udmurt after all. Or who knows, maybe even a Bashkir... I remember one Russian historian I read about claimed that the Romanov dynasty were descended from Khazars. He was of course a very controversial fellow.Americans in general are kinda like this, though. Many of us have very mixed heritages, and the United States is the only thing we really have as a proper national identity anymore. For me the idea of the United States splintering is just...weird. Sure, there are regions that it could be broken up into, but it'd always feel a bit artificial. Especially since the past few generations have been extremely mobile and you have a lot less of the 'My family has lived in this town for hundreds of years' sort of thing. I mean, my own family (aunts, uncles, cousins) are scattered all across the US and I myself have lived in 4 different states covering 3 of the 4 corners of the country. I don't even properly identify with a region of the US, let alone a specific state.
I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.
I think the main difference is that the USA is a very artificial state constructed on land literally taken from the Natives. Even though there's been talk of a Republic of Lakotah, it would be very difficult for the remaining Native Americans to attempt anything like that, and most prefer to fight for their rights within the USA. Or so it seems to me.
The Russian Federation on the other hand is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.
"On the other hand" is exactly is a term. I am surprised, wtf you want here? I am proud to be russian.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:03:48 pm
By the way, я понимаю немного русского языка и я могу использовать "Google Translate". Если вам трудно говорить по-английски, писать на русском, и мы можем перевести.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 04:04:18 pm
Russia = Kievan Rus. Why it's even are novelty?Lies. Modern Russia is what was a colony of Kievan Rus (read ancient Ukraine) Colony becoming more powerful than former dominion is not unique. But somehow USA doesn't try to annex it's historical city of London. Brazil doesn't want Lisbon either. And all that Spanish speaking South and Central American nations do not unite in one country despite having one language
Russia claiming that Vladymir the Great is a part of Russian History is exactly the same level of nonsense as if USA would claim that William the Conquer is a part of American history
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 04:08:03 pm
Gogis, I am sure you are. I know many Scots that are proud to be British. As I have already explained though my political ideology is such that I think the world would be best reduced to its component nations in order to create peace and stability.I think that the main point where I disagree with you is that maximum segregation creates stability and peace. Without any mean forces to control'em, small national states are about to conflict each other due to the competitive part of human's nature. Like, in order to show who is the boss.
Post by: martinuzz on March 25, 2014, 04:09:40 pm
It's larger parts did not make it past the trade embargo.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:11:05 pm
I think that the main point where I disagree with you is that maximum segregation creates stability and peace. Without any mean forces to control'em, small national states are about to conflict each other due to the competitive part of human's nature. Like, in order to show who is the boss.
But when we look at the break-up of Yugoslavia into its component parts, I know that the actual process was a nightmare scenario, but if we look at things now following the secession of even Montenegro things are looking, in my opinion, much better than they were pre-Yugoslav wars.
I know there's still too much poverty and there's still tension (you could say they're still not done yet with the Bosnian Serbs and Albanians elsewhere) but it almost seems like what the region really needed was to break up and get that out of its system so it can move on. From my perspective, admittedly that of an observer, it has.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 25, 2014, 04:12:07 pm
Americans in general are kinda like this, though. Many of us have very mixed heritages, and the United States is the only thing we really have as a proper national identity anymore. For me the idea of the United States splintering is just...weird. Sure, there are regions that it could be broken up into, but it'd always feel a bit artificial. Especially since the past few generations have been extremely mobile and you have a lot less of the 'My family has lived in this town for hundreds of years' sort of thing. I mean, my own family (aunts, uncles, cousins) are scattered all across the US and I myself have lived in 4 different states covering 3 of the 4 corners of the country. I don't even properly identify with a region of the US, let alone a specific state.
I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.
I think the main difference is that the USA is a very artificial state constructed on land literally taken from the Natives. Even though there's been talk of a Republic of Lakotah, it would be very difficult for the remaining Native Americans to attempt anything like that, and most prefer to fight for their rights within the USA. Or so it seems to me.
The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.
This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.
Very true. Sad as it is, the majority of people with any real claim to the lands have been wiped out or thoroughly displaced. And of course even the well-intentioned attempts to rectify the situation have been of the 'don't break the status quo too much' variety. Personally, I'd support a more widespread effort to restore the native tribes to lands that traditionally belonged to them, but after so long it's a legitimately sticky issue. You can't just Eminent Domain a bunch of land owned by people and give it to someone else without expecting a giant uproar, even if the Government actually was paying a fair price for it.
Gogis, I am sure you are. I know many Scots that are proud to be British. As I have already explained though my political ideology is such that I think the world would be best reduced to its component nations in order to create peace and stability.I think the only problem with your plan is the US. For exactly the reasons we've been discussing, it's pretty much solid as a Nation and wouldn't be easy to break apart even if people were so inclined. And having the US stomp around as the lone giant has already been proven to be...unadvised. Maybe if groupings like the EU had more teeth?
This does bring to mind an interesting question for gogis, though. What's your opinion on Russia being so large and extending so far East? A lot of the regions in the Russian Federation are hardly ethnically or culturally Russian. What would you think about those regions trying to break off into their own proper nations?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 25, 2014, 04:14:02 pm
By the way, я понимаю немного русского языка и я могу использовать "Google Translate". Если вам трудно говорить по-английски, писать на русском, и мы можем перевести.I'd bet you are a bit discomforted by absence of Russian layout on your keyboard, but you're still awesome :D.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:19:34 pm
Very true. Sad as it is, the majority of people with any real claim to the lands have been wiped out or thoroughly displaced. And of course even the well-intentioned attempts to rectify the situation have been of the 'don't break the status quo too much' variety. Personally, I'd support a more widespread effort to restore the native tribes to lands that traditionally belonged to them, but after so long it's a legitimately sticky issue. You can't just Eminent Domain a bunch of land owned by people and give it to someone else without expecting a giant uproar, even if the Government actually was paying a fair price for it.
I agree with this, though perhaps the key is if modern, white farmers and residents in former Native American lands (like maybe a cattle rancher or something) could be convinced that living in a Native-American majority state isn't actually a bad thing for them. Maybe they wouldn't protest so strongly at concepts like Native American "states" rather than just reservations. Like new Oklahomas.
Quote
I think the only problem with your plan is the US. For exactly the reasons we've been discussing, it's pretty much solid as a Nation and wouldn't be easy to break apart even if people were so inclined. And having the US stomp around as the lone giant has already been proven to be...unadvised.
I have often thought about the USA and Canada and even Australia. The old colonial states. Africa is a different kettle of fish too; oftentimes the old European model of "statehood" just doesn't work and can't be superimposed onto tribes. I still need to work this part out.
Quote
Maybe if groupings like the EU had more teeth?
Yes, now you see why I am quite in favour of multinational entities like the EU. The trouble is that it's hard to judge exactly how much "teeth" they should have.
I'd bet you are a bit discomforted by absence of Russian layout on your keyboard, but you're still awesome :D.
I used to have a Russian keyboard somewhere and I managed to learn how to touch type in Cyrillic, unfortunately now though I am very slow. I have to use Google Translate to check my mistakes.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 04:20:13 pm
Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.I think that the main point where I disagree with you is that maximum segregation creates stability and peace. Without any mean forces to control'em, small national states are about to conflict each other due to the competitive part of human's nature. Like, in order to show who is the boss.
But when we look at the break-up of Yugoslavia into its component parts, I know that the actual process was a nightmare scenario, but if we look at things now following the secession of even Montenegro things are looking, in my opinion, much better than they were pre-Yugoslav wars.
I know there's still too much poverty and there's still tension (you could say they're still not done yet with the Bosnian Serbs and Albanians elsewhere) but it almost seems like what the region really needed was to break up and get that out of its system so it can move on. From my perspective, admittedly that of an observer, it has.
The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.
So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries (in this case anyway, but i think also for any case)
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:22:43 pm
Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.
The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.
So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries
Are you sure that the quality of life dropped because the countries broke away, or is it because of the wars and the shift away from a Socialist system?
I really want to discuss Yugoslav issues and why you think things are worse now but I'm unsure if they'd come under the "post-USSR politics" topic. I know Yugoslavia was very much of its own bloc, having cut most of its ties to the USSR, but surely it's not coincidental that they collapsed at around the same time as the Warsaw Pact states became free. Perhaps we should continue in Sheb's thread.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 25, 2014, 04:23:23 pm
But just copypasting USA system to Europe(China, Africa, whenever else) will not work because each part of the world understand words "ethnicity" "nationality" "compatriot" and others in very different ways
Post by: Helgoland on March 25, 2014, 04:26:23 pm
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 04:29:03 pm
The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now).Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.
The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.
So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries
I really want to discuss Yugoslav issues and why you think things are worse now but I'm unsure if they'd come under the "post-USSR politics" topic. I know Yugoslavia was very much of its own bloc, having cut most of its ties to the USSR, but surely it's not coincidental that they collapsed at around the same time as the Warsaw Pact states became free.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:31:40 pm
Owlbread, what do you think is the ideal size for a country?
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...
Well, it does depend on a lot of things. In some respects it's not so much the physical "size" of the country that's important as how it just divides naturally and by nature that tends to be "smaller" than the previous bloc that was there. The natural size of Catalonia for instance is smaller than Spain but it is much bigger than Ireland. Within Catalonia itself though, given its size, I would divide it further along a Federal basis.
The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now).
But is that necessarily true? I'm drifting away from the former USSR here (self consciously) but are the Scandinavian states themselves worse off as independent states than as a wider Union? Are countries like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan worse off now with all the foreign investment and interest that came with independence?
Post by: Max White on March 25, 2014, 04:32:03 pm
Owlbread, what do you think is the ideal size for a country?I would say population is a better metric than geographical size. Too small and economies of scale is working against you, but too big and they are harder to administrate. Plus when nations with roughly equal populations vote, it means each person being represented has roughly the same weight.
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 25, 2014, 04:34:24 pm
About Third Reich, I might have too little info about it, but as far as I know, this point stands. Maybe during my further learning my opinion will change in a radical way.Suffice to say that even without the ethnic cleansing and warmongering, it was a still a nation that advocated the suppression of political dissent through violence, established national propaganda to bolster persecution of any who diverged from "acceptable" views, who ruled their country by intentionally instilling a sense of fear and paranoia that turned neighbour against neighbour.
Even without the jingoism and racial persecution, it was, from everything I've read, a pretty horrible dictatorship, with little chance of improving if left to its own devices.
Owlbread
What do you think of strong federal systems like the US, though? In essence, the US is what you *get* from a strong organization like the EU, isn't it? Where individual members can pretty openly flout federal law (like the marijuana stuff) and they operate with their own budgets and own laws except where superceded by central legislation. I imagine under the sort of situation you'd imagine, the US wouldn't really "break up" so much as our federal component would be weakened?
The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now).This just doesn't hold. There are a great many smaller countries that are MUCH better to live in than similar larger countries. I'd rather live in any of the Scandinavian countries than the much larger Russia, US, or China.
Post by: Mephansteras on March 25, 2014, 04:35:51 pm
Mephansteras, you know... I think USA found that great balance between staying one country and giving the states just enough power to get benefits of splitting up.
But just copypasting USA system to Europe(China, Africa, whenever else) will not work because each part of the world understand words "ethnicity" "nationality" "compatriot" and others in very different ways
Indeed. It is also one of the reasons that the US is so abysmal when it comes to predicting the internal politics of most nations. Americans just flat out don't 'get' the mindset of a lot of the world and end up making really disastrous assumptions. The biggest one being 'It works great in America, so it must work great everywhere else too!'
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:39:22 pm
Owlbread
What do you think of strong federal systems like the US, though? In essence, the US is what you *get* from a strong organization like the EU, isn't it? Where individual members can pretty openly flout federal law (like the marijuana stuff) and they operate with their own budgets and own laws except where superceded by central legislation. I imagine under the sort of situation you'd imagine, the US wouldn't really "break up" so much as our federal component would be weakened?
I respect the American system and at one point in my life I actually favoured it as a model for a reformed UK. There are flaws in this system though - even if the Federal Government does not represent majority of the desires/views of a particular nation/state (Idaho/Utah vs Federal Government for example), that Federal Government would be the same government that could bring that nation into war or impose laws on them they don't want.
I'm sure the majority of Ukrainians would have been very unhappy with the USSR declaring war on Afghanistan on their behalf, just as many in Scotland were unhappy with the same thing taking place on our end 20 years later.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 04:51:11 pm
The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing :)
This just doesn't hold. There are a great many smaller countries that are MUCH better to live in than similar larger countries. I'd rather live in any of the Scandinavian countries than the much larger Russia, US, or China.
If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.
Post by: Owlbread on March 25, 2014, 04:55:25 pm
If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.
I often hear people suggesting things like that but if we go on an "economic" basis, you can't just circumvent all the old lines in the sand. You're dealing with emotional attachment on a massive scale. I maintain that we need to work through the old world problems of nationalism and getting these things out of our system before we can start looking at stuff like that.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 25, 2014, 04:58:32 pm
Quote- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?I believe that bloodshed is unavoidable whatever Ukrainians will do. Not resisting the evil will lead to more blood but later. I never wanted blood in January when I started the thread, but I knew that it is unavoidable
A note first, as I think I haven't explicitly stated it before: I'm from Poland*
I just wanted to note, before going to bed, that this is something that (as I see, but I might be mistaken) is so much harder to understand for people in the West. Their most horrible collective memories are world wars, and they generally think that 'peace' as in 'lack of war' is better than war. The people who actually lived through 'peace' as in 'Soviet occupation' (or actually, 'German occupation' or even 'Austrian occupation'**) know that there are things worse than war. There is a person here, in Central Europe, we consider the stupidest politician in all the history. Neville Chamberlain. A man who thought that if a dictator asks for just a part of another country, he should be given it to avoid war...*** In Poland, we lost 20 times as much civilians as soldiers, despite being first to fight and fighting till the fall of Berlin (literally; there were Polish soldiers in that battle in quite a number, although under Soviet command). And many, many more were displaced and killed before and after war by Soviets (German didn't have that chance, actually). The war is not a nice thing, but it is sometimes better than the alternative. We found - hard way - that war with Russia is almost always better than the alternative****. I hope you, people of the West, won't find it hard way, too. This time, after fifty years of communism and another twenty - five of post-communism (we are far from both democracy***** and capitalism****** here), we probably won't send our pilots to protect London, our sailors to protect convoys from the US, our infantry to take Monte Cassino or our tankers (as in, people driving tanks) to blast through the Normandy; nobody here wants to die for Warsaw, let alone any place outside our borders.
*)Some of my ancestors were actually from Ukraine. Still, I don't like Bandera and his bands, but this is something to be talked about after the Russia is back in its place, probably.
**)It was back in times when Austria was quite huge. Also, it was by far the least horrible of the occupations.
***)Neat little anecdote: when Hitler ordered troops to march into Rhineland, he was asked by his generals what to do if the England and France call mobilization after this (as they should, given the treaties and stuff). His answer? "I will shoot myself, and of you will call the soldiers back." Would save the world quite a lot of trouble, wouldn't it?
****)I mean, obviously, situations like today with Crimea, not general time of life. It might (but also opposite may be true) be better idea to just coexist peacefully with Russia in periods when it is actually peaceful.
*****)I dislike democracy personally, especially what is called liberal democracy now (UR, it seems that we have plenty in common). Then again, I like the current situation even less.
******)I might have taken the asterisks things a bit too far, but anyway, I'm strong Laissez-faire capitalist, I dislike socialistic economy, and I would prefer living in Singapore or New Zeland, or in some states in USA (Texas comes to mind) than in Sweden or even Finland. What we have in Poland is actually standing in the middle of the road, with worst of both world and best of none.
EDIT: Veering off of the USSR politics, and into Owlbread - inspired idea of smaller countries; while the idea might be pretty nice, there is a problem of scale; most importantly, there are countries that would be pretty hard to divide; China, aside from USA, Canada and Australia would be an excellent example and the best to illustrate what I want to say. China is mostly Han Chinese; they are totally dominant in terms of population. China is additionally an autocracy, more or less. And if the world would be divided into smaller countries, it would be easier for major, non-democratic one to just swallow some of them, one after another. Would it happen? I don't know, but judging from what happened in Europe in late Middle Ages and beyond, up to Imperial Age... I think that the urge to just gobble a few neighbours might be too strong to resist for some big countries. And artificially dividing China isn't all that good of an idea either, I think.
Post by: Knit tie on March 25, 2014, 05:13:47 pm
I am always for the path of the least bloodshed, you see. Letting modern Russia occupy Crimea has not caused any casualties so far, at least by the armed forces, so I'd say it's better this way, not because letting Putin do his landgrabbing spectacle is a nice thing, but because the alternative is much worse. But, of course, if it was the USSR taking over Crimea (let's assume that it's a NATO member in an alternative history), or if Russia begins to act like its murderous predecessor, then fighting to the death is infinitely preferable to letting the occupants have their way.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 05:17:41 pm
A note first, as I think I haven't explicitly stated it before: I'm from Poland*
I just wanted to note, before going to bed, that this is something that (as I see, but I might be mistaken) is so much harder to understand for people in the West. Their most horrible collective memories are world wars, and they generally think that 'peace' as in 'lack of war' is better than war. The people who actually lived through 'peace' as in 'Soviet occupation' (or actually, 'German occupation' or even 'Austrian occupation'**) know that there are things worse than war. There is a person here, in Central Europe, we consider the stupidest politician in all the history. Neville Chamberlain. A man who thought that if a dictator asks for just a part of another country, he should be given it to avoid war...*** In Poland, we lost 20 times as much civilians as soldiers, despite being first to fight and fighting till the fall of Berlin (literally; there were Polish soldiers in that battle in quite a number, although under Soviet command). And many, many more were displaced and killed before and after war by Soviets (German didn't have that chance, actually). The war is not a nice thing, but it is sometimes better than the alternative. We found - hard way - that war with Russia is almost always better than the alternative****. I hope you, people of the West, won't find it hard way, too. This time, after fifty years of communism and another twenty - five of post-communism (we are far from both democracy***** and capitalism****** here), we probably won't send our pilots to protect London, our sailors to protect convoys from the US, our infantry to take Monte Cassino or our tankers (as in, people driving tanks) to blast through the Normandy; nobody here wants to die for Warsaw, let alone any place outside our borders.
People need to understand some things. You do not/should not fight wars that you can not win something (because you will than lose both military, civilians and a lot more, industry, infrastructure, so if you want to talk for real, you lose 10 times more fighting and losing than not fighting and losing).
Also when it comes to ukraine, like it or not, crimea has a pro rusian population that do not consider it a occupation. So its not the same thing, if population supports it.
Post by: Helgoland on March 25, 2014, 05:39:31 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 25, 2014, 05:42:32 pm
nenjin*hackwrongnamecough* Probably, anyway.
Post by: Knit tie on March 25, 2014, 05:44:18 pm
nenjin, there's that old saying "Es mejor morir luchando que vivir de rodillas." By Emiliano Zapato, a Mexican revolutionary. Not that he was successful...
Depends entirely on the person. I know a fair amount of people who'd rather be alive than free.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 25, 2014, 06:07:13 pm
The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing :)
This just doesn't hold. There are a great many smaller countries that are MUCH better to live in than similar larger countries. I'd rather live in any of the Scandinavian countries than the much larger Russia, US, or China.
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.
Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.
People need to understand some things. You do not/should not fight wars that you can not win something (because you will than lose both military, civilians and a lot more, industry, infrastructure, so if you want to talk for real, you lose 10 times more fighting and losing than not fighting and losing).
That is an absolutely disgusting viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it is. "If you don't think you can win, just bend over for whoever wants to make you their slave!"
So by the same point of view, no one should ever fight against the US if the US just decided to take over the world?
Not only that, your comment is in response to World War 2, where you are especially saying that all of the countries should have just sat on their knees and allow the subjugation and mass-murder of their friends and family with no issue. Just take it on the chin.
That sentiment also completely ignores one of the key facets of war: make an objective so costly to the enemy that they hesitate at taking that objective or decide not to do it altogether. If everyone is simply to lay down, there is no cost, there is nothing preventing an enemy.
Also when it comes to ukraine, like it or not, crimea has a pro rusian population that do not consider it a occupation. So its not the same thing, if population supports it.
Oh? And what do you think of the previous 3 years' worth of polls over the very same subject that show an absolutely overwhelming non-pro-Russia attitude, as well as the population demographics putting the ethnic Russians at less than 18%, with probably everyone else not willing to be on their side on the issue?
So when it comes to Ukraine, like it or not miljan, it sounds like the whole Crimean situation is absolutely saturated with Russian propaganda.
Post by: olemars on March 25, 2014, 06:09:40 pm
The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing :)
This just doesn't hold. There are a great many smaller countries that are MUCH better to live in than similar larger countries. I'd rather live in any of the Scandinavian countries than the much larger Russia, US, or China.
If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.
The Nordic countries are a bit different there due to fairly recent history.
Norway learned its lesson in WW2, that neutrality and unalignment only works as long as the other players think you are worthless. So Norway (and Denmark, I guess) were a founding member of NATO.
Sweden never learned its lesson and are still technically neutral, as long as we ignore the EU membership. There is suddenly some talk of looking at NATO membership again though.
Finland has a tragic history, so they're unaligned because they haven't been allowed any other option. Everytime there's talk of joining NATO, Russia (and previously, USSR) goes "ahem", since apparently russian neighbors aren't entitled to any sense of security.
I'll also openly admit to being a huge NATO fanboy.
Post by: scrdest on March 25, 2014, 06:15:22 pm
Post by: scriver on March 25, 2014, 06:16:53 pm
Mephansteras, you know... I think USA found that great balance between staying one country and giving the states just enough power to get benefits of splitting up.
But just copypasting USA system to Europe(China, Africa, whenever else) will not work because each part of the world understand words "ethnicity" "nationality" "compatriot" and others in very different ways
Indeed. It is also one of the reasons that the US is so abysmal when it comes to predicting the internal politics of most nations. Americans just flat out don't 'get' the mindset of a lot of the world and end up making really disastrous assumptions. The biggest one being 'It works great in America, so it must work great everywhere else too!'
The EU has the same problem within it.
Post by: Frumple on March 25, 2014, 06:17:17 pm
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either.You uh, missed a very important couple words in that statement. Those words being "per capita".
Post by: Knit tie on March 25, 2014, 06:18:32 pm
Eh, I'm not sure if Russians would be so keen to try their luck at Finland again. Unless they bring ALL THE NUKES. Only way to be sure.We had a very, very shit army during the winter war, hence all the disaster. Right now it would be a much more fair battle, not that the Finns would be any less lethal.
Post by: lemon10 on March 25, 2014, 06:20:41 pm
EDIT: Veering off of the USSR politics, and into Owlbread - inspired idea of smaller countries; while the idea might be pretty nice, there is a problem of scale; most importantly, there are countries that would be pretty hard to divide; China, aside from USA, Canada and Australia would be an excellent example and the best to illustrate what I want to say. China is mostly Han Chinese; they are totally dominant in terms of population. China is additionally an autocracy, more or less. And if the world would be divided into smaller countries, it would be easier for major, non-democratic one to just swallow some of them, one after another. Would it happen? I don't know, but judging from what happened in Europe in late Middle Ages and beyond, up to Imperial Age... I think that the urge to just gobble a few neighbours might be too strong to resist for some big countries. And artificially dividing China isn't all that good of an idea either, I think.Yes, but assuming that all the countries were smaller, it would be much easier to band together to fight off a single same size aggressive neighboring country. This move on Russia's part would be impossible if Russia wasn't so much larger then Ukraine (especially if Moscow had to deal with St. Petersburg helping Ukraine defend themselves). Likewise the invasion of Iraq would have been impossible without the vast projection capacity the US has (at least partially) due to its size.
It wouldn't stop invasions all together of course, but it would make them all much more even.
Of course, that is assuming that somehow they all got broken up without causing massive political/ethnic/nationalism problems which isn't really possible.
Post by: miljan on March 25, 2014, 07:07:47 pm
Not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.
Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.
They can not do anything on their own because they are not strong/big enough, that was my point when we talked about it.
Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
That is an absolutely disgusting viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it is. "If you don't think you can win, just bend over for whoever wants to make you their slave!"
So by the same point of view, no one should ever fight against the US if the US just decided to take over the world?
Not only that, your comment is in response to World War 2, where you are especially saying that all of the countries should have just sat on their knees and allow the subjugation and mass-murder of their friends and family with no issue. Just take it on the chin.
That sentiment also completely ignores one of the key facets of war: make an objective so costly to the enemy that they hesitate at taking that objective or decide not to do it altogether. If everyone is simply to lay down, there is no cost, there is nothing preventing an enemy.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.
Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2? WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.
The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?
Oh? And what do you think of the previous 3 years' worth of polls over the very same subject that show an absolutely overwhelming non-pro-Russia attitude, as well as the population demographics putting the ethnic Russians at less than 18%, with probably everyone else not willing to be on their side on the issue?Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.
So when it comes to Ukraine, like it or not miljan, it sounds like the whole Crimean situation is absolutely saturated with Russian propaganda.
Also is it a russia propaganda or not, the fact is you don't know, same as me. Because after the thing that happend in ukraine a lot can change in little time. But from the looks of it, and people protesting/celebrating i think there is a majority of pro russian support. So yes, like it or not, it looks like they want to be in russia, and I guess i should use the work looks like, so that was my error in the post.
Post by: mainiac on March 25, 2014, 07:39:25 pm
Yes, but assuming that all the countries were smaller, it would be much easier to band together to fight off a single same size aggressive neighboring country.
So country A threatens country B so countries B and C band together. Then countries B and C realize they can squash A so they decide to strike first. Or there is political unrest in country D so suddenly A, B and C all want to make sure the right side wins.
A multipolar world means more conflict not less because it means that aggression or the fear of aggression from many more parties is enough to trigger war. People say that the US is irresponsible but the numbers disagree; the post Cold War era has been the safest era in history in terms of people dying from inter-state and intrastate war. And before that the bi-polar world of the Cold War was was safer then the wars everywhere free for all environment of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 25, 2014, 07:50:58 pm
Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
I THINK
We should move this particular discussion into PMs.
Post by: Chaoswizkid on March 25, 2014, 08:05:31 pm
Sometimes I wonder do people read at all or not what thye post.Not correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.
Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.
They can not do anything on their own because they are not strong/big enough, that was my point when we talked about it.
I did forget to post "per capita". My apologies. Still, per capita GDP is a good indicator of economic strength. I did agree with you that, paired off with Russia in a 1 on 1 they may not fair that well, but they would not stand alone (At least Norway and Denmark wouldn't as-is. I'm thinking that the countries of NATO, if not the organization itself, would just say "fuck it" and help out Sweden and Finland if they don't join NATO before a hypothetical hostile situation), so it's a moot point in if they can do anything individually or not.False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either.You uh, missed a very important couple words in that statement. Those words being "per capita".
Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.
"on something stupid" is a very, very key part of what you just said.
Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2?One of the posts I quoted you on was your response to BlindKitty, a Pole who was talking about WW2 and post-WW2. I brought up the US as a country you'd probably not want to see control the entire world to challenge your point of view of "Lesser states should just roll over and die."
WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.
If they are a small country, I'd expect them to fight for their freedom, yes. I would expect them not to sit idly by and watch a large nation stroll right into their country and subjugate them. Even if it meant many lives would be lost, even if they likely wouldn't win, it would show that the aggression of a large nation is not tolerated, on any level, by anyone. If it would not save more lives in that singular country by the actions of the patriots of that small nation, then it may save the lives of more countries that would be in the path of aggression, as it would cause them to bond together, find hope, and submit to the US that there is a price for aggression that they will be forced to pay.
And again, there is international relations to keep in mind. If everyone is a pacifist, the world will think "They are okay with this." and will allow the gross subjugation without much problems stirred at all. If they fight, there will be perceived injustices, which will align more countries against the aggressor.
The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?
If they win, they deal an absolutely massive blow to the pride of Russia, severely undermine the political power of Putin, regain sovereignty of Crimea, quell the political instability of Ukraine ("Pro-Russian" political instability anyway) and gain the respect of pretty much every non-Pacifist for at least one generation. (Note: from my point of view outside of Ukraine, obviously)
If they lose, well, that'd depend on the terms of war Russia would be fighting on.
In either case, many lives would be lost. It's up to those willing to fight to determine if the cost of victory is too high or not.
Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.On the population: ... Okay, I just checked again, and I swear that when I looked at Crimean populations, and Crimea specifically, it did not have that. Apparently whatever I looked at before was just the Ukraine population statistics copy-pasted for Crimea. I'm actually pretty upset about this. Sorry. You're right, on what I can find, ethnic Russians compose more than half of the population.
The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.
Now think how plausible the result isSpoiler: some old polls (click to show/hide)
Not according to that. Granted, when I saw those poll results (also I'd need a good source, not sure where UR got them), I mistook the "Secede to Russia" section for one of the other sections, so it's a lot bigger than I thought it was. Still, ~30% and ~20% is very, very far away from the results that were obtained recently.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 26, 2014, 12:46:52 am
It's interesting, because many of the largest countries in Europe like France and Germany were like this up until 200-100 years ago, but for the most part were assimilated into a single national identity due to active government interference such as standardising the language used in schools, media, all government printings etc. and not to mention treating minority's and minority languages as if they were inferior as well as other more oppressive policy's (not I'm not talking about nazi Germany or any if the forced migrations of the 20th century, however these policy's would have had an effect causing somewhat voluntary migration of oppressed minority's to countries they identified more closely with culturally)
The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.
This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.
Hell Germany was dozens of independent states with fractured legal codes, language variations, different currencies, measurements etc not too long ago.
Post by: smjjames on March 26, 2014, 12:59:52 am
It's interesting, because many of the largest countries in Europe like France and Germany were like this up until 200-100 years ago, but for the most part were assimilated into a single national identity due to active government interference such as standardising the language used in schools, media, all government printings etc. and not to mention treating minority's and minority languages as if they were inferior as well as other more oppressive policy's (not I'm not talking about nazi Germany or any if the forced migrations of the 20th century, however these policy's would have had an effect causing somewhat voluntary migration of oppressed minority's to countries they identified more closely with culturally)
The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.
This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.
Hell Germany was dozens of independent states with fractured legal codes, language variations, different currencies, measurements etc not too long ago.
Especially Germany, it was split up into a great many small states which made up the Holy Roman Empire.
Italy is another example, it consisted largely of a collection of city-states and Italy as an unified state didn't arise until the 19th century.
Post by: MarcAFK on March 26, 2014, 01:12:48 am
Post by: olemars on March 26, 2014, 08:24:49 am
Post by: MarcAFK on March 26, 2014, 08:29:57 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 26, 2014, 10:20:29 am
Post by: miljan on March 26, 2014, 11:11:33 am
I did forget to post "per capita". My apologies. Still, per capita GDP is a good indicator of economic strength. I did agree with you that, paired off with Russia in a 1 on 1 they may not fair that well, but they would not stand alone (At least Norway and Denmark wouldn't as-is. I'm thinking that the countries of NATO, if not the organization itself, would just say "fuck it" and help out Sweden and Finland if they don't join NATO before a hypothetical hostile situation), so it's a moot point in if they can do anything individually or not.
That was the point, they can not stand alone as they are small and not powerful. Together you are stronger. That was my point all along.
Its not disgusting viewpoint, its the smartest thing to do.
Sorry, I care more about my family and friends than to throw people lives on something stupid like we are talking here about UK and crimea.
"on something stupid" is a very, very key part of what you just said.
As I said if there is nothing you can win from a fight, and fighting can only make you lose more than it is stupid.
Also, WTF are you even talking about? USA, WW2?One of the posts I quoted you on was your response to BlindKitty, a Pole who was talking about WW2 and post-WW2. I brought up the US as a country you'd probably not want to see control the entire world to challenge your point of view of "Lesser states should just roll over and die."
Lesser state should go with the flow and try to survive,not throw themselves and die like you are trying to say. And your ww2 comment and usa doesnt have to do anything with my post, as I was talking specifically of when you should fight or not.
I fully disagree, and lets stay on that. When you are in war, and lose some people you may understand it better.WTF man? If USA attacks you and says i will bomb the shit out of you, if you do not do this, this and this, what will you do if you are in small country? Throw your family on them, so they all die and the end result will be same or even worse? Think a little dude.
If they are a small country, I'd expect them to fight for their freedom, yes. I would expect them not to sit idly by and watch a large nation stroll right into their country and subjugate them. Even if it meant many lives would be lost, even if they likely wouldn't win, it would show that the aggression of a large nation is not tolerated, on any level, by anyone. If it would not save more lives in that singular country by the actions of the patriots of that small nation, then it may save the lives of more countries that would be in the path of aggression, as it would cause them to bond together, find hope, and submit to the US that there is a price for aggression that they will be forced to pay.
And again, there is international relations to keep in mind. If everyone is a pacifist, the world will think "They are okay with this." and will allow the gross subjugation without much problems stirred at all. If they fight, there will be perceived injustices, which will align more countries against the aggressor.
The same thing we are talking here about ukraine, would they get anything from war, or would they actually lose more?
If they win, they deal an absolutely massive blow to the pride of Russia, severely undermine the political power of Putin, regain sovereignty of Crimea, quell the political instability of Ukraine ("Pro-Russian" political instability anyway) and gain the respect of pretty much every non-Pacifist for at least one generation. (Note: from my point of view outside of Ukraine, obviously)
If they lose, well, that'd depend on the terms of war Russia would be fighting on.
In either case, many lives would be lost. It's up to those willing to fight to determine if the cost of victory is too high or not.
There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.
Oh I am sure that 93% was a scam, as there is no chance there is that huge support for it, but there is a good chance that majority of people do support it, and it is not a simple occupation of territory where population is fully against it.Dude, stop posting things that are simply not correct, and check what you post. All polls show more than 50% russian people. The thing that polls showed back than is they do not want a separated state.On the population: ... Okay, I just checked again, and I swear that when I looked at Crimean populations, and Crimea specifically, it did not have that. Apparently whatever I looked at before was just the Ukraine population statistics copy-pasted for Crimea. I'm actually pretty upset about this. Sorry. You're right, on what I can find, ethnic Russians compose more than half of the population.
Not according to that. Granted, when I saw those poll results (also I'd need a good source, not sure where UR got them), I mistook the "Secede to Russia" section for one of the other sections, so it's a lot bigger than I thought it was. Still, ~30% and ~20% is very, very far away from the results that were obtained recently.
Anyway let's just say we disagree with each other so I dont need to post so much :)
And back on topic, it looks like crimean tatars will do a referendum also. Not only them, but Venice province did a online poll where more than 2 million people signed that they want to be independent, so they will think about doing a referendum also. Alnd catalonia in spain is interested in a referendum.
Argentina accuses world powers of double-standard over crimea
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 11:20:48 am
Quote
There is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border
Post by: da_nang on March 26, 2014, 11:22:52 am
Argentina accuses world powers of double-standard over crimeaEh, I don't remember there being turmoil and foreign occupational forces in the Falklands during that vote.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-19/argentina-accuses-world-powers-of-double-standard-over-crimea)
Post by: smjjames on March 26, 2014, 11:31:31 am
Someone said something a while ago about St. Petersburg wanting to secede. Don't know what became of that though.
As for the Falklands, Argentina has been wanting them since the 19th century.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 26, 2014, 11:47:42 am
Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.QuoteThere is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border
Post by: smjjames on March 26, 2014, 11:52:59 am
Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.QuoteThere is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border
On the border to the east? Ukraine has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Russia across that border. Defending itself however, is another situation entirely.
Post by: Zangi on March 26, 2014, 11:54:36 am
I'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here. Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to. Attack Crimea or the Russians at the border, they will roll in like they done Georgia.Considering that viewpoints like yours are, at least to some extent, popular (if you are taken as a reasonably typical current-day Ukrainian), I think "to guard against potential action by Ukraine" is a reasonably possible - and prudent - reason for that.QuoteThere is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border
On the border to the east? Ukraine has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Russia across that border. Defending itself however, is another situation entirely.
I think Putin is quite satisfied with Crimea, if things as is are left well alone. There is also the fact that rhetoric from the US seems to be: "If you do anything more, we will give harsher sanctions, cause we mean business this time."
All this fear of Russia expanding even more, unprovoked is just irrational fear in my opinion. As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting. It won't be the same if they go for the rest.
Post by: Lagslayer on March 26, 2014, 12:27:50 pm
All this fear of Russia expanding even more, unprovoked is just irrational fear in my opinion. As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting. It won't be the same if they go for the rest.That's what they said before he took Crimea.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 12:29:00 pm
Quote
I'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here. Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin later
After all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"
Capturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coast
Quote
I think Putin is quite satisfied with Crimea, if things as is are left well alone. There is also the fact that rhetoric from the US seems to be: "If you do anything more, we will give harsher sanctions, cause we mean business this time."Crimea itself doesn't worth all the effort and resources spent.
As for Sanctions. I believe they are ready to bite the bullet. And that "harsher sanctions" I read as - "whatever you will do in Ukraine it will get no military help" message to Putin
Quote
As it is, Russia took Crimea without fighting. It won't be the same if they go for the rest.I am not sure that our current government will not give the same - "Don't shoot" order. Even if they'll not it will be a short war. Guerrilla war after that is guaranteed but for Putin's imperial ambitions killing "Bandera's" is essential.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 26, 2014, 12:50:20 pm
To put it simply, the Chelyabinsk Meteorite effect. Exactly when Russia took Crimea, exactly how it went down, nobody was ready to look out for it when it was happening, and all there is to see - for non-Russian non-government or non-military people - is only the aftereffect - like a crater from a typical meteorite. Ukraine right now is a Chelyabinsk equivalent. It's open to European and US journalists, and it's very much expected - due to the exact logic leaps you propose - to be in some shape or form attacked by Russia. Any sort of direct, unprovoked action by Russia is inevitably going to be reported, giving Russia/Putin much less capacity for counter-propaganda - so it's plain not smart.QuoteI'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here. Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin later
Quote
After all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"As above. Not smart. Bloodless commandeering of a fractured territory with overwhelming people's support both here and there is one thing. An act of war is something entirely different - if there's anything besides gay parades that the general Russian public is overwhelmingly negative towards, it's outright war.
Quote
Capturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coastHeh, now that I agree with, the "senseless" part particularly. I believe that those ships were seized as the exact same sort of preventative measure that had Ukrainian military units in Crimea forced into surrender. Ukrainian government is believed - both by the general public due to the "leaked calls" and other such things, and quite probably our government as well - to be capable of rash, un-thought-through actions, including surprise attacks and guerilla warfare using troops and hardware based in Crimean territory. Just as the massing of troops along the borders, it's meant to first and foremost guard the Ukraine against the Ukraine - an attempt to radically prevent attempts at armed opposition, so that it doesn't in turn lead to uncontrolled escalation of conflict.
Now, whether or not it'll backfire in the long run - we'll see, I guess. :\
Post by: Knit tie on March 26, 2014, 01:15:51 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 01:19:24 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 26, 2014, 01:32:14 pm
Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex CrimeaIn my opinion, it was quite obvious that that would happen the day the Crimeans asked for Russian help.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 26, 2014, 01:35:52 pm
Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex CrimeaI'd say... hmm. I can't remember what exactly was happening a month ago. And honestly, I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Not to mention that I probably wasn't present in this thread at the time, but anyway. If that were before we started getting the newsbits about a full-blown Molotov-flinging police-burning riot going on, I'd say it was unlikely... but probably not impossible. Russia would have had a lot to gain by moving in on Crimea, strategically, and with a large proportion of people there strongly associating with Russia (even if not, by polls - which I had no idea of at the time - quite eager to outright merge into it) I'd say full-on military incursion would have been remotely possible, but not probable. I would likely have said that if anything of the kind were attempted, it would have been done through the people.
Which, in retrospect, is probably what was going to happen. But then the whole civil war thing broke out (again, as reported - no idea what actually happened), and with the "people's choice" high up enough in the air for a passing ICBM to snag on it, Russia made the move. If you asked me at that time, when our TVs were showing armed people in the streets and fire raining on police officers, with reports of widespread unrest, I would likely have said that an intervention was inevitable; that it was going to be either a Europe/US-empowered Ukraine, or the nearby and present military forces of Russia (though I really was only aware of Sevastopol at the time... and I kinda was under the impression that it was a port and a fort - not a naval base), and I think that given both the vested interest, and their immediate availability, and the matter of the whole thing being about the region being fed up with Ukrainian government, I think the result would have, in retrospect, been obvious.
...
I like reverse-introspective like that. Really makes the brain move. :P
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 01:47:48 pm
Post by: miljan on March 26, 2014, 01:51:42 pm
QuoteThere is no if they win. They would lose. And they would lose a lot more than just crimea.But who said that Putin doesn't want more than Crimea? More and more troops are concentrated on Ukrainian border
The thing is simple. If putin wanted and planed to do a full time invasion, it would already happen at same time as crimea invasion, when ukraine was in disarray, as that was the best time to do it. You do not wait few weeks for ukraine military to organize itself and than attack, and no weapons from crimea basses or ships will be of any big help for waiting so long
The reason for why is there military on border, few posters before me did a good explanation.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 26, 2014, 02:14:01 pm
No offence meant, but what I understand from your post is "I've not bothered to check up what was going on, and I don't care".About the situation in Crimea? "I don't care" sounds somewhat harsh, but it mostly sums it up. As long as US or Ukrainian supersoldiers don't start marching through our streets and disrupting what passes for regular day-to-day life around here, I mostly don't care whether Russia keeps Crimea or not, or whether it does anything else I can't influence. Will me fretting over events over there change anything? No. Then why even bother? My self-identification as a "disinterested observer" is not just for the purposes of speaking in this thread. ;)
And yeah, I've not bothered to check up what was going on, because I didn't really know what was going on then, and finding out now what was going on then will not help me answer the question I was asked now of what I would have answered then, have I been questioned about the events occurring then. It's counterproductive if you want to answer the question as truthfully as you can manage, which I did. ^_^
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 26, 2014, 02:22:43 pm
--You guys lose me whenever you mention 'beating them to the punch' as far as military interventions go.
If Ukraine actually /did/ start cleansing it's crim-russians? Yeah, they'd be interested in stopping that- shit, it would be a big gay co-op adventure with Russia. Happy days!
But otherwise I don't see it.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 26, 2014, 02:24:59 pm
Sean Mirrsen, Interesting what would you say if month ago I wrote here that Russia will move in and annex CrimeaIn my opinion, it was quite obvious that that would happen the day the Crimeans asked for Russian help.
Didn't Crimea ask Russia for help after Russia invaded and took over most of the parliament and kicked out everyone who wasn't interested in asking Russia for help? Because every timeline I can recall put the "ask for help" thing afterwards.
Sean Mirrsen, there was never a civil war, especially in the crimian area. Russia moved in after all of what violence there was ended. There were a great many people arguing exactly what you are arguing now as the reason Russia would never invade the Ukraine at all, and then they did.
I think it's okay to argue that Russia probably won't move into the rest of the Ukraine, but I think it's pretty obvious he is ready to should the opportunity present itself. He's enjoying record highs of domestic support and the international community has given him tacit permission to do what he wishes by promising the only thing he can expect should he do so is a few more meaningless sanctions that actually strengthen his position domestically.
Will he? I honestly don't know. There's not enough information to be sure. But I think he's made it clear through what he's said and done, as far as I can tell, that he at least wants people to believe he is "keeping the option on the table", as it were.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 02:41:38 pm
Post by: olemars on March 26, 2014, 03:06:40 pm
To put it simply, the Chelyabinsk Meteorite effect. Exactly when Russia took Crimea, exactly how it went down, nobody was ready to look out for it when it was happening, and all there is to see - for non-Russian non-government or non-military people - is only the aftereffect - like a crater from a typical meteorite. Ukraine right now is a Chelyabinsk equivalent. It's open to European and US journalists, and it's very much expected - due to the exact logic leaps you propose - to be in some shape or form attacked by Russia. Any sort of direct, unprovoked action by Russia is inevitably going to be reported, giving Russia/Putin much less capacity for counter-propaganda - so it's plain not smart.QuoteI'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here. Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin laterQuoteAfter all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"As above. Not smart. Bloodless commandeering of a fractured territory with overwhelming people's support both here and there is one thing. An act of war is something entirely different - if there's anything besides gay parades that the general Russian public is overwhelmingly negative towards, it's outright war.QuoteCapturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coastHeh, now that I agree with, the "senseless" part particularly. I believe that those ships were seized as the exact same sort of preventative measure that had Ukrainian military units in Crimea forced into surrender. Ukrainian government is believed - both by the general public due to the "leaked calls" and other such things, and quite probably our government as well - to be capable of rash, un-thought-through actions, including surprise attacks and guerilla warfare using troops and hardware based in Crimean territory. Just as the massing of troops along the borders, it's meant to first and foremost guard the Ukraine against the Ukraine - an attempt to radically prevent attempts at armed opposition, so that it doesn't in turn lead to uncontrolled escalation of conflict.
Now, whether or not it'll backfire in the long run - we'll see, I guess. :\
There have been plenty of outhright acts of war - sinking hulks to block off a Ukrainian navy base and several towns' access to the sea, boarding ships of another sovereign nation, blockading and taking over military bases. It seems like Russia has tried a lot harder to provoke aggression than prevent it, what's incredible is that there haven't been any more serious incidents and kinda moots the "risk of rash decisions" argument.
Taking over what's essentially the entire Ukrainian navy seems from my perspective like deliberately weakening Ukraine's military capabilities, to make them more vulnerable and more susceptible to pressure. It's been done before, when the Russian army left the baltic states in the 90's they destroyed what they couldn't take with them, leaving the three fledgling countries completely defenseless.
A general observation: if Russia is so worried about security and genuinely wants a friendly neighborhood they might want to work on their routine.
Post by: Knit tie on March 26, 2014, 03:19:48 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 26, 2014, 03:20:51 pm
Russia wants a controlled neighborhood.To put it simply, the Chelyabinsk Meteorite effect. Exactly when Russia took Crimea, exactly how it went down, nobody was ready to look out for it when it was happening, and all there is to see - for non-Russian non-government or non-military people - is only the aftereffect - like a crater from a typical meteorite. Ukraine right now is a Chelyabinsk equivalent. It's open to European and US journalists, and it's very much expected - due to the exact logic leaps you propose - to be in some shape or form attacked by Russia. Any sort of direct, unprovoked action by Russia is inevitably going to be reported, giving Russia/Putin much less capacity for counter-propaganda - so it's plain not smart.QuoteI'll agree with Sean Mirrsen here. Russia will only do something, if they are given the excuse to.What stops Russia from just saying they were attacked by Ukrainians or inventing any other lame excuse? Why they need and kind of excuse if their television will happily say any nonsesnse? That will be repeated by Churkin and Putin laterQuoteAfter all why not get all Ukrainian military equipment in Crimea without firing a single shot and than attack? They already move our former tanks to Crimean-Ukrainian "border"As above. Not smart. Bloodless commandeering of a fractured territory with overwhelming people's support both here and there is one thing. An act of war is something entirely different - if there's anything besides gay parades that the general Russian public is overwhelmingly negative towards, it's outright war.QuoteCapturing Ukrainian Navy is rather senseless, most of that old ships have little to no practical value for Russians BUT should that vessels pull out they could be used in delaying amphibious landings along Ukrainian coastHeh, now that I agree with, the "senseless" part particularly. I believe that those ships were seized as the exact same sort of preventative measure that had Ukrainian military units in Crimea forced into surrender. Ukrainian government is believed - both by the general public due to the "leaked calls" and other such things, and quite probably our government as well - to be capable of rash, un-thought-through actions, including surprise attacks and guerilla warfare using troops and hardware based in Crimean territory. Just as the massing of troops along the borders, it's meant to first and foremost guard the Ukraine against the Ukraine - an attempt to radically prevent attempts at armed opposition, so that it doesn't in turn lead to uncontrolled escalation of conflict.
Now, whether or not it'll backfire in the long run - we'll see, I guess. :\
There have been plenty of outhright acts of war - sinking hulks to block off a Ukrainian navy base and several towns' access to the sea, boarding ships of another sovereign nation, blockading and taking over military bases. It seems like Russia has tried a lot harder to provoke aggression than prevent it, what's incredible is that there haven't been any more serious incidents and kinda moots the "risk of rash decisions" argument.
Taking over what's essentially the entire Ukrainian navy seems from my perspective like deliberately weakening Ukraine's military capabilities, to make them more vulnerable and more susceptible to pressure. It's been done before, when the Russian army left the baltic states in the 90's they destroyed what they couldn't take with them, leaving the three fledgling countries completely defenseless.
A general observation: if Russia is so worried about security and genuinely wants a friendly neighborhood they might want to work on their routine.
Post by: Bouchart on March 26, 2014, 04:29:13 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 04:48:49 pm
If some Russian will say that it is in case if Ukraine choose to attack I'll laugh hard.
It is either a big bluff to make Ukrainian government accept demands or actual preparations for the invasion
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 26, 2014, 04:49:35 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I think this is the right time to mention that some Finnish stores have started to put up signs in Russia in the last few weeks. Not sure what to make of it...
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 04:56:44 pm
Post by: andrea on March 26, 2014, 05:03:29 pm
An actual invasion would isolate russia internationally even further, and it seems that a war in ukraine mainland isn't popular domestically, unlike intervention in crimea ( at least from what people here said)
edit: that, or to lure ukraine into striking first, which he could use as justification for an invasion.
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 05:05:08 pm
Post by: andrea on March 26, 2014, 05:06:47 pm
but domestic popularity is a concern.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 05:08:56 pm
Guys that hate Putin will keep hating him. Guys that like him will support him even if they'll be forced to eat dirt."I care about nothing" guys will keep doing nothing
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 26, 2014, 05:15:08 pm
I think domestic popularity is not an issue at all.But you forget that there are lot of people who fall between those two groups. They care more about "Russia Stronk!" and there being enough bread and butter on the shop shelves than international or domestic politics that don't affect them directly.
Guys that hate Putin will keep hating him. Guys that like him will support him even if they'll be forced to eat dirt.
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 05:17:35 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 05:22:17 pm
I think domestic popularity is not an issue at all.But you forget that there are lot of people who fall between those two groups. They care more about "Russia Stronk!" and there being enough bread and butter on the shop shelves than international or domestic politics that don't affect them directly.
Guys that hate Putin will keep hating him. Guys that like him will support him even if they'll be forced to eat dirt.
Heh, I edited my post to late
The group in between is too passive to have any political weight in Russian political system. They'll complain but so what? It's not like Putin has any chances to lose his "elections"
Also, History shows that Russians never complained against a war. Unless it was not as victorious as they expected
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 05:26:11 pm
Also, History shows that Russians never complained against a war. Unless it was not as victorious as they expected
Last I heard, WWII was pretty unpopular. :p
Actually, question time for our Russian friends: What would be the typical view on stuff like the Winter War? Mistake of the past, or justified war for whatever reason?
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 26, 2014, 05:31:48 pm
Also, History shows that Russians never complained against a war. Unless it was not as victorious as they expectedThe Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921 was definitely not victorious and resulted in Soviets being defeated, yet pretty much no one in Soviet Russia complained about it for some reason.
Post by: da_nang on March 26, 2014, 05:32:05 pm
With the Mainila bombing, I'd say it's pretty unjustified. But then again, I'm not a Russian.Also, History shows that Russians never complained against a war. Unless it was not as victorious as they expected
Last I heard, WWII was pretty unpopular. :p
Actually, question time for our Russian friends: What would be the typical view on stuff like the Winter War? Mistake of the past, or justified war for whatever reason?
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 05:35:01 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 05:38:20 pm
There are no better excuse than a war\sanctions to explain why country hits recession.
Else they'll need to admit that Putin's way to manage economy are not better than Yeltsin's. The only difference is that Yeltsin had no Bush to spike oil prices with wars :D (Yes, I know it is not the only reason why oil prices went up)
Post by: Knit tie on March 26, 2014, 05:46:41 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 05:48:12 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 26, 2014, 05:51:55 pm
Winter war was a particularly poorly planned and unsuccessful landgrab. Everything we tried to accomplish could have been done much better peacefully.
unsuccessful landgrab
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 05:54:45 pm
(You don't create a puppet government if you don't plan to annex)
Finland is a great example that you must fight even if the war looks hopeless
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 26, 2014, 06:06:08 pm
I have to point out that naval base in Hanko and area around it was rented to USSR for several decades, not "handed over" like the islands in the gulf other marked territory.
Winter war was a particularly poorly planned and unsuccessful landgrab. Everything we tried to accomplish could have been done much better peacefully.And I'll have to disagree on this one. Given the near-facistic goverment in Finland at the time, and Soviet support in the civil war to the side that wanted to join USSR, I don't think there was any chance for Finland to peacefully cede any territory for Russia.
Post by: olemars on March 26, 2014, 06:16:34 pm
Winter war was a particularly poorly planned and unsuccessful landgrab. Everything we tried to accomplish could have been done much better peacefully.
And according to Putin, the winter war was to "correct mistakes" too. (http://yle.fi/uutiset/putin_winter_war_aimed_at_correcting_border_mistakes/6539940) Is there a list somewhere of mistakes that remain to be corrected?
Without the winter war there would not have been the continuation war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and lots of troops tied up in the north that were needed elsewhere.
Post by: miljan on March 26, 2014, 06:24:16 pm
I wonder if Putin's popularity might drop a little when people catch on that the money needed to run Crimea will be drawn from the state welfare fund and regional budgets (Krasnodar Krai gets to be first).Well, did russia pay ukraine for basses in crimea? If yes, than they could use that money for crimea it self if its a lot
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 26, 2014, 06:29:24 pm
Well, did russia pay ukraine for basses in crimea? If yes, than they could use that money for crimea it self if its a lotI think it was large discount on Russian gas, not actual money.
Post by: miljan on March 26, 2014, 06:31:41 pm
Well in a way thats also money :)Well, did russia pay ukraine for basses in crimea? If yes, than they could use that money for crimea it self if its a lotI think it was large discount on Russian gas, not actual money.
Post by: olemars on March 26, 2014, 06:34:15 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 06:40:45 pm
I wonder if Putin's popularity might drop a little when people catch on that the money needed to run Crimea will be drawn from the state welfare fund and regional budgets (Krasnodar Krai gets to be first).Well, Krasnodar Krai has no right to complain after Sochi...
I am more interested how will Crimeans feel several months later. Visited one Crimean very pro-Russian forum and they dislike some stuff already. Like EU promising that there are will be no Visas for Russian citizens from Crimea, no Ukrainians trains arriving in Crimea, inability to take money from Ukrainian banks and some other stuff. Of cause they blame bad Ukrainian government that just want to create problems for Crimeans not great Putin.
PS. I think the next summer touristic season in Crimea will be very successful
Post by: Sheb on March 26, 2014, 06:50:09 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 07:04:53 pm
Quote from: RT.com
The backbone of Crimea’s local economy is its bustling tourist industry, which draws in 6 million visitors per year during the summer season. But currently, 70 percent of the tourists are from Ukraine, and only 25 percent from Russia. Political rifts between Russia and Ukraine could turn off tourists, with tourism expected to drop by 30 percent this year.
I think RT.com is VERY optimistic here. Of cause Crimea may see more Russians but...
a) Tourists tend to choose calm places
b) Transportation is an issue... Ferry has it's disadvantages, aircraft is too expensive because Crimea is valued for cheap vacations. Trains and personal cars going through Ukrainian territory will see many unpleasant moments crossing the borders.
c) Expanded Sochi infrastructure is now available
Post by: XXSockXX on March 26, 2014, 07:11:20 pm
Finland is a great example that you must fight even if the war looks hopelessFrom talking to German WW2 veterans who fought in Finland I got the impression that the landscape/winter combination was a huge factor for the fighting there. You can't really replicate that in other places. Also they had Mannerheim.
I think RT.com is VERY optimistic here. Of cause Crimea may see more Russians but...Also isn't both the Crimean water and electricity infrastructure dependent on Ukraine? If the situation gets any worse and Ukraine decides to cut these off, Russia will have to make some huge investments.
a) Tourists tend to choose calm places
b) Transportation is an issue... Ferry has it's disadvantages, aircraft is too expensive because Crimea is valued for cheap vacations. Trains and personal cars going through Ukrainian territory will see many unpleasant moments crossing the borders.
c) Expanded Sochi infrastructure is now available
Post by: MarcAFK on March 26, 2014, 07:11:36 pm
Although if they pump the soundtrack of red October and Tom Clancy makes an undead appearance than I might be convinced on spending my holiday at the Ukrainian border.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 07:25:09 pm
Quote
Also isn't both the Crimean water and electricity infrastructure dependent on Ukraine? If the situation gets any worse and Ukraine decides to cut these off, Russia will have to make some huge investments.I doubt that our government will do that. We are playing good guys. But, IIRC it was promised that they'll need to pay seven times more.
Problem here is - with whom should we sign the deals to provide electricity? Russia? Impossible, we don't recognize Crimea as Russian territory. With local company owned by an Ukrainian oligarch? It is not a fact that it will not be nationalized. If it will not... than where should taxes from that company go?
Post by: XXSockXX on March 26, 2014, 07:44:36 pm
Yeah, it's probably better to play the good guys currently, to avoid any more outright escalation.QuoteAlso isn't both the Crimean water and electricity infrastructure dependent on Ukraine? If the situation gets any worse and Ukraine decides to cut these off, Russia will have to make some huge investments.I doubt that our government will do that. We are playing good guys. But, IIRC it was promised that they'll need to pay seven times more.
Problem here is - with whom should we sign the deals to provide electricity? Russia? Impossible, we don't recognize Crimea as Russian territory. With local company owned by an Ukrainian oligarch? It is not a fact that it will not be nationalized. If it will not... than where should taxes from that company go?
There is a lot that has to be figured out now with legal problems and payments I guess. Mostly a problem for Ukraine right now, but it will be a problem for Russia too, with Crimea in "de facto" status, who will want to invest or do business there? Spontaneous nationalizations are not very popular with business owners.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 26, 2014, 07:57:07 pm
It is sad. That liners offered a nice opportunity profit for local population. It may look minor but one Western tourist who visited the port for one day may leave more money than few Ukrainians\Russians who spent several weeks there
Edit:
There are another interesting moment, under Russian law sailors and soldiers who serve abroad get higher salary. That's why some sailors even gave bribes to be transfered from Russian Baltic fleet to Black Sea fleet. I suspect some guys aren't that happy that Sevastopol is Russian under Russian laws now
BTW that means even less profit for Sevastopol, because Russian sailors spend most of their salary there
Post by: misko27 on March 26, 2014, 08:50:40 pm
Post by: Owlbread on March 27, 2014, 01:31:09 am
Post by: da_nang on March 27, 2014, 01:44:02 am
So your opinion of the war is that it's all fine, except for that bit where Russians died? :oWhere did I say that? ???
The Soviet Union staged the Mainila bombing to get casus belli. They had no justifiable reasons to go to war. They behaved just like when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. No justifiable reasons given, just guns blazing.
And to make matters worse, Finland is the one that has to pay war reparations.
Given the near-facistic goverment in Finland at the time.Near-fascist? A lot of Finns would oppose that I'd imagine.
Quote
The early years of Finnish independenceHistory of the Finnish Parliament (http://web.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/parliament/aboutparliament/presentation/history.htx)
Following the Russian Revolution, on 6 December 1917 Parliament approved the declaration of independence proposed by the Senate, which was headed by P.E. Svinhufvud. The republican constitution that was adopted in the summer of 1919 characterized Finland's parliamentary system as follows: "Sovereign power in Finland belongs to the people, who are represented by Parliament." The electoral period was originally three years.
The 1928 Parliament Act brought the 1906 Parliament Act in line with independent Finland's new circumstances. Constitutional laws pertaining to Parliament remained more or less unchanged up to the mid 1980s.
In the early days of independence, the forms of political decision-making had still to evolve. Bitter memories of the 1918 civil war cast their shadow over the period. Internal problems dating from the period of autonomy, such as the issue of land ownership in rural areas, undeveloped labour legislation and insufficient democracy in local government, were remedied.
The period was marked by great economic changes: fast growth after World War I and then the global depression in the 1930s. Like other parts of Europe, Finland experienced a wave of right-wing radicalism, but it never attracted a large following.
The moderate left quickly began to participate fully in the process of building Finnish society. In 1926 a Social Democratic minority Government was appointed, with Väinö Tanner as Prime Minister. Miina Sillanpää became Finland's first female minister in this Government.
The Agrarian Party and the Social Democratic Party entered their first coalition Government in 1937, under A. K. Cajander. The average life span of Governments before World War II was one year.
And according to Putin, the winter war was to "correct mistakes" too. (http://yle.fi/uutiset/putin_winter_war_aimed_at_correcting_border_mistakes/6539940) Is there a list somewhere of mistakes that remain to be corrected?"Oh hey, uh, we forgot that to tell you the border shouldn't run through here, so, uh, we're declaring war now."
Without the winter war there would not have been the continuation war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths and lots of troops tied up in the north that were needed elsewhere.
What a dick move.
Post by: Owlbread on March 27, 2014, 02:15:50 am
Where did I say that? ???
The Soviet Union staged the Mainila bombing to get casus belli. They had no justifiable reasons to go to war. They behaved just like when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. No justifiable reasons given, just guns blazing.
And to make matters worse, Finland is the one that has to pay war reparations.
I have heard Chechens make those same arguments and nobody takes them seriously.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 27, 2014, 02:26:36 am
So I take it the entire Russian government is actually illegitimate? Considering what happened when Gorbachev was ovethrown and Yeltsin came to power etc. Putin should step aside and allow the Communist Party to rulecagain until they xan hold free, democratic elections.Can't say that communist party got power in a legitimate way. Obviously Russians should find a heir of Nikolai and restore the monarchy
Post by: Sheb on March 27, 2014, 02:32:06 am
Post by: scrdest on March 27, 2014, 02:34:34 am
So I take it the entire Russian government is actually illegitimate? Considering what happened when Gorbachev was ovethrown and Yeltsin came to power etc. Putin should step aside and allow the Communist Party to rulecagain until they xan hold free, democratic elections.Can't say that communist party got power in a legitimate way. Obviously Russians should find a heir of Nikolai and restore the monarchy
A week later: Putin confirmed to be a direct descendant of the Romanovs, 116% of Russian scientists agree.
Post by: Digital Hellhound on March 27, 2014, 02:56:34 am
I'm slightly confused at the amount of Finland-talk in this thread, but I ain't sayin' I miiiind.
Post by: Sheb on March 27, 2014, 03:02:33 am
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 27, 2014, 04:14:07 am
Also, any Russian propagandist would have a field day with this French article. (http://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/patrick-besson/pourquoi-il-faut-declarer-la-guerre-a-la-russie-27-03-2014-1806094_71.php)
Post by: Helgoland on March 27, 2014, 05:43:31 am
An interesting German article on the diplomatic solution of the Crimean crisis. (http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2014-03/ukraine-krise-konflikt-krieg-diplomatie)Germans will do anything to avoid war nowadays. Large parts of the population even oppose interventions like the one in Kosovo - even when choosing between "Nie wieder Krieg" and "Nie wieder Auschwitz", they choose the former.
If a German says that war must be avoided at all cost, it's generally a waste of time to listen to them.
Post by: PanH on March 27, 2014, 05:46:19 am
I'm pretty sure that's an humorous article.Also, any Russian propagandist would have a field day with this French article. (http://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/patrick-besson/pourquoi-il-faut-declarer-la-guerre-a-la-russie-27-03-2014-1806094_71.php):I
Please tell me this isn't a mainstream French newspaper. I don't want ACTUAL reasons to hate the French. English hating French joke in there. I don't actually hate French people.
Edit : after reading the article again, it's definitely satire, and he's certainly supporting the Crimean annexation (or however you call it).
Post by: Sheb on March 27, 2014, 06:37:36 am
Post by: NobodyPro on March 27, 2014, 07:13:24 am
Post by: boki on March 27, 2014, 09:36:28 am
Well, it looks like there will not be a war in Ukrain. Hope it will stay that way.
Post by: kaijyuu on March 27, 2014, 10:20:18 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 27, 2014, 12:40:51 pm
Having East and West Ukraine ain't such a good outcome though.
Technically there already is an East and West Ukraine, though there's also East-East Ukraine which is now a part of Russia.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 27, 2014, 12:57:43 pm
Russia may hope that Ukraine will split in two countries but it is hard to achieve. Only Donetks and Luhansk regions are problematic. Some people here feel themselves very different to the rest of Ukrainians. But the same people feel themselves different to Russians. That may be a birth of a new nation of people who are neither Ukrainians nor Russians. 6.5 millions is enough for such processes.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 27, 2014, 02:36:01 pm
Post by: ivze on March 27, 2014, 02:51:24 pm
Also, I've seen many Ukrainian posts (example: http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments (http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments)) saying, that the Right Sector are pro-Russian agents... That's quite a turn of mind!
Post by: Comrade P. on March 27, 2014, 02:56:13 pm
Also, I've seen many Ukrainian posts (example: http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments (http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments)) saying, that the Right Sector are pro-Russian agents... That's quite a turn of mind!And a perverted one. Those guys might be anything but Russian agents. Or they just pretend extremely well to be anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists.
Post by: Sergarr on March 27, 2014, 03:11:35 pm
Right Sector
pro-Russian
I wonder what did these guys smoke. Must be some good stuff.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 27, 2014, 03:12:35 pm
Police are same bastards as they were, if current interior minister is unable to change it for better then he must go. One month is enough to see his inability to make positive changes. Let's forget that Yanukovich downfall started after he rejected to remove interior minister on December 2013. If that government think that due to the threat of Russian invasion they can do anything... That is wrong
Oh, and nothing bad happened, there are no assault of parliament, molotovs or something like that. Peaceful protests but with demands and radical slogans
Post by: Zangi on March 27, 2014, 03:17:44 pm
Well, what better way to marginalize a group of people that you don't want to hold any kind of influence by throwing around propaganda saying that they are with the enemy? Regardless of fact.Also, I've seen many Ukrainian posts (example: http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments (http://censor.net.ua/forum/697916/pravyyi_sektor_nachal_shturm_rady/sortby/tree/order/desc/page/1#comments)) saying, that the Right Sector are pro-Russian agents... That's quite a turn of mind!And a perverted one. Those guys might be anything but Russian agents. Or they just pretend extremely well to be anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists.
Yes there are conflict. Yep it exist. Because you know, Maydan was a revolution against police brutality. That what started the whole thing, not EU or even corruption of Yanukovich. And what we see month later after the victory? Lack of any real reforms of police. ZERO arrests of officers responsible for violence and tortures. Very few arrests of Pro-Russian collaborators that destabilize situation in eastern regions and finally a murder of one of Far-Right leaders and guerilla warfare specialists (Right time to eliminate him, Isn't it?). His resistance during arrest looks like a typical fairy tale.I'd like to ask, the revolutionaries who were throwing around molotovs and those who inflicted harm to others, are they also not getting arrested too?
Police are same bastards as they were, if current interior minister is unable to change it for better then he must go. One month is enough to see his inability to make positive changes. Let's forget that Yanukovich downfall started after he rejected to remove interior minister on December 2013. If that government think that due to the threat of Russian invasion they can do anything... That is wrong
Oh, and nothing bad happened, there are no assault of parliament, molotovs or something like that. Peaceful protests but with demands and radical slogans
Post by: Sergarr on March 27, 2014, 03:30:33 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 27, 2014, 03:34:05 pm
Quote
I'd like to ask, the revolutionaries who were throwing around molotovs and those who inflicted harm to others, are they also not getting arrested too?Ehm, don't tell me that you want to say that both sides broke the law equally...
Official position of Right Sector posted on their official site:
1) People are unhappy with actions of minister of interior affairs. Murder of Muzychko is the last straw
2) Not all people present on the meeting were from the Right Sector. Not even majority
3) Right Sector doesn't support any attempts to capture the parliament
4) Right Sector claims that it representatives actually calmed down people who are rightfully angry on Avakov's actions
There are no Government-Right Sector conflict. There are Right Sector-Avakov conflict.
Post by: Dutchling on March 27, 2014, 05:59:15 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 27, 2014, 07:24:08 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 27, 2014, 07:33:44 pm
Putin's new anthem? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd4GG3bed0) We ain't stoppin' now, we ain't going nowhere...I would prefer to hear someone sing this in Russia... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohOtDA3dTAA)
Spoiler: last of my finish rant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Knit tie on March 27, 2014, 09:07:44 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 28, 2014, 10:00:31 am
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 28, 2014, 10:19:27 am
So you finnished your rant? (pun intended, I'm out)Putin's new anthem? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yd4GG3bed0) We ain't stoppin' now, we ain't going nowhere...I would prefer to hear someone sing this in Russia... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohOtDA3dTAA)Spoiler: last of my finish rant (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 28, 2014, 12:20:23 pm
Crimean Tatars offered the Orthodox Christians of Kyiv Patriarchate to hold services in their mosques (http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/confessional/religious_relations/55909/)
Post by: Knit tie on March 28, 2014, 01:54:04 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 29, 2014, 02:05:26 pm
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 29, 2014, 03:16:58 pm
Anything new?Not much happened, actually. Apparently there are diplomatic talks going on between Russia and the USA. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26803688)
Also, according to Russia's RIA Novosti, Ukrainian acting President Turchinov went on a brief visit to Belarus (Russia's only close ally besides the Russian Army and the Russian Navy) and had talks with Belarusian President Lukashenko. (http://ria.ru/world/20140329/1001555027.html) The official statements noted that maintaining good relations between Belarus and Ukraine is extremely important, because Belarusians and Ukrainians have always had close historic ties, that Belarusians and Ukrainians shouldn't antagonize each other, and so on, and so forth.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 29, 2014, 03:48:05 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 29, 2014, 04:08:14 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 29, 2014, 04:14:12 pm
I can't see any invasion going through unless diplomacy gets to the point where those pipes might as well be blown up.
@10ebbor
Sometimes you can stop the page from loading before those kinds of things pop up. It works for that site.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 29, 2014, 04:17:31 pm
Spoiler: wall of text (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 29, 2014, 04:28:15 pm
War is likely (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/28/10_reasons_russia_is_likely_to_invade_ukraine)Judging by content and styling, it may as well have been Cracked. :P
Well, not really (not nearly as humorous, unless you have specific tastes), but it still seems like the writer wanted a good round number of reasons and decided to pad out the missing.. half or so.
There's just one point I can make off the top of my head against any and all realistic-sounding reasons why a Russia-anyone war is likely, or going to happen, and that's plainly that no war is going to have any kind of positive support over here. Even one not started by us, because the cause and effect would have been too obvious. I still maintain that all of that movement along the Ukrainian borders is just a glorified military parade with loaded guns. They are ready for war to break out, because that's the whole point of it, to show we are ready for it - but it's meant to dissuade from attacking, not to stage an attack.
In a way, it a conventional-war MAD situation. Both sides know that all hell will break loose should war start, and both sides have a lot to lose from it. And since a choreographic display of nuclear missiles won't go well with anyone at all, and would be overkill against a country that doesn't have an answer to them, the conventional army moves in and makes its best impression of a medieval legion clanging its swords against its shields. Just to show that they're there, and that they'll be what anyone who wants trouble with their country will have to answer to.
Of course, I can still be wrong - as shown from my retrospective analysis earlier, that I would have been wrong about Crimea at that given point in time. But from what I know now, my prediction is that nothing will happen from our side, and that our armed forces will pull back once Ukraine stabilizes and the world is back to silently hating the red menace.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 29, 2014, 04:52:25 pm
Quote
and that's plainly that no war is going to have any kind of positive support over here.Sorry, I don't believe that. Just don't. I read Russian Internet often enough.
Even in Ukraine we have few% that would welcome the war, in Russia that's at the very least dozens... As for ones who will be unhappy... OMON exists for them (and Crimean Berkut will help OMON)
Quote
Both sides know that all hell will break loose should war start, and both sides have a lot to lose from itProblem is that Russia will lose a lot in a any case. You got a depressive region*, Turned Ukrainian population against yourself** (good luck pro-Russian candidates on the elections), damaged foreign relations and may wave goodbye modernization of the army, the article explains why quite nicely. So Putin may decide that he'll lose much less by starting a war. Especially if he expects that victory will be very easy and swift
*Really, Crimea will need huge amount of cash to repair it. It wasn't in great shape before all that crap started... Now it will either siphon money from Russian reserves or become new Transininstra. Or both
** Getting Central Ukraine to be more anti-Russian than Western Ukraine is quite an achievement Mr.Putin
Post by: DJ on March 29, 2014, 06:58:02 pm
Post by: Lagslayer on March 29, 2014, 07:03:58 pm
Is there actually anything that NATO can do to stop Russia if it decides to invade Eastern Ukraine? Direct conventional war would go nuclear pretty soon. Just about the only thing I can see working is giving Ukraine a couple of nukes, but I don't see that idea getting popular.Things didn't get nuclear when the US intervened in the Georgia-Russia thing back in 2008, and that was a very similar situation.
Post by: Helgoland on March 29, 2014, 07:15:48 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 07:26:47 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 29, 2014, 07:37:05 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 07:39:22 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 29, 2014, 07:43:05 pm
Please don't confuse Russia with its people. Russia does what Putin says, not what the public thinks.
I WAS referring to the Russian government, not it's people.
Post by: Knit tie on March 29, 2014, 07:43:58 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 29, 2014, 08:15:28 pm
Is there actually anything that NATO can do to stop Russia if it decides to invade Eastern Ukraine? Direct conventional war would go nuclear pretty soon. Just about the only thing I can see working is giving Ukraine a couple of nukes, but I don't see that idea getting popular.
No it would not go nuclear pretty quick. It would go nuclear never. NUKES DONT LAUNCH THEMSELVES. Someone has to actually make a decision to launch them.
Let's discuss the advantages NATO has briefly
1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.
2) Overwhelming numerical superiority. This is a nation of 150 million going up against an alliance with five times that population. In terms of boots on the ground, tanks, helicopters, AT missiles, NATO forces just would have the numbers to be everywhere at once. Any russian resistance could be enveloped at every turn. Even a fraction of NATO's forces would be sufficient.
3) Conscription. NATO countries have conscription too but it's a bigger problem for Russia in this situation because they're the side that's outgunned. It wouldn't be a problem if they were fighting inside Russia but very little of this fighting would need to be done inside Russia. This isn't a military problem per se but politically russia's government could rapidly unravel their mandate if they conscript people then get them killed fighting a better equipped enemy.
Here is how a hypothetical war would play out:
Weeks 1 and 2: Russia curbstomps Ukraine and occupies all the country
Weeks 3, 4, 5: Sitzkreig as NATO forces redeploy
Weeks 6 and 7: NATO curbstomps Russia even more harshly then Russia just curbstomped the Ukraine, taking back all of Ukraine.
Week 8: War's over, NATO doesn't need to invade Russia.
At no point is either side in danger of national annihilation that would provoke a nuclear escalation.
This is why the foreign policy article is bullshit. Russia is not going to put itself at serious risk of a war with NATO. You don't need to be a military expert to understand that Russia is completely and utterly outclassed here. Putin can get away with small stuff, Crimea, Georgia a while back, little pieces at the edge. But a wholescale invasion of Ukraine at this point? No way that would slide. Maybe at the start of this whole affair but that time is past now.
Post by: ibot66 on March 29, 2014, 08:25:14 pm
Post by: smjjames on March 29, 2014, 08:37:25 pm
St. Petersburg actually separating and becoming their own city state would hit Russian morale pretty hard I think.
If Putins goal is to make Ukraine piss it's collective pants, then mission accomplished, you can send the soldiers home now :P
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 01:39:52 am
1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
Post by: Darvi on March 30, 2014, 01:46:47 am
[/snark]
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 30, 2014, 02:07:31 am
I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 30, 2014, 02:24:28 am
The quintessential Russian mobile AA, the one that any given Russian is most likely to remember if asked - the Tunguska, aka SA-19 Grison - actually hails from the late 1970s. We've had quite a lot of advances since then, too.I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
Add in the fact that radar stealth technology was actually invented by Nazi Germany... well by Germany in principle, during either the first or second world war. So the missiles are much more advanced than the technology aircraft have to defend against them.
Post by: DJ on March 30, 2014, 02:52:51 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 03:00:18 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
A liquidation of lack of knowledge is in order.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 30, 2014, 03:08:52 am
I think he's referring to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.1) Complete air superiority. The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce. Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this. The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft. They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them. The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority. Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
A liquidation of lack of knowledge is in order.
Which, while indeed the most widespread and numerous SAM system (much like the Kalashnikov :P) is vastly outclassed by modern systems, and has had countermeasures for it developed quite some time ago. Which is the reason it's phased out by the S-300 pretty much everywhere.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 30, 2014, 03:21:10 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 03:33:55 am
Then again, the S-300 is also 30 years old.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
30 years old. Clearly M1 Abrams is not fit for modern fighting *sarcasm*
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 30, 2014, 03:40:30 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 03:47:58 am
Without refits and Active defense systems, tanks are pretty fragile against RPG and other missile weaponry. Their performance would be quite substandard.And the S-300 had a lot of refits too, you know.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 04:02:22 am
Add in the fact that radar stealth technology was actually invented by Nazi Germany... well by Germany in principle, during either the first or second world war. So the missiles are much more advanced than the technology aircraft have to defend against them.
You might want to re-analyze your logic there- they aren't up there flying messerschmitts...
@dick-measuring
As civilians, what we hear about military tests & their results is virtually guaranteed to be skewed.
If NATO had tested the SAM system and found they could defeat it, they're not going to tell Russia.
The most pertinent information, I saw, was that they'd gotten their hands on something as recently as 2012.
Now, I'd say everyone's pretty close-together as far as tech goes.
But for the edge? Tech-wise?
One of these parties is putting in more than half of the total global expenditure.
Post by: Descan on March 30, 2014, 04:23:29 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 04:33:58 am
But, as per mainiac's post, the numbers would be at least near-even, if not favoring NATO.
And, gas pipes. There won't be no invasion without diplomacy literally hanging itself.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 30, 2014, 05:10:54 am
Of course, Nazi Germany with it's super-weapons and super-tanks pretty much proved that technology isn't everything, if your technologies are at least on the same field/within a few decades of each other. (I.E. tanks versus tanks, not machine-guns versus spearmen. And even then, Zulu.)Well, not really. They just proved that strength in numbers is a thing, and that even the worldst most advanced weapon doesn't do much without supplies.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 05:42:41 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 30, 2014, 05:53:46 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 06:04:31 am
Plus, the most important of any military equipment is a man who controls it. And training in Russian Army is substandard (Again, Ukrainian training is likely worse)
NATO will need few weeks to destroy majority of Russian armed forces in conventional warfare. That is obvious. But Obama announced that there are will be no military help to Ukraine and USA will limit it to economic sanctions.
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 06:13:16 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 30, 2014, 06:17:56 am
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
Lolol Uzbekistan has more power than Finland.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 30, 2014, 06:20:07 am
The problem, as it were, is that... well, we don't need our own! We are flooded with cheap and cheerful hardware from China and Korea, and what we do make here is mostly intended for military or research use, so even if our tech base is smaller than the US's, ours is more specialized and directed.
As for training... well, drawing a blank there, I don't have concrete data on the actual military performance of either our or anyone else's armies. But I doubt that what difference does exist there is enough to overcome the home territory advantage. ^_^
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 06:31:12 am
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.aspRating that lists Ukrainian army higher than Swedish or Iranian is LOL
But even if it would be true rating, than country #2 against #1, #5,#6,#7,#8 and allies is not winnable
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 06:34:24 am
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.aspRating that lists Ukrainian army higher than Swedish or Iranian is LOL
But even if it would be true rating, than country #2 against #1, #5,#6,#7,#8 and allies is not winnable
Well than country number #3 and #4 and other can join the fight and maybe it will not be the case anymore, full world war 3.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on March 30, 2014, 06:38:07 am
Post by: scriver on March 30, 2014, 07:00:10 am
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.aspRating that lists Ukrainian army higher than Swedish or Iranian is LOL
But even if it would be true rating, than country #2 against #1, #5,#6,#7,#8 and allies is not winnable
Well, Sweden has a very under-trained and under-equipped "proffesional" army. I think the only parts that's actually worth anything are the "specialist units" that we like to show off and send abroad. It's still nice to see us above the other Scandinavians though (even though the only advantages over Norway and Finland I could think of is population). They're getting a bit uppity lately ;)
Post by: Helgoland on March 30, 2014, 07:54:31 am
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 08:31:28 am
I don't trust a list that puts Germany as the #7 military power in the world. We suck!But we suck harder! ;)
Looks like people tend to overestimate the military in other countries, and underestimate their own military. Pretty interesting, if you ask me.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 08:38:39 am
I can imagine few reasons why China may join the war on Russian side but India? Truly, Martians are more likely.http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.aspRating that lists Ukrainian army higher than Swedish or Iranian is LOL
But even if it would be true rating, than country #2 against #1, #5,#6,#7,#8 and allies is not winnable
Well than country number #3 and #4 and other can join the fight and maybe it will not be the case anymore, full world war 3.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipmentThat list is much better for analysys. At least there are numbers
Combined military budget of NATO is in another world, and let's not forget about corruption in Russian army, so effective budget is lower
Comparing Navies is not even funny. Not only numbers are from different realms, tech levels are too. Black Sea will see no Russian ships as soon as First NATO task force arrives. That if Turks not do the job first
Tanks? Well, on park 23 000 Russian tanks look good... But Combined NATO power is roughly the same in the size. As for tech level and condition of the tanks... I bet that NATO's are way better on average. Finally, in modern war tanks are usually destroyed not by other tanks
And from where Russia will get 23 000 tank crews who actually know how to effectively use the tanks
NATO has definitely larger air-force. And of better quality, not only by tech level but by training and actual combat experience of pilots. Russia may have 1300 fighters, but 1300 worthy pilots? I doubt it
And so on... Believing that Russia has any chance against NATO in conventional war isn't smart.
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 08:41:11 am
Post by: Helgoland on March 30, 2014, 08:46:30 am
Post by: mainiac on March 30, 2014, 08:53:17 am
You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
Post by: smjjames on March 30, 2014, 08:55:19 am
But yeah, any Russian ships would have to run the gauntlet in order to get to the Black Sea from elsewhere. You have two chokepoints for one, and the entire Mediterranean, and that's just the Mediterranean area.
China is more likely to just stay out of it, they have no desire for war and AFAIK, have no treaty that Russia could use to call them into war.
UR, that list may not be too reliable - just look at Bangladesh's nuclear arsenal.
Yeah, the US not having ANY patrol boats? I refuse to believe that.
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 08:58:51 am
I can imagine few reasons why China may join the war on Russian side but India? Truly, Martians are more likely.There are higher chances of Martians attacking us than NATO attacking russia (or other way around).
First you assume a lot of things here.Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipmentThat list is much better for analysys. At least there are numbers
Combined military budget of NATO is in another world, and let's not forget about corruption in Russian army, so effective budget is lower
Comparing Navies is not even funny. Not only numbers are from different realms, tech levels are too. Black Sea will see no Russian ships as soon as First NATO task force arrives. That if Turks not do the job first
Tanks? Well, on park 23 000 Russian tanks look good... But Combined NATO power is roughly the same in the size. As for tech level and condition of the tanks... I bet that NATO's are way better on average. Finally, in modern war tanks are usually destroyed not by other tanks
And from where Russia will get 23 000 tank crews who actually know how to effectively use the tanks
NATO has definitely larger air-force. And of better quality, not only by tech level but by training and actual combat experience of pilots. Russia may have 1300 fighters, but 1300 worthy pilots? I doubt it
And so on... Believing that Russia has any chance against NATO in conventional war isn't smart.
In both lists you have number, you just need to click around. But yes russia alone can not wing against NATO, no one will say that, but than again it will not fight against nato in first place, I dont know why was this type of conversation even started about it.
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 09:07:41 am
For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 09:19:03 am
It's because different radars use different wavelengths. Old radars used only a single wavelength, thus it was possible to make the aircraft invisible to that wavelength. Modern radars use multiple wavelengths and thus render the stealth technology... not that superuseful.For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible
Also, don't forget about the satellite network that Russia has.
Post by: smjjames on March 30, 2014, 09:21:33 am
It's because different radars use different wavelengths. Old radars used only a single wavelength, thus it was possible to make the aircraft invisible to that wavelength. Modern radars use multiple wavelengths and thus render the stealth technology... not that superuseful.For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.
That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible
Also, don't forget about the satellite network that Russia has.
The US has a satellite network too, as well as several other countries, so it's really not an advantage that Russia has.
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 30, 2014, 09:29:00 am
Of course if NATO would intervene we'd threaten with nukes right away. We are not stupid, you know.
Errr... the first half of this statement seems to disagree with the second.
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 30, 2014, 11:30:53 am
Agreed. Threatening half the world with NUKES is not that smart.Of course if NATO would intervene we'd threaten with nukes right away. We are not stupid, you know.Errr... the first half of this statement seems to disagree with the second.
Anyway, we can agree that Russia is massively outnumbered and outgunned by the combined forces of NATO. However, there is the problem of actually getting said forces on the theatre of operation, which is somewhat easier in the modern day, but still a logistical nightmare on the scale we're talking about.
It's all about local numerical superiority.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 11:36:41 am
I also wouldn't put it past China to 'Officially' side with Russia, just to prevent the war in this scenario.
Post by: Bauglir on March 30, 2014, 11:56:24 am
*From a politician in a well-established nuclear power. Non-government entities are a different thing.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 12:03:33 pm
Yeah, standing nuclear policy is that they're only used when your nation is in danger of ceasing to exist. They aren't a credible threat*, even if they're a legitimate threat. By that, I mean that nobody would believe you're actually willing to use them this way, even if, by dint of brain damage or something, you really are. And I'm confident that everyone in a position to be relevant to this decision knows that. The way nukes actually function in international politics is more akin to a series of magma pump stacks around your fort, not as some manner of hyper-catapult.FTFY
*From a politician in a well-established nuclear power. Non-government entities are a different thing.
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 12:52:53 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 30, 2014, 01:39:26 pm
/me is rolling on the floor laughing
I don't know anything about who the guy is... but the mental image is hilarious. XD
Post by: Guardian G.I. on March 30, 2014, 01:47:14 pm
http://www.aif.ua/politic/ukraine/1134529If I was an Ukrainian, I'd vote for him.
/me is rolling on the floor laughing
I don't know anything about who the guy is... but the mental image is hilarious. XD
Post by: ivze on March 30, 2014, 01:50:47 pm
Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.
Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2014, 02:26:52 pm
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 02:40:24 pm
Ukrainian Ranger, come to our, Russian side (we have cookies) :)
Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.
Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 30, 2014, 02:43:30 pm
Ukrainian Ranger, come to our, Russian side (we have cookies) :)
Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.
Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: smirk on March 30, 2014, 02:45:23 pm
http://www.aif.ua/politic/ukraine/1134529Hah! I wonder if this guy is pro-Russian integration; I really want justification for a "Luke, I am your Fatherland" joke =P
/me is rolling on the floor laughing
I don't know anything about who the guy is... but the mental image is hilarious. XD
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2014, 02:59:53 pm
Post by: BlindKitty on March 30, 2014, 03:02:15 pm
The EU don't want to weaken Russia. They just want the rest of the world to be like us: democratic, integrated, respecting of individual freedoms and indeed economically liberal. But at least we got the mechanisms to reform it from within.
Just my few cents: EU is very, very far away from being economically liberal. It is, indeed, socialistic. Actually, take a look at the ideocube (link: http://cityofulthar.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ideocube_final.jpg?w=584 (http://cityofulthar.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ideocube_final.jpg?w=584)), and note where the Scandinavian Liberal Paradise lies. I'd most EU countries are at best Civil Rights Lovefest.
That aside, why people seem to think that China would side with Russia in the event of a war? My guess would be China _invading_ Russia if such war occurs; there is a good chance to get back what they lost a century or so back, or even get some more Siberia for them at the occasion, and there is literally nothing they could gain by helping Russkies. That said, I can't imagine NATO doing pretty much anything unless Russian tanks are in the vicinity of the Odra river. They would have to grow balls, and it doesn't seem like they even remember how it feels and are even afraid of them...
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2014, 03:08:37 pm
Post by: Comrade P. on March 30, 2014, 03:12:50 pm
While it isn't
Post by: Svarte Troner on March 30, 2014, 03:22:16 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 30, 2014, 03:22:57 pm
*Or prime minister, I don't know. Maybe both?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 30, 2014, 03:27:36 pm
Well, you guys did just invade another country, and your president* has an openly imperialist attitude...
*Or prime minister, I don't know. Maybe both?
Okay, I will not start tensions over Crimean events here once more, I just say that this point of view is only one of many possible, so it holds only part of truth.
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 03:31:17 pm
The EU don't want to weaken Russia. They just want the rest of the world to be like us: democratic, integrated, respecting of individual freedoms and indeed economically liberal. But at least we got the mechanisms to reform it from within.
Lol. This is even worse than russia propaganda
Post by: Sheb on March 30, 2014, 03:31:57 pm
Miljan: Can you expend? I'd love to hear more.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 04:00:44 pm
Ukrainian Ranger, come to our, Russian side (we have cookies) :)Assuming that is not a trolling...
Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.
Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!
Let's start from the very simple thing. We recently overthrown a tyrant while loasing 104 dead, ~150 missing and thousands injured. And what you Russian, who claim to be our brothers and friends do?
You glorified sadists from Berkut - "Liberalistic West" never did that
You hid Yanukovich and other corrupted bastards- "Liberalistic West" would give him us them back instantly
You poured tons of shit on the dead and maimed Heroes of Maydan ""Liberalistic West" never did it
Using our weakness you invaded and occupied part of our country. "Liberalistic West" never did it
And so on
After all that saying that Russians are friends for Ukrainians is beyond absurd. Yes, some percentage of Russians are friends, but that minority is not in power
PS. I know one guy, a 52 year-old Stalin-fan. Who said me exactly that "You are a fascist but Putin is a worse fascist. And our only hope to defend against him is to join NATO" That is an achievement to make him want NATO. I was deadly sure that it is impossible
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 04:11:55 pm
Second, it is not interested in spreading democracy (where the hack did you get that). The main reason for EU is income and one global market. So as everything in the world the most important thing is income and profit for companies and other things that will have a lot of benefits from it, and for some direct dmg to economy and normal people because of it.
There is a lot more (like NATO crap), but one thing is for sure, the thing you said are same as russia going to UK to protect crimean . It's extremely naive point of view.
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 04:22:24 pm
Ukrainian Ranger, come to our, Russian side (we have cookies) :)Assuming that is not a trolling...
Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.
Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!
Let's start from the very simple thing. We recently overthrown a tyrant while loasing 104 dead, ~150 missing and thousands injured. And what you Russian, who claim to be our brothers and friends do?
You glorified sadists from Berkut - "Liberalistic West" never did that
You hid Yanukovich and other corrupted bastards- "Liberalistic West" would give him us them back instantly
You poured tons of shit on the dead and maimed Heroes of Maydan ""Liberalistic West" never did it
Using our weakness you invaded and occupied part of our country. "Liberalistic West" never did it
And so on
After all that saying that Russians are friends for Ukrainians is beyond absurd. Yes, some percentage of Russians are friends, but that minority is not in power
PS. I know one guy, a 52 year-old Stalin-fan. Who said me exactly that "You are a fascist but Putin is a worse fascist. And our only hope to defend against him is to join NATO" That is an achievement to make him want NATO. I was deadly sure that it is impossible
As forces in Crimea didn't shoot at Russians, so will the Ukraine army fall back without shooting anyone. Because your military, contrary to you, do not want to die.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 04:27:07 pm
Post by: GreatJustice on March 30, 2014, 04:39:06 pm
You are assuming that Ukrainian Army got an order to shoot the invaders and refused saving their lives. But they received an opposite order. So "do not want to die" doesn't apply here.
Were they ordered to defect to the Russian army too?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 30, 2014, 04:43:47 pm
Post by: olemars on March 30, 2014, 04:45:51 pm
As a neighbour to Russia I'm rapidly becoming not a fan.
Post by: Descan on March 30, 2014, 04:49:21 pm
I've only ever heard it in two situations, either "We want you to act exactly like us, because our parents did it," which is absurd on the face of it. Or just a code-word for anti-queer. :I
I'm starting to think that liberals do something because it works (ie. gay people raising adopted children, because otherwise you have millions of children without homes) and conservatives do something because... they did it 60 years ago? I.E. Gays can't get married or raise children, despite a) you having no right to tell people how to be happy, and b) there is no evidence that gay-raised children are at ALL worse off than straight-raised, b) it's absurd on the face of it for gay parents to raise gay children (straight people don't always raise straight children :P) and d) even if it was a little worse for gay-raised children, it's a LOT worse for children to not be raised by parents -at all-, and those are your two choices. Pick one.
There are other examples of the "Do something because it works/makes sense/doesn't hurt to try" and the "Do something because we always did it that way," dichotomy, like public healthcare/tuition or regulating polluting industries.
Pretty sure that's what "conservative" means anyways :P
Post by: scrdest on March 30, 2014, 04:49:55 pm
I can't help but notice that the Russian side has respectively three old-timey soldiers (knights), a fighter plane, a tank, a Cold War dick waving space program and children in wacky headgear, whereas the Western side has only Hitler, who is coming completely out of nowhere and is in process of shaking a child's hand for military-related stuff. And wacky headgear. Apparently pink bike helmets are evil now.
Post by: Helgoland on March 30, 2014, 05:00:46 pm
It's gotten to the point where "Traditional" is starting to be a disgusting concept to me.Come to Cologne. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGw9EUqC0nk) We got invaded so many time by the French and the Prussians, tolerance just came naturally. There are many hateful people abusing tradition, but tradition itself is a wonderful thing.
I've only ever heard it in two situations, either "We want you to act exactly like us, because our parents did it," which is absurd on the face of it. Or just a code-word for anti-queer. :I
Spoiler: Lyrics (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 05:04:50 pm
Some defected. I congratulate Russian army with gaining cowards and traitors. Who defected even before the actual hot war has startedYou are assuming that Ukrainian Army got an order to shoot the invaders and refused saving their lives. But they received an opposite order. So "do not want to die" doesn't apply here.
Were they ordered to defect to the Russian army too?
Of cause it's little more complex than that, but if you assume that order to shoot was given and was ignored by all units then you are denying laws of probability. With that many soldiers there, someone would follow order
Post by: miljan on March 30, 2014, 05:09:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVWIS1jOsOo
In Odessa there was pro ukraine and pro russ protest at the same time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIfKoYV8lM
Post by: kaian-a-coel on March 30, 2014, 05:14:56 pm
On the other side of the border, Alsace and Lorraine are seen by the rest of france as "basically germany", culturally speaking at least.It's gotten to the point where "Traditional" is starting to be a disgusting concept to me.Come to Cologne. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGw9EUqC0nk) We got invaded so many time by the French and the Prussians, tolerance just came naturally. There are many hateful people abusing tradition, but tradition itself is a wonderful thing.
I've only ever heard it in two situations, either "We want you to act exactly like us, because our parents did it," which is absurd on the face of it. Or just a code-word for anti-queer. :I
Tradition is indeed a two-edged sword. One is identity. Essentially cultural roots. Things that bind people together with music, food, clothing and festivals. That one's mostly good. The other is "conservatism", aka "our ancestors can't be wrong" syndrom. Which is awful.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 05:27:05 pm
Around 4000 protests in Kharkiv asking for 8 other province (or how its called) in ukraine to be independent, and are doing a petition for russia helpHuge number for an 1.5M city :D
Speaking about Kharkiv. I thank Kharkiv football fans for my new ringtone (https://t.co/ParuLTwCKY). Unfortunately you must know Russian to enjoy that
___________________________
US ships 300,000 MREs to Ukraine military (https://twitter.com/BlogsofWar/status/450370151263633408)
That is meals ready to eat not some good American toys. :) Still very good news
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 30, 2014, 05:46:42 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on March 30, 2014, 05:47:18 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 05:57:01 pm
Can't fight on an empty stomach, though I'm not sure how much of a benefit that will be for Ukraine's military. It wouldn't feed America's for even one day.Our army is poor but not that poor to starve :). But money not spent on rations will be spent on something else.
BTW, some units of our army do have noticeable problems with food. No place to stockpile it because local population brings a lot
Post by: Sergarr on March 30, 2014, 06:02:18 pm
These money will be spent on mercenaries.Can't fight on an empty stomach, though I'm not sure how much of a benefit that will be for Ukraine's military. It wouldn't feed America's for even one day.Our army is poor but not that poor to starve :). But money not spent on rations will be spent on something else.
BTW, some units of our army do have noticeable problems with food. No place to stockpile it because local population brings a lot
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 06:08:38 pm
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 30, 2014, 06:14:21 pm
Please don't confuse Russia with its people.This is a real gem, I can't say how much trouble lot of people have in understanding this.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 30, 2014, 06:20:29 pm
Post by: Knit tie on March 30, 2014, 06:53:51 pm
One should share responsibility with the government of his country or act to change that governmentWe are trying to change it, honestly. It's not working, but we are trying still.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 01:21:51 am
Spoiler: Who needs G8? (click to show/hide)
Post by: BlindKitty on March 31, 2014, 02:03:01 am
Please don't confuse Russia with its people.This is a real gem, I can't say how much trouble lot of people have in understanding this.
We had Russian people in our borders for, like, 50 years. We are not confusing them with anything. We just know them.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on March 31, 2014, 02:29:11 am
Sergarr, Oh! Thank you. Know I know how will Russian Television explain the fact that Ukrainian Army met Russian liberators with bullets. That isn't Ukrainian army that is mercenaries!Actually, I believe I saw an article like that somewhere on the internet really. Went something amongst the lines of:
Us Mercenaries sent snipers to attack protestors and Berkut alike, trying to slightly escalate the situation so that they can now be hired to maintain peace and order in a dictatorial state.
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 04:45:51 am
Truly, Ukrainians and Russians are brothers!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 31, 2014, 05:24:52 am
Something I read today:I think Romulus and Remus work a little better overall.
Truly, Ukrainians and Russians are brothers!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 05:59:41 am
Something I read today:I think Romulus and Remus work a little better overall.
Truly, Ukrainians and Russians are brothers!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Perhaps, but I'm just copying/translating it word for word.
Post by: Helgoland on March 31, 2014, 06:08:40 am
Post by: Darvi on March 31, 2014, 06:12:11 am
Post by: Dutchling on March 31, 2014, 06:14:29 am
Or maybe Adam and Eve would fill that role :P
Post by: Sonlirain on March 31, 2014, 06:32:12 am
Something I read today:I think Romulus and Remus work a little better overall.
Truly, Ukrainians and Russians are brothers!Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Perhaps, but I'm just copying/translating it word for word.
Well they are borthers as in "Both are eastern slavic nations with similar culture and language".
Besides it's a well known fact among every single slav out there that russia keeps strong arming herself into controling wheatever she thinks she can get away with.
Post by: BlindKitty on March 31, 2014, 06:40:03 am
Post by: scriver on March 31, 2014, 06:46:50 am
Post by: Darvi on March 31, 2014, 06:48:03 am
Post by: DJ on March 31, 2014, 07:19:51 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 07:21:58 am
But BlindKitty don't you know it's perfectly okay for an older brother to shove his younger brother headfirst into the fire if he feels slighted.
Or prevent him from doing what he wants because he feels threatened by his independence.
I think one of the worst arguments I have read since this crisis began was the Oliver Stone style argument that Russia just wants security and doesn't want NATO on their borders. One columnist was applauded by a lot of people for saying the West should leave things be and Ukraine should be blocked from joining NATO or the EU for 20 years. I can't think of anything more offensive to the very concept of national self determination besides annexation.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 07:29:30 am
But BlindKitty don't you know it's perfectly okay for an older brother to shove his younger brother headfirst into the fire if he feels slighted.Considering that when Kyiv was a large city with cathedrals Moscow was a forested area... I think it is obvious who is older here
(Not sure about brothers part... If by brothers you mean most genetically related then it is true only for Southern Russia were there are a lot of assimilated Ukrainians. If you mean language than Bulgarian is closer to Russian than Ukrainian. If you mean history, Russia just stole ancient and medieval Ukrainian history completely forgetting about all the tribes that lived in modern Russia)
Here are some maps showing Ukrainian genetics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsktPUsqOig ( I suspect it was done by racists. But it is natural, they are the most obsessed with stuff like that)
Post by: Knit tie on March 31, 2014, 08:04:56 am
And please, as I said, not every russian is a frothing nationalistic bastard. A bunch of us really are, and they scream the loudest, because that's what the government made them for, but the majority that the media always forgets to mention does not want any bloodshed.
Post by: Helgoland on March 31, 2014, 08:07:01 am
Blindkitty, every poll mentioning war that the russian press releases is invariably going to be rigged. That's one of Putin's oldest tactics.Huh, that carries a chilling implication: If Russian media present the Russian popular opinion as more war-lusty than it is at the command of the Kremlin, that would mean they're preparing a war...
Post by: scriver on March 31, 2014, 08:08:39 am
Post by: Knit tie on March 31, 2014, 08:11:03 am
Or they can just do it because it supports Putin's earlier actions. That's what russian media does: portray the government's decision as similar to that of the people for the purpose of garnering support. If we were preparing for war, the first thing to come would be conscription.Blindkitty, every poll mentioning war that the russian press releases is invariably going to be rigged. That's one of Putin's oldest tactics.Huh, that carries a chilling implication: If Russian media present the Russian popular opinion as more war-lusty than it is at the command of the Kremlin, that would mean they're preparing a war...
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 31, 2014, 08:15:00 am
Post by: Sheb on March 31, 2014, 08:15:49 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 08:57:10 am
As for mobilization of reservists, specialists are called up. Russia doesn't need total mobilization to start a war, partial is enough. I know that from a friend from Russia who has many relatives in military.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 09:13:20 am
We suggested that Russia should become a confederacy and introduce 50 official languages with the same legal status
Post by: Comrade P. on March 31, 2014, 09:25:08 am
Our ministry of foreign affairs decided to troll Russia a bit.Why not make local languges oficcial ones in subjects of our federation I cannot see, but why change our form of ruling from federation to confedration?
We suggested that Russia should become a confederacy and introduce 50 official languages with the same legal status
I don't actually know what is the difference. Explain, someone?
Post by: GlyphGryph on March 31, 2014, 09:37:55 am
Their current army is made of 70% conscripts doing their military service.
I meant why would they need to conscript now, as in, dont they already have enough, not if they conscript at all.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 09:46:29 am
Quote
Why not make local languges oficcial ones in subjects of our federation I cannot seeNope, same means same. Moscow, Vladivostok or Kaliningrad, doesn't matter. 50 official languages. Same rights, please
Quote
but why change our form of ruling from federation to confedration?
I don't actually know what is the difference. Explain, someone?
Spoiler: stolen from the yahoo answers (click to show/hide)
Post by: Comrade P. on March 31, 2014, 10:05:18 am
I must say that in my opinion Russia is a federation only by name. It is a typical centralized unitary country
I can't actually argue about it due to the fact I don't know much how well local governments work, but I suspect the more distant from Moscow they are, the more complicated it becomes to maintain regions. However, as far as I know from talks of my relatives, they generally manage with running states of federation, so federation looks kinda justified to me.
QuoteWhy not make local languges oficcial ones in subjects of our federation I cannot seeNope, same means same. Moscow, Vladivostok or Kaliningrad, doesn't matter. 50 official languages. Same rights, please
Meh. Sounds odd because makes no sense. Alright, that was a fine trolling brought by Ukrainian government.
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 10:08:29 am
There is no real "federal autonomy" to speak of since Putin's government made the regional Presidencies Kremlin-appointed positions, effectively abolishing those elections. It's about as much a "Federation" as North Korea is Democratic.
Quote
A third system, the unitary government, shifts the balance even further. Here, local governments only exist for convenience. They may issue licenses and permits on behalf of the national government, but they have little or no independent authority except over very local issues, like parking rules and noise ordinances. Moreover, any authority that is given to these regional governments is granted, not inherent. That means that the national government delegates the power to the regions, but all actions are taken in the name of the national government, and the national government can override any decision by a regional government at any time.
Tell me why that isn't a description of the Russian system.
Meh. Sounds odd because makes no sense. Alright, that was a fine trolling brought by Ukrainian government.
Now do you see the Crimean government's demands in a different light?
Post by: Comrade P. on March 31, 2014, 10:15:33 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 10:17:52 am
Wait, didn't Crimea got Ukrinian, Crimean-Tatar and Russian it's official or there are demands I am not aware of?
There is a general demand among the pro-Russian elements in Ukraine to make Russian a second official language of Ukraine, as it is in Belarus. That is the preference of the Russian Federation also.
The pro-Russians also want to ensure that they never have to use Ukrainian because they think it's an ugly peasant language, so they were angry when the regional language law, which allowed them to do exactly that, was removed. That sparked off most of this crisis.
I would also like to say that the legislation claiming Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian are official languages in Crimea is not worth the paper it is written on.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 10:21:42 am
Quote from: Comrade P.
they generally manage with running states of federation, so federation looks kinda justified to me.Can you say in what region people may say "Hey you, big guy from Moscow. We passed a local law XXX and you with all your central government can't change that?"
Without that it isn't a federation
Quote from: Owlbeard
It's about as much a "Federation" as North Korea is Democratic.I find it amusing that Ukraine is called a unitary state in our constitution but de facto is a federation. Well I hope that when we'll return Crimea we will either remove all it's autonomy or change constitution. Because right now that is nonsense
Post by: Comrade P. on March 31, 2014, 10:23:27 am
Wait, didn't Crimea got Ukrinian, Crimean-Tatar and Russian it's official or there are demands I am not aware of?
There is a general demand among the pro-Russian elements in Ukraine to make Russian a second official language of Ukraine, as it is in Belarus. That is the preference of the Russian Federation also.
A-ah. Well, it might be not a reasonable thing to do. But as far as I heard the main question was around learning russian at schools. Like, russian minorities in western parts felt that their right to speak Russian is harrased.
Well I hope that when we'll return Crimea we will either remove all it's autonomy or change constitution. Because right now that is nonsenseKeep hoping.
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 10:34:01 am
Quote from: Comrade P.they generally manage with running states of federation, so federation looks kinda justified to me.Can you say in what region people may say "Hey you, big guy from Moscow. We passed a local law XXX and you with all your central government can't change that?"
Without that it isn't a federation
This. The UK right now runs a more federal system than the Russian Federation.
Quote
I find it amusing that Ukraine is called a unitary state in our constitution but de facto is a federation. Well I hope that when we'll return Crimea we will either remove all it's autonomy or change constitution. Because right now that is nonsense
My only real preference in this situation is for Crimea to become an independent Tatar state. I'm not asking for ethnic cleansing, just allowing for the Tatars to return home because if they did that they would outnumber the Russians naturally.
What happens within Ukraine itself, whether they use a Federal model or greater power to the Oblasts I don't know. That is a matter for the Ukrainian people to resolve themselves.
A-ah. Well, it might be not a reasonable thing to do. But as far as I heard the main question was around learning russian at schools. Like, russian minorities in western parts felt that their right to speak Russian is harrased.
The trouble was that the Ukrainian governments were trying to reverse the damage caused by the dominance of the Russian language, so they started implementing fairly draconian measures like banning stuff. I'm not such a big fan of those, they were heavy handed and didn't do much good.
That said, Russian kids in Western Ukraine learning in Ukrainian state schools should be in a learning environment that uses the native language of the area. They should be allowed to learn Russian of course, all Ukrainians should, but the language of the classrooms should be Ukrainian.
I don't see the problem in setting up Russian-language schools though if the Russophone minority community wishes. They could allow Russian students to learn in a Russian environment with the legal requirement that they are also fluent and literate in Ukrainian by the time they leave. I would take the same approach regarding Crimea.
You may say that such systems promote segregation or something (people make the same arguments against the Catholic schools in Scotland) but that is exactly what the Russian activists want, or a system where Russian can be dominant. They never want to use Ukrainian.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 10:57:06 am
Yes, they dislike a duty to use Ukrainian in some situation. Before that law (BTW, MP who wrote that law is Crimean and recently took Russian citizenship) all governmental officials had a duty to use only Ukrainian in working time. Same goes for all official documentation. That law allowed to use regional language if at least 10% of Population speak different language (Russian qualifies everywhere) but even under this law central government (President, ministers, MPs) must use only Ukrainian doing otherwise is illegal... But there are no punishment for breaking that law :D So, it is actively ignored.Wait, didn't Crimea got Ukrinian, Crimean-Tatar and Russian it's official or there are demands I am not aware of?The pro-Russians also want to ensure that they never have to use Ukrainian because they think it's an ugly peasant language, so they were angry when the regional language law, which allowed them to do exactly that, was removed. That sparked off most of this crisis.
Quote
My only real preference in this situation is for Crimea to become an independent Tatar state. I'm not asking for ethnic cleansing, just allowing for the Tatars to return home because if they did that they would outnumber the Russians naturally.I am a big fan of "voluntary ethnic cleansing" By that I mean resettlement with a proper compensation and only if person is willing. That + Invitation of Crimean Tatars from Turkey may allow Tatars to become a majority real fast. If not in the whole Crimea then in the southern part of it.
And let's not forget that when Ukraine will get back Crimea many of those ho take Russian passports will not get Ukrainian back. Foreign residents don't vote.
Quote
I don't see the problem in setting up Russian-language schools though if the Russophone minority community wishes.Schools are a problem only in Russian propaganda
For example there are 5 Russian Language schools in Lviv alone.
Post by: Sheb on March 31, 2014, 11:20:17 am
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 11:36:12 am
Owlbread, how do you reconcile your "civic nationalism" in Scotland (People living there should vote no matter where from, "ethnic Scots" anywhere not), with your position on Crimea (Tatars get right because their ancestors lived there a while ago, the Russians can go and sod themselves.)?
I've thought about this a lot recently and I'm not sure if I've got it right yet. I feel like I'm concentrating on ethnicity way too much.
The fact that there are Tatars scattered all over the world, either the children of the deported or even the very elderly deported themselves still alive today, unable to return to their homes, makes this a somewhat unusual situation, quite unlike the situation in Scotland. I know I have made arguments against the concept of Scots abroad being able to vote on independence on the grounds that they choose not to live in this country but that's the key; they have the choice. The Tatars do not. If they can actually afford to move back, they live in ghettos.
Under the current set up with the Russian majority Crimea will never be an independent state. Even though they are more Soviet than anything else the pro-Russians will never consider something like an independent Crimea. If Crimea is forced to allow the Tatars to return, that would not create an ethnically homogenous Tatar state. They would instead form a small majority with a very substantial Russian minority. I think the Russian minority in that situation would integrate more easily into an independent civic "Crimean" mindset than if they were a subject of the Russian federation. They already have that, hence all the waving of Crimean flags over the last few months - it just needs to be encouraged to develop into a sense of "national" as opposed to regional identity.
I would imagine that an independent Crimean Tatar state would speak Russian as a lingua franca anyway in the same way that Chechnya spoke Russian during its de facto independence, despite having next to no Russians in the country. Chechen Mujahideen would be praising Allah one minute then calling their friend a "molodyets" the next.
The Russians in Crimea have every right to live there, even if they are in many cases literally living in a Tatar's stolen house. They are Crimeans for better or worse, just as English people in Scotland are Scottish for better or worse. Their rights as a minority should be respected. You know, if a Russian in Crimea decided to call himself a Tatar and started speaking Tatar I would consider him to be a Tatar. This has nothing to do with blood, for me.
To put it simply, there are other forces at work here that make this situation more complicated than it should be, meaning my usual idea of Civic Nationalism doesn't really work. I think though it is the answer to the Ukrainian problem as a whole; you will notice that I have almost never called the Russophone Ukrainians "Russians". They are Ukrainians just like anyone else, they just speak a different language.
Post by: scrdest on March 31, 2014, 11:41:52 am
I don't see Russia banging its own sisters though. Also who would be Seth in this relationship?
Poland? Central, not Eastern Slavic, though. Belarus?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 11:57:42 am
As far as I know there are such pro-Ukrainian measures
a) Government members and police officers must use Ukrainian while at work. As I said it is not enforced. And demanding that from police is dangerous for your health. Tested by a friend of mine
b) Central TV and radio channels must have 50% of Ukrainian content. That is circumvented either by taking some crapshow produced in Russia and putting goggle-translated subtitles below or showing undesirable stuff at night
c) All advertisements must be in Ukrainian. Mostly the only thing that works. Especially among small children
d) Cinemas are forced to show all films either in original sound subtitled in Ukrainian or dubbed in Ukrainian. To be honest that is an economical protectionism to force cinema owners to spend money on dubbing in Ukraine not caring about the language
And... I think that is all.
Quote from: Owlbread
Under the current set up with the Russian majority Crimea will never be an independent state. Even though they are more Soviet than anything else the pro-Russians will never consider something like an independent Crimea. If Crimea is forced to allow the Tatars to return, that would not create an ethnically homogenous Tatar state. They would instead form a small majority with a very substantial Russian minority. I think the Russian minority in that situation would integrate more easily into an independent civic "Crimean" mindset than if they were a subject of the Russian federation. They already have that, hence all the waving of Crimean flags over the last few months - it just needs to be encouraged to develop into a sense of "national" as opposed to regional identity.
Sorry... But you are wrong. People don't move from richer country to poorer country often. Uzbekistan. I think the ones who wanted to return returned already. And even if all of them will return that's like 150 000. Not gonna change the situation much.
Turkey... Whatever you do not that many Crimean Tatars will move from Turkey. Turkish Crimean Tatars are very assimilated.... I am afraid that most of them are Turks of Crimean Ancestry.
What will change the situation:Crimean Tatar birth rate. But that needs time and lack of new Ethnic cleansings
Post by: Knit tie on March 31, 2014, 12:18:37 pm
Post by: da_nang on March 31, 2014, 01:43:00 pm
Post by: miljan on March 31, 2014, 02:32:42 pm
...at least one Russian battalion has been withdrawn from the Ukrainian border.
Its a trap.
They want ukraine to feel safe, and then strike them
Post by: nenjin on March 31, 2014, 02:36:25 pm
Any news on the hostilities, gentlemen?
Merkel says that Putin agreed to pull a fraction of his forces back from the Ukraine/Crimea border.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 31, 2014, 03:03:47 pm
I'll
Post by: Mr. Strange on March 31, 2014, 03:12:28 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on March 31, 2014, 03:22:35 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 31, 2014, 03:46:54 pm
China from a 19th century imperialist view would want a direct military clash between Russia and NATO. In such a clash Russia would destroy it's standing with Europe and greatly reduce their own importance. But it wouldn't destroy Russia or align them with Europe because NATO knows that the Russian people don't want regime change, doubly so at the hands of an invading army. The result would be that Russia would be forced to align itself outside Europe, both economically and militarily. Basically this would reduce their options to irrelevance (which they wouldn't accept) and being a junior partner in a Russian-Chinese alliance.
For the Chinese this would be a splendid position. They would get cheap Russian energy at better prices because Russia would have no other market, creating a Russian economic dependence on China. They could leverage this to exploit the military industrial complex of Russia which does have some splendid technology. Russia would lose it's influence in Europe but for the Chinese that doesn't matter, they'd be getting everything they could want out of Russia. Just like Russia was trying to align the Ukraine, China would be aligning all of Russia.
So what this tells us about the Chinese leadership is that they don't see geopolitics as bi-lateral confrontational. If they did they would be giving Russia tacit support to try and goad them on. They wouldn't need to outright support Russia, they could just stick their nose into the mess then talk a lot about peaceful resolutions without blaming either side. Such bet hedging would make it sound like China is inclined to support Russia even as they keep saying they wont. At the end of the day their nose would be clean but conflict more likely.
China hasn't taken this approach though. They've pointedly kept out of this stuff and given Russia no support or hints of support. That leaves Russia isolated and makes conflict less likely. So while Russia might buy into a Cold War 2 between the US and Russia, China clearly doesn't buy into a Cold War 2 between the US and China.
Post by: miljan on March 31, 2014, 04:13:14 pm
Chine can not support openly something when it has problems like tibet. Thats the reason they are neutral in this, and not full against russia, or supporting it
China hasn't taken this approach though. They've pointedly kept out of this stuff and given Russia no support or hints of support. That leaves Russia isolated and makes conflict less likely. So while Russia might buy into a Cold War 2 between the US and Russia, China clearly doesn't buy into a Cold War 2 between the US and China.
Also it is clear now, that there will not be any cold war, or any sanctions if the things stay as they are now.
Post by: misko27 on March 31, 2014, 08:55:38 pm
Think about it. 40,000 troops on the border. War chanting at home. Mentioning Transnistria. The whole occupying Crimea thing. The west (and everyone else) is convinced he has his eyes on Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, something.
But what if his plan is to act out as if he was going to go around and murder everyone, but instead seemingly "settle" for Crimea alone? Here, he gets to deescalate the situation, and on his own terms, without letting everyone think he is a ruthless dictator plotting to conquer everyone. The west's main objective, maintain the rest of Ukraine, is achieved. No reason to go to war or anything; he must know that it would be suicidal in the long run to fully engage NATO. So instead, he pulls back, the west returns to a general state of disquiet but not alarm, and he manages to make off with Crimea while managing to look like he's being conciliatory and making the EU look weak. We already see some of this in Putin's surprise call to Obama. He literally gets away with Crimea while conceding, which is impressive. No one wants to help Ukraine get that back if Putin isn't going to go nuts and invade the rest.
He might've miscalculated though. There is a lot of antipathy towards him now here; the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, isn't going to be trying any sort of "reset". The russo-neighbors are scared, and many will accelerate their pull away: fear of invasion has a tendency to silence those partial to the potential invaders. Whether or not he plans on fully conceding the rest of his influence in Ukraine, there is a lot of anger towards him there. And no one remembers when, just a short while ago, he was the champion of freedom from spying, and Snowden is worse off for being associated. NATO is re-ascendant in it's old role, where just weeks before it was disengaging. Only time will tell whether this will develop into the new norm though.
I might be wrong mind. He could be the wild nationalist tiger I've seen him depicted as. In that case, may god help us all. But I don't buy it.
Post by: Zangi on March 31, 2014, 10:08:24 pm
Putin has his cards set, in case shit does hit the fan. By shit hitting the fan, I mean Russia rolling into Ukraine.
Sure, some Russian citizens may not like what is happening now, but if Russian bodies turn up as a result of a Ukraine military attack, guess what is going to happen?
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 31, 2014, 10:58:22 pm
That's all there is to it.
My jimmies are starting to get rustled whenever you guys claim 'he's just got his ducks in a row in case Ukraine INVADES!'
FFS
With Putin's sudden conciliatory stance, this whole thing is really looking like a farce for shoring up Putin's popular support in Russia and securing the Sevastopol base.
The troops on the border are for intimidation while Russia tries to dictate Ukraine's constitution, ultimately, hopefully- to the russian gov, leading to a breakup into western & eastern states. One guess why that's being pursued.
--Mm, and apparently the west is going for it. Ukraine's to be unofficially divvied up eh? >:(
Post by: mainiac on March 31, 2014, 11:03:04 pm
Edit: OBAMA VOWS MILITARY RETALIATION (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI&feature=kp)
Double Edit: Medelev announces "unrestrained warfare against the countries conspiring to undermine Russian security" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&feature=kp)
Triple Edit: Bohner just got on TV and announced "All Americans stand united behind the President" then hinted at regime change in Russia. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo&feature=kp)
Quadruple Edit: Explosions seen at the NATO headquarters in Brussels[/ur]. We are officially fucked. (http://youtu.be/j6yRHUWitQ8?t=4s)
Post by: Dutchling on March 31, 2014, 11:13:26 pm
HOLY SHIT HEAVY RUSSIAN BOMBING IN KIEV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)
Edit: OBAMA VOWS MILITARY RETALIATION (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI&feature=kp)
Double Edit: Medelev announces "unrestrained warfare against the countries conspiring to undermine Russian security" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&feature=kp)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 31, 2014, 11:16:47 pm
Post by: mainiac on March 31, 2014, 11:19:05 pm
You fellows need practice. (http://sports-report.net/Kiev_razed_in_surprise_bombardment)
Okay your link was better, I was in a rush, don't we have bigger issues right now?
Post by: Owlbread on March 31, 2014, 11:24:52 pm
Cameron is going to make an emergency speech in the next hour. All those people...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on March 31, 2014, 11:32:17 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Zangi on April 01, 2014, 12:04:42 am
The idea of a Ukraine mounting an offensive campaign is absurd.Well, he does have his duckies in a row in the worst case scenario, Ukrainian Armed Forces have stupid angry compulsive people in leadership positions.
That's all there is to it.
My jimmies are starting to get rustled whenever you guys claim 'he's just got his ducks in a row in case Ukraine INVADES!'
FFS
With Putin's sudden conciliatory stance, this whole thing is really looking like a farce for shoring up Putin's popular support in Russia and securing the Sevastopol base.
The troops on the border are for intimidation while Russia tries to dictate Ukraine's constitution, ultimately, hopefully- to the russian gov, leading to a breakup into western & eastern states. One guess why that's being pursued.
--Mm, and apparently the west is going for it. Ukraine's to be unofficially divvied up eh? >:(
And yes to the rest.
Post by: Descan on April 01, 2014, 12:16:39 am
I mean, yeah, I can see where he's coming from, but... A bad vote is a bad vote no matter where you stand, and it's pretty obvious that's a bad vote. >_> Certainly not one you should base such a seismic shift as leaving one country and joining another on.
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 12:52:06 am
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 01, 2014, 01:03:24 am
That's not my impression at all. What with their neutrality in both the riots (to the point of getting fired over it, in fact) & the crimean invasion, they don't seem very brutish at all. Quite the contrary, 'less you know something I don't.snipWell, he does have his duckies in a row in the worst case scenario, Ukrainian Armed Forces have stupid angry compulsive people in leadership positions.
And yes to the rest.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 01:07:48 am
I agree that this whole invasion is a farce for the purposes of gathering domestic support, with a side order of regaining control of the Black Sea naval base, strengthening national economy and infrastructure by forcing a stop to reliance on imports and foreign services, and honestly helping the russian population of Crimea - even if mostly just to achieve the abovementioned.FTFY :P
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 01:21:00 am
Extremely debatable.I agree that this whole invasion is a farce for the purposes of gathering domestic support, with a side order of regaining control of the Black Sea naval base, strengthening national economy and infrastructure by forcing a stop to reliance on imports and foreign services, and honestly helping the russian population of Crimea - even if mostly just to achieve the abovementioned.FTFY :P
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 01, 2014, 01:22:39 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 01:42:59 am
The general gist of any sanctions would also be fairly apparent to proficient economists - Europe can't just up and close off its own metaphorical oxygen supply, so the primary method that would have been effective - refusing to buy Russian hydrocarbons - is plainly not feasible in any sort of short term. Any other means of effecting Russia economically would have to be refusing it more minor trades and services - which can in turn be used to drive for independence from such trades and services, because the capacity was always there and there was simply no need.
I'm not saying everything was planned out in advance - but if the original plan was to use the one-time opportunity that unrest in Crimea provided, and stop there without doing anything else, the repercussions from doing so would have been at least partially predictable. There's only so many ways NATO, the EU, and the US can react to such an event, and there are analysts far better than me out there to see them.
Speaking of sanctions, we might as well start a new Skippy's List, except with the list of things Barack Obama is now prohibited from doing in various cities in Russia. Like using public transportation, entering some stores and restaurants, etc. I haven't personally seen any around here, and many of the ones the news reported on could likely be typical works of Internet artisans, but a few definitely seem to be true, and I personally like that kind of humorous response.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 02:30:35 am
I think that the strongest economy in the world is North Korean. It was strengthened so many timesI agree that this whole invasion is a farce for the purposes of gathering domestic support, with a side order of regaining control of the Black Sea naval base, strengthening national economy and infrastructure by forcing a stop to reliance on imports and foreign services, and honestly helping the russian population of Crimea - even if mostly just to achieve the abovementioned.FTFY :P
As for Crimea and helping local population... You ruined already fragile local economy of the region and even investing shitloads of money, I mean Sochi levels, will not fix it any time soon
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 02:45:44 am
As many Koreans will undoubtedly be able to tell you, grinding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinding_%28video_gaming%29) is a viable way to self-improvement. :PI think that the strongest economy in the world is North Korean. It was strengthened so many timesI agree that this whole invasion is a farce for the purposes of gathering domestic support, with a side order of regaining control of the Black Sea naval base, strengthening national economy and infrastructure by forcing a stop to reliance on imports and foreign services, and honestly helping the russian population of Crimea - even if mostly just to achieve the abovementioned.FTFY :P
As for Crimea and helping local population... You ruined already fragile local economy of the region and even investing shitloads of money, I mean Sochi levels, will not fix it any time soon
And we'll have to wait and see, I guess. There are a number of measures reported as being taken, and exactly what net effect it will have I have no frappin' clue. It's certainly being intended as a tourist destination, but I'm no economist to say if you're right about the "fragile economy" and the "ruining".
Post by: olemars on April 01, 2014, 02:56:46 am
Post by: Digital Hellhound on April 01, 2014, 03:33:22 am
I have to admit, I am beginning to lean towards NATO membership for Finland, though it's never been a popular idea here. I like to believe Glorious Nordic Defense Cooperation would keep us safe already, though. Glooorious.
Post by: Guardian G.I. on April 01, 2014, 03:40:59 am
HOLY SHIT HEAVY RUSSIAN BOMBING IN KIEV (http://sports-report.net/Kiev_razed_in_surprise_bombardment)According to Russian news bulletins, this is the new Russian anthem, approved by Mr. Putin himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkZTxOW3K1c).
Edit: OBAMA VOWS MILITARY RETALIATION (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI&feature=kp)
Double Edit: Medelev announces "unrestrained warfare against the countries conspiring to undermine Russian security" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&feature=kp)
Triple Edit: Bohner just got on TV and announced "All Americans stand united behind the President" then hinted at regime change in Russia. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo&feature=kp)
Quadruple Edit: Explosions seen at the NATO headquarters in Brussels[/ur]. We are officially fucked.
(http://youtu.be/j6yRHUWitQ8?t=4s)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: DJ on April 01, 2014, 03:42:13 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 04:31:36 am
Either that, or the Russian Winter had smelled a possible invasion and decided to give us a few more months of coverage just in case we need 'er. :P
(seriously, it's a damn blizzard out there)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 04:46:35 am
I don't get why Russia would be eager to invade Finland. Was it really that much fun the last time?
Spoiler: End result of Winter War II (click to show/hide)
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 05:14:52 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 05:19:50 am
Fun (and inaccurate - isn't there a peninsula the author forgot?) as that is, I find this rather more entertaining.I don't get why Russia would be eager to invade Finland. Was it really that much fun the last time?Spoiler: End result of Winter War II (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: miljan on April 01, 2014, 05:22:22 am
According to Russian news bulletins, this is the new Russian anthem, approved by Mr. Putin himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkZTxOW3K1c).
Nahhh, this is the russian new anthem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk_VszbZa_s :D
Post by: Helgoland on April 01, 2014, 05:22:54 am
If Russia is encircled, it fully deserves it. And if war breaks out, it won't have been NATO's fault.
Anyway, I was gonna make an April Fools joke about Germany reintroducing conscription with Merkel giving a Churchill-style speech... But naah.
Post by: DJ on April 01, 2014, 05:24:00 am
Post by: Comrade P. on April 01, 2014, 05:35:23 am
In other news, the view out my window is probably the nature's way of celebrating April 1st.Moscow too. Fukken snow all over the city.
Either that, or the Russian Winter had smelled a possible invasion and decided to give us a few more months of coverage just in case we need 'er. :P
(seriously, it's a damn blizzard out there)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 05:39:23 am
Quote
Fun (and inaccurate - isn't there a peninsula the author forgot?) as that is, I find this rather more entertaining.I love how Russians treat Crimea as Russian territory with almost no countries recognizing it. Who cares about that international laws?
That map is a joke. Finland will not double it's territory and Ukraine will not try to annex South-Western Russia no matter what will happen
As for Russia breaking apart. That will happen. Not in the way like on the map, but it will. Any large country that gives zero rights to regions is doomed as soon as any large crisis will arrive. USSR in 1980s looked like a monolith but... Russian empire is convulsing. In that convulsion it may even start a nuclear apocalypse but that will not change it's fate.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 06:27:47 am
I love how Russians treat Crimea as Russian territory with almost no countries recognizing it. Who cares about that international laws?There's the de jure, and then there's the de facto. Crimea is now de facto part of Russia, and taking it away via any sort of legislative means is not going to happen. Easily, at the very least. For one, in order to legally return it to the Ukraine, you have to first legally admit it has changed ownership, which Ukrainian government isn't too keen on doing. As long as its legal status in Ukraine remains as "a part of Ukraine", it can't be given back to Ukraine. By legally - by its own constitution - admitting newly self-declared independent Crimea into itself, Russia has turned a legally sketchy situation with the unrest, referendum and independence, that seems to have been the playground for every major power around, into a legal quagmire that isn't likely to be resolved.
When countries wage legal war, it's not likely to end quickly. Sometimes not at all. Just as with big companies doing the same. The most likely outcome is, like with companies, a settlement - which between countries is called diplomacy, which is what they're now doing. Exactly what the costs will be, and what will happen, I've no idea - only time will tell.
Post by: Sheb on April 01, 2014, 06:44:11 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 06:51:31 am
Quote
For one, in order to legally return it to the Ukraine, you have to first legally admit it has changed ownership, which Ukrainian government isn't too keen on doing.So you mean, that if I'll decide to form an armed squad and capture a factory and force workers to say that they want to work on me then I'll be a de facto owner and to have a chance to take it back, the real owned must admit that I am a legal owner of the building and engage in negotiations with me?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 07:00:45 am
In principle? Yes. Except you'd have to force the existing management to resign their positions or transfer them to you (not just make the workers swear loyalty to you at gunpoint), and of course the owner can just storm the building with his own armed squad and kick you out. That's called a "hostile takeover", by the way, except in this case it's literally hostile, and I've seen a few news reports of it happening in Ukraine.QuoteFor one, in order to legally return it to the Ukraine, you have to first legally admit it has changed ownership, which Ukrainian government isn't too keen on doing.So you mean, that if I'll decide to form an armed squad and capture a factory and force workers to say that they want to work on me then I'll be a de facto owner and to have a chance to take it back, the real owned must admit that I am a legal owner of the building and engage in negotiations with me?
With Russia... eh, you can try taking Crimea back by armed forces, but I think it's been generally agreed here that that's not going to end well for anyone, least of all Crimea. And Ukraine.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 07:15:19 am
De facto Crimea is controlled by Russia, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a part of Russia.
It is not a part of Russia for business, because if any company to have any business activity in Crimea it should ask the government in Kyiv for license and pay taxes to Ukrainian budget or it will be sued in international courts
It is not a part of Russia for any visitors because anyone entering Crimea breaks Ukrainian border control laws and has a full right to arrest and jail that person as soon as possible.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 07:31:19 am
Heh... You are mixing owning and controlling here
De facto Crimea is controlled by Russia, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a part of Russia.
It is not a part of Russia for business, because if any company to have any business activity in Crimea it should ask the government in Kyiv for license and pay taxes to Ukrainian budget or it will be sued in international courts
It is not a part of Russia for any visitors because anyone entering Crimea breaks Ukrainian border control laws and has a full right to arrest and jail that person as soon as possible.
Sucks for the Crimean economy, right? Also tourists since it's a tourism based economy.
Also, I'd call Russias actions to be of hostile intent, even if they pretty much just stepped out of their bases and no shots were fired.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 07:46:43 am
Heh... You are mixing owning and controlling hereExcept within Russia there is no such thing. For dealings within Russia, or through Russia, both companies and visitors don't have to cross any border, except the inter-regional "border" that is not enforced by anyone who has the authority to arrest them. Crimea is a disputed part of Ukraine only when it comes to dealings, and comings and goings, with anywhere that is not Russia. Legally, any businesses operating in Crimea were freed from responsibility after Crimea declared its independence - if the declaration of independence is deemed illegal, that's a matter that will be taken up with the governing body of Crimea - and Russia, by extension. Businesses will not stop operating just because they are no longer in the same country, and they will not continue to pay taxes to the country they are no longer in. By that logic, you could right now sue every business still operating in Crimea, and every person still living there. Likewise, anyone traveling into Crimea from Russia is not crossing international borders, according to Russian law, and unless there is a Ukrainian customs checkpoint on entry, the person never legally enters the territory of Ukraine. As long as Crimea remains de facto a part of Russia, and is de jure accepted by Russia, citizens of Russia have full access to it.
De facto Crimea is controlled by Russia, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a part of Russia.
It is not a part of Russia for business, because if any company to have any business activity in Crimea it should ask the government in Kyiv for license and pay taxes to Ukrainian budget or it will be sued in international courts
It is not a part of Russia for any visitors because anyone entering Crimea breaks Ukrainian border control laws and has a full right to arrest and jail that person as soon as possible.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 07:50:50 am
The general gist of any sanctions would also be fairly apparent to proficient economists - Europe can't just up and close off its own metaphorical oxygen supply, so the primary method that would have been effective - refusing to buy Russian hydrocarbons - is plainly not feasible in any sort of short term.
100% wrong. The cost of undoing all the "progress" Russia's economy has made since the 90s would be less then the cost of maintaining European militaries for a year. And Russia can not physically sell to someone else due to existing infrastructures while Europe is capable of rapidly changing it's energy use. Europes economy is way bigger then Russias and Russia is a poster child for the Dutch Disease where natural resource exports destroy the competativeness of other industries. Worse yet the Russian government has compounded the problem through subsidies of inefficient industries.
The reason why Europe wont do a major reduction in purchases of natural gas is because Russia hasn't pissed them off enough for them to accept the expense and overcome the status quo bias, not because they can't.
Post by: XXSockXX on April 01, 2014, 08:04:11 am
The reason why Europe wont do a major reduction in purchases of natural gas is because Russia hasn't pissed them off enough for them to accept the expense and overcome the status quo bias, not because they can't.It would hurt a lot economically to stop buying gas from Russia right now. Even during the Cold War Europe bought gas from Russia. However Europe is probably going to try become less dependent on Russian energy in the long term, that's been stated by a lot of politicians lately.
Anyway, I was gonna make an April Fools joke about Germany reintroducing conscription with Merkel giving a Churchill-style speech... But naah.It's not as dramatic yet of course, but there are a lot of voices demanding Germany reintroduce conscription now, because of the recruiting issues.
Overall, no matter how this will be resolved, the new Crimea crisis will lead to lots of strategic shifts in many ways.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 08:11:25 am
Quote
For dealings within Russia, or through Russia, both companies and visitors don't have to cross any border, except the inter-regional "border"You don't understand.. That companies will pay fines to Ukraine for acting like that. At the very least doing business both in Crimea and unoccupied Ukraine will be very problematic.
Same for for tourists, Even Russian tourists. Yes, we can't hope for extradition form Russia but should that tourist enter Ukraine later we have full right to arrest him for breaking our laws.
Quote
Legally, any businesses operating in Crimea were freed from responsibility after Crimea declared its independenceBy international and Ukrainian laws that declaration of independence is illegal and has no power. Many, many countries said that.
Quote
By that logic, you could right now sue every business still operating in Crimea, and every person still living there.In fact yes. That is likely will not be done for essential services. Exactly for the same reasons why we keep suppling electricity.
And yes, technically, each and every person in Crimea is breaking many Ukrainian laws following directives of illegal government. But as many of them are forced to do that we can't announce that they all are criminals
Quote
Likewise, anyone traveling into Crimea from Russia is not crossing international borders, according to Russian law, and unless there is a Ukrainian customs checkpoint on entry, the person never legally enters the territory of Ukraine.Yes. The person never legally enters the territory of Ukraine. He enters illegally. As I said earlier Ukraine has little to no options to get this criminals out from Russia or occupied Crimea... But that doesn't change the fact that Ukraine has a right to arrest them
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 08:28:21 am
QuoteLegally, any businesses operating in Crimea were freed from responsibility after Crimea declared its independenceBy international and Ukrainian laws that declaration of independence is illegal and has no power. Many, many countries said that.
Nearly the entire United Nations don't recognize it I believe. And yeah, 95% is ridiculous because 95% of WHICH population? Sevastopol? A random Crimean town? The most it could plausibly have been for Crimea is 70%, but had Russia not invaded and the vote been 65%, I bet a lot more countries would be willing to accept it.
Putin really shot himself in the foot with an unrealistic rigged vote.
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 09:07:55 am
Post by: Owlbread on April 01, 2014, 09:11:34 am
That's like the England invading Scotland, overthrowing the Scottish government then holding a referendum and allowing the English soldiers to vote.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 09:15:24 am
I'd be surprised if they didn't count the occupying soldiers' votes. That's what they did in Chechnya - after the capital fell and the Chechen government retreated into the mountains, the Russian government held a referendum on whether they wanted to become an "autonomous republic" within Russia. The vote was criticised because thousands of invading soldiers' votes were counted, despite Chechnya only having a population of around 500,000, many of whom were still fighting against Russia.
That's like the England invading Scotland, overthrowing the Scottish government then holding a referendum and allowing the English soldiers to vote.
I bet 95% of those soldiers don't even have Ukranian citizenship in the first place.
Maybe Russia needs a taste of their own medicine, har har har. Have NATO troops invade Moscow and then force-vote Moscow independent of Russia.
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 09:23:16 am
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 09:25:23 am
It would hurt a lot economically to stop buying gas from Russia right now. Even during the Cold War Europe bought gas from Russia. However Europe is probably going to try become less dependent on Russian energy in the long term, that's been stated by a lot of politicians lately.
Yes it would hurt but 1) the damage would be larger in Russia then Europe 2) Europe has a much bigger economy to take up the slack.
Fuel exports to Europe are 15% of all Russian economic activity. But Russian energy is only 25% of just the fuel sector in Europe. The natural gas that is the lifeblood of the Russian economy accounts for just 5% of European electrical production.
If Europe was willing to absorb some costs they could squash Russia like a bug. Russia's economy is almost tailor designed to be vulnerable to sanctions. European politicians aren't eager to take that step but it's a very credible possibility in the new future. When people are talking about the possibility of major armed conflict seriously a 5% substitution of electricity with higher cost alternatives doesn't sound too bad, does it? In fact from an economic standpoint Europe would be doing itself a favor by stimulating it's depressed economy with new energy investments.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 09:27:09 am
Yes I know he could just cry foul, but you could also point out his hypocricy, but then again, using election rigging to get him out of office might lead to a slippery slope.
@maniac: There are talks of the US supporting some of the energy needs, so theres that.
Post by: Sergarr on April 01, 2014, 09:39:24 am
We survived more than 300 years of near-occupation under Mongol control, in which thousands of Russian people were killed or brought into slavery countless invasions by foreign forces, including the both World Wars, the Civil War, the loss of ruling dynasty in 1612 (in which year the Russian throne was almost occupied by Poland, but the militia driven them out). You don't know what pain is. This is nothing. The Russian will is unbreakable.QuoteFun (and inaccurate - isn't there a peninsula the author forgot?) as that is, I find this rather more entertaining.I love how Russians treat Crimea as Russian territory with almost no countries recognizing it. Who cares about that international laws?
That map is a joke. Finland will not double it's territory and Ukraine will not try to annex South-Western Russia no matter what will happen
As for Russia breaking apart. That will happen. Not in the way like on the map, but it will. Any large country that gives zero rights to regions is doomed as soon as any large crisis will arrive. USSR in 1980s looked like a monolith but... Russian empire is convulsing. In that convulsion it may even start a nuclear apocalypse but that will not change it's fate.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 09:43:48 am
the loss of ruling dynasty in 1612 (in which year the Russian throne was almost occupied by Poland, but the militia driven them out)
Is that the one where you burned the Polish pretender, stuffed his ashes (or maybe his corpse) into a cannon and shot the cannon towards Poland? I've heard of that.
Post by: XXSockXX on April 01, 2014, 09:44:09 am
European politicians aren't eager to take that step but it's a very credible possibility in the new future. When people are talking about the possibility of major armed conflict seriously a 5% substitution of electricity with higher cost alternatives doesn't sound too bad, does it?Gas is mostly used for heating, not electricity, also as fuel and in some industries. Some EU countries are 100% dependent on Russia for their gas supply, in Germany it's 35% (and 36% for oil). In Germany (http://www.peak-oil.com/2014/01/80-der-deutschen-wohnungen-heizen-direkt-mit-oel-oder-gas/), heating in almost 50% of homes depends on gas, almost 30% on oil, electricity accounts for just 5,4%.
Replacing Russian oil supply is not a big problem. Replacing Russian gas supply is not really possible in the short term (because of pipeline infrastructure, and some countries will have to produce more), but it will become a long term goal now, as it seems.
Post by: Sergarr on April 01, 2014, 09:49:37 am
Oh yeah. That. Good times, good times.the loss of ruling dynasty in 1612 (in which year the Russian throne was almost occupied by Poland, but the militia driven them out)
Is that the one where you burned the Polish pretender, stuffed his ashes (or maybe his corpse) into a cannon and shot the cannon towards Poland? I've heard of that.
EDIT: Wait, I'm wrong. That was the False Dimitry The Third, which was pretending to be the miraculously saved prince Dimitry from the old dynasty.
Post by: DJ on April 01, 2014, 09:54:59 am
You don't know what pain is.Saying this to a Pole, really? I don't think there's a nation on Earth that's been screwed over by it's allies more than Poland.
Post by: scriver on April 01, 2014, 09:59:28 am
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 10:02:20 am
How about Korea?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817041012AAV6q4w
Vietnam, and pretty much anybody that is on an invasion corridor or in a highly strategic zone.
Of course though, the word country here is rather arbitrary since one person in the second link mentions Alsace, which was it's own country once.
Apparently there's Russians over 600 years old. I am impressed.
lol scriver......
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 10:02:32 am
Quote from: Sergarr
We survived more than 300 years of near-occupation under Mongol control, in which thousands of Russian people were killed or brought into slavery countless invasions by foreign forces, including the both World Wars, the Civil War, the loss of ruling dynasty in 1612 (in which year the Russian throne was almost occupied by Poland, but the militia driven them out). You don't know what pain is. This is nothing. The Russian will is unbreakable.LOL. Stalin would disagree about unbreakable will. Also, I don't see what is that scary in Mongol (in fact Tatar) "occupation". Paying tribute is nothing comparing what Iberia got under Arab rule or Ireland that had a lot of "fun" first with Norseman then with English or Balkans under Ottoman rule or many others.
_____________
Back to Ukrainian politics. We got 24 candidates for the elections
Surprisingly Klitchko decided to opt out and will run for the mayor of Kiev instead. He supports Poroshenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko) in the presidential race
Other than that all as expected. Tymoshenko uses demagogy and promises just everything, Symonenko(a commie) blame capitalists and promise to bring USSR back, Minor parties are using presidential campaign for PR before expected parliamentary elections and so on.
Would like better list of candidates but that would be asking for too much :) Political elites can't change for better that fast
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:03:20 am
It would hurt a lot economically to stop buying gas from Russia right now. Even during the Cold War Europe bought gas from Russia. However Europe is probably going to try become less dependent on Russian energy in the long term, that's been stated by a lot of politicians lately.
Yes it would hurt but 1) the damage would be larger in Russia then Europe 2) Europe has a much bigger economy to take up the slack.
Fuel exports to Europe are 15% of all Russian economic activity. But Russian energy is only 25% of just the fuel sector in Europe. The natural gas that is the lifeblood of the Russian economy accounts for just 5% of European electrical production.
If Europe was willing to absorb some costs they could squash Russia like a bug. Russia's economy is almost tailor designed to be vulnerable to sanctions. European politicians aren't eager to take that step but it's a very credible possibility in the new future. When people are talking about the possibility of major armed conflict seriously a 5% substitution of electricity with higher cost alternatives doesn't sound too bad, does it? In fact from an economic standpoint Europe would be doing itself a favor by stimulating it's depressed economy with new energy investments.
You scaring shits out of me ;) My family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavs, thats biggest mistake West usually tends to make.
Besides, some EU countries completely depend on our gas (liek Poland is 92% or something) and belt of mediterranean countries quite dependant on our tourists money (it's millions of ppl a year). There is much more to that list but I cba to provide links, because any prooflinks is going to be ignored or refuted anyways.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 10:08:37 am
Quote
My family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 10:10:57 am
QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going on work while not being paid for more than a year
More like corporate or government slaves maybe.
Aren't Ukranians of the Slavic group as well though?
Post by: XXSockXX on April 01, 2014, 10:11:31 am
Surprisingly Klitchko decided to opt out and will run for the mayor of Kiev instead. He supports Poroshenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Poroshenko) in the presidential raceI heard that. What is your opinion of Poroshenko? I don't know much about him, but as a billionnaire he doesn't look much different from other people in Ukrainian politics.
Other than that all as expected. Tymoshenko uses demagogy and promises just everything, Symonenko(a commie) blame capitalists and promise to bring USSR back, Minor parties are using presidential campaign for PR before expected parliamentary elections and so on.
Would like better list of candidates but that would be asking for too much :) Political elites can't change for better that fast
Tymoshenko has lost a lot of credibility here with her recent aggressive remarks.
Besides, some EU countries completely depend on our gas (liek Poland is 92% or something) and belt of mediterranean countries quite dependant on our tourists money (it's millions of ppl a year). There is much more to that list but I cba to provide links, because any prooflinks is going to be ignored or refuted anyways.You are absolutely right. Besides the gas dependency, Russian tourism is a major source of income in Southern Europe. Gas is the most obvious connection, but there are plenty of Russian investments in the banking sector and all kinds of industries.
So immediate full sanctions are practically impossible and therefore extremely unlikely. It is rather the long term course that might change after the recent events.
Post by: da_nang on April 01, 2014, 10:11:58 am
I mean, if Putin decides to attack Ukraine, he'd then have to go through NATO troops. If he has any sanity left, he won't do that, will he?
Post by: Sergarr on April 01, 2014, 10:12:34 am
A nice remark from a nation of bandits.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:13:01 am
QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
How predictable you are. I put "slavs" there to test you reaction. I was not wrong.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 10:13:58 am
A nice remark from a nation of bandits.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
And a nice remark from a nation descended from norse 'barbarians'.
Just slinging around insults if that's what we are doing...... Though pretty tame as insults go.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:14:40 am
@Ukranian Ranger: Vote for the party that is equivalent to the green party in the US.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going on work while not being paid for more than a year
More like corporate or government slaves maybe.
Aren't Ukranians of the Slavic group as well though?
Thats exactly my point.
edit: btw, Ukraine had exactly same problems with delayed wages. I wonder, what it tells about UR if he not aknowledged of this fact. And that delay was redeemed eventually.
Post by: Sergarr on April 01, 2014, 10:16:48 am
You've just insulted the whole Scandinavia.A nice remark from a nation of bandits.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
And a nice remark from a nation descended from norse 'barbarians'.
Just slinging around insults if that's what we are doing......
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 10:19:10 am
You've just insulted the whole Scandinavia.A nice remark from a nation of bandits.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
And a nice remark from a nation descended from norse 'barbarians'.
Just slinging around insults if that's what we are doing......
By implying the Rus are at least in part, descended from Vikings?
I did it in quotes, I don't ACTUALLY think the Norse were barbarians, they're an awesome culture.
Though considering how far the Vikings got around (I think the Byzantines even had Viking mercenaries?), the Rus probably do have some Viking blood going around.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 10:19:42 am
This is nothing. The Russian will is unbreakable.
Besides the fact that Russian will has been broken by Swedes (1617), Finns (1918), Baltics (1583), Lithuanians (1919), Estonians(1918), Latvians (1920), Poles (1921), Turks (1681), Georgians (1920), Afganis (1989), a bunch of 'stani's I don't feel like looking up, Mongols (14th century in general), Chinese (1652), Japanese (1905), Germans (1917) and the goddamn French (1856), this statement is somewhat true.
Gas is mostly used for heating, not electricity, also as fuel and in some industries. Some EU countries are 100% dependent on Russia for their gas supply, in Germany it's 35% (and 36% for oil). In Germany (http://www.peak-oil.com/2014/01/80-der-deutschen-wohnungen-heizen-direkt-mit-oel-oder-gas/), heating in almost 50% of homes depends on gas, almost 30% on oil, electricity accounts for just 5,4%.
The small baltics might be completely dependent on the Russians but most of the Russian market isn't countries that can't cope. Russia only accounts for 25% of overall European natural gas use.
You scaring shits out of me ;) My family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavs, thats biggest mistake West usually tends to make.
Besides, some EU countries completely depend on our gas (liek Poland is 92% or something) and belt of mediterranean countries quite dependant on our tourists money (it's millions of ppl a year). There is much more to that list but I cba to provide links, because any prooflinks is going to be ignored or refuted anyways.
Poland is even less dependent on natural gas then Europe's average, primarily because they are a major coal producer and use much more coal. So they "liek" gonna be glad to see a trade war with Russia because that would help their own economy through better coal prices.
I don't really care if you are scared or not. The numbers don't really care either. But a simple back of the envelope calculation says that a complete interdiction of Russian imports and exports with Europe would result in a single year 10% GDP reduction from first order effects alone (not counting economic fallout) which could reasonably be extrapolated to the Russian unemployment rate hitting 25%. I'm sure that an economic collapse worse then the great depression will be no match for Russian indomitable spirit.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:22:35 am
You've just insulted the whole Scandinavia.A nice remark from a nation of bandits.QuoteMy family lost all bank savings in 90s and parents wages was delayed up to 14-16 months at peak. Guess what, we still here. You really understimate endurance and little needs of slavesFixed that for you. Because only a mental slave can keep going to work while not being paid for more than a year
And a nice remark from a nation descended from norse 'barbarians'.
Just slinging around insults if that's what we are doing......
By implying the Rus are at least in part, descended from Vikings?
I did it in quotes, I don't ACTUALLY think the Norse were barbarians, they're an awesome culture.
I dare to say that barbarians can't be seen as bad on DF forums. Vikings? Barbarians? Isn't that inherently awesome?
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 10:24:59 am
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 10:25:50 am
To be fair, Afghanistan also broke the British Empire and sort of broke the US. Not so much broke than 'absolutely tired of this war and want to get the hell outta here'.
To be fair I was just listing the countries that broke the Russians not commenting on the difficulty of the fight.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:26:18 am
Besides the fact that Russian will has been broken by Swedes (1617), Finns (1918), Baltics (1583), Lithuanians (1919), Estonians(1918), Latvians (1920), Poles (1921), Turks (1681), Georgians (1920), Afganis (1989), a bunch of 'stani's I don't feel like looking up, Mongols (14th century in general), Chinese (1652), Japanese (1905), Germans (1917) and the goddamn French (1856), this statement is somewhat true.
I stopped reading after that. My eyes keep rolling so hard I can't even read further.
Post by: Sheb on April 01, 2014, 10:27:03 am
Post by: XXSockXX on April 01, 2014, 10:28:28 am
The small baltics might be completely dependent on the Russians but most of the Russian market isn't countries that can't cope. Russia only accounts for 25% of overall European natural gas use.Well, actually Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Poland get 60-100% of their gas from Russia.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
"Coping" depends mostly on countries like Norway, the Netherlands and Algeria producing more, possibly the US starting to export and most importantly pipelines. Again, it's possible, but it will take some time.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 10:38:01 am
Aren't Ukranians of the Slavic group as well though?IMO Slavs are not an superethnic group or some genetically related people but merely a linguistic group. Exactly like people that speak romance languages aren't very related.
Quote
I heard that. What is your opinion of Poroshenko? I don't know much about him, but as a billionnaire he doesn't look much different from other people in Ukrainian politics.Mixed feelings... He is an oligarch. That is a huge problem. He is quite far from nationalistic views. But he is not from that guys who privatized national industry, modernized nothing, paid little to no taxes, and got billions of cash. He actually created workplaces. And without his TV channel revolution would be less likely.
Quote
btw, Ukraine had exactly same problems with delayed wages. I wonder, what it tells about UR if he not aknowledged of this fact. And that delay was redeemed eventually.BTW, my relatives left their jobs after the first month of no paying. I never denied that among Ukrainians we have people with mentality of slaves.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:44:35 am
To be fair, Afghanistan also broke the British Empire and sort of broke the US. Not so much broke than 'absolutely tired of this war and want to get the hell outta here'.
To be fair I was just listing the countries that broke the Russians not commenting on the difficulty of the fight.
Despite me being harassed plenty of times here for my poor english skill, you need to revisit your definition of "broken will" phrase. It's better applied to european nations in times of napoleonic wars and WWII. Guess who saved their asses.
Last time I checked, huge territory is still there on the map.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 10:48:05 am
BTW, my relatives left their jobs after the first month of no paying. I never denied that among Ukrainians we have people with mentality of slaves.
And what they did afterwards? We got all our money in the end. Isn't that a suprise your economy in such a state with mentality like that?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 10:52:43 am
In Europe, if you'll delay a salary for a week you'll get a riot. In Russia if you delay a salary for a year you'll get "Uh. OK" and later their children say that is a great achievement to endure that kind of treatment.
Quote
And what they did afterwards? We got all our money in the end. Isn't that a suprise your economy in such a state with mentality like that?Varies. Some changed job. Some went farming. Some emigrated. Some started their own business. And our economy is in a bad state exactly because too much people acted like Russians and we don't have enough oil and gas to compensate that
Post by: Owlbread on April 01, 2014, 10:57:08 am
You don't know what pain is.
I was going to say something about this line of thought but I think it's best if we drop it. It just takes us into all sorts of unpleasant places and we'll end up talking about abstract nationalist stuff (unbroken will, past atrocities etc) which may distract us from current affairs.
Post by: Dutchling on April 01, 2014, 10:58:23 am
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 10:58:37 am
Well, actually Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Poland get 60-100% of their gas from Russia.
Those countries account for less then 10% of the EU economy and if you remove Poland (a net energy exporter which would benefit more then it would lose) from the list they account for less then 5%. Remove Poland from the list and Germany's economy is 4 times the size of the remaining countries while France's economy is 3 times the size.
Guess who saved their asses.
England sailors and Spanish guerrillas? (where do you think that word comes from?)
Russians thinking they were the primary defeater of Nappy is about as dumb as Americans thinking they deserve the credit for taking down Hitler. Russia didn't do the most economic damage (the was England) and Russia didn't do the most military damage (the was Spain) and both England and Spain each did more economic and military damage then Russia.
Nice to know that the Ruskies are just as capable as the Americans in the chauvinism department.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 11:04:17 am
You know what is the difference between Europe and Russia?
In Europe, if you'll delay a salary for a week you'll get a riot. In Russia if you delay a salary for a year you'll get "Uh. OK" and later their children say that is a great achievement to endure that kind of treatment.
You will get a riot right now here as well. I quit my lost job because my employee tried to enforce me to work from 11 till 19, when I insisted that I better cope with my schedule and rythm working 14 to 20. Yes I can afford that quirks because finding new job is like a week-two tops. Thats because our economy is just fine right now.
But when economy in collapse and quitting does nothing good because it's will cause even bigger state-scale havoc, you tighten your belt and grind through difficulties, not give up.
Quote
Varies. Some changed job. Some went farming. Some emigrated. Some started their own business. And our economy is in a bad state exactly because too much people acted like Russians and we don't have enough oil and gas to compensate that
You can't change job, because there is no jobs. Literally. And everybody farmed. You don't get the point. You don't give up when it's rough or you're done. Thats probably what differentiate Russians and Ukrainians.
Post by: XXSockXX on April 01, 2014, 11:08:08 am
Sure. But even if they account for only 5% of the economy, we don't want them to freeze to death. It's not only the impact on the economy, it's also infrastructure issues. Remember, you can't just equate gas with energy, as it's used for heating, so you can't just use something else.Well, actually Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Poland get 60-100% of their gas from Russia.
Those countries account for less then 10% of the EU economy and if you remove Poland (a net energy exporter which would benefit more then it would lose) from the list they account for less then 5%. Remove Poland from the list and Germany's economy is 4 times the size of the remaining countries while France's economy is 3 times the size.
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 11:12:04 am
Quote
But when economy in collapse and quitting does nothing good because it's will cause even bigger state-scale havoc, you tighten your belt and grind through difficulties, not give up.Somehow oligarchs made billions during that period. Maybe exactly because they had little slaves who obediently grinded through difficulties?
Quote
Thats probably what differentiate Russians and Ukrainians.There are a lot of that differentiate Russians and Ukrainians. For example if our government got a brilliant idea to move troops in Belarus\Moldova to protect Ethnic Ukrainians we would have all our country on the streets and Maydan would look like a party comparing to that
I like that kind of thinking. We are different, not one country, not one nation
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 11:14:51 am
England sailors and Spanish guerrillas? (where do you think that word comes from?)
I recommend you to watch this excelent documenatry
http://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Napoleon_(PBS_Empires)
You emphasizing not *that* significant events just showing your real level of ignorance or level of brainwashing you received.
Post by: Darvi on April 01, 2014, 11:18:13 am
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 11:24:36 am
Russians thinking they were the primary defeater of Nappy is about as dumb as Americans thinking they deserve the credit for taking down Hitler. Russia didn't do the most economic damage (the was England) and Russia didn't do the most military damage (the was Spain) and both England and Spain each did more economic and military damage then Russia.
Nice to know that the Ruskies are just as capable as the Americans in the chauvinism department.
You realize how huge discrepancy between active size of military force used in Peninsular War and Russian Campaign? Like real numbers? You either bad in math or you have very strange sources of information.
Sheer size of an army Napoleon raised to invade Russia was unprecedented.
edit: Suprisingly, I see Napoleon as most positive thing happened to Europe :P
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 11:28:03 am
Sure. But even if they account for only 5% of the economy, we don't want them to freeze to death. It's not only the impact on the economy, it's also infrastructure issues. Remember, you can't just equate gas with energy, as it's used for heating, so you can't just use something else.
The 75% of Europes natural gas that isn't Russian could cover a lot of the essential stuff though, natural gas is pretty fungible within the european community where the infrastructure is already in place. If Europe wanted to cut imports by half their only talking about displacing 12.5% of their natural gas usage throughout the continent. Unless Russia tries the King Cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_diplomacy) strategy Europe can just chose to only buy the fraction gas needed for heating homes in eastern europe while using the north sea for western natural gas needs and transmitting power east to replace electricity consumption in the east.
You realize how huge discrepancy between active size of military force used in Peninsular War and Russian Campaign? Like real numbers? You either bad in math or you have very strange sources of information.
You do realize the Peninsular War was a guerilla campaign, right? More Frenchmen served in Spain itself then Russia and the spanish had the largest colonial empire in the world, which was of considerable economic importance even if it did get torn apart by the war.
Post by: ivze on April 01, 2014, 11:32:57 am
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 11:56:09 am
Ukrainian Ranger, I would like to ask you, how do you see your own future and the future of your country?Short term: Recession, lowering of social standards and spike of unemployment. That or war with Russia that I think is very likely
Long term: That varies... It may be going Poland's way with eventual EU membership. It may be Maydan 3.0 if country will fail to change. It may be splitting in two halves if Russia will be able to you exploit the instability. It may be a new authoritarian regime some time later. We are at a crossroad
As for my personal future, that is not something easy to predict :)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 12:44:27 pm
Quote
Ukraine route closures - message to all Airspace Users - update 31/03/14 at 1200 UTCCrimea is de facto a part of Russia (c)
Eurocontrol is strictly following ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation and will not recognise any unilateral declaration of air navigation service provision over any part of Ukrainian airspace other than from the Ukrainian authority.
A number of routes are closed WIE-UFN as well as UKFF (Simferopol) and UKFB (Sevastopol) airports.
The Network Manager will:
- reject all FPLs filed via the closed routes and all FPLs dep/dest UKFF and UKFB according to the following NOTAMs issued by the Ukrainian Authorities.
Post by: Comrade P. on April 01, 2014, 01:32:22 pm
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 01:33:32 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 01:35:08 pm
You do realize the Peninsular War was a guerilla campaign, right? More Frenchmen served in Spain itself then Russia and the spanish had the largest colonial empire in the world, which was of considerable economic importance even if it did get torn apart by the war.
Why you asking me like I have no idea what we talking about? I provided you with a link to incredibly long and thorough documentary of Napoleon life with hundreds of numbers and details provided about everything and you keep arguing. Spanish campaign started before Russian, was not supervised directly by Napoleon most of the time and economic woes doesnt affected ability of Napoleon to field enormously huge grand army to march towards their demise in Russian wastelands. And if you don't know simple facts that there was plenty of guerilla warfare in Russian campaign including scorched earth tactics, setting Moscow ablaze, cossacs raids etc then I have no intention to discuss this topic with you. You are way ignorant to simple historical facts, it's like arguing with idiot, which never works. You was caught so many times on posting bullshits it's beyond my patience.
> Poland is even less dependent on natural gas then Europe's average, primarily because they are a major coal producer and use much more coal.
No it's not that simple, because you need refit boiler stations infrastructure for heat purposes and replacing gas stoves in houses with electrical ones. Who is going to pay for that? It's grandiose money investment. You make it look like energy of one type is directly replacable with another.
Also http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/safety.html . Another huge money sink.
> If Europe was willing to absorb some costs they could squash Russia like a bug.
No it's not. You need to read on upcoming talks with China on suborbitant amounts of $$$ on natural gas exports which is going to happen in 2018. I gave link already in this thread. If anything is going to happen, Europe will suffer more in long run. And they know that. And in reality, nothing is going wrong, because EU-Russia ties will grow even stronger. It's a win-win, while US posture is just a bully.
>That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions >to clear the air. If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those >things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.
>Let's discuss the advantages NATO has briefly
Yawn...
>1) Complete air superiority.
Oh, here we go.
Bla bla bla.
NATO aircraft... We have top notch SAM's for that (try to google it). Sheer fact that you unaware it's even exists not doing you any favor. Speaking in Civilization terms, it's stupid to use bombers against cities surrounded by mobile SAMS, if you can't clear land units with tanks, which you have in lower numbers (bar logistical nightmare to field it). NATO indeed have best offensive army in the world. But Russia have best defensive combo in the world. You can't beat SAM's + Tanks. It's not going to happen. And for the record, we have top notch rocket artillery too, but you need to make research yourself (google, starts with I).
Arguments about conscription/poor soldiers is stupid. These machines personnel is highly trained and on professional contracts. Nobody is going to send troops. It's rock-paper-scissors game. SAM against Air, Tanks against Troops, Rocket Artillery against... pretty much anything on land. It's an offensive nightmare. And NATO knows it. It's just you, who not aware.
Troop skills... you gotta be kidding be. We live in the age of materiel warfare, what troops you talking about? Shooting poorly trained arabs with ak's?
Post by: DJ on April 01, 2014, 01:54:52 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 01:57:48 pm
Can SAMs reliably shoot down Tomahawks and Predator drones?
You realise it's not ever be going public? There is no better SAM's though, currently. Allegedly. Nobody is going to tell you classified information. I am pretty sure both sides went far to make stealth more stealthy and sams more sammy. We don't know end result. We are just common folks.
Although, you need to notice the trend that one side is heavily offensive, another side is heavily defensive. Let's talk about intents, huh
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 02:01:32 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:06:16 pm
100% reliably? Likely not. "Reliably enough" is a different matter though. And SAMs are just one part of it - Tunguskas are combined anti-air autocannon and missile systems, so they can engage both aircraft and cruise missiles equally well.
Lets not forget Iskander's as well. It's contracted all the way up to 2020+
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 02:16:25 pm
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 02:18:01 pm
IIRC, UR's plan is to be swiftly defeated, then guerilla the Russians untill they get bored or the West actually does something.Yeah, something like that
Can SAMs reliably shoot down Tomahawks and Predator drones?Shhh, Russian wundewaffe S-300 can shoot down anything. Including a deathstar if it comes to close.
Quote
There is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:24:30 pm
QuoteThere is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
I like that this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) have something to actually read. What is this tells to you?
Quote
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
You really need to look up definition on word "refit". Also look up s-400 and s-500.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:29:12 pm
http://lenta.ru/articles/2014/04/01/casino/
This actually makes sense, cuz all casinos was closed. I don't see it's a bad choice. Guaranteed investments
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 02:33:17 pm
Well, the Type 3 page lacks numbers, but... Barak 8, seriously? Developed in 2009, range 70km, altitude 16km, speed Mach 2... Whereas the S-300PT, developed in 1981, has speed of over mach 4, altitude of over 20km, and juust falls short with 70km operational range that was the limitation of the detection array, rather than the missile.QuoteThere is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
Sorry, but no. There are likely better SAMs than ours somewhere, but these are not it. And as far as actual combat, we are using our old SAMs as target practice for our new ones so far. I'm pretty sure our engineers would love to get them some fresh testing data.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:33:21 pm
Putin is going to sell s-400 to China. So China ties is going strong liek right now.
(guys, I deliberately put pro-Kremlin links just to show you, how I feel when you post huge(most) amount of links to clearly anti-russian propaganda materials)
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:36:55 pm
Well, the Type 3 page lacks numbers, but... Barak 8, seriously? Developed in 2009, range 70km, altitude 16km, speed Mach 2... Whereas the S-300PT, developed in 1981, has speed of over mach 4, altitude of over 20km, and juust falls short with 70km operational range that was the limitation of the detection array, rather than the missile.QuoteThere is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
Sorry, but no. There are likely better SAMs than ours somewhere, but these are not it.
I was ironic about his posts. He attacked me with links to systems which is HUGELY inferior to ours in any charesteristic, and he attacked it's age. Which is silly. That why I said s-300 wikipage have more writing. And I really want to read about better SAM's which is better, but I didn't find any in open internetz. "Likely" - please, provide links.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:45:05 pm
[/quote]
Btw, dont emphaize age of something, as I said I was born in Votkinsk and I worked in it's prominent plant, and my father still works there. Just read a short summary of this town in wikipedia and you will understand what I mean. Granted, I have no full information, it's unavailable without security clearance, but when I say that something is real and something not, I have a slight clue.
Post by: Darvi on April 01, 2014, 02:45:41 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 02:48:32 pm
Most of it's on Wikipedia. The US Navy's RIM series "Standards" are pretty neat, however they are ship-mounted, not what you'd use to defend a piece of land. Lately, it seems most of the world is focusing on "anti-ballistic" defenses, not anti-air. Lots of huge missiles designed to stop an ICBM from ruining your day, but everybody sticks to the same old guns when it comes to preventing a flock of errant fighter-bombers from doing the same. Everybody, that, is, except Russia. As usual. Maybe because the "old guns" everybody sticks to are either Patriots or russian-made. :PWell, the Type 3 page lacks numbers, but... Barak 8, seriously? Developed in 2009, range 70km, altitude 16km, speed Mach 2... Whereas the S-300PT, developed in 1981, has speed of over mach 4, altitude of over 20km, and juust falls short with 70km operational range that was the limitation of the detection array, rather than the missile.QuoteThere is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
Sorry, but no. There are likely better SAMs than ours somewhere, but these are not it.
I was ironic about his posts. He attacked me with links to systems which is HUGELY inferior to ours in any charesteristic, and he attacked it's age. Which is silly. That why I said s-300 wikipage have more writing. And I really want to read about better SAM's which is better, but I didn't find any in open internetz. "Likely" - please, provide links.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:49:46 pm
The modify button. Learn it. Use it. Maybe don't love it.
I use modify button extensively because my messages is ridden with syntax errors (another language spell checker). But I can't fix all. Sorry to bother you.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 02:54:54 pm
Why you asking me like I have no idea what we talking about? I provided you with a link to incredibly long and thorough documentary of Napoleon life with hundreds of numbers and details provided about everything and you keep arguing. Spanish campaign started before Russian, was not supervised directly by Napoleon most of the time and economic woes doesnt affected ability of Napoleon to field enormously huge grand army to march towards their demise in Russian wastelands. And if you don't know simple facts that there was plenty of guerilla warfare in Russian campaign including scorched earth tactics, setting Moscow ablaze, cossacs raids etc then I have no intention to discuss this topic with you. You are way ignorant to simple historical facts, it's like arguing with idiot, which never works. You was caught so many times on posting bullshits it's beyond my patience.
Deny reality all you want buddy. Simple fact is more French soldiers served in Spain then in Russia. It's not complicated, the Grande Armee was big but was only around for six months. The Iberian occupation was less big but still very large and lasted for six years.
But thank you for that documentary, I'd never had the amazing opportunity to see a documentary about Napoleon before.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:57:00 pm
Most of it's on Wikipedia. The US Navy's RIM series "Standards" are pretty neat, however they are ship-mounted, not what you'd use to defend a piece of land. Lately, it seems most of the world is focusing on "anti-ballistic" defenses, not anti-air. Lots of huge missiles designed to stop an ICBM from ruining your day, but everybody sticks to the same old guns when it comes to preventing a flock of errant fighter-bombers from doing the same. Everybody, that, is, except Russia. As usual. Maybe because the "old guns" everybody sticks to are either Patriots or russian-made. :PWell, the Type 3 page lacks numbers, but... Barak 8, seriously? Developed in 2009, range 70km, altitude 16km, speed Mach 2... Whereas the S-300PT, developed in 1981, has speed of over mach 4, altitude of over 20km, and juust falls short with 70km operational range that was the limitation of the detection array, rather than the missile.QuoteThere is no better SAM's though, currently.Said who? It was never tested in actual combat and there are plenty more modern developments. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_3_Chū-SAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8_(missile)
[sarcasm] How can Japan and Israel design something better than 1980s weapon systems? That countries have shitty defense industries comparing to what USSR had[/sarcasm]
Sorry, but no. There are likely better SAMs than ours somewhere, but these are not it.
I was ironic about his posts. He attacked me with links to systems which is HUGELY inferior to ours in any charesteristic, and he attacked it's age. Which is silly. That why I said s-300 wikipage have more writing. And I really want to read about better SAM's which is better, but I didn't find any in open internetz. "Likely" - please, provide links.
As a mostly wary-to-defend-land nation I dont see how that's a problem for us. Anything ship mounted is offensive, how it's contradict to my viewpoint that one side is full offensive and other is full defensive? I am absolutely pro-peace generally. But when one's start to speak about NATO superiority I can't help but laugh. There is no such thing, except in minds of brainwashed individuals. There are no winners.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 02:59:02 pm
Why you asking me like I have no idea what we talking about? I provided you with a link to incredibly long and thorough documentary of Napoleon life with hundreds of numbers and details provided about everything and you keep arguing. Spanish campaign started before Russian, was not supervised directly by Napoleon most of the time and economic woes doesnt affected ability of Napoleon to field enormously huge grand army to march towards their demise in Russian wastelands. And if you don't know simple facts that there was plenty of guerilla warfare in Russian campaign including scorched earth tactics, setting Moscow ablaze, cossacs raids etc then I have no intention to discuss this topic with you. You are way ignorant to simple historical facts, it's like arguing with idiot, which never works. You was caught so many times on posting bullshits it's beyond my patience.
Deny reality all you want buddy. Simple fact is more French soldiers served in Spain then in Russia. It's not complicated, the Grande Armee was big but was only around for six months. The Iberian occupation was less big but still very large and lasted for six years.
But thank you for that documentary, I'd never had the amazing opportunity to see a documentary about Napoleon before.
Watch it before you spew more bullshit. Then we will have period conversation (my favourite by far). Before that I am going to cease talking with you.
p.s. Good luck finding half million of french allies in Spain at once
edit, wikipedia
Grande Armée[edit]
On 24 June 1812, the 450,000 men of the Grande Armée, the largest army assembled up to that point in European history, crossed the river Neman and headed towards Moscow. Anthony Joes in Journal of Conflict Studies wrote that:
Lets pretend it never happened
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 03:05:04 pm
S-400 is renamed S-300PMU-3 to pretend that it is a new SAM
S-500 is a system under development and does not exists yet.
As for numbers. Who said you that speed of the missile is that important? One can make a missile that will fly fast and far... but in straight line. What numbers tell about ability to detect target? Probability to hit it? Reliability of the missile? It's ability to change direction to neutralize evading maneuvers? It's resistance to jamming?
Let's not forget about the size of the missile. Barak 8 is a rather compact missile made mainly for Naval use. S-300 is much larger.
Here are another Israeli competitor of S-300 look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3 Yeah it is purely anti-balistic. Because
a) modern militarizes tend to not have one against everything surface-to-air missile like S-300 tries to be. It is not practical to use huge missile for hunting UAVs , helicopters or anti-ship missiles
b) Airforce is not a treat for rich countries, their likely enemies have shitty aviation.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:10:11 pm
That S-300 is a SAM from freaking 1978, 35 years old. No modernization can make it compare to modern developments
S-400 is renamed S-300PMU-3 to pretend that it is a new SAM
S-500 is a system under development and does not exists yet.
As for numbers. Who said you that speed of the missile is that important? One can make a missile that will fly fast and far... but in straight line. What numbers tell about ability to detect target? Probability to hit it? Reliability of the missile? It's ability to change direction to neutralize evading maneuvers? It's resistance to jamming?
Let's not forget about the size of the missile. Barak 8 is a rather compact missile made mainly for Naval use. S-300 is much larger.
Here are another Israeli competitor of S-300 look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3 Yeah it is purely anti-balistic. Because
a) modern militarizes tend to not have one against everything surface-to-air missile like S-300 tries to be. It is not practical to use huge missile for hunting UAVs , helicopters or anti-ship missiles
b) Airforce is not a treat for rich countries, their likely enemies have shitty aviation.
I like when individuals come with bogus links to wikipedia to prove their point then come with even more links. It's universally accepted that russian anti-air is top notch. It's accepted by NATO, yet reluctanlty. What exactly you try to achieve? Win argument by links? Whats your opinion on Iskander though?
Quote
It is not practical to use huge missile for hunting UAVs , helicopters or anti-ship missiles
You will be surprised that it's not just s-300+. I need to provide links or you going to make your own research?
edit: or you didnt' read tunguska mention?
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 03:15:53 pm
p.s. Good luck finding half million of french allies in Spain at once
I never once even came close to saying that and that's not remotely what we were talking about. If you are moving the goalposts, I will take it as an indication that you realize you were wrong but are too proud to admit it.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:17:05 pm
a) modern militarizes tend to not have one against everything surface-to-air missile like S-300 tries to be. It is not practical to use huge missile for hunting UAVs , helicopters or anti-ship missiles
b) Airforce is not a treat for rich countries, their likely enemies have shitty aviation.
a) there is no analogues in characteristics to current s-300
b) also airforce is not threat to countries with well-up-to-date anti airforce technologies. Which solidifies my point.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:19:39 pm
p.s. Good luck finding half million of french allies in Spain at once
I never once even came close to saying that and that's not remotely what we were talking about. If you are moving the goalposts, I will take it as an indication that you realize you were wrong but are too proud to admit it.
If you ignoring numbers which is real and documented, I see a reason to ignore your big wording. Was there half millions of french + allies? Nope. You lost argument. Keep harder.
edit: Actually wait. I am pretty sure right now, that you unaware of fact who directed most of operations in Spain soil in course of war. I think you still think it's Napoleon, and it's just strengthen my belief I shouldnt even discuss this topic with you
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 03:21:03 pm
Quote
Whats your opinion on Iskander though?Another weapon that wasn't tested in a real combat. Most likely unreliable crap produced by badly corrupted Russian Defense Industry with characteristics elevated by Russian propaganda
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 03:25:00 pm
If you ignoring numbers which is real and documented, I see a reason to ignore your big wording. Was there half millions of french + allies? Nope. You lost argument. Keep harder.
You are putting words in my mouth that directly contradict what I said:
The Iberian occupation was less big but still very large and lasted for six years.
Once again, you seem to be insisting that I'm saying what I'm not, from which I conclude that you see you were ignorant and don't want to admit it.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:26:22 pm
I... uh... saw no big words in what he said there. None that are even that complicated.p.s. Good luck finding half million of french allies in Spain at once
I never once even came close to saying that and that's not remotely what we were talking about. If you are moving the goalposts, I will take it as an indication that you realize you were wrong but are too proud to admit it.
If you ignoring numbers which is real and documented, I see a reason to ignore your big wording. Was there half millions of french + allies? Nope. You lost argument. Keep harder.
He said that Peninsula war was bigger than Russian war. What do you think? Bare facts?
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:27:39 pm
If you ignoring numbers which is real and documented, I see a reason to ignore your big wording. Was there half millions of french + allies? Nope. You lost argument. Keep harder.
You are putting words in my mouth that directly contradict what I said:The Iberian occupation was less big but still very large and lasted for six years.
Once again, you seem to be insisting that I'm saying what I'm not, from which I conclude that you see you were ignorant and don't want to admit it.
Wait a second? Spanish Guerilla and English Fleet? Your meaning?
Post by: misko27 on April 01, 2014, 03:28:06 pm
And really, Napoleon guys? North Korea could wipe out Napoleon now. The Afghani Army would be a fair match. Military technology has changed so much it's not even funny. He thought steam power was stupid, the average army has flying machines and assault weapons, come on guys.
At least pretend it isn't petty sniping.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:30:36 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on April 01, 2014, 03:31:25 pm
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 03:31:48 pm
Wait a second? Spanish Guerilla and English Fleet? Your meaning?
I don't understand your question.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:35:26 pm
The real question is why the dick-measuring contest always comes back to invading Russia, where there is an obvious defensive advantage, and not on what might realistically happen. Face facts folks: No one will be invading Russia any time soon, and believing otherwise is ignorance or paranoia. Any military engagement will be limited to Ukraine, not to marching into Moscow. Power correlates solely to how military might can be projected in Ukraine, not how many SAMs protect your capital. I mean if you're making up situations with no respect to reality, why not have Russia invade Europe? Equally unlikely, and yet it's not mentioned; perhaps because we know how that would work out.
And really, Napoleon guys? North Korea could wipe out Napoleon now. The Afghani Army would be a fair match. Military technology has changed so much it's not even funny. He thought steam power was stupid, the average army has flying machines and assault weapons, come on guys.
At least pretend it isn't petty sniping.
Napoleon was much bigger than just "wipe". Republic, Cons Monarchy, Universities, Enlightment. Why you talk about technology?
The real problem that west thinks *again* that russians invade everyone (in reality they dont want). History continues.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 03:36:45 pm
I think he requires a more descive explanation of the situation.Wait a second? Spanish Guerilla and English Fleet? Your meaning?I don't understand your question.
Anyway, to me it appears that for most of it's military history, Russia has used a combination of We Have Reserves and We Can Retreat to force it's invaders into overextension and collapse.
Which doesn't really matter here, because at worst this'll be a limited conflict in Ukraine itself.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:37:09 pm
Why do you need a french in the thread?
There is a guy who deem himself as an expert in french history. I really want somebody from french to fix his 'caveats'
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 03:38:31 pm
Then again, no military history expert.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:38:42 pm
I think he requires a more descive explanation of the situation.Wait a second? Spanish Guerilla and English Fleet? Your meaning?I don't understand your question.
Anyway, to me it appears that for most of it's military history, Russia has used a combination of We Have Reserves and We Can Retreat to force it's invaders into overextension and collapse.
Which doesn't really matter here, because at worst this'll be a limited conflict in Ukraine itself.
It is mongolian tactics, btw
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 03:40:47 pm
I think he requires a more descive explanation of the situation.
Like a complete explanation of a six year war between France and Spain?
No thanks.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:41:51 pm
I'm Belgian. Does that count?
Then again, no military history expert.
I dont really know now who to ask about how big was Peninsula Campaign against Russian Campaign. One guy just imply that numbers doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that sane french is going to help him with that morale issue. Thats all.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 03:45:46 pm
*Or never depart on it. I mean, the entire point of the Invasion was to pressure Russia to stop trading with Great Britain, forcing them to sue for peace and end the economic blockade.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:47:33 pm
I think he requires a more descive explanation of the situation.Wait a second? Spanish Guerilla and English Fleet? Your meaning?I don't understand your question.
Anyway, to me it appears that for most of it's military history, Russia has used a combination of We Have Reserves and We Can Retreat to force it's invaders into overextension and collapse.
Which doesn't really matter here, because at worst this'll be a limited conflict in Ukraine itself.
Ugh, actually it's was an usual answer to a much superior force. Ukraine is just like a small little brother gone batshit insane. Granted, somewhat justified, but none the less.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:49:36 pm
Well, numbers do matter, but there's the economics behind the war as well. You can be as succesfull as you want, without supplies you're getting nowhere.
It's never was economics. Grand Armee failed because of harsh winter. Simple as that.
And oh please. Please. People. Watch documentary (it is EXCELLENT). It's feels like I am talking to blind and cripple right now.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 03:51:27 pm
Anyway, can't find the link, and I'm not going to bother digging through the last 6 pages or so.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:52:36 pm
They failed because of the winter, but without the economic pressure from Great Britain and Spain they would have never needed to depart on it. The entire point of the war was to force Russia to cease trade with Great Britain anyway.
Anyway, can't find the link, and I'm not going to bother digging through the last 6 pages or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tORG__mggF8
Post by: RedKing on April 01, 2014, 03:53:10 pm
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3971723520/hCE4F173D/)
Because seriously....discussing the Napoleonic Wars as a model for current events is about as useful as Napoleon's Tyrannosaurassiers vs. Kutuzov's Bear Cavalry.
Post by: 10ebbor10 on April 01, 2014, 03:54:29 pm
Anyway, I might watch that documentary later. It's rather long.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 03:58:07 pm
Kind-off.
Anyway, I might watch that documentary later. It's rather long.
And I consider that to be western propaganda. I am not going to link french series wich is alot more... Neutral.
edit: well I actually will link it
http://dokumentfilm.ru/istorija/i_xix_veka/199-napoleon-napoleon-dokumentalnye-filmy.html
But the sole reason I can't find it in 5 minutes on imdb tells me something
Anybody knows music for main theme?
Post by: Mr. Strange on April 01, 2014, 04:13:36 pm
I'm Belgian. Does that count?Of course not. Everyone knows Belgium does not exist.
Post by: RedKing on April 01, 2014, 04:15:27 pm
And is an extremely rude word.I'm Belgian. Does that count?Of course not. Everyone knows Belgium does not exist.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:24:55 pm
Kind-off.
Anyway, I might watch that documentary later. It's rather long.
And I consider that to be western propaganda. I am not going to link french series wich is alot more... Neutral.
edit: well I actually will link it
http://dokumentfilm.ru/istorija/i_xix_veka/199-napoleon-napoleon-dokumentalnye-filmy.html
But the sole reason I can't find it in 5 minutes on imdb tells me something
Anybody knows music for main theme?
Wtf with censorship? I just went a miles trying to google
napoleon docstory ab production
and MOST of the links lead to russian pages. Anybody french enough to know about this series? Is it foreboden somehow?
I can find pages of interview participants but movie looks like cease to exist.
Was it deemed liek offensive or something?
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:31:36 pm
He said that Peninsula war was bigger than Russian war. What do you think? Bare facts?Peninsula isn't a complicated or big word.
We talk about spanish locals trying to battle illegimate invasion of french, with a success. Whats your point?
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:35:11 pm
Kind-off.
Anyway, I might watch that documentary later. It's rather long.
And I consider that to be western propaganda. I am not going to link french series wich is alot more... Neutral.
edit: well I actually will link it
http://dokumentfilm.ru/istorija/i_xix_veka/199-napoleon-napoleon-dokumentalnye-filmy.html
But the sole reason I can't find it in 5 minutes on imdb tells me something
Anybody knows music for main theme?
Wtf with censorship? I just went a miles trying to google
napoleon docstory ab production
and MOST of the links lead to russian pages. Anybody french enough to know about this series? Is it foreboden somehow?
I can find pages of interview participants but movie looks like cease to exist.
Was it deemed liek offensive or something?
Can anybody enighten me on this shit? Why this film looks like existant only in translated to russian? Looks like a propaganda to me. And I am angry. I thought it's widespread
edit: was it foreboden? or wtf
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:36:55 pm
You said that he was using big words.He said that Peninsula war was bigger than Russian war. What do you think? Bare facts?Peninsula isn't a complicated or big word.
We talk about spanish locals trying to battle illegimate invasion of french, with a success. Whats your point?
I point out he ISN'T.
Then you go off and tell me... I don't know what. You seem to not understand what the term 'big words' means (ie something complex/long (or possibly sciency-sounding.), basically something you use to try and sound like you know what you're talking about), or your arguments make no logical sense on purpose.
I thought I was elaborate with "big words" when I refuted pretty much everything he said.
Post by: Dutchling on April 01, 2014, 04:39:24 pm
Post by: scrdest on April 01, 2014, 04:40:54 pm
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 04:41:58 pm
I thought I was elaborate with "big words" when I refuted pretty much everything he said.
Do you think if you repeat this often enough it will magically change my statements? You were arguing against things I explicitly contradicted.
What you are doing here is EXTREMELY disrespectful. How would you feel if I started insisting that you said a bunch of bullshit you never said?
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 04:46:34 pm
(http://s.quickmeme.com/img/e5/e55f9ed5fbaa97d0631cab280ebb2fccd8b813cf3b10ce47dd7afef595cec85c.jpg)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 04:47:09 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:51:24 pm
I thought I was elaborate with "big words" when I refuted pretty much everything he said.
Do you think if you repeat this often enough it will magically change my statements? You were arguing against things I explicitly contradicted.
What you are doing here is EXTREMELY disrespectful. How would you feel if I started insisting that you said a bunch of bullshit you never said?
I am dogpiled here like it's totally normal. Just read couple of latest statements. Or better read the whole thread, I am generally threated like typical US redneck. Deal with that. They deal with me like I am total retard even if nature says opposite, but who am I to judge? :D
Now we can start an real argument, and welcome to my world. What shits you disliked that much?
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 04:55:57 pm
- Russian!
- Occupation?
- No, just visiting...
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 04:56:55 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 04:58:58 pm
*bangs head on wall*
I assumed that you were foreign, and thus might have had some difficulty with English (I tried French. I can pretty much say 'hello', 'how are you?' and such), hence the use of irrelevant terms. If you think that's me thinking you are, as you put it, a retard, then I shall not bother being polite or accommodating again.
I read, then reread. Whats is your point afterall?
Post by: scriver on April 01, 2014, 05:01:06 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:04:04 pm
Gogis, the main reason people "treat you like a retard" is that your English is very bad and constantly cause confusion and misunderstandings. Often you aren't even making any sense at all. It's just words stacked after each other.
My english is perfectly fine. You need to operate under impression that I understand everything you say. On the other hand, if you don't like what I say you can obvioulsy invoke argument that my english is bad. I may not say a proper stuff. But I 100% understand what you say.
Post by: GrizzlyAdamz on April 01, 2014, 05:05:14 pm
>10 pages since last night
>NOPE
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:05:50 pm
Post by: RedKing on April 01, 2014, 05:08:17 pm
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:08:41 pm
-snip-I REALLY want to respond to this statement, but the thread's lost the rails at this point, and Toady would probably not be too happy with this continuing.
It's really hard to respond on a snipped quote anyways
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 05:09:25 pm
:mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Pretty great metaphor really.
"Why is everyone against the Russian? Everyone must be biased!"
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on April 01, 2014, 05:10:19 pm
Contrary to popular(?) belief, that's not the only case of using "big words". A particular phrase I know is "Big words from a small man", referring not to the sesquipedalian loquaciousness of the speech, but of the meaning of (self-)importance the words carry, and how the listener sees them in relation to his attitude towards the speaker.-snip-My point is that he wasn't using anything that necessitated the term 'big words'
If someone you knew was an idiot tried slinging around terms like 'quantum mechanics' to try and appear intelligent, or to try and win an argument, THAT would be a case of 'big words'.
...
Though I can't even find where he used the "big words" thing anymore with how this thread moves.
(http://www.operatorchan.org/k/src/13940928476.jpg)
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:10:42 pm
:mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Pretty great metaphor really.
"Why is everyone against the Russian? Everyone must be biased!"
Yes it is. You think otherwise?
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:13:45 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 05:15:04 pm
As a fellow Russian, yes I do. You haven't been very considerate or respectful, gogis, naturally, this causes hostility towards you.:mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Pretty great metaphor really.
"Why is everyone against the Russian? Everyone must be biased!"
Yes it is. You think otherwise?
Post by: RedKing on April 01, 2014, 05:15:23 pm
:mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Pretty great metaphor really.
"Why is everyone against the Russian? Everyone must be biased!"
Yes it is. You think otherwise?
SARCASM DETECTION AVERTED.
I am the only one who not seeing any reason to apologize? Cmon, attacking on reasons like "your english is terrible" is not even serious in slightest. It's a lost argument, last resort try.It wasn't even an attack. More of a "I'm sorry, we can't understand you because SERIOUSLY....we can't understand you."
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:15:30 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 05:17:55 pm
Actually this whole thread reminds me how I became atheist out of agnostic. Thank youThat's not a very big leap of your beliefs, I have to say. Especially if you keep misinterpreting refutations of your arguments as personal attacks.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:18:21 pm
:mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
Not even worth my time to find a proper img macro.
Sadly, I think much like Crimea itself, it's wishful thinking that anything is going to change at this point for this thread.
Pretty great metaphor really.
"Why is everyone against the Russian? Everyone must be biased!"
Yes it is. You think otherwise?
SARCASM DETECTION AVERTED.I am the only one who not seeing any reason to apologize? Cmon, attacking on reasons like "your english is terrible" is not even serious in slightest. It's a lost argument, last resort try.It wasn't even an attack. More of a "I'm sorry, we can't understand you because SERIOUSLY....we can't understand you."
Seriously? Quote me and show me what exact bits you can't (or don't want) to understand. I have a disctinct line between refusal and honest unability to even try ti understand.
Post by: Mictlantecuhtli on April 01, 2014, 05:19:32 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:20:37 pm
Actually this whole thread reminds me how I became atheist out of agnostic. Thank youThat's not a very big leap of your beliefs, I have to say. Especially if you keep misinterpreting refutations of your arguments as personal attacks.
Show me refutations of my arguments my dear friend. If anything, it's was me who refuted arguments here. Like really. Get one stament of my lies
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:21:11 pm
So how about that Ukraine
Crimea is going to be Las Vegas
Post by: Mr. Strange on April 01, 2014, 05:22:37 pm
/me keeps eating popcorn and watching the show
Popcorn, anyone?
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 05:23:05 pm
Seriously? Quote me and show me what exact bits you can't (or don't want) to understand. I have a disctinct line between refusal and honest unability to even try ti understand.
HEY REMEMBER WHEN I SAID "I can't understand your question"???
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:24:54 pm
Seriously? Quote me and show me what exact bits you can't (or don't want) to understand. I have a disctinct line between refusal and honest unability to even try ti understand.
HEY REMEMBER WHEN I SAID "I can't understand your question"???
You just proved you can. Don't be a silly
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:26:37 pm
I would normally write something rude about those Russians that buy into propaganda fully, but gogis is doing better job at that than I ever could.
/me keeps eating popcorn and watching the show
Popcorn, anyone?
Why you even such a naive, thinking I am not going to attack you for saying something like that? I have KGB ties, you should be scared.
Post by: scriver on April 01, 2014, 05:28:00 pm
Gogis, the main reason people "treat you like a retard" is that your English is very bad and constantly cause confusion and misunderstandings. Often you aren't even making any sense at all. It's just words stacked after each other.
My english is perfectly fine. You need to operate under impression that I understand everything you say. On the other hand, if you don't like what I say you can obvioulsy invoke argument that my english is bad. I may not say a proper stuff. But I 100% understand what you say.
It's not that you can't understand us, it's that we can't understand you. People generally understand what others say better than they themselves can speak a language (my Catalonian uncle who can perfectly follow conversations in Swedish yet barely speaks a word himself is a great example of that). People are not bringing up your language skills because they don't like what you're saying. It's brought up because your English is very broken and hard to make sense of.
Edit: Wow, 13 new posts... Well, I'm posting this anyway to follow through on what I meant with my other post.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 05:30:51 pm
You just proved you can. Don't be a silly
No, but you just proved that you lack some crucial elements of english reading comprehension.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:31:45 pm
Gogis, the main reason people "treat you like a retard" is that your English is very bad and constantly cause confusion and misunderstandings. Often you aren't even making any sense at all. It's just words stacked after each other.
My english is perfectly fine. You need to operate under impression that I understand everything you say. On the other hand, if you don't like what I say you can obvioulsy invoke argument that my english is bad. I may not say a proper stuff. But I 100% understand what you say.
It's not that you can't understand us, it's that we can't understand you. People generally understand what others say better than they themselves can speak a language (my Catalonian uncle who can perfectly follow conversations in Swedish yet barely speaks a word himself is a great example of that). People are not bringing up your language skills because they don't like what you're saying. It's brought up because your English is very broken and hard to make sense of.
Edit: Wow, 13 new posts... Well, I'm posting this anyway to follow through on what I meant with my other post.
As a polite guy you should be generous enough to point out my mistakes then. To help me out. If you actually think that way. You know, when 'he' says terrible he means nothing but terrible, or... You know, hurt my feelings. I cower in a corner.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:33:51 pm
You just proved you can. Don't be a silly
No, but you just proved that you lack some crucial elements of english reading comprehension.
No, I refuted all you silly arguments and now you play my language card. Or you not? You lost on all fronts on every single argument, actually. Or not. You may be thick.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 05:36:44 pm
\
No, I refuted all you silly arguments and now you play my language card. Or you not? You lost on all fronts on every single argument, actually. Or not. You may be thick.
So a native speaker of the langauge tells you that you are making a mistake and you assume that you speak their language better then them and everyone else who agrees you are making a mistake.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 05:36:58 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:38:07 pm
Actually this whole thread reminds me how I became atheist out of agnostic. Thank youThat's not a very big leap of your beliefs, I have to say. Especially if you keep misinterpreting refutations of your arguments as personal attacks.
And btw, stop following me, my dear conformist compatriot. I am not agreed with you on any questions and happily concede on them beating me. It *IS* fun. It's DF forum, for fuck sake.
Post by: smjjames on April 01, 2014, 05:40:26 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:42:36 pm
\
No, I refuted all you silly arguments and now you play my language card. Or you not? You lost on all fronts on every single argument, actually. Or not. You may be thick.
So a native speaker of the langauge tells you that you are making a mistake and you assume that you speak their language better then them and everyone else who agrees you are making a mistake.
No. I think that you(here I talk about majority) generaly and genuinely understand me, but refuse to comprehend because I make shitload of mistakes, wheter it's syntax or sentence forming. I've actively worked in India for 8 months and had alot of work-related meetings and in the end it's worked. So thats why I am actually believe in ingorance, rather than honesty.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:45:17 pm
So, do you want us to help you improve your english or not? Not in this thread obviously.
I genuinely belive you have no that intention. I believe in general hostility though.
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 05:52:09 pm
No. I think that you(here I talk about majority) generaly and genuinely understand me, but refuse to comprehend because I make shitload of mistakes, wheter it's syntax or sentence forming. I've actively worked in India for 8 months and had alot of work-related meetings and in the end it's worked. So thats why I am actually believe in ingorance, rather than honesty.
Well you are wrong and everyone here is telling you that.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 05:56:24 pm
No. I think that you(here I talk about majority) generaly and genuinely understand me, but refuse to comprehend because I make shitload of mistakes, wheter it's syntax or sentence forming. I've actively worked in India for 8 months and had alot of work-related meetings and in the end it's worked. So thats why I am actually believe in ingorance, rather than honesty.
Well you are wrong and everyone here is telling you that.
I don't see your arguments. And you should be wary with "everyone" sentiment. If you not providing facts your postion is fucked up.
and btw, nothing defends from lies you spread
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 06:03:37 pm
I don't see your arguments. And you should be wary with "everyone" sentiment. If you not providing facts your postion is fucked up.
The argument is that you are misunderstanding things. The evidence is the examples of you misunderstanding things in this very thread. However your comprehension is such that when I offered an example of you misunderstanding something, YOU MISUNDERSTOOD IT.
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 06:05:26 pm
I don't see your arguments. And you should be wary with "everyone" sentiment. If you not providing facts your postion is fucked up.
The argument is that you are misunderstanding things. The evidence is the examples of you misunderstanding things in this very thread. However your comprehension is such that when I offered an example of you misunderstanding something, YOU MISUNDERSTOOD IT.
All you examples was uninformed lies. So I ... You need to read some more.
No wait. You just actually need better education.
What is your education btw?
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 06:07:59 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 06:09:14 pm
I feel kinda sorry for you man.
Thats great argument
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 06:11:07 pm
Post by: mainiac on April 01, 2014, 06:12:02 pm
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 06:14:30 pm
I'll appologize for my part in this and wish you the best.
Noted and no shit taken. I hope we gonna live well together. I reviewed all my writings and I was kinda of harsh and acted like an ass. Still my position remains the same. And we can *discuss* it :P
Post by: gogis on April 01, 2014, 06:19:54 pm
http://dokumentfilm.ru/istorija/i_xix_veka/199-napoleon-napoleon-dokumentalnye-filmy.html
is utterly obscure. I just want to know whats wrong with that.
edit: nvm it's another thread
Post by: Mr. Strange on April 01, 2014, 06:26:05 pm
Why you even such a naive, thinking I am not going to attack you for saying something like that? I have KGB ties, you should be scared.I know this is probably unfair of me, but...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ukrainian Ranger on April 01, 2014, 06:29:47 pm
Post by: Knit tie on April 01, 2014, 06:30:08 pm
Back to Ukraine.
Post by: Toady One on April 01, 2014, 06:55:44 pm