PDA

View Full Version : Ukraine


Terez
02-28-2014, 09:37 PM
Are we about to get stupid again? And if so, whose fault is it this time?

Davian93
03-01-2014, 12:05 AM
Putin...100% on Putin. Ukraine has historically been under Russian control and he merely wants a reversion to that. We won't do anything more than complain and I highly doubt he does anything more than what he's already doing. He doesn't need to invade...he just needs them to toe the line, not mess with Russia's gas pipelines, not join NATO and not mess with their bases in Crimea...if he could get Crimea to voluntarily break off into an independent nation under heavy Russia influence I'm sure he'd love that but I doubt he wants direct annexation as the Tatars will make that messy.

Uno
03-01-2014, 12:26 AM
Well, just to be cynical, it's within Russia's sphere of influence.

GonzoTheGreat
03-01-2014, 04:25 AM
And if so, whose fault is it this time?
The usual suspects here seem to be, in order of appearance: George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama and Pussy Riot.

Terez
03-01-2014, 01:07 PM
Putin...100% on Putin. Ukraine has historically been under Russian control and he merely wants a reversion to that. We won't do anything more than complain and I highly doubt he does anything more than what he's already doing.
Despite today's show I tend to think the same, but he seems like the kind of guy who feels the need to follow through under pressure. As with Syria I imagine he'll politically calculate the moment when he'll duck out (and how), but if no such moment arises I don't know what to expect. It would seem to depend on how the West responds to his current declaration of prerogative. It's an unfortunate East-West kind of battle, though, isn't it?

Southpaw2012
03-01-2014, 01:28 PM
Roose Bolton's actor from Game of Thrones looks so much like Putin that I feel bad for the guy. That would be a horrible man to look like. Sorry it was off topic but I had to say it.

Terez
03-01-2014, 02:49 PM
Did you just suggest that, compared to Putin, Roose Bolton is a nice guy? Maybe going a little far there. :)

Davian93
03-01-2014, 03:43 PM
Historically, Russia has a pretty strong claim to Crimea...better than Ukraine does probably. It's a sticky issue though as the native Tatars there will flip their shit if Russia annexes the area. I could see a independent state/de facto Russian protectorate as an end state. The eastern Ukrainians like Russia but they don't want to be part of Russia so that wouldn't work long term.

Davian93
03-01-2014, 03:47 PM
Did you just suggest that, compared to Putin, Roose Bolton is a nice guy? Maybe going a little far there. :)

What's worse? Flaying or polonium?

Terez
03-01-2014, 04:51 PM
I'm not trying to say Putin's a nice guy. Just that, you know, Roose Bolton. It's not just flaying. I wouldn't put my money on either.

Tomp
03-01-2014, 05:30 PM
Anyone else get the sense that Putin longs for the good old days.
You know, like it was when he was in the KGB during he 70s and 80s.

Terez
03-01-2014, 05:36 PM
I'm sure being president is something of a balance for him.

Sarevok
03-01-2014, 06:32 PM
I don't like Putin either, so please don't shoot me, but here's what I was thinking earlier today:
With all the tension and different factions it wouldn't seem unlikely for some group to go and take control of some serious weapons around there and possibly turn it into another Syria. In that light, it might not actually be so bad that someone steps in and takes control of important installations before things get out of control. It just happens that Russia has a strong leader while de EU/UN sits and debates the issue.
(not saying the eventual outcome will be much better, though)

yks 6nnetu hing
03-03-2014, 09:56 AM
Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.


has been invoked by Latvia and Lithuania.

Frankly, what the West should do is say "you got Syria. now f off; and while you're at it, f off from Syria as well. And the parts of Georgia you occupied in 2008" Then, kick Russia out of the G8 and remove the veto-right it has in the UN security council.

However, I think that is unlikely to happen because of all the nukes Putin has.

At the same time, there should be general elections as soon as possible in Ukraine because *technically* all the Russian propaganda is correct: the new interim government does not have a proper legal mandate to do anything. There should also be free elections in Crimea and if they want to secceed then they should be able to. Although, what's intensely alarming is that Russia has just put a law into parliament (http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721356) to enable new republics to join the Russian Federation much easier. Please note though, itar-tass is Russia's state-owned media distributor.

Looking through Crimea's near history is pretty interesting, apparently back in 1992 it almost became an independent country but what with the instability in the neighbourhood eventually decided to join Ukraine. It's currently listed as an autonomous republic within Ukraine, though as to the limits of the autonomy I have no idea. if it's the same autonomy that Mordova (not to even mention Chechnya) has within Russia then that's not much at all.





ps. in a nutshell, back in 1939, this is what happened in the Baltics: USSR requested to put military bases in the Baltics for the eventuality that there would be a warwith germany. The Baltics refused stating neutrality. Tanks rolled in, military personnel marched in in such overwhelming numbers there was little the locals could do. the political elite either ran or got deported to Siberia or got shot; due to the "unrest in the country" an interim government was assembled and within a month general elections were organized, however the regulations got mystriously changed so that the majority of the potential parties to run either didn't have time to comply with the new rules or people were outright arrested for trumped up charges. Then, the elections took place and the Russian military personnel was allowed to vote. The first thing the new "legally elected" government did was ask to join USSR.

Davian93
03-03-2014, 10:20 AM
has been invoked by Latvia and Lithuania.

Frankly, what the West should do is say "you got Syria. now f off; and while you're at it, f off from Syria as well. And the parts of Georgia you occupied in 2008" Then, kick Russia out of the G8 and remove the veto-right it has in the UN security council.

However, I think that is unlikely to happen because of all the nukes Putin has.

At the same time, there should be general elections as soon as possible in Ukraine because *technically* all the Russian propaganda is correct: the new interim government does not have a proper legal mandate to do anything. There should also be free elections in Crimea and if they want to secceed then they should be able to. Although, what's intensely alarming is that Russia has just put a law into parliament (http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721356) to enable new republics to join the Russian Federation much easier. Please note though, itar-tass is Russia's state-owned media distributor.

Looking through Crimea's near history is pretty interesting, apparently back in 1992 it almost became an independent country but what with the instability in the neighbourhood eventually decided to join Ukraine. It's currently listed as an autonomous republic within Ukraine, though as to the limits of the autonomy I have no idea. if it's the same autonomy that Mordova (not to even mention Chechnya) has within Russia then that's not much at all.





ps. back in 1939, this is what happened in the Baltics: USSR requested to put military bases in the Baltics for the eventuality that there would be a warwith germany. The Baltics refused stating neutrality. Tanks rolled in, military personnel marched in in such overwhelming numbers there was little the locals could do. the political elite either ran or got deported to Siberia or got shot; due to the "unrest in the country" an interim government was assembled and within a month general elections were organized, however the regulations got mystriously changed so that the majority of the potential parties to run either didn't have time to comply with the new rules or people were outright arrested for trumped up charges. Then, the elections took place and the Russian military personnel was allowed to vote. The first thing the new "legally elected" government did was ask to join USSR.

I was hoping you'd chime in given your unique insights into Eastern Europe.

Technical is the best kinds of correct.

On Crimea, I wouldn't be shocked if they join Russia and that arguably makes more sense than them being part of Ukraine (which had little historical claim to the region and even very slim cultural claims given the peninsula's history as you noted. It'll piss off the few Tatars still there but it seems (could very well be Russian propaganda) that they want it that way. Given self-determination, it wouldn't really give NATO a leg to stand on if we wanted to object. Ukraine made a huge mistake when they decided to give up their nukes on the basis of western assurances...good luck seeing that one enforced. There is pretty much zero political willpower for the US to step in here...especially in a military fashion. There's not much we could really do even if we wanted to. Maybe Poland and the other eastern european countries could affect things but the US is pretty neutered in this area.

Part of me wonders just how good Putin is at playing the long game. How much help did the pro-Russian parties in Ukraine have back during the last election and how much of this entire crisis was on purpose all so they could seize Crimea? Was Yanukovich a patsy from the start? He got to be massively wealthy and now will live in Russia in luxury for the rest of his life and Russia likely gets Crimea back (They never should have let Ukraine have it to begin with and especially let them have it after the breakup of the USSR). Smart plan (on paper) if it was actually a long-term plan and not them simply taking advantage of the circumstances. Makes you wonder...

On the Crimean autonomy thing, from what I've always understood, it was much the same as Scottish home rule where they have full control over internal issues but any external actions with other countries still go through the parliament in Kiev...thus, technically they couldn't even declare independence/ask to join Russia without Kiev's approval (I doubt that happens).

Seems like an ultimate cluster-fvck to be honest and I dont see the US doing much of anything. I dont see Europe doing much either thansk to them shackeling themselves to Russian energy.

Long term this is a loser situation for Russia. Even if they get Crimea, what else do they really get? They're playing on borrowed time right now anyway. They're current relevance only lasts until the oil/gas runs out and they're pumping it out of the ground far quicker than they are finding new reserves. In 20 years, they'll exhaust those supplies and this relevance fades again. They have an unsustainable, massively corrupt oligarchy running things so they haven't reinvested anything in their long-term infrastructure needs or even attempted to diversify their economy. Something like 80% of their exports are energy...that's up there with countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. They only problem is they could hurt some of their neighbors as they have to know this isnt sustainable.

Davian93
03-03-2014, 12:47 PM
Putin...100% on Putin. Ukraine has historically been under Russian control and he merely wants a reversion to that. We won't do anything more than complain and I highly doubt he does anything more than what he's already doing. He doesn't need to invade...he just needs them to toe the line, not mess with Russia's gas pipelines, not join NATO and not mess with their bases in Crimea...if he could get Crimea to voluntarily break off into an independent nation under heavy Russia influence I'm sure he'd love that but I doubt he wants direct annexation as the Tatars will make that messy.

Looks like I was a bit mistaken...Putin seems intent on war...given that he's already invaded and is occupying Crimea and now he's demanding the surrender of the Ukrainian navy as well as all Ukrainian forces in Crimea by 5 AM local time (I think...could be 5 AM GMT)

Maybe if we hadnt bankrupted ourselves over the past 13 years in two wars, we'd have the ability to intervene.

Southpaw2012
03-03-2014, 01:22 PM
Two wars and out of control government spending? Even without those problems, Russia knows it can push it's limits. We made threats regarding Syria and when we backed down from what we said, the world saw that we could be pushed around. This time isn't much different. Russia isn't going to trust a word Obama says unless we as America take a stand and truly push forward with a plan.

GonzoTheGreat
03-03-2014, 01:35 PM
Putin might go ahead even then. And then what?
Are you willing to have a nuclear war over this?

That's the question. I think that for Putin the answer is "yes". That may not be a rational answer, but it is what we should bet on.

Davian93
03-03-2014, 01:47 PM
Two wars and out of control government spending? Even without those problems, Russia knows it can push it's limits. We made threats regarding Syria and when we backed down from what we said, the world saw that we could be pushed around. This time isn't much different. Russia isn't going to trust a word Obama says unless we as America take a stand and truly push forward with a plan.

Why did we back down? Oh yeah, because we blew our load in Iraq & Afghanistan.


This is 100% on "I looked into his soul" Dubya for bankrupting us.

Southpaw2012
03-03-2014, 01:51 PM
Yes, he probably will. Palin, despite your opinion on her politics, called this many years ago and then Obama mocked Republicans for having a worry about Russia back in the 2012 election. Once again, those worried about Russia have room to say "told you so" because we are on the brink of a crisis. In my opinion, Obama made the right decision with Syria. My issue was the macho talk that ended up going nowhere and making us look weak. If we are going to take a stand, we need to follow through and take some form of action. Putin/Roose Bolton will always be batshit crazy.

Southpaw2012
03-03-2014, 01:57 PM
Why did we back down? Oh yeah, because we blew our load in Iraq & Afghanistan.


This is 100% on "I looked into his soul" Dubya for bankrupting us.

We would've back down anyways. Our actions these past few years have been a disgrace. Iraq was a disaster and should have been re- evaluated but there are very few people who disapproved of going into Afghanistan. A country who was hosting a terrorist organization that pulled off the biggest attack in history on American soil.

Davian93
03-03-2014, 02:26 PM
We would've back down anyways. Our actions these past few years have been a disgrace. Iraq was a disaster and should have been re- evaluated but there are very few people who disapproved of going into Afghanistan. A country who was hosting a terrorist organization that pulled off the biggest attack in history on American soil.

Good thing too...because now Afghanistan is a stable democracy and we are hailed for our actions there.

Wait...no, that didnt happen. If only there were some historical indicators that would have told us that we likely wouldn't win a war in Afghanistan.

Davian93
03-03-2014, 02:28 PM
Yes, he probably will. Palin, despite your opinion on her politics, called this many years ago and then Obama mocked Republicans for having a worry about Russia back in the 2012 election. Once again, those worried about Russia have room to say "told you so" because we are on the brink of a crisis. In my opinion, Obama made the right decision with Syria. My issue was the macho talk that ended up going nowhere and making us look weak. If we are going to take a stand, we need to follow through and take some form of action. Putin/Roose Bolton will always be batshit crazy.

Yes...Palin definitely called it. Palin who couldn't have told you who the primary combatants in WWII were is definitely an expert on foreign policy...it wasn't just a random one-liner in a speech that was written for her or anything. It was definitely her brilliant insight into the geo-political realities of the former Eastern Bloc that foresaw this eventuality. Definitely that.

Terez
03-03-2014, 02:33 PM
Few people disagreed with invading Afghanistan, but we did have a right (if not much reason) to expect that there would be some kind of plan that would avoid us being stuck there for over a decade. Those who opposed Afghanistan were in part those who understood the trap.

Sarevok
03-03-2014, 02:47 PM
Few people disagreed with invading Afghanistan, but we did have a right (if not much reason) to expect that there would be some kind of plan that would avoid us being stuck there for over a decade. Those who opposed Afghanistan were in part those who understood the trap.

The plan should have been to stick around for half a century to make sure stuff stayed stable, imo. (worked for Germany and Japen)

Davian93
03-03-2014, 02:55 PM
The plan should have been to stick around for half a century to make sure stuff stayed stable, imo. (worked for Germany and Japen)

Japan and Germany were stable, industrialized nation-states with long histories of an actual civilization and strong central governments. Both were also "western" so to speak with no massive built-in anger with European Crusaders invading their countries.

Not exactly the same setup in Afghanistan which is more a loose collection of tribes that all hate each other and who have all been killing each other for the past 3000 years.

Southpaw2012
03-03-2014, 10:22 PM
Few people disagreed with invading Afghanistan, but we did have a right (if not much reason) to expect that there would be some kind of plan that would avoid us being stuck there for over a decade. Those who opposed Afghanistan were in part those who understood the trap.

Agreed. That was the biggest issue for both Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no definite plan about what to do after we "won."

Also, how the hell did US intelligence not see this coming? The Russians were beginning to move ships into position during the Olympics and suddenly we are shocked that they moved into Ukraine? There are so many issues that need to be addressed but it's that way for anything. We shall see!

@Dav Palins inaccuracies (at times) and whatever else she has done is irrelevant to what she said in regards to Russia. The fact is, she saw that this could happen. Romney was laughed at when he brought Russia up during the 2012 election and now look...

Uno
03-03-2014, 11:26 PM
You know, I can't help wonder if the US government wouldn't react the exact same way as the former president of Ukraine against demonstrators that were actively trying to overthrow it--and had a real shot at so doing. Consider the violence used by the police against the Occupy Wall Street kids, who posed no real threat whatsoever. The difference, I suppose, is that the American media is extraordinarily loyal to the political system.

GonzoTheGreat
03-04-2014, 04:00 AM
We would've back down anyways. Our actions these past few years have been a disgrace. Iraq was a disaster and should have been re- evaluated but there are very few people who disapproved of going into Afghanistan. A country who was hosting a terrorist organization that pulled off the biggest attack in history on American soil.
Afghanistan might maybe have been a success, if the USA had been willing to make the effort to succeed. But the USA was not willing to do that, preferring to go on a red herring hunt in the deserts of Iraq.

The failure with Afghanistan started right at the beginning, when the decision was made to hand over power to a bunch of anti-democratic warlords with CIA connections.

Why was Karzai elected? He was not the preference of the Afghans, he was foisted upon them by the ones who paid the bills: the Americans. So why did you pick him?

Davian93
03-04-2014, 08:25 AM
You know, I can't help wonder if the US government wouldn't react the exact same way as the former president of Ukraine against demonstrators that were actively trying to overthrow it--and had a real shot at so doing. Consider the violence used by the police against the Occupy Wall Street kids, who posed no real threat whatsoever. The difference, I suppose, is that the American media is extraordinarily loyal to the political system.

We almost certainly would...a similar scenario would be if instead of East Germany being sublimated by West Germany in 1989 that the exact opposite happened and then there were Red Party rallies and the East German military command surrounded our bases there. We'd for damn sure have sent troops in to defend those bases...just like if the drug wars get worse in Mexico and it keeps spilling over into the SW as it has been for the last 5-10 years...if there was a sudden flareup, you'd be damn sure that the Pentagon would have its best necromancers heading straight to Pershing's grave to get him ready for action.

Given our actions in Iraq, we have no real leg to stand on from either a moral or legal standpoint.

Davian93
03-04-2014, 08:28 AM
Afghanistan might maybe have been a success, if the USA had been willing to make the effort to succeed. But the USA was not willing to do that, preferring to go on a red herring hunt in the deserts of Iraq.

The failure with Afghanistan started right at the beginning, when the decision was made to hand over power to a bunch of anti-democratic warlords with CIA connections.

Why was Karzai elected? He was not the preference of the Afghans, he was foisted upon them by the ones who paid the bills: the Americans. So why did you pick him?

FWIW, we were winning in Afghanistan right up to around January 2003...then we started building up for the Iraq invasion and all those cool, expensive assets that the groundpounders depended on went away...so did the huge bulk of the special ops guys as they redeployed to the Gulf instaed. In Jan 2003, the Taliban and local al qaida elements were essentially combat ineffective and we had stabilized the country. Then we focused elsewhere, they were able to recover and then its been a nasty guerrilla war ever since as the local Afghanis realized that they couldn't depend on NATO forces to be there and they all had to make a tough choice...a good chunk of them went with the local warlords instead knowing full well they'd still be there when NATO was long gone.

Davian93
03-04-2014, 08:36 AM
Agreed. That was the biggest issue for both Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no definite plan about what to do after we "won."

Also, how the hell did US intelligence not see this coming? The Russians were beginning to move ships into position during the Olympics and suddenly we are shocked that they moved into Ukraine? There are so many issues that need to be addressed but it's that way for anything. We shall see!

@Dav Palins inaccuracies (at times) and whatever else she has done is irrelevant to what she said in regards to Russia. The fact is, she saw that this could happen. Romney was laughed at when he brought Russia up during the 2012 election and now look...

Seeing them diong it and being able to do anything at all about it are two vastly different things...take that from someone who used to work in the Intelligence field.

Palin's speechwriters used Russia as a bogeyman...if you think she could even locate Georgia on the map in 2008 (the country, not the State...though I'd put even money on her having trouble with either, you're delusional. She was probably the least qualified candidate this country has ever had for a major office and McCain destroyed his own legacy by picking her. Also, I highly doubt a President Romney would have done much better...if for no other reason than there's not much we can do even if we wanted to. I agree that we should have been more forethright on previous aggresive actions by Russia, only if President Obama had reacted more strongly to Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, we wouldn't be here. Of course, Obama wasn't President until 2009 but I guess he has access to a fvcking time machine or something. That happened on Bush's watch...you know, the "I looked into his eyes and saw his soul" Bush...the same guy that gave him a pass on his military incursions into Ossetia and the 2nd invasion of Chechnya all because Putin let us blunder about in Afghanistan and Iraq and place bases in former SSRs like Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, etc all in the name of the War on Terror...actions he could have easily stopped with a simple phone call to the leaders of those countries had he wanted to.

GonzoTheGreat
03-04-2014, 09:39 AM
FWIW, we were winning in Afghanistan right up to around January 2003...then we started building up for the Iraq invasion and all those cool, expensive assets that the groundpounders depended on went away...so did the huge bulk of the special ops guys as they redeployed to the Gulf instaed. In Jan 2003, the Taliban and local al qaida elements were essentially combat ineffective and we had stabilized the country. Then we focused elsewhere, they were able to recover and then its been a nasty guerrilla war ever since as the local Afghanis realized that they couldn't depend on NATO forces to be there and they all had to make a tough choice...a good chunk of them went with the local warlords instead knowing full well they'd still be there when NATO was long gone.
Nitpick: the Northern Alliance was winning with ground and air support from the USA. After that, they (mostly) had only air support, which was enough to keep up appearances, but not to finish the job.
But if they had finished it, then Afghanistan still wouldn't be the kind of democracy we would like (with human rights and such), since the leaders of the Northern Alliance weren't interested in giving freedom to anyone but themselves. At first, they paid some lip service to equality of men and women, then that fell by the wayside in the interests of the War On Terror. At first they paid some lip service to freedom of religion, but that was lost even quicker.

Basically, GWB had a choice: try to build up the country himself or hand it over to some local Mafia like groups. The latter was cheaper and easier, so that's what he did. I do not consider that "winning". I do not think that after 9/11 the question should have been "which terrorist gets to rule Afghanistan", but instead "how do we prevent such terrorists from getting a substantial following"*.

* Totally stopping all terrorism would require exterminating mankind, which some people consider excessive.

Davian93
03-04-2014, 09:58 AM
Nitpick: the Northern Alliance was winning with ground and air support from the USA. After that, they (mostly) had only air support, which was enough to keep up appearances, but not to finish the job.
But if they had finished it, then Afghanistan still wouldn't be the kind of democracy we would like (with human rights and such), since the leaders of the Northern Alliance weren't interested in giving freedom to anyone but themselves. At first, they paid some lip service to equality of men and women, then that fell by the wayside in the interests of the War On Terror. At first they paid some lip service to freedom of religion, but that was lost even quicker.

Basically, GWB had a choice: try to build up the country himself or hand it over to some local Mafia like groups. The latter was cheaper and easier, so that's what he did. I do not consider that "winning". I do not think that after 9/11 the question should have been "which terrorist gets to rule Afghanistan", but instead "how do we prevent such terrorists from getting a substantial following"*.

* Totally stopping all terrorism would require exterminating mankind, which some people consider excessive.

It was handed over mainly so we could go invade Iraq...after that, it was completely forgotten about for 4-5 years and we're still paying for it. I was there on the ground in 2002, things were doing far, far better than they were afterwards.

GonzoTheGreat
03-04-2014, 10:35 AM
Oh, I'll not claim it didn't get worse after the start of the Iraq mess. But I don't think there was ever even an attempt to spend the kind of resources on Afghanistan that were send to Iraq. What went to Iraq was not enough to do the job there, but it might have been enough for Afghanistan. Or maybe not.
Either way, even in the beginning Afghanistan was set up to fail, right in line with the Republican belief in "the government can't do any good".

Terez
03-05-2014, 07:25 PM
I have been trying to filter my reading on this subject through some regional folk, and there are some really divergent opinions! One is Valentina Lisitsa on Twitter (she is Russian-Ukrainian and is very pro-Russian in this scenario, apparently on the basis of anti-Americanism), another is a Polish correspondent who is helping me with the language (very, very anti-Russian, though not to the point of prejudice, I think). It would seem as though yks is somewhere in the middle. :D

Davian93
03-05-2014, 09:22 PM
Gee, I wonder which way Crimea will vote in their independence Referendum in a couple weeks...I also wonder how quickly they will join the Russian Federation.

Also, if I were Poland or the Baltic States, I'd be a bit worried right now.

In all seriousness though, this comes down to Russian paranoia and from their desperation to still be taken seriously as a superpower.

Uno
03-05-2014, 09:57 PM
In all seriousness though, this comes down to Russian paranoia and from their desperation to still be taken seriously as a superpower.

Ah, well, there's no particular reason to trust the "western" media either, as far as I'm concerned. So I don't really know what's going on.

Terez
03-06-2014, 12:27 AM
My Polish friend seems sure that Putin's only real goal is to reestablish the Soviet Union, the fall of which was, in Putin's estimation, the greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century. (That sentiment is on record.) It seems to be an unrealistic goal, but if he really pushes it then there's no stopping him short of another world war; there seems to be almost nothing in the diplomatic toolbox.

GonzoTheGreat
03-06-2014, 04:52 AM
Ah, well, there's no particular reason to trust the "western" media either, as far as I'm concerned. So I don't really know what's going on.
Maybe Al Jazeera would be sufficiently impartial. I haven't checked what they're saying on this, yet.

My Polish friend seems sure that Putin's only real goal is to reestablish the Soviet Union, the fall of which was, in Putin's estimation, the greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century. (That sentiment is on record.) It seems to be an unrealistic goal, but if he really pushes it then there's no stopping him short of another world war; there seems to be almost nothing in the diplomatic toolbox.
He just follows the advice of an American statesman: "don't do diplomacy".

Davian93
03-06-2014, 08:03 AM
Maybe Al Jazeera would be sufficiently impartial. I haven't checked what they're saying on this, yet.


That's my primary news source these days given that the big 3 of American "news" are utter jokes and have been for a long time. Al Jazeera is pretty critical of Putin's actions so far...on the opinion side but their factual news reporting seems to indicate that this was a full-fledged invasion of Crimea by Russia.

Khoram
03-06-2014, 09:53 AM
And now there are Crimean MPs who want to go back to Russia. *sigh*

Well, if this does go to war, it'll probably just be in time for when I get in. Not the most reassuring news.

On the plus side, I guess that means pretty soon I'll be going back to Europe. XD

yks 6nnetu hing
03-06-2014, 03:33 PM
My Polish friend seems sure that Putin's only real goal is to reestablish the Soviet Union, the fall of which was, in Putin's estimation, the greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century. (That sentiment is on record.) It seems to be an unrealistic goal, but if he really pushes it then there's no stopping him short of another world war; there seems to be almost nothing in the diplomatic toolbox.

I would agree with your Polish friend. After all, this entire thing started because Putin didn't want Ukraine to sign the economic cooperation pact and instead to join the "Eurasian Union" . Putin wants the Soviet Union back, by force if necessary.

Dav, the Baltic States and Poland most definitely are worried, hence the activation of NATO article 4. Most of all, we're worried about the rhetoric that all Russia's doing is protecting its citizens - that's the same reason given 4 years ago in Georgia, it's the same topic that's raised regarding all of us on at least a weekly basis in the Russian mainstream media.... Really, we're next and we know it.

Terez
03-06-2014, 06:04 PM
I would agree with your Polish friend. After all, this entire thing started because Putin didn't want Ukraine to sign the economic cooperation pact and instead to join the "Eurasian Union" . Putin wants the Soviet Union back, by force if necessary.

Dav, the Baltic States and Poland most definitely are worried, hence the activation of NATO article 4. Most of all, we're worried about the rhetoric that all Russia's doing is protecting its citizens - that's the same reason given 4 years ago in Georgia, it's the same topic that's raised regarding all of us on at least a weekly basis in the Russian mainstream media.... Really, we're next and we know it.
That echoes the thoughts of my Polish friend. He gave me a long list of examples of Russia "protecting" and "defending" and "stabilizing" over the years, which is like our "freedom" and "democracy".

GonzoTheGreat
03-07-2014, 03:43 AM
That echoes the thoughts of my Polish friend. He gave me a long list of examples of Russia "protecting" and "defending" and "stabilizing" over the years, which is like our "freedom" and "democracy".
To be fair to Putin, it isn't only Russians who do or did this. The British did it in South Africa, 'regrettably' having to invent concentration camps in order to protect their citizens from the Boer women and children. The Americans did it in Texas, valiantly restoring the rule of slavery there after Mexico (to whom Texas belonged) had abolished that. I think that there are some examples from Antiquity too, though usually the politicians were more honest then ("we invade your country because we can, tough luck for you" was basically what the Athenians said on at least one occasion).

yks 6nnetu hing
03-07-2014, 06:58 AM
To be fair to Putin, it isn't only Russians who do or did this. The British did it in South Africa, 'regrettably' having to invent concentration camps in order to protect their citizens from the Boer women and children. The Americans did it in Texas, valiantly restoring the rule of slavery there after Mexico (to whom Texas belonged) had abolished that. I think that there are some examples from Antiquity too, though usually the politicians were more honest then ("we invade your country because we can, tough luck for you" was basically what the Athenians said on at least one occasion).

HA! philosophically speaking, this is typically "Christian" and "humanist" reasoning for war.

According to the Bible, war is wrong. Thou shalt not kill and all that lot. However, since war happens anyways Augustine of Hippo introduced the concept of Just War, which was later used for crusades, and was evolved further by other Christian philosophers, notably Thomas Aquinas in his various treatises and by the Humanists Thomas More in Utopia and Hugo Grotius in De Jure Belli ac Pacis. Basically - according to Augustine/Thomases - there are only 3 "good" reasons for engaging in war:
1) self defence
2) the defence of friendly countries
3) the expansion of God's word

Of which reasons 1) and 2) are accepted nowadays as well; even ratified in the NATO and UN charters , but 3) was already getting a bad reputation 400 years ago. Also, notably, war can only be waged between entities of the same authorization; such as one country with another country. This particular rule entered "the rulebook" most recently at around the time of absolutism. It had been valid on and off since the Romans but if there are no proper countries then you can't really keep that rule. By this rule, US was never at war with Afghanistan.

GonzoTheGreat
03-07-2014, 07:17 AM
Also, notably, war can only be waged between entities of the same authorization; such as one country with another country. This particular rule entered "the rulebook" most recently at around the time of absolutism. It had been valid on and off since the Romans but if there are no proper countries then you can't really keep that rule. By this rule, US was never at war with Afghanistan.
Even more than that: the USA was not at war with Iraq either. The USA claimed (on allegedly spurious grounds, I admit) that it was operating to carry out a UNSC Resolution. Thus, it was a conflict between the set of nations and one nation, which, according to this rule, can not be war. Which of course means that all Americans and others (apart from the Iraqi) who fought there were actually "illegal enemy combatants".

Southpaw2012
03-07-2014, 01:59 PM
My Polish friend seems sure that Putin's only real goal is to reestablish the Soviet Union, the fall of which was, in Putin's estimation, the greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century. (That sentiment is on record.) It seems to be an unrealistic goal, but if he really pushes it then there's no stopping him short of another world war; there seems to be almost nothing in the diplomatic toolbox.


Fortunately for Putin, he's going up against Obama and not Reagan. They see us as a joke considering that they were a part of the Syrian conflict and saw how empty our threats were. He knows that we won't do anything and that Europe can't do anything due to economics. It's really a no win situation so in my opinion, all we can do for now is sit back and monitor unless as Terez says, we plan on having another World War.

Davian93
03-07-2014, 11:27 PM
Fortunately for Putin, he's going up against Obama and not Reagan. They see us as a joke considering that they were a part of the Syrian conflict and saw how empty our threats were. He knows that we won't do anything and that Europe can't do anything due to economics. It's really a no win situation so in my opinion, all we can do for now is sit back and monitor unless as Terez says, we plan on having another World War.

You do get that Putin is actually losing here, right? These are the acts of a desperate guy. He's basically destroying the Russian economy to maintain control over Crimea...something they already had and have had for decades regardless of lines on a map.

Great plan!


Great point on Reagan...I fondly remember how he stuck up against aggression in Lebanon after a bunch of Marines were killed...he showed those terrorists who was boss. Oh wait, he tucked tail and ran like a Beyotch.

Terez
03-07-2014, 11:52 PM
If only Reagan were still President, he would be secretly selling arms to North Korea and funneling the proceeds to the Golden Dawn in Greece.

GonzoTheGreat
03-08-2014, 03:34 AM
Once upon a time, a long long time ago, only shortly after the Time of Reagan, the Ukrainian government found itself in charge of a new country with about 1,900 nuclear warheads, some for long distance use and others for short distance fighting. They could either keep them and be a nuclear power, or they could have them destroyed in return for guarantees of protection of their territorial integrity. They chose to do the latter, and Russia (Boris Yeltsin, at the time) solemnly* signed the document. Now, how does Putin get around this? It is obvious: he acknowledges the change of power, decides that it has created an entirely new country, and that thus there are no remnants left of the old Ukraine at all. Good sophistry, that, isn't it?

* Or perhaps drunkenly. Hard to tell, with events that far in the past.

Uno
03-14-2014, 11:23 AM
You know, at this point, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be dangerous if the Russian troops did pull out, considering that the last couple of weeks have seen the emergence of various militia organizations that seem to be downright spoiling for a fight. There were even reports of Serbian so-called Chetniks on the scene. The Russian soldiers are probably disciplined enough not to create trouble unless they're ordered to. Civilians with guns, not so much.

Davian93
03-14-2014, 11:33 AM
Oh, is this still going on? The American news cycle has moved on to other things at this point. Did you know a plane crashed and they can't find the wreckage?!?

Terez
03-14-2014, 11:40 AM
They came out again yesterday because troops are massing along the eastern Ukrainian border, and Kerry said something. And now Sweden is thinking about joining NATO because they're not sure how long it will be before Finland is annexed into the New Soviet Union and Russia is on their border.

Davian93
03-14-2014, 01:06 PM
They came out again yesterday because troops are massing along the eastern Ukrainian border, and Kerry said something. And now Sweden is thinking about joining NATO because they're not sure how long it will be before Finland is annexed into the New Soviet Union and Russia is on their border.

Sweden breaking its neutrality?!? Wow, that would be huge. They've been solidly neutral for 200 years now.

Sarevok
03-14-2014, 07:31 PM
They came out again yesterday because troops are massing along the eastern Ukrainian border, and Kerry said something. And now Sweden is thinking about joining NATO because they're not sure how long it will be before Finland is annexed into the New Soviet Union and Russia is on their border.

Last I checked, Finland was inbetween Sweden and Russia... :confused:

Davian93
03-14-2014, 07:47 PM
Last I checked, Finland was inbetween Sweden and Russia... :confused:

Poor English on her part...she meant that they would share a border in the event that Finland was somehow annexed to Russia...which would be accurate at that point.

Terez
03-14-2014, 09:17 PM
Not sure why it was poor English. "...how long it will be before Finland is annexed..." / "...how long it will be before...Russia is on their border". Nothing wrong with that English.

PS—in other words, if I was going to say "and Russia is on their border!" as an independent clause unrelated to Finland, I should have at least used a comma.

Nazbaque
03-14-2014, 09:36 PM
Not exactly poor English, just grammatically inexact. I might have put it: "And now Sweden is thinking about joining NATO because they're not sure how long it will be before Finland is annexed into the New Soviet Union bringing Russia to their border." though it lacks a certain stylish flow.

Terez
03-14-2014, 09:40 PM
You'll let us know when the troops start massing on your eastern border, won't you?

Nazbaque
03-15-2014, 12:05 AM
You'll let us know when the troops start massing on your eastern border, won't you?

Well considering early WW2 Finland is a bit of a sore spot for Russians. Eventually we lost, but the political point was made: you need 10 to 1 superiority in numbers to beat Finland. Probably wouldn't do quite that well these days as we can't make that much use of our landscape. The main reason Russians did badly against us was because they tried to use the same blitzkrieg tactics the Germans used against Poland and the other central Europe countries, but more than 70% of Finland is covered in forests and swamps, which just isn't suitable for tanks. Add to that all the anti-tank tactics the Finns pioneered, the unusually cold winter conditions and a sniper named Simo Hyh (Over 500 kills in a 100 days, nicknamed "White Death" by Russians) and you get a lot of casualties on the Russian side and poor morale among the survivors. We were insanely lucky there and it would be foolish indeed to expect that kind of luck, but politics is politics.

Davian93
03-16-2014, 04:56 PM
Shockingly, the referendum passed with just over 95% of the vote. Crimea will now join Russia.

Totally legit I'm sure.

Terez
03-16-2014, 05:21 PM
Considering the choice was "join Russia" or "join the Russian Federation"...yeah, totally legit.

Tomp
03-16-2014, 05:31 PM
Does anyone else get any "Austria and Czechoslovaka in 1938" vibes by this?

Khoram
03-16-2014, 10:26 PM
Does anyone else get any "Austria and Czechoslovaka in 1938" vibes by this?

I certainly hope it won't come to that. As long as there aren't people clamoring for appeasement.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2014, 04:33 AM
Does anyone else get any "Austria and Czechoslovaka in 1938" vibes by this?
Nah, this is more like the Rhineland in 1936.

Davian93
03-17-2014, 08:44 AM
Russia needs breathing room!

yks 6nnetu hing
03-17-2014, 12:37 PM
funny maths...

So, according to Malyshev: (apologies, this is Google Translate from Russian (http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2014/03/15_a_5951217.shtml) - the item at 0.00)
Turnout in Crimea 20.00 (22.00 MSK) was 81.36%, the chairman of the Supreme Council of Crimea to organize and conduct a referendum Mikhail Malyshev.

"At 20 o'clock in the Crimea voted one million 250 thousand 426 people. This result excluding Sevastopol "- he said. "Given Sevastopol voted one million 724 thousand 563 people," - said the head of the commission.

so, total number of voters in Crimea is 1 724 563; of which outside of Sevastopol 1 250 426; so therefore, in Sevastopol there were 474 137 voters, which is interesting considering that Sevastopol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol) had 338 714 inhabitants in 2012 according to UNdata (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=Ukraine+population+city&d=POP&f=tableCode%3a240%3bcountryCode%3a804). If you count the suburbs, then 379 271. including the underaged, illegal immigrants, severely disabled and other people who are not allowed to/ cannot vote.

In either case, 474 137 is most definitely NOT the number of people who should be voting in Sevastopol.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2014, 01:03 PM
I suspect you're forgetting about the people who always voted for Stalin, and therefor had been in hiding since the Soviet Union was (temporarily) abolished. If you add in Stalin's Supporters then I'm sure it will all come out just as reported.

Davian93
03-17-2014, 08:43 PM
funny maths...

So, according to Malyshev: (apologies, this is Google Translate from Russian (http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2014/03/15_a_5951217.shtml) - the item at 0.00)


so, total number of voters in Crimea is 1 724 563; of which outside of Sevastopol 1 250 426; so therefore, in Sevastopol there were 474 137 voters, which is interesting considering that Sevastopol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol) had 338 714 inhabitants in 2012 according to UNdata (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=Ukraine+population+city&d=POP&f=tableCode%3a240%3bcountryCode%3a804). If you count the suburbs, then 379 271. including the underaged, illegal immigrants, severely disabled and other people who are not allowed to/ cannot vote.

In either case, 474 137 is most definitely NOT the number of people who should be voting in Sevastopol.

Stupid question: Does the above Sevastopol numbers include the Russian troops stationed there? Were they allowed to vote as well perhaps?

yks 6nnetu hing
03-18-2014, 03:09 AM
Stupid question: Does the above Sevastopol numbers include the Russian troops stationed there? Were they allowed to vote as well perhaps?

It's been done before, for great effect.
ps. in a nutshell, back in 1939, this is what happened in the Baltics: USSR requested to put military bases in the Baltics for the eventuality that there would be a warwith germany. The Baltics refused stating neutrality. Tanks rolled in, military personnel marched in in such overwhelming numbers there was little the locals could do. the political elite either ran or got deported to Siberia or got shot; due to the "unrest in the country" an interim government was assembled and within a month general elections were organized, however the regulations got mystriously changed so that the majority of the potential parties to run either didn't have time to comply with the new rules or people were outright arrested for trumped up charges. Then, the elections took place and the Russian military personnel was allowed to vote. The first thing the new "legally elected" government did was ask to join USSR.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2014, 05:29 AM
I already said that, didn't I?

Davian93
03-18-2014, 08:16 AM
It's been done before, for great effect.


Yeah, I know...that's why I'm asking.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-18-2014, 08:25 AM
Yeah, I know...that's why I'm asking.

well then, as Putin would say "what army? there's no army there"

:p

Davian93
03-18-2014, 08:30 AM
well then, as Putin would say "what army? there's no army there"

:p

You know, you can buy a Russian army uniform in a store.

Apparently you can buy Russian BTR troop carriers too...must be one heck of a nice store.

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2014, 08:32 AM
In Russia, store buy you.

Nazbaque
03-18-2014, 11:08 AM
...must be one heck of a nice store.

Is it Arnold Bros. est. 1905?

yks 6nnetu hing
08-29-2014, 03:34 AM
well then, as Putin would say "what army? there's no army there"

:p

"oh, those tanks? they're just humanitarian aid"

Davian93
08-29-2014, 09:12 AM
"oh, those tanks? they're just humanitarian aid"

He's openly invaded...but no one will do a damn thing.

Good luck, Ukraine.

DahLliA
08-29-2014, 11:32 AM
He's openly invaded...but no one will do a damn thing.

Good luck, Ukraine.

It's not an invasion. It's just that Russian soldiers prefer to spend their vacation and leave in the Ukraine, helping out their Ukranian buddies.

Davian93
08-29-2014, 02:31 PM
It's not an invasion. It's just that Russian soldiers prefer to spend their vacation and leave in the Ukraine, helping out their Ukranian buddies.

And they all drive T-72s as their personally owned vehicles...

Uno
08-29-2014, 08:27 PM
I don't see the point of this adventurism, myself. Sure, it gives Putin some fleeting popularity due to an upsurge in nationalism, but Ukraine is now completely alienated from Russia for the foreseeable future, and if Russia manages to detach this Donbass region from the rest of the country, it'll just get saddled with supporting an area that was (from what I understand) economically stagnant and backwards (and also heavily polluted) even before the war broke out. And that's just in addition to the other economic costs Russian taxpayers will have to shoulder.

Davian93
08-29-2014, 09:28 PM
I don't see the point of this adventurism, myself. Sure, it gives Putin some fleeting popularity due to an upsurge in nationalism, but Ukraine is now completely alienated from Russia for the foreseeable future, and if Russia manages to detach this Donbass region from the rest of the country, it'lll just get saddled with supporting an area that was (from what I understand) economically stagnant and backwards (and also heavily polluted) even before the war broke out. And that's just in addition to the other economic costs Russia taxpayers will have to shoulder.

Not to mention the fact that this disruption of trade and business is basically bankrupting the oligarchy that keeps Putin in power...this is up there with Hitler's invasion of the USSR for "WTF is he thinking???" moments by Putin.

I just wish the US had strong leadership like Putin.

The Unreasoner
08-29-2014, 10:22 PM
Lol...the right doesn't really want strong leadership. Whenever Obama asserts himself, he's a tyrant, whenever he is laid back, he's a pussy. No to strikes in syria (with French support) that might have helped end some horrific human rights abuses, but yes to war with Russia?

Atheistic muslim socialist pawn of the big banks that he is.

Davian93
08-29-2014, 10:25 PM
Lol...the right doesn't really want strong leadership. Whenever Obama asserts himself, he's a tyrant, whenever he is laid back, he's a pussy. No to strikes in syria (with French support) that might have helped end some horrific human rights abuses, but yes to war with Russia?

Atheistic muslim socialist pawn of the big banks that he is.

Yes they do...they just want it to be THEIR guy...they're basically borderline fascists as it is...they just want to have their strongman in charge.

Southpaw2012
08-29-2014, 10:49 PM
Still ignorant, huh? We have a president who spends his time golfing and fundraising while the world burns. Granted, the president deserves a vacation, but not minutes after making a speech about the beheading of an American bythe most dangerous terrorist group in modern history. Russia just went to war, ISIS is threatening to attack us and our border remains open, the terrorist communication line is lively with talks that may indicate an imminent attack in either America or Europe, and our president is at a fundraiser telling his sheep that the world is safer than ever before while Britain's PM is telling his country that they've never been in more danger. No, the "right" does not flip flop on Obama being too "tyrant" or too lenient. They want him to follow the law and give a shit about the danger we're and stop calling this barbarian army a "jv" squad. He needs to get his ass out of Fergusson where a crook may or may not have been shot in self-defense (though evidence and witnesses indicate self-defense) and start focusing on fixing the worst foreign policy since Carter. You guys can continue to worship his bullshit on "global warming" and healthy eating, but maybe you should start calling for him to give a shit and do something he blow at; lead.

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 12:03 AM
The only witnesses in ferguson that support this inbred excuse of a cop are the ones made up by a fake facebook page, that was read by an idiot, and repeated as fact to some local conservative alternative news source.

Juan, is that you?

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 12:07 AM
And what evidence? The ct scan? Posted by a conservative (liar) blogger, from some random dude years ago. There is hard evidence that the Ferguson PD lied on multiple occasions, though.

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 12:11 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/19/1408461061325_Image_galleryImage_Officer_DARREN_WI LSON_pic.JPG
Look at that guy and tell me he has more than 4 great-grandparents.

Southpaw2012
08-30-2014, 12:19 AM
The only witnesses in ferguson that support this inbred excuse of a cop are the ones made up by a fake facebook page, that was read by an idiot, and repeated as fact to some local conservative alternative news source.

Juan, is that you?

Yeah, and the only idiots supporting the victim are the people looting stores; aka using a death as an excuse to loot and vandalize. The witnesses for the victim have been accused of making false statements and have been completely inaccurate with what they saw happen and all the autopsies that have been released. Oh wait, thank God we have Eric Holder there to investigate now. He's not biased or anything. He found time to attend that crook's (yes, he robbed a store so he's a crook) funeral, yet no one could attend the funeral of the great Margaret Thatcher. It's sickening.

As for ISIS, at least our "Commander and Chief" has informed them all, as well as the world, that we do not have a strategy as of yet. Of course, it would be tough to come up with one when playing round after round of golf and fundraising.

Southpaw2012
08-30-2014, 12:24 AM
The only witnesses in ferguson that support this inbred excuse of a cop are the ones made up by a fake facebook page, that was read by an idiot, and repeated as fact to some local conservative alternative news source.

Juan, is that you?

Inbred excuse of a cop? Wow, "you're being racist." No wait, "you're being stereotypical." Oh wait, no, you can't use that excuse unless you're a liberal or a minority liberal. Forgot about the one way political correctness standard in "progressive America."

Actually, that cop has a clean history, In fact, he has done quite well until this crook decided to rob a store and then confront him. I've talked to many people who had to go help out with those idiots looting and vandalizing and they have all said that if people would let justice play itself out (isn't that what you crook supporters all want??), then you would all see that this wasn't some clear targeted shooting against a minority. Did you guys hear about that black cop who shot the white guy? Yeah, didn't think so, because that isn't covered. Get off your political correctness, race baiting, high horse and see things both ways or not at all. Fuck

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 12:38 AM
You are calling me racist against white people? I am fucking white.

Yes, I called him inbred. He's fucking hideous.

As for a clean history, give me a break. He was let go by a PD that was so horribly racist and corrupt that it was effectively shut down.

Post a link, to (real) evidence backing your bullshit up. I fucking dare you.

ETA: and you don't believe in global warming? Are you serious? I'm not talking about the means to combat it (personally , I think most proposals are too little too late, though geoengineering with sulfur is promising (as in, pollute more)).


BTW, Cameron noted that the raising of the threat level was because of the number of British jihadists, not specific intelligence concerning a threat.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-30-2014, 03:15 AM
Hey. Some people have an invasion going on. Talk even a little bit about the actual topic of the thread or go start a new one to argue your own bullshit.

Just know you're both lucky to be able to express your opinion without fearing a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 04:19 AM
Hey. Some people have an invasion going on. Talk even a little bit about the actual topic of the thread or go start a new one to argue your own bullshit.

Just know you're both lucky to be able to express your opinion without fearing a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

You're right. Mea culpa.

On Ukraine: is it true that the eastern region is economically weak? I thought I read (in a report after the Crimean annexation) that there was major industrial capacity in the region, and that if the Ukraine lost the region, it would be almost impossible for the nation as a whole to have a viable economy, weakening its borrowing power and almost certainly pushing it into default.

I've heard that Crimea is a net negative, economically, and was heavily subsidized by the Ukranian government.

Maybe that's the plan. Take Crimea, then with the precedent take the east. Force Ukraine into default, then bail it out on terms heavily favoable to Russia.


On another note: some serious people seem to be seriously considering letting the Ukraine into NATO. Which would force Russia to back off or go into all out war with the West.

GonzoTheGreat
08-30-2014, 04:25 AM
Not to mention the fact that this disruption of trade and business is basically bankrupting the oligarchy that keeps Putin in power...this is up there with Hitler's invasion of the USSR for "WTF is he thinking???" moments by Putin.
To be fair to Hitler: he did have strong ideological reasons for his invasion, as a major part of his political program was hostility towards Communism.
Of course, the fact that Putin comes off as less reasonable than Hitler was is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the former.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-30-2014, 04:56 AM
The Eastern part of Ukraine was - and note the past tense - an important industrial area. With the collapse of the Soviet Union though, the supply lines no longer worked, industry focus shifted and now, well, it's much poorer than Western Ukraine. Which is actually how the discontent within Ukraine started. Easterners wanted some of the investments and jobs going into the Western part.

As for NATO membership, I highly doubt it's going to happen in the near future. Geographically speaking it wouldn't be so odd, Turkey is in NATO after all... But even now NATO has trouble with members not carrying their own weight, so adding one that will certainly strain the capabilities of the alliane even more... I doubt it.

The Unreasoner
08-30-2014, 05:18 AM
Regarding NATO, I doubt any current member would be enthusiastic. But an honest effort by NATO and Ukraine to make it happen in the future might be key. That way, we have a bone to throw the Russians, something Putin can call a win if the new Ukranian government recalls the bid and reconfirms its nonalliance status in strong language. Then Putin can pull out with his buffer state intact.

Davian93
08-30-2014, 12:45 PM
Hey. Some people have an invasion going on. Talk even a little bit about the actual topic of the thread or go start a new one to argue your own bullshit.

Just know you're both lucky to be able to express your opinion without fearing a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

Thank you! Same point I was going to make rather than engage the hateful troll who would probably be more comfortable at Stormfront.

Davian93
08-31-2014, 05:45 PM
Crimean Statehood Two: Electric Boogaloo (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/31/344749130/putin-calls-for-talks-to-consider-statehood-for-southeastern-ukraine)

Step 1: Invade portion of sovereign nation.
Step 2: Deny, Deny, Deny
Step 3: Demand statehood talks for that region
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

For those too lazy to click, Putin is demanding statehood talks for SE Ukraine...just days after he openly invaded it.

Uno
09-01-2014, 09:18 PM
Not to mention the fact that this disruption of trade and business is basically bankrupting the oligarchy that keeps Putin in power...this is up there with Hitler's invasion of the USSR for "WTF is he thinking???" moments by Putin.


As I understand it, Hitler envisioned something like this: As long as Britain could hope that the Soviet Union would enter the war, Britain would not come to terms with Germany. Thus, Germany must destroy the Soviet Union to force Britain to sue for peace. With the Soviet Union destroyed, Japan would be free to wage war on the United States without fear of a Soviet attack, and, consequently, the Americans would be tied up in the east and unable to intervene on the side of the British. In sum, defeating the Soviets would end the war with Britain, and, of course let Germany expand eastward and deal with the "Jewish-Bolshevik threat" once and for all.

GonzoTheGreat
09-02-2014, 04:20 AM
As I understand it, Hitler envisioned something like this: As long as Britain could hope that the Soviet Union would enter the war, Britain would not come to terms with Germany. Thus, Germany must destroy the Soviet Union to force Britain to sue for peace. With the Soviet Union destroyed, Japan would be free to wage war on the United States without fear of a Soviet attack, and, consequently, the Americans would be tied up in the east and unable to intervene on the side of the British. In sum, defeating the Soviets would end the war with Britain, and, of course let Germany expand eastward and deal with the "Jewish-Bolshevik threat" once and for all.
As some might say, a cunning plan which could not fail. Assuming, at least, that the Soviets were sufficiently civilized to let themselves be properly defeated by the Germans.

Uno
09-02-2014, 06:06 PM
The BBC has an article about the bizarre amalgam of foreign volunteers on both sides of the conflict. Spanish leftists fighting for the rebels out of a sense of gratitude for Soviet support for the republican side in the Spanish civil war; Chechens fighting for the Ukrainian government because they oppose Moscow; other Chechens fighting for the rebel side; French radical right-wingers fighting for the separatists; other French leftist radicals fighting for Ukraine, but as members of a far-right Ukrainian volunteer force; a Swedish adherent of white power ideology who fights for Ukraine and also expresses sympathy for Assad; and (not unexpectedly) Serbians fighting for the rebels.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28951324

yks 6nnetu hing
09-08-2014, 04:54 AM
Ok, so these are 3 interesting bits of information.

1st: last week Obama was in Estonia before the NATO summit in Wales. He held a speech (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/03/obama-transcript-nato-will-defend-estonia-latvia-lithuania/) which... well. (bolding mine) Note that this speech was given a day or so before it was confirmed that Russia and Ukraine had agreed a cease-fire. which has now been violated again... but I digress.

(Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, Estonia. (In Estonian.) Thank you, Oscar (ph), for your wonderful introduction and for representing the talent and the energy and the optimism of today’s Estonia, especially its young people. And Oscar’s (ph) sitting next to his father, and his father and I agree that we’re getting gray, so we have to make sure that somebody’s coming up behind us. Please give Oscar (ph) a big round of applause for the great job that he did. (Applause.)

To President Ilves and distinguished guests, to the people of Estonia, it is a great pleasure to be with you in this historic city, in this beautiful land. I thank you for the incredible hospitality that you’ve shown me today. I understand the weather is always like this. (Laughter.) My only regret is that I missed this summer’s — (in Estonian) — and I’ll try to come back next time and catch it.

I bring with me the friendship of the American people, and I’m honored to be the first president of the United States to deliver an address like this to the people of Estonia. I just had the opportunity to meet once again with the presidents of all the Baltic states, and I thank — president of Latvia and Lithuania for being here. We are joined by friends from throughout the region.

And I want to say a special welcome to everyone watching this out in Freedom Square. And I’m especially pleased to see so many young people here today, because like Oscar (ph), you are fulfilling the dream that your parents and grandparents struggled for but could only imagine, and that is living your lives in free and independent and democratic Baltic nations. That dream of freedom endured through centuries of occupation and oppression. It blossomed into independence, only to have it stolen by foreign pacts and secret protocols. It survived the mass deportations that ripped parents from their children. It was defended by Forest Brothers in the resistance, and sustained by poets and authors who kept alive your languages and cultures.

And here in Estonia, it was a dream that found its most eloquent expression in your voices, on a grassy field not far from here, when Estonians found the courage to stand up against an empire and sing: “Land of my fathers, land that I love.” And Heinz Valk, who’s here today, spoke for the entire singing revolution when he said: One day, no matter what, we will win. (Applause.)

And then exactly 25 years ago, people across the Baltics came together in one of the greatest displays of freedom and nonviolent resistance that the world has ever seen. On that August evening, perhaps 2 million people stepped out of their homes and joined hands — a human chain of freedom, the Baltic way — and they stretched down highways and across farmlands, from Tallinn to Riga to Vilnius. They lit candles and they sang anthems. Old men and women brought out their flags of independence, and young parents brought their children to teach them that when ordinary people stand together, great change is possible. Here in Estonia, when people joined the line, the password was “freedom.” As one man said that day, the Berlin Wall is made of brick and concrete. Our wall is stronger. And it was. Within months, that wall in Berlin was pushed open.

The next year, the Baltic peoples finally voted in elections. And when the forces of the past made their last grab for power, you stood up. Lithuanians faced down tanks. Latvians manned barricades. Here in Tallinn, citizens rushed to the TV tower to defend the airwaves of democracy. You won. You reclaimed your countries. And in your new constitution you declared the independence and sovereignty of Estonia are timeless and inalienable.

But the people of the Baltic nations also knew that freedom needs a foundation of security. So you reached out to join the NATO alliance. And we were proud to welcome you as new allies so that those words of your constitution, your timeless independence, will always be guaranteed by the strongest military alliance the world has ever known.

Today, people working to build their own democracies to Kiev to Tunis look to you for inspiration. Your experience cautions that progress is neither easy nor quick. Here in the Baltics, after decades of authoritarian rule, the habits of democracy had to be learned. The institutions of good governance had to be built. Economies had to be reformed. Foreign forces had to be removed from your territory.

And transitions of this magnitude are daunting for any nation. But the Baltics show the word what’s possible when free peoples come together for the change that they seek. And in that great contest of ideas between freedom and authoritarianism, between liberty and oppression, your success proves, like that human chain 25 years ago, that our way will always be stronger.

We’re stronger because we’re democracies. We’re not afraid of free and fair elections because true legitimacy can only come from one source, and that is the people. We’re not afraid of an independent judiciary, because no one is above the law. We’re not afraid of a free press or vibrant debate or a strong civil society because leaders must be held accountable. We’re not afraid to let our young people go online to learn and discover and organize because we know that countries are more successful when citizens are free to think for themselves.

We’re stronger because we embrace open economies. Look at the evidence. Here in Estonia, we see the success of free markets, integration with Europe, taking on tough reforms. You’ve become one of the most wired countries on Earth, a global leader in e-government and high-tech start-ups. The entrepreneurial spirit of the Estonian people has been unleashed. And your innovations, like Skype, are transforming the world.

And we’re stronger because we stand together. This year we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Baltics in NATO. A decade ago, skeptics wondered whether your countries were up to the task. And today they need only look at our training exercises where our troops grow even stronger together, shoulder-to-shoulder. They can look at Afghanistan where our forces have sacrificed together to keep us safe and where in just three months the largest operation in NATO history will come to an end, as planned.

There is no doubt the Baltics have made our alliance stronger. And your progress reflects a larger truth. Because of the work of generations, because we stood together in a great alliance, because people across this continent have forged a European Union dedicated to cooperation and peace, we’ve made historic progress towards the vision we share — a Europe that is whole and free and at peace.

And yet as we gather here today, we know that this vision is threatened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. It is a brazen assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, a sovereign and independent European nation. It challenges that most basic of principles of our international system, that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun, that nations have the right to determine their own future. It undermines an international order where the rights of peoples and nations are upheld and can’t simply be taken away by brute force. This is what’s at stake in Ukraine. This is why we stand with the people of Ukraine today. (Applause.)

Now, let’s put to rest once and for all the distortions or outdated thinking that has caused this crisis. Our NATO alliance is not aimed against any other nation. We’re an alliance of democracies dedicated to our own collective defense. Countries like Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania are not post-Soviet territory. You’re sovereign and independent nations with a right to make your own decisions. No other nation gets to veto your security decisions.

The protests in Ukraine on the Maidan were not led by neo-Nazis of fascists. They were led by ordinary Ukrainians, men and women, young and old who were fed up with a corrupt regime and who wanted to share in the progress and prosperity that they see in the rest of Europe. And they did not engage in an armed seizure of power.

After an agreement was brokered for constitutional reform, the former president then abandoned his office, and parliament endorsed new elections, so that today Ukrainians have a new democratically elected president. And I look forward to welcoming President Poroshenko to the Oval Office this month. He was chosen by the people of Ukraine. It was not the government of Kiev that destabilized eastern Ukraine. It’s been the pro-Russian separatists who are encouraged by Russia, financed by Russia, trained by Russia, supplied by Russia and armed by Russia. And the Russian forces that have now moved into Ukraine are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. They are Russian combat forces with Russian weapons in Russian tanks.

Now, these are the facts. They are provable. They’re not subject to dispute. As a result of state-run propaganda, many Russians have become convinced that the actions taken by their government is strengthening Russia. But reaching back to the days of the czars, trying to reclaim lands lost in the 19th century is surely not the way to secure Russia’s greatness in the 21st century. (Applause.) It only shows that unrestrained nationalism is the last refuge of those who cannot or will not deliver real progress and opportunity for their own people at home.

Let’s also be clear where we stand. Just as we refuse to accept smaller European nations being dominated by bigger neighbors in the last century, we reject any talk of spheres of influence today. (Applause.) And just as we never accepted the occupation and illegal annexation of the Baltic nations, we will not accept Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea or any part of Ukraine. (Applause.)

As free peoples, as an alliance, we will stand firm and united to meet the test of this moment, and here’s how.

First we will defend our NATO allies, and that means every ally. In this alliance there are no old members or new members, no junior partners or senior partners. They’re just allies, pure and simple, and we will defend the territorial integrity of every single ally.

Today more NATO aircraft patrol the skies of the Baltics. More American forces are on the ground training and rotating through each of the Baltic states. More NATO ships patrol the Black Sea.

Tonight I depart for the NATO summit in Wales, and I believe our alliance should extend these defensive measures for as long as necessary, because the defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London. (Applause.)

During the long Soviet occupation, the great Estonian poet Marie Under wrote a poem in which she cried to the world, “Who’ll come to help? Right here, at present, now!” And I say to the people of Estonia and the people of the Baltics, today we are bound by our treaty alliance. We have a solemn duty to each other. Article 5 is crystal clear. An attack on one is an attack on all. So if, in such a moment, you ever ask again, who’ll come to help, you’ll know the answer: the NATO alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now. (Applause.)

We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again. (Applause.)

Second, and in addition to the measures we’ve already taken, the United States is working to bolster the security of our NATO allies and further increase America’s military presence in Europe. The new initiative I proposed in Warsaw this spring includes several elements, and we’re working with Congress to get it done. Here in the Baltics, it would mean positioning more American equipment, so it’s ready if needed. It would mean more training and exercises between our militaries. And it would mean more U.S. forces, including American boots on the ground, continuously rotating through Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania.

Third, NATO forces need the ability to deploy even faster in times of crisis.

Now this week our alliance must unite around a new plan to enhance our readiness, and that means we need to step up our defense planning so we’re fully prepared for any threat to any ally. It also means we need to have the infrastructure and facilities that can receive rapid reinforcements, including here in the Baltics. We need to enhance NATO’s rapid response force so it can deploy even more quickly and not just react to threats but also deter them.

And even as we meet conventional threats, we need to face other challenges, and that includes propaganda campaigns that try to whip up fears and divide people from one another. We reject the idea that people cannot live and thrive together just because they have different backgrounds or speak a different language. And the best antidotes to such distorted thinking are the values that define us. Not just in the Baltics but throughout Europe, we must acknowledge the inherent dignity and human rights of every person, because our democracies cannot truly succeed until we root out bias and prejudice, both from our institutions and from our hearts. We have to uphold a free press and freedom of speech because in the end lies and misinformation are no match for the truth. We have to embrace open and inclusive societies because our countries are more successful and more prosperous when we welcome the talents of all our people, including minorities. That’s part of the work that we must do. (Applause.) That’s the example we must set.

Fourth, even as we keep our countries strong at home, we need to keep our alliance strong for the future. And that means investing in the capabilities, like intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance and missile defense. And here in Europe, nations need to do more to spur the growth and prosperity that sustains our alliance. To its great credit, Estonia stands out as an ally that contributes its full share — it’s full 2 percent of GDP to the defense of our alliance. And Latvia and Lithuania have pledged to do the same. So this week — (applause). That’s worth applause. (Applause.) So this week’s summit is the moment for every NATO nation to step up and commit to meeting its responsibilities to our alliance. Estonia does it. Every ally must do it.

Fifth, we must continue to stand united against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. (Applause.) Keep in mind that repeatedly President Putin has ignored the opportunity to resolve the crisis in Ukraine diplomatically. The United States, the European Union, our partners around the world have all said we prefer a diplomatic solution. But in light of Russia’s unwillingness to seize that opportunity, we have come together to impose major sanctions on Russia for its actions.

And make no mistake, Russia is paying a price. Capital is fleeing. Foreign investment is plummeting because investors know that today’s Russia is a bad bet given its behavior. The Russian economy has slipped into recession. Its energy production, which is the engine of the Russian economy, is expected to drop. Its credit rating is near junk status. The ruble just fell to an all-time low. In short, Russia’s actions in Ukraine are weakening Russia. Russia’s actions are hurting the Russian people.

And it doesn’t have to be this way. We have no interest in weakening Russia. It’s a nation with a rich history and a remarkable people. We do not seek out confrontation with Russia. Over the past two decades, the United States has gone to great lengths to welcome Russia into the community of nations and to encourage its economic success. We welcome a Russia that is strong and growing and contributes to international security and peace and that resolves disputes peacefully with diplomacy.

And in contrast to Russia’s isolation and economic woes today, that path, which would include a stable and prosperous Ukraine whose sovereignty is respected, would also ultimately result in greater success and opportunity and respect for Russia. That path remains available to Russia. That path will deliver truer progress for the Russian people. But it’s a path that starts by Russia changing course and leaving Ukraine so that Ukrainians can make their own decisions. And I have no doubt that one of their decisions would be to have strong relations with not just Europe, but also with Russia. But it has to be freely chosen.

And this brings me to the final area where our nations have to come together: in our steadfast support for those who reach for their freedom. And yes, that includes the people of Ukraine. And few understand this better than the Baltic peoples. You know from bitter experience that we can never take our security and liberties for granted. We want Ukrainians to be independent and strong and able to make their own choices free from fear and intimidation because the more countries are free and strong and free from intimidation, the more secure our own liberties are. So the United States will continue to help Ukraine reform to escape a legacy of corruption and build democratic institutions, to grow its economy and, like other European nations, diversify its energy sources because no country should ever be held hostage to another nation that wields energy like a weapon. (Applause.)

We’ll continue to offer training and assistance to help the Ukrainian military grow stronger as they defend their country. And since ultimately, there is no military solution to this crisis, we will continue to support President Poroshenko’s efforts to achieve peace because like all independent nations, Ukraine must be free to decide its own destiny. And this week NATO must send an unmistakable message in support of Ukraine as well. Our alliance has had a partnership with Ukraine for more than 20 years. Ukrainian forces have served with distinction in NATO operations in the Balkans, in Afghanistan. So in Wales, we’ll meet as an alliance with President Poroshenko to show that our 28 nations are united in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to defend its territory.

Now, Ukraine needs more than words. NATO needs to make concrete commitments to help Ukraine modernize and strengthen its security forces. And by the way, we have to do more to help other NATO partners, including Georgia and Moldova, strengthen their defenses as well. (Applause.) And we must reaffirm the principle that has always guided our alliance. For countries that meet our standards and that can make meaningful contributions to allied security, the door to NATO membership will remain open. So this is a moment of testing. The actions of the separatists in Ukraine and Russia evoke dark tactics from Europe’s past that ought to be consigned to a distant history — masked men storming buildings, soldiers without flags slipping across the border, violence sending families fleeing and killing thousands, including nearly 300 innocent men, women and children from all across Europe and around the world when that airliner was shot out of the sky.

In the face of violence that seems intractable and suffering that is so senseless, it is easy to grow cynical and I think tempting to give in to the notion that peace and security may be beyond our grasp. But I say to all of you here today, especially the young people, do not give in to that cynicism. Do not lose the idealism and optimism that is the root of all great change. (Applause.) Don’t ever lose the faith that says if we want it, if we are willing to work for it, if we stand together, the future can be different. Tomorrow can be better. After all, the only reason we’re here today in a free and democratic Estonia is because the Estonian people never gave up. You never gave up when the Red Army came in from the east or when the Nazis came in from the West. You never gave up when the Soviets came back or when they sent your best and brightest to the gulag, never to return. You never gave up through a long occupation that tried to break your spirit and crush your culture. Their tanks were no equal to the moral power of your voices united in song. Their walls were no match for the strength of your people united in that unbreakable chain.

And like the Poles, and Hungarians, the Czechs, and the Slovaks, and the East Germans on top of that wall, you were stronger and you always believed one day, no matter what, we will win. Today your example, your victory gives hope to people all over the world. Yes, there will be setbacks and there will be frustrations and there will be moments of doubt and moments of despair. The currents of history ebb and flow. But over time, they flow toward freedom – more people in every corner of the earth standing up and reaching to claim those rights that are universal, and that’s why, in the end, our ideals are stronger, and that’s why, in the end, our ideals will win. Dignity will win, because every human being is born equal, with free will and inalienable rights, and any regime or system of government that tries to deny these rights will ultimately fail and countries that uphold them will only grow stronger. Justice will win, because might does not make right. And the only path to lasting peace is when people know that their dignity will be respected and that their rights will be upheld. And citizens, like nations, will never settle for a world where the big are allowed to bully the small. Sooner or later, they fight back. (Applause.) Democracy will win, because a government’s legitimacy can only come from citizens. Because in this age of information and empowerment, people want more control over their lives, not less. And because more than any other form of government ever devised, only democracy, rooted in the sanctity of the individual, can deliver real progress. And freedom will win – not because it’s inevitable, not because it is ordained, but because these basic human yearnings for dignity and justice and democracy do not go away. They can be suppressed, at times they can be silenced, but they burn in every human heart, in a place where no regime can ever reach, a light that no army can ever extinguish. And so long as free peoples summon the confidence and the courage and the will to defend the values that we cherish, then freedom will always be stronger and our ideas will always prevail, no matter what.

Thank you, and long live our great alliance. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you.

Considering this is Obama speaking, I find the speech very strongly worded indeed. Also, the rapid-reaction force has now been agreed; within NATO as a whole but more specifically between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Denmark, UK and The Netherlands. Perhaps of note is that this is the same group that's been voting as a block in EU over the past few years (minus Norway who's not in EU and plus Finland and Sweden who are not in NATO)


2nd (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/russia-parades-detained-estonian-police-officer): 2 days after Obama left, an Estonian defence police (comparative to FBI in function) employee was taken on Estonian soil by people coming from Russia. (bolding mine)


Russians open new front after Estonian official is captured in 'cross-border raid'

Eston Kohver taken to Moscow and paraded on TV as 'spy' two days after Obama's visit to Baltic state

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor


The Guardian, Sunday 7 September 2014 19.54 BST


Eston Kohver (r), receives a decoration from Estonia's President Toomas Hendrik, in 2010.
Eston Kohver (r), receives a decoration from Estonia's President Toomas Hendrik, in 2010. Photograph: AP


The Estonian-Russia border at Luhamaa does not look like a new Checkpoint Charlie. Set among the wooded plains that mark Nato and the European Union's eastern-most territory, the crossing is more likely to be the site of long lines of idling lorries than machine-gun nests and prisoner exchanges.

But that era of post-cold war calm may have come to an end on Friday morning, when, according to several Estonian accounts, smoke grenades detonated at an Estonian customs post, and all radio and telephone signals were jammed as armed Russian men suddenly materialised and dragged away a local official.

His name is Eston Kohver, a counter-intelligence officer in the Estonian security agency, Kapo, whose job over the past few years has been to keep tabs on the smuggling cartels trying to sneak merchandise through the Luhamaa crossing.

But Kohver's fate has now become entangled in a much bigger issue: the question of just how far Vladimir Putin's Russia is prepared to go to goad the Nato allies on its doorstep.

The capture has been seen as particularly provocative because it came two days after the US president, Barack Obama, visited Estonia, a trip aimed at reassuring the Baltic states of the US commitment to the security of its Nato allies in the face of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis. It followed the announcement of the creation of a "spearhead force" – a Nato unit of 4,000 soldiers to be tasked with defending Baltic countries including Estonia.

But the immediate reaction of the government in Tallinn was to play down Friday's incident in the hope that it was the work of local Russian commanders who have a record of involvement in the smuggling trade.

The Kapo chief, Arnold Sinisalu, issued a statement saying there appeared to be no political motivation behind the incident. Estonia's president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, tweeted that: "Kapo, like FBI in US, deals both with counterintelligence *and* organized crime. Just in some places they turn out to be same."

The hope that the affair would turn out to be low-key was initially strengthened when Estonian and Russian border guards performed a joint inspection, which seemed to verify the evidence of an incursion from Russia into Estonia, including multiple footprints in a band of raked sand that runs through no-man's land.

By Sunday, however, it became increasingly clear that Russia had other ideas. The Estonian was taken to Moscow where he was paraded before television cameras. The Russian Federal Security Service, the FSB, successor to the Soviet KGB, claimed Kohver had been caught on Russian soil.

The FSB said in a statement: "A Taurus handgun with ammunition, €5,000 (4,000) in cash, special equipment for concealed audio recording and documents that bear evidence of an intelligence mission were seized from the intruder."

The statement appeared ominous for Kohver, whom the FSB had identified as a Kapo officer as far back as 2011, saying he was one of several agents trying to recruit agents as they crossed the border. The decision to bring him to Moscow and put him on television made it clear that Moscow was not interested in finding a quick and quiet means of resolving the incident.

Kadri Liik, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: "My first guess was that this was to do with cross-border smuggling which happened to be sponsored by the Russian security services, which wouldn't be that unusual. The lines are pretty blended. It could be that Kohver got in the way of a business deal, but if it is business, it's clearly a business with Moscow connections."

The question of Kohver's future now looks likely to become a lever for a resurgent Russia to work on its small Baltic neighbour, which at last week's Nato summit declared itself in favour of hosting a new Nato base.

"This is not something cooked up the day before yesterday," said Eerik-Niiles Kross, a former Estonian intelligence chief and national security advisor. "I don't know if it was an FSB shady deal that went wrong, but whatever it was, you have to put it in the general context. The timing is either an odd coincidence, or it is a signal."

There is nothing new about Estonia and Russia conducting spy operations against each other. President Ilves recently claimed Estonia had unmasked four Russian moles in the past five years. In 2008, it was discovered that the top security official in the Estonian defence ministry, Herman Simm, was a Russian agent. In the past two years, Kapo found two more double agents in its own ranks.

In 2007, Estonian government institutions came under a series of crippling cyber-attacks which Tallinn blamed on Russia, but which Moscow denied. In 2008, an ethnic Russian living in Estonia was fined for his part in the attacks.

But the Kohver incident points towards a new gloves-off approach by the FSB.

"I don't know of any other incident of a foreign national being taken on foreign soil. To kidnap a Nato country's intelligence official on foreign territory is unprecedented," Kross said. Nevertheless, he added, raising the stakes would be unlikely to help Kohver. "No one is interested in bringing Nato in on a practical level. The aim will be to try to deal with this on a local, bilateral level."

Marko Mikhelson, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Estonian parliament, agreed that it did not serve the country's interests to escalate the issue into an international crisis. said: "It seems the Russians are trying to paint this event into a bigger story. I don't want to speculate on their aims, but remember they have done these kinds of acts that affect the sovereignty of other countries," Mikhelson said. "But we have been dealing with difficult issues with Russia for years. I don't see the need now for a bigger action. But we'll strengthen the border and keep our eyes open." (I mean... wtf is a "cross-border raid" in the first place?) From the comments of the Estonian officials it seems like this wasn't the first time something like this has happened. Which is disturbing on the one hand for obvious reasons but calming on the other hand because they're not flying into a blind panic and insisting on attacking Russia. the good old "oh Russia's just being Russia again and you find this surprising? please."

and 3rd: A cyber-attack can now trigger Article 5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/05/us-nato-cybersecurity-idUSKBN0H013P20140905).

NATO agrees cyber attack could trigger military response


NEWPORT Wales Fri Sep 5, 2014 8:02am EDT

(Reuters) - NATO leaders agreed on Friday that a large-scale cyber attack on a member country could be considered an attack on the entire U.S.-led alliance, potentially triggering a military response.

The decision marks an expansion of the organisation's remit, reflecting new threats that can disable critical infrastructure, financial systems and government without firing a shot.

"Today we declare that cyber defence is part of NATO's core task of collective defence," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news conference.

In 2007, a series of crippling cyber attacks paralysed much of NATO member Estonia in an apparent response to a dispute over the movement of a Soviet-era war memorial. Most Western experts suspected the Kremlin was responsible but Russia denied it.

GonzoTheGreat
09-08-2014, 07:29 AM
Of course, seeing as how over half of US Congress more or less automatically opposes Obama on anything, I would say that Putin has a fair amount of support (or at least cover) where it counts.

Davian93
09-08-2014, 09:29 AM
Of course, seeing as how over half of US Congress more or less automatically opposes Obama on anything, I would say that Putin has a fair amount of support (or at least cover) where it counts.

Hell, a good portion of the American right wing holds up Putin as what a true "strong leader" should be...thus showing that they are all secretly fascists at heart.

...or at least that they are all really dumb and easy targets for propaganda and the cult of personality they've built up for Vlady.

Tomp
09-08-2014, 10:06 AM
I wonder what hairy leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald%E2%80%93hairy)they'll have after Putin.

The Unreasoner
09-10-2014, 12:01 PM
Was the Russian nuclear test on rhe books for a while? Or is this some 'subtle' warning to the West?

Davian93
10-21-2014, 11:13 AM
Russia Allegedly Offered To Split Ukraine With Poland (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11176025/Polish-ex-minister-quoted-saying-Putin-offered-to-divide-Ukraine-with-Poland.html)

Quite interesting if true...and one with some interesting historical parallels given eastern Europe's history.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-22-2014, 03:13 AM
Russia Allegedly Offered To Split Ukraine With Poland (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11176025/Polish-ex-minister-quoted-saying-Putin-offered-to-divide-Ukraine-with-Poland.html)

Quite interesting if true...and one with some interesting historical parallels given eastern Europe's history.

oh that is rich... Putin must have mania grandiosa to even suggest such a thing out loud, to a Pole, no less...

Davian93
10-22-2014, 10:13 AM
oh that is rich... Putin must have mania grandiosa to even suggest such a thing out loud, to a Pole, no less...

It's not like the Poles have a long, blood-splattered history of getting divided between their neighbors or anything...

yks 6nnetu hing
10-22-2014, 10:20 AM
It's not like the Poles have a long, blood-splattered history of getting divided between their neighbors or anything...

Well, the Jews have a long history of being persecuted horrendously, yet Israel has no problems paying that legacy forward on the Palestinians.

Davian93
10-22-2014, 10:27 AM
Well, the Jews have a long history of being persecuted horrendously, yet Israel has no problems paying that legacy forward on the Palestinians.

Well, its kinda like how abused kids end up being abusers themselves when they have kids.


Or kinda like how Israel is turning itself into Aridhol/Shadar Logoth in order to fight what it considers "evil" while becoming quite evil themselves in the process.

Khoram
10-22-2014, 11:08 AM
So who would be Mordeth in this picture?

Davian93
10-22-2014, 11:17 AM
So who would be Mordeth in this picture?

Ariel Sharon...whose evil spirit is now inhabiting its current body, Benjamin Netanyaho.

Nazbaque
10-22-2014, 01:58 PM
Well, its kinda like how abused kids end up being abusers themselves when they have kids.


Or kinda like how Israel is turning itself into Aridhol/Shadar Logoth in order to fight what it considers "evil" while becoming quite evil themselves in the process.

Ummm did you just imply that Israel should be reduced to a glass circle with a superweapon?

Hmmm I should check if Sodas has been posting anything about us on his blog lately.

Terez
10-22-2014, 08:05 PM
oh that is rich... Putin must have mania grandiosa to even suggest such a thing out loud, to a Pole, no less...
It does have a certain historical irony, but it also has a historical precedent. Chopin left Poland on the eve of the November Uprising (1830), which led to the great partition when Poland disappeared entirely from the map in 1831. His one true love, Tytus Woyciechowski, who was with Chopin in Vienna when the news of the Uprising arrived, went back to fight the Russians. He was a landowner in far-eastern Poland whose income was derived from Ukrainian villages. Somehow, despite having fought in the Uprising, he was allowed to keep those lands and incomes when Poland fell. That was unusual; most of the rebels ended up in diaspora, and many ended up in Paris with Chopin, who was of course there for different reasons.*

I'm hardly an expert here but I asked my friend Piotrek about it because I was interested in historical relations between Poland and Ukraine, and how that all factored into Tytus's story. Anyway, the gist of what he said is that Poles have often ruled over Ukrainians, and that Ukrainian national identity didn't really begin to develop until the 19th century, during which they were almost entirely under Russian (and/or Polish) rule.

*Paris was the musical hub of Europe at that time, a role held by Vienna for decades, but after the death of Beethoven, things started to shift toward Paris, so Chopin gave Vienna a whirl, saw the writing on the wall, and then went to Paris and stayed there.

PS: Tytus apparently wrote a mazurka called "Erinnerung aus Lemberg" (Wspomnienie ze Lwowa) (Memories from Lviv). His estates were not far from Lww, at Poturzyn.

Davian93
10-22-2014, 08:26 PM
It does have a certain historical irony, but it also has a historical precedent. Chopin left Poland on the eve of the November Uprising (1830), which led to the great partition when Poland disappeared entirely from the map in 1831. His one true love, Tytus Woyciechowski, who was with Chopin in Vienna when the news of the Uprising arrived, went back to fight the Russians. He was a landowner in far-eastern Poland whose income was derived from Ukrainian villages. Somehow, despite having fought in the Uprising, he was allowed to keep those lands and incomes when Poland fell. That was unusual; most of the rebels ended up in diaspora, and many ended up in Paris with Chopin, who was of course there for different reasons.*

I'm hardly an expert here but I asked my friend Piotrek about it because I was interested in historical relations between Poland and Ukraine, and how that all factored into Tytus's story. Anyway, the gist of what he said is that Poles have often ruled over Ukrainians, and that Ukrainian national identity didn't really begin to develop until the 19th century, during which they were almost entirely under Russian (and/or Polish) rule.

*Paris was the musical hub of Europe at that time, a role held by Vienna for decades, but after the death of Beethoven, things started to shift toward Paris, so Chopin gave Vienna a whirl, saw the writing on the wall, and then went to Paris and stayed there.

PS: Tytus apparently wrote a mazurka called "Erinnerung aus Lemberg" (Wspomnienie ze Lwowa) (Memories from Lviv). His estates were not far from Lww, at Poturzyn.

If you want to read a good book on that subject, I highly recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Playground-History-Poland-Present/dp/0231128193/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1K0NQYNWXTGM1ZB0EWZ6 There are 2 volumes and it is a phenomenal history of Poland. It is Davies focus area as a historian and he's an interesting read too.

Terez
10-22-2014, 08:40 PM
I own it. He doesn't devote much time to the November Uprising, sadly.

Davian93
10-22-2014, 09:50 PM
I own it. He doesn't devote much time to the November Uprising, sadly.

He touches on it in Europe: A History...if that helps at all.

Terez
10-23-2014, 01:32 AM
He touches on it in Europe: A History...if that helps at all.
It's on my list. I have been reading some histories but I have been spending most of my time trying to learn Polish and French by way of translating Chopin's extended correspondence. Once I get all my fish in the barrel I'm going to read every Chopin book I own and cross-reference them with the letters. Then I'll have more time for history and literature. By then, hopefully I will be able to read French and Polish history and literature. And maybe a bit of German too. And some Italian. I'm thinking about starting work on translating a music theory treatise written by Vincenzo Galilei, Galileo's father, if my friend Alfonso (an amateur musicologist) is willing to help me. He has looked over a few things for me already.

<---ADD

Davies is kind of boring. Zamoyski (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EK1XQ38) is more interesting, though I could nitpick his Chopin biography quite a bit if anyone cared to listen, which I doubt.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-23-2014, 03:27 AM
Depending on how far back in the history you go, there's a case to be made for Great-Poland which would stretch from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, and from half-way in Germany to half way Russia. But then, the same could be said for almost every European country so... meh.

I have probably mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: an important psychological part of Russia's fixation with Ukraine is that without Kiev, Russia doesn't have an "ancient" history. Without Kiev, Russia loses about 4 centuries of it's "glorious history", and has almost no claim to Russian Orthodoxy as being "Russian"

GonzoTheGreat
10-23-2014, 04:41 AM
Of course, Putin could just surrender to Poroshenko; then the two countries would be reunited and the glorious historical tradition would be secure.
I'm sure Obama would just love having to come up with an opinion on that one. As for my own prime minister: I have no idea what he would say about such a development.

Terez
10-23-2014, 07:25 AM
Or he could just embrace a benign sort of pan-Slavism and hang up the rest.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-23-2014, 08:05 AM
another aspect which isn't talked about at all in the West, and which Russia also tries to suppress is the fact that for every 1 Russian that is born, there are 2 Asians born [ETA: in Russia]. The immigration from China and other central and eastern Asian countries is sizable, the Russian native birth rate is negative, as is the life expectancy... And, to top this all off, most of the Asian immigrants are not russophone, not educated and not skilled.

So, in terms of Pan-Slavic ideals, Russia needs as many Slavs as possible.

Davian93
10-23-2014, 08:41 AM
another aspect which isn't talked about at all in the West, and which Russia also tries to suppress is the fact that for every 1 Russian that is born, there are 2 Asians born. The immigration from China and other central and eastern Asian countries is sizable, the Russian native birth rate is negative, as is the life expectancy... And, to top this all off, most of the Asian immigrants are not russophone, not educated and not skilled.

So, in terms of Pan-Slavic ideals, Russia needs as many Slavs as possible.

Russia having nukes is probably the only reason China hasn't seized eastern Siberia at this point.

Davian93
10-23-2014, 10:37 AM
It's on my list. I have been reading some histories but I have been spending most of my time trying to learn Polish and French by way of translating Chopin's extended correspondence. Once I get all my fish in the barrel I'm going to read every Chopin book I own and cross-reference them with the letters. Then I'll have more time for history and literature. By then, hopefully I will be able to read French and Polish history and literature. And maybe a bit of German too. And some Italian. I'm thinking about starting work on translating a music theory treatise written by Vincenzo Galilei, Galileo's father, if my friend Alfonso (an amateur musicologist) is willing to help me. He has looked over a few things for me already.

<---ADD

Davies is kind of boring. Zamoyski (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EK1XQ38) is more interesting, though I could nitpick his Chopin biography quite a bit if anyone cared to listen, which I doubt.

If you think Davies is boring, you probably wont like Europe: A History...I loved it for the little vignettes he goes into on certain subjects but its quite tedious at times if you dont like his writing style.

Think of it as more like Norman Davies is your uncle and he's telling you stories from Europe's history for the most part. Me, I loved it, but its a very Daviesesque book.

Terez
12-16-2014, 09:59 PM
Time to resurrect this thread, since the Russian economy is on the verge of collapsing. The main culprit is oil prices but the situation is quite complex overall. Interest rates have been raised to 17% in an effort to prop up the ruble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/to-halt-crisis-russia-central-bank-hikes-interest-rates-as-ruble-falls/2014/12/16/9ebb1610-4c9e-45bd-9297-475b0d3878cc_story.html

The Russian economy was not in great shape when Russia invaded Crimea. Sanctions have made it worse. The freefall in oil might be the death blow, since Russia's economy is hugely, dangerously dependent on oil.

I am not convinced that OPEC's gambit with the market glut is entirely unrelated to the multilateral sanctions against Putin's imperial tendencies. Saudia Arabia has long been an ally of the US and Iran is closer to being an ally than they have been since the Revolution of 1979. Iraq has an immediate reason for wanting the US undistracted by Russia. And then there is Keystone, as a bonus.

Whether or not oil prices are related to sanctions, the question remains: what now? What does the crash of the Russian economy do to the region? Worldwide? What currency will move in if the ruble collapses? What will happen to ordinary citizens in Russia, and do they really deserve this? Will the Russians get out of Donbass? Crimea?

Kimon
12-16-2014, 10:38 PM
Time to resurrect this thread, since the Russian economy is on the verge of collapsing. The main culprit is oil prices but the situation is quite complex overall. Interest rates have been raised to 17% in an effort to prop up the ruble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/to-halt-crisis-russia-central-bank-hikes-interest-rates-as-ruble-falls/2014/12/16/9ebb1610-4c9e-45bd-9297-475b0d3878cc_story.html

The Russian economy was not in great shape when Russia invaded Crimea. Sanctions have made it worse. The freefall in oil might be the death blow, since Russia's economy is hugely, dangerously dependent on oil.

I am not convinced that OPEC's gambit with the market glut is entirely unrelated to the multilateral sanctions against Putin's imperial tendencies. Saudia Arabia has long been an ally of the US and Iran is closer to being an ally than they have been since the Revolution of 1979. Iraq has an immediate reason for wanting the US undistracted by Russia. And then there is Keystone, as a bonus.

Whether or not oil prices are related to sanctions, the question remains: what now? What does the crash of the Russian economy do to the region? Worldwide? What currency will move in if the ruble collapses? What will happen to ordinary citizens in Russia, and do they really deserve this? Will the Russians get out of Donbass? Crimea?

I doubt the major oil producers in the Middle East are any happier about the decline in oil price than the Russians are. This is great for us, for Europe, for China, and Japan. Not so much for any of the extraction dependent economies.

Specifically for the Russians, their situation is dire. They raised interest rates to 10.5% a week ago, and when that didn't stabilize the rouble they hiked the interest rate up to 17%, and it still doesn't seem to be working.

Take a look at the chart of the conversion between the euro and the rouble this year - it was relatively stable all year, around 1 euro to 45-50 roubles, then skyrocketed in December. It's now at 91 to 1.

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-rub.en.html

And smelling blood in the water, the west is considering a new round of sanctions.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30508944

Terez
12-17-2014, 12:27 AM
I doubt the major oil producers in the Middle East are any happier about the decline in oil price than the Russians are.
They have the option to hoard and keep supply low. They, specifically Saudi Arabia (less dependent on high prices than other major oil countries), and OPEC more broadly, decided not to. The general feeling seems to be that they are trying to price alternative extraction techniques, like shale and tar sands, out of the market. Here is one opinion:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102271857

yks 6nnetu hing
12-17-2014, 03:19 AM
Time to resurrect this thread, since the Russian economy is on the verge of collapsing. The main culprit is oil prices but the situation is quite complex overall. Interest rates have been raised to 17% in an effort to prop up the ruble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/to-halt-crisis-russia-central-bank-hikes-interest-rates-as-ruble-falls/2014/12/16/9ebb1610-4c9e-45bd-9297-475b0d3878cc_story.html

The Russian economy was not in great shape when Russia invaded Crimea. Sanctions have made it worse. The freefall in oil might be the death blow, since Russia's economy is hugely, dangerously dependent on oil.

I am not convinced that OPEC's gambit with the market glut is entirely unrelated to the multilateral sanctions against Putin's imperial tendencies. Saudia Arabia has long been an ally of the US and Iran is closer to being an ally than they have been since the Revolution of 1979. Iraq has an immediate reason for wanting the US undistracted by Russia. And then there is Keystone, as a bonus.

Whether or not oil prices are related to sanctions, the question remains: what now? What does the crash of the Russian economy do to the region? Worldwide? What currency will move in if the ruble collapses? What will happen to ordinary citizens in Russia, and do they really deserve this? Will the Russians get out of Donbass? Crimea?

You would think that Russia would learn from its mistakes...

1998 Financial Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis)

If history will repeat itself, it's likely that Russia will default on its debt again. Meaning that anyone who's invested in there have lost their money. Then, the oil prices will stabilize and Russia will just continue as if nothing happened.

moral of the story: do not invest in Russia. You WILL lose your money.

as for the regular people, those that can are already fleeing. But that's the vast minority of the populace, as the majority doesn't have the savings to leave.

The best possible outcome, though somewhat unlikely considering Putin's firm grasp on all media, is that public opinion of him becomes so low that a new and - hopefully - more democratic president is elected. Though that hope is... small. it'll likely be either a clone of Putin or a puppet of Putin. There is already speculation on replacing Medvedev (he's the current Prime Minister. Yes, the same guy that was Putin's Puppet President).

Nazbaque
12-17-2014, 04:36 AM
Personally I believe that their next leader will either be in Putin's pocket or tries to out do him. They are just going to keep pushing until there is the third World War or a civil war. Either one isn't good from my personal point of view as I doubt the border neighbours will be able to stay out of it.

yks 6nnetu hing
12-17-2014, 10:42 AM
Article in Russian on the sequence of events (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/columns/66553.html)

The ruble is worth as much as the market is worth in the eyes of Putin's power

The voter can be fooled, but the market - cannot be fooled

12/16/2014

Artem Geodakyan / TASS

In his address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin called on to fight currency speculators. "The authorities know who these speculators are, and tools to influence them there," - said Vladimir Putin.

December 11th head of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin also urged to fight currency speculators.

Exactly the next day, December 12 (ie Friday) Central Bank allowed Russian banks to use as collateral for loans the bonds of "Rosneft", released the day before, a gigantic sum of 625 billion rubles. Resolution of the Central Bank, roughly speaking, means that the bank can take the bonds of "Rosneft", bring them to the Central Bank, to get credit for them and then buy with that money [a different] currency.

On the next working day, ie on Monday 15 December, the ruble collapsed. That day the national currency has lost about 15% (from 56 to 65 rubles per dollar), putting the country on the brink of hyperinflation. Do not be surprised if by the middle of next year in Russia, on the model of Venezuela and Argentina, prohibit the free purchasing/sale of foreign currency.

I'm not saying that the market [was] brought down only by the money "Rosneft". Any accident is always caused by several factors. In this case, the following can be assumed.

First, the margin-calls. 15th of each month - it is the day of fixing all kinds of derivatives, and Russian derivatives (how many of them and what they are?) primarily tied to the RTS. The index fell as soon as he struck a certain level, go-margin calls, followed by automated sales position at the current price with automatic conversion of revenue in the same currency.

Secondly, the foreigners have been rapidly selling Russian bonds. Money, naturally, they immediately converted into the foreign currency - at any price.

Third, in December, Russian companies have to pay 180 billion dollars of debt that no one in the West is funding. Many seem to have put off the purchase of the foreign currency to the last moment.

Fourth, a huge number of Russian businessmen now sell everything, everything, everything - to be converted into foreign currency and export it abroad. Here is a typical order, made at the board of directors of one of my friends, real estate developers, "Sell at any price. Convert, whatever the consequences, it is better to get something than nothing. "

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the 625 billion rubles, "Rosneft", find themselves on the market, was one of the reasons that broke the camel's back. Any explanation of "Rosneft", that this huge amount "will go to investment projects in Russia" and "none of the money will be used for the purchase of foreign currency," is ridiculous.

The very same "Rosneft" explained that the money given to the six "daughters". And where do these "daughters" put the money? In the bank. What then? Lay in the Central Bank, will take the money under the loan and buy foreign currency. Since the discount rate of the CBR until the night of Monday to Tuesday was 10.5%, and the annual decline of the ruble has already exceeded this figure exactly five times - it is only a reasonable use of the money.

The most striking thing in the whole story of the redemption of bonds of "Rosneft" is that over the past months the Central Bank has held very prudent credit policy. Each day, the Central Bank receives monetary statements of banks, and in fact, sees everything online, and each operation is now mandatory to justify. If a bank has bought foreign currency worth, say, 100 million dollars - he would immediately be asked, "Why?". "For the customer." "Very well, show me a contract." And if the customer has a contract, and it is an existing client who carries in Russia real equipment, the discussion is closed. And if the client is ephemeral, which suddenly have wished to buy shoes for $ 100 million, the bank will be punished. And banks are now in such a state that they support the Central Bank - a matter of life or death.

The banks have clipped all the speculator's wings. "If earlier in the foreign exchange market could play with the "shoulder" of thirty (that is, in the short term for a specific operation to borrow from the bank thirty times more than you have in the account), now the "shoulder" of three. Buys a currency always bank, and if the Bank sees the game against the ruble, it is death for such a bank immediately. CB is between Scylla and Charybdis - he needs to give money to banks, so they do not fail themselves, but must be cut and banks from the foreign exchange market, and it really does.

How exactly CB's hands were twisted to actually loan "Rosneft", knowing full well that in the present circumstances the money still fall in the foreign currency, for the same reasons that falls from the sky water eventually flows into the sea - hard to say.

In any case, most of my interviewees believed that it really did not happen on Friday, and a little bit earlier. That one or a number of large banks to Friday already bought the bonds of "Rosneft", laying in the CBA any other securities, and December 12 this strange operation after the event was arranged here in these same approved for mortgage bonds. Anyway, last week, the Central Bank suddenly granted loans amounting to 1.5 trillion rubles, which is higher than the full amount of loans granted to them in October this year. It seems that some of these loans and was framed after the fact bail bonds "Rosneft".

And more. No drop of oil, no increase in the money supply (and it exceeded 30 trillion rubles against 12 trillion in 2008), no even a purely financial effects of sanctions can not explain, if you count from the time of the Maidan, the fall of the ruble to half its value. I do not mean the fact that the current price of the ruble "unfair." On the contrary - the ruble is worth as much in the eyes of the market worth Putin's power. The voter can be fooled, but the market - do not be fooled. Current Russian government - is a giant Splitter, which multiplies and the economy, and the ruble, and Russia's future that we see in the market.

As for currency speculators - I must tell Putin and Bastrykin what they really are. With one small clarification. Now the market can only make official. But if a person knows what will loan "Rosneft", if he knows when and what will be the Central Bank of currency intervention, he can earn millions per day. Do not know - volatility such that any speculator pulled from the market.

And the question is: will Bastrykin to investigate the same, when in fact the "Rosneft" has received the money and where they went, or deems the press release that from 625 billion metric tons of ruble water spilled on the company, not a drop fell into sea - gorgeous and exhaustive explanation? And speculation against the ruble accused Navalny?

Davian93
12-17-2014, 12:09 PM
You would think that Russia would learn from its mistakes...

1998 Financial Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis)

If history will repeat itself, it's likely that Russia will default on its debt again. Meaning that anyone who's invested in there have lost their money. Then, the oil prices will stabilize and Russia will just continue as if nothing happened.

moral of the story: do not invest in Russia. You WILL lose your money.

as for the regular people, those that can are already fleeing. But that's the vast minority of the populace, as the majority doesn't have the savings to leave.

The best possible outcome, though somewhat unlikely considering Putin's firm grasp on all media, is that public opinion of him becomes so low that a new and - hopefully - more democratic president is elected. Though that hope is... small. it'll likely be either a clone of Putin or a puppet of Putin. There is already speculation on replacing Medvedev (he's the current Prime Minister. Yes, the same guy that was Putin's Puppet President).

There's also the fact that this exact same time of crash in oil prices is what crushed the USSR in the late 80s too...and forced their collapse.

He DID want a return to the Soviet Union afterall...now he's getting it.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-22-2015, 03:36 AM
ok, so, instead of creating a new thread I thought to resurrect this one.

Something's happened that's so ridiculous, it's almost funny. I may have posted about the abduction of an Estonian secret service guy from the Estonia-Russia border region back in September 2014. Basically, he was investigating a possible smuggling case and was supposed to meet up with some informant near the border when a number of masked and armed people came across the border from Russia into Estonia, grabbed him and took him. He's now being prosecuted in Russia for espionage.

but now for the hilarious bit: Yesterday he was also charged with illegally entering Russia and for smuggling a weapon into Russia. *ahem*

This makes me want to read Kafka's Trial again.

Davian93
04-22-2015, 08:15 AM
ok, so, instead of creating a new thread I thought to resurrect this one.

Something's happened that's so ridiculous, it's almost funny. I may have posted about the abduction of an Estonian secret service guy from the Estonia-Russia border region back in September 2014. Basically, he was investigating a possible smuggling case and was supposed to meet up with some informant near the border when a number of masked and armed people came across the border from Russia into Estonia, grabbed him and took him. He's now being prosecuted in Russia for espionage.

but now for the hilarious bit: Yesterday he was also charged with illegally entering Russia and for smuggling a weapon into Russia. *ahem*

This makes me want to read Kafka's Trial again.

In Soviet Russia, weapons smuggle you!

SomeOneElse
04-22-2015, 09:53 AM
ok, so, instead of creating a new thread I thought to resurrect this one.

Something's happened that's so ridiculous, it's almost funny. I may have posted about the abduction of an Estonian secret service guy from the Estonia-Russia border region back in September 2014. Basically, he was investigating a possible smuggling case and was supposed to meet up with some informant near the border when a number of masked and armed people came across the border from Russia into Estonia, grabbed him and took him. He's now being prosecuted in Russia for espionage.

but now for the hilarious bit: Yesterday he was also charged with illegally entering Russia and for smuggling a weapon into Russia. *ahem*

This makes me want to read Kafka's Trial again.
Funny yes, but probably not more then Konstantin yaroshenko incident.

Southpaw2012
04-23-2015, 05:13 PM
As the Russian threat continues to grow, I continue to think back to the 2012 election and how Obama and the liberal media mocked Romney for his warning about Russia. Funny how things work out... Though Russia isn't the only thing he was right about.

Kimon
04-23-2015, 05:27 PM
As the Russian threat continues to grow, I continue to think back to the 2012 election and how Obama and the liberal media mocked Romney for his warning about Russia. Funny how things work out... Though Russia isn't the only thing he was right about.

Unless you're actually suggesting that you really think that Romney would have gone to war, there is nothing more that he could have done than was done under Obama. You are aware that Putin did much the same in Georgia while Bush was president, are you not? Putin will not be stopped short of war, and this isn't worth war. If he starts marching on Kiev then that might change, but even you can't really think that the present situation is worth WWIII.

Davian93
04-23-2015, 06:21 PM
As the Russian threat continues to grow, I continue to think back to the 2012 election and how Obama and the liberal media mocked Romney for his warning about Russia. Funny how things work out... Though Russia isn't the only thing he was right about.

Yes its been fun to watch Russia shoot itself in the face and destroy its own economy and world-standing while posing no real threat whatsoever to any real country. They can't even take over Ukraine, a country that's been within their historic sphere of influence since there was a Russia. But yeah, they're such a big scary threat.

eht slat meit
04-23-2015, 06:46 PM
Yes its been fun to watch Russia shoot itself in the face and destroy its own economy and world-standing while posing no real threat whatsoever to any real country. They can't even take over Ukraine, a country that's been within their historic sphere of influence since there was a Russia. But yeah, they're such a big scary threat.

Not that Putin is anywhere near on the same level, but I'd point out here that Hitler took a country in economic straits and turned it into an international fighting powerhouse, one "fake" country at a time.

Tyrants start off small.

Davian93
04-23-2015, 06:49 PM
Not that Putin is anywhere near on the same level, but I'd point out here that Hitler took a country in economic straits and turned it into an international fighting powerhouse, one "fake" country at a time.

Tyrants start off small.

NATO didn't exist then...the moment Putin touches a NATO country, he's done for.

Containment works...and last I checked, NATO is a 1,000 miles further east than it was when the USSR broke up.

Sidenote, maybe Ukraine should have joined NATO in 2010 when it was offered, eh?

eht slat meit
04-23-2015, 07:41 PM
NATO didn't exist then...the moment Putin touches a NATO country, he's done for.

Containment works...and last I checked, NATO is a 1,000 miles further east than it was when the USSR broke up.


Containment works.... as long as you're a member of NATO. As for everyone else, screw them, right? I can't imagine why Putin would bother attacking a member of NATO anyway as with very few exceptions none of them are considered the world's powers, and several of those are in a state of pathetic and ongoing failure or simple decline.

There's also a cute jpg here somewhere with a number of reasons why the Russians wouldn't dare attack Finnland anyway.

Kimon
04-23-2015, 09:31 PM
Containment works.... as long as you're a member of NATO. As for everyone else, screw them, right? I can't imagine why Putin would bother attacking a member of NATO anyway as with very few exceptions none of them are considered the world's powers, and several of those are in a state of pathetic and ongoing failure or simple decline.

There's also a cute jpg here somewhere with a number of reasons why the Russians wouldn't dare attack Finnland anyway.

Finland isn't in NATO, but a number of former Soviet republics are (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), as are a number of Warsaw Pact nations (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and technically East Germany). As for taking on world powers, no power has taken on another power since WWII (an argument could be made for the Korean War due to China's involvement), which is slightly embarrassing when you consider that during that time we have lost wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (but hey, at least we're still batting .500 in Iraq, yeah, still pretty embarrassing...). Of course, we haven't lost nearly all our empire like Russia has (the results of this pique we are now seeing), nor are we alone in a failed Afghan War.

But let's be blunt. The bottom line with Ukraine, as it was with Georgia and the Crimea, is we will never care about who holds these lands anywhere near as much as Russia. They serve only as rhetoric for us, and usually empty rhetoric.

Davian93
04-23-2015, 09:48 PM
Containment works.... as long as you're a member of NATO. As for everyone else, screw them, right? I can't imagine why Putin would bother attacking a member of NATO anyway as with very few exceptions none of them are considered the world's powers, and several of those are in a state of pathetic and ongoing failure or simple decline.

There's also a cute jpg here somewhere with a number of reasons why the Russians wouldn't dare attack Finnland anyway.

We don't live in a perfect world and we're not going to start WWIII over some non-aligned country. It's called being realistic.

Ukraine has always been in Russia's sphere of influence. And they chose to skew to the East over western Europe and NATO on their own accord. As such, I'm not all that sympathetic to their issues now. They had to know what they were getting themselves into by electing a rightwing pro-Russian gov't and then volunteering to be Putin's bitch back then. At least the Baltic states were smart enough to jump to the West.

Finland didn't because they were basically threatened with invasion if they tried to join NATO over staying in Russia's unofficial sphere. IIRC.

Rand al'Fain
04-24-2015, 01:26 AM
We don't live in a perfect world and we're not going to start WWIII over some non-aligned country. It's called being realistic.

Ukraine has always been in Russia's sphere of influence. And they chose to skew to the East over western Europe and NATO on their own accord. As such, I'm not all that sympathetic to their issues now. They had to know what they were getting themselves into by electing a rightwing pro-Russian gov't and then volunteering to be Putin's bitch back then. At least the Baltic states were smart enough to jump to the West.

Finland didn't because they were basically threatened with invasion if they tried to join NATO over staying in Russia's unofficial sphere. IIRC.
From what I understand, Ukraine actually wanted closer ties to the West and had elected a guy that said he would. He ended up cozying up with Putin, and thus began this whole affair in Ukraine. VICE News has actually been doing an on-going series of this whole conflict basically since it began. I don't recommend reading the comments for the videos (on youtube), as those get down right nasty almost immediately.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-24-2015, 02:49 AM
As the Russian threat continues to grow, I continue to think back to the 2012 election and how Obama and the liberal media mocked Romney for his warning about Russia. Funny how things work out... Though Russia isn't the only thing he was right about.

Oh, you mean when Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul?

On a personal note about this whole Russia-NATO discussion... I was at a seminar thing a couple of months ago, and someone asked what should the Dutch people do if, say Estonia, were attacked. The majority of the people said they'd want Estonia to first defend itself, and not send any troops over there. Which fucking made my blood boil because what do you think we've been doing for the past 20 years? These border countries have to be strong, either by themselves or with support from inside. frigging cushy Greeks and Italians love to complain about immigrants from Africa but have no clue about military excercises that are constantly aimed at our borders. Don't they understand that if one of the border-countries break, their entire border is compromised and useless?

Also, to all those why say "but what does Estonia do for NATO?" your entire cyber defence, that's what. So stfu and do YOUR part.

SomeOneElse
04-24-2015, 04:40 AM
As the Russian threat continues to grow, I continue to think back to the 2012 election and how Obama and the liberal media mocked Romney for his warning about Russia.

Russian threat against whom? Against the US? Really?
Against Ukraine? Well maybe, but what does it have to do with you as a USA citizen.

Just for a side note, could you bother counting how many wars did Russia started or was involved in let's say last 15 years and how many did USA just the same time? And now tell me who's a real "threat" to the whole world.

They can't even take over Ukraine
If Russia was about to "take over" Ukraine that could be done in weeks or even days. Just compare Russia's and ukrainian military abilities and you're done.

Terez
04-24-2015, 05:02 AM
...real country....
Someone quick, save Dav from his boredom.

GonzoTheGreat
04-24-2015, 05:48 AM
If Russia was about to "take over" Ukraine that could be done in weeks or even days. Just compare Russia's and ukrainian military abilities and you're done.
Russia could destroy Ukraine in such a time period, true. Just as they did a couple of decades ago to Afghanistan. But taking it over isn't the same, and the difference is rather relevant.

Still, I think that in hindsight, it is clear that Ukraine should not have given up its nukes. A lesson which I'm sure Iran is studying right now.

SomeOneElse
04-24-2015, 07:01 AM
Russia could destroy Ukraine in such a time period, true. Just as they did a couple of decades ago to Afghanistan. But taking it over isn't the same, and the difference is rather relevant.

Afghanistan is the whole different place. There wasn't much to destroy there in fact and also no one was able to take it over in near (and not-so-near) history including the US.
Hitler "took" several EU countries in weeks/months and they together were a bigger deal then Ukraine.

Like it or not, but UA army is totally fucked up nowadays, there wasn't any real invasion to the southeast by Russia, just some "volunteers" and weapons and other support but not really an army operation, still UA wasn't able to do much with it. So imagine russian army entering that area and where ukrainian army would be after a week.

Still there is a great number of people supporting Russia in UA so there would be no problem forming a loyal occupation government etc.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-24-2015, 07:10 AM
Russia's trying to pretend that they're not at war.

which is why it's taking so long

Davian93
04-24-2015, 08:26 AM
Afghanistan is the whole different place. There wasn't much to destroy there in fact and also no one was able to take it over in near (and not-so-near) history including the US.
Hitler "took" several EU countries in weeks/months and they together were a bigger deal then Ukraine.

Like it or not, but UA army is totally fucked up nowadays, there wasn't any real invasion to the southeast by Russia, just some "volunteers" and weapons and other support but not really an army operation, still UA wasn't able to do much with it. So imagine russian army entering that area and where ukrainian army would be after a week.

Still there is a great number of people supporting Russia in UA so there would be no problem forming a loyal occupation government etc.

"volulnteers"...right, okay.

Russia could destroy Ukraine but they couldn't complete a conquest. For one, its not about just military might, its about winning hte peace afterward. Look at the debacle that was Chechnya. Chechnya is like invading Delaware compared to Ukraine being California. If you can't rule Delaware successfully, good luck with a much bigger country. They'd run into all the same partisanship type issues we ran into in Iraq & Afghanistan.

There's also the issues of supply lines and sustaining a conflict that far away from your power base. Russia doesn't really possess that ability to project power at such a level long term. Invading eastern Ukraine in a proxy war...sure, they can do that. They could even probably make it to the Moldova border if they wanted too in a thrust. They'd never hold it and it would destroy them economically.

But hey, you're right, they're a big scary power.



As for the Baltics, yks is completely right. They do their part and they're an ally now. I'd totally go to war for any NATO country.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 08:34 AM
You could use the exact same above comments to describe Mainland China vs. Taiwan. Could the PRC destroy Taiwan? Sure, and it would take maybe a week. Could they conquer them? Nope, not a chance in hell even if our 7th fleet stayed out of it.

GonzoTheGreat
04-24-2015, 08:46 AM
How about the other way: if Taiwan conquered China in a week, what should our government's reactions be?

Khoram
04-24-2015, 08:47 AM
How about the other way: if Taiwan conquered China in a week, what should our government's reactions be?

Easy. Surprise.

SomeOneElse
04-24-2015, 08:57 AM
Russia's trying to pretend that they're not at war.

which is why it's taking so long

And where is the point? Since everyone blames Putin for being at war and while on the other hand Putin has really big support inside Russia (yes maybe because there is not any alternative to him or because of propaganda - whatever, but it's a fact), why should he bother pretending they're not at war? Obama already put Russia higher then ISIS and Ebola in his famous list, Russia is under sanctions which resulted in a crisis. If Russia goes into a direct war against UA there maybe will be some steps taken by the west, but I don't think they're going to a nuclear war to protect a random country which most of them have no idea about.Russia could destroy Ukraine but they couldn't complete a conquest.

Again why? Do you think UA would be a bigger challenge for Russia then some EU countries for Hitler's nazi Germany? yes that shall require a lot of afford but it's not impossible at all. There will be partisanship etc, but who's going to say invading a country is an easy quest.

I'd totally go to war for any NATO country.
Just if USA wern't driving these countries to be so aggressive you'd probably never had to go to war for them.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 09:25 AM
Again why? Do you think UA would be a bigger challenge for Russia then some EU countries for Hitler's nazi Germany? yes that shall require a lot of afford but it's not impossible at all. There will be partisanship etc, but who's going to say invading a country is an easy quest.


Because even during WWII, the French army shouldn't have rolled over for the Wehrmacht. Had the UK/France actually not sat around like idiots from Sep 39 - Spring 1940, they could have crushed Germany right then and there had they swiftly invaded from the west. They actually outnumbered the German army in the west during the invasion and consolidation of Poland. The French were too busy fighting the last war to grow a pair and go on the offensive. That isn't the case now. There's also the fact that these countries now have dozens of examples of how low-intensity partisan warfare is able to win a long-term war. Russia right now is also in a much weaker position than Germany was in the late 1930s.


Just if USA wern't driving these countries to be so aggressive you'd probably never had to go to war for them.

How exactly are the Baltic states being aggressive right now? How are we "driving them to it?" Are you even in the same reality as the rest of us? So far all they've done is say "please stuff violating our borders and airspace and kidnapping our citizens to put on trial in show trials".

How is any NATO country being aggressive towards Russia?

If Russia goes into a direct war against UA there maybe will be some steps taken by the west, but I don't think they're going to a nuclear war to protect a random country which most of them have no idea about.

Of course we wouldn't. Why should we? They're not an even an ally. Why should we start WWIII over Ukraine? That makes no sense whatsoever. All that invasion would do is end up destroying what little is left of Russia's economy. They're already on the edge of a collapse thanks to the sanctions and the crash in oil prices (thanks Saudi Arabia!!!). Going to outright open war would cut off the only remaining revenue streams they have as it would be enough to push Europe into finding another place to buy natural gas finally. As of this morning, the ruble is still down 33% from where it was prior to Crimea and its down 506% from where it was before the Great Recession.

What's the end game for Russia if they were to invade Ukraine outright and fold them back into the Russian Empire? What does that gain them from a strength standpoint? It further weakens an already teetering economy. It destroys what little standing they have left in the world for what? Its not as if Ukraine is swimming in massive natural resources and they'd end up with a burnt out husk of a country that has 45 million people in it that mostly either hate Russians in general or are ethnic Russians who really dont want to be back under Moscow's rule even if they like their fellow Russians. Not exactly the basis for any long term prosperity by Russia or Putin.

But hey, it totally "worked" for Germany during WWII so I'm sure this invasion would end well too.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-24-2015, 09:58 AM
How exactly are the Baltic states being aggressive right now? How are we "driving them to it?" Are you even in the same reality as the rest of us? So far all they've done is say "please stuff violating our borders and airspace and kidnapping our citizens to put on trial in show trials".

How is any NATO country being aggressive towards Russia?



Of course we wouldn't. Why should we? They're not an even an ally. Why should we start WWIII over Ukraine? That makes no sense whatsoever. All that invasion would do is end up destroying what little is left of Russia's economy. They're already on the edge of a collapse thanks to the sanctions and the crash in oil prices (thanks Saudi Arabia!!!). Going to outright open war would cut off the only remaining revenue streams they have as it would be enough to push Europe into finding another place to buy natural gas finally. As of this morning, the ruble is still down 33% from where it was prior to Crimea and its down 506% from where it was before the Great Recession.
What's the end game for Russia if they were to invade Ukraine outright and fold them back into the Russian Empire? What does that gain them from a strength standpoint? It further weakens an already teetering economy. It destroys what little standing they have left in the world for what? Its not as if Ukraine is swimming in massive natural resources and they'd end up with a burnt out husk of a country that has 45 million people in it that mostly either hate Russians in general or are ethnic Russians who really dont want to be back under Moscow's rule even if they like their fellow Russians. Not exactly the basis for any long term prosperity by Russia or Putin.

But hey, it totally "worked" for Germany during WWII so I'm sure this invasion would end well too.

this. so much this.

There's no need to attack Russia. All we (=The West) need to do is hold steady and wait for Russia to implode. In the mean while though, it's also a good idea to strengthen our defences in case some lunatic in Kremlin goes all the way apeshit and starts pushing all the red buttons in sight. Which in the long run is also useful for any other non-friendly power in the world... so, you know, keep calm, don't let yourself be provoked but don't fold over either.

GonzoTheGreat
04-24-2015, 10:57 AM
At the moment, Putin is sort of failing to fall for the dastardly plot to get him to 'invest' Russian money in Greece. Annoying, that, since now the EU may have to find some other way of solving that mess.

SomeOneElse
04-24-2015, 12:13 PM
Russia right now is also in a much weaker position than Germany was in the late 1930s.
And UA is also far from being like France the same time. Analyze what UA army did against rebels and remember rebels are far from being like russian army anyway. If UA is so strong that it couldn't be taken by Russia in some weeks why they couldn't end that war in Donbass?


How exactly are the Baltic states being aggressive right now? How are we "driving them to it?"
- they are treating ethnic russians (here by russians i mean nationality) as 3rd citizens
- they regularly allow nazi marches
- and speak very aggressively
- some of their politicians came to UA to support 2014 revolution

And that lasted for decades now.

Any of these cases would push USA to start a war 2 or 3 times. USA, but not Russia.

Also note that Russia did expect these countries not to join NATO, but they did so long time be4 crimea or even 08/08/08. And I think no one is going to argue that USA is a leader of NATO, so here's how you're driving them. Also there's no secret that governments in these countries enjoy full support from the US and EU and there are real doubts they don't consult before taking some actions.

How is any NATO country being aggressive towards Russia?
Have you ever heard of NATO missile defence system project in Poland and Romania which was started also long before any UA crisis. Could you tell why NATO needs that stuff? Yes they talk about Iran, however if you have any clue about geography you could find out it is maybe the dumbest idea to put there anything aimed to protect EU or USA from Iran who doesn't seem to have anything that could reach them which cannot be handled by existing defence system.
Also when Russia requested official guarantees that this project isn't aimed against it, NATO faled to provide any. I mean they didn't even bother to sign some shitty paper about it expecting Russia to believe what they say. It might work but not after they said NATO won't move any east after USSR crush and started doing that right after.

In mid.90s russian government was actually pro-american, as well as most people. Many leftists blamed Yeltsin and accused him of being pro-american. It started to change when more and more countries that were in Warsaw Pact started to join NATO. Yugoslavia crisis when NATO in fact started a war against this country also played a role in that process. But even when Putin came he had many things to do and russian government still wasn't much anti-western that time even despite the fact EU and USA announced support for Chechnya.
But EU and USA continued doing what they were doing and that resulted in 8/8/8 crisis and, finally, in UA crisis.

Of course we wouldn't. Why should we? They're not an even an ally. Why should we start WWIII over Ukraine?Who knows. I think I'm the one to ask that question. Maybe the reason is the same why you started that bullshit orange revolution in 2004 and something called revolution of dignity 10 years after.

That makes no sense whatsoever.I 100% agree. But America is the one who talks about it all day, saying Russia is worse then ISIS and Ebola.

All that invasion would do is end up destroying what little is left of Russia's economy. They're already on the edge of a collapse thanks to the sanctions and the crash in oil prices (thanks Saudi Arabia!!!).
Then Russia has nothing to lose right now hasn't it? WWIII could be the solution for its problems.
Just kidding...

it would be enough to push Europe into finding another place to buy natural gas finally.Finding where? Europe already shown they dislike Russia and if they had a chance to forget about its gas forever they'd be more then happy.

What's the end game for Russia if they were to invade Ukraine outright and fold them back into the Russian Empire? What does that gain them from a strength standpoint?Nothing. But again the west is talking about it not Russia.

Isabel
04-24-2015, 02:29 PM
..... waits for YKS her reaction to above post :D :rolleyes:

yks 6nnetu hing
04-24-2015, 02:33 PM
Oh excuse me for expecting a person that lives in a country to speak the language as a prerequisite for citizenship . Because no other country ever does that. Including Russia.

Also, Russia says that everything anti - communist = nazi. So basically if you say the Gulag was horrible, you're a nazi sympathiser, you get the idea. The sad thing is, in the Western world, even the insinuation is enough for conviction.

FYI, in the Baltics the nazi symbolism is criminally punishable, as is communist symbolism. Those parades that Russia gets into a wad about? Guerilla freedom fighters, mostly. I don't know about Latvia or Lithuania, but in Estonia there was one incident in 2005 (?) where people actually brandished the swastika, except it was a huge scandal and some of those people were prosecuted. Now, honesty compels me to say that in the recent elections a (for Estonia, I guess in US terms they'd be moderate republicans) far right party did get a few seats on the back of their homophobic campaign, and what they're spewing is disgusting on SO many levels. In any case they're firmly in the opposition together with the pro Russia party.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 02:40 PM
And UA is also far from being like France the same time. Analyze what UA army did against rebels and remember rebels are far from being like russian army anyway. If UA is so strong that it couldn't be taken by Russia in some weeks why they couldn't end that war in Donbass?


Because insurgencies are really hard to fight...and that's the very same issue that the Russians would run into if they broadened their invasion. It also doesn't help that that same insurgency is basically bought and paid for (if not completely created by the Russian gov't that is supplying it and giving it troops (on vacation of course).

- they are treating ethnic russians (here by russians i mean nationality) as 3rd citizens
- they regularly allow nazi marches
- and speak very aggressively
- some of their politicians came to UA to support 2014 revolution


So...allowing free speech is now "being aggressive"? We allow neo nazi marches here in the US too...are we being too aggressive?

Also, outside of Russian propaganda, provide some real proof that ethnic Russians in those countries are being mistreated.

Also note that Russia did expect these countries not to join NATO, but they did so long time be4 crimea or even 08/08/08. And I think no one is going to argue that USA is a leader of NATO, so here's how you're driving them. Also there's no secret that governments in these countries enjoy full support from the US and EU and there are real doubts they don't consult before taking some actions

We're "driving" them by being part of a multi-national defensive alliance that allowed them to join when they asked? Um, okay. Guess you dont get the "defensive" nature of NATO.

Yugoslavia crisis when NATO in fact started a war against this country also played a role in that process.

We intervened (we being all of NATO) to stop an ongoing mass genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Serbs against Bosniac Muslims. We sure as hell didn't start a war in Bosnia or the former Yugoslavia.

But EU and USA continued doing what they were doing and that resulted in 8/8/8 crisis and, finally, in UA crisis.


By "continued doing what they were doing" you mean our countries stating that Russia shouldn't exterminate people that wanted independence? Poor Russia was forced into this situation clearly.

Who knows. I think I'm the one to ask that question. Maybe the reason is the same why you started that bullshit orange revolution in 2004 and something called revolution of dignity 10 years after.

The US had nothing at all to do with the Orange Revolution. It started internally within Ukraine after massive election fraud...considering Russia tried to poison Yushchenko to prevent him from winning, I dont really see how the US had anything to do with that unrest.

Finding where? Europe already shown they dislike Russia and if they had a chance to forget about its gas forever they'd be more then happy.

Bite the bullet and start buying massive quantities of LNG from other sources...namely Canada and the US. Far harder than piping it over from Russia but it is probably easier than giving Russia control over their energy supplies.

Another option would be to accelerate green energy sources like the North Sea wind farms.

Nothing. But again the west is talking about it not Russia.

Yes, the West is the one who illegally annexed Crimea and is trying to do the same with eastern Ukraine and has been threatening to "intervene" in other former USSR countries to "protect ethnic Russians"

All the evil West.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 02:46 PM
Oh excuse me for expecting a person that lives in a country to speak the language as a prerequisite for citizenship . Because no other country ever does that. Including Russia.

Also, Russia says that everything anti - communist = nazi. So basically if you say the Gulag was horrible, you're a nazi sympathiser, you get the idea. The sad thing is, in the Western world, even the insinuation is enough for conviction.

FYI, in the Baltics the nazi symbolism is criminally punishable, as is communist symbolism. Those parades that Russia gets into a wad about? Guerilla freedom fighters, mostly. I don't know about Latvia or Lithuania, but in Estonia there was one incident in 2005 (?) where people actually brandished the swastika, except it was a huge scandal and some of those people were prosecuted. Now, honesty compels me to say that in the recent elections a (for Estonia, I guess in US terms they'd be moderate republicans) far right party did get a few seats on the back of their homophobic campaign, and what they're spewing is disgusting on SO many levels. In any case they're firmly in the opposition together with the pro Russia party.

Exactly what she said. You are so full of shit, that it's ridiculous.

Nazbaque
04-24-2015, 03:14 PM
Exactly what she said. You are so full of shit, that it's ridiculous.

Of course he is full of shit. He keeps using "then" in place of "than". You can't expect people like that to get facts right.

Khoram
04-24-2015, 03:19 PM
Of course he is full of shit. He keeps using "then" in place of "than". You can't expect people like that to get facts right.

Can you really expect anything of people over the internet, though?

Nazbaque
04-24-2015, 03:48 PM
Can you really expect anything of people over the internet, though?

You should not judge a person by the medium of contact.

Khoram
04-24-2015, 03:58 PM
You should not judge a person by the medium of contact.

It isn't a question of judging, but of expectations. I would expect people who have access to the world's information at their fingertips to be able to present well thought out answers or opinions. Or at the very least to show some modicum of respect.

Then I remember that nobody can be perfect like me, and sit here behind this screen, wondering what it's like to experience failure and imperfection. :D

:p

SomeOneElse
04-24-2015, 04:39 PM
So...allowing free speech is now "being aggressive"? We allow neo nazi marches here in the US too...are we being too aggressive?Yes, because of Nuremberg.

We're "driving" them by being part of a multi-national defensive alliance that allowed them to join when they asked? Um, okay. Guess you dont get the "defensive" nature of NATO.And, for sure, that alliance of light and kindness was attacked by Yugoslavia and some other countries where NATO's operations took place.

We intervened (we being all of NATO) to stop an ongoing mass genocide and ethnic cleansing by the Serbs against Bosniac Muslims. We sure as hell didn't start a war in Bosnia or the former Yugoslavia. So was Yugoslavia attacking NATO? If not.
NATO is very "defensive" indeed.

In fact, NATO was created when USSR and Warsaw pact were around and was made purely against them. The best option would be to forget about just after Warsaw pact was unformed.

By "continued doing what they were doing" you mean our countries stating that Russia shouldn't exterminate people that wanted independence?
Who, in particular? Chechnya? Well if Russia didn't, like you said, "exterminate" them, now there would be just another place full of terrorists and other scum, just something like nowadays in Syria or Libya or Iraq.


The US had nothing at all to do with the Orange Revolution.
Oh really? and the fact that the revolution brought a pro-american government is just a little coincidence?

It started internally within Ukraine after massive election fraud...The question isn't where it started, the question is who was actively supporting it (including political and financial support).

considering Russia tried to poison Yushchenko to prevent him from winning, I dont really see how the US had anything to do with that unrest.What a big lol.


Yes, the West is the one who illegally annexed CrimeaThe fact Russia annexed Crimea is inarguable at all, but we must not view it alone. Everything has a reason.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 05:11 PM
So you think the Serbs were doing God's work in Yugoslavia then?


What's the point of even debating anything if you're that fucking ignorant.

Kimon
04-24-2015, 05:21 PM
So you think the Serbs were doing God's work in Yugoslavia then?


What's the point of even debating anything if you're that fucking ignorant.

I'm half wondering if he (she?) isn't perhaps a Serb or a Russian. Or just a troll. Certainly the sobriquet is pretty ridiculous.

Davian93
04-24-2015, 05:24 PM
I'm half wondering if he (she?) isn't perhaps a Serb or a Russian. Or just a troll. Certainly the sobriquet is pretty ridiculous.

I'm gonna go with troll.

Rand al'Fain
04-24-2015, 11:24 PM
I'm gonna go with troll.

Not so sure. On another forum I frequent, there's a person from Macedonia and one from Serbia (I believe, also profile system shows what country each member is from, or at least currently in) that says much of the same rhetoric.

I was even called "Nazi" by this person, and that's a first time anyone on any forum or in real life has ever done that. And those that know me, know I am FAR from such.

GonzoTheGreat
04-25-2015, 04:36 AM
Now, honesty compels me to say that in the recent elections a (for Estonia, I guess in US terms they'd be moderate republicans) far right party did get a few seats on the back of their homophobic campaign, and what they're spewing is disgusting on SO many levels. In any case they're firmly in the opposition together with the pro Russia party.
I trust that the pro-Russian party is firmly in favour of gay rights (including gay marriage) and strongly opposed to any kind of homophobia, isn't it?

SomeOneElse
04-25-2015, 05:56 AM
So you think the Serbs were doing God's work in Yugoslavia then?


What's the point of even debating anything if you're that fucking ignorant.
I never ment to push you or any one into Serbs vs Bosniaks debate. To be honest, I don't really care about them, they used to kill each other and probably shall continue doing it the same way.

My question is if NATO was a purely "defensive" organization, why did they attack Yugoslavia? Was any NATO country being attacked by Yugoslavia? No, not really.

By attacking Yugoslavia and some other countries NATO just declares their right to enter any country if they think there's something wrong about it. And now you'd probably better understand Russia's concerns regarding NATO accepting many countries that were previously in USSR or Warsaw pact.

Kimon
04-25-2015, 09:51 AM
I never ment to push you or any one into Serbs vs Bosniaks debate. To be honest, I don't really care about them, they used to kill each other and probably shall continue doing it the same way.

My question is if NATO was a purely "defensive" organization, why did they attack Yugoslavia? Was any NATO country being attacked by Yugoslavia? No, not really.

By attacking Yugoslavia and some other countries NATO just declares their right to enter any country if they think there's something wrong about it. And now you'd probably better understand Russia's concerns regarding NATO accepting many countries that were previously in USSR or Warsaw pact.

Is there some reason you keep calling it Yugoslavia instead of Serbia? Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, no matter how much Milosevic tried to hold it together. He, and the Serbs, fought against Slovenia, and lost. He fought against Croatia, and lost. NATO stayed out of these earlier actions, viewing them as internecine, and not particularly any of our concern. Then Milosevic and the Serbs began conducting their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. That insanity began in Bosnia in '92, and NATO didn't begin to be involved until '94 when finally we had become so sickened by what Milosevic was doing that the decision was made that something had to be done.

The way you keep referring to this as Yugoslavia is weird. So to is your reference to Ukraine as UA. Context made clear to what you were referring, but I can't imagine any American (troll or otherwise) ever using nor likely being aware of that abbreviation for Ukraine. It's just odd, and implies a closer connectivity to the situation than any American is likely to have. Then there is your reference to the Orange Revolution, and your silly assertion that this was somehow an American plot. The use of the phrase, Orange Revolution, again is odd enough, without context I doubt any of us would even immediately know what you were talking about, and wonder if you were just having a shoddy memory and using the wrong term for the Arab Spring or something. Then there is your reference to 8/8/8. I'll be blunt, I'm pretty well informed, at least for an American, of foreign affairs, and I don't having a clue what you're talking about, nor would this date have any significance for any American. It must be something about Ukraine or Russia, but it certainly isn't something natural for any of us to refer to. The other bits, your English isn't awful, but it's worse than if it was just indicating an uneducated American. It definitely gives the feel of non-native.

You might not be a Serb or a Russian. You might not be a troll. But it's hard to think of any other reason than those three why you would defend what the Serbs did, or what the Russians are doing, or be so hostile to NATO.

Davian93
04-25-2015, 09:56 AM
8/8/8 refers to the Russian invasion of South Ossetia on behalf of the separatists there. I'd imagine hes of the opinion that that conflict was started by Georgia and not Russia despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

I knew what the Orange Revolution was but I doubt 95% of Americans did or do the same with South Ossetia or Georgia, etc.

He's blatantly pro-Russian in his viewpoint which is why he sees the hand of the U.S. in everything because that's what the state-run Russian news agencies are saying and have been saying for years now to justify Putins dictatorship.

Davian93
04-25-2015, 10:11 AM
NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia for a lot of reasons and none of them were aggressive in nature. For one, we only intervened after the Serbs went into full ethnic cleansing mode with the outright murder of Bosniac Muslims. Also, they didn't want yet another wider war starting in the Balkans given Europes long history there. We also had UN approval for the action. The UN actually formally requested that NATO stop the bloodshed there. It was only after the Markale marketplace massacre that we went in and it was at the UNs direct request.

BTW, when I was a peacekeeper there after the intervention campaign, we had Russian troops there too so clearly your own govt at the time approved of the intervention too. We also had plenty of non-NATO troops from traditionally neutral powers to include Sweden, Ireland, and even Austrian troops among others. It was hardly a NATO only force.

Yes, I was there. It was my first overseas deployment actually. We had a good mix of both UN blue helmets and NATO led forces as well as Partners for Peace nations there. All to stop genocide.

And it worked. Bosnia is a much better place 20 years later.

Kimon
04-25-2015, 10:18 AM
8/8/8 refers to the Russian invasion of South Ossetia on behalf of the separatists there. I'd imagine hes of the opinion that that conflict was started by Georgia and not Russia despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.

I knew what the Orange Revolution was but I doubt 95% of Americans did or do the same with South Ossetia or Georgia, etc.

He's blatantly pro-Russian in his viewpoint which is why he sees the hand of the U.S. in everything because that's what the state-run Russian news agencies are saying and have been saying for years now to justify Putins dictatorship.

Another oddity with that date strikes me. Would you write it that way? My inclination would be to write it as 8/8/08. Leaving out the zero on the year would strike me as atypical for an American. If he is Russian or Serb, he'd presumably also reverse the order to day/month/year, which unfortunately doesn't hold any significance when all the numbers align. Regardless, that date holds no special significance for me. Did you really remember it off the top of your head, or just extrapolate from context? If referring to Georgia, I'd naturally refer to it that way, not to Ossetia (which strikes me as very Russian, as only the Russians recognize Ossetia), and certainly not by some very obscure date.

I feel essentially the same way about the phrase Orange Revolution. Hearing it I knew what he was referring to, but only through context. It isn't a phrase that mattered or held my interest enough to create enough familiarity that I would have ever thought to use it spur of the moment. Can't imagine the same being anything but true for most Americans, most of whom wouldn't have recognized it at all. All of it, as well as that abbreviation UA, just all feel very unusual usages.

Addendum: Apparently a few other nations also recognize South Ossetia - Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Nauru. Which reads like the same sort of collection of schmucks that we assemble in the UN to try to justify the evil crap that Israel pulls. Venezuela and Nicaragua certainly are far from credible regimes, and I've never heard of Nauru, but it has the sound of one of those tiny island nations, like the Solomons and Maldives, and other tiny island states that we pay off to vote on bs occasionally with us in the UN. But no Serbia. Odd that...

Davian93
04-25-2015, 11:05 AM
I had to google the 8/8/8 thing. Honestly never heard it referred to as that before. I was and am familiar with the conflict but that usage seems to be strictly used by pro-Russian websites and "news" sites.

Clearly he's Russian given those usages and his viewpoint.

SomeOneElse
04-25-2015, 11:18 AM
Is there some reason you keep calling it Yugoslavia instead of Serbia?Just because that time it was called Yugoslavia when events we're talking about took place (in fact that name existed until 2003, though there wasn't much left of actual country).


Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, no matter how much Milosevic tried to hold it together. He, and the Serbs, fought against Slovenia, and lost. He fought against Croatia, and lost. NATO stayed out of these earlier actions, viewing them as internecine, and not particularly any of our concern. Then Milosevic and the Serbs began conducting their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. That insanity began in Bosnia in '92, and NATO didn't begin to be involved until '94 when finally we had become so sickened by what Milosevic was doing that the decision was made that something had to be done.
Thanks for your history lesson, but it doesn't answer my question at all.

The way you keep referring to this as Yugoslavia is weird.
Wow (C). Calling a country by its name is really a weird.
Oh now I see that usage of "wow" isn't also obvious. It was the phrase Hillary Clinton used after hearing about Muammar Kaddafi's death.

That's just not to make you run into an investigation like with 8/8/8 and other stuff.

So to is your reference to Ukraine as UA.This is a standard international abbreviation for Ukraine. There's really nothing behind it, except being to lazy to type the word "Ukraine".

I can't imagine any American (troll or otherwise) ever using nor likely being aware of that abbreviation for Ukraine.
Again it is commonly known, but I never pretended to be an american. I am russian and that's really not a big secret, I thought that is intuitively obvious,

It's just odd, and implies a closer connectivity to the situation than any American is likely to have. Then there is your reference to the Orange Revolution, and your silly assertion that this was somehow an American plot. The use of the phrase, Orange Revolution, again is odd enough, without context I doubt any of us would even immediately know what you were talking about, and wonder if you were just having a shoddy memory and using the wrong term for the Arab Spring or something. Then there is your reference to 8/8/8. I'll be blunt, I'm pretty well informed, at least for an American, of foreign affairs, and I don't having a clue what you're talking about, nor would this date have any significance for any American. It must be something about Ukraine or Russia, but it certainly isn't something natural for any of us to refer to. The other bits, your English isn't awful, but it's worse than if it was just indicating an uneducated American. It definitely gives the feel of non-native.
What a brilliant investigation. I really enjoyed reading that part.
As for 8/8/8 read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
I am really sorry if that was confusing for someone.

it's hard to think of any other reason than those three why you would defend what the Serbs did
But where? I blamed NATO for attacking Serbia and said I don't really care about the Serbs/bosniaks.

or what the Russians are doing
If you review my posts you could probably see that I wasn't really defending what Russia is doing (even the fact I mention annexation of Crimea alone indicates that because russian propaganda doesn't admit that fact nor do any of Putin followers).

All I say here is that What Russia was and is doing now is just a result of NATO's (USA in particular) steps against Russia.

or be so hostile to NATO.
Only because NATO is "hostile" against Russia (it was created solely for that purpose).

8/8/8 refers to the Russian invasion of South Ossetia on behalf of the separatists there. I'd imagine hes of the opinion that that conflict was started by Georgia and not Russia despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. No, not really. It probably would be better to ask me about my opinion.

I knew what the Orange Revolution was but I doubt 95% of Americans did or do the same with South Ossetia or Georgia, etc.And that is the main problem with you. You are talking about things you have no clue about, just something you've heard here and there, mainly plain propaganda.
He's blatantly pro-Russian in his viewpoint which is why he sees the hand of the U.S. in everything because that's what the state-run Russian news agencies are saying and have been saying for years now to justify Putins dictatorship.
how does USA being involved in virtually any "revolution" help our media justify Putins dictatorship or whatever. And each revolution bringing a government which is loyal to the US is just a little coincidence. Why there is no arab spring in KSA, Qatar, UAE and many other countries. And in Bahrain it was shut a brutal way and to be honest I don't see much complaints about it from the US or Europe.
And don't tell me the term "arab spring" is Putin's propaganda since I've heard arabs using it.

Kimon
04-25-2015, 12:44 PM
Just because that time it was called Yugoslavia when events we're talking about took place (in fact that name existed until 2003, though there wasn't much left of actual country).



At the time of NATO's intervention Yugoslavia was just the rogue states of Serbia and Montenegro. The Serbs and Russians might have still been calling it Yugoslavia, but we were all calling it Serbia, and had been doing so since the disintegration of Yugoslavia back into its constituent parts - namely Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Serbia. Hence to refer to it as Yugoslavia still would have been odd for anyone other than a Serb or their one ally, the Russians.

Thanks for your history lesson, but it doesn't answer my question at all.

Do you mean this question?

So was Yugoslavia attacking NATO? If not.
NATO is very "defensive" indeed.

It's possible that you were referring to some other asinine query, but regardless, the purpose was clear, to defend the people that were being massacred by the Serbs.

Wow (C). Calling a country by its name is really a weird.
Oh now I see that usage of "wow" isn't also obvious. It was the phrase Hillary Clinton used after hearing about Muammar Kaddafi's death.

That's just not to make you run into an investigation like with 8/8/8 and other stuff.

Would it be weird if we referred to Russia instead as the Soviet Union? That name too no longer applies, but once did. As for the 8/8/8 thing, it is clearly a date that carries significance for Russians and Georgians, but certainly not for us. Using such a vague term might make sense if you were talking with other Russians, but you're not.

This is a standard international abbreviation for Ukraine. There's really nothing behind it, except being to lazy to type the word "Ukraine".

Perhaps this abbreviation is common used and seen in Russia and Ukraine, especially if it is say the internet marker code, but it is not one that was ever apt to have been seen before by any American. Not sure how that could be difficult to realize.

Again it is commonly known, but I never pretended to be an american. I am russian and that's really not a big secret, I thought that is intuitively obvious,

How? Why would we assume that anyone on this board would be Russian but for your very pro-Russian responses in this thread? As for secrecy, you certainly need feel no obligation to clearly indicate your location, but if you will notice, many of us, not just the Americans, do clearly indicate where we are.

But where? I blamed NATO for attacking Serbia and said I don't really care about the Serbs/bosniaks.

So NATO should have just continued to look the other way? We have done so before in places around the world, but this was in Europe, making it much harder to ignore. There are not always a right and a wrong side in a war, abut sometimes there quite clearly are. This particular war was one of those few (like WWII) where there was. We (well most of us) will freely admit that we Americans have been involved in some really shady wars recently, like Iraq, but Russia's actions in Chechnya have been quite clearly of that shady variety, and Putin's actions in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine have been blatantly imperialistic.

Look, please feel free to continue posting here. I sincerely doubt any of us are as hostile to Russia as you seem to think we are, we just think that your leader is a imperialistic thug with dodgy ethics. Which frankly is similar to what we thought about our last president, and especially the schmuck that was his VP, Cheney. It's also the way we (or at least some of us) think about certain allies, like Netanyahu. And, as you may have noticed, most of us feel strongly that none of this is worth going to war over.

SomeOneElse
04-25-2015, 02:10 PM
At the time of NATO's intervention Yugoslavia was just the rogue states of Serbia and Montenegro. The Serbs and Russians might have still been calling it Yugoslavia, but we were all calling it Serbia, and had been doing so since the disintegration of Yugoslavia back into its constituent parts - namely Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Serbia. Hence to refer to it as Yugoslavia still would have been odd for anyone other than a Serb or their one ally, the Russians.That was the official country name, nothing else.

Would it be weird if we referred to Russia instead as the Soviet Union? That name too no longer applies, but once did.If you'd call Putin's/Yeltsin's Russia that way it would be weird indeed. As weird as calling current Serbia with the name Yugoslavia.

As for the 8/8/8 thing, it is clearly a date that carries significance for Russians and Georgians, but certainly not for us. Using such a vague term might make sense if you were talking with other Russians, but you're not.Then sorry again.
The term 8/8/8 is just the most neutral, more then any other one like russo-georgian war that is used in most western countries or Georgian attack against South Ossetia that is used by russian propaganda. That's why I used it.

we Americans have been involved in some really shady wars recently, like Iraq, but Russia's actions in Chechnya have been quite clearly of that shady variety
Not even a chance. Iraq was never a part of your country, and, moreover, it wasn't any real threat. Saddam's involvement in 09/11 (I hope there's no need to explain that date) was more than questionable, as well as his ability to produce biological weapons and using them against USA.
And, at the same time, Chechnya was part of Russia, like it or not. Plus, if you want, you can find out about what these "freedom fighters" did against civilians in Russia (not soldiers or governors). I can help you here if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budyonnovsk_hospital_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Dagestan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

These are only very few things that I could remember and find a wikipedia page in about 2-3 minutes. So could you come up with the same list for Saddam's crimes against USA citizens? Or anything comparable. Do you think these reasons aren't enough? Also Chechnya was nearly independent between two wars, and that time it became a base of terrorists and other scum, who finally crossed the border with Dagestan in 1999. Only after that the second war on Chechnya took place.
There's no need to even mention great american support for Saddam that has been given during his war against khomeinist Iran, although even that time it was obvious he's sun of a bitch and nothing more.

and Putin's actions in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine have been blatantly imperialistic.
These are exactly my thoughts about Putin's actions in these regions.

I sincerely doubt any of us are as hostile to Russia as you seem to think we are, we just think that your leader is a imperialistic thug with dodgy ethics. Which frankly is similar to what we thought about our last president, and especially the schmuck that was his VP, Cheney. It's also the way we (or at least some of us) think about certain allies, like Netanyahu. And, as you may have noticed, most of us feel strongly that none of this is worth going to war over.
Okay, glad to hear. Most of us have similar views on Obama's and Putin's policy.

Kimon
04-25-2015, 02:46 PM
Not even a chance. Iraq was never a part of your country, and, moreover, it wasn't any real threat. Saddam's involvement in 09/11 (I hope there's no need to explain that date) was more than questionable, as well as his ability to produce biological weapons and using them against USA.
And, at the same time, Chechnya was part of Russia, like it or not. Plus, if you want, you can find out about what these "freedom fighters" did against civilians in Russia (not soldiers or governors). I can help you here if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budyonnovsk_hospital_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Dagestan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

These are only very few things that I could remember and find a wikipedia page in about 2-3 minutes. So could you come up with the same list for Saddam's crimes against USA citizens? Or anything comparable. Do you think these reasons aren't enough? Also Chechnya was nearly independent between two wars, and that time it became a base of terrorists and other scum, who finally crossed the border with Dagestan in 1999. Only after that the second war on Chechnya took place.
There's no need to even mention great american support for Saddam that has been given during his war against khomeinist Iran, although even that time it was obvious he's sun of a bitch and nothing more.


Did you miss me saying that Iraq was, if not clearly unjustified, at least had a very questionable casus belli? That is what I meant by shady.

As for Chechnya and how Russian it is, how justified their struggle is, and Russia's struggle against it, the only difference between their attempt at independence and that of the other break-away provinces (like Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, etc.) is their comparable lack of success. They, however, like those other non-Russian parts of the Soviet Union, sought independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If they didn't have that right, that would seem to imply that the others did not as well. Yeltsin argued that they were different, not so much for any ethnic, historic, or logical reasons, as merely the fact that they were weak enough, and economically useful enough (due to their role in the energy infrastructure/industry) to insist upon war rather than allow secession. Hence the First Chechen War as a response to their declaration of independence in '91. Chechnya won that war, and was independent still at the time of the onset of the Second Chechen War in '99. The Chechens have committed questionable acts also, but guerrilla tactics often are, unfortunately, inevitable when two sides of vastly differing strength fight. We know this quite well ourselves. It is, unsurprisingly often a matter of point of view. One nation's freedom fighters are another nation's terrorists/rebels. Saying that they did not have a right to resist Russian aggression is however myopic. Their tactics do however leave this in a somewhat grey area, hence my designation of shady. Compare this say to our actions in Afghanistan. We were attacked there by terrorists, but for far less justifiable reasons (Israel and a mix of simple hatred of the West) than the Chechens, whose desired and justifiable independence from Russia is being disputed militarily against a foe with whom they have little chance of success if using conventional and legal means. Crimea is perhaps in this same category, considering the large presence of Russians who clearly prefer to be Russian rather than Ukrainian citizens. The situations in Georgia and Eastern Ukraine seem however more transparently simple imperialism on the part of Russia, hence the western sanctions as a result of Putin's actions in Ukraine.

Okay, glad to hear. Most of us have similar views on Obama's and Putin's policy.

Let's be clear. I do not think that this is worth starting WWIII to stop Putin, but this most definitely is worthy of imposing sanctions on Russia. I don't disagree with how Obama is handling the conflict.

SomeOneElse
04-25-2015, 04:33 PM
Did you miss me saying that Iraq was, if not clearly unjustified, at least had a very questionable casus belli? That is what I meant by shady.I don't think the situations with Iraq and Chechnya are anyhow comparable, but let's just go with it.

As for Chechnya and how Russian it is, how justified their struggle is, and Russia's struggle against it, the only difference between their attempt at independence and that of the other break-away provinces (like Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, etc.) is their comparable lack of success. They, however, like those other non-Russian parts of the Soviet Union, sought independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
There were 15 soviet republics, all of them finally got independence. Chechnya isn't in this 15-republics list.
So yes, in fact, Chechens' bad luck was one of reasons behind them staying with us, but there was another one above. Basically there should be some point where splitting of Russia should be stopped. So we allowed republics that were forming USSR to go, but not ones that formed Russian Federation. In other words, what was applied to USSR was not to Russian Federation.

This conflict is not the only one in post-soviet countries, some other examples are Transnistria, Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and so on. And none of post-soviet republics allowed any of them to go.

[quote]Hence the First Chechen War as a response to their declaration of independence in '91. Chechnya won that war, and was independent still at the time of the onset of the Second Chechen War in '99.
And that time they really failed to build anything out of their independency. I know you're maybe going to tell me that evil Russia did everything to take them down, but apparently we're not the one who brought there terrorists from arab countries and promoted radical sunni Islam.
So, if Russia had not taken Chechnya back, without a doubt there would be a place like the one currently occupied by ISIS. That would create danger for Europe, bigger then ISIS.
Most if not all current separatists are very close to ISIS or Alqaeda nowadays, it is very clear by examining their websites and their propaganda where they keep calling parts of Syria/Iraq hold by ISIS the land of Touhid and saying they wanna do the same thing in Chechnya and wherever else.
Also the second war was started after Dagestan has been attacked.

And USA and you in particular continue bashing anyone who really opposed sunni radicalism, just like Iran, Hezbollah and recently houthis in Yamen.

My opinion however is that finally Chechnya will be independent, just some time later.

The Chechens have committed questionable acts also, but guerrilla tactics often are, unfortunately, inevitable when two sides of vastly differing strength fight. We know this quite well ourselves. It is, unsurprisingly often a matter of point of view. One nation's freedom fighters are another nation's terrorists/rebels.There's one thing that split terrorists from real freedom fighters, and that is targeting civilians. Most of acts I provided links to were targeting civilians without a question.

Their tactics do however leave this in a somewhat grey area, hence my designation of shady.May I know what their tactics should be for you to put them in "black" area?

this most definitely is worthy of imposing sanctions on Russia. I don't disagree with how Obama is handling the conflict.

What results do you expect from these sanctions? Do you know of any country changing their policy because of sanctions?
And as for potential revolution against Putin some western politicians probably think about. I can tell you I knew many people who in near past called for open struggle against Putin (incl.armed coup) who now stopped doing that solely because they think Russia is being attacked from outside and it would be some sort of trait to do revolution in this case. So, believe it or not, but anctions actually increased Putin's popularity.

Kimon
04-25-2015, 05:37 PM
There were 15 soviet republics, all of them finally got independence. Chechnya isn't in this 15-republics list.
So yes, in fact, Chechens' bad luck was one of reasons behind them staying with us, but there was another one above. Basically there should be some point where splitting of Russia should be stopped. So we allowed republics that were forming USSR to go, but not ones that formed Russian Federation. In other words, what was applied to USSR was not to Russian Federation.



Let's put this in very simple terms. If a free and fair referendum was held in Chechnya on independence or continued inclusion within Russia, would they still part of Russia after the vote? Do you deny that the majority in Chechnya seem to prefer to go their own way? At some point a consideration must be made if it is worthwhile to keep a spear-won province within your empire when they continue to demonstrate a willingness to fight to try to leave, especially considering just how long (essentially since the mid 19th Century when they were first conquered by Russia) they have been fighting against inclusion. Is it really worth the headache?

There's one thing that split terrorists from real freedom fighters, and that is targeting civilians. Most of acts I provided links to were targeting civilians without a question.

Are the Palestinians terrorists or freedom fighters? Or both? Hamas and Hezbollah, even Fatah in the past, have targeted civilians. Yet at the same time they are fighting against invaders that have occupied and stolen their land, an enemy that has access to far better weapons and equipment than do they. One could not with honesty and impartiality claim that they do not have just cause for their struggle. This sounding familiar?

What results do you expect from these sanctions? Do you know of any country changing their policy because of sanctions?
And as for potential revolution against Putin some western politicians probably think about. I can tell you I knew many people who in near past called for open struggle against Putin (incl.armed coup) who now stopped doing that solely because they think Russia is being attacked from outside and it would be some sort of trait to do revolution in this case. So, believe it or not, but anctions actually increased Putin's popularity.

I would say that there is a very simple design here. Try to make Putin and Russia feel an economic cost for this aggression. Make him judge if that cost is really worthwhile. Make clear to him that as hesitant as we in the West all are to become involved, that while we have no desire to respond militarily, that there must still be a price for violating the borders of your neighbors. For us doing this was a rather easy decision. We have almost no economic interests tied to Russia, so these sanctions are a very easy gesture for us. The fact that Europe, and Germany in particular, was willing to levy them also however should make abundantly clear to the Russians just how criminal we all consider Putin's actions to have been. Still, none of us want to have to do more. The hope seems obvious. To make clear to Putin that he has gone too far. To hope that he will recognize this and not go further. And let's be blunt. Had these sanctions not been levied, can any really say with certainty that Putin would not have pressed on to Kiev? Averting that was almost certainly the main goal of the sanctions.

SomeOneElse
04-26-2015, 06:43 AM
Let's put this in very simple terms. If a free and fair referendum was held in Chechnya on independence or continued inclusion within Russia, would they still part of Russia after the vote? Do you deny that the majority in Chechnya seem to prefer to go their own way? At some point
First of all, I do believe that any significantly big nationality (or just any nationality) wants to be independent and thus chechens ain't anyhow different.
But, in one hand, if we allowed Chechnya, that process, most probably, would continue and every republic and some other regions would request independence and Russia would soon stop existing or become much smaller. Of course that was what Madeleine Albright hoping for, but not anyone of russian Illit.
In fact, some people having their own state is a matter of them being able to win a war for it. And for now chechens lost that war and that's the main reason for them to stay with us. It probably has nothing to do with justice, but that's how history works.

And, as we've both stated, chechens in fact, had their days of independence and that time they almost became a wahhabi state. And, like any other revolutionaries, they tend to try and export their ideology to surrounding areas, e.g. Dagestan, which was and still is part of Russia. So if we admit independence we shall probably speak about their aggression against Russia in 1999.
Back to the current situation, any non-wahhabi/salafi opposition in Chechnya doesn't exist nowadays. So if Russia runs an honest referendum like you suggest and withdraws from Chechnya after that, it shall turn into this wahhabi state just again since Kadyrov has no real popularity and without russian support he will be toppled or try to join the party, but I don't think there's a chance islamists are about to have any deal with him. So I don't see any practical reason to call for that referendum now or in 90s, just in case you don't want a state which shall be in ligue with ISIS and alqaeda. Wahhabi propaganda talks about how good are both ISIS and Alqaeda.

Are the Palestinians terrorists or freedom fighters? Or both? Hamas...
Yes, Hamas are. But Israelis, considering what they're doing to Gaza, are as well. So this is terrorist vs terrorist war, one side is just stronger.
And Israel in fact has been brought up by foreigners who had no right for that land since they were gathered all over the world. And claims they were there thousand years ago are just ridiculous. But since they were able to win several wars they gain their right to exist, no matter how arabs and others including me dislike that fact.

I would say that there is a very simple design here. Try to make Putin and Russia feel an economic cost for this aggression. Make him judge if that cost is really worthwhile. Make clear to him that as hesitant as we in the West all are to become involved, that while we have no desire to respond militarily, that there must still be a price for violating the borders of your neighbors. For us doing this was a rather easy decision. We have almost no economic interests tied to Russia, so these sanctions are a very easy gesture for us. The fact that Europe, and Germany in particular, was willing to levy them also however should make abundantly clear to the Russians just how criminal we all consider Putin's actions to have been. Still, none of us want to have to do more. The hope seems obvious. To make clear to Putin that he has gone too far. To hope that he will recognize this and not go further. And let's be blunt. Had these sanctions not been levied, can any really say with certainty that Putin would not have pressed on to Kiev? Averting that was almost certainly the main goal of the sanctions.[/quote]
Putin doesn't really care about sanctions, the only ones who really care are we (russian people), but Putin probably doesn't give a fuck about prices increased by 50-150%. The propaganda says all day that russians survived WW2 and other things (mainly connected with Stalin) thus sanctions are nothing. This is not true, but many people really think that way.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 11:12 AM
First of all, I do believe that any significantly big nationality (or just any nationality) wants to be independent and thus chechens ain't anyhow different.
But, in one hand, if we allowed Chechnya, that process, most probably, would continue and every republic and some other regions would request independence and Russia would soon stop existing or become much smaller. Of course that was what Madeleine Albright hoping for, but not anyone of russian Illit.
In fact, some people having their own state is a matter of them being able to win a war for it. And for now chechens lost that war and that's the main reason for them to stay with us. It probably has nothing to do with justice, but that's how history works.


This sort of situation obviously hits home for us a bit as well, albeit due to an event that occurred 150 years ago (our civil war if that wasn't immediately ringing a bell for a Russian). We might seem, and in many ways still are, quite at variance between the north and the south, but if referenda were held tomorrow even in our most backward and rebellious states, i.e. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, all three would still vote for remaining in the Union. Admittedly, some of us in the North would be praying that they would vote for divorce so we could finally be rid of them. The bottom line however is this. If they did try to leave, as they did back in 1861, this time we wouldn't stop them (admittedly also, back in 1861, we had not merely imperialistic reasons for stopping them, but also moral, ending their despicable practice of slavery). Other countries have faced similar dilemmas recently. Quebec held referenda in both 1980 and 1995 on whether to leave Canada. Both votes were close, very close in the most recent, but they voted narrowly both times to stay. I very much doubt that Canada would have ignored their vote and declared war on Quebec had the vote gone the other way. Scotland too voted on this issue recently. England clearly did not want them to leave, but let them vote, and for a few weeks seemed very nervous that Scotland would leave. They didn't, but it wouldn't have come to civil war if they had. If you need to use military force to hold your country together, that is a sign of weakness, not of strength. I assume you recall the Berlin Wall? Heck, some nutjob Americans have wanted to build a wall along our border with Mexico to keep out the Mexicans, the Chinese long ago built their wall to keep out Mongol raiders, but in Berlin you (the Soviets) built it to keep East Germans from fleeing to the freedom and prosperity of the West. They wanted to leave. Just like all those other, non-Russian parts wanted to leave. Just like the Chechens want to leave. Might makes right is a reason, but not a good one, nor a just one.

And, as we've both stated, chechens in fact, had their days of independence and that time they almost became a wahhabi state. And, like any other revolutionaries, they tend to try and export their ideology to surrounding areas, e.g. Dagestan, which was and still is part of Russia. So if we admit independence we shall probably speak about their aggression against Russia in 1999.
Back to the current situation, any non-wahhabi/salafi opposition in Chechnya doesn't exist nowadays. So if Russia runs an honest referendum like you suggest and withdraws from Chechnya after that, it shall turn into this wahhabi state just again since Kadyrov has no real popularity and without russian support he will be toppled or try to join the party, but I don't think there's a chance islamists are about to have any deal with him. So I don't see any practical reason to call for that referendum now or in 90s, just in case you don't want a state which shall be in ligue with ISIS and alqaeda. Wahhabi propaganda talks about how good are both ISIS and Alqaeda.

And you don't think that this struggle is perhaps feeding their hatred?

Yes, Hamas are. But Israelis, considering what they're doing to Gaza, are as well. So this is terrorist vs terrorist war, one side is just stronger.
And Israel in fact has been brought up by foreigners who had no right for that land since they were gathered all over the world. And claims they were there thousand years ago are just ridiculous. But since they were able to win several wars they gain their right to exist, no matter how arabs and others including me dislike that fact.

Can you not see the parallel? How dissimilar is this really from the conflict between you and the Chechens?

Putin doesn't really care about sanctions, the only ones who really care are we (russian people), but Putin probably doesn't give a fuck about prices increased by 50-150%. The propaganda says all day that russians survived WW2 and other things (mainly connected with Stalin) thus sanctions are nothing. This is not true, but many people really think that way.

The same is essentially true of the ayatollah in Iran. Yet he was eventually forced to come to the table. Admittedly after a very long time, still hesitant himself, and indeed with many (Republicans mostly, and other fools who think Israeli interests should supersede our own) saboteurs here at home trying to derail the rapprochement, but the negotiations are at least happening. Will they bear fruit? We will see. The same hope exists with Russia.

Terez
04-26-2015, 12:26 PM
We might seem, and in many ways still are, quite at variance between the north and the south, but if referenda were held tomorrow even in our most backward and rebellious states, i.e. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, all three would still vote for remaining in the Union. Admittedly, some of us in the North would be praying that they would vote for divorce so we could finally be rid of them.
Another reminder that the majority of the US black population lives in the old Confederacy, too. In many states (like MS) the minority is significant enough that Republicans might find themselves having a hard time holding onto their seats in the South before too long.

SomeOneElse
04-26-2015, 01:58 PM
We might seem, and in many ways still are, quite at variance between the north and the south, but if referenda were held tomorrow even in our most backward and rebellious states, i.e. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, all three would still vote for remaining in the Union. Admittedly, some of us in the North would be praying that they would vote for divorce so we could finally be rid of them.
But you all still see yourself as americans, right? And at the same time chechens don't see themselves as russians, and they're not in any way. And if we allow any non-russian nationality to leave that will destroy our country.
Also in these areas there are lots of ethnic russians. And in chechnya many of them were killed or forced to leave. So basically for now people are not massacred, but many are unhappy for staying in a country they dislike. And if the process like Chechnya is started, many people shall be killed etc, but some may become happier after all.

The bottom line however is this. If they did try to leave, as they did back in 1861, this time we wouldn't stop them
I'm sorry, but I don't believe this. I think your government would try their best to prevent such referendum at all.

Other countries have faced similar dilemmas recently. Quebec held referenda in both 1980 and 1995 on whether to leave Canada. Both votes were close, very close in the most recent, but they voted narrowly both times to stay. I very much doubt that Canada would have ignored their vote and declared war on Quebec had the vote gone the other way. Scotland too voted on this issue recently. England clearly did not want them to leave, but let them vote, and for a few weeks seemed very nervous that Scotland would leave. They didn't, but it wouldn't have come to civil war if they had. If you need to use military force to hold your country together, that is a sign of weakness, not of strength.
Yea, but again if we allowed chechens to go many others would try the same making references to Chechnya. It is clear that no country is going to commit suicide that way. I don't think that if Quebec or Schotland would leave it would have the same results to Canada or UK.

And you don't think that this struggle is perhaps feeding their hatred? hatred yes, but they proven to eventually turn into a wahhabi state that shall threaten every surrounding country and Russia in the first place. Again russian army was nearly withdrawn from Chechnya in 1999 and their attack wasn't justified by their struggle for independence. I don't think Schotland would turn to be aggressive against the UK, and in case it would, I think UK would declare a war against them.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 03:03 PM
We might seem, and in many ways still are, quite at variance between the north and the south, but if referenda were held tomorrow even in our most backward and rebellious states, i.e. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, all three would still vote for remaining in the Union.

These days, it's not so much a matter of north vs south but left vs right, which is why any time the matter comes up in discussion it's made pretty clear that there is zero legal basis for a secession, not to mention at least 1001 corporate reasons and one historical reason that it will never be allowed.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 03:45 PM
But you all still see yourself as americans, right? And at the same time chechens don't see themselves as russians, and they're not in any way. And if we allow any non-russian nationality to leave that will destroy our country.
Also in these areas there are lots of ethnic russians. And in chechnya many of them were killed or forced to leave. So basically for now people are not massacred, but many are unhappy for staying in a country they dislike. And if the process like Chechnya is started, many people shall be killed etc, but some may become happier after all.


Yes, we all, whether Democrats or Republicans, Yankee or Southerner, all consider ourselves Americans. We mostly all speak the same language (albeit with an ever growing Spanish speaking contingent) as well. Herein lies an important difference when comparing us, and the at times stresses upon our sense of cohesion, to your situation vis-a-vis the Chechens. They aren't Russians. They were a conquered people who do not like being a part of Russia. Now we have had similar stresses. We largely hunted the indigenous inhabitants of America to extinction in the 17th-19th centuries. If you employed that strategy today with the Chechens, not only the whole world, but even you and your fellow Russians would be appalled. You could employ the Israeli method, which is similar to what you have been doing, though as far as I'm aware, at least not on as brazen a scale as have the Israelis. This does however carry the inevitable consequence of a very pissed off population, that shares neither your ethnicity, religion, or for the most part language, who very much wants you out, and is willing to use violence to do so. I realize Russia is nervous about setting a further precedent for further withdrawal by other non-Russian ethnic groups, but heavy-handedness sets its own precedent, and doesn't exactly endear our encourage friendly co-existence. Nor does transparently trying to de-stablilize and intimidate former vassal-states.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 04:18 PM
These days, it's not so much a matter of north vs south but left vs right...

True. There clearly are Republicans in the north, and Democrats in the south, but on the whole, it is impossible not to notice that every electoral map for nearly every election since the civil war looks like a re-enactment of that war. It does, however, also have a bit of a urban-rural dichotomy feel. Take for example the old joke about Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh on one side, Philly on the other, with Alabama in between.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 04:32 PM
True. There clearly are Republicans in the north, and Democrats in the south, but on the whole, it is impossible not to notice that every electoral map for nearly every election since the civil war looks like a re-enactment of that war. It does, however, also have a bit of a urban-rural dichotomy feel. Take for example the old joke about Pennsylvania - Pittsburgh on one side, Philly on the other, with Alabama in between.

The issue I see with this statement is that you're looking at the present through hindsighted blinkers. The present is not reflective of the past's attitudes; both left and right are deeply dissatisfied with the status quo as neither believe it reflects what it means to be "America" anymore. The left follows the president's general belief in the US needing to undergo a fundamental transformation, while the right believes it's already going too far past that. The extremes of those polarities are a shared consensus to break the union and pick sides.

Which of course is stupid to the point of self-destructive.

Both sides are playing with sharp edges on that polarization and they are keenly aware of this, which is why they are quick to pull back any discussion from actual seccsion.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 04:50 PM
The issue I see with this statement is that you're looking at the present through hindsighted blinkers. The present is not reflective of the past's attitudes; both left and right are deeply dissatisfied with the status quo as neither believe it reflects what it means to be "America" anymore. The left follows the president's general belief in the US needing to undergo a fundamental transformation, while the right believes it's already going too far past that. The extremes of those polarities are a shared consensus to break the union and pick sides.

Which of course is stupid to the point of self-destructive.

Both sides are playing with sharp edges on that polarization and they are keenly aware of this, which is why they are quick to pull back any discussion from actual seccsion.

How is promoting universal health care a fundamental transformation? How is the continued belief in the prudence and fairness of graduated taxation? Or belief that having some practical gun control policies would be prudent? Or that gay people deserve to have their rights defended by the government like everyone else? Or that women should still have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and be able to do so without driving a few hundred miles? Or that education is something worth investing in? Or that theology shouldn't be confused with science? How are any of these ideas transformational?

It's not like the left is suggesting a lie detector test before voting, and that unless you can answer yes to the questions of whether Jesus was just some dude, and that god is no more real than the Easter Bunny, that you be forbidden to vote.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 05:42 PM
How is promoting universal health care a fundamental transformation?

You went on with a number of things that make me believe you are missing the point I was making here. "fundamentally transforming" is not some notion I came up with out of thin air. It's part of a direct quote from Obama, and has been a mainstay of the left-sided discourse since he took office. Whether they've achieved what Obama was promising in doing all those things that you say are all they really want leaves in question what Obama really meant by that. Still, it's not about whehther he accomplished it, but whether he meant it and whether the left believes it as they claim they do.

I'll be the first to state that politics is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit and most of them on both wings don't believe a thousandth part of what comes out of their own mouths, but as with the left, so with the right.

Neither left nor right states an interest in the status quo. They want change, because the current America isn't what they want.

I'd go so far as to argue that any America that reflects solely the left or solely the right's interests reflects a fundamental change *and* on the worst of levels.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 06:02 PM
I'd go so far as to argue that any America that reflects solely the left or solely the right's interests reflects a fundamental change *and* on the worst of levels.

Eht, has your life changed in any real way due to when Bush was in office or when Obama was in office? There are minor changes sure. But fundamental? The reason we on the left are disappointed with Obama is that nothing much has changed, and we had hoped that things would.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 06:25 PM
Eht, has your life changed in any real way due to when Bush was in office or when Obama was in office? There are minor changes sure. But fundamental? The reason we on the left are disappointed with Obama is that nothing much has changed, and we had hoped that things would.

What you just said illustrates the very same point I am making. A few things have changed, and because of Obamacare, some of them very directly pertinent to my life and career, but not as large as the left wants. If you get what you want, yes, that will be fundamental change, just as it will be if the right gets what they want. They want to dial back on their terms, you want to dial forward on yours, and neither of those are America as it is.

I'm not against change, but I am against pandering to political ideology, be it one wing or the other. Neither has shown the capacity to present or elect competent and skilled represenatives who look out for the country rather than themselves.

Heck and even looking on the BRIGHT side of fundamental transformation, even that universal health care people speak so highly of sounds like a good thing, but we're not going to get it in the USA. The right calls it socialism, the left calls it destructive, and the real truth is both sides have sold out to the big insurance corporate interests that have no desire to see their income dry up by such a fundamental shift in where the money goes.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 06:39 PM
What you just said illustrates the very same point I am making. A few things have changed, and because of Obamacare, some of them very directly pertinent to my life and career, but not as large as the left wants. If you get what you want, yes, that will be fundamental change, just as it will be if the right gets what they want. They want to dial back on their terms, you want to dial forward on yours, and neither of those are America as it is.

I'm not against change, but I am against pandering to political ideology, be it one wing or the other. Neither has shown the capacity to present or elect competent and skilled represenatives who look out for the country rather than themselves.


None of the things I mentioned, except universal health care (which isn't really a major change either), were changes. I mentioned defending the progressive tax - which we already have. I mentioned a return to gun control laws - we used to have them, the right has chipped away at the assault weapons ban and resists any background checks, all of which is nuts. I mentioned gay rights. Which I suppose is a slight change, but hardly one that anyone who isn't gay (which is basically everybody) will ever notice. I mentioned defending choice, which again the right has been chipping away at this past decade. I mentioned supporting education and science, things that we used to do. It is the right that wants change far more than does the left. But even the changes they have put in place, and those they wish to put in place, would really only be felt by some. Doesn't change the fact that all the things they want are a mix of dumb and evil.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 06:52 PM
None of the things I mentioned, except universal health care (which isn't really a major change either), were changes.

Again, you're missing the part where we agree... mostly. They certainly were changes, even if, as you say they were changing back to the way they used to be.

You mentioned a lot of things yes, but you also mentioned they weren't the end goal, weren't what you really wanted. They're the things that DID happen.

But even the changes they have put in place, and those they wish to put in place, would really only be felt by some.

That you say this illustrates a deep lack of understanding on your part why it is they're so wrong. Changes like Jindal has made affect EVERYONE. Changes like the Obamacare failure affect everyone, and are the main reason why I like REAL universal healthcare so much better. Obamacare isn't universal, isn't close, and is a sick joke to pretend is a great improvement.

Doesn't change the fact that all the things they want are a mix of dumb and evil.

Yes, yes, they say the same thing about you guys, I know. Funny how much in the end, you all sound like a bunch of bible thumpers when doing it, isn't it?

I'll buy in on dumb and expand it to the left, but when you start throwing religious mandates that come from words like "evil" into the mix, you're wandering down Southpaw's road.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 07:07 PM
Again, you're missing the part where we agree... mostly. They certainly were changes, even if, as you say they were changing back to the way they used to be.

You mentioned a lot of things yes, but you also mentioned they weren't the end goal, weren't what you really wanted. They're the things that DID happen.


Yes, someone clearly isn't understanding...

That you say this illustrates a deep lack of understanding on your part why it is they're so wrong. Changes like Jindal has made affect EVERYONE. Changes like the Obamacare failure affect everyone, and are the main reason why I like REAL universal healthcare so much better. Obamacare isn't universal, isn't close, and is a sick joke to pretend is a great improvement.

The religious bits do, but the rest effect some people a lot, others not so much to not at all. That doesn't mean that they aren't important, only that their effects aren't felt by many. Why you can't grasp that difference, I don't know.

Yes, yes, they say the same thing about you guys, I know. Funny how much in the end, you all sound like a bunch of bible thumpers when doing it, isn't it?

I'll buy in on dumb and expand it to the left, but when you start throwing religious mandates that come from words like "evil" into the mix, you're wandering down Southpaw's road.

Citizen's United is evil. The rest is mostly just dumb. You're correct however about the Southpaw part, talking with you often feels as pointless as talking with him.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 07:32 PM
Yes, someone clearly isn't understanding...

So explain. You gave me a laundry list, starting with "How is promoting universal health care a fundamental transformation?ideas transformational?"

All changes that happened under this administration, and as described by you:
"The reason we on the left are disappointed with Obama is that nothing much has changed, and we had hoped that things would. "

Okay, so it wasn't enough. I got that. And I'm not stating those things were major transformations. We don't disagree on that.

You seem to want to impress on me that it is what I do believe, and it isn't. It isn't what I stated, it isn't what I believe.

The religious bits do, but the rest effect some people a lot, others not so much to not at all. That doesn't mean that they aren't important, only that their effects aren't felt by many.

When religious tyranny is dropped whole hog into th educational and treated as a science, that is a massive change. It may not have some immediate earth-shaking consequnce, with people being converted on the streets at the point of a Christian sword, but it is step one on a road of utter failure that recognizes a religion as anything other than the pure unadulterated bullshit that it is. That it is in any way accepted as a science is a profound and precedent setting failure.

Citizen's United is evil.

"Evil" - morally wrong, sinful, wicked.

Honestly, in a strictly atheistic mercenary view of the world on the list of things that fit that word, the Citizens United ruling barely registers.

Stupid beyond reason, yes. Evil? Ugh. Thats like listening to the goddamn Fox News channel with their pseudo-religious bullshit.

You're correct however about the Southpaw part, talking with you often feels as pointless as talking with him.

If you don't like Southpaw, then perhaps you shouldn't utilized linguistic nonsense that are long associated with his brand of religious failure. Start throwing the word evil around where it qualifies. Slavery. Rape. Genocide. Child molestation. That's evil, not stupid. The supreme court stupidly deciding that a corporation is a person is plain moronic, not evil.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 08:04 PM
So explain. You gave me a laundry list, starting with "How is promoting universal health care a fundamental transformation?ideas transformational?"



I described the things that I wanted. None of them were major or fundamental and transformational changes, except perhaps universal health care. We didn't get them. We still don't have prudent gun control, even with a further litany of school shootings and gun violence. But putting that back in place wouldn't be transformational, only prudent. We still have an undermining of choice for women. Defending that however isn't transformational. We did get some advancing of gay rights, but defending liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness aren't transformational. Nor is defending education and science, all of which also is still being undermined. None of the things I think are worth fighting for are fundamentally transformational ideas. Obama, however, has not done a great job defending most of them, hence my disappointment.

"Evil" - morally wrong, sinful, wicked.

Honestly, in a strictly atheistic mercenary view of the world on the list of things that fit that word, the Citizens United ruling barely registers.

Stupid beyond reason, yes. Evil? Ugh. Thats like listening to the goddamn Fox News channel with their pseudo-religious bullshit.

Plutocracy isn't dumb. It is insidious, and very clever and useful for those that will benefit from it, which happens to be very few of us. And it doesn't just undermine democracy through the infusion of money, as with the Koch brothers buying influence and shaping the debate, which in of itself is evil, but the Koch brothers, and men like them also have an agenda, these too at times are evil, such as their attacks on science and on global warming, as doing anything about this would hurt their profits. Or like Adelson, who also funnels money, buying influence, and shaping the debate in a very pro-Israel, and anti-Iran slant. Citizens United is a cancer. If you don't see that as evil, then we clearly see the world in fundamentally different ways.

The Unreasoner
04-26-2015, 08:34 PM
@SomeOneElse

So, if I'm following your arguments correctly, it sounds as if you are treating the preservation of the Russian nation as the paramount issue, something worthy in itself. Chechnya can't leave because Russia wants/needs it, the annexation of Crimea is a rational response to NATO expansion, and (I assume) controls on free speech are necessary to promote cohesiveness. Certainly your parroting the conspiracy theories of the Kremlin to justify Russian transgressions betrays a little of Putin's 'war on truth' (drowning out real information with so many competing narratives that people just fall into an apathetic cynicism). On a related note, are you one of the 'professional' trolls the Russian government employs?

But in any case, I wonder: why is the integrity of the Russian state paramount? Why is avoiding the precedent Chechen independence would set worth a violent occupation? Large states made up of multiple peoples separate all the time. Yes, the US fought a war to stop the South from seceding, but that was in another era, and as Kimon mentioned, there were moral reasons to fight as well. Nowadays, the people control the mandate, and the idea that England would go to war with Scotland, or the Canadians with the Quebecois, or the US with Texas is laughable. It's not always by a wide margin (take the Basque region, or Northern Ireland), but for the most part, regions align with nations by choice. We live in a more civilized world these days, with somewhat reliable diplomatic channels to resolve conflicts. Free press and speech (at least in the US, I didn't know Nazi/Communist symbolism was a crime in parts of Europe), free markets (again, for the most part, though de facto monopolies and nationalized industries still exist), and free elections (Citizens United notwithstanding). Any nation that is threatened by any of those is fundamentally 'unmodern', and doomed to fail in time. The current Russian government is fundamentally untenable, and this notion that the integrity of the Russian state is of prime importance should not be taken as an axiom any longer.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 10:01 PM
I described the things that I wanted. None of them were major or fundamental and transformational changes, except perhaps universal health care.

Indeed.

We didn't get them. We still don't have prudent gun control, even with a further litany of school shootings and gun violence. But putting that back in place wouldn't be transformational, only prudent.

The actual goal sought, to my understanding, is gun control regulation at a level which will completely eradicate school schootings. This is transformational.

We still have an undermining of choice for women. Defending that however isn't transformational.

We did get some advancing of gay rights, but defending liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness aren't transformational.

If you don't consider the rapid and widespread new availability of gay rights in the form of gay marriage and health benefits transformational, I'm kind of curious as to what you think is. I mean this is a RADICAL change as even the very president sitting in office now is an admitted homophobe who used the excuse of his bigoted religion to justify his bigoted views. Yes, he had some sort of ephiphany and "evolved" his religion (lol), but that doesn't change the fact that this happened, and is an amazing change.

It's also one I support.

Nor is defending education and science, all of which also is still being undermined.

Sadly, the left is making some effort at the former while doing squat for the latter. Nor is the goal to settle for that.... I would hope.

Plutocracy isn't dumb.

Plutocracy is normal and exists in just about every form of government to one degree or another. The wealthy take over. The left likes to sneer and point at the right for this, but I think anyone being really honest knows that their leadership is a filthy stinking pack of hypocrites.

If you COULD change that, it would be a step forward. The status quo is the same old stuff and for it to change would require a massive transformation. It's not one you can get with what the left offers right now. Hell, Obamacare is basically a giant-sized lovegram shaped like a pair of lips on buttocks delivered direct to the Big Insurance plutocrats.

To bandy the word "evil" about however, suggests that mankind is a bunch of evil animals incapable of progress. Because .... plutocracy finds its way into everything. There is no purity.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 10:21 PM
Citizens United is far more transformational than allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage effects about 1% of the population. Citizens United effects everyone, about 99% of us negatively. It wasn't that long ago that campaign finance reform was an achievable goal, championed even by John McCain. Now republicans openly audition for the Koch brothers and Adelson. These are the first real primaries now for the Republican field, not Iowa. They control the money too such an extent that they can not only tilt the field, they can set the field.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 10:42 PM
It wasn't that long ago that campaign finance reform was an achievable goal, championed even by John McCain. Now republicans openly audition for the Koch brothers and Adelson. These are the first real primaries now for the Republican field, not Iowa. They control the money too such an extent that they can not only tilt the field, they can set the field.

No, it really wasn't. It was a joke. People campaigned on that platform as a form of populist appeal. The vast majority of them were already bought and paid for by lobbyists of one stripe or another, and Citizens United just reveals the ugly face of it.

The biggest problem with CU is that it opens the door for foreign interference, and whether businesses are people or not (lol) foreigners have no business having any direct say in our government.

Kimon
04-26-2015, 10:54 PM
No, it really wasn't. It was a joke. People campaigned on that platform as a form of populist appeal. The vast majority of them were already bought and paid for by lobbyists of one stripe or another, and Citizens United just reveals the ugly face of it.

The biggest problem with CU is that it opens the door for foreign interference, and whether businesses are people or not (lol) foreigners have no business having any direct say in our government.

...and we're back to my earlier comment about talking with you being pointless. Oy veh. I'm done. Think what you want. I don't care.

eht slat meit
04-26-2015, 10:56 PM
...and we're back to my earlier comment about talking with you being pointless. Oy veh. I'm done. Think what you want. I don't care.

Yeah. I get it. Talking with me only has a point if I fall in line and agree with you. I get that from the twits on the right too.

Some things never change, no matter which wing is flapping.

GonzoTheGreat
04-27-2015, 04:31 AM
But you all still see yourself as americans, right? And at the same time chechens don't see themselves as russians, and they're not in any way. And if we allow any non-russian nationality to leave that will destroy our country.
Let me turn that around: suppose that somehow those Chechnyans manage to actually grab power in the whole of Russia, and impose their version of Sharia on you. Would you then:
A. want to keep Russia together, and accept your new rulers?
B. want to get out, and separate "Russian Russia" from the new "Muslim Russia"?

I don't think you would be willing to live in a country where your own group was no more than an oppressed excuse for a land grab. But you do seem to be willing to do that to others.
Me, I strongly disagree with fundamentalist believers, whether they be Christians, Muslims or some other brand of idiocy. But I do not deny their right to decide for themselves what to believe, what to be.

SomeOneElse
04-27-2015, 07:37 AM
@SomeOneElse

So, if I'm following your arguments correctly, it sounds as if you are treating the preservation of the Russian nation as the paramount issue,
Yes, and so does almost any other nation. USA nearly burned the whole region (middle east) to get these guys who had just killed 2000-3000 americans during 9/11 and never were any real threat.

Chechnya can't leave because Russia wants/needs itAs I've stated, not only does Russia need Chechnya that much, but we don't really need a super-aggressive state near our border. And we're not going to allow it to be created.

the annexation of Crimea is a rational response to NATO expansion
well, I am not the one who says that. But there is some logic behind it, especially if Ukraine joins NATO.

and (I assume) controls on free speech are necessary to promote cohesiveness.
Well, I see many western media talking about this. May you show any real example of "controls on free speech"?
Here there exist TV and radio stations who are mostly focused on blaming Putin's regime. And since internet is free here (I mean there is nothing like a firewall etc) no matter what you maybe think about it, we can watch/read anything, including western media and countless opposition websites, as well as read/publish posts in social media. I never seen any website (except those related to drugs and some that were promoting nazism) being blocked.
Many people are publicly bashing Putin and his government and they're not put in jail for that. Yes, they are also bashed in response, but isn't it also part of free speech?

are you one of the 'professional' trolls the Russian government employs?No and I hope they are more professional and impressive than me.

Large states made up of multiple peoples separate all the time.Yes, but who's to say that goes without a war and the titular nation is happy of it?
So if at a time chechens are able to win a new war... Well they will go wherever they want.

the idea that England would go to war with Scotland, or the Canadians with the Quebecois, or the US with Texas is laughable.Not that if Scotland goes to war against England etc after separating.

We live in a more civilized world these days, with somewhat reliable diplomatic channels to resolve conflicts.
Really? We probably live in different worlds. In my world there still are wild fanatics like ISIS, those nasty wars in Syria, Libya, Yamen and southeast UA (whoever is responsible for it) and many other bad things. They are nonexistent for you probably because you're to far from them.

Free press and speech (at least in the US, I didn't know Nazi/Communist symbolism was a crime in parts of Europe),What about some french clown being punished for making jokes about charlie hebdo? Also, denying communism is out of any free speech, since nazism was disallowed in Nuremberg and not communism.

I strongly disagree with fundamentalist believers, whether they be Christians, Muslims or some other brand of idiocy. But I do not deny their right to decide for themselves what to believe, what to be.

I don't deny any one's right to believe whatever they want, unless their believes push them into a war against any other group who doesn't follow their ideology. Don't you really see the difference? Wahhabis proven to be wild and aggressive, if you didn't notice. In fact, some people in 90s may think it is okay to let Chechnya get out (besides we couldn't do much to stop them that time), but than they've started war on Dagestan that even western propaganda doesn't deny I guess. I don't know why, but everyone here trying to argue me just avoid that fact.
And just a quick question. What would you think about people who believe you're to die and who are going to do everything for that?

Let me turn that around: suppose that somehow those Chechnyans manage to actually grab power in the whole of Russia, and impose their version of Sharia on you. Would you then:
A. want to keep Russia together, and accept your new rulers?
B. want to get out, and separate "Russian Russia" from the new "Muslim Russia"?
If wahhabis shall ever win, non of them would ask like A or B or C, they'll just cut every disbeliever and you could be sure there won't be any freedom of speech (even lame) in Chechnya if they were independent nowadays.

Rand al'Fain
04-27-2015, 11:44 AM
SomeOneElse, this is somewhat related and somewhat unrelated, but how do you feel about the Russian biker gang the Nightwolves, being told "No" about being allowed through Poland, Germany, and other places during a ride "commemorating" the Soviets' march onto Berlin?
http://news.yahoo.com/pro-putin-bikers-turned-away-polish-border-144052117.html

I ask because it's not often I get to chat with a Russian.

SomeOneElse
04-27-2015, 11:48 AM
SomeOneElse, this is somewhat related and somewhat unrelated, but how do you feel about the Russian biker gang the Nightwolves, being told "No" about being allowed through Poland, Germany, and other places during a ride "commemorating" the Soviets' march onto Berlin?
http://news.yahoo.com/pro-putin-bikers-turned-away-polish-border-144052117.html

I ask because it's not often I get to chat with a Russian.
Why not? If Europe is so much after freedom of speech and opinion, I think these guys could be allowed to do their flash mob or whatever, unless they don't violate any law. And if they have any problems with documents or are suspected to be dangerous any country could disallow them of course.

Nazbaque
04-27-2015, 12:37 PM
Ah now SomeOneElse I must now offer some advice. It's of course wrong to judge people's opinions over their comand of language but appearance is one of those things that helps others to take you more seriously. I really try not to be a grammar nazi except when I read fiction which is like judging someone's cooking abilities while eating the food they made i.e. completely justified. This is opinion however so it's just some advice to help you in being taken more seriously and also not being misunderstood out of linguistical mistakes.

So pay a bit more attention to whether the word "do" should be in the negative sense or positive as in "does" or "doesn't". I got what you meant to say, but a couple of times you mixed them up and ended up saying what you didn't mean and sometimes what you meant might not be obvious from the context. The then/than mistake is more my personal artistic enemy so this is a personal request more than advice. "If something, then something" and "Something is better than something". Those mistakes ruin naratives.

On the subject of Chechnya, am I right in that you are not in principle against their independence, but are worried that it might lead to a war with their to be leadership, them being of the mentality that draws lines on the maps and dares others to cross over with tanks and other toys of high commands? And you are also worried that it might lead to other parts of the Russian Federation breaking off and then fighting bloody wars over where exactly those lines are supposed to go on the new world map? I got this right?

If so I might add that while I don't like the forced Russian rule and the whole Ukraine thing does not look good here in Finland, this still seems to me to be the lesser of two evils. The problem of course is that to some this is merely a justification and they are not actually seeking a more peaceful solution. And in my mind that solution doesn't automatically include new lines on the world map. The methods of rulers matter more than their identities. Can I say that you agree on this?

On a side note would you mind being called "SOE2" (Son of Elvis being the first SOE). I go by "Naz". Yes it is an i short of being "nazi", but as a mathematician and a philosopher I rather like the possibilities of what you might get if nazi is divided by the square root of -1. A polar opposite might be just as wrong but on the scale between them the 90 degree turn is the perfect zero. Of course it might be also another wrong, but at least it is on a completely unrelated subject.

SomeOneElse
04-27-2015, 05:34 PM
Ah now SomeOneElse I must now offer some advice. It's of course wrong to judge people's opinions over their comand of language but appearance is one of those things that helps others to take you more seriously. I really try not to be a grammar nazi except when I read fiction which is like judging someone's cooking abilities while eating the food they made i.e. completely justified. This is opinion however so it's just some advice to help you in being taken more seriously and also not being misunderstood out of linguistical mistakes.

So pay a bit more attention to whether the word "do" should be in the negative sense or positive as in "does" or "doesn't". I got what you meant to say, but a couple of times you mixed them up and ended up saying what you didn't mean and sometimes what you meant might not be obvious from the context. The then/than mistake is more my personal artistic enemy so this is a personal request more than advice. "If something, then something" and "Something is better than something". Those mistakes ruin naratives.
Thanks a lot for your advices.

On the subject of Chechnya, am I right in that you are not in principle against their independence, but are worried that it might lead to a war with their to be leadership, them being of the mentality that draws lines on the maps and dares others to cross over with tanks and other toys of high commands? And you are also worried that it might lead to other parts of the Russian Federation breaking off and then fighting bloody wars over where exactly those lines are supposed to go on the new world map? I got this right?
Yes, you're right.
And just another reason is that wahhabi propaganda calls to kill every russian or even chechens who worked for current administration accusing them of being kafir/murtad.

On a side note would you mind being called "SOE2" (Son of Elvis being the first SOE). I go by "Naz".

No problem, Naz.

Terez
04-28-2015, 04:25 AM
Thanks a lot for your advices.
It's just "advice". It's a collective sort of term; we often say "a piece of advice".

yks 6nnetu hing
04-28-2015, 07:47 AM
Well, I see many western media talking about this. May you show any real example of "controls on free speech"?
Here there exist TV and radio stations who are mostly focused on blaming Putin's regime. And since internet is free here (I mean there is nothing like a firewall etc) no matter what you maybe think about it, we can watch/read anything, including western media and countless opposition websites, as well as read/publish posts in social media. I never seen any website (except those related to drugs and some that were promoting nazism) being blocked.
Many people are publicly bashing Putin and his government and they're not put in jail for that. Yes, they are also bashed in response, but isn't it also part of free speech?

Like Politovskaya? Litvinenko? Khodorkovsky?

I mean, don't get me wrong: if a person has committed a crime, then obvs that person needs to be brought to justice for that crime... but if that "crime" is doing something or saying something that was embarrassing to the Government, then how exactly is Litvinenko different from Snowden? One's dead and the other isn't, that's how.



are you one of the 'professional' trolls the Russian government employs?

No and I hope they are more professional and impressive than me.

nah, he's not, those guys are pathetic in their following of the Putinist script. And really quite bad with their English. SomeOneElse here is lots more intelligent and probably better educated than one of those goons.

Why not? If Europe is so much after freedom of speech and opinion, I think these guys could be allowed to do their flash mob or whatever, unless they don't violate any law. And if they have any problems with documents or are suspected to be dangerous any country could disallow them of course.

see, here I kind of agree with you. except when they enter those countries, they should indeed be aware of a few bits of information:

1) they may need specific permits to do their parade. If they don't have these permits, they'll most likely get stopped for violating the peace or obstructing traffic.
2) they should make sure that all of the insignia they're flying is actually not banned in the country they're in. Like I said, several countries in Eastern Europe have laws banning the use of Soviet symbols.
3) Provided 1 and 2, if they still continue, they should not take it granted that the locals won't set up countermarches/protests. Because they probably will. If it comes to a confrontation, and it comes to a physical fight, they will be prosecuted according to the local law; they will most likely not be transferred to Russia for prosecution because - to be totally blunt with you - the Russian police system is so corrupt trying to find anyone willing to sign a paper for the transfer of a prisoner without any "lubrication"... well, that'll take LOTS of time.

Davian93
04-28-2015, 11:48 AM
That was the official country name, nothing else.

If you'd call Putin's/Yeltsin's Russia that way it would be weird indeed. As weird as calling current Serbia with the name Yugoslavia.

Then sorry again.
The term 8/8/8 is just the most neutral, more then any other one like russo-georgian war that is used in most western countries or Georgian attack against South Ossetia that is used by russian propaganda. That's why I used it.


Not even a chance. Iraq was never a part of your country, and, moreover, it wasn't any real threat. Saddam's involvement in 09/11 (I hope there's no need to explain that date) was more than questionable, as well as his ability to produce biological weapons and using them against USA.
And, at the same time, Chechnya was part of Russia, like it or not. Plus, if you want, you can find out about what these "freedom fighters" did against civilians in Russia (not soldiers or governors). I can help you here if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budyonnovsk_hospital_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Dagestan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

These are only very few things that I could remember and find a wikipedia page in about 2-3 minutes. So could you come up with the same list for Saddam's crimes against USA citizens? Or anything comparable. Do you think these reasons aren't enough? Also Chechnya was nearly independent between two wars, and that time it became a base of terrorists and other scum, who finally crossed the border with Dagestan in 1999. Only after that the second war on Chechnya took place.
There's no need to even mention great american support for Saddam that has been given during his war against khomeinist Iran, although even that time it was obvious he's sun of a bitch and nothing more.


These are exactly my thoughts about Putin's actions in these regions.


Okay, glad to hear. Most of us have similar views on Obama's and Putin's policy.

Clearly you are new here since if you weren't, you'd know that I am and was vehemently against the Iraq war and have condemned it numerous times.

I am quite familiar with the atrocities that took place on both sides in the Chechnya war and the long history of issues Russia has had in its southern tier of muslim-heavy lands...its almost as if there is some back history there that helped instigate that level of animosity against Russia.

Davian93
04-28-2015, 11:54 AM
Another reminder that the majority of the US black population lives in the old Confederacy, too. In many states (like MS) the minority is significant enough that Republicans might find themselves having a hard time holding onto their seats in the South before too long.

Maybe they could get their voter participation rate up to the same level (or higher) as old white conservatives....if they did that, it'd probably change the map quite a bit in the deep south.

But, in one hand, if we allowed Chechnya, that process, most probably, would continue and every republic and some other regions would request independence and Russia would soon stop existing or become much smaller.

And? Self-Determination is kinda a good thing.

SomeOneElse
04-28-2015, 01:43 PM
And?

Again, no country would commit suicide.
I am quite familiar with the atrocities that took place on both sides in the Chechnya war and the long history of issues Russia has had in its southern tier of muslim-heavy lands...its almost as if there is some back history there that helped instigate that level of animosity against Russia.

If you are familiar with chechnyan history you probably know that in 90s there was a massive expansion of wahabbism brought by foreigners. The reason for the first chechen war was more their nationalist revolution lead by Dudayev than any sectarian one. After he was executed by russian intelligence, Maskhadov was elected as their new president. And even he publicly blamed wahabism of being brought from outside (though he stated it is driven by zionists). So wahhabism/salafism is the biggest problem with Chechnya, not their independence or even hatred towards russians (though no one really knows how to solve their problem in case Chechnya is independent). Maybe the mighty USA knows any solution for this situation that shall avoid massive wahhabism and ethnic cleansings? Or they probably don't mind some (hundreds of thousands most probably) russians being killed?

In fact, chechens were always sufis (even their imam Shamil was) and wahabists can't stand them and say they wanna cut them like kafirs. Thus wahabism is unnaturally brought not only to fight Russia but also a sect that was around for centuries there.


Like Politovskaya? Litvinenko? Khodorkovsky?
As for Politkovskaya, I remember some guys being judged and put in jail for killing her. Again it is up to you or everyone else to believe or not if Russian judgment system is correct.
As for Litvinenko, well, he was part of KGB and FSB after that, then he betrayed them. I think intelligence forces used to kill every traitor, that may not comply with the law, however they ain't really used to stay within the law at all. This is the case with CIA as well.

And lastly about Khodorkovsky. Well, all I can say that guy is a pig indeed. I don't really care if he bashed Putin for his corruption or not, he, like any other oligarch or significant businessman made his living in 90s by robbing our country. Also he is responsible for several murders and other criminal activity. I don't think USA or EU or whoever demand freedom for him are right. They'd rather demand every other swindler and corruptionist to be put in jail, including those who were lucky enough to become close with the current government.

Or you think any one saying he's against Putin becomes clean by default?

Just a side note, Russia in fact always experienced leck of any freedom (of speech or whatever), now the situation is the best ever, but it is probably hard to change mentality of the whole nation in 30 years.

I mean, don't get me wrong: if a person has committed a crime, then obvs that person needs to be brought to justice for that crime... but if that "crime" is doing something or saying something that was embarrassing to the Government, then how exactly is Litvinenko different from Snowden? One's dead and the other isn't, that's how.Probably Snowden's assassination is yet to be seen.
nah, he's not, those guys are pathetic in their following of the Putinist script. And really quite bad with their English. SomeOneElse here is lots more intelligent and probably better educated than one of those goons.Btw, just on a side note, russian propaganda also suggests that USA are hiring russian-speaking trolls.
If some one knows where can i join the party and make some money by posting whatever bullshit please enlighten me.

Kimon
04-28-2015, 04:59 PM
So wahhabism/salafism is the biggest problem with Chechnya, not their independence or even hatred towards russians (though no one really knows how to solve their problem in case Chechnya is independent). Maybe the mighty USA knows any solution for this situation that shall avoid massive wahhabism and ethnic cleansings? Or they probably don't mind some (hundreds of thousands most probably) russians being killed?


If wikipedia is correct, according to the 2010 census, the Russian population in Chechnya comprises 1.9% of the population, just shy of 25,000 people. That's quite a few shy of 100s of thousands, seemingly due to a sharp decline in the percentage of Russians overall in Chechnya, as Russians were apparently still almost 25% of the population (around 270,000 people) back in '89, and already in sharp decline from the 50% they list during the 1959 census. Safely getting out that last 2 percent would be feasible, and if they choose to stay, then is it unreasonable that they should be forced to become resident aliens or even Chechen citizens?

Probably Snowden's assassination is yet to be seen.

Weren't not going to assassinate Snowden. Prosecuting him at this point even would be difficult, as many are sympathetic with what he did, or at least much more so than they were in the immediate aftermath of learning his name. I wouldn't even be surprised if we eventually allow him to move to a friendlier country, with the understanding that while we won't actively seek to track him down, that he can never come home. Banishment and stripping him of his citizenship strike me as sufficient enough. What he did was undeniably illegal, but extenuating circumstances apply. He was after all revealing crimes committed by our govt against us. Many in America would likely wish him to still be prosecuted, but assassinating him would be met with overwhelming anger and a sense of injustice. Assassinating terrorists, even if they nominally have American citizenship, is one thing, this is a very far cry from that. Snowden isn't Anwar al-Awlaki.

Rand al'Fain
04-28-2015, 07:00 PM
Well, here's Vice News' look into Russian propaganda. One of the main things is that they seem adamant that we are orchestrating a "Maidan" for Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m15M4VimuM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYamn-THkNc

yks 6nnetu hing
04-29-2015, 03:30 AM
As for Politkovskaya, I remember some guys being judged and put in jail for killing her. Again it is up to you or everyone else to believe or not if Russian judgment system is correct. I do not. Not in her case, definitely.

As for Litvinenko, well, he was part of KGB and FSB after that, then he betrayed them. I think intelligence forces used to kill every traitor, that may not comply with the law, however they ain't really used to stay within the law at all. This is the case with CIA as well. so what you're saying is that because he was a former secret service man, the secret service is entitled to kill him for being a whistleblower? This is where I strongly disagree. I know that this is how things ARE, I just think they really shouldn't be.

And lastly about Khodorkovsky. Well, all I can say that guy is a pig indeed. I don't really care if he bashed Putin for his corruption or not, he, like any other oligarch or significant businessman made his living in 90s by robbing our country. Also he is responsible for several murders and other criminal activity. I don't think USA or EU or whoever demand freedom for him are right. They'd rather demand every other swindler and corruptionist to be put in jail, including those who were lucky enough to become close with the current government. The thing that disgusts me about Khodorkovsky is not that he was prosecuted - like I said, if somebody commits a crime, they should be made accountable. It's HOW he was prosecuted. Basically what happened was: one day he owns one of the biggest oil companies in the world, the next day the government owns it, and he's being put to jail for things that weren't a crime at the time he did those things. I think there's something fundamentally wrong if a government can simply take away somebody's private property (I don't mean take it and give it back to the rightful owner, if it'd been stolen or something. I mean just take it and keep it. Because Yukos => Gazprom, or am I wrong?) But then that's what Communism was all about, right? kill anyone who's a little bit smart and a little bit forward thinking, take their stuff and give it to Vanya Durak, who hasn't bothered to learn to read, write or generally look up from his vodka bottle.

Or you think any one saying he's against Putin becomes clean by default? of course not. I do however think that saying that anyone who voices anything against Putin is immediately a terrorist/extremist is wrong.

Just a side note, Russia in fact always experienced leck of any freedom (of speech or whatever), now the situation is the best ever, but it is probably hard to change mentality of the whole nation in 30 years. maybe 10-15 years ago you did, it's reverting back into state propaganda again though. Or have you not seen the spectacle that is Putin's yearly media address? Did you know that the Russian state archives are locked again, even for Russian researchers? Did you know that what is currently being toted about as proof of other countries' "falsification of history" cannot actually be supported by original evidence? (I mean, obviously there's no such thing as subjective history, all it is is a bunch of stories or factoids that are then interpreted one way or another; but generally it's considered good practice to at least refer to an original source that can be proven to exist and is... well, not fake.)

Probably Snowden's assassination is yet to be seen.
Btw, just on a side note, russian propaganda also suggests that USA are hiring russian-speaking trolls.
If some one knows where can i join the party and make some money by posting whatever bullshit please enlighten me.

well, you know, the Internet is full of crackpot theory conspiracists. I used to work with one... Otherwise a nice chap but ask him about stuff that the Government is hiding from us and... wow. Just, wow.

SomeOneElse
04-29-2015, 07:04 AM
If wikipedia is correct, according to the 2010 census, the Russian population in Chechnya comprises 1.9% of the population, just shy of 25,000 people. That's quite a few shy of 100s of thousands, seemingly due to a sharp decline in the percentage of Russians overall in Chechnya, as Russians were apparently still almost 25% of the population (around 270,000 people) back in '89, and already in sharp decline from the 50% they list during the 1959 census. Safely getting out that last 2 percent would be feasible, and if they choose to stay, then is it unreasonable that they should be forced to become resident aliens or even Chechen citizens?
At first, do you seriously think they will be offered to become citizens or anything else? I mean, really?
Any way, as we've already agreed, if Chechnya is proclaimed then others like Dagestan and Ingushetia will try the same and there will be no logical reason to deny them. And currently wahhabi propaganda is talking about some sort of joined caucasian islamic state (imarat caucasus) and these current republics (Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and possibly some other parts of RF) are viewed as its wiliyats (provinces), so we're to count russians in every republic, not just Chechnya.
Not even to mention those amongst natives who shown their support for Russia.

Also many people from these republics are coming to other parts of Russian Federation for work, some of them stay forever. And if we allow them to stay while their newly created states will fall under hateful wahhabi regime, that will eventually become a source of terrorism in Russian Federation itself.

Assassinating terrorists, even if they nominally have American citizenship, is one thing, this is a very far cry from that. Snowden isn't Anwar al-Awlaki.

Only if they attack America I guess, not Syria or Russia or Iran. Just saying.


I do not. Not in her case, definitely.
Is there any real evidence behind that, or purely matter of your believe? And what do you think about Yaroshenko's case? I guess you're not an american, but possibly you also have some thoughts about it.

so what you're saying is that because he was a former secret service man, the secret service is entitled to kill him for being a whistleblower? This is where I strongly disagree. I know that this is how things ARE, I just think they really shouldn't be.That has a point, but when he joined KGB/FSB he probably was aware that puts some restrictions on him.
of course not. I do however think that saying that anyone who voices anything against Putin is immediately a terrorist/extremist is wrong.There is a great number of people publicly bashing Putin, many of them are widely known persons. And very few of them end up in jail.
Any way I never heard any western politician asking Khodorkovsky to be prosecuted for his crimes, just asking Putin to free him all day and night, saying he should ignore any court decision.
And now the situation with him is over btw.

Or have you not seen the spectacle that is Putin's yearly media address?Yea, that was complete bullshit. They just try to focus us on some stuff (WW2 in particular) that has nothing to do with our current reality.[/quote]

Did you know that the Russian state archives are locked again, even for Russian researchers? Did you know that what is currently being toted about as proof of other countries' "falsification of history" cannot actually be supported by original evidence?I don't care about these archives or these falsifications of history you mention. History was always used for propaganda and I don't think it has any other usage.
But, to be honest, falsifications are widely used by both sides.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 07:27 AM
Putin might as well just shed the facade and rename himself General-Secretary...there is almost no difference between Russia under him than under Brezhnev. That's the direction he's been pushing for and slowly moving towards for the last 15 years.

SomeOneElse
04-29-2015, 07:33 AM
Putin might as well just shed the facade and rename himself General-Secretary...there is almost no difference between Russia under him than under Brezhnev. That's the direction he's been pushing for and slowly moving towards for the last 15 years.
Many here shall argue with you, stating that, under Brezhnev, Russia was way stronger and Putin's attempts to act like him are funny cause he in fact has nothing to back up everything he does.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 07:50 AM
Many here shall argue with you, stating that, under Brezhnev, Russia was way stronger and Putin's attempts to act like him are funny cause he in fact has nothing to back up everything he does.

I agree that Russia was definitely in a another world from both an economic and military standpoint. I was referring more to the mentality, various freedoms and political style.

The USSR under Brezhnev was a true Superpower. This is a country now that couldn't complete a conquest of Ukraine even if they wanted to...let alone plow through the the Fulda Gap into western Germany and France.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-29-2015, 08:10 AM
Is there any real evidence behind that, or purely matter of your believe? And what do you think about Yaroshenko's case? I guess you're not an american, but possibly you also have some thoughts about it. just my opinion, mostly based on the timeline of the whole thing. First it took ages to even open a police investigation, then for the longest time no suspects were found... and then, all of a sudden, two (IIRC?) were found and immediately convicted. It just seemed very much like some poor chumps - whether or not they were the ones who actually pulled the trigger or not - got judged before they were arrested. there was no investigation into whether or not they'd been commissioned to kill her, and if so by whom.


There is a great number of people publicly bashing Putin, many of them are widely known persons. And very few of them end up in jail. Somehow I find this hard to believe. I guess mostly because only the most extreme cases make it to the news here - we hear about Pussy Riot, and the arrests of Greenpeace* activists; but we don't hear about any genuine opposing voice to Putin's Party - not moderate anyways.

*fyi, I HATE Greenpeace. I think those people should be deeply ashamed of themselves, go back to school and study engineering, then go invent something that would actually make life better and benefit the planet instead of indiscriminate vandalizing that they're doing now. Still, I do not think these people are terrorists and I do not think they should be jailed for protesting.


Any way I never heard any western politician asking Khodorkovsky to be prosecuted for his crimes, just asking Putin to free him all day and night, saying he should ignore any court decision.
And now the situation with him is over btw. Like I said, if he committed a crime, he should be prosecuted for that crime, and I don't think anyone here would disagree. However, I strongly disagree with making up a law and then applying that retroactively. Let's say some government apparachnik decides today that from 1. January 2015 all traffic is left-handed. Everyone who drove on the right side of the road after 1. January 2015 will get a fine.

Because from what I gather, this is what happened with Khodorkovsky. He got accused of things that weren't crimes at the time he did them.

Yea, that was complete bullshit. They just try to focus us on some stuff (WW2 in particular) that has nothing to do with our current reality.

I don't care about these archives or these falsifications of history you mention. History was always used for propaganda and I don't think it has any other usage.
But, to be honest, falsifications are widely used by both sides.

"those who do not know their past are bound to repeat it."

SomeOneElse
04-29-2015, 09:37 AM
"those who do not know their past are bound to repeat it."

Well, I agree but shall add that those who know their past also often repeat it. This is how history works.
And I don't even know what do you want us to look for in these archives. Stalin's regime committed wild crimes, any one sane won't even argue about it, still there's a great number of stalinists here, well they have a right for their own opinion, but they'd probably oppose anything which doesn't comply with their point of view.
Somehow I find this hard to believe. I guess mostly because only the most extreme cases make it to the news here - we hear about Pussy Riot, and the arrests of Greenpeace* activists; but we don't hear about any genuine opposing voice to Putin's Party - not moderate anyways. Well, Greenpeace has really nothing to do with freedom of speech inside Russia since they weren't russians and I don't remember them carrying anti-Putin slogans etc.
They were amnestied not long after being jailed though.

And as for leck of real opposition. Well, you're right here. And, by reading through most opposition sites, I must admit they are focused purely on bashing Putin himself. major opposition leaders seem not to have any interaction with ordinary people for years and they rarely speak of our needs. All they want is topple Putin, but they could rarely propose anything that make any sense focusing on things like Khodorkovsky or Pussy Riot but that is out of interest for the total majority. And thus they ain't popular and rather unknown by most people.
Even Putin states that Russian political system currently suffers from leck of constructive opposition, not that I think he really wants it, but this is the plain truth.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-29-2015, 10:07 AM
And I don't even know what do you want us to look for in these archives.

a bit of back story, since you're a bit new. So, I studied history back in Estonia; after the independence, and we had this one professor who told us about how archive materials got torched en masse during the soviet times. Anything that was embarrassing or contrary to the official narrative was destroyed. Very 1984.

As for what to look for in those archives, well I'd like, for example, a true statistical overview of how the kolkhoz system worked: what were the production values and output, how much of the actual was hidden and how. Did this differ in different regions and in what ways? We know that massive lying took place, but there's never really been a proper evaluation of HOW massive. Also, I'd be interested in the Russian society just before the October revolution - but an unbiased look, no party stuff. And! there was a massive push for more literacy, I'd want to know how that was implemented; and again - were there differences in different regions and cities vs countryside.

you know, the usual stuff. Except most of the materials are destroyed, restricted or distorted.

ooh, about history and how it's used, there's a great book by Marc Ferro (he's French, if that matters at all) "The Use and Abuse of History". He talks about how history is used in the school systems, in politics, in media - all over the world, from Ethiopia to Japan to Brazil - to convey a certain ideology. it's a thoughtful read, I think.

All this said, just because you know that whatever is said is not the complete truth, doesn't mean that you should stop looking for it. Idealistic, I know, but frankly, realpolitik has screwed this world enough.

Terez
04-30-2015, 05:24 AM
http://i.imgur.com/cYtNDix.png

yks 6nnetu hing
04-30-2015, 05:35 AM
and that is why an Estonian almost never smiles.

Terez
04-30-2015, 07:03 AM
and that is why an Estonian almost never smiles.
Don't you want to make the world a better place?

yks 6nnetu hing
04-30-2015, 07:05 AM
Don't you want to make the world a better place?

people generally don't appreciate help if it's forced on them.

Also, no. Not really.

yks 6nnetu hing
08-19-2015, 05:55 AM
an Estonian defence police (comparative to FBI in function) employee was taken on Estonian soil by people coming from Russia.



Russians open new front after Estonian official is captured in 'cross-border raid'

Eston Kohver taken to Moscow and paraded on TV as 'spy' two days after Obama's visit to Baltic state

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor


The Guardian, Sunday 7 September 2014 19.54 BST


Eston Kohver (r), receives a decoration from Estonia's President Toomas Hendrik, in 2010.
Eston Kohver (r), receives a decoration from Estonia's President Toomas Hendrik, in 2010. Photograph: AP


The Estonian-Russia border at Luhamaa does not look like a new Checkpoint Charlie. Set among the wooded plains that mark Nato and the European Union's eastern-most territory, the crossing is more likely to be the site of long lines of idling lorries than machine-gun nests and prisoner exchanges.

But that era of post-cold war calm may have come to an end on Friday morning, when, according to several Estonian accounts, smoke grenades detonated at an Estonian customs post, and all radio and telephone signals were jammed as armed Russian men suddenly materialised and dragged away a local official.

His name is Eston Kohver, a counter-intelligence officer in the Estonian security agency, Kapo, whose job over the past few years has been to keep tabs on the smuggling cartels trying to sneak merchandise through the Luhamaa crossing.

But Kohver's fate has now become entangled in a much bigger issue: the question of just how far Vladimir Putin's Russia is prepared to go to goad the Nato allies on its doorstep.

The capture has been seen as particularly provocative because it came two days after the US president, Barack Obama, visited Estonia, a trip aimed at reassuring the Baltic states of the US commitment to the security of its Nato allies in the face of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis. It followed the announcement of the creation of a "spearhead force" a Nato unit of 4,000 soldiers to be tasked with defending Baltic countries including Estonia.

But the immediate reaction of the government in Tallinn was to play down Friday's incident in the hope that it was the work of local Russian commanders who have a record of involvement in the smuggling trade.

The Kapo chief, Arnold Sinisalu, issued a statement saying there appeared to be no political motivation behind the incident. Estonia's president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, tweeted that: "Kapo, like FBI in US, deals both with counterintelligence *and* organized crime. Just in some places they turn out to be same."

The hope that the affair would turn out to be low-key was initially strengthened when Estonian and Russian border guards performed a joint inspection, which seemed to verify the evidence of an incursion from Russia into Estonia, including multiple footprints in a band of raked sand that runs through no-man's land.

By Sunday, however, it became increasingly clear that Russia had other ideas. The Estonian was taken to Moscow where he was paraded before television cameras. The Russian Federal Security Service, the FSB, successor to the Soviet KGB, claimed Kohver had been caught on Russian soil.

The FSB said in a statement: "A Taurus handgun with ammunition, 5,000 (4,000) in cash, special equipment for concealed audio recording and documents that bear evidence of an intelligence mission were seized from the intruder."

The statement appeared ominous for Kohver, whom the FSB had identified as a Kapo officer as far back as 2011, saying he was one of several agents trying to recruit agents as they crossed the border. The decision to bring him to Moscow and put him on television made it clear that Moscow was not interested in finding a quick and quiet means of resolving the incident.

Kadri Liik, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said: "My first guess was that this was to do with cross-border smuggling which happened to be sponsored by the Russian security services, which wouldn't be that unusual. The lines are pretty blended. It could be that Kohver got in the way of a business deal, but if it is business, it's clearly a business with Moscow connections."

The question of Kohver's future now looks likely to become a lever for a resurgent Russia to work on its small Baltic neighbour, which at last week's Nato summit declared itself in favour of hosting a new Nato base.

"This is not something cooked up the day before yesterday," said Eerik-Niiles Kross, a former Estonian intelligence chief and national security advisor. "I don't know if it was an FSB shady deal that went wrong, but whatever it was, you have to put it in the general context. The timing is either an odd coincidence, or it is a signal."

There is nothing new about Estonia and Russia conducting spy operations against each other. President Ilves recently claimed Estonia had unmasked four Russian moles in the past five years. In 2008, it was discovered that the top security official in the Estonian defence ministry, Herman Simm, was a Russian agent. In the past two years, Kapo found two more double agents in its own ranks.

In 2007, Estonian government institutions came under a series of crippling cyber-attacks which Tallinn blamed on Russia, but which Moscow denied. In 2008, an ethnic Russian living in Estonia was fined for his part in the attacks.

But the Kohver incident points towards a new gloves-off approach by the FSB.

"I don't know of any other incident of a foreign national being taken on foreign soil. To kidnap a Nato country's intelligence official on foreign territory is unprecedented," Kross said. Nevertheless, he added, raising the stakes would be unlikely to help Kohver. "No one is interested in bringing Nato in on a practical level. The aim will be to try to deal with this on a local, bilateral level."

Marko Mikhelson, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Estonian parliament, agreed that it did not serve the country's interests to escalate the issue into an international crisis. said: "It seems the Russians are trying to paint this event into a bigger story. I don't want to speculate on their aims, but remember they have done these kinds of acts that affect the sovereignty of other countries," Mikhelson said. "But we have been dealing with difficult issues with Russia for years. I don't see the need now for a bigger action. But we'll strengthen the border and keep our eyes open."

(I mean... wtf is a "cross-border raid" in the first place?) From the comments of the Estonian officials it seems like this wasn't the first time something like this has happened. Which is disturbing on the one hand for obvious reasons but calming on the other hand because they're not flying into a blind panic and insisting on attacking Russia. the good old "oh Russia's just being Russia again and you find this surprising? please."


So, I didn't want to start a new thread for this. Just an update. After a year of farcical posturing, Kohver was sentenced to 15 years in prison (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33986733) this morning.

Kafka? Never heard of him.